WcxsoK

OforttgU Uttiocratta Slihratg

atltata, New lark

CHARLES WILLIAM WASON
COLLECTION

CHINA AND THE CHINESE

THE GIFT OF

CHARLES WILLIAM WASON

CLASS OF 1876

1918

The date shows when this volume was taken.

To renew this book copy the call No. and give
to the librarian.

HOME USE RULES

, ' ' . All Books subject to recall

All borrowers must regis-

f^\^ ■ w t ter in the library to bor-

"^ ""' row books for home use.

All books must be re-

" " turned at end of college

.*?O^.J.ii *A.yOi ^®*^ ^°^ inspection and

I ' /^ , n /• repairs.

..«Wn«C 48-.». Limited books must be

~^ returned within the four

„ week limit and not renewed.

Students must return all

books before leaving town.

Officers should arrange for

the return of books wanted

during their absence from

^— town.

Volumes of periodicals

and of pamphlets are held

in the library as much as
possible. For special pur-
poses they are given out
for a Hmited time.

Borrowers should not use
their library privileges for

the benefit of other persons.

Books of special value

■ and gift books, when the

giver wishes it, are not al-

'"". " lowed to circulate.

Readers are asked to re-
port all cases of books
; marked or mutilated,

jk\^ Do not deface books by marks and writing.

'%,.

CORNELL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

924 070 596 808

Cornell University
Library

3j

The original of tiiis book is in
tine Cornell University Library.

There are no known copyright restrictions in
the United States on the use of the text.

http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924070596808

THE

CAMBRIDGE
MODERN HISTORY

CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS WAREHOUSE,

C. F. CLAY, Manager.

HDItlron: FETTER LANE, E.G.

eiMSoSn: so, WELLINGTON STREET.

Itt^ts: F. A. BROCKHAUS.
BomfiBa Birt) ffalttitta: MACMILLAN AND CO., Ltd.

[All BighU reterved,}

THE

CAMBRIDGE
MODERN HISTORY

PLANNED BY

THE LATE LORD ACTON LL.D.

REGIUS PROFESSOR OF MODERN HISTORY

EDITED BY

A. W. WARD LiTT.D.

G. W. PROTHERO LiTT.D,

STANLEY LEATHES M.A.

VOLUME V

THE AGE OF LOUIS XIV

CAMBRIDGE

AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS

1908

(jtembttostt

PRINTED BY JOHN CLAY, M.A.
AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.

PREFACE.

rpHE Age of Louis XIV, though the traditional use of the phrase
-'- may warrant the adoption of it as the title of a volume covering
a period of European history closely coinciding in date with his personal
rule, cannot be held to possess the organic unity which belongs to the
theme of our Napoleon volume. Louis XIV, though endowed with some
truly royal qualities, and above all with that of knowing how to choose
the chief agents of his policy at home and abroad, was himself no great
statesman and nothing of a general ; his monarchy was not his creation,
he was without real initiative, and no intellectual effort associated with
his reign was due to his personal inspiration. On the other hand, the
system of absolute government, which he steadily carried on during more
than half a century, and to which all the activities of the French nation
were consistently, though not without struggles, accommodated, was
characteristic of the whole age of which he is the most conspicuous
figure. To the perfection of this system the State with which he was
identified had been long advancing by what may be termed a logical
process of development; and to it the large majority of rulers con-
temporary with himself were desirous of adhering or attaining. In the
dominions of both branches of the House of Habsburg the alliance of
dynastic interests with those of the Church of Rome had at different
periods prevailed in the contention against what had come to be mere
provincial liberties. But Spain had fallen into political as well as social
decay ; and the House of Austria was only gradually recovering from
the disappointment of its revived dynastic ambition. Among the
Princes of the Empire, however, the enfeeblement of the Imperial
authority had called forth a widespread ambition to exalt their territorial
power at the expense of the claim of their Estates, while in several
instances, and more especially in that of Brandenburg-Prussia, they sought
to mark their advance by the assumption of a royal Crown. Nor was it
in central Europe alone that open imitation flattered the absolutism of

vi Preface.

Louis XIV. In the Scandinavian kingdom the peoples made common
cause with the throne in permanently overthrowing in its favour the
sway of the nobles ; while in Russia, the distinctive features of whose
earlier history are traced in this volume, the autocracy of Peter the
Great, strengthened by his contact with Western civilisation, broke the
resistance of boiars and Church, and stimulated the lethargy of his
people. In three important European States only no absolute system
of government was established in this age. In Poland, notwithstanding
the chronic pressure of the Eastern peril, faction — consuming its energies
from time to time in the process of choosing a king — could not have
tolerated the establishment of a strong regal authority, even had a
fitting personality been forthcoming to make the attempt. The Dutch
Republic, though the oligarchy of its leading State had to sun-ender the
control of affairs to a hereditary presidency, preserved the free constitu-
tion which it had won for itself with its independence. In Great
Britain, religious convictions, menaced together with the traditions of
parliamentary self-government, combined with them to preserve the
foundations of political freedom and to defend the religious convictions
of the great body of the nation. Thus, the patriotic Dutchman whom
the last English Revolution seated on the throne of the Stewarts was,
reluctantly enough, forced to accept the limits of the royal authority
with which he had been invested.

While, in the matter of government and of all the influences derived
from it, the example of France more or less enduringly impressed itself
in this period upon most of the States of Europe, the history of their
international relations was determined by several causes, among which
the foreign policy of Louis XIV was but one of the chief The endeavour
of France, in circumstances singularly propitious to the execution of her
design, to constitute herself the arbitress of European affairs at large,
unlike the Habsburg aspirations for a universal monarchy, lacked the
glamour of Imperial tradition, while it could not claim the open approval
of Rome. The pretexts with which Louis XIV was supplied for his long
series of encroachments within the boundaries of the Empire, for his
attempt to annex the Spanish, and for his subsequent invasion of the
United, Netherlands, are discussed in different parts of this volume,
together with the history of French intervention in the afiairs of other
European States; and the pacifications and other agreements and
alliances, which mark the successive stages of alternating advance

Preface. vii

and retreat in the progress of the French schemes, necessarily call
for exposition and comment. The height of the narrative seems to
be reached in the negotiations which preceded, without being able to
avert, the War of the Spanish Succession, or rather — inasmuch as these
negotiations proved the unwillingness of Louis XIV to provoke the
united resistance of Western and Central Europe against him — in his
ultimate decision to accept the opportunity offered him by the last will
of Charles 11 of Spain. The " balance of Europe " was now in actual
danger of being unsettled — in other words, the preponderance of the
power of Pi-ance would have become irresistible had her King's final
challenge been left without a response. The Grand Alliance brought
about by William III proved victorious; and though later events, and
more especially the death of the Emperor and the accession to the
Imperial throne of the Austrian claimant of the Spanish inheritance,
once more modified the situation, the principle of a reestablished
"balance" underlay all the negotiations which resulted in the Peace of
Utrecht. Thus, at the close of the period treated in this volume, the
political ascendancy of France in Europe was a thing of the past;
though her ascendancy continued in literature, and in much besides.

The second of the causes determining the course of European history
in this age has to be traced in the long, and seemingly remote, history
of the Ottoman Power in Europe from the middle of the seventeenth
century to the Peace of Carlowitz. Its significance for the Empire,
Hungary, Poland, and the Venetian dominions, continued tiU nearly
the end of the period treated in this volume. The policy of Louis XIV
drew no small advantage from the Eastern question, and viewed its
temporary settlement as, in its turn, a menace to the balance of power
in Europe ; but for a large part of Europe it was to the close of the
seventeenth century a question of life and death.

Finally, in this volume a large division of the canvas is filled by the
great Swedish or "Northern" War. A new Thirty Years' War, absorbing
all the conflicts of Europe, might have resulted, had the military
genius of Charles XII been united to a political genius of the same
order. But none of the high-spirited successors of Gustavus Adolphus,
whose exploits are narrated in this volume, had inherited the compre-
hensiveness of his statesmanship. Thus the result of the Northern War —
while incidentally proving the impotence of Poland and leaving the
now important military Power, Prussia, to play a " waiting game" — was

viii Preface.

to transfer the dominium maris Baltici to the young Russian Power, and
thus to prepare a new chapter in the history of Europe.

It seemed to us that an adequate historical survey of the latter half
of the seventeenth and the early years of the eighteenth century was
impossible without due regard to the moral and intellectual interests
which this period inherited from its predecessors or bequeathed to
ensuing ages. From the Reformation to the times of the Thirty Years'
War the discussion and settlement of religious dogma had absorbed a
wholly disproportionate share of the intellectual activity of Western
Emope, where the toleration of religious opinion was even as a conception
almost unknown. Yet, as is shown in this volume, the spiritual forces
of religion were revived as men ceased to be chiefly concerned in the
fixing of its doctrines and the enforcement of their acceptance ; and the
principle of toleration, while it became a factor in the prosperity of
States, gained and imparted strength from its association with new
developments of religious life and thought. At the same time literature
adapted itself to the courtly order of things, except where, as in the
later works of Milton, the issues for which a mightier age contended
still dominated the poet's mind, or, the universal sympathies of a great
dramatist such as Moliere claimed a European audience. And yet
another influence was beginning in a more gradual and less widely
perceptible fashion to permeate the life of Europe. To Science — as
our usage limits the term — kings and peoples had almost forgotten
to lend an attentive ear, when, in the period of which this volume
treats, it once more asserted its position among the moving forces
of the world's history, and entered upon a new stage in its progress
of which the continuity has since then been unbroken. The chapter in
this volume on French Literature under Louis XIV and its European
Influence was to have been written by the illustrious French critic,
M. Ferdinand Brunetiere ; but, on his lamented death, only a few notes
referring to his projected contribution were found among his papers. We
were fortunate enough to be enabled to secure the consent of M. Emile
Faguet that he should take the place of his confrere — a place which no
other critic of literature could have filled so suitably and so well. The
bibliography to his chapter has been kindly supplied, at very short notice,
by Mr A. R. Waller, of Peterhouse, Assistant Secretary of the University
Press. The late Sir Michael Foster, whose cooperation in the Cambridge
Modem History wiU be a source of gratification to all our readers, had

Preface. ix

only a week or two before his death sent in to us the ms. of the second
section of the chapter on The Progress of European Science, of which
the earlier section has been written by Mr W. W. Rouse Ball. But
Sir Michael had no opportunity of revising what he had written, or of
furnishing us with more than a rough draft of his bibliography. We
have to thank Dr Clifford Allbutt, Regius Professor of Physic, and
Mr A. C. Seward, Professor of Botany, in this University, for their great
kindness in revising their lamented friend's text, and adding suggestions
for his section of the bibliography, which has been completed by
Mr A. T. Bartholomew, of Peterhouse and the University Library.

The Index of this volume has been compiled by Mr H. G. Aldis,
of Peterhouse, Secretary of the University Library, and the Chrono-
logical Table by Miss A. M. Cooke, whose services to the Acton
Collection in the Library will long be held in remembrance.

In accordance with the rule previously followed in this History,
the dates of events mentioned in this volume are in New Style,
except in the case of events in a country by which in this period
New Style had not yet been adopted. Where, as in the instance of a
battle by sea, doubts might arise as to which Style has been chosen,
that actually used has been specially indicated. The dates of the years
are throughout in New Style. A table of years in which New Style was
severally adopted by the chief European countries will be found in
Vol. Ill of this work.

A. W. W.
G. W. P.

S. L.
September, 1907.

CORRIGENDA AND ADDENDA.

p. 22, I. 4. For Rheims read Sens.

p. 4S, 11. 13 and 16. For Zealand read Zealand,

p. 44, 1. 18. For the Due de read Marshal.

p. 180j 1. 1. For Nicholls read Nioolls.

p. 200j 1. 17 from bottom. For May 29 read May 2.

p. 212, last line. For 1676 read 1670.

p. 292, 1. 11. For James read John.

p. 311, 1. 13 from bottom. For King read Marsh.

p. 318, 1. 6 from bottom. For opposite side, before read opposite side of

the Shannon, before,

p. 451, 1. 2. For those of her allies the Dukes read the duchies,

p. 465, 11. 9 and 7 from bottom. For Greg read Gregg.

p. 619, 1. 13. For Oldenburg read Oldensworth.

p. 620, 1. 11. For Frederick II read Frederick I.

p. 656, 11. 2 and 11, For Frederick William read Frederick,

p. 662, 1. 17 from bottom. For Duke read Prince,

p. 733, 1. 16 from bottom. For (1621-66) read (1621-76).

p. 738, 1. 7 from bottom. For 1772 read 1728.

828, 1. 21 from bottom. Add: Hewison, J. K. The Covenanters. A
History of the Church of Scotland from the Reformation to the Revolution.
2 vols. Glasgow. ' 1908.

849, 1. 2. A second edition of A Legrelle's important work was
published in 6 vols, at Braine-le-Comte in 1895-9.

XI

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER I.

THE GOVERNMENT OF LOUIS XIV,
(1661—1715.)

By A. J. Grant, M.A., King's College, Professor of
History in the University of Leeds.

PAGB

The character of Louis ^IV 1

His abilities 2

The authority of the Crown ,. . ib.

The machinery of government ....... 3

The Parlements of France 4

TTie Ministers of State. Le TeUier. Lionne .... 6

The fall of Fouquet. Colbert 6

The character and aims of Colbert 7

Colbert's reforms in taxation 8

The taille. Provincial risings 9

Colbert's industrial projects 10

State direction of industry 11

'Colbert's commercial projects. Companies 12

- Colbert and the colonies of France 13

The Languedoc canal. The French navy. The galleys . . 14

The new Academies. Administration of justice . . . . 15

Ordinances: the Code Louis. The Grands Jmirs ... 16

The rivalry between Louvois and Colbert 17

Army administration of Louvois. Equipment and organisation . 18

Mile, de la Valliere and Mme. de Montespan .... 19

Madame de Maintenon 20

Ecclesiastical opposition to Protestant liberties .... 21

Curtailment of the rights of Protestants 22

Measures against the Protestants 23

The dragonnades. Revocation of Edict of Nantes ... 24

Effects of the Revocation of the Edict 25

Rising in the Cevennes. The Camisards 26

--——Destruction of municipal liberties. Edicts of 1692 and 1704 . 27

The capitation. F^nelon on system of government ... 28

Criticisms of Boisguillebert and Vauban 29

Domestic troubles of Louis XIV's last years .... 30

Plans for the Regency. Death of Louis XIV .... 31

xii Contents.

CHAPTER II.

THE FOREIGN POLICY OF LOUIS XIV.
(1661-97.)

By Aethur Hassall, M.A., Student and Tutor of
Christ Church, Oxford.

PAGE

The ascendancy of France 32

The designs of Louis XIV. Periods of his foreign policy '. . 33

Decadence of Spain '34

Misgovernment under Charles II 36

Weakness of the chief European States 36

French claims on the Spanish Netherlands .... ib.

French invasion of Flanders 37

The Triple Alliance 38

The Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle 39

The Triple Alliance undone 40

Rise of the Turkish Power. Treaty of Zurawna ... ib.

Louis' preparations for war with Holland. The Imperial Crown 41

The European situation 42

French inrasion of Holland 43

France at war with Europe. Marriage of William of Orange . 44

The Treaty of Nymegen 46

Louis' power at its height 46

Louis XIV and the Empire 47

The ^'Chamhers of Reunion" ....... 48

The "Association." Siege of Vienna. Fall of Luxemburg . 49
The Truce of Ratisbou. Attitude of England. Accession of

James II 60

Louis XIV and James II 61

The European situation in 1688. Brandenburg and Bavaria . 62

The position of the United Provinces 63

The Cologne election. Deposition and flight of James II . . 64

Louis invades Germany. Fall of Philippsburg .... 65

William of Orange sails for England ib.

The Revolution in England 66

The year 1689. The question of a religious crusade ... 67

The Grand Alliance ib.

The battle of the Boyne and the fall of Limerick ... 68

Battles of Beaohy Head, Fleurus and La Hogue ... 69

The importance of sea-power ib.

French successes in the Netherlands. The Turkish war . . 60
Treaty of Carlowitz. Further French victories. Russell in the

Mediterranean 61

The war in the Mediterranean. Savoy abandons the Grand

Alliance 62

The Peace of Ryswyk 63

Contents. xiii

CHAPTER III.

FRENCH SEVENTEENTH CENTURY LITERATURE
AND ITS EUROPEAN INFLUENCE.

By ituiLE. Faguet, of the French Academy.

PAGE

Representative character of French Seventeenth Century literature 64

Montaigne, Descartes and MaUierhe 65

The Classical School: Comeille. Bossuet. La Fontaine . . 66

Boileau. Moliere 67

Racin£. Influence on German literature. Opitz. Gottsched . 68

Opposition of Leasing ih.

Influence on Italian and Spanish literature .... 69

Influence on English literature. Addison. Pope. Waller . 70

The ascendancy of France and French literature ... t6.

The value of international literary influences .... 71

CHAPTER IV.

THE GALLICAN CHURCH.

By Viscount St Cybes, M.A., Senior Student of Christ
Church, Oxford.

French religion in the earlier half of the seventeenth century . 72

State of religious parties jj.

Cartesianism, its upholders and adversaries .... 73

Rationalists and divots jj.

The Galilean Liberties 74

Ultramontanism 75

The divine right of Kings. Bossuet 76

Church and Crown. The BSgale 77

The religious revival 73

Directors of Conscience, and Preachers 79

Bossuet. The Jesuits 80

Casuistry 81

The origins of Jansenism. Jansen and Saint-Cyran ... 82

The meaning of Jansenism. Antoine Arnauld .... 83

The decline of Jansenism. The "peace of Clement IX" . . 84

The BSgale 85

The influence of Bossuet 86

Reaction against it 87

Quietism. F&elon. Mme. Guyon. Molinos. Pasquier Quesnel 88

Recrudescence of the Jansenist controversy .... 89

The Bull Vrdgenitus 90

Survivals of Jansenism ........ 91

xiv Contents.

CHAPTER V.
THE STEWART RESTORATION.

By C. H. FiETH, M.A., LL.D., F.B.A., Regius Professor of
Modem History in the University of Oxford.

PAQE

Character of Charles II 92

Clarendon and the Council 93

The legal settlement 94

The land and the financial settlements 95

The religious settlement , 96

The Savoy Conference 97

The policy of Parliament. Ecclesiastical legislation ... 98

The Act of Uniformity. The King and toleration ... 99

Schemes for toleration defeated 100

Decrease of Clarendon's influence. Failure of Bristol's attacli . 101

The growing power of Parliament 102

Religious persecution. Scotland 103

Restrictions on Irish trade. England and Spain . ... 104

The alliance with Portugal ' . 106

England and France. Sale of Dunkirk 106

England and the United Provinces. Portugal .... 107

The origin of the Dutch War . . * 108

The defeat of English diplomacy. The Quadruple Alliance . 109

Effect of the Dutch War on England 110

The Plague and the Great Fire of London .... ib.

The financial breakdown Ill

The King's difficulties. Negotiations for peace .... 112

De Ruyter in the Thames. Peace of Breslau . . . . 113

Parliament and the army ib.

The fall of Clarendon 114

The position of Charles II 116

Clarendon's policy and its results t&.

CHAPTER VI.

THE LITERATURE OF THE ENGLISH RESTORATION,
INCLUDING MILTON.

By Harold H. Child, B.A., late Scholar of Brasenose
College, Oxford,

The full fruit of the English Renaissance. Milton's youth . 116

Milton's early poems 117

His travels 118

His prose works 119

His Sonnets 120

Paradise last 121

Paradise Regained 122

Contents.

XV

PAOB

Samson Agonistes 123

The age succeeding Milton^ and its experiments . . . 124

The Restoration theatre and the French drama .... 125

Dryden and the heroic drama 126

Crowne, Lee, and Otway 127

Restoration comedy ib,

Jeremy Collier's Short View 128

Sir George Etherege 129

Dryden, Wycherley, and Congreve 130

Vanbrugh and Farquhar 131

Politics in the drama ib.

Lyrical poetry. Rochester. Cowley. Dryden .... 132

Literary criticism. Dryden's critical work .... ib.

Satire. Butler 133

Dryden's satires 134

Dryden's religious poems 135

The novel and the Oharactert 136

CHAPTER VII.

THE ADMINISTRATIONS OF JOHN DE WITT AND

WILLIAM OF ORANGE.

(1661-88.)

By the Rev. George Edmundson, M.A., formerly Fellow and
Tutor of Brasenose College, Oxford.

Triumph of the States party ....
The Loevestein faction. The de Witts

Relations with England

John de Witt Grand Pensionary of Holland. Embassy to

England

The First English War

Negotiations for peace

Cromwell and de Witt. Diplomatic diflSculties .
Act of Seclusion. Holland and the States General
Great ability of de Witt. The "Deduction" .
Dissensions in the House of Orange. De Witt's marriage

Ascendancy of de Witt

Wars with Portugal and Sweden

Victories in the Baltic. Peace of Copenhagen .

Charles II in Holland. Peace with Portugal .

Disputes with England

The Second English War. The Bishop of Munster
Dutch alliance with France. Peace of Breda .
The "Eternal Edict." France invades Holland .
The War of Devolution. The Triple Alliance .
Preliminary peace negotiations ....
Peace of Aachen. Treaty of Dover .
The Prince of Orange and de Witt .
"Concept of Harmony." Designs of Louis XIV

137

138

ib.

139
140
141
142
143
144

ib.
145
146
147
148
149
150
161
162
163

ib.
164
166
166

XVI

Contents.

War with France and England. Orange restoration .
Popular hatred of the brothers de Witt. William's iirmness
Murder of the brothers de Witt .
William of Orange and the murder .

Progress of the War

Success of the defence. Peace with England
Death of de Ruyter. Louis and William .
William's relations with England. His marriage

Peace negotiations

Peace of Nymegen. Opposition to William
Accession of James II. Attitude of William
William and Mary of Orange

PAOB

157
158
159
ih.
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167

CHAPTER VIII.

THE ANGLO-DUTCH WARS.

(1) Naval Administration under Charles II and James II.

By J. R. Tanner, Litt.D., Fellow and Tutor of St John's College.

The Navy Board of the Restoration 168

Administrative improvements 169

Moral and financial causes of administrative failure ... ih.

Administrative changes of 1673. The Duke of York . . 170

The Admiralty Commission of 1679 171

The Special Commission of 1686 ib.

Deficiency of men 172

Pay and pensions 173

Victualling 174

Discipline. Attempts to improve it 176

Disciplinarian efforts of James II 176

Pepys and the manning and gunning of the fleet ... ih.

Shipbuilding. Naval progress after the Restoration . . . 177

(2) The Wars (1664r-74).

By C. T. Atkinson, M.A., Fellow of Exeter College,
formerly Demy of Magdalen College, Oxford.

Charles II and the Dutch Republic. National jealousies . . 178
Collisions between Dutch and English in East Indies and West

Africa 179

The premature outbreak of hostilities 180

Battle of Lowestoft 181

Sandwich's cruise. The intervention of France .... 182

The division of the fleet 183

The "Four Days' Battle" 184

End of the "Four Days' Battle" .... 185

The defeat avenged . . • ' 186

Blockade of the Dutch coast. Peace negotiations ... 187

The English fleet laid up. The Dutch in the Medway . . 188

Contents.

XVH

PAOB

The Peace of Breda 189

The development of tactics 190

The Treaty of Dover. The Third Dutch War . . . . 191

The hattle of Southwold Bay 192

Results of Southwold Bay 193

Battles off the Schoon veldt 194

De Ruyter and Rupert 195

Battle off the Texel 196

The end of the War. Treaty of London . . . . . 197

CHAPTER IX.

THE POLICY OF CHARLES II AND JAMES IL
(1667-87.)

By John Pollock, M.A., Barrister-at-Law of Lincoln's Inn,
Fellow of Trinity College.

The Cabal Ministry

Charles' policy, home and foreign .

The War of Devolution and the Treaty of Breda

The Triple Alliance and the Peace of Aachen .

Parliament and toleration

Charles and Rome. James' conversion
Negotiations for the Treaty of Dover
"Madame." The Treaty of Dover
Ze traits simulS. Nell Gwjoi and "Madam Carwell"

The Stop of the Exchequer

The Declaration of Indulgence. Dutch negotiations
End of negotiations. "Dehnda est Carthago"
Charles cancels the Declaration ....
The Test Act The Cabal dissolved .

James' second marriage

Parliament prorogued. Gossip about Monmouth
Divines on divorce. Ministry of Danby ;
Project of marrying William of Orange to Princess Mary
Government by machine ....

Danby's finance

The Non-resisting Test . . .' .
The "prorogation without precedent." Policy of
Shaftesbury and the beginnings of the Whig party
William marries Mary. New treaty of Charles with

Peace signed at Nymegen

Titus Gates and the Popish Plot

The Coleman correspondence. Godfrey murdered

Popular and parliamentary agitation .

Danby's fall. The Cavalier Parliament dissolved

Dismissal of Danby. Triumph of the Whigs

Sir William Temple's scheme. "The Triumvirate"

The Exclusion BiU

Louis

XIV
Louis

198
199

ib.
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
203
209
210
211
212
213

ib.
214
216
216
217
218
219
220

ib.
221
222
223

ib.
224

ib.

xviii Contents.

PAGE

Charles falls ill. Designs of the Whigs 225

The Exclusion Bill thrown out 226

Charles' last Parliament 227

The Tory reaction 228

Quo Warranto. Rye House Plot 229

Charles' success, and death 230

Accession and character of James 231

Sedgmoor. The "Bloody Assizes" 232

The Dispensing Power ... .... 233

Compton, Dryden, and Penn ....... 234

Dismissal of Rochester. Tyrconnel Lord Lieutenant of Ireland ib.

Attitude of France and of the Pope 235

The beginning of the end ■ • >&■

CHAPTER X.

THE REVOLUTION AND THE REVOLUTION SETTLEMENT
IN GREAT BRITAIN.

(1) Enoland.
(1687—1702.)

By H, W. V. Temferley, M.A., Fellow and Assistant
Tutor of Peterhouse.

Characteristics of the period 236

Second Declaration of Indulgence 237

Attack on the Universities. The Dissenters .... 238

Halifax and the Prince of Orange 239

James and Parliament. Mission of Dykvelt .... 240

Attitude of William of Orange. Birth of a Prince . . . 241

The Seven Bishops. Invitation to William .... 242

Attitude of James. William's German allies .... 243

Spain, the Emperor and the Pope 244

Policy of Louis XIV ii.

The expedition sails 245

William's landing and proclamation 246

First flight of James . . 247

Second flight of James 248

Effects of James' flight. Projects for a Settlement . . . 249

Meeting of the Convention Parliament t6.

Debates on the Settlement 250

William and Mary proclaimed. Bill of Rights .... 261

Political theorists of the Revolution 262

Harrington and Locke 263

Locke and the Original Contract 254

General features of the Revolution. The personalities of James

and William 266

Indifference of the people towards both. The religious motive . 256

Character and aims of William III 257

Contents. xix

PAOE

Character and influence of Mary 258

William's first Parliament 259

Act of Grace 260

William's Irish campaign. La Hogue 261

James at St Germain. Assassination Plot 262

England and the War 263

Bounty Act. Whig commercial policy 264

Finance. The Land Tax 265

The National Debt. Projects for a National Bank . . . 266

Establishment of the Bank of England 267

Character of the Bank 268

Recoinage Act 269

The Land Bank 270

Political influence of the Bank. The Press .... 271

Privy Council committees 272

The executive and the legislature 273

The Whig "Junto" 274

The Act of Settlement. Death of James II .... 275

Death of William III. His political action in England . . 276

Results of the Revolution Settlement 277

(2) SoOTIi&ND FROM THE ReSTOBAIION TO THE UnION OP THE PARLIAMENTS.

(1660—1707.)

By P. Hume Beown, LL.D., Professor of Ancient (Scottish) History
and Palaeography in the University of Edinburgh.

The Restoration in Scotland 278

Charles II and Scottish Presbyterianism 279

Appointment of Privy Council 280

Establishment of Episcopacy 281

Restitution of Lay Patronage 282

Measures against Recusants 283

The Pentland Rising. Letters of Indulgence .... 284

The "Highland Host." Murder of Archbishop Sharp . . 285

Battle of Bothwell Bridge 286

Failure of Lauderdale i5_

Duke of York Royal Commissioner 287

The Apologetical Declaration 288

Accession of James VII. Argyll's invasion .... 289

Letters of Indulgence. Execution of Renwick .... 290

Dethronement of James 291

The Revolution Parliament 292

Death of Dundee at Killiecrankie 293

Establishment of Presbyterianism ij_

Massacre of Glencoe 294

The "Assurance" 296

The Darien Scheme and Expeditions. Results of the failure . 296

. Accession of Anne. Meeting of Estates 297

The Act of Security. Union Commissioners .... 298

The Treaty of Union 299

Results of the Treaty of Union goO

12,

XX

Contents.

(3) Ireland from the Restoration to the Act op Resumption.
(1660—1700.)

By Robert Dunlop, M.A., Victoria University.

Charles II and Ireland . . . ,

The Declaration and Act of Settlement

An Act of Explanation. Trade restrictions

The woollen industry. Religious toleration

Ormond recalled. Catholic intrigues .

Popish Plot. Catholic reaction .

Tyrconnel Viceroy. Revolt of Derry -

James lands at Kinsale. Political situation

James before Derry. "No Surrender"

Opening of the Irish Parliament .

Its legislation. Proceedings in England

Derry relieved. Schomberg in Ireland

Schomberg's campaign. William in Ireland

William and James. Battle of the Boyne

Flight of James. First siege of Limerick

Siege raised. Marlborough. St Ruth

Ginkel in command. Athlone captured

Battle of Aughrim. Surrender of Galway

Limerick capitulates. Articles of civil and military treaties

Legislative independence of Ireland. Tests imposed

Anti-Catholic legislation. Tory opposition

The Irish woollen industry destroyed .

The forfeitures. Act of Resumption .

PAGE

301
302
303
304
306
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323

CHAPTER XI.

RELIGIOUS TOLERATION IN ENGLAND.

By the Rev. H. M. Gwatkin, M.A., Dixie Pi-ofessor of Ecclesiastical
History; Fellow of Emmanuel College.

The seventeenth century idea of Toleration .... 324

Church and dissent under Tudors and Stewarts .... 325

The CivU War 326

The drift towards Toleration 327

The Commonwealth. Cromwell 328

The Restoration and the Cavalier Parliament .... 329

The Act of Uniformity 330

The contest under Charles II. Nonconformists and Roman

Catholics 331

Philosophical opinion 332

The Test Act 333

The Popish Plot. Reaction 334

The reign of James II. His change of tactics. Halifax . . 335

The Revolution. The Toleration Act 336

Toleration and Comprehension. The Comprehension Bill dropped 337

Contents. xxi

CHAPTER XII.

AUSTRIA, POLAND, AND TURKEY.

By RiCHAED Lodge, M.A., LL.D., late Fellow of Brasenose College,
Oxford; Professor of History in the University of Edinburgh.

PAGE

The most critical period in the history of the House of Habshurg 338

The Austrian dominions. Hungary 339

Difficulties and dangers survived 340

Accession of Leopold I 341

The decline of Turkish power 342

Revival of Turkey. Mohammad Kinprili 343

Poland and Transylvania. George Rakdczy 11 . , . , 344

Turkish attack on Transylvania. Kemdnyi 345

Austria involved ia war with the Turks. Ahmad Kiuprili . 346

Battle of St Gothard. Montecuculi 347

Peace of Vasvar. End of the war of Candia .... 348

Austria, France, and Poland. John Casimir .... 349

Election of Michael Wisniowiecki 350

Conspiracy of Hungarian nobles 351

Suppression of the Hungarian conspiracy. Reign of terror . S52

War between Poland and Turkey. Treaty of Bucracz . . 363

Election of John Sobieski 354

Poland, Turkey, and Hungary. Kara Mustafa .... 366

France, Poland, and Austria 356

Religious toleration ia Hungary. Diet of Oedenburg . . 357

TurWsh hostility to Austria. Emeric Tokolyi .... 358

Turkish advance against Austria 359

Louis XIV and the Turks 360

Siege of Vienna 361

Relief of Vienna 362

Retreat of the Turks S63

The Holy League against the Turks 364

War between Venice and the Turks 366

Austrian successes in the east. Capture of Buda . . , 366

Austrian ascendancy in Hungary. Battle of Harkany . , 367

Continued defeats of the Turks 368

Battle of Szalankemen 369

Revival of Turkish power. Mustafa II ib.

The battle of Zenta 370

The Peace of Carlowitz 371

CHAPTER XIII.

THE TREATIES OF PARTITION AND THE SPANISH
SUCCESSION.

By Professor Dr Wolfgang Michael, University of Freiburg i, B.

Change in the European position of Spain under Philip IV . 372

Loss of Portugal ib.

Spain under Charles II. France and the Spanish Netherlands . 373

National decay 374

XXll

Contents.

PAGE

Administrative collapse. Finance. The Church and the Inqui-
sition 375

Depopulation and distress 376

The Spanish Succession question. Pretensions and claims . . 377

English and Dutch commercial interests 378

The Spanish colonies of small advantage to Spain . . . 379

Spanish feeling. Infirmity of Charles II ib.

TTie Succession question after Ryswyk. French sympathies in

Spain 380

Court intrigues at Madrid. Queen Mary Anne .... 381

France and the Bavarian claim 382

Illness of Charles II. Harcourt's instructions .... 383

First Treaty of Partition 384

Charles' will in favour of Prince Joseph Ferdinand . . . 385

E£Fect of the Prince's death 386

William III and his Parliament 387

Negotiations for the Second Partition Treaty .... 16.

Second Treaty of Partition 389

Attitude of the Emperor «i.

and of the Court of Spain 390

Spanish and Imperial opposition 391

The decision in Spain. Porto-Carrero 392

Last will of Charles II 393

The problem to be solved by Louis XIV 394

Louis XIV accepts the wiU of Charles II 395

Effect of the acceptance in England 396

English public feeling supports William 397

The Grand Alliance concluded 398

Louis XIV recognises "James III" 399

England and the War 400

CHAPTER XIV.

THE WAR OF THE SPANISH SUCCESSION.
(1) Campaigns and Negotiations.

By C. T. Atkinson, M.A.

The European situation in 1701 .
Eugene's operations against Catinat
The foi-mation of the "Grand Alliance"
Bavaria. Savoy. The military situation
Marlborough as a general .
Lewis of Baden in the German south-west
Marlborough in the Netherlands .
Vienna threatened by Villars
Savoy joins the Grand Alliance .
Marlborough's march to the Danube .

Blenheim

The results of Blenheim. The Mediterranean
Attempt on Cadiz. Vigo. The Methuen Treaty
Capture of Gibraltar. Battle of Malaga .

401
402
403
404
405
406
ib.
407
408
409
410
411
412
413

Contents. xxiii

PAGE

Marlborough in the Netherlands 413

Eugene in Italy. Marlborough's great plan .... 414

Turin. Convention of Milan. RamiUies 416

Results of Ramillies. Peterborough in Spain .... 416
The first peace negotiations. Charles XII at Altranstadt . . 417
The Flanders campaign of 1707. Villars on the Rhine . . 418

Almanza. Eugene's attempt on Toulon 419

Renewed peace negotiations. Vendome in Flanders . . . 420

Oudenarde and its results 421

Siege of Lille. Negotiations resumed 422

Preliminaries of the Hague rejected 423

The First Barrier Treaty. Villars' preparations .... 424

Malplaquet 425

Minorca and the Peninsula 426

Negotiations at Gertruydenberg 427

Saragossa and Villa Viciosa 428

The faU of the AVhigs. Death of Joseph I .... 429

The Tories and Peace 430

Marlborough the "non plus ultra" 431

A Peace Congress summoned 432

England and the Armistice. Denain 433

Results of Denain. The Peace of Utrecht signed . . . 434

Eugene and Villars on the Rhine 435

Rastatt and Baden. Marlborough as a general .... 436

(2) The Peace op Utbecht and the Supplementary Pacifications.
By A. W. Ward, Litt.D., F.B.A., Master of Peterhouse.

The Peace of Utrecht 437

The results of the pacifications 433

Preliminaries. Plenipotentiaries and their instructions. The Con-
gress opened 439

Course of negotiations at the Congress 44O

Peace between France and Great Britain 441

Dunkirk. North America 442

Anglo-French Treaty of Navigation and Commerce . . . 443

Peace between Great Britain and Spain: Gibraltar and Minorca 444

The Asiento. The Catalans 445

Abandonment of the Catalans 44g

Peace between France and the United Provinces . . . 447

Treaties with Savoy, Portugal, and Prussia 448

Neuchatel. Orange ' 449

The Emperor and the Peace of Utrecht 450

The Emperor's persistence. Tlie Diet 451

The Peace of Rastatt ......... 452

The Ryswyk Clause 453

The Peace of Baden 454

Peace between Spain and the United Provinces . . . . 455

Peace between Portugal and Spain ...... 456

The First Barrier Treaty ] \ 457

The Second Barrier Treaty ' 453

The Third Barrier Treaty . . 4,50

xxiv Contents.

CHAPTER XV.

PARTY" GOVERNMENT UNDER QUEEN ANNE.

By H. W. V, Temperley, M.A.

PAGE

Accession of Queen Anne 460

Characters of Marlborough and Godolphin 461

Party government under Anne 462

Formation of Godolphin and Marlborough's Ministry . . 463

Popularity of the War and ascendancy of Marlborough . . ib.

Nottingham and the "tack." His resignation .... 464

Preponderance of the Whigs. Sunderland .... 466

The Whigs triumphant ih.

Harley and St John , ih.

The crisis of 1709 466

Literature^ the Press and politics 467

Religious influences: Sacheverell and" the Church in danger" 468

Fall of Godolphin and the Whigs 469

Harley's " Plan." His character and aims 470

Harley (Oxford) Lord Treasurer ib.

Fall of Marlborough 471

Character of St John (Bolingbroke) 472

Oxford and Bolingbroke 473

Parliament. The Schism Act 474

The Whigs and the House of Hanover ib.

Dismissal of Oxford. Bolingbroke Lord Treasurer. Illness of the

Queen 475

Shrewsbury Lord Treasurer. Death of Anne .... 476

CHAPTER XVI.

RUSSIA. '
(1462—1682.)

By J. B. BuEY, Litt.D., LL.D., F.B.A., Regius Professor of
Modern History; Fellow of King's College.

Periods of Russian history 477

Moscow. Ivan III 478

Expansion of the power of Moscow 479

Novgorod and PskofF. Lithuania 480

Ivan III and Lithuania 481

Marriage of Ivan III 482

Moscow and Byzantium 483

Growth of Autocracy 484

The Duma and the Boiars 't85

The system of Precedence 486

ITie Church. VasQi III 48?

Contents. xxv

PAGE

Ivan IV. Social and political crises 488

Early policy of Ivan IV 489

The Oprichnina 490-1

The Sobory of Ivan IV 492

The Communes. The Tartars 493

Russia and Poland. Siheria 494

Ermak Timotheevich. Theodore I 496

Boris Godunoff 496

Dimitri Ivanovich murdered. The false Dimitri . . . 497

Dimitri the Pretender 498

Fall of the Pretender. Vasili IV 499

Social revolution. "The Robber" 600

Prince Wladislaw elected Tsar 601

National movement against the Poles 602

The Middle Classes. Michael Romanoff 603

Reign of Alexis 604

Poland and the Cossacks 606

Alexis and Nikon 606

Bigotry of the Russian Church. Nil Sorski .... 607

Vassian and Maxim the Greek 608

Nikon's ecclesiastical reforms. The Easkol .... 609

The Easkol 610

Hatred of foreign customs 611

Isolation of Russia. Voyages of discovery 612

Expeditions of discovery. Western accounts of Russia. Kotoshikhin 613

Russia as described by foreigners 614

Byzantine influences on Russia 616

Beginnings of Western influence 616-7

Death of Theodore III 617

CHAPTER XVII.

PETER THE GREAT AND HIS PUPILS.
(1689—1730.)

By R. NisBET Bain, Assistant Librarian, British Museum.

Reforms und^r Peter the Great's predecessors .... 618

Early years of Peter the Great 619

The apprenticeship of Peter. His voyages and projects . . 620

The Azoff expeditions 621

Unpopularity of the novelties 622

The grand embassy to the west. Revolt of the Strieltgy . . 623

The abolition of the beards 624

The extirpation of the Striettxy. Lefort and Menshikoff . . 626

The first administrative reforms 626

Conclusion of peace with Turkey 627

Civilising effect of the great Northern War. Financial reforms . 628

Peter's toleration of the Dissenters 629

Abolition of the Patriarchate 630

XXVI

Contents.

Unpopularity of the innovations. Further reforms

Administrative reforms

Local government refonns .

Development of the national resources

Peter's struggle against peculation

Punishment of corruption. Police. Science

Ecclesiastical reforms. The Spiritual Department

The Tsarevich Alexis

Antagonism between Peter and Alexis

Alexis renounces the succession. His flight

The return of Alexis .....

The trial and condemnation of Alexis

Death of Alexis. Peter proclaimed Emperor

Russia^ Prussia, and Sweden

Russia, France, and Great Britain

Russia and the Near East .

The Persian War .

Fresh administrative reforms

The succession ordinance

Death of Peter the Great .

Accession of Catharine I

Hostility between Russia and Great Britain

Effects of the "Hanoverian Alliance." . Supreme Privy

Death of Catharine I. Accession of Peter II

The domination of Menshikoff

The supremacy of the Dolgorukis

Austro-Russian entente. Death of Peter II

Demetrius Galitsin. Anne elected Empress

"Articles of Mittau" cancelled by Anne .

Council

PAOB

631
532
633

ib.
634
635
636
637
638
630
640
541
542

ib.
643
644
545
646
547
648
549
660
651
652
563
654
565
566
657

CHAPTER XVIII.

THE SCANDINAVIAN KINGDOMS.

By W. F, Reddaway, M.A., Fellow and Lecturer in History
of King's College.

Oligarchical rule in Denmark 658

The monarchical cmip cCHat in Denmark . . . •• . 569

The Kmgelov. Autocracy in Denmark and Norway . . . 660

Administration of Griffenfeld . . . . . . . S61

Sweden in 1660 562

Her dangers abroad and at home. Early years of Charles XI . 563

Poverty of Sweden. The Regency 664

Magnus de La Gardie. Gustaf Boude 666

Sweden in alliance with France 566

Charles XI and La Gardie. The "Reduction" again . . 667

War with Brandenburg and Denmark. Fehrbellin . . . 668

The War of Scania 569

Swedish victory of Lund. Other victories. Losses m Germany . 570

Treaties of Saint-Germain, Fontaiiiebleau, aad Lund . . 671

Contents.

xxvii

PAGE

Character of Charles XI 572

Charles XI and hia advisers. Klas Fleming .... £73

The Great Commission 574

The "Reduction" of 1680 676

Benevolent despotism of Charles XI 576

Reforms and advances under Charles XI 577

Military and naval changes 678

Factions in Denmark ih.

Domestic and foreign policy of Christian V . . . . 579

The Gottorp question. War with Sweden 680

Peace of Traventhal 681

Continuance of War with Svveilcu 682

Treaty of Frederiksborg 583

CHAPTER XIX.

CHARLES XII AND THE GREAT NORTHERN WAR.

By R. NisBET Bain.

The minority of Charles XII. His natural gifts . . . 684

Charles XII assumes the sovereignty. Signs of an autocratic rule . 586

Johan Reinhold Patkul. Motives of his action .... 586

First league of partition against Sweden 687

The campaign of 1699-1700 688

Battle of Nai-va 689

Renewed Russo- Saxon alliance. The Baltic campaigns . . 590

Campaign of 1704. Sweden's supposed opportunity . . . 591

The Swedes overrun Poland 592

Stanislaus Leszczynski elected King 593

The campaign of 1706 594

Execution of Patkul 595

Peter and the Powers. Mazepa 696

Charles XII at Altranstadt. His great design .... 697

Victory of Holowczyn. Swedish march southwards . . . 698

Causes of Mazepa's treason 699

The great frost of 1708-9 600

Charles besieges Poltawa 601

Battle of Poltawa. Second league against Sweden . . . 602

Danish and Russian invasions. The Porte aad the War . . 603

The campaign of the Pruth 604

The Peace of the Pruth 606

Peter and the Porte. Charles at Bender 606

The Peace of Adrianople. The War in Germany . . 607

The Maritime Powers offer mediation. Stenbock in Pomerauia . 608

Conquest of Finland. The " Stettin Sequestration " . . . 609

The Hanoverian project. Charles at Stralsund .... 610

Third coalition against Sweden 611

Collapse of the projected Scanian expedition .... 612

The peace negotiations of Baron Gortz 613

Death of Charles XII 614

Peace of Nystad 615

xxvm

Contents.

CHAPTER XX.

THE ORIGINS OF THE KINGDOM OF PRUSSIA.

By Dr A. W. Waed.

The growth of the Brandenburg-Prussian State .

The Northern Mark

The Mark Brandenburg

Germanisation and Christianisatiou

Extensions of the Mark. Waldemar the Great .

Bavarian and Bohemian rule ....

The Quitzows. The iirst HohenzoUern Elector .
The Electors Frederick I and Frederick II
The Dispositio Achillea ......

Joachim I and Jagerndorf .....

The Reformation in Brandenburg. Joachim I and II
Lutheranism. Joachim Frederick. The first Council
The Rhenish duchies. John Sigismund a Calvinist

Early history of Prussia

The German Order

The Order conquers Prussia ....

The Order's greatness and decline

Political weakness of the Order. Henry of Plauen

Decay of the Order. Polish suzerainty

Margrave Albert invested with the duchy of Prussia

Progress towards union

Brandenburg-Prussia in the Thirty Years' War .
Brandenburg-Prussia towards the end of the War

of State

PASB

616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638

CHAPTER XXI.
THE GREAT ELECTOR AND THE FIRST PRUSSIAN KING.

By Dr A. W. Ward.

The youth of the Great Elector ....
Accession of Frederick William. Schwarzenberg
Relations with Sweden and Poland. Pomerania .
Early years of Frederick William's reign .
Waldeck's "plan of union." Policy as to Prussia
Administrative changes. Magdeburg .
Cultivation and immigration
Industrial activity. Colonial policy
The Brandenburg African Company .

Toleration

Years of peace and preparation. Relations
Brandenburg and the Dutch Republic
Battle of Fehrbellin ....
Treaties of Nymegen and St Germain
The Great Elector's alliance with France

with England

639
640
641
642
643
644
646
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653

Contents.

XXIX

PAGE

The Great Elector and William of Orange .... 654

Frederick William's second marriage 666

His wills. His death . 666

Significance of his reign ........ 657

The Elector Frederick III 658

The quest of royal Crowns 659

Aspirations of Frederick III 660

Brandenburg's share in the War against France. Peace of Kyswyk 661

The fall of Danckelmann 662

Negotiations as to a royal Crown 663

The Emperor yields. The Krontractat 664

Coronation of King Frederick I 666

Frederick I and the Grand Alliance 666

Inaction of Prussia in the Northern War 667

The foreign policy of Frederick I 668

Military and economic progress under Frederick I . . . 669

Progress of learning and research 670

Sophia Charlotte. Religious views of Frederick I . . . 671

Results of his reign , 672

CHAPTER XXIL

THE COLONIES AND INDIA.

(1) The Colonies.

By E. A. Benians, M.A., Fellow of St John's College.

conditions

Transitional period in colonial history ,

The progress of Brazil

The expulsion of the Dutch from Brazil

The Indians

Bahia. The Negroes. The Brazil trade. Social

Political disturbances. Discovery of gold .

Period of the War of the Spanish Succession

Character of Spanish colonisation

Economic conditions. Mines

The Creoles. The Indians ....

The Indians. Commercial policy of Spain .
Loss of the Spanish monopoly. French colonisation in
America .......

English colonisation in North America
English colonial policy ....

The West Indies

The West Indies and the European Wars .
Progress of settlement. Barbados and Jamaica
System of colonial government .
TTie pirates of the Caribbean Sea. West Africa

The Slave-trade

South Africa. Changes in the colonial world
England's maritime and commercial ascendancy

North

673
674

C74-6
676
677
678
679

680-1

682

ih.

683

684
686
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694

XXX Contents.

(2) India.
By P. E. Roberts, B.A., late Scholar of Worcester College, Oxford.

PAGE

The Portuguese^ Dutch and English in India .... 695

The Dutch in India . . . 696-7

The English in India. The English East India Company . . 697-8

War with the Moghul Empire 699

The New East India Company 700

Union of the New and Old Companies 701

The French in India. The French East India Company . . 702

French settlements in India 703

The Ostend Company 704

Anglo-French rivalry in India 705

CHAPTER XXIII.

EUROPEAN SCIENCE IN THE SEVENTEENTH AND EARLIER YEARS
OF THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURIES.

(1) Mathematioaii and Physical Science.

By W, W. Rouse Ball, M.A., Fellow and late Tutor of
Trinity CoUege.

Scientific progress in the seventeenth and the earlier years of

the eighteenth centuries 706

Mathematical and Applied Science in the sixteenth century . 707-8

Arithmetic. Introduction of logarithms and decimals . 708-9

Development of Algebra and Trigonometry .... 709

Development of Geometry 710-1

Development of Mechanics 712

Development of Astronomy. Galileo 713

His astronomical work 714

Development of Physics 71 5-6

Invention of the Infinitesimal Calculus 716-8

Leibniz and Newton 718

Newton's theory of gravitation 719

His Principia 720

Physical Optics 721

Development of Physios. Hydrodynamics. Heat . . , 722

Great development of mathematical science .... ib.

(2) Other branches of Science.

By the late Sir Michael Foster, K.C.B., F.R.S., Fellow of Trinity
College, formerly Professor of Physiology.

Advance of the Natural Sciences in the seventeenth century . 723

Human Anatomy. Vesalius ib.

Bacon and the new method 724

Physiology. Harvey's predecessors 725

Contents. xxxi

PAGE

Harvey 726

His successors 727

Boyle. Hooke. Mayow 728

Malpighi 729

Chemistry: Boyle. Van Helmont. Sylvius .... 730

The iatro-chemical and iatro-physical schools .... 731

Stahl's phlogiston theory 732

Nervous Physiology 733

Higher Nervous Physiology. Botany 734

Structural Botany and Vegetable Physiology .... 736

Sexuality in plants. Zoology 736

Systematic Zoology and Comparative Anatomy .... 737

Mineralogy 738

Anticipation of Geology. Stensen 739

Early Academies ib.

Scientific Academies and Societies 740-1

CHAPTER XXIV.

LATITUDINARIANISM AND PIETISM.

By the Rev. M. Kaufmann, M.A., Trinity College, Dublin.

Conflicting tendencies in the religious life of the latter half of

the seventeenth century 742

Attempts at religious Reunion. Intolerance .... 743

The desire for intellectual freedom. Calixtus .... ib.

Jesuits and their converts 744

Latitudioarian aims. Fallsland 745

Chillingworth's EeJigion of Protestants • 746

John Hales a typical Latitudinarian 747

Jeremy Taylor and The Liberty of Prophesying .... 748

Stillingfleet's Irenicon 749

The Cambridge Platonists 760

Cudworth's Intellectual System 75I

Glanvill. The later Latitudinarians 762

Pietism in Holland : Gisbert Voet 753

Spinoza and the Dutch Pietists 754

Lodenstein and Labadie 755

Labadism and Qualcerism 756

Calvinistic and Lutheran Pietism 757

Friedrich von Spee and Johann Arndt 768

Jacob Boehme and Spener ...,..,. 759

Francke and the Halle Pietists 760

Dippel and German Pietistic Literature 761

Wurtemberg Pietism. Bogatzky 762

Effects of Latitudinarianism and Pietism 763

xxxu

LIST OF BIBLIOGRAPHIES.

OHAPS.

I. The Government of Louis XIV (1661-1715)

II. The Foreign Policy of Louis XIV (1661-97)

III. French Seventeenth Century Literature and its

European Influence ....

IV. The Gallican Church ....
V, IX. England under Charles II and James II (1660-87)

VI. The Literature of the English Restoration,

including Milton

VII. The administrations of John de Witt and

William of Orange (1651-88) .

VIII. The Anglo-Dutch Wars ....
X. The Revolution and the Revolution Settlement

in Great Britain

XL Toleration in England ....

XII. Austria, Poland and Turkey .

XIII. The Treaties of Partition and the Spanish

Succession

XIV. The War of the Spanish Succession

XV. Party Government under Queen Anne .

XVI. Russia before Peter the Great (1477-1682)
XVIL Peter the Great and his Pupils (1689-1730)

XVlII. The Scandinavian Kingdoms .
XIX. Charles XII and the Great Northern War

(1697-1721)

XX, XXI. The origin of the Prussian Monarchy. The

Great Elector and the First Prussian King

XXII. The Colonies and India ....

XXIII. European Science in the Seventeenth and earlier

years of the Eighteenth Centuries

XXIV. Latitudinarianism and Pietism

Chuonological Table of Leading Events
Index .......

765—70

771—4

775—9
780—5
786—98

799—808

809—14
815—8

819—37

838—9

840—6

846—9
850—6
857—60
861—71

872—5
876—9

880—2

883—94
895—902

903—10
911—7

918—27
929

CHAPTER I.

THE GOVERNMENT OF LOUIS XIV.
(1661—1715.)

When Mazarin's death left the govemment of France in the hands
of the young King, the country seemed to be so happily situated, so
free from dangerous rivals and pressing dangers, that it was capable of
determining its own destiny. While France had triumphed over
Europe, in France itself the monarchy had triumphed over all rival
powers, classes and organisations. The futile struggle of the Fronde had
discredited the Parlements, and had exhibited the egotism and the in-
capacity of the noblesse. France turned to her King with a loyal
enthusiasm born of a sense that the monarchy alone could maintain
order in the State and ensure its prosperity.

At the time of Mazarin's death Louis XIV was twenty-three years
old. His character was as yet little known. If Mazarin had not kept
the sovereign in ignorance, he had certainly kept him in the background;
and hence it was that Louis XIV's declaration " that he intended to be
his own first minister" and that "all ministers were to address them-
selves to him" was received with amusement and incredulity. His
singular grace and dignity of manner were already apparent; his amorous
temperament was familiar to those who had been brought into close
contact with him ; and these characteristics endured to the end. But
the world had not yet suspected the persistent energy of the young
King, or his fondness for "the business of reigning," or, again, the
boundless pride and egotism which i;ieutralised many of his best qualities.
During the whole of his reign he maintained his habits of regularity
and hard work. He was constant in attendance at the various councils
by which the business of the State was transacted ; and he was always
attentive, eager to master the details of business, and confident in his
own judgment whether in domestic or in foreign affairs. From the first
he was the real ruler of the country, and his mastery increased as his
reign advanced. The domestic and the foreign policy of France were
at first largely controlled by his great Ministers — Colbert, Louvois, and
Lionne — though the approval of the King was always a necessary
condition of their action, and at each point his judgment had to be

C. M. B. V. CH. Z. 1

2 The character of Louis XIV. [leei-ivis

convinced. But, before the end of the reign, the relative importance
of the Ministers had greatly declined; they were at last the almost
servile executors of the King's will ; and he had gi'own intolerant of
opposition and protest.

It is difficult to arrive at a judgment as to the abilities of
Louis XIV. Lord Acton has called him " by far the ablest man who
was bom in modern times on the steps of a throne." Clearly, his was no
commonplace character or intelligence. One who directed the policy of
the first State in Europe for fifty-five years, who achieved many victories,
and showed great tenacity and skill in the hour of defeat, must have had
powers above the average. No historian has ever denied to him patience,
industiy, or method. "One must work hard to reign," he wrote, "and
it is ingratitude and presumption towards God, injustice and tyranny
towards man to wish to reign without hard work." He laboured, at the
task of reigning his whole life through, undeterred by pniiui, unin-
terrupted by pleasures or domestic afiliction. Montesquieu's judgment,
that his character was more striking than his intelligence (" U avait Fame
plus grande que Vesprit "), is perhaps the fairest summing-up of the Grand
Monarque. In what concerned foreign affairs and the organisation of
the central government he exhibited real skill. But he did not show
the same intelligence or the same patience in relation, to social or
religious problems or the organisation of local government. The ex-
tension of monarchical authority and of his own personal power was the
predominant impulse with him ; and where these were not concerned his
attention and energy were apt to flag. His theory of life was theocratic
through and through : the King is God's; vicegerent, and is possessed of
a sort of divine infallibility, The history of his reign passes judgment
on this theory as to its effects both on the kingdom and on the King.
In his reign the monarchy ceased to be the one principle of imity in the
State ; it ceased to justify itself as the protector of the people against
the nobility and as the successful leader of the nation in war. It became
something apart from the people and the nation. The way was thus
prepared for the Revolution of the next century.

The authority of the Crown had triumphed over, without actually
effacing, all rival authorities. Parlements and local Estates and
municipalities still existed. The Church still held its assemblies; but,
if they still exercised any power, it was by permission of the King. All
power came from the King, and it was the fixed determination of
Louis XIV that this fact should be recognised by all the officials of the
State. When Voysin became Secretary of State, he apologised to the
King for referring certain decisions to him, saying that he had not yet
had sufficient experience of office to take on himself the responsibility
of decision. Louis answered emphatically that it would never be his
business to decide anything ; that he must always take his orders from
the King, and limit his activity to executing them.

leei-ivis] The machinery of government. 3

The machinery of government developed by Richelieu and Mazarin
was used by Louis XIV; but it was developed still further. The
essential characteristic of the constitution of France during his reign
consisted in its being a government through Councils, to which, with
few exceptions, neither birth nor rank gave any right of admission. The
nobility were excluded with jealous care ; great ecclesiastics were no
longer admitted ; the Councils were filled chiefly with men of middle-
class birth^ usually lawyers (sens de la robe), who owed everything to the i
King and could not possibly regard themselves as independent of him. I
The exclusion of those above the accepted level was maintained even
against members of the royal family.

There were four chief Councils : the Conseil d'JEtat, the Conseil des
Depiches, the Conseil des Finances, and the Conseil PrivL The Conseil
d''Etat, unofficially .known as the Conseil d''en haut, was a small body of
not more than four or five men, which met in the presence of the King.
It assembled three times a week, and in it the great questions of State
were considered and decided. All the members could take part in
discussing these questions, but the decision rested with the King. This
Council was the pivot of the State; but the King took care not to
allow it to become apparent constitutionally. No minutes were taken
of the proceedings of the Council, and no record was kept of its
decisions. Its meetings were merely occasions on which the King
chose to ask the advice of those whom he cared to consult. The
Conseil des Depiches was also held in his presence, and considered
and decided on all questions relating to the internal condition of France.
I'he Conseil des Finances had under its control all questions relating to
taxation, and was also held in the royal presence. All these three
Councils were held in the royal apartments. The fourth Council, the
Conseil Prive or Conseil des parties^ was a body quite different in kind.
It was held in the palace, but not in the royal apartments, was not
usually presided over by the King, and consisted of a large number of
lawyers (maitres de requites). It was not technieally a supreme Court of
appeal, for its functions were purposely left indefinite; but it was the
highest judicial Court in the land, and represented the vague but
supreme judicial authority belonging to the King. These were the
chief Councils ; but there were others, such for instance as those dealing
with religion, with the Huguenots and with commerce. In any matter
of importance the King was accustomed to seek the advice of persons
whose opinion he valued and whom he had no reason to fear, and to
decide after listening to their advice.

Thus, at the centre, the royal authority triumphed completely, and
thrust the Parlement and the sovereign Courts into the shade. .His aim
was the same in the provinces ; but in these the royal authority had to
struggle to supremacy through the ruins of a vast number of provinciail
institutions, customs, and rights. There were the provincial Estates, or

OH. I. 1—2

4 The Parlements of France. [1661-1715

what remained of them: there were the provincial Pa^feT/iew^*; there were
the municipal liberties, once so vigorous and important, and stiU general,
though decadent and threatened with extinction. Wide differences still
existed between province and province, not only in feeling and institutions^
but even in language. Lavisse has asserted that in the year 1661 the
greater number of Frenchmen were still ignorant of the French tongue. In
consequence of these separatist tendencies the royal authority had a hard
struggle to carry out its aim of centralised and unified government, in
spite of the heavy blows which Richelieu had already struck in this
direction. The ruins of the past were still left to cumber the ground,
and often to prevent the rise of any more useful edifice ; but in their
midst there rose the power of the royal intendants. The Parlements
were not abolished: they continued to sit and to give decisions at
Toulouse, Grenoble, Bordeaux, Dijon, Rouen, Aix, Pau, Rennes, Metz;
and later in the reign at Tournay and Besan^on. The provincial Estates
still met at intervals in Britanny, the Boulonnais, Artois, Burgundy,
Provence, Languedoc, and Franche Comte. The Governors still held
nominal power in the various provinces: they were usually men of
aristocratic birth and they enjoyed a large income. But they were for
the most part absentees, and, when they went to their provinces, it was
for ceremonial purposes rather than for the performance of important
business. Parlements, Estates and Governors were devoid of any real
power. The real authority lay with the royal intendants, who in effect
represented in the provinces the unlimited authority of the King,
and who were placed there in order to maintain and increase it. The
King informed his intendants that it was their business to see to " the
observation of our edicts, the administration of civil and criminal justice
and of police, and all other matters which concern the prosperity and
security of our subjects." They were chosen from the ranks of the
unprivileged classes, and the nobility saw in them their chief rivals and
enemies. In the passage quoted above, the King speaks of "the
prosperity and security of our subjects," and the relief of the poor
figures occasionally in despatches. But it is the special weakness of the
reign that so much was made of the royal authority for its own sake,
while the condition of the people occupied a quite secondary placei Not-
withstanding the great power of Louis XIV and the reforming energy
of Colbert, little was done for the relief of the people even during the
early and prosperous years of Louis XIVs rule ; and the wars, successful
and unsuccessful, of his later years heaped intolerable burdens on the
shoulders of the poor and threw into further confusion the system of
administration, which Colbert had done his utmost to regularise and
simplify.

It was the effort of the King to keep the power in his own hands and
to avoid the slightest appearance of a " mayor of the Palace." Without
violently overthrowing the old machine of government, he reduced to

leei-iTie] The Ministers of State. 5

something like impotence the ministers of old and high-sounding titles,
and gave the reality of power into the hands of other ministers and
Secretaries of State who were immediately appointed by and dependent
on himself. The Secretaries of State, despite their nominally dependent
position, were elevated above the heads of the old nobility. They
represented Royalty itself, and only Princes, Dukes, and Marshals, were
exempted from the necessity of saluting them by the title of "MonseigneurJ"
The Chancellor was in name the chief of the King's servants. He seemed
the last survival of the Middle Ages. He was nominal president of all
the Councils and head of all Covuis and tribunals; he had the custody of
the royal seal, so that all acts of the royal authority passed through his
hands. He was irremovable and seemed therefore a very bulwark of
aristocratic power against the monarchy. But, in truth, the treatment
of the Chancellor is symbolic of the whole political condition of France.
He remained in his splendour and wealth and nominal power. Earlier
Kings had eluded his power by giving the actual custody of the seals to
an official removable at pleasure ; but in the reign of Louis XIV the
prestige of the royal authority was so great that no such subterfuge was
necessary. The Chancellors of Louis XIV were not the slightest check
upon his authority. Next came the Controller-General of Finances
and the Ministers of State, whose office under Louis XIV lasted just so
long as they retained the confidence of the King. They were without
accurately defined duties, and were in fact exactly what the King chose
to make of them. After them came the Secretaries of State, in whose
hands lay the real administration of the realm. Their duties in 1661
were the superintendence of (1) foreign affia,irs, (S) war, (3) the King's
household and the Church, (4) the Protestants of France: but, in
addition, the provinces were rather arbitrarily divided into four groups,
and each group was placed under one of the four Secretaries. But
these duties were not rigidly defined and were varied when new appoint-
ments were made.

Louis XIV was excellently served during the first part of his reign
by men most of whom had received their training in statesmanship in
the schools of Richelieu and Mazarin. Le Tellier, a man of humble
origin, was Secretary of State for war and had shown great efficiency in

that department. He was a servant such as Louis XIV loved to have

painstaking, efficient and incapable of any ambition except to rise in the
favour and service of hJs royal master. His reputation has been efiaced
by his subordinate Colbert, and by his son, the notorious Louvois.
Brienne, La VriUiere, and Gu^negaud were the other secretaries in 1661 ;
but the name of Lionne was greater than theirs. He had served as a
djiplomatist with great distinction uijder Mazarin, anej was soon to show
his skill under Louis XIV as Secretary of State for foreign affairs.

For the moment, however, it was not war or foreign affairs which
claimed the King's chief attention, but rather the department of finances,.

6 The fall of Fouquet. — Colbert. [I661-9

where Nicolas Fouquet still reigned as surintendamt. It has been told in
an earlier volume how Fouquet had used the troubles of the Fronde to
amass for himself an enormous fortune by methods even more corrupt
than the moral standard of the time allowed. Mazarin had known what
he was doing, had winked at it, and had probably shared in the profits.
But the new master of France had an authority and a spirit which placed
him above such temptations; and the wealth and the position of Fouquet
were such that he was the most real rival of the royal power. Colbert
had already marked the dishonest gains of Fouquet and had reported
them to Mazarin; but no action had been taken. His counsels had more
weight with Louis XIV, and the overthrow and trial of Fouquet was the
first serious measure of his reign. He was condemned to banishment
and confiscation of property ; but this was not- enough for the King, who
commuted the sentence into imprisonment for life. Fouquet was immured
imtil his death in the prison of Pinerolo.

The chief agent in pressing on the trial of Fouquet had been Colbert.
He was sprung from a family engaged in commerce, and had at first
thought of commerce as his destined career. But he had then entered
the service of Le Tellier, and had through him become acquainted with
Mazarin, to whom he had rendered important services. His opposition
to Fouquet was prompted by a detestation of the methods employed
which animated his whole career ; but personal ambition also played its
part. The fall of Fouquet brought Colbert to the control of the
finances, though the title of surintendamt was not employed again.
Finance was now relegated to the attention of a Council ; but in this
Council Colbert was henceforth the supreme influence, though he at first
only held the title of intenda/nt des Jincmces, which was later changed to
controller-general. His influence too extended far beyond the finances,
and largely controlled the King's policy until the epoch of the great
wars began. Charge after charge was accumulated upon him. In 1661
he was member of the Council of Finance and charge d'affaires for the
navy. In 1664 he became superintendent of buildings. He was raised
to the post of Controller-General of Finance in 1667. He became
Secretary of State for the King's household and Secretai'y of State for
the navy in 1669.

Colbert was neither a philanthropist nor a philosopher. The relief
of the poor is often mentioned in his projects, but it seems rather a
conventional phrase than a deeply cherished aim. He has nothing to
add to the economic or political theory of the State. He identified the
wealth of a State with the amount of gold and silver which it contains.
This was the common theory of his age. It was more individual to
himself that he conceived the total volume of European commerce to be in-
capable of a material increase. What one nation gained, he concluded,
another must lose. The idea of the fraternity of nations found no place
in his scheme of thought. He was anxious that France should win

1661-5] The character and aims of Colbert. t

from the other nations the commerce which they at present possessed.
Commerce with him was divided from war by its methods rather than
by its spirit or its objects. The greatness of France, he declared on one
occasion, was proved not merely by its own flourishing condition but by
the poverty and general distress to which it had reduced its neighbours.
Yet, while neither philanthropist nor philosopher, he was a man of
business with a passionate enthusiasm for detail, industry, and efficiency.
And, though not an ori^nal thinker, there is something revolutionary in
his general objects : for he wished to make of France, in spite of all her
feudal, aristocratic, and military traditions, a commercial State ; to
transfer her ambition from war to finance; to manage her policy, not
with an eye to glory, but on sound business principles. But he failed
to bend Prance to his will. Her traditions stood in his way, and
Louis XIV cared nothing for commerce and much for military glory.
Yet even the small measure of success to which he attained makes an
epoch in French history.

The man himself is clearly revealed in his projects, his letters, and
the correspondence and memoirs of the time. Madame de Sevign^ calls
him the " North Star," in allusion both to his fixity of purpose and the
coldness of his temperament. Industry with him ceased to be an effort
and became a passion. The labour which he so readily underwent
himself he exacted from others. He loved to work his way into all the
details of business; to determine the methods by which it could be
simplified arid improved; and then to carry out the reform in spite
of all obstacles, thrown in his way by tradition, corruption, and the
carelessness of the King. But a desire to paint Colbert as the King's
good influence, while Louvois figures as the opposite, has sometimes led
to the attribution of virtues to Colbert which are not really his. His
life was not without very serious blemishes. He made himself the
complacent instrument of the King's amours, and his passionate hatred
of corruption did not prevent him from gaining titles, income, and
offices for himself and his relatives by means which in another he would
have bitterly condemned.

As a man of business Colbert, while he sought to open out new
soiu-ces of income for the State, desired also to see the State managed
on its present lines with economy and efficiency. For the present these
qualities were the last that could be attributed to the political and
economic system of France. There was confusion everywhere. A medal
struck in Colbert's honour mentioned without exaggeration "aerarii
rationes perturbatas et hactenus inextricahiles,'" But confusion was not the
only trouble ; there had been corruption and knavery too. And, so soon
as Fouquet had been arrested, and long before his trial had reached its
strange termination, Colbert set to work. A tribunal was established
to deal with the fraudulent financiers, and sat from 1661 to 1665.
There was no inclination to lean to mercy's side. Some were condemned

CR. I,

8 Colbert's reforms in taxation. [i66i-79

to death, though none were executed ; more than four thousand were
fined and compelled to disgorge large sums for the benefit of the
treasury.

The debts of the State nex;t demanded his attention. Through the
mouth of the King he repudiated certain debts altogether, because only
a small portion of the original capital had ever reached the treasury.
Then he declared that other bonds were to be cancelled bjy paying off
the original sum advanced, less the sum of the interest already received.
Those who were chiefly injured by this measure were the rentiers of the
city of Paris, and their protests were loud and long. The King sup-
ported Colbert in a declaration wherein he stated that the cancelling of
the bonds was the only way of effecting " the relief of the people which
we desire with so much ardour"; hut subsequently the procedure was
modified in deference to the outcries of the people of Paris. The
net result was, however, a considera,ble reduction in the indebtedness
of the State.

The assessment and collection of the taxes also called for immediate
consideration. The chief of the taxes was the taille. The abuses
connected with this most burdensome and long-lived impost were three-
fold, and may be summed up in the words privilege, arbitrary assessment
and oppressive exaction. Nobility, clergy, court and government officials
were exempt. Boisguillebert estimated, in 1697, that not more than a
third part of Che population contributed to the taille, and this third
was the poorest and most wretched. In the pays d'ilection the total
sum was fixed by the Government, divided among the districts and
parishes of the province by the intendamt, &iaA. finally collected by pro-
minent villagers, who were made responsible in their own property for
the full payment. The payment of the tax was enforced by distraint
and quartering of soldiers, often accompanied by acts of cruelty, and
was frequently evaded by corruption. The collectors especially groaned
under the burden of their responsibility. Failure to find the prescribed
amount of taxes was punished by imprisonment. In 1679 we hear that
there were 54 collectors imprisoned in Tours alone. Colbert's letters
are full of the shifts to which the taxpayers had recourse in their efforts
to escape, and of the misery caused by the government exactions. In
the pays d''Uat, the taxes paid to the King were still called a don gratuit
(or "benevolence"), and the taille was by no means so grievous a burden
and did not discourage industry and the cultivation of the soil. The
total amount was fixed by the intendant ; but the provincial Estates had
some influence in its assessment on districts and individuals, and it was
reckoned^ not on the general wealth of the taxpayer (taille personneUe),
but upon his house ahd landed property {taille reelle). How was the
situation to be remedied? Colbert did not propose or desire to antici-
pate the ideas of 1789 by the abolition of privilege ; but he scrutinised
all claims to exemption, and brought back into the ranks of the taxable

1661-72] The taille. — Provincial risings. 9

a large number who had escaped under various pretexts. But, above all,,
he insisted on a more careful supervision of the collection of the taille at
each of its stages. He urged the imtendants to keep a jealous watch on
the receivers and collectors ; he gave rewards to those who collected the
tax with the least expense, and punished the most wasteful. Sometimes
there breaks out in his instructions a feeling of pity for the misery of
the people ; but it is for the most part the man of business who speaks.
Here, as in the case of all Colbert's schemes for reform, the Dutch war
of 1672 exercised a fatal eifect ; and the need for much money at once
brought back many of the worst abuses that he had striven to destroy.

A vast number of other taxes, usually in the nature of customs and
excise, exhibited the same features of confusion, corruption, and oppression
as those noticed in the case of the taille. The abuses arose chiefly out of
the indirect method of collecting these taxes. They were sold to capitalists
who usually undersold them, and thus a large number of intermediate
profits were exacted from the taxpayer and were lost to the State. Here
also Colbert exhibits his usual characteristics. His ideas do not rise above
the existing system. He does not propose to institute the direct collection
of these taxes by state officials. But he inspected the existing system
with minute care ; he punished fraud ; he tried to establish greater sim-
plicity of working. Yet even under the improved system introduced by
Colbert the weight pf the burden of the taxes is shown by frequent pro-
vincial disturbances. These provincial risings make little mark in the
memoirs of the time (though Madame de Sevignd devotes some precious
pages to the troubles in Britanny), and the society of Versailles cared
Uttle about them. But they were in many instances very serious, and
a study of them shows how little the classic dignity of the Court of the
Grand Monarque is truly representative of the condition of France
during his reign. There was a serious rising in the Boulonnais in 1662
caused by the quartering of troops and the imposition of unpopular
taxes. It was suppressed without difficulty, but was followed by ciniel
and unjust punishments. Two years later a much more dangerous
movement broke out in the Landes of Gascony. Here it was a new
tax on salt that raised the fury of the people. The nature of the
country, and above all the skill and audacity of the leader, Audijos,
prolonged the trouble for many months. In vain those who were
caught were cruelly punished, and high rewards were oflfered for the
head of Aiidijos. He escaped in spite of all, sometimes finding a refuge
on the Spanish side of the frontier. In the end the Government had to
come to terms with the audacious leader, and gave him the command of
a regiment of dragoons. An equally serious revolt broke out in the
Vivarais, where a report of absurd taxes exasperated the people beyond
patience. It was reported that the peasants were to pay ten livres for
each male child born and five for each female, three Uvres when they
bought a new coat ftnd five when they bought a new hat. The rising

CB. I.

10 Colbert's industrial projects. [i66i-V4

was not suppressed until a force of nearly five thousand men had been
despatched from headquarters. After the Dutch war of 1672, there
were even more serious troubles. In 1674 Bordeaux broke out into
rebellion to the cry of "Vive le roi sans gabelk!'" The forces of the
intendant were at first defeated, and it was only by great exertions that
the rebellious city was reduced. The troubles in Britanny were perhaps
the most serious of aU, and they were supported by the Parlement.
Before the province was quiet, the troops of the King had been guilty
of horrible excesses, and their officers of broken promises. Thus it is
clear that even at the zenith of the absolute monarchy the passions that
inspired the peasantry in 1789 were not far below the surface.

While Colbert strove to improve the working of the actual machinery
of France, and succeeded in diverting to the coffers of the State gains
which had hitherto gone into the pockets of individuals, he was not
contented with this. He desired also to add to the wealth of France by
promoting her productive energies and by stimulating her industries.
In dll this he frankly takes the national point of view. The wealth of
one country meant the poverty of her neighbour : such was his economic
creed. And he desired to acquire for France the industries which her
neighbours^-especially England and Holland— enjoyed. False theory
here led him into the one supreme mistake of his life — his promotion of
the war against Holland. His eyes were never opened to his theoretic
error; but he saw the war sweep away many of the reforms and improve-
ments that had been the result of his passionate energy.

His general industrial scheme is easily summarised. He desired to
turn France into a busy hive of industry, to promote and direct those
industries by the action of the State, to protect them from the rivalry
of foreign countries^by high protective tariffs ; and then to open up
trade in the coinmodities produced by improving the internal com-
munication of France, by establishing trade with distant lands and
defending the country by an increased and remodelled fleet. He
pursued this task with energy and gained as large a measure of success
as his commercial theory, the lukewarmness of Louis XIV, and the
condition of the country allowed.

In 1663 he drew up a statement of the various articles imported
into France and declared that they ought to be produced on French
soil. Some of them had formerly been produced in France, but had
disappeared; others had always come from abroad. Domestic manu-
factures must be revived and stimulated, foreign manufactures must be
planted in the land. Many industries he found in the exclusive possession
of foreign countries, Colbert was determined to break through these
monopolies and to transfer these industries to French soil. He offered
rewards to foreign workmen — English, Dutch, German, Swedish, Venetian
— ^to come and settle in France and establish a centre for the manufacture
of their various articles on French territory. At the same time he

i67i] State direction of industry. 11

punished severely Frenchmen who tried to transfer their industrial
knowledge to a foreign soil. For the rest, all France must work hard;
The pauperising almsgiving of the m'onasteries must be limited; the
admission of peasants into the Orders of the celibate Church must be
discouraged. The King was to take the lead in the endeavour. Chief
among the royal industries was the Gobelihs factory, which soon gained
a great celebrity for its tapestries ; but there were more than a hundred
other establishments that bore the title of Royal. The example thus
given would, it was hoped, be widely followed. Religious establishments
were encouraged to manufacture; municipalities were directed to turn
their attention to industry ; there were honours and State-aid for those
who laboured, and the great Minister's bitterest opposition visited all
idlers.

But it was not in Colbert's nature to trust for the development of
industrial France to the eiFects of competition and the free impulses of
the people. He could not believe that a thing was done, miless he did
it himself or through his agents. He was alarmed and irritated to find
that in certain markets the products of the French factories were not
welcomed and were regarded as deficient in quality compared with those
of the rivals of France. To alter this condition of thiiigs, the manu-
facturers must be schooled by the State. The industries of France were
nearly all in the hands oftoade-guilds^ and it was through these that
Colbert brought the influence of the State to bear on the manufacturers.
Edicts and regulations followed one another by the score ; methods of
manufacture, with details as to the size, dolour and quality of manufactured
articles, were laid down. The tone adopted was that of a schoolmaster
who alternates punishment with moral platitudes. Then inspectors were
sent round the country to enforce these regulations. A famous edict of
1671 on the weaving and dyeing of cloth will show to what lengths he
was ready to go. If bad cloth is produced specimens of it are to be
exposed on a stake with a ticket attached giving the name of the
delinquent. If the same fault is committed again, the master or the
workman who is at fault shall be censured in the meeting of the guild.
In the event of a third offence the guilty person shall himself be tied to
the post for two hours with a specimen of the faulty product tied to
him. The customs and traditions of France and the love of ease natural!
to all men resisted Colbert at every turn. His instructions show his
growing anger with \h& fakiiantise of the people. He closes the public-
houses during working-hours. He uses itony and threats, and often
confesses that his efforts are in vain. But much was done. Industrial
France was slowly coming into being. Patient energy and a continua-
tion of peace would have done more.

But Colbert had not succeeded in destroying or seriously injuring the
industries of the neighbours of France; arid his theory persuaded him
that this was an indispensable sign of her prosperity. Holland, he

12 Colbert's commercial projects. [1664-72

complained, possessed 15,000 or 16,000 of the 20,000 ships that carried
on the commerce of the world, and France had only five or six hundred.
His first system of tariifs (in 1664) contained nothing that went beyond
the ideas and practices of the time. But three years later he was more
ea;gerly bent on the development of French industries and more deter-
mined on the destruction of the rival industries of the Dutch. We have
seen that by him commerce was always regarded as a sort of war, and he
saw, without desiring to withdraw from the struggle, that this time the
commercial struggle was likely to lead to a military one. In the tariiF
of 1667 the customs on goods entering the kingdom of France were in
many instances doubled, in some considerably more than doubled. Thus
worsted stockings were charged 8 l,ii!res instead of 8 livres 10 sous ; fine
cloth was rated 80 livres instead of 40 ; lace at 60 instead of 25. A
little later an absolute prohibition was placed upon Venetian glass and
lace. • Heavy taxes had already been put upon the export of raw
materials produced in France, and this was often extended so as to
include corn. The Dutch answered with counter-tarifis ; and this war
of the tariffs leads directly up to the outbreak of war in 1672.

In Colbert's scheme industry and commerce were closely connected;
and, while he desired to stimulate the productive energies of France, he
desired also to increase her share in the interchange of the commodities
of the world. French traders lagged far behind those of Holland and
Englfind. They had hitherto played a small part in exploiting, the
wealth of the Indies and the Americas. Holland and England em-

1 ployed the method of chartered companies for their distant over-sea
traffic, and Colbert resolved to do the same. His dealing with this
question reveals his invariable characteristics. France must have trade,
and therefore she must have trading companies; the rich men of France,
whether merchants or nobles, must be forced to invest in these companies;
the companies, when formed, must be under direct State supervision at
every point. All that energy and constant watchfulness could do for the
promotion of trade would be done. Colbert's failure, in this instance as so
often, was that he did not realise the part that liberty must of necessity
play in the development of commerce. It was his habit to think of
efficiency and liberty as rivals, not as partners. He reorganised the
Company of the West Indies; he founded a Company for the East
Indies ; these were followed by Companies for the Levant, for the timber
trade of the Pyrenees, for the Northern Seas. The development and the
failure of all these Companies follows similar lines. We may take the
East India Company as typical of all. It was founded by a royal
edict of August, 1664. The capital was to be 15 million livres,
and the King subscribed 3 million without asking for interest. The
Company was to enjoy a monopoly of all trade between the Cape of
Good Hope and the East Indies. It was to possess in its own right
whatever it took from the natives or from iE^uropean enemies, with full

1661-83] Colbert and the colonies of France. 13

mining rights. The only burdens imposed on it were that it should
build churches and pay priests for the conversion of the natives, and that
it should in all things comply with the laws of France and the coutumier
de Paris. But this last stipulation proved ruinous to the prosperity of
the Company. It forced upon the agents of the Company, and upon all
future colonists the restrictions both religious and political of France —
restrictions damaging at home, suicidal abroad. Nothing went well
with the Company from the first. It was in vain that the rich and the
noble were forced to subscribe. The record of the Company is a record
of corruption, failure, and bankruptcy^ In eleven years the Company
lost six and a half millions of Uvres. And Colbert heard with impotent
jealousy that during this period the corresponding Dutch Company had
paid a dividend of 40 per cent. Some of Colbert's Companies did worse;
some rather better ; none succeeded in rivalling the great Companies of
England and Holland.

The colonies of France were closely connected with the commercial
companies ; and their history during the administration of Colbert is
much the same. France possessed excellent bases for colonisation in
Canada, Louisiana, and the West Indian Islands, and made a promising
beginning in Madagascar, Ceylon, and India. But, though Colbert
realised to the full the possibilities of these colonial establishments, he
interfered too much; and his interference was even more dangerous at so
great a distance from France than it was in France itself. The spirit of
religious intolerance, which was soon to strike a heavy blow against his
enterprises at home, ruined those abroad. The only thing that covdd
have served the French colonies was liberty; and of this Colbert with
all his vast gifts and powers never knew the value.

The internal customs of France were an irrational medley of tradition
and privilege ; each province had a different system ; and this system
was guaranteed in many instances by the treaty whereby the province
was incorporated with the Crown. It was impossible even for the
ruthless will of Colbert to make a clean sweep of all the fetters which
the past had placed upon the future ; but by persuasion he brought the
great central provinces of France under the same system, viz., Normandy,
Poitou, Maine, Picardy, the Aunis, Thouars, Perche, Champagne, Berry,
the Nivernais, Burgundy, the Bourbonnais, the Beaujolais, Touraine,
Bresse, Anjou, and the lie de France. In this case he aimed at much
more than he accomplished. "I am opposed," he wrote, "to all that
interferes with commerce, which ought to be extremely free." He
would have liked to see an uniform system of weights and measures and
the almost complete abolition of interprovincial custom and dues. He
was not sufficiently supported by the King's authority to realise moi-e
than a small part of his plan, though French commerce had acquired a
more unrestricted movement before the Dutch War. ,

Colbert did much to facilitate the internal trade of France by the

14 The Langwedoc canal. — The French navy, [leei-sa

construction of canals and the improvement of roads. The idea of the
chief among these enterprises, the famous Canal of Languedoc, which
joined the Mediterranean to. the ^ Bay of Biscay, was no new one,
though the actual project suggested to Colbert was due to Pierre-Paul
B.iquet,,who was employed in the administration oi ^ihe gabelle^ Colbert
eagerly adopted the proposal, and at first thought of making a canal
capable of carrying ships of war ; but he had to be satisfied with a more
modest scheme. The difficulties, financial and engineering, were very
great, and towards the end Colbert and Riquet had ceased to be on
good terms with each other. The canal was opened in May, 1681, a
few months after the death of Riquet. It was, for the times, an extra-
ordinary feat in engineering. The canal was 162 miles long, had 75
locks and was carried over a watershed 830 feet above the sea-ilevel. But
Colbert was far, from resting satisfied with the one great enterprise. He
directed the improvement of the waterways throughout France, the
making of new canals, and above all the improvement of the roads.
Since the time of the Romans there had been no such road-maker in
France as he.

Colbert's vision of a France, colonial, industrial, and commercial,
necessarily included a strong navy. What Richelieu had done in this
respect had been undone in the period of Mazarin's domination. Colbert
took up the work with more than his usual energy, and here all his great
qualities were seen at their best. When he began, the warships of the
French navy were, he tells us, only twenty in number ; and of these not
more than two or three were really serviceable. But by 1671 the
number had risen to 196 effective vessels, and by 1677 the figure had
risen to 270. Thus Colbert saw the King in a position to realise the
object summed up by him in the phrase "se passer des etrangers." The
old harbours and arsenals of France were repaired, and new ones created.
A fresh life was infused into Toulon, Rochefoi-t, Brest, Le Havre,
Dunkirk; and ship-building rapidly developed. He gave as careful a
consideration to the question of the crews as to that of the ships liiem-
selves; but here the hardness of his nature becomes painfully evident.
He forced the maritime population of France into the service with a
vigour not less brutal than that of the English press of later days. But
the cruelties to which his system could descend are seen at their worst in
relation to the galleys. These vessels had been of the greatest service in
the naval warfare of the Mediterranean, and Colbert was passionately
determined to build and equip them with the greatest possible rapidity.
He succeeded in building them, and boasted that the R-ench yards were
capable of turning out a galley within the space of twenty-four hours. But
the crews gave him endless trouble. The toil of the rowers was so terrible
and their treatment so cruel that free men could not be induced in
sufficient quantities to undertake the work. The galleys were a common
form of punishment for the cnminals of France ; and the correspondence

1661-83] The new Academies. 15

of Colbert shows him to have urged upon the judges the sentencing of as
large a number as possible to the galleys; The va^ants of France were
forced wholesale into this living death; and those condemned for a short
period were often detained for life. History has few more terrible
chapters than that of the barbarous treatment of the French galley^
slaves.

We stand amazed at the different subjects which came under the survey
of Colbert and at the minute attention which he was able to bestow
on them. There is assuredly no French statesman besides him whose
energy flows through so many channels until we come to Napoleon. As
Minister of Marine the fortifications of France were partly under his
control, and, with Vauban, he laboured to make them impregnable; He
was interested in the public works of Paris, and hoped to make the King
concentrate his architectural ambitions on the Louvre ; and he saw with
despair that the royal inclination was turned wholly in the direction of
Versailles. He protested against the expenses of Versailles with singular
frankness, declaring that the new palace "would perhaps afford the King
pleasure and amusement but would never increase his glory " ; but all
was in vain, and his projected improvements for the Louvre were never
realised. In order to complete the survey of his manifold activities, we
need here only mention that the creation of five new Academies was due
to Colbert — the Academy of Inscriptions and Medals ; the Academy of
Science ; the French Academy at Rome ; the Academy of Architecture ;
the Academy of Music. Though with these royal protection and
ministerial direction cdimted for much and sometimes hindered their
free development, they all lived and flourished and were one of the
most permanent effects of Colbert's genius. Of the pensions which he
accorded to men of science and letters, the first list (1662) contained
60 names — 45 French and 15 belonging to foreign countries. It must,
however, be allowed that the list, and especially the order of names in
it, suggest no very favourable idea of Colbert's literary tastes. His
object was in point of fact mainly political, and, by acting as Maecenas
under Louis XIV, he intended to control the men of letters and through
them to influence public opinion.

In its ideals and its efforts, both political and literary, the age of
Louis XIV typifies order and authority. But an enquiry into the
actual condition of things reveals a striking contrast to the ideals of the
age. The administration of justice was irregular and corrupt. The
encroachments of the Crown had broken the independence of feudal
justice, but it still subsisted in a most confused, arbitrary and corrupt
form. Crimes were amazingly frequent even in the neighbourhood of
Paris and were increased by the brutality of the punishments inflicted.
The procedure both in civil and criminal cases was uncertain, dilatory,
and embarrassed by the rival claims of innumisrable feudal Courts as
against the royal magistrates and one another. The corruption of the

CU. I,

16 The Code Louis.— 2%e Grands Jours. [leei-sa

provincial administration of justice is attested by innumerable com-
plaints; and the rich and powerful among French criminals enjoyed a
large measure of impunity. All that was best in Louis XIV and in the
traditions of the French Crown fought against this state of things, and
here also Colbert was the chief agent and stimulus to the royal will. A
series of ordinances, of which the chief were the ordonnance civile (1667),
the ordonnance crimineUe (1670), the ordonnance sur les eaux etjbrits,
and the edit sur le commerce (1673) defined the procedure in various
departments and controlled the legal system of France, until the Code
Louis was replaced, a century and a half later, by the Code NapoUon.
The general tendency and the general result of these ordinances was
excellent; but in some points they stereotyped odious practices, and
Colbert defended at every point tiie cause of monarchy rather than
humanity. The use of torture was prescribed; counsel was denied to the
accused in criminal cases ; the treatment of bankrupts was severe in the
extreme. But it was not enough to declare the royal authority by ordi-
nance, it was also to be demonstrated in action. A royal commission
under the presidency of the Sieur de Novion was sent down to Clermont-
en-Auvergne in 1665 to repress disturbances there and assert the royal
power against the presumption of the nobles. Flechier, afterwards Bishop
of Nimes, has left us a brilliant and amusing description of the procedure
of this commission. The chief incident was the trial and execution of
the Vicomte de La Mothe de Canillac for the killing of a man of humble
birth in the prosecution of a private quarrel. The peasantry, when they
found the royal authority thrown on their side against their aristocratic
oppressors, passed at once from servility to insolence, refused the usual
acts of courtesy to the nobles, and would clearly have anticipated the
violences of 1789, if the Government had not been strong enough to
repress them. What was done in Auvergne was repeated in other parts
of France. Novion reported to Louis XIV that a single official could
now execute orders, which ' could not formerly have been carried out
without the support of a body of soldiers. If all exaggerations are
excluded we still see here the action of the monarchy in its most
typical and beneficent aspect. The disorders of Paris and the neighbouri-
hood, which at one time reached an incredible height, were largely
remedied by the appointment of La Reynie' as Lieutenant of Police;
The first eleven years of Louis XIV's personal government are so
much influenced by the ideas of Colbert that the reign of the King and
the biography of the Minister are almost identical. But before the end
of that period Colbert had found a serious rival. The pacific designs of
' Colbert were opposed by the plans and influence of Louvois, the Minister
of War. Louvois and Colbert were alike in their industry, and in
their devotion to the service and glory of their King; but they were
alike in nothing else. The causes of their personal hostility have been
examined as if there were spme secret to be revealed ; but, in fact,

1GG2-83] The rivalry between Louvois and Colbert. 17

Louvois crossed Colbert's path at every turn. He urged Louis to spend
money on Versailles, while Colbert wanted to make Paris the royal
residence; he wanted to spend the revenues of France on military
preparations, while Colbert wished to use them for the promotion of
colonial and industrial enterprises ; in short, he was for war, and Colbert,
with one fatal exception, was for peace. The struggle between them
for their master's support was very keen ; but it was decided in favour
of Louvois. For some years before his death Colbert had suffered from
gout, and this decision seems to have overwhelmed him. He died in
September, 1683, almost in disgrace. It was the supreme misfortune
of France that Louis XIV, with all his great qualities of intelligence
and character, had so imperfect a sympathy with Colbert's aims.
What might not Colbert have done if he had served a Frederick the
Great!

The year 1672 and the outbreak of the war with the United Nether-
lands mark the end of the pacific period of Louis XIV's reign, throughout
which Colbert's had been the chief influence over the royal mind. During
those first twelve years of the reign the prosperity of France was not
unchequered nor her aims always right ; but the chief eifort of the
Government was directed towards commercial and industrial develop-
ment, the limitation of privilege and the unification of the State. The
War of Devolution had been only a slight interruption to this progress,
but the Dutch quarrel opened a continuous period of war lasting with
little real interruption from 1672 to 1713. During this period the
internal development of France was of little account. Colbert's in-
fluence had much declined even before his death. The King's mind was
absorbed by military glory and religious orthodoxy ; and these two
tendencies were represented in his Court by Louvois and Madame de
Maintenon.

Louvois was the son of Le Tellier, of whom mention was made above,
and who in 1655 had procured for him the right of succession to his
oflice, in accordance with the dangerous custom which established a sort
of heredity in many of the highest positions in the State. In 1662 the
King raised Louvois to the position of Secretary of State; and from
that date he became one of the chief influences with the King and the
rival of Colbert. He was a man exactly suited to win and to retain the
favour of Louis XIV. To the rest of the world he was disdainful,
arrogant, and violent ; but in his dealings with the King he showed
himself pliant and servilely deferential. It flattered the pride of the
King to see his power over one who submitted to no other authority.
Louvois did not, like Colbert, strive to thwart the King's natural dis-
position. Bather, he impelled him towards the goal to which his natural
bent directed him. War, glory, dominion, and self-worship — these were
the objects that Louvois held up before the eyes of Louis XIV, and
to which he was by nature only loo much indiued.

C. JU. H. v. OH. I. 2

18 Army administration of JLouvms. [leea-gi

There are two sides to the work of Louvois, and our judgment on him
■will vary widely according as he is regarded as an administrator or
a statesman. As a statesman he not only urged 'the King on to those
military adventures which brought the "Age of Louis XIV" to so
disastrous an end, but he also approved and cooperated in the tragic
bluiider-of the Revocation I of the Edict of Nantes. But as an adminis-
trator and organiser he deserves the very highest praise. He found the
French army, famous indeed and victorious, but full of gross corruption
and so bound by traditions, usually of feudal origin, that it was far from
answering quickly to the wishes of the central Government. Louvois,
acting in agreement with the whole tendency of the ideas and policy of
Louis XIV, centralised the administration of the army, made the control
■of the King direct and paramount, and eliminated what remained of
aristocratic influence. At the same time he improved its weapons,
tigJitened its discipline, punished abuses and brought its diflFerent parts
into organic connexion. ,,

The abuses in the army were dhiefly due to the power and influence
iwhich the nobility still held in the fecruitirig- and organisation of the
army^ It was the nobles, not the Government, who collected and
equipped the troops. They had themselves purchased the posts which
they held, and they found various ways of making a profit out of their
positions.' The chief of these was to make a return of, and consequently
to receive pay for, more men than were actually to be found in the ranks.
On days of official inspection the gaps were filled up by paid substitutes
{ipasse-volants),yi\Maxa. Louvois. strove to suppress by the severest penal-
ties. The scandals and corruptions in the provisioning of the army: were
also notorious^

Louvois sought to remedy this state of things, chiefly by bringing the
army under more direct control of the Government. He was not pre-
pared to revolutionise the whole system ; but, by indefatigable attention
to detail and by the strictest severity against proved malefactors, he
succeeded in abolishing or diminishing the worst evils. The army was
still recruited by the nobles ; but Louvois appointed inspectors to ensure
that the soldiers, for whom the Government paid, really existed, and to
repress the licence and indiscipline of the noble officers. The cynical
hardness of Louvois' nature — the brutality that is so often attributed to
him — ^here stood France in good stead ; and he was excellently served by
two inspectors, the famous Martinet for the infantry and de Fourilles for
the cavalry.

But Louvois was not satisfied with the enforcement of honesty.
Equipment and organisation both underwent important modifications.
The bayonet was introduced ; the Jiml (flint-lock) took the place of the
mousquet, which had been discharged by means of a match. The
grenadiers were organised into an important force; the status of the
engineers and of the infantry was raised } the artillery was brought into

1661-79] Mile, de La Vallidre and Mvie. de Montespan. 19

closer relatidpship with the other parts of the army. An uniform was
pot yet insisted on for the whole, army, but much was done to improve
and regularise the appearance of the troops. Much thought also was
devoted to the question of victualling. The slowness of the movements
of earlier armies was often explained by the impossibility of procuring
supplies. By-Louvois' orders magazines were established) which .greatly
improved the mobility of the armies in the earlier wars of the reign. He
carried on the^work of Richelieu too by; abolishing certain posts whose
oeouipantsheld an almost independent position. The position of colonel-
general of the infantry was suppressed ; and, though the colonel-general
of the cavalry and \he grand maitre of the artillery still remained, their
powers were so reduced that they no longer conflicted with Louvais' chief
aim of concentrating, all military power in the hands of the King. A
j^form of a different kind must also be mentioned. He made generous pro-
vision for disabled soldiers by the establishment of the Hotel des Invalides.

In sum, Louvois was efficient in the highest degree ; as energetic as
Colbert, and capable of infusing his own energy into his subordinates ;
; ready to take responsibility and usually able to justify it by success.
Without the efficiency of the French War Office under Louvois it is
.ipappssible to conceive of all the triumphs dating from the earlier p^rt
of Loiuis XIV's reign.

Before the death of Colbert another influence besides that of Louvois
had begun to be strong with the King. Orthodox pietism had triumphed
over him in the person of Madame de Maintenon. The political marriage,
which had been arranged for him at the Peace of the Pyrenees, was not
likely to retain exclusive control of his heart. The licence which had
become traditional with the kings of France would not be checked by
loyalty to Maria Teresa, who was a true and virtuous wife, but neither
ijfltelleqtual nor attractiye. The King had been strongly attached in the
first instance to Maria Mancini, the niece of Mazarin, and it needed all
the power of the Cardinal to induce Louis XIV to carry out the
stipulated treaty and marry Maria Teresa. Immediately after the
marriage gossip was busy with the King's infidelities, and soon it was
, known that Louise de La Valliere was the chosen favourite. The King
felt for her probably the purest passion of his life. She was only
, seventeen at the time of their first acquaintance, and her great beauty,
charm pt manner and sweetness of disposition sufficed to maintain her
influence for many years,, But she was in many ways singularly unfitted
to maintain ter position at Court.; Her conscience was not easy; the
religious life was always attractiye to her; and, when at last she found
her power waning and a' rival preferred to herself, it was chiefly her
genuine love for the King that made her regret the change. In 1674
she retired to a Carmelite nunnery. Her successor was Madame de
Montespan, who had intrigued desperately against Mademoiselle de La
Valliere and held the first place in the King's affections from 1670 to 1679,

CH. I. 2—2

20 Madame de Maintenon. [ie83-4

though not without occasional rivals. She was in point of character and
person almost the antithesis of her predecessor, haughty, domineering,
proud of her position, striking and imperious in her type of beauty*
She had innumerable enemies at Court, both among the nobles and the
clergy ; but she out-faced them and for nearly ten years she triumphed
over them. Her eclipse came from a istrange quarter. She had borne
the King several children, and it was necessary to find a discreet person
to attend to their education. She met Madame Scarron at the house of a
friend, induced her to accept the charge of the children, and thus intro-
duced to the King the woman who was destined to be her successful rival.

Madame Scarron, who soon received at the King's hands the title of
Marquise de Maintenjjai, is perhaps the most interesting figure in the
Court of Louis XIT!! She was the grandchild of Agrippa d'Aubigne,
the famous jg^otestant leader of the sixteenth century. Her father
had been a worthless spendthrift, and she had passed through many
remarkable changes in life before she came to be the unacknowledged
wife of the most splendid of the French kings. She was bom in the
ante-chamber of a prison \ had spent some portion of her early life in
Martinique, had been left an orphan at the age of seven, and, following
the tenets of her protectors, had passed from Catholicism to Protestantism
and from Protestantism back to Catholicism. In her seventeenth year
she had married Scarron, a comic dramatist of reputation in Paris, pre-
ferring, as she has told us, such a marriage to the cloister ; at twenty-
five years of age she was left a widow, and lived for some time an obscure
life, until an accidental meeting with Madame de Montespan made her
the governess of the King's children. In her new task she came into
contact with the King and soon became a well-known figure in the Court.
She played a part of extraordinary difficulty with the utmost adroitness.
Though she was in name the servant of the King's mistress, she gained
great influence with the King himself. It was partly due to her that he
severed himself from Madame de Montespan and was reconciled to his
much-injured wife. After the death of Maria Teresa in 1683, Madame
de Maintenon was secretly married to the King in January, 1684, in the
presence of Harlay, Archbishop of Paris, and Lonvois. She was a
woman of great charm and dignity of manner ; demure, self-restrained,
and even cold in temperament; loving sobriety and reason both in
thought and action ; a character apparently little fitted for so romantic
a destiny. She was, too, a woman sincerely, if not passionately, religious,
and it was the religious element in her inind and character which con-
tributed much to her conquest of Louis XIV.

The religious vein had never been wanting in Louis XIV even in his
careless and licentious youth, and his confessor had always been one of
the chief influences upon him. But under Madame de Maintenon the
whole tone of the Court had changed. The splendid gaiety of the
early years was thrown aside, and the practices of religion became the

1661-6] Ecclesiastical opposition to Protestant liberties. 21

mode at Versailles. Madame de Maintenon's influence cooperated with
this religioos developnjent and did much to make the once brilliant
Court of Versailles decorous and dull. As Louis XIV drew near to the
Church, his personal morality underwent a most welcome improvement ;
but the new influence was unfortunately answerable for the worst political
mistake in his reign, which contained so many. For, unfortunately, the
conversion of Louis XIV was one v^hich "had no root in reason and
bore no fruit of charity." The Church had never abandoned her desire
for uniformity, or her belief that physical coercion might be legitimately
used to enforce it. And thus Louis XIV was led on to the Revocation
of the Edict of Nantes,

The attack upon the Protestants of France which culminated in the
Revocation of the Edict of Nantes was due, almost entirely, to religious
intoleraiice, little complicated by the political and social motives which
had intensified the religious struggles of the sixteenth century. The
Huguenots of France had lost the political ambitions and aristocratic
connexions which made them a serious danger in the days of the League
and perhaps in the time of Richelieu. They had taken no part in the
wars of the Fronde, and Louis XIV in 1666 publicly acknowledged the;
vigour and success with which they had resisted the party of rebellion
during that period. They supported the commercial schemes of Colbert
with a force out of proportion to their numbers. Nor did they threaten
the Church any more than the State. There were fine orators and some
scholars of distinction in their ranks, but their propagandist zeal had
waned. They only ' needed to be left alone to provide France with a
great source of strength both moral and material.

Two forces drove France down the fatal descent, from being the
foremost representative of religious toleration to becoming a belated
exponent of religious persecution in its most odious character. First, the
King's personal feeUngs counted for something. Religion had come to be
a strong and genuine motive with him, and, together with his vanity, im-
pelled him towards the establishment of religious unity. But the Church
in France was the strongest driving force. She was at the zenith of her
power : her clergy were distinguished by sincerity, learning, and even by
social sympathies. But they had always regarded the Edict of Nantes as
an insult, and passionately desired its withdrawal, or, if that were not
attainable, its restriction within the narrowest possible limits. The
assemblies of the clergy, held every five years, continually demanded
fresh measures of persecution. The fact that the clergy of France were
about the same time engaged in a serious controversy with the Papacy
as to the question of Gallican liberties made them all the more anxious
to prove their orthodoxy by measmres against the Protestants ; and it is
upon them that the chief responsibility must fall.

The end of the struggle was not foreseen. Neither King nor clergy
had any intention of abolishing the Edict from the first. They desired

OB, I.

22 Curtailment of the rights of Protestants. [1655-80

merely to harass the Protestants by the niost rigid interprfetation of the
Edict and by the withdrawal of all royal fiivour from the despised
sectaries. This course had been suggested so early as 1655 by Gondriri,'
Archbishop of Rheims, and the King begian to act oh it in the first year
of his personal feign; for, in 1661, commiissioners were sent round Prance
to enquire into the administration of the Edict, and henceforth the
liberties of the Huguenots were curtailed at every point. Thus, in
1661, toleration was withdrawn from the Pays de Gex (conterminous
with Geneva) on the ground that it had not been a part of French
territory at the time of the issuing of the Edict; Yet in that territory
there were 17,000 Protestants, while the Roman Catholics numbered only
400. During the following year the action of the State troubled the
Huguenots in many ways ; but in 1666 a notable and open attack upon
their privileges ensued. The General Assembly of the Clergy in 1665
had drawn up an address to the King suggesting certain liberties of
which it might be possible to deprive the Huguenots, while still
maintaining the letter of the Edict. Most of the proposals of the
clergy were accepted by Louis XIV in the Edict of 1666, which may be
taken as opening the era of persecution. It professed to maintain the
Edict of Nantes ; but each of its sixty clauses embodied some unjust
decision against the Huguertots.

Henceforth the liberties of the HiigUenots were curtailed by a
hundred different methods, open and secret. Two may be taken as
repi^sentative. In 1666 those of the Huguenots who accepted Catholic-
ism were allowed three years in which to pay their debts ; and in 1669
the " Chambers of the Edict," established in 1598, were suppressed.
The position of the Protestants became grievous in the extreme ; but
for the present Louis XIV was not prepared to go further. The Elector
of Brandenburg had protested against the Edict of I666, and in 1669
Louis XIV withdrew many of its clauses. The Protestants were still
oppressed by indirect persecutions of every kind ; but the years between
1669 and I68O were a period of comparative peace. During much of it,
foreign affairs were claiming the King's attention; Colbert's influence
was still strong; and thus no positive legislative enactments of importance
are recorded against the Huguenots. But signs of coming danger were
not wanting. The tlergy maintained a war of pamphlets against them,
and demanded "the destruction of the hydra." Turenne's conversion was
a serious blow ; for, so long as the first soldier in France was one of
them, his fellow-Huguenots felt secure from the worst. The Govern-
ment, moreover, was rigorously excluding from its service, even from the
lowest grades of it, all Protestants. Even Colbert had to bow to this
policy, the danger of which he realised. But the most important move
in these years of comparative peace was the institution, in 1677^ by
P^lisson, himself a renegade Huguenot, of the "treasury of conver-
sions." A considerable sum of money was put at the disposal of the

1665-85] Measures against the Protestants. 23

agents of the Crown wherewith to purchase the adhesion of Huguenots.
It was claimed that this means had been successful in procuring over
58,000 conversions by the year 1682.

The yeaf 1681 marks the beginning of the end. The Peace of
Nymegen had left the King's hands free to attend to domestic concerns.
About the same time Madame de Montespan's influence with the King
came to an end ; and, though there is no evidence to connect Madame
de Maintenon with the policy of the Revocation, her rise meant the
strengthening of religion and the weakening of political interests in the
King's mind. It is the special characteristic of the tragedy of the
Revocation that so many good men and good impiJses contributed to
induce the King to commit his criminal and suicidal blunder. In June,
1681, was issued an Edict unsurpassed in the history of religious perse-
cution for its mixture of hypocrisy and cruelty^ It declared that children i
of Protestant parents might declare themselves converted to Catholicism I
at the agb of seven. The Edict, which at first sight seemed merely
ridiculous, proved in its working a terrible weapon of teligious coercion.
Any trivial acts or words could be interpreted as implying adhesion to
Catholicism ; then came the invasion of Protestant households and the
forcible abduction of children. AH appeals to the King were in vain,
He had perhaps not yet determined on the revocation of the Edict ; but
he told Ruvigiiy, " the deputy general of the Reformed Churches," that
he was henceforth " indispensably bound to effect the donversioh of aiU
his subjects and the extirpation of heresy." The attack became hotter
during the following years, and the violations of the words of the Edict
itself grosser. In 168S a pastoral from the leaders of the Church in
France was ordered to be read in all places of Protestant worship, in
which the continued obstinacy of the Huguenots was threatened " with
evils incomparably more teririble and deadly" than they had suffered
up to the present, Protestants were excluded from most trade-guilds j
from the financial service of the State and from the King's household.
Their places of worship were closed in great numbers, usually on the
plea that they had received back converts to Catholicism. Their colleges
and schools were abolished. When they attempted to meet on the sites
of their ruined temples, this was interpreted as rebellion and punished
with barbarous severity. It is reckoned that, by 1684, 570 out of
the 815 French Protestant churches had been closed. Between 1665
and 1685 nearly 200 ed,icts were issued dealing with " la religimi
pr&tendue r&form&eP and nearly all of these curtail some liberty or
impose some new constraint: here they destroy sL church; there they
compel midwives to baptise the children of Huguenots in the Catholic
faith, if their life is uncertain. One edict orders that a seat shall be
placed in all Protestant " temples " for the accommodation of Catholic
oflBcials ; another, that no Protestant minister may reside for more than
three years in the same place. Already the Huguenots had begun to

24 The dTSLgojir\ades.-Revocafion of ^dict of Nantes. [168I-5

stream in thousands to foreign countries in search of the security and
livelihood which France denied them.

But the Government was not satisfied with legal chicanery and
indirect pressure. In 1681 Marillac invented the method of the
dragormades. The quartering of soldiers on private persons was
habitually practised in France. It was a grievous biu-den to whom-
soever it befel ; but, when the soldiers were quartered specially on
Protestants and received a hint that their excesses would be overlooked
by their officers, it became, for the sufferers from it, a martyrdom. But
in 1681 the Government was not ready to adopt as its own the pro-
cedure of Marillac, which raised difficulties with foreign Governments,
and vastly increased the tide of emigration. When, therefore, Ruvigny
reported the iniquities which were being transacted in Poitou, the King
disowned Marillac and shortly afterwards recalled him. But in 1685
Foucault was directed by Louvois to use the same methods in Beam.
Tens of thousands of Protestants saved themselves from outrage and
torture by verbal adhesion to the religion of their persecutors. Then
the same system was extended from Beam to other provinces where
Protestantism was strong. But the Edict of Nantes still remained on
the statute-book, and the Government pretended to observe it.

The farce soon ceased. Every influence at Court was in favour of
the Revocation. Chief among the King's counsfellors in the matter were
his confessor, the Jesuit Pere La Chaise; Harlay, the Archbishop of
Paris ; Louvois, the Minister of War ; and Le Tellier, the Chancellor,
the father of Louvois. Madame de Maintenon was admitted to con-
ferences on the treatment of the Huguenots, and found her position, as
an ex-Huguenot, a difficult one. She tells us that her advice was always
for moderation. " We must not hurry ; we must convert, not persecute."
There was a period of hesitation, in which the question of policy and
legality was considered. The Court adopted the view that Protestantism
in France had almost ceased to exist, and that the Protestants had, of their
own free will and uncoerced, flocked to reunion with the Catholic Church.
Pere La Chaise promised that the completion of the work would not cost
a drop of blood, and Louvois held the same opinion. The accession of
James H to the English throne removed all danger on that side. Thus
Revocation was determined on. The Edict was signed by the King on
October 17, 1685.

The Edict of Revocation declares in its preamble that the best and
largest part of the adherents of the Protestant faith have embraced
Catholicism, and that, in consequence, the- Edict of Nantes is no longer
necessary. That Edict therefore and all other Edicts of Toleration
were repealed. All meetings for public worship were henceforth interr
dieted to Protestants. Their ministers were exiled ; their schools closed.
No lay Protestants were to leave the kingdom ; any attempt at departure
was to be punished by sentence to the galleys for men, by " confiscation

1685-1702] Effects of the Revocation of the Edict. 25

of body and goods" for women. The last clause stated that all who still
remained adherents of the Protestant faith should be allowed to dwell "in
the towns and other places of the kingdom — without let or hindrance on
account of their religion." But this provision, whatever meaning it was
intended to bear, proved utterly futile. While the pulpits and the
literature of the day were declaring that heresy had died down of its
own weakness, won over by the beauty and the truth of Catholicism, the
agents of the Government were well aware that it was still the faith of
many thousands. The work of the dragonnades began again, and was
conducted more ruthlessly than before. The emigration of Protestants,
which had been going on for ten years, now assumed proportions still
more alarming. In spite of all prohibitions and the condemnation of
great numbers of Huguenots to the living death of the galleys, vast
numbers streamed across every frontier. Certain districts, such as the
Pays de Gex, were nearly depopulated ; others, such as Normandy, where
nearly the whole of the commerce and industry had been in the hands
of the Huguenots, were reduced by the emigration to great poverty.
Brandenburg, once so valuable an ally of the French King, was foremost
in giving an asylum to the refugees. So strong was the feeling in
England that even James II could not restrain it. He was compelled
in March, 1686, to promote a public collection for the benefit of the
French refugees: and a very large proportion of them found a hotae in
England.

In France, the chorus of contemporary approval of the King's action
was almost unbroken by criticism: though a little later Vauban and Saint-
Simon both expressed their hearty abhorrence of the methods employed
and their fear of the consequences. But among later historians no
apologist has been found for these proceedings. The strength of France
was diminished and the strength of her enemies increased. It made the
Elector of Brandenburg a more determined opponent than he had been
before ; it contributed to the overthrow of James II three years later,
whereby England became the most tenacious of all the enemies of
France; it ruined the industrial and commercial projects of Colbert;
and it added to the military and commercial efficiency of other countries,
more especially of Brandenburg-Prussia and England. The King had
said that he would complete the conversion of the Huguenots, " even if
it cost him his right hand " ; and the disaster was not smaller than what
is implied by the metaphor. It was, moreover, soon obvious that the
Revocation and its consequences had done nothing to strengthen the
Church in whose cause it was undertaken. Hather, it contributed un-
mistakably to the rise of the anti-clerical movement of the next century,
which made the repetition of such an incident for ever impossible in
Eui'ope.

Soon after the beginning of the War of the Spanish Succession^ a
rising in the south-east of France revealed how complete had been the

OH, 1,

26 Rising in the Cevennes. [less-i'zio

failure of the Government to extirpate Protestantism. The hills and
forests of the district of the Cevennes afforded shelter to a population
which still cherished the Huguenot faith, in spite of all measures taken
against them. Persecution deepened their faith into fanaticism and
mysticism; voices were heard in the air; men and women were seized
with convulsions, and prophesied of the iniquities of the Church of Rome
and her coming overthrow. Such incidents had taken place dm^ng the
War with the Grand Alliance; and they were intensified when the
conclusion of peace in 1697 brought further sufferings on the district.
When the outbreak of the War of the Spanish Succession again turned
the attention and the resources of the Government to the frontiers, the
exasperation of the peasants broke out into a rising which for four years
(1703-5) proved an annoying and dangerous addition to the burdens
of the foreign war. It began with the murder of the Abbe du Chayla —
a notorious persecutor — in 1702. Immediately it assumed dangerous pro-
portions. The peasants, nicknamed Camisards by their opponents (from
their habit of wearing a shirt over their clothes in nocturnal attacks),
found leaders, well suited to the nature of the country and the character
of the people, in Roland and Cavalier. Roland's was the greater and
nobler personality; but it was upon Cavalier that attention was riveted
towards the end of the struggle. He was not more than eighteen years
old at the beginning of the rising ; but he showed extraordinary gifts,
both for the simple strategy that the occasion required and for the
maintenance of discipline. The struggle was conducted with great
barbarity on both sides. The royal troops hunted down the Camisards
like vermin, without regard to age or sex. Marshal Montrevel, who
succeeded the Count de Broglie in command of the royal forces,
destroyed houses, farms and crops, and reduced the population to the
extreme of starvation. But, as the rebels did not surrender, Montrevel
was withdrawn and the conduct of operations was entrusted to Marshal
Villars, the most successful of the soldiers employed by France in the
War of the Spanish Succession, and a man of great tact and diplomatic
powers. He at once adopted a more conciliatory policy, and in May,
1704, secured an interview with Cavalier at Nimes. Much to the
indignation of his comrades, who still remained in arms, he was induced
to surrender by the offer of command in the royal armies and promises
vague and illusory of toleration for the Protestants. He actually entered
the royal army : but, convinced of the bad faith of his King, he escaped
and joined the allies. He died in 1740, Governor of the Isle of Jersey,
and a major-general in the British service. After his smrender the
resistance in the Cevennes soon collapsed. Roland was killed in a fight.
Protestantism still lingered, and was still subject to cruel persecutions.
It was not until 1710 that the last of the Camisard leaders was hunted
down ; but Protestantism was never really extirpated from the valleys of
the Cevennes. - - . :;

1688-1713] Destruction of municipal liberties. 27

The remainder of the reign of Louis XIV exhibits little of general
interest in the domestic policy and development of France. The long
struggle of the Dutch War had thrown the finances into confusion ; and
now, after a peace of only nine years, France entered upon what was
practically twenty-five years (1688-1713) of warfare against a vast
European coalition. War and diplomacy monopolised the attention of the
Government during all the period, and the internal administration shows
us little more than the reaction of the great struggle. One result of the
War with the Grand Alliance was the utter destruction of the municipal
liberties of Prance. Colbert had already interfered with the towns, but
his interference had been directed against abuses and carried out in the
interests of justice and efficiency. He found the municipal finances in
confusion, the taxes often employed for the pleasures of the magistrates,
the rich throwing a large part of their proper burdens on the shoulders
of the poor. Colbert siibmitted the municipal accounts to the inspection
of the royal intendants ; he scrutinised all claims to fiscal privilege, and
forbade all improper employment of town revenues. Careless as he
always was of popular liberties, and blind to the advantages of self-
government, he often interfered in the elections, imposed candidates of
his own, and annulled the popular choice where he disapproved of the
result. But it was after Colbert's death that the decisive blow was
struck, and for motives far lower than his. In 1692 the War with the
Grand Alliance was straining the resources of IVance, and the Govern-
ment had recourse to expedients of every kind. Chief among these
was the sale of offices ; and this evil practice received an indefinite
extension, when by the Edict of 1692 it was applied to municipal
magistracies. The King declared that it was his intention to create
mayors in aU municipalities, whose offices should be for life and
hereditary. His action was justified in a preamble of amusing sophistry
by the explanation, that " having no longer any reason to fear successors,
they would exercise their functions without passion and with the freedom
which is necessary to secure equality in the assessment of the public
burdens." The same process was carried still lower in the municipal
scale by an Edict of January, 1704, which declared that aldermen and
all other municipal magistracies should be brought under similar rules ;
and again the change was justified on the ground that an annual tenure
of office was insufficient to acquaint men with the duties of their ofiice
and to make them useful to their fellow-citizens. ' The real motive was
financial. The sale of these oflices was a valuable source of income to
the Crown and a terrible burden on the population. The Government,
which during the next century grew almost continuously weaker, could
not renounce an expedient so easy and elastic. In 1706, "alternative
mayors " were created that there might be two ofiices to sell. During
the eighteenth century the right of free election was seven times sold:
to the municipalities of France and seven times taken away again.

28 The capitation. -i'Vraefow on system of government. [1683-1710

Municipal government sank lower and lower in France until the Revolution
came.

Colbert died in 1683 ; Louvois in 1691. After the deaths of these
powerful men the King's government grew more and more pereonal, and
his dislike of independence in his servants greater. Le Peletier was at
the head of the finances from 1683 to 1689; Pontchartrain from 1689
to 1699 held the control of the finances as well as other posts; and
by his position, though not by his abilities, recalled the situation of
Colbert; Chamillart succeeded to the control of the finances in 1699,
and was followed in 1708 by Desmarets, a nephew of Colbert. The
losing struggle which France fought against Europe during these years
brought confusion on her finances and ruin on her manufactures. Yet
the very pressure of her necessities made her look at times in the
direction in which, at the time of the Revolution, she found at last an
escape from her financial embarrassments. Thus in 1699 the capitation
was imposed. This was in name an income-tax that should have been
paid by the whole population of France, privileged and unprivileged.
But the rigime of privilege was too deeply rooted, not only in the
laws but in the habits and idieas of the country. The capitation was
arbitrarily assessed by the intendants, and in some districts of France
they avowed that they made the tax press on the unprivileged with
a weight nearly ten times as great as that which it brought to the
nobility. For instance, in the Orleanais the nohle paid only a hundredth
part of his income, the unprivileged an eleventh part. The capitation
was withdrawn at the time of the peacfe and reestablished during the
War of the Spanish Succession. But it was not enough, and in 1710
the dixieme was established ; an income-tax which should have fallen on
all incomes without exception. But, as before, the privileged managed
in many instances to elude it, and the bankrupt Government of France
supported existence by means of affaires extraordinavres — ^that is to say,
temporary expedients such as the sale of offices, forced loans from
the clergy, debasement of the coinage, loans, lotteries, anticipations
of revenue. And, in spite of all, the balance during the Spanish War
was increasingly against the State. '^

As the glory of: the Grand Monafqim passed under heavy clouds
he became increasingly intolerant of criticism and opposition ; but the
situation Was so serious that criticism made itself heard. F^nelon
had been tutor to the Duke of (Burgundy, and we may see from
TSUmaqtte what were the ideas wii^ which he had tried to inspire his
pupil. A warm spirit of humanity breathes through that and all Fenelon's
writings ; but his sympathies are with the aristocratic and feudal past,
and. his influence, if it had maile itself felt in public affairs, would
have told in favour of a restojration of the power of the nobility.
His political ideas are expressed, not only in TiUmagve, but also in
UExaimen de conscience sur les iflevoirs de ro^auti, which he composed

1691-1707] Criticisms of Boisguillebert and Vauban. 29

for the Duke of Burgundy, and in the Mimovres concemant la guerre
de la succession d'Espagne. But, though all his writings imply a
criticism on the absolutist system of Louis XIV, it is in a letter which
he wrote to the King, probably in 1691, that the most hostile judgment
is expressed. The fate of the letter is somewhat mysterious, and it is
umprobable that so bitter an indictment ever reached the eyes or the
ears of the great King. In this letter he denounced the Dutch War as
the source of all the others ; he derided the King's military preparations,
and directly attacked the ideals and the character of the King; "You
are praised to the skies," he wrote, "for having impoverished France,
and you have built your throne on the ruin of all classes in the State."

Before the end of the reign men of practical knowledge attacked
the King's government with even greater energy. Pierre Le Pesant,
Sieur de Boisguillebertj was a magistrate at Rouen. He published in
1697 a book called the Ditail de la France and another the Factum de la
France, which is little more than a repetition of the conclusions of the
first, in 1707. He writes with vigour and occasionally with humour.
His books are occupied to a large extent with theoretic problems of
political economy, as to which he shows himself in advance of Colbert.
But historically the most valuable part of his book is the picture that
he gives of the working of the actual financial system of France, its
clumsiness, its inefficiency, its tendency to discourage industry. The
Crown, he tells us, derives little advantage from the system and the people
lose the whole value of their labour. He was not content with pointing
out the evil ; he also suggested remedies. His suggestions fall into line with
the general tendency of economic thought during the eighteenth century,
to which he gave a powerful impulse. He demanded the abolition of
pecuniary privilege, the establishment of free trade in com, the removal
of custom houses to the frontiers. His proposal for immediate appli-
cation in the Detail de la France was an extension of a reformed taille
to the privileged classes. In the Factum de la France he goes further and
suggests a capitation, which should amount to a tax of ten per cent, on
all incomes, whether derived from land or other resources. The books
were little read; but Boisguillebert procured an interview with Chamillart,
who seemed inclined to accept some of his ideas. Yet, when the reforms
were postponed on the ground that the war made them impracticable,
Bdisguillebert published a bitter ironic attack on the Minister under the
title of a Supplement to the Ditail de la France. This brought upon
him the suppression of his books and his own exile from Rouen (1707).

But criticism of the methods of government could not be repressed,
and in 1707 Vauban published his Projet d'une dime royale. After Turenne
and Louvois the military glory of Louis XIV's reign owed most to
Vauban ; and he showed a moral courage and a social feeling that rank
him, in truth, much higher than either of the other two. The Dime royale
is, in fact, a treatise on taxation, proposing to make a clean sweep of the

CH. I.

30 Dmiestic troubles of Louis XI Vs last years. [i707-ii

whole existing arrangements and to substitute a simpler system, which,
by abolishing' privilege, should be less burdensome to the people- and
more useful to the King. The preface justifies the search for a new
system by showing the effects of the present one and contains an often;-
quoted passage. "From all the researches that I have been able to make
during several years of close application I have come to the clear con-
clusion that one-tenth of the people is reduced to beggary and does as a
matter of fact live by begging ; of the nine-tenths remaining, five cannot
give alms to the first tenth because they are very little better off 5 of the
other four-tenths three are in far from comfortable circumstances, in the
tenth that still remains there cannot be more than 100,000 families."
There is a good deal of confusion both in the arrangement and the style
of the book ; but its central contentions are placed beyond doubt.
Vauban aimed at the destruction of the rigime of privilege and the
adoption of an income-tax on land and property, without privilege or
exemption. He wished to sweep away the existing. taxes, oppressive by
reason of the exemptions allowed and the method of coHectang theiii.
He compared the ease with which the ecclesiastical tithe was realised
and the absence of complaint against it with the vast expense and the
constant irritation produced by the tqMle. He would, therefore, adapt
the methods of the Church to the need^ ;of the State and suggests the
following taxes: — (1) a tax of from five to ten per cent, on all land,
without regard to privilege ; (2) a graduated) tax on incomes not derived
from land: the working-classes of Fraijee not to pay more than 3^ per
cent.; the incomes of the clergy to be taxed equally with those of other
classes; (3) a modified salt monopoly; (4) a remodelled system of customs,
which should be collected only at the frontier. , Biit Vauban's attempt
to circulate the book privately among his friends aroused the anger of
d'Argenson and Pontchartrain. The book was condemned by royal
edict, and the shock of disgrace hastened Vauban's death (1707).

The end of the Spanish War brought to France some return of
military glory ; but her finances were hopelessly exhausted and her old
King suffered from one shattering blow after another which fell on
his domestic circle. No royal family could seejn more firmly established
than his. Maria Teresa had only borne one son to Louis XIV, who
received the traditional name of Louis. But the King had three grand-
sons; Louis the Duke of Burgundy, Philip, Duke of Ajijou (since 1700
Philip V of Spain); and Charles, Duke of Berry. The Duke of Burgundy
was happily married to Maria Adelaide of Savoy, and had two children.
Yet suddenly, in addition to all her other disasters, France was threatened
by a difficult question of succession. The Dauphin died in April,
1711. He had been completely effaced by his father; and men wel-
comed the prospect of the accession of the Duke of Burgundy, who
had been the pupil of Fe'nelon and had adopted many of his aristocratic
liberal ideas. Men repeated with astonishment and hops his saying

1712-5] Plans for the Regency. — Death of Louis XIV. 31

"that a King is made for his subjects, not the subjects for the King."
Had he lived to inherit the throne there would have been an attempt
made to alter the development of France, probably in a reactionary
feudal direction. But, in 1712, the Duke of Burgundy and his charming
wife and eldest son were aU carried off by a mysterious disease which
seems to have been smallpox, though it roused at the time suspicions of
poison. The Duke of Berry, the third of the King's grandsons, died in
1714. The second, Philip, was King of Spain, and his claim to the
French throne was expressly renouncedby the Treaty of Utrecht. Any
attempt to revive this claim would be the signal for a renewal of war.
The direct heir to the throne was Louis, Duke of Anjou, who was after-
wards Louis XV. He was two years of age, and of feeble health. And
if the boy were to live, according to aH the traditions of France the
Regency would come into the hands of the Duke of Orleans. All eyes
were fixed on him ; and his name awoke the wildest suspicions and fears.
He had fought with distinction in Spain, and possessed a keen and
inquisitive intellect. But he was of an indolent and self-indulgent nature,
plunged in vice and drunkenness, openly opposed to the doctrines and
iieglectful of the practices of the Church. Louis XIV and Madame de
Maintenon saw with alarm the prospect of power coming into his haqds,
for it would mean a complete reaction against the policy which the dying
monarch had pursued in Chiu'ch and State both at home and abroad.
Hence arose the last intrigue, of the reign. The King's fondness for his
illegitimate children had been manifested throughout the latter part of
the reign. And now it was determined to give the reality of power to
the Duke of Maine, the son of Madame de Montespan and the pupil of
Madame de Maintenon. He had shown himself unsuccessful and in-
capable in war ; but it was determined to make him master of France
after the King's death. Tradition made it impossible to deny to the
Duke of Orleans the title of Regent; but the custody of the young
King was to be in the hands of the Duke of Maine and a council of
regency was to be established by the will of the King, so arranged that
the present regkrw would be prolonged and Louis XIV would still
rule France from his grave. But the King and his wife miscalculated
the forces against them. The age was weary of the long and now
disastrous reign ; men were more attracted by the known opposition of
the Duke of Orleans to the reigning policy than frightened by his
reputation. Thus the King's schemes were foredoomed to failure, when,
after a reign of seventy-two years (the longest reign recorded in history)
he died on September 1, 1715.

82

CHAPTER II.

THE FOREIGN POLICY OF LOUIS XIV.
(1661-97.)

The prominent position occupied in Europe by France under
Louis XIV from the death of Mazarin in 1661 to the Treaty of
Ryswyk in 1697 affected in a marked though varying degree the
politics of the whole of Western Christendom. In examining the
causes and results of the rise of France to this position, a distinction
must be drawn between the earlier and the later portion of the period.
Till 1688, Louis succeeded in many of his aims, and dinging these
twenty-seven years he secured for France territorial acquisitions of
enormous value. After 1688, he was opposed by a European Confederacy
against which he barely'managed to hold his own. Nevertheless, in 1697
Francp still stood forth not only as the nation most advanced in the arts
of civilisation, but also as the most powerful of European States, and a
danger to the balance of power among them.

The supremacy which France had thus attained in both arms and
arts, and the partial success which had attended Louis' policy of
territorial aggression were due to many causes, chief among which
were the consistent internal policy of the two great Cardinal Ministers
and the politica,! condition of the chief European States, Richelieu and
lilazarin had, after infinite labour, reduced the nobility to obedience and
laid down the lines on which the development of France should proceed.
At home, religious toleration, the reduction of provincial autonomy, and
the subordination of the Parlement of Paris to the royal power ; abroad,
alliance with England and the United Provinces, and encouragement of
the independence of the Princes of the Empire — such was the substance
of the political legacy bequeathed by the two far-sighted Cardinals to
the young King,

It remained for Louis to take advantage of the political weakness of
the great European States and, following the policy of the Cardinals, so to
strengthen the monarchy that no Power or combination of Powers could
by whatever means weaken its foundations. In carrying out this scheme
Louis was aided by a variety of circumstances, England under Charles II

1661-99] The designs of Louis XIV. 33

and James II made no effective resistance to French projects ; while the
Empire was as disunited as ever, and many of its members continued
more jealous of the power of the Emperor than they were of that
of France. Moreover, the sudden recovery of Turkey under the
Kiuprilis kept the east of Europe in a state of continual alarm; nor
was it till the Treaty of Carlo witz in 1699 that the perennial menace to
the Habsburg dominions was sensibly lessened. But the most alarming
fact that Europe had to face was the fall of Spain from the position
she had held under Charles V and his successors till the Peace of the
Pyrenees. The disappearance of Spain from among the great European
nations aided in a marked degree the rise of France under Louis XIV.

At the time of Mazarin's death the political outlook for France was
promising. Louis XIV's marriage with Maria Teresa, the Spa,nish
Infanta, brought with it possibilities of which time could alone determine
the value. By the Treaty of the Pyrenees, France had strengthened
herself on her north-eastern frontier by the acquisition of Avesnes, on
the side of the Pyrenees by finally securing Roussillon, between Sambre
and Meuse by the cession of Philippeville and Marienbourg, and in
Lorraine by that of Bar, Clermont, Stenay, Dun, and Jarmetz. The
Duke of Neuburg, the ally of France, had obtained Jiilich; French
troops had acquired the right to march through Lorraine ; the League
of the Rhine still more or less looked towards France for guidance.

The aspirations of the French nation were, however, by no means
satisfied. The frontier of the Rhine had not yet been secured, and the
Spanish Netherlands had not been conquered. Much, therefore, remained
to be done ; and by Louis XIV and his most astute advisers the Peace of
the Pyrenees was regarded as merely a truce.

Till the War of Devolution in 1667, Louis contented himself with
making elaborate preparations, with secretly helping the Portuguese,
with concluding alliances in 1663 with Denmark, and in 1664 with
Brandenburg and Saxony, and with taking an active part in the same year
in the internal conflicts of the Empire. With the opening of the War
of Devolution France entered upon a period of conquest and expansion,
and till 1688 success on the whole crowned her efforts. From 1688,
however, to the Treaty of Ryswyk in 1697, Louis XIV found himself
confronted by an almost united Europe, and for the first time since the
days of Mazarin a definite check was inflicted on French arms and
French diplomacy. Nevertheless, throughout these years France held
the foremost place in Europe. Had Louis XIV contented himself with
following the policy of Richelieu, France would have been spared many
disasters. But both in his home and foreign policy he aimed at ideals
which in certain respects resembled those pursued by the Emperor
Charles V.

No serious opposition to Louis' schemes was to be expected from
Spain. That country was slowly but steadily declining in power and

0. M. B. y. CH. 11. 3

34 Decadence of Spain. [i 661-89

influence. Spain had made a brave show during the Thirty Years' War
and the succeeding eleyen years ; but the revolt of Portugal, the alliance
between the English Commonwealth and France, the loss of Jamaica, and ;
the humiliating terms of the Peace of the Pyrenees, were alike proofs
of weakness. The failure of Philip IV, between 1661 and 1665, to
reconquer Portugal was still more significant. Portugal could only
collect 13,000 men to oppose two Spanish armies, one of 20,000, and
the other of 15,000 men. But Charles. II of England, who in 1662 had
married a Portuguese Princess, placed an auxiliary force under the com-
mand of the able "Comte" Frederick Hermann "de Schomberg," who had
several years earlier entered the Portuguese service on the recommenda-
tion of France; and the Count of Castel-Melhor, who owing to the
imbecility of the young King Alfonso VI was at the head of affairs,
showed ;conspicuous energy. At Evora, Don John of Austria, the chief
Spanish Commander, was worsted, and at Amegial,, on June 8, 1663, his
army was, mainly through the gallantry of the English auxiliaries,
disastrously defeated.

In 1665 Count Caracena,' who had superseded Don John, headed a
Spanish, army which had been reinforced from Italy and Flanders, and
besieged Villa Viciosa. On the approach of the Portuguese and English
forces under Marialva and Schomberg he advanced, and on June 17,
gave battle at Montes Claros, where he suffered a crushing defeat.,
Philip IV had failed, and recognised the humiliating character of his
failure. On September 17, 1665, he died, overwhelmed with a sense
of Spain's ruin and degradation, leaving the crown to his son Charles II,
who was only four years old.

During the reign of Charles II Spain sank to the lowest point ever
touched in her history., The causes, both external and internal, of her
decadence can be traced back to the days when she was governed by
the Emperor Charles V and have, been discussed in earlier volumes of
this History. Under the rule of Charles II no steps were taken to
arrest the decline that had become almost irretrievable. The last repre-
sentative of his race, Charles II was small in stature, with large blue
eyes, light hair, and a white skin. His health was always deplorable ;
and, as he grew older, he was frequently attacked by fainting fits. But,
though he was so irresolute that he could settle nothing without advice,
he was not wanting in intelligence, and the last act of his reign showed
that in his own way he had the interests of Spain at heart.

On his accession Charles II was under the care of his mother Maria
Anna, sister of the Emperor Leopold; as he grew older, he became more
and more indifferent to all his duties; unlike Louis XIV, he detested the
cares of government, and rarely attended a Council. "If it was necessary
that he should be a Prince," said the Venetian Ambassador, "he ought
to be a Prince of the Church." He married twice, first Marie-Louise of
Orleans, who died in 1689, and after her Maria Anna of Neuburg,

1661-97]; Decadence of Spain. 35

sister of Eleonora Magdalena, third wife of the Emperor Leopold, and
of Maria Sophia, who married King Pedro of Portugal. To the Queen-
Mother and to Charles' second Queen must in some measure be
attributed the misfortunes of the reign; The Queen-Mother was in
close alliance with her confessor. Father Nithard, a German Jesuit.
Both were unpopular in Spain, but they were able to expel from Court
Don John of Austria, an illegitimate son of Philip IV, who was a man
of no capacity and eaten up with vanity. In 1669 Nithard was forced
to retire, but his place was taken by Fernando de Valenzuela, who sup-
ported the cause of the Queen-Mother. After failing in 1676 to carry
out a coup d'etat, Don John proved successful in 1677. Valenzuela fled ;
the Queen-Mother was sent to a convent at Tours ; and Charles married
in August, 1679, Marie-Louise of Orleans. Don John's triumph was
brief, for he died in September, 1679, having outlived his popularity.

His death was followed by the return of the Queen-Mother and
the triumph of the Austrian faction. Till April, 1685, the Duke of
Medina-Celi made vain attempts to check the anarchy and misery which
prevailed in Spain, and which was not lessened by the struggles at Court
between the Austrian and French parties. In April, 1685, the Count pf :
Oropesa succeeded Medina-Celi and managed to carry out some reforms.
He was a member of the Austrian party, and on the death of Marie-
Louise of Orleans assisted the Queen-Mother in bringing about, the
marriage of Charles to Maria Anna of Neuburgi The new Queen soon
turned against Oropesa, who fell in 1691, his duties being transferred
at first to the Count of Melgar, Admiral of Castile. The rapacity of
the Queen and of her German followers made her very unpopular and
prepared the way for the triumph of French influences in 1701. Thus,
from the death of Mazarin in 1661 to the Treaty of Ryswyk in 1697,
Spain was unable to oflfer any effective resistance to the schemes of
Louis XIV; the European balance was considerably affected by her
disappearance as one of the great Powers.

The Empire as a whole cannot be said to have realised the danger
which threatened it from the ambitious projects of France till the
formation of the Grand Alliance in 1689. The Augsburg Alliance of
July, 1686, though it united in it a considerable number of Estates,
including both Spain and Sweden for their German possessions, was
only an extension of the Luxemburg Alliance of June, 1682, which had
been confined to the Emperor and the Franconian and Upper-Rhenish
Circles. Moreover, the Emperor Leopold was not able to offer any
effective opposition to Louis. Till 1672 he was outwitted by French
diplomatists, and, after fighting against Louis from 1672 to 1679, was
glad to make peace. The Hungarians, too, instigated in part by the
diplomacy of the French "Defensor Hv^ngariae,^ had risen against
Leopold under Count Emeric Tokolyi (1677-82). Till 1689 the Estates
of the Empire could not be relied upon to offer a united opposition

OH. II. 3 — 2

36 Weakness of the chief European States. [icGi-ro

to the French monarch. From the Peace of Nymegen in 1678 their
suspicions of the real aims of the German policy of Louis began to
assume a definite shape; but the long war between Austria and the
Turks "which broke out in 1682 and lasted till 1699 prevented Leopold
from ' tising the strength of the Empire against its most dangerous
adversary.

During the period from 1661 to 1670, the weakness of the Empire,
the decadence of Spain, and the embittered war between England' and
Holland, enabled Louis XIV to foraiulate and carry out an aggressive
policy, deliberately calculated to extend the boundaries of France and to
strengthen and consolidate her position in Europe. The only Power
which showed similar aggressive tendencies was Turkey. Under
Mohammad IV (1648-87) and the Kiuprilis, the gradual decline of
Tiurkiey was checked; and, from 1656 to the siege of Vienna in 1683, the
Ottoman Empire like the French kingdom enjoyed a period of success.
The attacks of the Turks upon Transylvania (1661), upon Hungary
(1663), upon Candia (1669), and upon Poland (1672-8), indeed, aided
the projects of Louis XIV; for, by diverting eastwards the attention
of the Poles and Austrians, they weakened the Emperor's power of
resistance to the French aggressions.

In the west, too, the years fi'om the death of Mazarin in 1661 to the
invasion of the Low Countries by France in 1667 constitute a period in
which events favoured Louis, and facilitated his preparations for taking
his first step towards the establishment of his daims upon the succession
to the Spanish monarchy. As the Spanish throne was not then vacant,
Louis contented himself with asserting his claim to the immediate
possession of the Spanish Netherlands. It was based upon the so-called
jus devolutionis — a local custom of Brabant and Hainault, by which,
though a man might ' have married more than once, the children of
his first marriage succeeded to his property. Since Maria Teresa, the
consort of Louis XIV, was the only surviving child of Philip IV's first
marriage, Louis claimed the whole of the Low Countries ; though in the
course of his negotiations with Spain in 1662 he had declared his
willingness to be satisfied with instant possession of Hainault, Cambray,
Luxemburg, and Franche Coiiite.

The negotiations with Spain were resultless ; but Louis never ceased
his efforts to carry out his object. Already in April, 1662, he had
entered into friendly negotiations with the leading statesman of the
United Provinces, John de Witt, Grand Pensionary of Holland, and had
concluded a treaty guaranteeing all the Dutch possessions in Europe. He
had hoped at the same time to arrive at some arrangement with regard to
the Spanish Netherlands. The plan of equal partition between France
and the United Provinces was eventually rejected by de Witt, who
preferred that the Spanish Netherlands should be erected into an inde-
pendent Catholic republic, or remain under Spain if the latter Power

1665-7] The French invasion of' Flanders. 37

entered into a close .alliance with; the free Provinces. To. Louis, who,
like, Mazarin, desired the annexation to France of the .Spanish Low
Countries, none of de Witt's suggestions were acceptable ; and the
death of Philip IV of Spain, on September 17, 1665, seenied a suitable
opportunity for pressing the supposed claims of the King of Erance.
But in March, 1665, war had broken out between England and Holland;
and Louis was, by the treaty of April, 1662, bound to aid the Dutch.
Though they were able to assert , their supremacy at sea, the alliance
of Charles II of England with ,the warlike Bishop of Miinster resulted
in his raising a large arniy and overrunning the province qf Overyssel.
De Wittj, however, succeeded in persuading Louis XIV to carry out his
treaty engagementsi though the behaviour of the Erench troops nomin-
ally hostile to the Bishop of Miinster tended to .increase the dislike
felt by the Dutch for their allies. In January, 1666, Louis, fearing that
de Witti , might conclude peace with Charles II, reluctantly, declared
war against England. The French alliance aiFected the fortunes of
Holland in a variety of ways. It strengthened the hands of the Dutch,
who, early in 1666, won a series of diplomatic successes. Denmark
concluded an alliance with them ; Sweden was induced not to unite with
England. At the same time, some of the German Princes became
fearful of the results of a too close dependence of the United Provinces
upon France. In October, 1666, the United Provinces were enabled,
through the influence of the Great Elector ^^who had in February, 1666,
threatened the Bishop of Miinster— to form a Quadruple Alliance with
Brandenburg, the Brunswick-Luneburg Princes, and Denmark.

Engleind was thus left practically without an ally, and the Dutch
were free from the necessity of placing too much reliance upon France.
During 1666 the war between England and the United Provinces
continued with varying results. In 1667 two important events took
place. On March 31 Charles made the first of his secret treaties with
Louis XIV, agreeing not to oppose a French invasion of the Spanish
Netherlands, on the understanding that the French fleet withheld: all
assistance from the Dutch. But the calculations of Charles were upset
in June, 1667, by the Dutch attack on the English ships in the Thames
and Med way — which compelled Charles to agree to the Treaty of Breda
on July 31, 1667. For the United Provinces peace was absolutely
necessary, since on May 24 French troops had crossed the frontier of
the Spanish Low Countries, and the War of Devolution had begun.

For this war Louis' preparations had been carefully made. By a
treaty with Portugal, concluded in March, 1667, it was arranged that
hostilities between that country and Spain should continue ; by the
treaty of 1662 with the United Provinces their hands were tied; and by
the secret treaty of March 31, 1667, Charles II had bound himself not
to enter into an alliance with the Emperor against Louis XIV during
.the year 1667. Secure of a free hand in the Spanish Low Countries,
CB. u.

38 The Triple Alliance. [i667-8

Louis ordered his troops to cross the frontier (May 24, 1667). The
southern portion of the Spanish Low Countries was speedily over-
run; and Lille, the most important of the Belgian cities, was taken
(August 27).

This rapid success alarmed Europe, and signs of opposition to
France at once appeared. Spain hastily recognised the independence of
Portugal (February, 1668), and, freed from all necessity of continuing
her attempts to reconquer that kingdom, endeavoured' to secure the
assistance of the Emperor Leopold in the Low Countries. Her eiforts
were in vain. Louis, by the able diplomacy of his ambassador Gravel,
contrived to induce the Imperial Diet in October, 1667, to abstain from
active assistance to the Spaliish Low Countries (which technically formed
part of the Circle of Burgundy, one of the ten Imperial Circles) ; but
he was unable to succeed in bringing about by the same means the
continuance of the League of the • Rhine beyond its formal term
(August, 1668); when, after much negotiation, it came to an end.
Further, by means of his able agent de Gremonville, Louis not only
persuaded the Emperor Leopold to withhold all assistance from Spain,
but actually induced him to agree to a treaty, signed on January 19,
1668, for the eventual partition of the Spanish monarchy between
himself and Louis, should King Charles II, as seemed probable, die
without children.

So far, the success of the French King had been remarkable and
unchecked. Having secured by various means the neutrality of Branden-
burg, and that of Sweden, and having encouraged the war between
England aiid Holland, Louis had met with no serious resistance in his
subjugation of the Spanish Low Countries. By the beginning of 1668
Spain was isolated and the alliance, or at all events the quiescence, of
the Emperor secured. But it was these extraordinary successes of Louis
which brought about the formation of the coalition between England,
the United Provinces, and Sweden, almost distinctively known as the
Triple Alliance.

Some such coalition was justified, not only by the French invasion of
the Spanish Netherlands, but by the French conquest of Franche Comte,
which was effected in February, 1668. On January 23 England and the
United Provinces concluded an alliance which in April was on certain
conditions joined by Sweden. Louis had thus to face a formidable
adverse combination. The importance of the Triple Alliance lies in the
fact that it was the " first formal expression of European resistance to
the aggressions of Louis "—the first attempt to check a Power which
continued to dominate Europe till the Treaty of Ryswyk. Spain and
Portugal were now at peace (February, 1668), the influence of England
being paramount in the latter kingdom ; and Louis could no longer rely
upon the abstention of Spain from active measures in the Low Countries.
Moreover, by consenting to make peace, he would lose little, and would

1668-V2] The Treaty of Aioo-la-Chapelle. 39

break up the coalition which was being formed against him. By his
recent secret partition treaty with the Emperor Leopold, Louis was
eventually to receive as his share the Low Countries and Franche Comte.
Though his pride caused him to resent the necessity of yielding to the
Triple Alliance, Louis in the end agreed to come to terms with England,
Holland, and Sweden. On May 2, 1668, the Peace of Aix-la-Chapelle
was signed. In this compact Louis strengthened his north-eastern
frontier by the acquisition of certain fortresses in the Netherlands
with their districts. Franche Comte, Cambray, St Omer, and Aire
were given up by the King of France; but by the secret partition
treaty with Leopold it had been aiTanged that on the King of Spain's
death all these were to be incorporated in the French dominions.

In face of the growing hostility of Europe Louis showed wisdom in
agreeing to the Peace of Aix-la-Chapelle and in adopting a waiting
policy. Yet Europe was far from being united ; Brandenburg and other
German States were jealous of the Emperor ; England and the United
Provinces regarded each other with hostility ; Sweden was ready to fall
in with the highest bidder. Some twenty years had yet to pass before
the chief European States, recognising the danger which threatened them
from France, were found prepared to sink minor differences in a united
effort to reduce the power of the aggressive French monarch. Louis XIV,
however, bitterly resented the necessity which forced him to agree to the
Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle, and from the moment of its signature seems
to have resolved to gain his ends in the Spanish Netherlands by means
of a direct attack upon the United Provinces. This decision ran counter
to the policy to which the French monarchy had adhered since the
days of Francis I. For it was distinctly opposed to the principle of
pursuing Catholic interests at home and Protestant abrdad, which
had enabled France to secure allies against the Eniperor among the
German Protestant Princes. Louis, however, was bent on the reduction
of the Spanish Netherlands ; and the surest means to that end seemed to
be found in the overthrow of the Dutch Republic. The magnitude
of this blunder became more and more apparent, as the reign of
Louis XIV proceeded. " In Holland," writes Mignet, " the old political
system of France suffered shipwreck."

In order to achieve the end which Louis proposed to himself, the
overthrow of the new combination which had led to the Treaty
of Aix-la-Chapelle was necessary. TTie task was at once undertaken.
"The years between 1668 arid 1672," writes Camille Rousset, " were
years of preparation; when Lionne was labouring with all his might
to find allies, Colbert money, and Louvois soldiers for Louis." The
task of breaking up the Triple Alliance itself, however, did not prove to
be one of insuperable difficulty. For a short period after the formation
of this Alliance western Europe remained in a condition of uneasy
peace, while the obnoxious compact was being rapidly undermined.

ca. u.

40 Eise of the Turkish Power. [1656-72

The three partners in it were ill-assorted, and without any real
ground of agreement. Sweden had little to fear from Louis., Her
interest required constant watchfulness as towards Denmark and northern
Germany. With Denmark Sweden was in an almost unending feud;
while by her successes in the Thirty Years' War she had acquired pos-
sessions in northern Germany, which could not be regarded as definitively
united to the Swedish monarchy. The rise of Brandenburg already
threatened the stability of the arrangements made by the Treaty , of
Westphalia in the north-east of the Empire. Moreover, Sweden was
a poor country, and her Government was ready to unite with any Power
that offered regular subsidies, especially if combined with military
assistance for, the defence of Swedish Pomerania. From England and
Holland no adequate help either in money or men could be looked
for in the event of an attack upon Swedish Pomerania by any German
Power. It was therefore not surprising that Sweden was easily detached
from the Triple Alliance and made a treaty with Louis on May 6, 1672.
Charles II of England had already by the Secret Treaty, of Dover, signed
on June 1, 1670, deserted the Triple Alliance and promised to join
France in a war against the Dutch Republic.

The Triple Alliance was thus broken up, and, four years after its
conclusion, Louis XIV was able to invade the United Provinces. Till
1688 constant attempts were made to form coalitions against France;
but, owing to the policy of Charles II and James II of England, to the
Franco-Swedish Alliance, to the necessity of defending Germany and
Hungary against the Turks, to the divisions existing among the various
German States and to their suspicions of the Emperor, no organised
oppo,sition was possible.

Unfortunately for the peace of the whole continent, the aggressions
of Louis XIV in the west, which definitely ' began in 1672, coincided
with the attempts of the Turks to dominate eastern Europe. In 1656
the appointment of Mohammad Kiuprili as Grand Vizier marked the
beginning of the sudden revival of the Ottoman power, of which some
account will be given in a later chapter. His successor, Ahmad Kiuprili,
continued his policy of reform at home and aggressions abroad. With
the help of Louis XIV, who sent a French force to his help, the Emperor
Leopold defeated the Turks in the battle of St Gothard on August 1,
1664, and concluded the Truce of Vasvar on August 10. Vienna was
saved; but the hold which the Turks had established over Hungary
remained unshaken, and a compromise was arranged with regard to
Transylvania. The outbreak of war between Turkey and Venice resulting
in the capture of Crete (September, 1669) showed that the ambitious
aggressive policy of the Ottoman, power was as dangerous to the integrity
and peace of eastern as that of Louis, XIV was to that of western
Europe. In 1669 the Polibh Diet elected not the French candidate,

1669-77] Louis' preparations for war with Holland. 41

the Count Palatine Philip William of Neuburg, but Michael Wisniowiecki,
the national candidate, who was married to Eleonora Maria, the sister
of the Emperor Leopold, and looked to him for support.

It was impossible to hope for a united resistance to the French King,
so long as there was a possibility of a Turkish attack upon Vienna, an
opportunity for which was afforded by the disturbed condition of Poland.
In 1672 that country was invaded by Ahmad Kiuprili ; but the Turks
were defeated by John Sobieski both before and after he had, in 1674,
succeeded the weak Michael on the Polish throne. In June, 1674,
Louis XIV made a treaty with thfe new King, who, in consideration for
French subsidies,! promised to support the malcontents in Hungary
against the Emperor. The war between Poland and Turkey was brought
to an end by the Treaty of Zurawna, concluded under French mediation
on October 27, 1676. But, though by this treaty Ahmad Kiuprili,
who died three days after its conclusion, left his country in a position
in eastern Europe not very unlike that occupied by France in western,
his alliance with Poland was of little benefit to Louis XIV; and in
1683, when Vienna was besieged by the Turks, it was the King of
Poland who bore away the glory of the rescue. While, however, John
Sobieski was defending eastern Europe during the years 1674-7, the
Emperor, even though aided by Spain, the Dutch, Brandenburg, and
Denmark, proved unable to place any substantial check upon the
ambitious policy of Louis XIV.

In 1670 Louis had been resolved to win eventually the Imperial
Crown, to secure part of the Spanish possessions, and to conquer the
United Provinces. On February 17 of that year he had concluded a
treaty with Ferdinand Maria, Elector of Bavaria, whose daughter,
Maria Anna, was to marry the Dauphin, providing that in the event of
the Emperor's death every possible effort should be made to secure his
own election to the Imperial throne. The Treaty of Dover of the same
year, followed by the formal detachment of Sweden from the Triple
AUiance (April 14, 1672), left the United Netherlands open to a French
attack ; while the secret partition treaty concluded with the Emperor in
1668, followed by a treaty of neutrality in 1671, left it in the power
of Louis to renew his occupation of Franche Comtd. Sweden had been
gained by the payment of 400,000 crowns and the proinise of an annual
payment of 40,000 crowns. In return, Sweden undertook, in concert
with Denmark, to close the Baltic to the Dutch fleet and to larid a
force in the north of Germany. Like the alliance with England, that
with Sweden proved of great value to France during the ensuing war.
On December 31, 1669, Louis had made a secret treaty with the Elector
of Brandenburg, who, in return for subsidies, to which was afterwards
added the promise of the province of Spanish Gelders, undertook to
aid France in conquering the Spanish Netherlands, and to support the
interests of France in all the affairs of the Empire. Behind the plan of

42 The European situation. [i67i-2

conquering first the United Provinces and then the Spanish Netherlands
lay,: therefore, the design of securing for Louis a position of authority
and power such as had been held by Charles the Great.

The Devolution War had thus not only disunited Europe, but had
been followed by unexpected developments. In more or less intimate
connexion with the rivalry of France and Spain, which, at the time of the
death of Mazarin, was the most momentous fact in European politics,
and remained such throughout Louis XIV's reign, arose other important
questions. In 1668, Louis had, as has been seen, concluded with the
Emperor a secret partition treaty, which was to come into force in the
event of the death of Charles II of Spain. Would that treaty hinder
the Emperor from opposing the schemes of Louis with regard to the
United Netherlands, Flanders, the German lands on the Rhine, and
Poland, or interfere with his intrigues in Hungary?

Though the League of the Rhine was no longer in existence, Louis
had, as has been seen, entered into separate treaties with several of
the German Powers, such as Bavaria and Brandenburg. Would they
remain loyal to their alliance with France, should Louis adopt an aggres-
sive attitude towards the Empire? By the Treaty of Dover England
had been detached • from the Triple Alliance. But would the- English
people consent to support the action of the French King, when once
they realised the import of his ambitious schemes, and would they allow
the national interests of England to be subordinated to the designs of
Charles II for the maintenance of his 'personal power?

Thus, at the opening of the French war with the United Provinces in
1672, the European situation was extremely complicated. For a time
each of the various States seemed to pursue its separate interests
regardless of the welfare of Europe; and the diplomacy of the period
was more than usually tangled. Yet the policy of Louis had never
been clearer. For a successful attack on the Dutch it was necessary,
after breaking up the Triple Alliance, to secure the alliance or neutrality
of the Emperor and of as many German Princes as possible. The
Treaty of Dover had placed at Louis' disposal the English fleet, which
alone could render useless the Dutch navy; the treaty of April 14, 1672,
had secured the invaluable help of a Swedish army in northern Germany.
Treaties with Miinster, Cologne, Hanover in July, and with Osnabriick
in October, 1671, provided for the unhindered passage of French troops ;
and on December 18, 1671, the Emperor Leopold, fearing that Louis
might stir up the Hungarians to rebellion, and encourage the German
Princes to combine against him, promised neutrality so long as Louis
abstained from attacking Spain or the Empire.

Alone among the chief German Princes, the Great Elector, whose
strong Protestant feeling contributed to his decision, declined Louis'
proposals, and in February, 1671, concluded a treaty with the Dutch
Republic, to become effectual in April, 1672, by which he promised

1671-4] The French invasion of Holland. 43

♦

armed assistance. Spain also, in December, 1671, signed a treaty with
the States-General for mutual defence ; and the Elector of Mainz,
though he maintained friendly relations with France, also resolved to
support the Dutch.

Early in 1672 a powerful French force was collected at Charleroi,
and on May 5 it was joined by Louis XIV in person. The invasion of
the United Provinces at once took place, while the forces of Luxeiiiburg,
Cologne, and Miinster occupied Overyssel and besieged Groningen,
which they failed to take; Mealiwhile, the French overran the southern
portion of the United Provinces; but on June 18 the dykes were cut,
and the sluices opened in front of Amsterdam, which was thereby saved.
Louis' failure to overrun Holland synchronised with the defeat of a
French force which endeavoured to overcome Zealand; moreover, on
June 7 a combined Anglo-French fleet had been defeated by de Ruyter
in the battle of Southwold Bay. On July 6 and 8, William of Orange
was proclaimed Stadholder of Holland and Zealand; on August 1, as
will be narrated in a subsequent chapter, the French invasion came to
an end, and Louis returned to St Germain, having conquered Gelders,
Utrecht, and Overyssel; on August 9,0, John and Cornelius de Witt
were murdered at the Hague.

These events created profound alarm in Europe, although for some
years the attitude of the various European Powers with regard to the
French aggressions was uncertain, and their opposition betrayed great
lack of vigom-. On June 23, 1672, the Emperor Leopold concluded an
alliance with Frederick William of Brandenburg, and on October 27
another with the States-General, This coalition, sometimes called the
Great Coalition of the Hague, did not prove very effective. Turenne's
successes on the lower Rhine and the Weser, and his march upon the Elbe,
forced Frederick William to make peace on June 6, 1673, and thus
deprived the Dutch of their most valuable ally. A peace conference
which met in June, 1673, at Cologne liaving' proved a failure, the
Emperor formed a second Coalition, which was joined in the autumn
of 1673 by Spain and the Duke of Lorraine, and in 1674) by Denmark,
the Elector Palatine, the Brunswick-Liineburg Dukes, and on July 1 by
the Great Elector. Further, the English Parliament forced Charles II
to abandon his alliance with Louis, and to make peace with the Dutch,
on February 19, 1674.

In June, 1672, the States-General had offered Louis Maestricht and
its dependencies, a number of fortresses stretching from the Meuse to
the mouth of the Scheldt, and six millions of livres. By the advice of
Louvois, Louis had rejected this offer. At the beginning of 1674 the
only Dutch towns in his possession were Maestricht and Grave. Never-
thdess, in spite of his mistakes, and notwithstanding the number of his
foes, Louis in 1674 won some brilliant successes. In June Franche
Comte was conquered, on August 11 Conde checked William of Orange

44 France at war with Europe. [i674-8

in the battle of SenefF in Flanders; Ayhile on the Rhine Turenne conducted
a most brilliant campaign. He defeated the Imperialists on June 16 at
Sinsheim, driving them across the Il^eckar; and then, acting in accordance
with the orders of Louvois, he devastated the Palatinate. A further
victory at Enzheim on October, 4 had no definite result, as a fresh con-
centration of his jadversaries, reinforced by 20,000 Brandenburgers,
forced Turenne to retire into winter-quarters in Lorraine. .His enemies
thought that the campaign was pver and took no priecautions. This
was Turenne's opportunity ; and, in spite of the opposition of Louis and
Louvois, he determined[to reconquer Alsace. In December, 1674, he carried
out his brilliant Vosgess campaign, which closed with the defeat of the
Great- Elector, pn January 5, 1675, at Colmar, and the expulsion of the
enemy from the, country on the left bank of the Rhine.

In 1675 Turenne continued his successful campaign, out-manoeuvring
the Imperialist general Montecuculi, and forcing him to retire to
Sasbach to the east of Strassburg. There, on July 27, 1675, Turenne
fell, and with his ,,d?ath the great successes of the French ended.
Though Con de preserved Alsace for France,, the Due de Crequy was
defeated on the Moselle on August 11, and Trier and Philippsburg
were lost. The Swedes, on whose intervention in Brandenburg the
French had placed high hopes, had on June 18 been decisively defeated
in the battle of Fehrbellin ,by the Great Elector and forced to beat a
disastrous retreat. The campaigns of 1676 and 1677 were generally
favourable to France. The towns of Gpnde and Bouchain were taken by
Louis in 1676,; and in 1677 Valenciennes, Cambray, and St Omer fell
into French hands. William of Orange also suffered a disastrous defeat
at Cassel, and Christian V of Denmark was overthrown by the Swedes
at Lunden. In the Mediterranean the French fleet was on the whole
successful. There Duquesne fought engagements ofi^ Stromboli (January 8,
1676) and Catania (April 22) with a Dutch fleet under de Ruyter ; but
both battles remained undecided. The death of de Ruyter, however, was
of immense advantage to the French, who for a time remained supreme
in the Mediterranean.

Jn 1678 aU the Powers were ready for peace. On November 16,
1677, William of Orange had married Mary, daughter of the Duke
of York ; and on January 10, 1678, a treaty between England and the
Republic was signed. It seemed that at last France would encounter
the united opposition pf the two countries. But William's hopes were
almost immediately disappointed; for the treaty was never ratified,
owing to the resolution of the Republic, in consequence of its suspicions
of the terms of the treaty of January 10, to make a separate peace with
Louis. In May William, convinced of the treachery of Charles, who
the same month signed a secret agreement with Louis, consented to
negotiate,

But Louis' attempts to gain undue advantages suddenly changed the

1678-9] The Treaty of Nymegen. 45

whole situation. Charles was compelled to tear up his secret agreement
with Louis and to sign, on July 26, a treaty with the Dutch. Recognising
the strength of public opinion in England aind Holland, Louis 'finally
agreed to make peace with the Republic on August 10, 1678; France
ceding Maestricht and the Dutch incurring no loss. A second treaty^
relating to commerce, abolished the onerous tariffs of 1667 and restored
the more moderate of 1664.

On ' August 14 William of Orange and Luxembourg fought before
Mons, then invested by the Frenchj the battle of St Denys. Both
generals knew that peace had been concluded, but William had no
official knowledge of the fact.

A treaty between France and Spain was signed on September 17.
Spain was not in a condition to continue the war. Her King Charles II
had a,ttained his majority on November 6, 1675. This event was soon
followed by the overthrow of Fernando de Valenzuela, who, with the Queen-
Regent, now fell into disgrace, and by the temporary ascendancy of Don
John of Austria, the King's illegitimate brother; Don John, however,
soon became unpopular, and, finding himself surrounded by internal
difiiculties, was anxious for peace with France. Spain yielded Franche
Gomte, Valenciennes, Aire, St Omer,Cassel, Bailleul, Poperinge,Wameton,
Ypres, Cambray and the Cambresis,- Bouchain, Conde, and Maubeuge, all
of which were regarded as necessary for the defence of the French frontier.
France on her part restored to Spain, Courtray, Oudenarde, Ath, Ghent,
Binch, Charleroi, and the duchy and town of Limburg.

With the Emperor and Empire peace was signed' by France on
February 26, 1679. Louis restored Philippsburg, but kept Breisach
and Freiburg. To Duke Charles V of Lorraine, his duchy was restored
on certain conditions, namely, that France should keep Nancy, Longwy
aiid Marsal, and control the four principal roads traversing the country.
The Duke refused to accept these conditions, and the duchy remained
in French hands till the Peace of Ryswyk. These four treaties are
known as the Peace of Nymegen, and were supplemented by the Treaty
of St Germain-en-Laye between Brandenburg and Sweden, and by the
Treaty of Fontainebleau between Denmark and Sweden. The first of
these treaties was signed on June 29, 1679. During the war with
Sweden the Great Elector had, besides winning the battle of Fehrbellin,
taken Stettin and Stralsuhd. But, the Emperor having in the name
of the Empire agreed to the restoration of Sweden's German possessions,
Frederick William was compelled to give up to the Swedes nearly all
his conquests in western Pomerania. By the Treaty of Fontainebleau
sighed on September 26, 1679, Denmark also restored to Sweden the
conquests made in Scania and the Baltic.

The Treaties of Zurawna and Nymegen reestablished peace in
Europe, which now enjoyed a short period of rest. Though the Treaty
of Nymegen had in a general way reaffirmed the terms of the Peace of

46 Louis' power at its height. [i678-89

Westphalia, France was in a far stronger position in 1678 than in 1648.
Spain in 1678 was in a condition of decadence, while the Einpire
was not only involved in troubles in Hungary, but was seriously
threatened by, the resurrection of Turkey. Moreover, though the
League of the Rhine no longer existed, the suspicious attitude of the
German Princes towards the Emperor was not as yet thoroughly changed.
This suspicious attitude was encouraged and strengthened by Louis,
who, by adroitly distributing pensions to certain Princes and influential
personages in various German States, secured if not their active support
at any rate their neutrality.

In its origin the war was an attempt of Louis to conquer and destroy
the United Provinces. It had developed into a European struggle, and
its end had been that the United Provinces had secured the abolition of
the hostile tariffs of 1667, and had gained Maestricht without losing any
territory, while Louis secured Franche Comte and some towns in the
Spanish Netherlands. Louis' object in entering the war had not been
attained, and his triumph was far from being complete. Moreover, he
had roused the suspicions of Eiu:ope, and the attitude of the German
Princes towards France in 1678 was very different from what it had
been in 1658. Nevertheless, the concert of Europe was partial and
ill-cemented, and, although peace had, been made, could not be other
than short-lived in face of the jealousies of the various States which
the fear of France had temporarily united. The conclusion of the
Peace of Nymegen in 1679 seemed, with reason, to the French people
to mark a fresh triumph on the part of their King, In their eyes
Louis XIV had brought additional glory to himself and his country,
which had never stood so high in the eyes of Europe, nor had appeared
so strong or so great.

A,t the Peace of Nymegen Louis reached the greatest height of his
power. A large part of the Spanish Netherlands had been added to
France, Freiburg in the Breisgau had been retained, Franche Comte had
been definitively conquered. One of Louis' great aims since 1661 had
been to enlarge and to, fortify the boundary of Fi'ance. Though he had
not acquired the whole of the Spanish Netherlands, and though he
had failed in his attempt to destroy the Dutch Republic, Louis could
at any rate view with satisfaction the extension of the French frontier
towards the Rhine, the acquisition of sixteen fortresses in the Spanish
Netherlands, as well as the possession of Franche Comte. With the
King of England he had made a treaty in May, 1678, which had
nullifjed the effects of the marriage of William of Orange with the
Princess Mary. Till 1689 England remained a cipher in European
politics and offered no opposition to the execution of Louis' schemes.
There seemed to be no obstacle to the attainment of the main object of
Louis' policy — that the Bourbon House should take the position
hitherto occupied in Europe by the Habsburgs. This implied the

leio] Louis XIV and the Empire. 47

enlargemenl; of the kingdom of France, the recognition of Louis as the
defender of the Church, the acquisition, if possible, of the Imperial
Crown for the French Kings. A French Empire, extending over the
Continent, was to be the crowning result of Louis' efforts. In 1679 and
during the succeeding ten years such a result seemed capable of realisa-
tion. The Mediterranean was practically a French lake; England under
Charles II and James II showed no desire to oppose Louis' aims ; central
Europe was divided; the Emperor Leopold was powerless; a Turkish
invasion of Austria was imminent.

TiU the Peace of Nymegen, Louis had directed his chief attention
to Spain, and, taking advantage of her weakness, had enlarged and
strengthened the French frontier on the north-eastern side of France.
After 1679j Louis was chiefly interested in his plans for strengthening his
position in Germany, with the view of ultimately securing the Imperial
Crown. Till 1697, Spanish afiairs fell into the background; nor do they
again become prominent till the era of the Partition Treaties. The
time seemed opportune for a further attempt on the part of Louis to
push forward his candidature for the Imperial Crown. The treaty
concluded with Bavaria in 1670, by which the Elector had promised
to advance Louis' claims to the Imperial dignity in the event of the
Emperor Leopold's death, had roused opposition in Germany, and for
a brief period "the Empire stood united for its Emperor." But the
Peace of Nymegen found Germany again disunited, and the reputation
of the French King at a greater height than ever. The times were
therefore propitious for a new attempt on the part of Louis to secure,
in the event of Leopold's death, the Imperial dignity. In October, 1679,
by a secret treaty with Louis, the Elector of Brandenburg engaged, in
the event of the Emperor's death, "to secure the election of his Most
Christian Majesty."

The danger to Europe was real and tmmistakable, for the jealousies
and selfishness of the various European Powers rendered them blind to
the true meaning of Louis' ambitious policy, and unwilling to combine
in the defence of the liberties of Europe. Hardly had the Treaties of
Nymegen been signed than Louis entered upon a fresh phase of the policy
which he hoped would gain for him the Imperial Crown. It was neces-
sary in his opinion to strengthen France on her north-eastern and eastern
frontiers. Lorraine was practically in his hands ; the possession of Alsace
and Luxemburg would complete the "cemture de frontieres^ and, in
Louis' opinion, would give greater weight to his influence in Germany,
whenever the Emperor Leopold should die, or whenever it should be
attempted to make his son Joseph (who was born in July, 1678) King of
the Bomans. Placing his own interpretation upon certain clauses in
the Treaty of Westphalia, and adopting the view that the German
Charles the Great was in reality a French Charlemagne, Louis resolved
that "what once belonged to France continued to be by right the

48 The " Chambers of Reunion.'" — Luoe'emhurg. [leso-a

inalienable possession of the French Crown though it had been sOld,
exchanged or given aWay." At Metz, Besan9on, Breisach, and Toumay
"Chambers of Reunion" were set up, for the purpose of adjudging to
France certain territories and towns on the left bank of thfe Rhine.'
What these Courts did not declare to have been ceded to France at the
Peace of Westphalia was held to be a " dependency," and under this
head came Luxemburg and Strassburg. By means of these two fortresses'
the French King would have the three Spiritual Electors of Mainz,
Cologne, and Trier as well as the Elector Palatine in his power, so that
by means of them he would be able to carry through without much
trouble his election to the Roman Kingship. On March %%, 1680,
the Parlement of Breisach gave the support of legal authority to
Louis' claim of absolute soverei^ty over Alsace; on September SO,
1681, French trbops occupied Strassburg, and on the same day a French
force seized CaSale. Two of the places which were "deemed essential
for the rounding-off of French territory" had fallen into the hands of
Louis ; it only remained to occupy Luxemburg, in order to make France
practical mistress of the Netherlands.

The first reply to these aggressions was seen in the opposition in
England and Holland to Louis' siege of Luxemburg, which began in
November, 1681. So 'antagonistic were the Dutch to the idea of the town
falling into French hands, that, in spite of their dread of the outbreak of
a fresh European war, William of Orange was instructed to march to
the relief of Luxemburg, whenever its capture by Louis seemed imminent.
The outbreak of such a war would have enlisted public opinion in
England in opposition to Louis, who at that mometit desired above
everything to avert a European conflagration. In order, therefore, to
tranquillise public opinion in Holland and England, Louis consented
early in 1682 to raise the siege of Luxemburg.

Louis had indeed endeavoured to win over Charlfes to consent to
the French occupation of Luxemburg; and, in 1680, the King of
England had refused to be united with William of Orange in laying the
foundations of a general alliance against France. Thus Charles, if left to
himself, would no doubt have consented to be gained; but on the question
of Luxemburg the English nation was peculiarly sensitive, and Charles
realised that the occupation of the fortress by Louis would probably rouse
great indignation in England, necessitating the summoning of Parliament.
There was thuSj as Ranke says, a close connexion between the siege
of Luxemburg and the internal alFairs of England. Charles II himself
professed to believe Louis' assurance that he merely wished to dismantle
the place, not to use it "as a point whence to attack others." He there-
fore undertook to reassure Louis' opponents on this point, but insisted
that while the negotiations were proceeding Louis should not by a strict
blockade force the surrender of Luxemburg. During the negotiations
the divergence between the views held by William of Orange and those

1682-4] The "Association." — Siege of Vienna. 49

held by Charles II and James Duke of York became very apparent.
William desired to preserve "the balance of power in Europe by means
of English intervention," and he was supported by the Spaniards. On
the other hand, the English King saw no objection to the French
conquest of Luxemburg, so long as the fortress was razed ; and in the
United Netherlands his views were supported by a small party of the
opponents of William. To Louis it was of the utmost importance that
the English Parliament should not be summoned. It would undoubtedly
support the views of William of Orange; and, in the event of the
European war which seemed likely to follow the French occupation of
Luxembui-g, England would side with Louis' enemies.

At that moment Hungary and Austria were threatened by a Turkish
invasion, and Louis with great acuteness declared that, in order not to
hamper the German Princes in their efforts to resist the Ottoman forces,
he had withdrawn his troops from Luxemburg. The real motives which
induced him to take this step were, therefore, not avowed, and the
French King gained the credit for moderation and for taking a keen
interest in the welfare of Christendom.

The year 1682 was thus marked both by the preparations made
by the Emperor to resist the threatened invasion of Germany by the
Turks and by a great political activity on the part of Louis XIV,
as shown by his treaty with Denmark and his intrigues in Sweden,
Poland, Hungary and Holland, and by his attempt to secure the inde-
pendence of the Gallican Church. Throughout this and the following
years the general uneasiness in Europe caused by Louis' activity and
pretensions steadily increased. A notable instance of the effects was
the "Association" formed at the Hague in February, 1683; the origin
of which is to be found in efforts set on foot by Charles XI of
Sweden and William of Orange in 1681, directly after the seizure of
Strassburg and Casale, for the maintenance of the Treaty of Nymegen,
and which was joined by the Emperor and the King of Spain. It
was rendered ineffective by the Turkish advance on Vienna. That
advance, followed by the siege of the Austrian capital, roused the
interest of Europe and enlisted its sympathy on behalf of the Emperor.
John Sobieski and the united Polish and German armies saved Vienna
in September, 1683, and the opportunity for Louis to come forward as
the defender of Christian Europe against the infidel had passed away.
This success, which once more placed Austria in the centre of the
resistance to the infidel, imparted fresh confidence to the Spaniards,
who, in December, 1683, declared war against France. Luxemburg
was at once seriously besieged by the French troops, and was taken
in the beginning of June, 1684. It was impossible for the Emperor,
with the Turkish War on his hands, to oppose the French successfully;
and on August 15 the Truce of Ratisbon was concluded by Leopold
and the Empire with Louis.

OH. II.

60 The Truce of Batisbon. — Attitude of England. [i684-8

By this "truce" it was arranged that for twienty years Louis should
continue to hold, Jn addition to Strassburg, all the places assigned to
him before August 1, 1681, by the Chambers of Reunion. The Spaniards
were compelled to make large concessions to France, including the
transfer of many villages in Hainault and Luxemburg, and the establish-
ment of a Spanish protectorate over Genoa ; while the Dutch, finding it
impossible to secure any united opposition to Louis, accepted a twenty
years' truce. It was necessary for the Emperor, who was engaged in his
great struggle with the Turks; it was acceptable to Louis, who confi-
dently anticipated that the armistice would be converted into a general
peace, and that all the territory and places made over to him provision-
ally would become permanent portions of the French kingdom.

So far, Louis had owed much of his success to the neutrality of
England^ Charles II had consistently refused to unite with William of
Orange and- Spain in checking the French aggressions on the north-
eastern and eastern frontiers. Louis was thus freed from all fear of
an attack on his flank, and enabled to concentrate all his attention
upon his aggressive schemes with regard to Germany and the Spanish
Netherlands. The sole chance of successfully resisting these schemes lay
in a close alliance between England and the continental enemies of
the French King. Charles II had thus facilitated the execution of
several of Louis' most important designs ; it remained to be seen whether
James II, who succeeded to the English throne in February, 1685,
would be equally friendly to the French projects. Owing to Charles II's
compliant attitude, France was in 1685 obtaining a position of incon-
testable preponderance in continental Europe, nor had the monarchy
ever seemed so strong at home. It was in 1685 that Louis felt able to
expel the French Protestants and to establish religious imiformity.
Under him France had become a Power "imiform in its nationality and
ecclesiastical system, with well-defined frontiers, admirably armed for
offence and defence, both by land and sea." Previously to the succession
of the Stewarts, English monarchs had for the most part carried out a
policy of antagonism to France. From 1672 onwards, it is manifest that
English foreign policy should have followed similar lines. The rivalry
of England and France on the sea was becoming serious ; the colonial
interests of the two countries were certain to clash ; the Protestant feeling
in England was deeply moved by the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes,
and was inclined to sympathise with the opposition of the Dutch and of
several of the German States to the aggressive policy of Louis XIV.
For three years, however, England was compelled to stand by and watch
the preparations for establishing French predominance in Eui-ope.

These three years (1685-8) proved to be decisive in the history of
England and France not less than in that of Germany and Holland.
James II, owing to his change of religion, showed himself to be more
closely attached to France than had been Charles II, His self-confidence

1685-8] Louis XIV and James II. 51

was such as to make him believe that the conversion of England to Roman
Catholicism was possible, and could be brought about by his own efforts,
backed up by the aid of the French King. He was resolved never to
break off his alliance with France, and, if necessary, to support Louis
against William of Orange. In coming to a resolution of such signifi-
cance at the very time when Europe was beginning to realise the danger
of French preponderance, James was mainly actuated by religious
considerations, which to him, as to Louis, were of paramount im-
portance. James, almost openly, aimed at a restoration of the Roman
Catholic religion so complete "as to make its subsequent destruction
impossible " ; and he perceived that only by means of a French alliance
could he expect to caiTy out his policy. His accession at the beginning,
and the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes (approved of by the English
King) at the close, of the year 1685 were thus calculated, not only to
give to the religious question the foremost place in European affairs,
but also to impress forcibly upon Europe the existence of a close under-
standing between the Kings of England and France. Before the end
of 1685, James had assured Louis that he hoped to carry out his own
religious views in close alliance with France ; for a time, however, the
sympathy of the English people for the French Protestants forced him
to take up a moderate attitude.

By the beginning of 1686 it was becoming evident that a great
European crisis was at hand. The proceedings of Louis and James H
implied the existence of projects for strengthening Roman Catholicism
in England and France ; the action of the French King with regard to
the Reunions and Luxemburg signified a definite resolution on his part
to gain the Imperial dignity for himself or his son. The Truce of
Ratisbon had given France for twenty years the left bank of the upper
Rhine, which constituted an eighth part of the Empire; and henceforward
Louis aimed at converting the truce into a permanent peace. In 1686
the predominance of Louis was fully established, his ally James II was
on the English throne, the Emperor was busy with the Turkish War.
The situation was not unlike that of 1672. Had James II remained
King of England, and the unswerving ally of the French King, Louis'
chances of success in his next European war would have been decidedly
good. The events in England during the next two years were, therefore,
of immense importance to Europe, and the struggle on the eve of being
decided in England became an important feature of the great conflict
which was about to engross the attention of the civilised world.

The longer hostilities were averted, the stronger became the position
of the opponents of Louis. The Emperor Leopold had greatly im-
proved his own by carrying on a crusade against the Turks. He thus
secured the support of Innocent XI, and, as a Catholic sovereign
furthering the cause of Catholicism, assumed the preeminence which
Louis had hoped to assert. Moreover, the Revocation of the Edict of

cH. II. 4 — 2

52 The European situation in 1688. [i685-8

Nantes in 1685 roused all the Protestant countries in Europe, while Pope
Innocent XI had been alienated by the French King's declaration of the
independence of the Gallican Church. Already in February, 1685, the
Great Elector, abandoning his alliance with Louis, had made an alliance
with William of Orange, and the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes
only confirmed him in his Protestant attitude. The resolution arrived
at by the Great Elector was all the more important, seeing that the
year 1686 might bring with it a joint attack upon Holland by the forces
of England and France. The Emperor and the Elector of Bavaria were
occupied by the war against the Turks, and James II was the firm ally of
Louis XIV, who was resolved to transform the Truce of Ratisbon into a
peace. He himself declared that " he could not doubt that he should be
attacked, so soon as the war with the Turks had been brought to an end."
The formation on July 6, 1686, of the Augsburg Alliance, with the
object of preserving the Treaties of Miinster and Nymegen, together
with the armistice of 1684, justified Louis' apprehensioiis. It was a
defensive alliance between the Emperor and members of the Empire, due
to fear of a French attack upon the Palatinate ; and Louis was convinced
of its hostile purpose. The successes of the Imperialists against the
Turks, therefore, could hardly fail to stir Louis into action. In 1686
Buda fell at last; and, in August, 1687, the Emperor won a great
victory at Mohdcs, in consequence of which the Hungarian throne was,
in December, declared to be hereditary in the Habsburg line. As the
clouds darkened in the east, Louis prepared to take action. He fortified
many of the towns provisionally in his occupation ; and it was thus
quite evident that he intended to enforce their definite cession to him.
He openly aimed at acquiring complete military preponderance in
Europe, the ecclesiastical independence of France, and the Imperial
dignity for himself or his son. In the pursuit of these aims he received
the full support of James II, under whose rule England had become
"the comer-stone of the fabric" of French aggression.

The situation in the early months of 1688 was on the whole
favourable to the execution of Louis' designs, though his position with
regard to the lesser German Powers had become far from satisfactory.
The Elector of Brandenburg had definitely thrown in his lot with the
Emperor and with William of Orange; and the Elector Maximilian
Emanuel of Bavaria, who in 1685 had married the Emperor Leopold's
daughter, Maria Antonia, took a leading part in opposing Louis'
schemes. Marshal de Villars had in 1687 been sent by Louis to
Munich to win over the Elector of Bavaria to the French cause.
Through Villars Louis offered the Elector, in exchaiige for an offensive
and defensive alliance, his good offices to obtain the dignity of King
of the Romans for him, and to recover Bavaria's former rights over
Ratisbon, Niirnberg, Augsburg, and the territories between the Inn
and the Danube. He also promised subsidies. In return for these

1688] The position of the United Provinces. 53

advantages the Elector was to further the candidature of the Dauphin
to the throne of Spain, should Charles II die without children. In that
event, however, the kingdoms of Naples and Sicily would be handed over
to Bavaria. The Elector, however, was proof against these offers of
Louis, who further urged him to shake off the Habsburg yoke and to
emancipate Germany; and he decided to support the Emperor, who
appealed to his German sympathies, upheld the claims of his brother,
Joseph Clement, Bishop of Ereysingen and Ratisbon, to the electorate
of Cologne, and proposed, with the consent of Spain, that part of
Flanders should be ceded to Maximilian.

The year 1688 proved decisive for the future of Europe. The
ascendancy of France had become a standing menace to the peace of
Europe; the domination of Louis XIV was not less dangerous to the
European world than was that of Napoleon in the early years of the
nineteenth century. Under a vigorous, intelligent, and centralised des-
potism, France, with her immense material resources as yet unimpaired,
held an midisputed supremacy in the west. The French armies were
accoimted the best in Europe, and the French fleets commanded the
Mediterranean and rivalled those of England and Holland. French
diplomacy had no equal. The effects of the Revocation of the Edict of
Nantes were not yet felt, and the resources of France had not yet been
squandered by interminable wars. So far, all attempts to form coalitions
against the French predominance in Europe had failed, and the League
of Augsburg had had humbler aims. It was not till the Revolution in
England which placed William of Orange on the throne of the Stewarts
that the foundation was laid of the Grand Alliance, which checked the
arrogant pretensions of Louis XIV and eventually removed the danger
of French supremacy in Europe.

Until that Revolution had been accomplished, there was a well-
founded fear in the minds of the enemies of France that the events
of 1672 might be reproduced, and that Holland might again be found
helpless before the forces of England and France. The danger was
a real one ; for, while all the Powers from whom the Dutch Government
could look for support were occupied in the war against the Turks,
James and Louis had come to an understanding vrith regard to opera-
tions against Holland and the Empire. A quarrel between Denmark,
the ally of France, and Sweden about Schleswig-Holstein had led to
an agreement between James and Louis, with the object of pre-
venting a combination between Sweden and Holland. It was arranged
that an English fleet should put to sea and make a demonstration so
as to prevent Dutch aid being given to Sweden in an attempt upon the
Danish islands. In June, 1688, an English fleet of twenty ships anchored
in the Downs, and Louis undertook that it should shortly be joined by
the French fleet, which had been sent to the Mediterranean to bombard
Algiers. In the same month the Empire was also threatened. In

54 The Cologne election. [less

January, 1688, Maximilian Henry, Archbishop and Elector of Cologne,
a Bavarian prince, who also held the important bishoprics of Liege and
Hildesheim, appointed Cardinal William von Fiirstenberg, a nominee of
the French King, his coadjutor in the archbishopric. Maximilian had
for some years been practically the vassal of France, and had supported
the French cause in Germany. On his death, in June, 1688, Louis
determined to secure the archbishopric for Fiirstenberg, in order to retain
the control of so important an electorate and ecclesiastical province.
As Fiirstenberg was most active of all the dependents who remained
to France in Germany, his election as Archbishop of Cologne would
imply the dominance of the French power in the north-west of the
Empire. Though Fiirstenberg received a majority of votes at the
election, the Emperor determined, with the full agreement of the Pope,
to uphold Prince Joseph Clement of Bavaria, the candidate of the
minority. French troops at once occupied Cologne, and it was evident
that Louis intended at all costs to cany Fiirstenbra-g.

There seemed indeed, in the summer of 1688, little chance of any
successful resistance being offered to the execution of Louis' schemes.
He was allied with Denmark; he had made an agreement with Hanover ;
his fleet was supreme in the Mediterranean; James II was his supporter;
the continuance of the Turkish War seriously hampered his opponents.
The preponderance of France in Europe implied the complete overthrow
of the balance of power ; for not only would Germany be weakened and
divided, but the very existence of the United Provinces would be
constantly threatened by Louis' supremacy on the Rhine. He would
acquire complete military domination in central Europe, while at the
same time asserting the ecclesiastical independence of France. So
long as James II, who cared nothing for the balance of power in
Eiorope, was on the English throne, there was small chance of any
successful resistance being made to the French King. Thus, the
Revolution of 1688 in England, the deposition and flight of James II,
and the accession of William of Orange to the English throne were
events of the utmost importance in the history of Europe. So long
as Louis felt safe from attack on the part of England, he was able to
concentrate his energies upon his German schemes. The withdrawal of
the English regiments from the Dutch service in the spring of 1688,
the attitude of England and France with regard to the quarrel between
Denmark and Holstein, the appearance in June of an English fleet of
men-of-war in the Downs, the intention of Louis to bring the fleet
then employed off Algiers up the English Channel — all convinced the
Dutch of the danger which threatened the balance of power and the
cause of Protestantism.

A clear perception of the full significance of Louis' policy was shared
with the Dutch by the Protestant Princes of northern Germany. Among
these Frederick William, the Great Elector of Brandenburg, who died in

1688] Louis invades Germany. 65

April, 1688, had for some time been convinced that it would be necessary
for the European States to unite against the rising predominance of
France. His successor, Frederick III, who opposed Fiirstenberg's
claim to the archbishopric of Cologne, made a treaty with Landgrave
Charles of Hesse-Cassel, with the object of protecting Protestantism,
and of preserving from French conquest the United Netherlands and
the towns of Cologne and Coblenz, These Princes were thus acting in
full agreement with the views of William of Orange, who desired,
before he set sail for England, to see northern Germany and the
Netherlands ready to offer a combined resistance to Louis.

On his part, Louis realised in the autumn of 1688 that the con-
tinuance of the Imperial successes against the Turks would imperil his
chances of converting the Truce of Ratisbon into a permanent peace.
He also found in the claim to the Palatinate put forward by him on
behalf, but against the wish, of Charlotte Elizabeth, wife of the Duke
of Orleans, and last descendant of the Simmem line, another reason for
invading Germany. Accordingly in September his ambassador at the
Hague warned the Dutch Government against taking any hostile action
against James II, and in the same month French troops invaded Upper
Germany and besieged Philippsbm-g, which fell on October 29. This
action on the part of France rallied the Princes of Germany to the
defence of the Emperor. John George, Elector of Saxony, at once
agreed to march with his forces to the middle Rhine, thus cooperating
with the Emperor on the upper, and with Brandenburg on the lower,
Rhine. Equally anxious to assist in the defence of Germany were the
Brunswick-LiJneburg Dukes at Celle and Hanover, and the Duke of
Brunswick- Wolfenbiittel. Innocent XI had already shown his appre-
hension of the growing ascendancy of France, He realised that the
triumph of Roman Catholicism in England would bring with it a close
alliance between the English and French Governments. To avert French
predominance in Europe, the Pope therefore felt constrained to suppoirt
the European opposition to Louis (October). All that was now necessary
to prevent the triumph of Louis was the adhesion of England to the
opposition offered to him by continental Europe.

On the day of the fall of Philippsburg, William of Orange first set sail
for England. He had satisfied the Emperor that his expedition was not
directed against the cause either of legitimacy or of Catholicism, but was
simply intended to destroy the alliance between England and France.
Had Louis attacked Holland instead of Philippsburg, William's expedi-
tion could not have taken place. Fortunately, the relations of James
and Louis were at the time somewhat strained. James had taken
exception to Louis' declaration at the Hague, which he thought implied
that England depended upon France and could only defend itself with
French aid. It was also the view of some of Louis' advisers that a
civil war in England would best ensure English neutrality during the

66 The Revolution in England. [1688-9

continental war. Even with James II on the throne, it was by no means
certain that a wave of popular feeling might not force him, as it had
forced Charles II, into war with France. Thus, while French troops
fought on the Rhine, William of Orange sailed to England and carried
out the Revolution of 1688.

Louis XIV, anxious to throw his forces against Germany and to
increase and strengthen his frontier on the middle Rhine, and not
altogether satisfied with the independent tone assumed by James II, left
him to struggle with his assailant. He had convinced himself that they
might be left to carry on a long struggle which would occupy their
energies and resources, while he conquered the Palatinate, and by his
intervention in western Germany hampered the Emperor's chances of a
decisive victory against the Turks.

There was no time to be lost; for on September 6, 1688, the Emperor
captured Belgrade, a success which seemed likely to prove decisive. Louis
at once determined not to besiege Maestricht, though its siege might
have compelled the continued presence of William of Orange in Holland,
and thus postponed for a time the overthrow of James II. He decided,
instead, to declare war against the Emperor and to invade Germany. He
had already shown his determination to allow no scruple to interfere with
his settled plan of " acquiring complete military preponderance in Europe
both for defence and offence." The election of his nominee, William von
Fiirstenberg, at Cologne (June), and the fall of Belgrade (September),
decided Louis, to take the equally important step of invading the
Palatinate on September 25. In deciding on this course, Louis and his
Ministers showed that they considered the interests of France were best
.served by insisting upon the permanent cession of the territories pro-
visionally allotted to the French Crown by the Truce of Ratisbon in
1684, and by asserting the claims of the Duke of Orleans (in the name
of his wife) to the Palatinate. William of Orange landed at Torbay
on November 15, and entered London on December 28. James II
fled, and on January 4, 1689, reached the French coast. The House
of Stewart had fallen, and Louis XIV could no longer look upon England
as an ally or as a qtiantite negligkable.

The rapid success of William of Orange and his coronation as King
of Great Britain and Ireland were events of immense importance for
Europe. The whole fabric of Louis XIV's foreign policy was over-
thrown, and the year 1689 marked the close of the period of French
aggression. England was no longer a possible ally ; Denmark was
unable to make any diversion in favour of France; the Turks were being
driven back. Wishing to concentrate his chief efforts upon Roussillon,
Italy, and the lower Rhine, Louis decided to evacuate the Palatinate ;
and, by the advice of Lou vois, orders were given in December, 1688, to
devastate the country. Heidelberg was sacked in March, 1689, and
shortly afterwards Mannheim, Speier and Worms suffered a similar fate ;

1688-9] The year 1689. 67

Ladenburg and Oppenheim were burnt, and a large tract of country,
including not only the Palatinate, but parts of the electorate of Trier,
and of the margravate of Baden were also ravaged. The Rhine district
was in great measure ruined, with the result that the hostility to France
among the German States was aggravated. Louis had been persuaded
by Louvois that the devastation of the Palatinate, like that of 1674,
was justifiable by custom, and necessary from a military point of view.
Marshal de Villars in his memoirs condemns the devastation as unnecessary
and opposed to the true science of war. It certainly united Germany
in opposition to Louis, and it did not prevent the Germans from taking
Bonn and Mainz. Thus, from a military as well as from a political
point of view, Louis' action in the Palatinate and surrounding country
was a blunder.

In many respects the year 1689 forms an epoch in the history of
Europe as well as in that of France. The fall of the Stewarts and the
accession of William of Orange marked the return of England to the
position which she had held in the days of Elizabeth. In 1689 England
had again become the bulwark against all attacks upon religious freedom,
and the champion of the balance of power. Fiui;her, the year 1689
marked the beginning of the struggle between England and France for
supremacy in India and America, and for the command of the sea. It
also marked the destruction of Louis' hopes of securing the Imperial
Crown for himself or for a French prince. The Revocation of the Edict
of Nantes, followed by the devastation of the Palatinaite, had for a time
united Germany, and indeed the greater part of Europe, in opposition to
the ambition of France. Failure also attended the French schemes for
the restoration of James II, and the overthrow of the English sea-power.
Consequently, Louis was thrown back upon his early project of securing
the Spanish monarchy for his House. For some four years, however,
after the Revolution of 1688, he still cherished the hope, that, with
James II, his Queen, and his son in France, he had the means of
stirring up civil war in England and rendering her a useless member of
the European coalition against him.

At first, Louis intended to bring about the restoration of James II
by advocating a religious crusade. He hoped to unite all the Catholic
Powers of Europe, including the Emperor and the Spanish King, for
the overthrow of the English and Dutch Governments. But since the
Peace of Westphalia religion had been steadily losing its influence as an
active force in European politics. In 1688 and 1689 political necessities
silenced the advocacy of religious partisans. The Emperor was satisfied
that William of Orange had no anti-Catholic aims in invading England.
When James II, early in 1689, appealed to Leopold for assistance, the
Emperor pointed out that the Catholic religion had " suffered no greater
injury than from the French themselves," who had taken the opportunity
of the Turkish War to attack in the most savage and unjust manner the

58 The battle of the Boyne. [i689-90

western portions of the Empire. On May 12, 1689, the Grand Alliance
was signed by Leopold and the Government of Holland, Leopold recog-
nising William III as King of England. While the Emperor thus
undertook to defend Holland from French invasion, William bound
himself to defend Germany from future attacks on the part of Louis XIV.
Denmark had already come to terms with the allies, and the Duke of
Savoy was firmly united with the Emperor and Spain. In April, 1689,
Louis, who was already engaged in hostilities with Holland, declared war
upon Spain, which country, then under the guidance of Count Oropesa,
had refused to observe such a neutrality in the coming struggle as Louis
desired.

Early in 1689 it was clearly apparent that all idea of a crusade in
the West must be given up. Neither Innocent XI, who died in August,
1689, nor Alexander VIII, nor, again, Innocent XII, who became Pope
in July, 1691, would give any real support to James II, so long as it was
apparent that he was being used by Louis XIV in the attempt to make
France all-powerful in Europe. In the great struggle which began in
1689 and continued without intermission till 1697, Louis "arranged
France as if she had been a huge fortress in the heart of Europe." Her
troops would on occasion make forward movements ; but, if pressed by
the enemy, they could retire to a safe position under cover of the
numerous fortresses on the frontier. The centre of the operations was
Belgium, and its conquest by France entailed the conquest of Holland.
The overthrow of William III was therefore essential for the success of
Louis.

The French King's attempt to organise a crusade on behalf of
James II had failed. He next endeavoured to seciu:e supremacy in the
English Channel, and to stir up in Ireland a civil war which should
occupy the attention and energies of William III. Ireland would thus
be the means of creating a diversion against England ; a long war would
ensue ; and Louis, imhampered by his chief opponent, would be able to
carry out his aims on the Continent. For the realisation of this scheme
the supremacy of the French fleet in the Irish and English Channels
was absolutely necessary. Unfortunately for the success of the plan,
Louis miscalculated the strength of Irish resistance. He sent only
2000 French troops to Ireland, and he made no attempt to secure
supremacy in the Irish Channel. On July 11, 1690, the battle of
the Boyne overthrew the hopes entertained by Louis of a long-drawn-
out struggle in Ireland; and the fall of Limerick (October, 1691)
rendered futile all plans for the restoration of James II by way of
Ireland. Had Louis realised the importance of sea-power, a French fleet
could have commanded the Irish Channel, and the battle of the Boyne
would not have been fought. As it was, on July 10, the day before
that battle. Admiral de Tourville, in command of seventy-five French
men-of-war, defeated a combined English and Dutch fleet in the battle

1690-2] The importance of sea-power. 59

of Beachy Head. On Joly 1, the French under Luxembourg had won the
battle of Fleurus over the Dutch and their allies, who were commanded
by Prince George Frederick of Waldeck. The time seemed opportune
for an invasion of England on behalf of James II, while William III was
still in Ireland. But Louis insisted upon a Jacobite rising as a necessary
preliminary to the landing of any French troops in England. Still
under the influence of Louvois, Louis attached more importance to the
operations in the Netherlands and Italy than to the naval operations in
the English Channel. In April, 1691, Louis himself was present at the
capture of Mons, and in Jime Hal also fell into the hands of the French.
The same year saw Savoy overrun by the armies of France; while the
Due de Noailles took advantage of the discontent of the Catalans and
captured Ripoli and other towns. Had Seignelay's advice been taken,
the French might have secured naval supremacy in the Channel, and by
the destruction of some of the southern English towns and of English
commerce, if not by an actual invasion, seriously interfered with
William Ill's projects. The victory of Beachy Head was, however, not
followed up, and on May 29, 1692, Tourville was utterly defeated by
the English and Dutch fleets, under Russell, in the battle of La Hogue.

The importance of the battle of La Hogue, so far as the restoration
of James II and the security of England were concerned, cannot be
overestimated. Before the battle took place, James II was confident
that an attempt on England would be followed by his own restoration,
and by the triumph of the principle of legitimacy. Louis XIV had
equally satisfied himself that the probability of success was considerable.
His agents reported that there were few troops in England, and that the
fleet was unprepared. He accordingly placed under Marshal de BeUefonds
a force of 30,000 men, who (in anticipation of Napoleon's arrangements
in 1805) were to be conveyed across the Channel and to accomplish the
conquest of England. As in 1805, all depended upon the superiority
of the French sea-power and the command of the Channel. A fleet
from Toulon was to meet the Brest fleet under Tourville, and to carry
out the invasion of England. Luckily, tidings of these plans reached
the English Government, which at once took energetic measures. The
English and Dutch fleets having been ordered to unite, TourviUe was
ordered to prevent, if possible, the junction, and, though the Toulon
fleet owing to contrary winds had not yet reached Brest, to attack the
enemy. His defeat in the battle of La Hogue meant that the plan
adopted by Louis XIV and James II for the invasion of England had
utterly failed; that, in spite of the success of French privateers, under
such men as Jean Bart, Duguay-Trouin, Ducasse, Pointis, and others,
the command of the Channel had definitely passed into the hands of
Eneland ; and that William would be able to devote all his attention
to the war in the Netherlands.

There the struggle was of a fierce and prolonged character. It was

60 French successes in the Netherlands. [1692-4

impossible for the Dutch to allow the Spanish Netherlands to fall into
the hands of the French. The Spanish Netherlands were the bulwark
of the United Provinces : the loss of the former would leave the Dutch
at the mercy of Louis. Moreover, their conquest by the French would
mean the subjection of Spain to the will of Louis XIV. Though
defeated in Ireland and on the sea, Louis could boast of successes in the
Netherlands. In June, 1692, shortly after the battle of La Hogue, he
had followed up his successes of 1691 by the capture of Namur, the
bulwark of Brabant and Liege. Nor did the fall of Namur complete
the list of Louis' successes on land in 1692, for on August 3 William
of Orange was defeated by Luxembourg in the battle of Steinkirke.

The French defeat at La Hogue was thus to some extent balanced
by the disasters to William of Orange in the Netherlands. What
was more serious, the French naval power, though crippled in the
Channel, had still to be reckoned with in the Mediterranean. Nor,
moreover, had the army which Victor Amadeus, Duke of Savoy, had
collected in Piedmont won any signal success during its invasion of
Dauphine in 1692. No valuable position was captured, and, owing to
the presence of Catinat, and the illness of Victor Amadeus, the invading
army fell back, having accomplished nothing of importance. Thus the
close of 1692 left the issue of the struggle between Louis XIV and the
Grand Alliance still uncertain ; and four more years of warfare followed,
during which the influence of the sea-power of England gradually made
itself felt.

For some years, however, it was doubtful if the allies would be able
to hold their own against the French armies. The Emperor had on his
hands a war with the Turks ; the English fleet had by no means acquired
an unquestioned supremacy at sea ; and both Spain and Savoy seemed likely
to be compelled to make terms with the PVench King. Moreover, the
English attacks upon Martinique, Newfoundland, Guadeloupe and
St Domingo failed, and in 1694) the French reconquered Senegal and
Goree. The complete triumph of the Austrians over the Turks, and
the establishment of British supremacy in the Mediterranean and in
the Channel, were needed in order to assure the victory of the Grand
Alliance. Fortunately, the Emperor in the end proved triumphant over
the Tiu-ks; and the English Government, supreme in the Channel after
the victory of La Hogue, recognised the necessity of sending a powerful
fleet into the Mediterranean.

It was not, however, till after some years of fighting that the victory
of the Emperor over the Sultan was assured. The outbreak of the war
on the Rhine had at first a serious effect upon the course of the struggle
between the Austrians and the Turks. Up to 1689 the Imperialists,
owing to the uneasy peace that prevailed in western Europe, had been
able to win a series of almost uninterrupted successes. The continuance
of these, which are narrated in a later chapter, was checked by the

1690-9] Further French successes. 61

outbreak of the war on the Rhine. The Grand Vezir Mustafa Kiuprili
at once advanced, and in 1690 reconquered Servia, Widdin and Belgrade.
However, at the battle of Szalankemen, Margrave Lewis of Baden, on
August 19, 1691, defeated the Turks after a terrific struggle. Gross-
wardein was taken ; but hostilities languished during the next few
years, and it was not till September 11, 1697, that Prince Eugene
was able to deliver an overwhelming blow upon the Turks in the
battle of Zenta. In January, 1699, the Treaty of Carlowitz closed a war
in satisfactory fashion for Austria, and enabled the Emperor Leopold to
concentrate his attention upon the Spanish Succession question.

During the four remaining' years (1693-7) of the war in western
Europe while the financial distress of France, aggravated by bad
harvests of 1692 and 1693, became more and more serioiisi the im-
portance of the command of the Mediterranean was emphasised in a
striking fashion. The withdrawal of English troops from Tangier in
1684 had been followed by the establishment of French supremacy in
the Mediterranean and by the culmination of Louis' triumphs. The
Truce of Ratisbon was signed six months after the retirement of the
English fleet from the Mediterranean, and it was not till 1693 that
any real attempt was made to interfere seriously with French naval
preponderance in the south of Europe. In that year, William had
been defeated at Neerwinden (Landen), and Tourville had captured a
portion of the great Anglo-Dutch fleet which was making for Smyrna.
The Duke of Savoy had been defeated in the battle of Marsaglia by
Catinat, who was thus enabled to invade Piedmont, while the Spaniards
had failed to check the advance of another French army under the
Due de Noailles into Catalonia. Unless the English fleet made a
demonstration in the Mediterranean, it seemed iriore than likely that
Louis would force Spain and Savoy to retire from the war. French
supremacy in the Mediterranean being thus secured, Louis could with-
draw his forces from the south of Europe and concentrate his attacks
upon William III and the Emperor.

Immediate action was, therefore, necessary. TTie Tory admirals were
dismissed ; Russell was restored to his former position of Commander-in-
Chief; and in May, 1694", he sailed for the Mediterranean. He arrived
at a critical moment. Aided by the French fleet under Tourville,
Noailles had invaded Spain, capturing Palamos and Gerona. The fall
of Barcelona was imminent. The entry of Russell with his fleet into the
Mediterranean at once changed the aspect of affairs. The advance of
Noailles was checked; Barcelona was saved; and Tourville retired to
Toulon. It was obvious that the recovery by the English fleet of the
command of the Mediterranean would overthrow the plans of the French
King, and would probably hasten the conclusion of peace. In 1695,
Russell, who had wintered at Cadiz, planned to attack Toulon or
Marseilles, to overthrow Tourville's fleet, and, with the cooperation of

62 IVie war in the Mediterranean. [1695-7

Duke Victor Amadeus of Savoy, to deal the French sea-power in the
Mediterranean an overwhelming blow. But the Duke was already medi-
tating an arrangement with Loui§, and TourviUe continued his defensive
tactics and remained safely in the harbour of Toulon, while the English fleet
was unable to bring on a decisive action. Yet the presence of the fleet in
the Mediterranean, and the tenacity shown by William III in the Nether-
lands, where he had besieged Namur, prevented Louis from achieving
any striking success, and tended to exhaust the French resources.
Nevertheless, dming the later months of 1695, and throughout 1696,
Louis was able to profit from the weakness and treachery of some
of his opponents. The Duke of Savoy deserted the Grand AUianee, and,
in consequence of this defection, the King of Spain and the Emperor were
compelled to consent to the neutralisation of Italy. An attempted
invasion of England in the winter of 1695-6 had, indeed, ended in
failure ; but the English Government had decided to recall the fleet from
the Mediterranean, so that in 1696 Tourville was able to bring his
squadron safely from Toulon to Brest.

The results of the English command of the Mediterranean during
the years 1694-5 had, however, exercised a most profound effect upon
the course of the war. Louis' plans had been upset ; Spain had not been
conquered , and the French fleet was no longer in a condition to carry
out any important movement.

The adhesion of the Duke of Savoy on August 29, 1696, to the
French cause, and the neutralisation of Italy, tended to reconcile
William III to the prospect of peace ; for the defection of Savoy would
enable Louis to bring some 30,000 troops under Catinat into the Nether-
lands. William, indeed, on September 5, 1695, had taken advantage
of the death of Luxembourg in the previous January, and had followed
up the seizure by the allies of Dixmude and Huy by himself capturing
Namur. For the first time during the war, the French armies had been
badly beaten, and Europe was encouraged to find that Louis was not
invincible. TTiis success, however, was counterbalanced by the defection
of Savoy in the following year, by Vendome's reduction of Barcelona
after fifty-two days' siege, and by Catinat's capture of several important
Spanish towns in Flanders. In spite of these proofs of the growing
weakness of the Grand Alliance, and in spite of the overtures of peace
made by Louis to Holland and England, William III was, in the
autumn of 1696, supported by Parliament in his determination not to
treat with France except "with our swords in our hands." Early in
1697, however, to his astonishment, Louis expressed his willingness to
restore Lorraine and Luxemburg to their lawful owners, to recognise
William as King of England, and to surrender all the conquests made
by France during the war. Accordingly, n^otiations under the mediation
of Sweden were begun. In May, 1697, the Congress of Ryswyk was
opened, and on September 20 a general peace was concluded.

1697] T'he Peace of Rystayk. 63

The first treaty was made by France with England, Spain, and
Holland, William III was recognised by Louis as King of Great
Britain and Ireland, and Anne, second daughter of James II, was
declared heiress to the throne of Great Britain and Ireland. Louis,
moreover, promised not to encourage plots against William III. All
places won since the Peace of Nymegen were to be restored, France thus
regaining Pondicherry and Nova Scotia, and Spain recovering Catalonia,
Mons, Luxemburg, Ath, and Courtray, On the other hand, France
restored Fort Albany to the Hudson's Bay Company, which had been
driven out of most of its possessions in 1685. The chief forts in the
Spanish Netherlands, such as Namur, Ypres, and Menin, were to be
garrisoned by Dutch troops, and the Dutch were to obtain an
advantageous treaty of commerce with France.

The Emperor made peace with France very reluctantly, and it was
not till October 30 that William HI induced him to agree to a treaty
with Louis. By it France ceded all places taken since the Treaty of
Nymegen, except Strassburg and Landau. She also withdrew from the
right bank of the Rhine, yielding Philippsburg, Freiburg and Breisach,
and she restored Lorraine to its Duke, keeping only Saarlouis in her
hands. Louis, moreover, abandoned his candidate for the electorate of
Cologne, and renounced the claims of the Duchess of Orleans to the
Palatinate for a sum of money.

In view of the imminence of the Spanish Succession question and of
the financial distress in France, Louis acted wisely in coming to terms with
his foes. He hoped, moreover, by his concessions to win over to his side
a number of the German Princes, who presumably might be expected to
regard with alarm the great increase of the Imperial power consequent
upon the defeat of the Turks and the annexation of all Hungary and
Transylvania. At any rate, the Grand Alliance was broken up, and
France, with her recuperative powers and her well-organised government,
remained the strongest and most united Power in Europe.

64

CHAPTER III.

FRENCH SEVENTEENTH CENTURY LITERATURE
AND ITS EUROPEAN INFLUENCE.

The literature of France in the seventeenth century has always been
regarded, both by other European peoples and (with the exception of
a few writers whose influence is not perhaps of much weight) by the
French themselves, as most thoroughly representative of the literature
of which it forms part.

In no other period have the distinguishing characteristics of French

1 intellect and genius — method, logical sequence of ideas, and lucidity
of style — been so conspicuous. The classical tradition of Greece and
Rome, followed by the great poets and prose-wiiters of the sixteenth
century, with a zeal as overmastering as it was injudicious, and trans-
mitted by them to those of the seventeenth, was handled by their
successors with so fine an insight, so sure a sense of proportion, and
so instinctive an art of combining national originality with the inspira-
tions of classical tradition — ^in short, with such felicity and propriety and
skill — as to have resulted in a success almost unparalleled in the whole
history of literature.

Innumerable influences were intermingled and interwoven at this
period of literary workmanship; but three of them, at least, proved
so strong, so striking, and so continuous throughout the whole of the
century, that a kind of authoritative rank ought to be assigned to
them. These are the influence of Montaigne, that of Malherbe, and
that of_Descarifia,

By virtue of the power which Montaigne exercised, he belongs
rather to the seventeenth than to the sixteenth century. Every
seventeenth century man of letters read his works incessantly and was
deeply imbued with their spirit. In all these writers are to be found
deep traces, echoes, imitations, and even plagiarisms, of Montaigne.
It is a striking indication of this all-pervading influence that the two
chief representatives in the seventeenth century of whatsoever in it was
most Christian and most Catholic, the two most deeply religious men
of the age, and therefore those furthest removed from the spirit of
Montaigne — that is to say, Pascal and Bossuet — found Montaigne as it

Montaigne, Descartes and Malherbe. 65

were blocking their way, and became intent upon refuting his principles.
This proves how living was the influence exercised by Montaigne on
the minds of men, and how those who differed from him in their
ways of thought and feeling, still felt it incumbent on them to wage
war against him as against a present, and indeed an omnipresent,
adversary.

Although Montaigne represented the classical tradition in perfection,
and borrowed from it all that was most refined and best suited to the
French mind, he himself represented, or it might even be said evolved,
the true French spirit. From him his compatriots learnt delicacy of
treatment, and derived the taste for a searching but dexterously and
gracefully conducted analysis of ideas, together with their love of the
_study_pfj^aracteraj pursued with ardour but not without the sure touch
of the master's hand — in short, every tendency proper to the humanist
and the moralist who is at the same time a man of genius. The literature
of the seventeenth century, which concerned itself almost exclusively
with the study of man, owes its bent in large measure to him. In a word,
Montaigne might almost be described as the literary father-confessor of
the seventeenth century.

Descartes, himself a moralist (for we must not forget his marvellous
Traiti des Passions), bestowed on the seventeenth century those quali-
ties which Montaigne either naturally lacked or did not deign to acquire
— careful arrangement, a sense of order, the rectilinear sequence of
ideas, the art qf boldly tracing the grand outlines of general conceptions
with a sure touch and a master-hand. Teacher, in this respect, of
Bossuet, of Bourdaloue, of Boileau, even of Moliere and of Bacine, as
well as of Malebranche, he mapped out the high-roads along which the
French intellect was to travel ; had Montaigne been the only writer to
exercise a controlling influence over French minds, they might, perhaps,
have become too much attached to winding by-paths; had Descartes
been the sole influence, they might have fallen into the habit of
keeping to the high-road. Thus, it is fortunate that one of those two
great personalities revealed the charm of the labyrinths of literature
through which the visitant strays, not however dropping the thread
from his hand, while the other grandly opened out the royal highway
straight through the forest intellectual.

Last, Malherbe, following in the footsteps of Ronsard, but with
none of Ronsard's defects, taught Frenchmen, first of all, the use of
plain, clear, and concise language, which had rejected everything super-
fluous and bore no trace of piecing ; more especially, he taught them
rhetorical poetry, eloquence clothed in noble verse, the amplitude
and the movement of stately sentences. He taught the French to
become perfect orators in verse as well as in prose ; for we learn fi'oin
poets how to write prose ; and his influence, which, in a measure, had
long been latent, made itself felt to an enormous extent throughout the

0. U. B. V, CB. III. A

66 The Classical School: Corndlle. — Bossuet.

School of 1660, the central rallying-place of all French literary effort.
The members of this School included orators in verse as well as orators
in prose, who set forth abstract ideas in harmonious and ample style —
in other words, in the style best fitted for them, since it placed their
finest qualities in the strongest light. !

In Montaigne, then, we find a delicacy of diction which is full at
the same time of grace and of strength ; in Descartes order and strength
in composition ; in Malherbe a sure and expressive oratorical form : and
in one aiid all we find reasonableness. These qualities in combination
formed the essence of the classical French of 1660, which in its turn has
exercised so profound and, all things considered, so salutary an influence
on the different literatures of Europe.

The School of 1660 included at least a dozen writers of the first
rank, each with his own distinctly defined originality, but each possessing
qualities common to all, and each exhibiting close affinities to the rest.
Only a few of the chief among these writers can be here mentioned and
characterised.

Corneille, who, however, preceded the others, and who only belongs
to this groiip in the sense in which a father belongs to his family, was
as much of a Stoic as was Montaigne ; but, although he took delight in
' posing as such, he was, in the main, the poet of that doctrine of free
will, of which Descartes was the convinced and eloquent exponent.
Corneille sang of magnanimity, of loftiness of soul ; though he was not
thereby prevented from frequently drawing base and vile characters, or
from displaying singular penetration in the analysis of complex indi-
vidualities. ^'But he is preeminently the poet of the human will. He
pourtrays man struggling against the blows of Fate and prevailing
against them, by means of his trust in himself and in the inward
strength with which he feels himself endowed. He depicted those
".waxrior souls" whom Bossuet was later to call to mind; and at his
bidding there passes before our eyes a long procession of combatant
spirits. Corneille remains the very type of those artists who aspire
towards the things that are great and who hold that the highest kind of
beauty is to be found in the beauty of holiness.

Bossuet pressed the most powerful eloquencie, and a "verbal," but
yet disciplined, " vehemence " into the service of the religion he ex-
poimded. The impetuous arguments with which he stormed the enemies'
citadel were tempered by order and method,' and each was advanced in its
own place and season. Indeed, he conveys the impression of a general
who has weighty and powerful forces under his control, which he pushes
to the front with equal rapidity and precision, in an assault that never
breaks the ranks or mars the symmetry of their lines.

LaFontaine, the most self-contained and original of the poets and
indeed of all the writers of the seventeenth century, owes little to
Montaigne, little to Malherbe, although he loved him greatly, and

La Fontaine. — Boileau. — MoUere. 67

little to Descartes, although he read him incessantly and rendered him
worthy homage. He was a sixteenth century poet, matured by the
ideas of the seventeenth century and the various influences that circu-
lated round him. His ingenuity rises into elegance, while the freshness
of his originality might have tempted him to superfluity, had it not
been kept within nice and just limits by the good taste of the time,
so that he actually became concise, while remaining easy and supple.
He had at his command an inconceivable variety of turns of style and
mannerisms, derived, in the first instance, from his own intellectual
nature and, secondarily, from his wide reading of authors of every age,
country, and style; above all else he had the quality of life — that
sense which makes even the slightest of his stories a miniature drama
and endows each of his characters with a physiognomy all its own in
its features, actions, and bearing. VThe most poetical of French poetsj
he stands as it were alone, and seems beyond the reach of extraneous
influences, because he outvies them all.

Boileau is, strictly speaking, the pupil of Malherbe, and — whether
for better or for worse, just as one may view it — \pupil turned teacher,
a pupil, that is to say, who fears to go further ttan~his master and
shrinks from nothing so much as from being original. Possessed of wit,
especially of that satirical wit which is not the highest kind, he had good
judgment, a logical mind and even eloquence ; he knew how to draw a
portrait or at least how to block out a sketch ; his style, when defining
literary precepts, was clear and fairly powerful; he discoursed on
questions of morals as one possessing authority and capable of some
emphasis ; and he could be carried away by feverish indignation in
rebuking an indifibrent writer. He ought to be, although he probably
is not, the idol of the "Aesthetic School," since he exhibited against
the writers of other Schools than his own a spirit of indignation which
found its vent in invective such as is usually reserved for criminals.
Thus he possessed all the qualities, together with the chief failing, of
men of letters.

Everything that can be said about Moliere has been said — as to his
wonderful gift for making even the most complex of his characters alive
and rea,l, until their conversation and even their very gestures have become
proverbial ; his comic power, or, in other words, his art of arousing, and
of at the same time satisfying, more and more fully as he proceeds, the
interest of curiosity seasoned by malice ; his depth of conception, which
is a very diflferent thing from close observation of life, and which consists
in the creation of characters capable of being viewed from ever fresh
standpoints, and possessing an inexhaustible interest for those who
subject them to analysis, so that they offer a new revelation to readers
of each successive generation. But it has not been sufficiently pointed
out that, like Corneille, like Boileau and like La Bruyere at later date,
Moliere has often, indeed almost always, the dogmatism of a preacher ;

en. 111. 5 — 2

68 Racine. — Influence on German literature.

that his most important comedies are theses ; that his aim was to teach,
to exercise moral control, to impress his precepts on all who listened to
him ; and he too would have applauded the saying " Woe to him who is
content with applause." In common with most of the French writers
of the seventeenth century, he was an eloquent expounder of morality;
and such he intended to be.

Finally (for we must not unduly prolong this rapid survey) Bacjne
showed throughout his work what Comeille showed only on occasion,
that he was a delicate and subtle and profound painter of the passions.
It is true that, strictly speaking, he only studied the three passions of
love and jealousy and ambition ; but he treated these with great skill in
all their devious movements, he traced their development, and he depicted
every shade in their operation, even the most fleeting, without, how-
ever, losing himself in a maze of detail, and never forgetting the broad
outline. Hence his gallery of living portraits, admirably managed from
the point of view of technique, which time will never obliterate or change
or tarnish.

These great men were the admiration of all Europe in their day,
and they exercised a very powerful influence over the European litera-
tures of their times. In Germany this influence lasted for nearly a
century — jfrom the Thirty Years' War until the middle of the eighteenth
century. / Mention must be made ofjMartin Opitz, who, copying the
example of his Dutch master Daniel Heinsius, had imbibed the leading
principles of French literature in such a degree as to earn for himself
the name of the " German Malherbe " ; he was a pronounced partisan of
the system of imitation, and, far more like Ronsard than Malherbe,
he strove to introduce into the literature of his own country the distin-
guishing beauties of every other literature.

We should also mention Fleming, who imitated the French, especially
where they in their turn had borrowed from the Italian School; —
Andreas Gryphius, a rather florid copyist of Comeille, a writer who, had
he been French, would have found an acknowledged place between Rotrou
and Ryer ; the various imitators of the French Romances of the first
half of the seventeenth century — imitators who reaUy derive more from
the Spanish influence in French literature than from French literature
itself. Nor, above all, must we forget Gottsched, translator of Racine's
Iphiginie and author of The Dying Cato, the German ultra-classic,
who was, at the same time, the most thorough -going of the imitators of
the French School, and also the last, or nearly the last, of these copyists;
and who was speedily dethroned by the National School. And, for a
moment, we feel impelled to call from oblivion the worthy and genial
fabulist Gellert, who derived almost as much inspiration from La
Fontaine as from his own kindly nature, and who thus possessed two
excellent sources, from which in point of fact he might have drawn far
more than he did.

Influence on Italian and Spanish literature. 69

But the great name which dominates the whole of the period from
1650 to about 1750 is that of Leitaiiz. He was great enough to need
no master; nevertheless, he owed to Descartes his first incentive, the
foundation of his inspiration, more especially and beyond doubt the very
tone of his mind, that wide and tolerant optimism which runs throughout
the whole of his work, and animates it with confidence and with hope.
Leibniz might almost be said to impersonate a French idea, which after
sounding the depths of a German mind, comes forth the richer and
fuller for the experience, while still retaining the distinctive style and
characteristics of its origin.

After him, Lessing appeared above the literary horizon, who dealt the
goat Jrani^ais such a blow that, after 1760, the influence of French on
Grerman literature practically ceased to exist — a fact which should not
be treated as a grievance, since it is best for every nation to live its own
life, both intellectually and morally.

Italy, too, came under French influence after 1650, having, in its
day, exercised an immense efifect upon the literature of France. The
Seicentisti, from the middle of the century onwards, were strongly
coloured with French influence. Guidi bears the stamp of Malherbe,
but his style is more inflated ; Testi, a faithful disciple of Horace, also
possesses something of the grace of Maynard and of Racan; Chiabrera,
" the Italian Pindar," learns lessons from the French poets rather than
copies them ; but his confirmed habit of imitating the classics is very
evidently traceable to French influence, and his pupils, Filicaya and
Menzini, followed the same course, perhaps almost too faithfully.
Finally, in 1713, Italian tragedy, after keeping silent long after the
profound slumber in which it had been sunk during the whole of
the seventeenth century, was reawakened by the inspiring touch of
the Merope of Mafifei, who was, like Voltaire, one of the most brilliant
pupils of the French tragic writers of the seventeenth century.

The Spanish writers of the seventeenth century scarcely borrowed
anything from the French ; it was rather the French who imitated them.
But, from the beginning of the eighteenth century, it might almost be
said that Spain was a pupil of the French School. To Ignacio de
Luzan y Guerra, the disciple of Descartes and of Port-Royal, Spain
owed the Logic of Port-Royal, and he also introduced Milton to his
countrymen; Moratin wrote both tragedies and comedies entirely in
the French style; Cadalso, after finishing his student days in Paris,
imitated the Lettres Persanes in his Cartas Mmruecas, and Voltaire in
his tragedy Don Sancho Garcia; Jove Llanos, who also translated
Milton, produced in the same epoch on the Spanish stage his tragedy
Pelage, written on French lines. Spain had to wait until the nineteenth
century before she again reverted to her own literary idiosyncrasy —
which (assuredly in no sense to her discredit) altogether differs from that
of the French nation.

70 Influence on English literature.

Finally, from 1700 onwards, England came under French influence in
a very clear and unmistakable manner. Addison is the pupil of Boileau,
more gifted, more refined, and more brilliant than his master, but stiU
never forgetful of his master's teaching. Moralist, satirist, and critic,
a poet equally at home in the romantic, allegorical, and tragic styles, he
could turn with ease from French wit to English humour, and often
seems even to combine, mix and blend the two together. Taking
everything into account, we find Addison so exquisitely French in his
methods that we are often tempted to say of him as Valentine of Milan
said of Dunois : " He was stolen from us."

Pope, who has inevitably been much imitated in France, owed much
to her in his earlier days. The style and manner of his letters remind
us of Balzac and of Voiture; his moral poems have the precise turn of
wit characteristic of Boileau; he represents, as it were, the transition
between Boileau and Voltaire ; moreover, the Dunciad reads as though it
were copied from the Lutrin, the evident relationship between the two
poems .being shown by their close similarity of style.

These great names must be supplemented by those of Waller, the
friend of Saint-Evremond and the correspondent of La Fontaine, in
whom we might almost say was revived all that was finest in our witty
pricieux of the seventeenth century; Garth, the amusing humorist,
who recalls the French burlesques, and whose works Voltaire so highly
appreciated as to translate some of them ; Arbuthnot, Gay, Lord
Bolingbroke, Lord Chesterfield. The name of Swift may be omitted
from the list, inasmuch as, in the first instance, if he borrowed at all from
the French, it was rather from the writers of the sixteenth than from
those of the seventeenth century, and, secondly, because Swift's was too
original and too individual a nature to allow of his being cited as an
example of any kind of external influence. But here it is necessary to
stop — in view of the well-known fact that, if the English humorists of
the early eighteenth century certainly owe much to the French, the
English " Sentimentalists " of the middle of the eighteenth century no
less certainly exercised a very strong and deep influence over Diderot,
Rousseau, and Sedaine.

This outline — for it is nothing more — indicates the general character-
istics of the great French writers of the seventeenth century, who
made themselves heard and felt throughout the European world of
letters of that century and the earlier years of its successor. It was a
glorious era in French history, however diversely it may be regarded
according to the national standpoint of the student; as had been her
lot in the thirteenth century, so again in the seventeenth France was
unanimously acclaimed the intellectual sovereign of Europe, all eyes
being turned towards her, and all ears listening for her action.

The predominant influence of French literature is everywhere per-
ceptible ; for a time its prestige blocked the way and arrested the action

The value of international literary influences. 71

of every individual impulse, every national movement, in the literary
history of every nation. Especially was this the case in Italy and
Spain ; it was also partially true of Germany and England. Perhaps,
after all, it is not a bad thing, in the long run, for a people to put itself
to school for a time to another nation, or rather (since this is never
really done) to enter upon a period of diligent, careful, and devoted
study of the literature of another people. The French nation ought
to be aware of this truth, for not less than four times in its history a
period of imitation of foreign work has been succeeded by a brilliant,
and, in some ways, a glorious, literary revival, by no means to be
explained as a mere coincidence. First, after a searching study of the
classics, came the Pleiade; then came the literature of 1660, after an
intimate study of Italian and Spanish writers; then the period of
Diderot and Rousseau, after a salutary enthusiasm for English literature;
and lastly, the French Romantic revival, after a time of devotion to
English and German literature.

It may be (for on these inevitably obscure and extremely complex
matters it is better not to dogmatise) that contact with a foreign in-
fluence enriches, in a general way, the national literary sense ; or, again,
certain sides of the national mind which were unaware of their own
existence or at all events hardly suspected it may awake and become con-
scious of their existence when they recognise themselves in the literature
of a foreign land ; or, yet again, the rea,l essence of a nation's intellectual
life may be distilled and acquire fresh strength by the very reaction
against a foreign literature that has for a time been injudiciously
worshipped; and in this case, too, good arises, though indirectly.

For example, English humour will endure for all time ; but we have
seen that it was developed to a singularly high degree in England after
contact with French wit; and again, in Germany, the national revolution
brought about by Lessing and the great literary results that ensued
for German literature were stimulated by French influence, which not
only invigorated German wit, but incited it to the assertion of its own
independence.

We are reminded of the saying of La Bruyere concerning strong and
sturdy children who fight their nurses. Nurses give sustenance to their
foster-children for the very purpose of making them strong and able,
if need be, to fight their foster-mothers. They perform this task
in perfect consciousness, and cheerfully undertake the risk which it
implies. Whatever the explanation may be, for nearly a hundred years
France occupied a position towards every other European nation analogous
to that of a nurse ; and, on the whole, she cannot assert that, when she
remembers this experience, it is wholly unsatisfactory to her.

on. III.

72

CHAPTER IV.

THE GALLICAN CHURCH.

During the first half of the seventeenth century French religion
went through a somewhat chaotic stage. Catholicism had triumphed
under Henry IV, but the whole reign of his successor was taken up by
discussions as to the particular form which Catholicism should assumed
For a long while the country swung to and fro between two rival schools of
extremists, neither of which was strong enough to crush the other. At
one end of the line was the ultra-clerical party headed successively by
.^^X^lMs^iicJ and Anne of Austria. At the opposite end were the
upholders of a purely"officiarreligronX their strength lay chiefly in the
£legal and administrative class, which Richelieu had raised to power.J
They were ready enough to call themselves Catholics, and " perform the
ancient ceremonies of their country with a decent moderation," as one of
their own great writers enjoins. But they insisted that Catholicism
should be kept under the strict surveillance of the civil powers; its
profession was not so much a duty to God as a duty to the State.
Their real religion they found in the books of such men as Guillaume
du Vair (1556-1621), Bishop of Lisieux and Lord Keeper during the
regency of Mary de' Medici, He offered them a purely natural religion,
set out in singularly impressive language largely borrowed from the
ancient Stoics. Intensely moral and patriotic, it is touched throughout
with Christian sentiment ; but it owes quite as much to Epictetus as to
the Sermon on the Mount.

Where the fathers swore by Du Vair, the children passed on to
Degcartes (1596-1650}^ The philosopher posed as an excellent Church-
man ; and^ilienTProtestant friends in Holland tried to convert him, he
answered that the religion of his king and of his niu-se was good enough
for him, , But his real work was to finish what Du Vair had begun. His
Meditations gave the world what the world had never seen before — proofs
jof God, freedom and immortality]! put into language strictly reasoned,
but not too hard for average minds to follow. These three things once
proved, however, Descartes made his bow and departed, leaving the field
clear for theology. What God was like he did not pretend to say, nor
how eternal happiness was to be compassed, or our freedom to be used.

State of religious parties. 73

That was matter oflfeith, not reasonTjand he only dealt with the domain
where philosophy ana religion overlapped. Hereupon followed the natural
result. Most Cartesian imaginations fastened on the truths of reason,
and but little occupied themselves with those of faith. The first were the
essentials of religion, the second its accidental clothing, mere " ancient
ceremonies of one's country."

Not that this consequence showed itself at once. Churchmen were a
long while in deciding whether Cartesianism did more good or harm.
The great Jansenist, Antoine Arnauld, spoke up warmly in its favour.
Bossuet was much more doubtful; but Pascal was the one Christian
thinker of the age who steadily opposed it. Nor were the rationalists
themselves quite clear whither they were bound. At first sight no one
looks more negative than Gui Patin (1601-72), an eminent, but very
cross-grained, professor from the College de France. He was always con-
gratulating himself on being " delivered from the nightmare " ; and he
rivals the eighteenth century in the scorn he pours on priests, monks, and
especially " that black Loyolitic scum from Spain," which called itself
the Society of Jesus. Yet Patin was no freethinker. Sceptics who made
game of tiie kernel of religion came quite as much under the lash of his
tongue as bigots who dared defend its husks. His letters end with the
characteristic confession : " Credo in Deum, Christum crucifixum, etc.,
De minimis non curat praetor ^

At the opposite pole from Patin stood the party of the so-called
divots. Patronised successively by the two foreign queens, its first
object was to introduce new fashions in devotion, and new religious orders,
from Italy or Spain. For French religion and French literature were
alike impoverished, and must borrow from abroad. The divots were
only doing in one field what preciositi accomplished in another, when
it brought in gongorisme, or exaggerated emphasis, from beyond the
Pyrenees, and little concetti from beyond the Alps. In neither case
did native taste take altogether kindly to the loan. The Bare-footed
Carmelites, for instance, were brought to France under the patronage of
one queen, and warmly encouraged by the other. Daughters of St Teresa,
they represented the fine flower of the Spanish Counter-reformation.
They brought with them a glow of torrid romance, that sat well
enough on the countrywomen of Don Quixote, but was utterly out of
place in the Paris of Descartes and Gui Patin. Their religion was all
violent contrasts of light and shade. In their churches was great show
of perfumes, flowers, and fine linen; in their cloisters extraordinary
austerities — terrible scourgings, the most humiliating penances, and fasts
on bread and water. Louise de La Valliere, flying from the arms of
Louis XIV to scrub floors in a Carmelite convent, is a typical example of
their picturesque sensationalism.

Still less acceptable to most Frenchmen was the piety of the Italians.
Here artistic triviality reigned. Patin is never tired of denouncing their

OH. IV,

74 The GalUcan Liberties.

" bad little books of devotion, full of miracles and monkish revelations,
cords of St Francis and girdles of St Margaret." Nor was their want of
taste their only fault. They, and all they represented, widened the
breach between Cartesian rationalism and the Church. In particular,
they exasperated the Huguenotsy and stood wantonly in the way of their
reconciliation with the Roman Church. And that was an object that
most good Frenchmen had very much at heart, though often for political
reasons quite as much as for religious. A good instance is the sceptical
critic Saint-^l^vremond (1613-1703). He quite agreed with the Protestants
that they would not find a rational religion in Italy or Spain. Thanks
to the Galilean Liberties, however, he thought that they might find it in
France, if they left the "girdle of St Margaret" alonej and took to
reading Bossuet.

The Liberties in question were certain ancient rights, in which most
Frenchmen took a patriotic pride. They were peculiar to France ; and,
as the Crown lawyers said, they had never been granted like a privilege,
but grew up in the very nature of things. They consisted chiefly in four
_£oints. Papal bulls might not come into France without leave of the
Crown. The decisions of the Roman Congregations had no legal weight
in France. French subjects could not be cited before a Roman tribunal.
French civil Courts took cognisance of ecclesiastical affairs, whenever the
law of the land was thought to be broken. And, inasmuch as Catholicism
was part and parcel of the common law, the Parlements could, and did,
give this last article a very wide extension. They were perfectly ready to
enter into the merits of an excommunication, and force Bishops and
Cardinals to withdraw it, if they thought it improperly launched.
There are even cases in which they "adjudged" the sacrament to those
who could not obtain it from their parish priest.

However, these abuses were the exception; and the mass of the
French clergy put up with the Parlements easily enough. After all, the
only alternative was an appeal to the Pope; and to him they were by no
means anxious to go, even had their Government allowed it. Most
visitors to Rome told the same tale; They were scandalised at its
pettiness, especially at its neglect of theological scholarship. Much more
secular branches of learning tempted Italian ambition. The road to the
purple lay through nunciatures and administrative oflices ; divinity was
left to the friars, who had no other chance of advancement. |But indiffer-
ence leads as straight to intolerance as ever can fanaticism.^ When a too
original book was published, the Cardinals made haste to put it on the
Index, and troubled themselves no more about it, siu-e that it soon
would be forgotten. In Prance this irresponsible high-handedness was
neither possible nor desired ; a single example would have drawn down
on the offending prelate a swarm of jeering pamphlets. For the
Huguenots were always on the watch to spy out a joint in Goliath's
armour ; and herein they were supported by lay Catholic opinion. Most

Ultramontanism. 75

Frenchmen liked authority well enough within its proper sphere; but
they expected it to obey the law and common sense.

All these things inspired a strong dislike of the doctrine of papa]
infallibility. Dogmatically speaking, Frenchmen thought it unhistorical,
and opposed to the ancient traditions of their Church. Administratively
speaking, it meant a revolution. Hitherto they had settled their ecclesias-
tical disputes at home. Once admit infallibility, and appeals innumerable
would go from their own highly competent tribunals to a set of incapable
judges in a foreign land. Lastly, Bellarmin and the Roman Ultramon-
tanes had grafted on to the theological dogma a set of political conse-
quences highly exasperating to French national pride. It was argued
that ecclesiastical interests took precedence of all other interests ; and of
these the Pope was the only judge. Hence he had a right to dictate
his will to temporal sovereigns, whenever he thought such interests were
concerned. If they refused to listen, he could punish them in any
manner he thought fit ; in the last resort he could depose them, incite
their subjects to rebellion, and head a crusade of Catholic Powers against
them.

Much of this, no doubt, was simply dialectical steam, blown off by
heated professors in a class-room. But steam can drive small wheels as
well as great. The French Ministers knew very well that Ultra-
montanism could not depose Louis XIII from his throne; it could,
and did, write seditious pamphlets, whenever Richelieu supported a
.£cQJt;estant Power against a Catholic. But in their foreign policy, at
any rate, Richelieu and his successors meant to keep their hands entirely
free ; here they must be able to ignore ecclesiastical interests as much as
they pleased without fear of ecclesiastical disturbance. Hence the need
of a doctrine that would bind the consciences of all Frenchmen to obey
no master but their King.

This need Gallicanism supplied. It may be described as a generalisa-
tion of the ancient Gallican Liberties, evolved as a counterblast to Ultra-
montanism. Like the rival theory, it developed a theological and a political
side. Theological Gallicanism maintained that the supreme infallible
authority of the Church was committed to Pope and Bishops jointly.
Political Gallicanism declared that no amount of misconduct, or neglect
of Catholic interests, justified the Pope in int^fering with a temporal
sovereign. The two doctrines grew up independently ; and even under
Louis XIV many Jesuits and other divines were politically GalHcan, and
theologically Ultramontane. But early in the seventeenth century the
two sides of Gallicanism were welded together by Edmond Richer
(1559-1631), a famous Doctor of the Sorbonne. To the Richelieus and
Colberts Gallicanism was a mere device for snuifing out clerical opposi-
tion; in the hands of Richer and his successors it became an honest
attempt to solve the great problem of the age, and show Frenchmen how
to be at once good citizens and good Catholics, j

OH. IV.

76 The divine right of Kings.

For a new era was dawning. On the divisions of the Wars of
Religion there followed an irresistible reaction towards patriotism and
national unity. France had suddenly grown to her full stature; like
the contemporary England of John Milton, she was become "a noble
and puissant nation, rousing herself like a strong man after sleep."
Ultramontanism strove hard to check what it called this "separatist"
tendency, and to strangle national aspirations in the leading-strings of
the Papacy. But even the clergy were swept away by the current, and
meant to be patriots like everyone else. "Before my ordination," said
Richer, "I was a subject of the King of France. Why should that
ceremony make me a subject of the Pope.''" His eccentric follower^
Michael Chretien, went further still, and exhorted the assembled Sor-
bonne to rally to the service of its King. " Exhibeamtis nos gallos, et
rum gcUVmas^ he cried. Before long the Galilean wave had invaded the
Jesuits themselves. When Louis XIV, after a period of diplomatic
coolness, again sent an ambassador to Alexander VII, Father Rapin
overflows about his royal condescension in thus " honouring " the Pope.
And in the great quarrel with Innocent XI the Society was among the
strongest supporters of the Crown.

Gallicanism negessarily_.led up to the doctrine of the divine right of
Jdnga. This doctrine is developed by Bossuet in his Politique tirie de
VEcriture Sainte, written between 1675 and 1680, while the author was
tutor to Louis XIV's only son. But Bossuet by no naeans followed the
same lines as his contemporaries across the Channel. The theologians of
Charles II upheld the divine right of legitimate monarchy, as opposed
to other forms of government. Bossuet's object was to show that all
I established sovereignties — whether monarchical or republican — hold their
power directly of God, and not mediately through the Pope. God wills
that in every country there should be some settled constitution; what
particular form it takes the customs of the country will decide. But,
once a particular form of government has established its prescriptive
right, no power on earth can interfere either with the system itself or
with its lawfully-appointed officers ; a bad, but legitimate, king can no
more be exchanged for a good than an established republic can trans-
form itself into a monarchy. In short, Bossuet's book is a plea for
political stability at all costs. He was old enough to remember the
Fronde, and the misery its flighty constitutional experiments brought
upon the common folk. He was writing a manual for the son of
Louis XIV at a time when Louis' methods of government had culminated
in a blaze of glory. Naturally he wished those methods to continue for
ever.

No doubt, this royalist enthusiasm acquired a thick enough coating
of vulgarity by the time it reached the lower strata of the clergy. The
great Huguenot controversialist, Jiu-ieu, has much to say about a thesis
on the argument from design mainta,ined by certain Franciscans of

Church and Crown. 77

Marseilles, wherein the chief proof of a Deity's existence was drawn from
the triumphs of Louis the Great. But the worst effect of this perpetual
incense was on the character of Louis himself. It is true it did not
touch his religion; for that was a mass of Spanish superstitions inherited
from his mother. As Madame de Maintenon told Cardinal de Noailles,
the King would never miss a sermon or a fast-day, but no one could make
him understand what was meant by humility or repentance. His private
superstitions had, however, little to do with his public policy. Here he
walked in the steps of Richelieu, and made the glory of God come alto-
gether second to the glory of the King of France. The Church was a
most effective instrument of government, and therefore he supported the
Church; but he expected Pope and Bishops to take their marching
orders from him. If they refused, he was perfectly ready to make war
on the one, and send the others to the Bastille.

The clergy, in fact, were supernumerary members of the civil service.
By the Concordat of 1516 the Crown appointed to all bishoprics and
abbeys. But the mere nomination was the least part of the business ;
the real strength of the Crown lay in its power to raise or lower clerical
incomes as it pleased. It could burden an incoming bishop's revenues with
pensions to whomsoever it chose ; it could reward good service with fat
sinecures. Of these the most important were the abbeys in commendam.
They could be granted to whomsoever the King chose. No residence, or
other duty, was expected from the abbot. He need not be in holy
orders ; he might be a child, or even a Huguenot. Indeed, he could be
anything except a monk ; for if a qualified person were appointed, the
abbey was " restored to rule," and further abuse became impossible.

Still more curious was the royal perquisite of the regale, or right to
the temporalities of a vacant bishopric. Of these by far the most
important was the patronage of benefices in the bishop's gift — chiefly
canonries, archdeaconries, and a host of minor appointments in cathedral
and collegiate churches. Parochial livings were excluded, as directly
involving cure of souls. In the hands of successive generations of Crown
lawyers this prerogative was developed to an incredible extent. It was
held that prescription could not be pleaded against the Crown ; hence, if
a benefice once fell under the regale, there it remained, until the Crown
had exercised its right. As a matter of grace, the Crown seldom inter-
fered with a dignitary who had been in possession of his stall for thirty
years ; but at any time within that period an episcopally-appointed
canon was liable to ejectment, on the ground that the patronage of his
place rightfully belonged to the Crown. Hence, to present a man to a
canonry was often equivalent to presenting him to a costly lawsuit.

Quite apart from the rkgcAe, however, litigiousness was a besetting
sin of the French clergy. Cathedral Chapters, in particular, were
proverbial for their lawyers' bills. Their great object was to make
themselves as independent as possible of the Bishop; and herein their

CH. IV.

18 The religious revival.

lead was followed by numberless deans of peculiars, rectors, incumbents
of donatives, and the like. " The lichen of exemptions," said St Francis
of Sales, " is fast eating away the trunk of the Church." Another great,
evil was non-residence. Bishops no longer commanded fleets ; nor couldi
they throw up their pastoral charges and marry, as more than once
happened under Louis XIII. But most of them would very much rather
serve at Court than reign in their cathedral cities ; and to " banish " a
prelate to bis diocese was one of the heaviest sentences Louis XIV could ,
pronounce. Even F^nelon talks of his palace at Cambray much as Ovid
talks of Tomi.

These non-resident pluralists were divided by a yawning gulf from
the humble country curates. Most of these were miserably poor — even
poorer, relatively speaking, than their successors in modem Prance.
Of education they had little ; no means existed for obtaining it. The .
Sorbonne, or theological faculty of Paris University, gave an elaborate
education in divinity ; but very few young men could afford to spend
seven years over their degree. Few of the provincial universities taught
theology at all ; and seminaries, or diocesan colleges preparing directly
for the priesthood, were only just beginning to be founded. On thei
other hand, the Bishops expected nothing more from a candidate for
holy orders than some evidence to character and enough Latin to
stumble through a few lines of the Breviary. Hence the most astounding'
ignorance was common enough. Priests were found who did not know
the common -formula of absolution. St Vincent de Paul had much
trouble in persuading others that they ought not to take money for
hearing confessions. Jean-Jacques Olier, founder of the seminary of
Saint-Sulpice, came across a priest in his parish, who was in the habit
of praying to St Beelzebub.

The awakening of these poor curates and their flocks became the
favourite project of St Vincent de Paul (1576-1660). His Lazarists, or
Priests of the Mission, were to evangelise the country districts ; his
Sisters of Charity were to relieve their temporal distresses. These two
bodies represent the triumph of two important innovations. The old-
fashioned nun had spent her whole time behind high walls in prayer and
contemplation ; the one object of the Sister of Charity was the service,
of her neighbours. The first aim of an old-fashioned Order was to make
itself independent of all existing authorities ; St Vincent's two institutions
were expressly intended to collaborate with the Bishops and parochial
clergy.

This last idea was not absolutely new. Cardinal de Berulle (1574—
1629) had founded the French Oratory — a very free adaptation of the
original institute of .St Philip Neri — in order to train up clergy for
country dioceses. But the Oratory proved too lettered for its work.
Instead of a popular training college, it became the home of speculative
recluses, such as the philosopher Malebranche (1638-1715), or Richard

Directors of Conscience, and Preachers. 79

Simon (1638-1712), founder of Biblical criticism in France. As a
nursery of clerical scholars, the: Oratory had only one rival. This was
the Congregation of St Maur (1627), an oiFshoot of the Benedictine
Order. Under the guidance of Mabillon (1632-1707), it developed an
invaluable school of critics and ecclesiastical historians.

Mabillon and Malebranche only touched the few ; the education of
the mass of the clergy fell into the hands of the Sulpicians, founded by the
Abbe Olier in 164<1, and the Eudists (1643), so called from their founder,
the Abbe Eudes de Mezefai. Following their lead came the Christian
Brothers (1680), an association of celibate laymen, who furnished teachers
for the humbler class of schools. But all three bodies laid much more
stress on piety than on learning; Saint-Sulpice, in particular, devoted
itself " not so much to theological science, as to the practice of that
science, and the virtues proper to the clerical state."

An abounding interest in applied religion marks the whole revival.
Perhaps its most characteristic outcome was the rise of professed Directors
of Conscience^rdivines who specialised in spiritual ailments ; they stood
to ordinary confessors much as a consulting physician stands to a general
practitioner. No doubt, their rise was not an altogether healthy sign,
and a director often aggravated the ills he was sent to cure. He became
the natural target for all the morbid scrupulosity and self-analysis
which idle and luxurious lives produce. Fenelon, a great expert in these
matters, has many hard things to say about the valetudinarians in soul,
who felt their pulses twenty times a day, and sent continually to the
director to beg new drugs, or promises of quick recovery. But the
prominence of Direction was a strong acknowledgment of the need of
personal religion. It was felt, on the one hand, that something more
than routine religious duties was demanded of the laity; it was felt, on
the other, that they could not be trusted to pick out the vital elements
in religion for themselves. Some were too feeble, othei's too erratic.
Hence the use of a Director. He kept flightiness from trying dangerous
experiments, and broke up the bread of doctrine into morsels suited to
a feeble appetite.

Direction, however, was only for the few; for the many the one
means of instruction was the sermon. Nowadays it is hard to realise
how large a part the pulpit played in the life of seventeenth century
France. Political assemblies were unknown. Journalism, stiU in its
infancy, was closely muzzled. The pulpit was the only place where
popular criticism of those in high places could safely make itself heard.
Nor did preachers always resist the obvious temptation of airing their
views on subjects in general, just to show off their own cleverness.
La Bruyere declares that they made their pulpit a means of advance-
ment as rapid, but not less hazardous, than the profession of arms.
Others gave in to the dominant pr^dosite. Mascaron (1634-1703) and
Flechier (1682-1710), the two earliest of Louis XIV's Court-preacherg,

OH. IV.

80 ' The Jesuits^

could generally be trusted not to say things in a simple way, if it was
possible to put them in an artificial. But the religious revival waged
war on priciositi. St Vincent de Paul is said to have thrown himself at
the feet of a floweiy young orator, and begged him to give up ornaments
so unworthy of a crucified Jesus. This spirit triumphed in Bossuet
(1627-1704), greatest of all the preachers. Quite apart from their
literary qualities, his sermons are distinguished by a fervour at once
evangelical and practical. His aim was so to interweave doctrine and
morality that each would lend assistance to the other. Faith would be
the inspiration of all Christian practice; while practice, in its turn,
would lead to a deeper grasp of faith. But, except on a few State
occasions, Bossuet seldom mounted a Paris pulpit after he became tutor
to the Dauphin (1670); and his mantle fell on the Jesuit Bourdaloue
(1632-1704). In him, however, a moralistic, argumentative tone makes
itself heard beside the evangelical; as Fenelon said, his sermons were
magnificent reasonings about Christianity, but they were not religion.
This criticism is still more true of Massillon (1663-1742), last of the
great Court-preachers.

Preachers and Directors might make much of personal religion ; but
there was a general tendency to treat it as the crown and flower of
religion, rather than as its root. For any high degree of sanctity it was
indispensable; but it was thought that a man could scrape into a
humble place in Paradise without possessing even its germs. This view
was more especially common among the Jesuits. Not that it was
peculiar to them. The Jesuits have invented little; but their energy,
their boldness, their elastic organisation, unfettered by any ancient
traditions, make them peculiarly conspicuous champions of whatever
ideas they may adopt. In this matter of personal piety their sympathies
were specially engaged. It appealed to individual experience, and such
experience had been the great weapon of Luther and Calvin. But the
Jesuits were sworn enemies of the Beformation and all its works ; they
boasted that they were nothing that Protestantism was, and all that
Protestantism was not. Then, too, individual experience was cloudy
and anarchic. But the Jesuits were essentially a combatant body,
brought up to a more than military discipline; their sympathies were
all for military precision — dogmas as clear-cut as a proposition of
Euclid. Pascal might object that in religion what is clear-cut and
precise is seldom true ; but Jesuits had no time to listen to such scruples.
Practical efiiciency was their aim ; and efficiency required a positive base
of operations. Hence they were for ever extending the scope of papal
infallibility.

Nor did these devotees of the practical take pains to distinguish between
the ideal interests of religion and the terrestrial interests of the Church.
It was God's vicegerent; and to appeal — as Pascal appealed — from its
decisions to the judgment-seailj of Christ was a,ljke blasphemous and

Casuistry. 81

foolish. Right-minded men trained themselves to believe that, whatever
she did, the Church was always right. But a Church, ridden by the
spectre of efficiency, is like to end in frank utilitarianism ; and during
the seventeenth century there was a continually-smouldering contest
between the Jesuits and divines of a less worldly school as to exactly
how far utility should be allowed to go. The great fight was over the
.fiOuiiessiadaL. Should priests pitch their standards high or low? The
Jesuits argued that severity scared many away altogether— ra contingency
the more to be regretted in the case of the rich or influential. Accord-
ingly they began a campaign to force confessors to be lax. The famous
doctiine of probabilism — first broached about the beginning of the
seventeenth century — made it a grave sin in the priest to refuse absolu-
tion, if there were any good reason for giving it ; even when there were
other and better reasons for refusing it. And to determine what such
" good reason " was fell to Escobar and the Casuists.

These writers developed a whole system of expedients for protecting
the penitent from a too zealous confessor. The kind of question he
might ask was carefully defined. He must not cast about for general
information as to his penitent's disposition, as would a physician; he
must try each oflence strictly on its merits, as would a magistrate. He
must always lean towards the most " benign " interpretation of the law ;
and for his guidance casuistry ran many an ingenious coach and four
through inconvenient enactments. In matters of detail most of these
are harmless enough. They are chiefly concerned with proving that
common peccadilloes — the white lies of the lady of fashion, the " trade
customs " of the shopkeeper — are not grievous sins. Nevertheless, in the
opinion of _Pascal, Milton, and other contemporary critics, the Casuists
degraded morality. They encouraged men to take over theiir ideas of
right and wrong ready-made from the priest, and thus save themselves
the trouble of thinking. As Milton said, their conscience became a
" dividual moveable," left entirely in charge of the priest. He, in his turn,
must be content with a low quality of achievement. He might urge his
penitents to do more ; but human nature seldom resists the charms of a
fixed standard — least of aU, when it is administered by a live ju4ge in a
visible court. If he must be satisfied with little, why be at the trouble
of offering more ? But the less he could expect from them, the more he
was driven to trust to the miraculous efficiency of sacramental grace.
By hook or by crook get the sinner to confession, and the whole work
was done. However bad his natural character, the magical words of
absolution would make him a new man.

These abuses called forth a series of protests from eminent divines,
among whom Bossugt was the most conspicuous ; and during the later
years of the century probabilism disappeared altogether from the French
divinity schools. But Bossuet only struck at isolated points ; meanwhile
a movement was springing up, which aspired to cut down at the root

c. u. B, V. cH. ly. 6

^^ 7lie origins of Jansenism.

the whole Jesuit conception of religion. This was the revival known as
Jansenism. It is so called from the name of its founder, Cornelius Jansen
(1585-1638), a Dutch divine, long professor of divinity at Louvain
University, and afterwards Bishop of Ypres in Belgium. His doctrines
are contained in a bulky treatise on the theology of St Augustine,
posthumously published in 1640. Meanwhile, however, his ideas had
been popularised in France by his friend Jean Duvergier de Hauranne
(1581-1643), commendatory Abbot of Saint-Cyran. Both were men
strongly gifted with the evangelical impulse ; and both had early been
brought into conflict with the Jesuits. Saint-Cyran, like many other
French divines, sympathised warmly with the secular Catholic missionaries
in England in their interminable quarrel with their Jesuit rivals. Jansen
had early taken sides in the controversy that had raged at Louvain ever
since the days of its celebrated professor, Michael Baius (1513-89), and
the eminent Jesuit, Leonard Lessius (1554-1625). The great question
at stake was the right way of teaching theology. The Jesuits partly
stood for the strictly logical scholastic method ; the followers of Baius
were for an iappeal to mysticism and subjective experience.

Not that Jansen or his masters had any conscious tendencies to
Protestantism. They might be willing to encounter the Reformation
by its own weapons, and show that Catholic Louvain could be quite as
ievangelical as Presbyterian Leyden. But party-feeling was kept hot on
both sides by continual border-affrays ; Jansen himself had a long battle
with the learned Calvinist, Voetius, still remembered as an antagonist of
Descartes. This double line of warfare shaped the ideals of the two
friends; they were in search of a theology which should be Catholic,
but not Jesuit — evangelical, but not Protestant. They found it in the
writings of St Augustine, who offered them a strongly individualistic
mystical religion, dexterously interwoven with a high sacramental theory
|__of the Church.

Accordingly Augustine became their oracle; and for years a sullen
controversy ragfed as to whether Jansen had really understood his master.
With the mass of his followers, however, these questions of scholarship
were an altogether secondary matter ; they valued his teaching because
he gave them neither ceremonial nor theology, but genuine religion.
Fot the great work of Jansenism was to insist that piety does not mean
believing a particular opinion j or adopting a particular mode of life; it
means conversion, becoming a new creature. Morality, chui-ch-going,
orthodox opinions, might be excellent things in their place ; but through
them no man ever saved his soul. His fate in the next world depended
on whether his life in this had been informed by the love of God. And
by love of God Jansen meant simply the religious sense. This might be
weak, or it might be strong ; but even its humblest forms were enough
to distinguish him who had it from those who had it not — to draw all
his actions into a new perspective, and put a different colouring on all

The meardng of Jansenism. 83

his thoughts. But inasmuch as a radical change of character is beyond
man's power to effect, Grace must descend upon him like a whirlwind —
as once it descended on Jansen's two spiritual heroes, St Augustine and
St Paul — and draw his will " irresistibly, unfailingly, victoriously," out
of darkness into light.

[_Thus Jansen's doctrine of conversion melted into Predestination.j
God calls certain souls to Himself; the rest He leaves to perish in
their sins. Surprise has sometimes been expressed that Jansen should
have made so many converts to so terrible a doctrine ; even in his own
day Deists had arisen to protest against a God, whose "justice" human
misery exalted, whose "essence" human ills enriched. But the mass
of Frenchmen conceived of their Maker as a hypostatised absolute
sovereign : like the Louis XIV of Saint-Simon, He " commanded, and
gave His reasons to none." Moreover, Jansen's doctrine of conver-
sion softened the grimness of his predestinarianism. A man might be
unregenerate to-day; but to-morrow it might please God to convert
him — as once He converted St Paul, "model of all penitents." But
Jansen's real object was to teach men that they cannot make their own
religion for themselves. Left to their undisciplined fancy, they were
straying on every side ; some were experimenting with the geometrical God
of Descartes, others with some Ultramontane " girdle of St Margaret."
Jansen answered that they cannot choose how, or when, they will be
pious : they must wait till their Maker touches their heart, and tells
them what He would have them do. "Those who really long for
God," said Pascal, " long also to approach Him only by means He has
Himself ordained."

Thus the ultimate religious sanction became subjective — an inward
"witness of the Spirit"; and herein the French authorities saw endless
possibilities of insubordination both in Church and State. L.For in
the French seventeenth century a theological opinion was a political
eventJ7 A disaffected party in the Church was sure to develop some
kind of organised machinery for the furtherance of its views ; and on
this machinery all disaffected parties in the State threw a wistful eye.
The Frondeurs, in particular, would have given much for Jansenist
support. But the Fronde was stiU to come, when Jansenism gave its first
great manifesto to the world. One of Saint-Cyran's most important
converts was Angelique Amauld (1591-1661), Abbess of Port-Royal, a
convent near Versailles, and thenceforward the head-quarters of the party.
She converted her brother Antoine (161^94), a young Doctor of the
Sorbonne. In 1643 Antoine_ArnaiJd published a book on Frequent
Cormmmion, an attack on the confessors who gave absolution easily,
without enquiry into the penitent's character, or the sincerity of his
repentance. The book raised a violent storm, but many divines sup-
ported Arnauld, and no ofBcial action was taken against his party till
1649. Then the Sorbonne condemned five propositions from Jansen's
cH. IV. 6—2

84 The decline of Jansenism.

Augustinus, all relating to Predestination. This censure, backed by the
signatures of eighty-five Bishops, was sent up to Rome for confirmation ;
and in 1653 Innocent X declared all five propositions heretical.

His judgment put the Jansenists between two fires. To accept it
meant a surrender of their whole position ; to reject it would put them
outside the Roman Church. Accordingly they temporised. They ac-
cepted the censure in the abstract, but denied that Jansen had held
the propositions in the sense condemned. In one sense this was true;
for a book may well mean one thing to spiritual experience, and quite
another to an ecclesiastical lawyer. But the authorities could not be
expected to listen to such reasoning; in 1656 Amauld was expelled
from the Sorbonne, in spite of Pascal's Provmcial Letters, begun in
an, attempt to save him. The Letters (1656-7) soon leave Amauld
behind, however, and go on to a general attack on Jesuit casuistry
and devotion aisie.

In October, 1656, Alexander VII cut away the ground from under
Amauld's feet by declaring that his predecessor had condemned the
Augustvmts in the sense intended by Jansen. Arnauld promptly set
up the legal distinction of law and fact. In matters of dogma, he
said, the Church was certainly infallible; but about the private inten-
tions of an author it knew no more than anyone else. However, the
authorities were obdtu:ate. A "formulary," or declaration that the
Augustinus had been rightly condemned in the sense intended by its
author, was presently drawn up; and signature was made binding on
all nuns as well as priests. At first, however, it was only imposed
on suspected Jansenists (1661), most of whom refused to sign. The
priests went into hiding ; and the Government began to persecute the
nuns of Port-Royal. But in 1665 Pope and King resolved to make signa-
ture really universal. Hereupon four Bishops protested — those of Alet,
Angers, Beauvais, Pamiers — and were only induced to make a very am-
biguous submission in 1668. With this, however, the pacific Clement IX
declared himself satisfied; and the very secular French Ministers, who
were frankly weary of the whole affair, persuaded the King to seize this
opportunity of admitting the Jansenists generally to grace (1669).

Hence the so-called Peace of Clement IX is treated by Jansenist
writers as a triumph: really, it was the beginning of their downfall,
They had set out to reform the Church: they ended by having to
fight hard for a doubtful foothold within it. And under the leadership
of Amauld — scion of a family of lawyers — the party itself had gone
downhill; a controversial argumentative impulse was shouldering out
the spiritual. Everyone admired Amauld's talents ; for he was not only
a party-leader, but a considerable geometer and metaphysician. But, in
admiring, the world agreed with Bossuet, who said that Arnauld was
inexcusable for having squandered his great abilities in an attempt to
prove that Jansen had not been condemned. Besides, the Peace was

The R6gale. 85

much too artificial an affair to be loyally observed— least of all at
a time when Louis XIV was preparing to enforce a rigid uniformity
throughout his dominions. The Catholics he had well in hand already;
the Huguenots he was soon going to expel from France. Why, then,
show mercy to a handful of eccentric recluses, who believed themselves to
be in special touch with Heaven, and therefore might at any moment
set their conscience up against the law.?

Nor was an object-lesson wanting. For many years past the Crown
lawyers had been extending the rigale ; though a few dioceses, mainly
in the south of France, still claimed exemption on the ground of ancient
usage. But in 1673 the Government thought the time had come for
enforcing uniformity; and Louis; formally declared the r^g-afe univer-
gajly binding throughout the realm. Only two™BisEopspirotested—
Pavilion of Alet^ andTTauIeF'SnPamiers — both of whom had taken
the Jansenist side in the matter of the formulary. The storm broke
loose in 1675, when Louis presented to a ^anonix at Alet. Pavilion/
excommunicated the royal nominee; his metropolitan, the Archbishop af
Narbonne, supported the Crown ; PaviUon appealed to the Pope. Very
soon afterwards he died (1677), leaving Caulet to carry on the struggle
alone. Caulet, whose temporalities were by this time confiscated, made
a series of appeals to Innocent XI, a high-minded but very undecided
pontiff; and at last persuaded him to interfere (December, 1679).
In 1680 Caulet died, but his Cathedral Chapter more than replaced
him. The metropolitan tried to interfere ; Innocent declared his action
intrusive, and threatened him with excommunication (January, 1681).

This invasion of the canonical rights of a metropolitan — for Innocent
had prejudged the case, without listening to what the Archbishop might
have to say — was bitterly resented in France as a gross invasion of the
Galilean Liberties. After much consultation between the Court and
the leading prelates, it was agreed to convoke a special Assembly of the
Clergy — a body roughly answering to the Anglican Convocation — to
deal with the whole question. The Assembly met in October, 1681 ;
at its opening session Bossuet, just appointed Bishop of Meaux, preached
a great sermon on the unity of the Church. The rkgaHe was soon settled
by a compromise, carried through by Louis himself against the advice of
his Ministers, and greatly to the advaintage of the clergy. Colbert now
suggested that this would be an excellent chance of setting at rest for
ever the much-debated question as to the exact relation of the Galilean
Church to the Papacy. Bossuet and other Bishops objected, on the
ground that a declaration on this subject could do no good, and would
give mortal offence at Rome. But Colbert persisted; and in March,
1682, the Assembly unanimously voted assent to four Articles drawn up
by Bossuet. These are a skilful compromise. On the one hand, they
assert the main pqints of Gallican belief. (1) The Pope has no jurisdic-
tion over temporal sovereigns. (2) He is below a General CounciL

86 The influence of Bossuet.

(8) The Gallican Liberties are sacred. (4) The right of judging matters
of doctrine belongs to Pope and Bishops jointly. On the other hand,
the Articles steer clear of the extremer forms of Gallicanism. The chief
share in judging questions of doctrine is reserved to the Pope ; and the
Declaration carefully leaves room for Bossuet's personal opinion — already
expressed in his opening sermon — that the See of Rome, though not
infallible, is "indefectible": not necessarily right at any particular
moment, it cannot fall permanently into error.

These concessions did not satisfy the Pope; peace with Rome was
only made in 1691. But Bossuet's statesmanship won him enormous
credit at home ; for the next twenty years he was the dominant figure
in the Church. A moderate and reasonable orthodoxy became the
order of the day. As IJltramontanism receded into the background,
independent spirits of the type of Gui Patin began to gravitate back to
the Church. Even Cartesianism yielded for the moment to the spell of
Malehranche, and arrayed itself in the dress of a rationalistic and very
much etherealised Catholicism. To the world at large, however, Bossuet
was the great reconciler of faith and reason — on the lines sketched out
in his Traits de la connaissance de Dieu et de sot-mime, and his Discours
sur rhistoire universeUe. Both these books were written between 1670 and
1680, while their author was tutor to the Dauphin. Their great aim is
to prove by reason that men ought to submit to authority. Philosophy-
argued the Traite — shows that a God exists ; and that He governs and
controls the affairs of men. History — continues the Discours — teaches
that His governance is mainly indirect; it is exercised by certain
venerable corporations, ecclesiastical and civil, acting as His lawful
representatives. Thereby the Discours rejoins the Politique tirSe de
Vicriture Saimte, the third member of the trilogy.

But Bossuet's great object in life was the conversion of the Hugue-
nots. In 1668 he had overcome the scruples of Turenne; two years
later he published an Exposition de la Doctrine Catholique, so moderate
in tone that his adversaries accused him of having fraudulently watered
down the Roman doctrines to suit a Protestant taste. On the other
hand, he never doubted the right of the State to enforce religious
uniformity at the point of the sword ; this, as he more than once boasted
in his controversial writings, was one of the few points on which Catholic
and Protestant doctors were agreed. Besides, the French Churchmen of
the time were brought up to look on the Huguenots as a serious political
danger: Saint-Simon only expresses the common belief, when he calls
them " a sect which had become a State within the State, dependent on
the King no more than it chose, always loud in complaints, and ready,
on the slightest pretext, to embroil the whole kingdom by an appeal to
arms." This passage represents what the Huguenots would have liked
to do, rather than what they did ; but in the few places where they
were strong, they had undoubtedly encroached on their legal rights.

Reaction against Bosstiet. 87

Wherever they were weak, however, the Government had long gone
consistently on the plan of giving them less than their due, with small
regard to the Edict of Nantes. Hence its Revocation, of which
an account has been given earlier in this volume, appeared to the
clergy as simply the last term in a logical series. Concerning the
dragonnades that followed, opinion was divided. Some divines, of whom
Bossuet was one, honestly did their best for the sufferers. Others agreed
with the cynical saying of Madame de Maintenon, that there might be
some hypocrisy among the adults, but the children, at any rate, would
be gained to the Church. Others, again, were chiefly concerned to
protect the sacraments from the kind of profanation alluded to by
Saint-Simon, when he says that twenty -four hours were often enough to
bring a neophyte from torture to abjuration, and from abjuration to
communion.

Revocation by no means interrupted Bossuet's appeal to other
methods of peirsuasion. In 1688 he brought out his Histoire des Varia-
tions des EgUses Protestamtes, in which he sought to prove that variation
is necessarily a sign of error. Soon after he began to correspond with
Leibniz, with a view to the reconciliation of the German Lutherans
with the Roman Church. But negotiations broke down on this point
of variation. Individual Catholic doctrines, such as purgatory or the
Mass, Leibniz thought that his countrymen might accept ,• but he
refused to guarantee that they would believe to-morrow what they
believed to-day. "We prefer," he said, "to belong to a Church eternially
variable, and for ever moving forwards."

Nor was it only in Germany that Bossuet taught the Protestants to
glory in their variations. Jurieu, and other Huguenot controversialists,
fully accepted the idea of progress ; and they presently went on to ask
whether Rome itself was quite so unchangeable as Bossuet supposed.
Herein they were supported by the Oratorian scholar, Richard Simon. He
accused St Augustine, Bossuet's own especial master, of having corrupted
the primitive doctrine of Grace. Bossuet set to work on a Defense de
la Tradition\et des Saints Peres; but Simon only went on to raise issues
graver still. Under a veil of polite circumlocutions, such as did not deceive
the Bishop of Meaux, he claimed the right of interpreting the Bible like any
other book. Bossuet denounced him again and again, and even set the
police in motion ; Simon answered that he could afford to wait until " the
old fellow" was no moi'e. Another Oratorian was more dangerous still.
Malebranche prided himself on having brought numbers of Jansenists,
Cartesians, and other misbelievers back within the Catholic pale; but
his remedies appeared to Bossuet almost as bad as their disease. Simon
had endangered the belief in miracles by bringing lay rules of evidence into
play ?:but Malebranche abrogated miracles altogether. On his principle it
was blasphemous to suppose that the Author of Nature would break
through a reign of law He had Himself established in the universe.

CH. IV.

88 Quietism.

Bossuet might burst forth into refutations, and urge Fenelon to do the
like ; the philosopher courteously replied that to be answered by such
pens did him too much honour.

But the worst rebel of all was Fenelon himself (1651-1715). The
author of TiUmaque had early made a great name for himself as a
Diriector of Conscience, and as tutor to the Duke of Burgundy, eldest
son of the Dauphin. But in contemporary eyes he was not so much a
theologian as a "master of eloquence," or what would nowadays be
called an accomplished man of letters; in the background, also, were
Jarge projects of political reform. These multitudinous interests gave
him a far wider outlook than Bossuet, though his grasp of realities was
not so sure; and intellectual curiosity more than once led him into
dangerous paths. About 1689 he became much impressed by the ideas
of Madame Guyon (1648-1717), a lady of good family, considerable abili-
ties, and great charm of manner, but the very hysterical representative
in France of the religious revival known as Quietism. This was an out-
growth of the Spanish mysticism of St Teresa; though it was first
popularised in Italy by the Spanish priest, Michael de Molinos (1640-
97). In his hands it became a violent means of escape from the petty
ceremonialism of Italia,n religion. Molinos was always bidding the soul
rise beyond sacraments and attributes and dogmas, beyond the Trinity
and the Incarnation, to " a view, wholly obscure and indistinct and general,
of the Divine Essence as it was." The one means of approach to this
Deity was the ancient via negationis. All hope and fear, all thought
and action, all life and feeling, must be laid aside ; the soul must enwrap
itself in the " soft and savoury sleep of nothingness, wherein it receives
in silence, and enjoys it knows not what."

Such an attitude of mind might easily lead to Antinomianism ; but
Fenelon thought that a change of language would be enough to guard
against the danger, while keeping all that was good in Quietism. Molinos
had spoken as though mere thinking of ourselves was the great evil;
Fenelon's enemy is self-interest. In his Explanation of the Maxims of
the Saints (1697) he argues that, as men grow in holiness, they become
indifferent to themselves. Not only do they not value religion for its
consolations, but they cease to take an incidental pleasure in its exercise.
Their whole soul is taken up in loving God, and they neither know nor
care whether God loves them in return. Bossuet attacked this principle
as inconsistent with Christianity, and for the next two years a bitter
conflict raged between the two prelates, which did no great credit to
either. Meanwhile, however, Fenelon had appealed to Rome. Early in
1699 Innocent XII gave judgment condemning the Maxims, although
in very moderate terras. Fenelon at once submitted, and thereafter
took small part in Church affairs, except to wage a vigorous war against
the Jansenists.

For Jansenism was by no means dead, although the Government

Recrudescence of the Jansenist controversy. 89

tried hard to kill it. For a while Louis XIV had stayed his hand —
mainly out of regard for his cousin, Madame de Longueville, once the
heroine of the Fronde, and now the great patroness of Port-Royal. But
in 1679 she died, and the Court at once proceeded to severities. The
nuns of Port-Royal were forbidden to admit new members to their com-
munity; and Amauld fled from France, never to return. Following
the King's lead, the Oratory and other societies where Jansenism had
found an entrance began to keep a closer watch over the opinions of
their members. None the less, what was known as " mitigated Jansen-
ism " — a doctrine which just managed to keep within the four comers of
orthodoxy — found a large number of upholders. And among the laity
a Jansenist spirit was kept alive by the Reflexions Morales sur le
Nawveau Testmum^,. of Pasquier Quesnel (1634-1719). Th^HBioolc — a
popular devotional commentary, first published in 1671^-^^"* through
a number of editions without incurring any official censure ; although
the author was well known to be a Jansenist. In 1685 he had gone to
share Arnauld's exile at Brussels;- and on Amauld's death in 1694 he
succeeded to the official leadership of the party.

Roimd his Refleoeions was now spun a web of complicated intrigues.
As Louis XIV grew older and more devout, there began a fight for his
soul between the Jesuit confessor. Father La Chaise (1624-1709), and
Madame de Maintenon, an ardent disciple of the moderate school of
Bossuet. In 1695 she secured the archbishopric of Paris for her friend,
Noailles, Bishop of Chalons, a pious and well-meaning aristocrat, but
woefully tactless and undecided. He was suspected, also, of a tender-
ness for Jansenism ; he had certainly given official approval to Quesnel's
Rejleasions at Chalons, and this appi:obation he renewed in Paris (1699).
Accordingly the Riflexions became the chief target of Ultramontane
attack — so much so, as almost to supplant the Augustinus itself. While
the work of denimciation was proceeding, a much more dangerous issue
was unexpectedly raised. In 1701 an indiscreet Jansenist consulted the
Sorbonne as to whether it was not enough to receive the condemnation
of the AuguMwms in "respectful silence" — that is, with the purely
external deference which good citizens might show to a law that they
privately believed unwise. This casual question stirred the fires of fifty
years before, and soon ecclesiastical France was in a blaze. In 1703
Louis wrote to Clement XI, suggesting that they should take concerted
action to put an end to Jansenism for ever. In 1705 the Pope replied
with a Bull condemning " respectful silence " outright.

The Bull only whetted Louis' appetite. The older he grew and the
thicker disasters rained upon him, the more the ugly superstitious side
of his character awoke. A frenzied anxiety seized him to propitiate his
Maker, and save himself from another Blenheim or Malplaquet,by extermi-
nating the enemies of the Church. This resolution was by no means
weakened, when Father La Chaise died in 1709, and was succeeded by

OH, Vf,

90 The Bull Unigenitus.

Father Tellier (1643-1719), a Jesuit of blood and iron, who has been
immortalised by Saint-Simon in one of the most repulsive portraits in
literature. Almost immediately he persuaded the King to expel the few
remaining nuns from Port-Royal, the Holy Place of Jansenism. In
1711 their cemetery was violated, and their convent buildings pulled
down.

After Pnrt-T^oya] came the turn of Quesnel, In the winter of 1711
Louis proposed to the Pope to condemn the Rejlexions in the most solemn
possible form. In 1713 appeared the Bull Unigenitus, a censure not only
of all that Jansenism said, but of aU that it had tried to say. Even Fenelon,
although a warm admirer of the Bull, admits that popular opinion
credited it with having condemned St Augustine, St Paul, and even
JesuS Christ. It went altogether beyond the technical questions raised
by Jansenism — notably when it dealt a heavy blow against the practice
of Bible-reading lately sprung up among French Catholics, under the
auspices of Bessuet quite as much as of Port-Royal. Hence the appear-
ance of the Bull was the signal of a popular outcry ; even some fifteen
Bishops supported Noailles in refusing to accept it. The next two years
were spent by the Court in a feverish endeavour to force it down their
throats ; Noailles was only saved from deposition by the death of Louis
in 1715.

On the accession of the Regent Orleans bigotry at once gave place to
cynical indifference. Orleans was a freethinker, and all he cared for was
to keep the clergy quiet ; hence he always sided with the stronger party,
in the hope of crushing out the weaker. As the Bull was generally
impopular, he began by taking the part of its opponents ; Tellier was
got rid of, and Noailles became chief ecclesiastical adviser to the Court.
But the Regent very soon found that he had underrated the strength of
the, Pope and the Ultramontanes; besides, his two chief Ministers — ^Dubois
(1656-1723) and Fleury (1653-1743)— were ecclesiastics, and wanted a
Cardinal's hat. The Regent accordingly swung round to the side of the
BuU. Nothing daunted by this, its four most resolute opponents among
the Bishops published an appeal* from the Pope to a General Council
(1717).. After some wavering Noailles supported them ; but in 1720
Dubois patched up a truce between him and the Pope. This reaUy
satisfied neither party, though it obtained for Dubois a red hat. But in
1723 both he and the Regent died, leaving Fleury to carry on their policy.

Meanwhile the appellant Bishops had "re-appealed" against the
truce of 1720. So Fleury resolved to make an example of the most
determined, Soanen of Senez (1647-1740). He was suspended from his
functions, and exiled to a remote monasteiy in Auvergne. Noailles
protested against his treatment; but soon afterwards he died (1629),
characteristically signing two documents on his death-bed, one of which
accepted the Bull, while the other rejected it. The chief appellant out
of the way, Fleury proceeded to sharper measures. In 1730 Louis XV

Survivals of Jansenism, 91

proclaimed the Unigenitus part and parcel of the law of the land, and
ordered all the clergy to accept it, on pain of deprivation. This edict
the Parliament refused to register ; and a bitter struggle ensued, which
lasted throughout the eighteenth century. But the questions at stake
were really Galilean, rather than religious. The lawyers called them-
selves Jansenists, because they hated the Unigenitus ; but they hated
it mainly as a triumph of their hereditary foes, the Jesuits and the

Genuine Jansenism only survived among the handful of " Quesnellists,"
and even they had fallen on evil days. Persecution can generally be
trusted to induce hysteria in its victims, all the more so when they already
accept a strong doctrine of conversion. Belief in one kind of miracle
easily leads to belief in another ; and even the great days of Port-Royal
could furnish a long list of special providences, miracles, and signs. As
Jansenism shrunk more and more to the proportions of a harassed sect,
these were multiplied a hundredfold. About 1728 the "miracles of
St Medard" became the talk of Paris. These were a series of astonishing
cures, mostly of nervous diseases, effected at the tomb of the Deacon
Paris, a cleric of singularly holy life, and a perfervid opponent of the
Unigeniius. On mere mu-acles followed " speaking with tongues," and
the rise of the " Convulsionaries." These worked themselves up,
mainly by means of self-torture, into a state of frenzy, in which they
prophesied and cured diseases. They were, however, soon disowned by
the more serious Jansenists.

Banished from France, these had taken refuge in HoUand, where the
Catholic minority was in close sympathy with Jansenism. In 1702 it
had broken loose from Rome, and was now organising itself into an
independent " Old Roman Catholic " Church. But the old spirit of Port-
Royal still lingered in many a convent and country parsonage in France,
and led throughout the eighteenth century to chronic conflicts with
authority. Often the causes of quarrel were trumpery enough, iand
Jansen's latter-day descendants by no means always showed themselves
reasonable or broad-minded.tt Still, in their dim fashion they upheld the
great principle of their' school — that religion begins and ends as an
inward " touch of the Spirit." And over the movements of that Spirit
no Church has jurisdiction. \

92

CHAPTEE V.

THE STEWART RESTORATION.

Though the restoration of Charles the Second was unconditional, it
was none the less a compromise. The monarchy which was restored was
not the purely personal rule which Charles I had endeavoured to
establish, but the parliamentary monarchy which the statesmen of the
Long Parliament had set up on its ruins in 1641. Theoretically the
constitution as it existed in March, 1642, before the outbreak of the War
came into force again as the basis of the new settlement. Practically
any settlement must also contain some guarantee for the new interests
which had developed during the last eighteen years, and it was only
through Parliament that such security could be obtained. The Decla-
ration of Breda had outlined such a scheme of settlement ; but the extent
to which the King's suggestions would be adopted depended upon the
temper of the nation, or rather of the House of Commons, and on the
statesmanship of the King and his Ministers.

Charles II was thirty years of age on the day when he reentered
London ; he was now in the twelfth year of his reign by right ; but, as he
had been for the last eleven a king without a kingdom, he possessed no
experience of administration. While he had a large knowledge of men
he had none of popular assemblies. Yet he had great popular gifts
when he chose to exert them, and was at once pliable and persistent. In
the vicissitudes of his life he had learnt to adapt himself to the exigencies
of the moment, and to adopt without scruple any expedient which
seemed necessary for success. His political aims were simple and varied
little throughout his reign. He desired to make the Crown independent
of Parliament, but in order to be free from control rather than from love
of power. He took throughout a genuine interest in the development
of the commercial and naval power of England, and in the extension of
its colonies. In religion he was half a follower of Hobbes and half a
Catholic — with a preference for toleration, based partly on policy and
partly on indifference, but not strong enough to resist the pressure of
circumstances. It would be unjust to say that his policy was purely

1660-iJ Clarendon and the Council. 93

selfish, but in the long run personal considerations or family ties exer-
cised a predominant influence on his political actions. At the end of
his reign events gave him for a moment almost absolute power ; but he
used it with comparative moderation because he was resolved, as he said,
" not to go on his travels again." At the beginning of his reign, when
his position was infinitely less secure, the same motive was still stronger.
Added to this, the King's pleasures made him incapable of prolonged
attention to public business, and obliged him to devolve the burden
of public affairs upon a Minister. "Naturally I am more lazy than
I ought to be," Charles frankly confessed; but natinre had given him
great abilities, and he possessed a fund of dormant energy which time
revealed.

Edward Hyde, who had been Lord Chancellor since 1658, and the
King's chief adviser since 1652, became the ruling spirit of the Govern^
ment. The hostility of the Presbyterian leaders and the intrigues of the
Queen-Mother faUed to overthrow his influence, and even the marriage
of his daughter with the Duke of York in the end confirmed it. In
November, 1660, he was raised to the peerage, and at the King's
coronation in April, 1661, he was made Earl of Clarendon.

In most respects Clarendon was well fitted for his task. Upright,
laborious and faithful to his master's interests, he did not shrink from
maintaining them against Court intrigue or popular opposition, or the
King's own fluctuating will. In his political aims he was consistent, in
his choice of means a strict observer of legality. No man was better
qualified to restore the reign of law after a period of revolution ; but he
very imperfectly appreciated the changes which that period had effected in
the temper of the English nation. Intellectually he was a contrast to
his master — a slow-moving mind, inaccessible to new ideas, and neither
quick to grasp new conditions nor ready to adapt his policy to them.
He could rebuild the constitution upon the old lines, but he was not the
man to reconcile conflicting parties, and his settlement contained the
seeds of future strife.

In Clarendon's conception of the constitution the most important
organ was a well-composed Council. Through it rather than through
Parliament the machine of government was to be animated and directed.
The Privy Council formed in June, 1660, represented the union of parties
which had brought about the restoration, Monck, now Duke of Albe-
marle, Montague and Cooper, both also raised to the peerage, Manchester,
Robartes, and Saye, sat in it side by side with Hyde, Ormond, Nicholas,
and Southampton, In this and in other branches of the administration
the fact that the royalist nobles had long been debarred from the
management of aiFairs,, while the ex-rebels were frequently experienced
oificials, gave the latter a weight out of proportion to their comparative
numbers.

As a preUminary to the legislative settlement of the kingdom it was

94 The legal settlement. [166O-2

necessary first to confirm the aathority of the Convention itself, which,
since it had not been summoned by the King's writ, was not legally a
Parliament. An Act " for removing all questions and disputes " on this
point received the King's assent on June 11, 1660 ; and all the chief
measures of the Convention were subsequently confirmed by an Act of
the next Parliament which became law on July 8, 1661. The printdiple
upon which the Convention proceeded in making the settlement of 1660
was the illegality of all the de facto Governments which had existed
since 1642 and the invalidity of all their Acts. One exception only was
made. On August 29 an Act for the confirmation of judicial proceedings
since May 1, 1642, received the King's assent. But all the Acts and
ordinances of the Long Parliament and its successors were swept away,
none of them having received the assent of Charles I or his son. It
was necessary, however, to reenact some few of these measures without
delay. Hence an Act was passed for the confirmation of the civil mar-
riages which had taken place under the provisions of the measure passed
by the Little Parliament in 1653. To conciliate the commercial classes
the NavigatioiQ Act of 1651 was reenacted with but slight modification.
To conciliate the country gentry, the abolition of wardship and other
feudal incidents, completed by Cromwell's second Parliament in 1656,
was maintained by the passing of an Act which abolished the Court of
Wards, tenures in eapite and by knight's service, and purveyance. The
King was compensated for the loss of revenue by a moiety of the excise
on beer and other liquors.

A question which for political reasons was much more pressing was
the confirmation of the amnesty promised in the Declaration of Breda.
The Indemnity Bill led to a conflict between the two Houses in which
the Lords urged more severity than the Commons were willing to permit,
while Charles and Hyde intervened in favour of lenity. " Let it be in
no man's power," said the King, " to charge me or you with a breach of
our word or promise, which can never be a good ingredient to our future
security." In the end, punishment fell almost exclusively upon the
regicides. Thirteen suffered capitally — ten in 1660, and three who
were subsequently captured in Holland in 1662 — while about twenty-
five were imprisoned for life. Three politicians deeply compromised in
the later troubles, though not guilty of the King's death, were also
excepted, Lambert and Heselrige being imprisoned for life, while Sir
Henry Vane was tried and executed for high treason in June, 1662.
"He is too dangerous a man to let live, if we can honestly put him
out of the way," wrote Charles to Clarendon. For other persons the
amnesty was complete and comprehensive, securing those who had
fought against the Crown from judicial proceedings of any kind, though
they were liable to be arrested and imprisoned whenever the Government
suspected the existence of a plot.

Far more difficult to settle, though it provoked less public dispute,

leecHi] The land and the financial settlements. 95

was the question of the land settlement. A Bill for " the satisfaction
of purchasers of public lands " failed to pass. The Crown lands and
the jointure of the Queen-Mother were restored by a general vote.
Newcastle, Buckingham, and a few favoured noblemen were restored by
special Acts to the possession of all they had held before the wars began.
The lands of other noblemen and gentlemen, whose estates had been
confiscated and sold by the successive Governments of the revolutionary
period, reverted to their original owners, on the ground that sales by an
unlawful authority could give no valid title. The restitution of the
lands of the Church, estimated to be worth ^£'2,400,000, met with more
delay. A Commission was appointed to mediate between the purchasers
and the rightful owners ; but no agreement was arrived at. In this case,
as in other cases in which lands had been sold by the State, the purchasers
received no compensation for their outlay, though some became lease-
holders on more or less advantageous terms. Thus a sweeping trans-
ference of landed property took place throughout England, and those
who had invested their money in public lands became permanently
alienated from the new Government. While the sales made by the State
were thus nullified, private contracts were rigidly maintained. But since
the late Governments had usually punished political delinquents by fiiies,
which often obliged them to sell parts of their estates to find the money,
a large amount of land had changed hands in consequence of the
war, and many royalist families were permanently impoverished. The
Royalists would have had these sales also annulled, but failed to effect this,
and since they received no compensation for their losses they too were
alienated from the Government. Moreover the permanent feud between
the Royalists who had sold their lands and the Roundheads who had
bought them embittered English politics for the next generation, and
unda:lay the later animosities of Whig and Tory.

Statesmanship might have done something to mitigate the hardships
which this rough settlement of the land question caused ; but with the
rudimentary machinery of public credit which then existed any large
measure of compensation for the sufferers was impossible. Moreover,
England was on the brink of national bankruptcy. At the moment all
the resources of the State were strained in order to pay ofi^ the army and
navy. Besides the fleet, there were in England and Scotland about
85,000 troops to be disbanded, and both soldiers and sailors had
been promised their arrears in full. Parliament voted about ,£850,000
for this purpose, of which o&21 0,000 was raised by a poll-tax and the rest
by monibhly assessments. By February, 1661, the work was completed.

Simultaneously the general question of the revenue was taken in
hand. On September 4, 1660, the House of Commons pledged itself
to make up the income of the Government to the sum of =^1,200,000
a year ; but the various sources of revenue allocated for this purpose
failed to produce their estimated yield, and in 1661 it became necessary

96 The religious settlement, [leeo-a

to increase the excise and to impose the hearth-tax (March, 1662)
to make up the deficit. Even so the shrinkage in the revenue con-
tinued; and from the commencement of the reign the Government
of Charles II had to struggle with pecuniary difficulties which were
not of its own making. Burnet's story that Clarendon might have
obtained a larger revenue for the King if he had asked for it, but
that he preferred to keep Charles dependent upon Parliament, is a
mere fiction;

The religious difficulty proved as hard to solve as the financial.
At the moment when the King returned the probable solution seemed
to be some kind of union between moderate Presbyterians and Episco-
palians. The King's declaration had held out the prospect of " liberty
to tender consciences," and promised that no man should be "dis-
quieted or called in question" for differences of opinion in matters
of religion, which did not disturb the peace of the kingdom. Since
the King's assent was secure beforehand, nothing remained but to
draw up an Act of Parliament "for the full granting of that in-
dulgence." All that the Convention could achieve was, however, the
passing of an Act for the restoration of ejected ministers to their livings
and for the confirmation of the present holders of livings in cases
where the rightful incumbent was dead^ A Bill for the settlement
of the true Protestant religion was read twice, but dropped in com-
mittee, and the matter was then referred to the King and such divines
as he should select. The King then put forward a scheme of compre-
hension which he embodied in a Declaration published on October 25,
1660, Its basis was limited episcopacy. Bishops were to be assisted
and advised in the exercise of their spiritual jurisdiction by elected
presbyters. The liturgy was to be revised by a committee of divines of
both parties selected by the King. Questions of ritual were to be deter-
mined by a future synod, and in the meantime certain ceremonial require-
ments were to be relaxed in the interest of scrupulous consciences. The
Presbyterians were full of hope. Reynolds accepted a bishopric, and
Baxter thought of accepting one. The scheme, said Baxter, " though
not such £is we desired was such as any honest sober minister might
submit to." But when Sir Matthew Hale introduced a Bill for con-
verting the declaration into law it was rejected on the second reading
by 183 to 157 votes (November 20, 1660). Since courtiers and officials
both voted with the Noes, it seems clear that the Government did
not really desire the Bill to pass. Charles had ceased to take much
interest in the scheme for comprehension since the opposition of the
Presbyterian ministers had obliged him to omit a provision in favour
of toleration. Hyde had determined that the restoration of monarchy
should be accompanied by the restoration of episcopacy in its integrity,
and that the Church should be put in the position which it held before
the revolution. Thus the Anglican opposition had free play.

leeo-i] The Savoy Conference. 97

On December 29, 1660, the Convention Parliament was dissolved,
and the work it left unfinished devolved on its successor. In the
interim a conference took place in the Savoy between twelve Bishops
q,nd twelve Presbyterian divines, with eighteen assistants of lower rank.
Baxter produced a brandnew liturgy and his colleagues a paper of
objections to that already in existence. The Bishops gave in a list
of fourteen minor concessions which they were prepared to make, and
for the rest stood rigidly on the defensive. They said that they had
nothing to do till their opponents had proved there was a necessity
for alteration, which they had not yet done. Then followed a dis-
cussion, or rather a disputation, in which Baxter and Gunning were
the protagonists. " Baxter and he," says Burnet, " spent some days
in much logical arguing to the diversion of the town, who thought
here were a couple of fencers engaged in a thread of disputes, that
could never be brought to an end, nor have any good effect." So it
proved, and at the close of the conference the commissioners reported
that "the Chiurch's welfare, unity and peace, and his Majesty's satis-
faction, were ends on which they were all agreed ; but as to the means
they could not come to an harmony."

Before the Savoy Conference had ended the new Parliament which
met on May 8, 1661, was at work. Few but thorough-going Royalists
and Anglicans had found seats there, and its ardour for Crown and
Church was difiicult for the Government to control. In its temper it
resembled the French Chamire introuvable of 1815, which was the
product of a similar reaction and had to deal with like probleins.
But while the French Chamber lasted for but one year the English
Parliament sat till January, 1679, and left a more lasting trace on the
history of its country. In secular matters its views, for some years,
were in harmony with those of the Government. Clarendon held that
the late rebellion could never be extirpated and pulled up by the
roots till the King's regal and inherent power should be fully avowed,
and vindicated, and till the usurpations in both Houses of Parliament
since the year 1640 were disclaimed and made odious. The first step
which Parliament took to effect this was the passing of an Act " for
the preservation of the King's person," in which it was affirmed that
neither one House nor both together had any legislative power without
the King. A second Act declared that the sole command of the militia
and of all forces by sea and land belonged to the King, and that
neither House had any claim to it, or could lawfully levy war against
his Majesty. A third provided that no petition should be presented
to the King by more than ten persons, and none which sought for
the alteration of things established by law in Church or State should
be circulated for signature unless it had been previously approved by
the magistrates.

These measures were followed in December, 1661, by the Corporation

C. M. H. V. CH. V. 7

98 The policy of Parliament. [1661-4

Act, which provided for purging the governing bodies in all corporate
towns by. the imposition of a double test. A declaration that the
Covenant was an unlawful oath excluded the Nonconformists, while
another that it was not lawful under any pretext to bear arms against
the King shut out all political opponents of the Government. Next
came a Press Act (May 19, 1662) establishing a rigid censorship,
requiriiig a license for all new books, restricting the importation of
printed matter from abroad, and reducing the number both of presses
and printers. The reconstruction of the constitution was completed
two years later by the repeal of the Triennial Act (April 6, 1664).
Charles boldly told the two Houses that "he would never suffer a
parliament to come together by the means prescribed in that bill,"
and the Commons obeyed, though not without some Tesistance^
"There are many in the House displeased at it, though they dare
not say much," noted Pepys. A clause was added to the Bill stipu-
lating that thereafter the holding of Parliaments should not be
intermitted above three years at the most, and this compromise
disarmed the nascent opposition. Politically the House of Lords
was still more reactionary than the Commons. If the majority could
have had their will they would have repealed not only the Triennial
Act but all the Acts passed in the first two sessions of the Long
Parliament, and a committee reported in favour of the revival of the
Star Chamber.

The same uncompromising spirit was shown in the ecclesiastical
legislation of these three years 1661 to 1664. The Act by which
the Long Parliament had disabled all persons in holy orders from
exercising any temporal jurisdiction or authority was promptly re-
pealed ; and on November 20, 1661, the Bishops once more reappeared
in the upper House. A second Act restored the disciplinary jurisdiction
of the ecclesiastical Courts which the Long Parliament had abolished,
and enabled them once more to punish blasphemies or excommunicate
nonconformists for non-payment of tithes. In their zeal the Commons,
without waiting for the Savoy Conference to end, took in hand the
amendment of the Prayerbook and read three times a Bill for imposing
it. Then the Government intervened and by the King's orders Con-
vocation undertook the revision of the Prayerbook, which it completed
in December, 1661. Some six hundred alterations were made, tending
for the most part to make the liturgy less palatable to Puritans
rather than to meet any of their objections. An addition which
testified to the neglect of Church ordinances during the troubles was
that of a form of baptism "for such as are of riper years," while
the memory of civil discord was made more lasting by the insertion
of services to be used on January 30 and May 29. During the spring
of 1662 the revised Prayerbook was approved by the two Houses;
and on May 19 the Act of Uniformity was passed, which imposed

1662] The Act of Uniformity. 99

on clergymen of every rank, on all Fellows of colleges and university
officials, on all tutors and schoolmasters, a declaration of their un-
feigned assent and consent to aU that the Prayerbook contained. All
were also obliged to take the non-resistance oath and the renunciation
of the Covenant imposed in the Corporation Act. Those who did
not comply with these conditions by St Bartholomew's Day next
were to vacate their livings. When that date came (August 24, 1662)
about 1100 or 1200 refused to conform; and, since it is probable
that about 800 more had been deprived during the two years which
had elapsed since the King's return, the total number of noncon-
formists ejected must have been about 2000. The Lords had wished
to allow one-fifth of the income of a living to the ejected minister;
the Commons rejected this provision. Hence, as Baxter says, " hundreds
of able ministers, with their wives and children, had neither house nor
bread." Since they were allowed neither to preach nor to teach, while
the severity of the censor.ship made it difficult for them to earn
their bread by writing, many were driven to maintain themselves by
handicrafts or husbandry. Others became dependent on the charity
of their late congregations.

The Act of Uniformity marked the close of a period in the history of
the Church of England. The policy of comprehension was permanently
defeated, and the half-hearted attempt to revive it after the Revolution
only emphasised the final character of the decision made in 1662. For
the best part of a century the Puritan party had striven to alter the
government, the doctrine, and the ceremonial of the Church while re-
maining within it; henceforth it was outside the Church that Puritanism
must seek to realise its ideals. For the next generation the question at
issue was whether Puritanism, or rather Nonconformity as it had now
come to be called, should be allowed to exist and to develop itself in
freedom, or whether it should be suppressed by penal laws as Catholicism
had been.

The King was pledged to a policy of toleration. During his exile
he had promised the Pope and the Catholic Princes of Europe to repeal
the penal laws ; by the Declaration of Breda he had promised toleration
to the Protestant Nonconformists. The King was honourably anxious
to keep his pledges. He owed much to the Presbyterians for the
share they had taken in his restoration, and stiU more to the English
Catholics for their devoted loyalty during the war. But both Protestant
Nonconformity and Catholicism were politically discredited, Catholicism
by the Irish rebellion. Nonconformity by the English. Independency in
all its forms was still more odious, and to talk of conscience had come to
be regarded as an excuse for sedition. Public opinion looked back on
the late times as a period when, in Dryden's words,

"Sanhedrin and priest enslaved the nation.
And justified their spoils by inspiration."
CH. V, ^ ^_^

100 Schemes for toleration defeated. [166O-2

Both " hot Levites " and " dreaming saints " were equally distrusted, and
Venner's rising in January, 1661, supplied a pretext for confounding
Independents in general with Fifth Monarchy Men and Anabaptists.

Whilst the feeling of the nation was hostile to all who stood outside
the pale of the national Church, Protestant Nonconformists in general
regarded Catholics with hatred and suspicion, and Presbyterians felt a
similar aversion from the extreme sects of Protestant Nonconformists.
A period of common suffering was necessary in order to produce mutual
tolerance. When the King's Declaration of October 25, 1660, was
under discussion, it was proposed to add to it, on the petition of the
Independents and Anabaptists, a proviso authorising those sects and
others to meet together for public worship so long as they did not
disturb the public peace. Baxter protested against toleration. As to
Papists, all that was wanted was the enforcement of the laws against
them. As to sectaries, he said, "we distinguish the tolerable parties
from the intolerable." In consequence of this the clause was dropped.
Presbyterians adhered too strongly to the idea of a national Chm-ch to
throw in their lot with those who demanded religious freedom.

A similar failure followed the attempt of the Catholics to obtain
toleration for themselves. Upon their petition the House of Lords on
June 10, 1661, appointed a Committee to take the penal laws into
consideration, and ordered a Bill for the relaxation of those laws to be
prepared. But the Bill was never introduced, and the restoration of the
Bishops to their seats in' the Lords made its prospects hopeless.

For Catholics as for Protestant Nonconformists the only hope lay
in the constancy of the King. On March 17, 1662, when the Act
of Uniformity was under discussion, Clarendon presented on the King's
behalf a proviso allowing Charles, if he thought fit, to exempt from
deprivation ministers whose sole objection was to the wearing of the
surplice and the use of the cross in baptism; but while the Lords
accepted this proviso the Commons rejected it (April 22, 1662). After
the passing of the Act the King made a renewed attempt. On the
petition of the Nonconformists, which was backed by Albemarle and
Manchester, he promised to suspend the execution of the Act for three
months. But this plan was frustrated by the opposition of Clarendon
and Archbishop Sheldon.

These schemes would have relieved Protestant Nonconformists only
and done nothing for the Catholics. Under the influence of Bennett,
who became Secretary of State in October, 1662, and of the Earl of
Bristol, who assumed the leadership of the English Catholics, Charles
issued on December 26^ 1662, a declaration announcing his intention of
exempting from the penalties of the Act of Uniformity peaceable persons
whose conscientious scruples prevented them from conforming. Parlia-
ment was invited to pass an Act which would enable him to exercise
" with a more universal satisfaction" his inherent dispensing power. " I am

1662-3] Decrease of Clarendon's influence. 101

in my nature," Charles told Parliament when it next met, "an enemy
to all severity for religion and conscience, how mistaken soever it be,
when it extends to capital and sanguinary punishments." Lord Robartes
brought in an "Act concerning his Majesty's power in ecclesiastical
affairs," which would enable the King by the issue of letters^-patent to
grant dispensations from the Act of Uniformity and from other laws
requiring oaths and subscriptions of the same kind (February 23, 1663).
It was read twice in the House of Lords, but met with great opposition.
While Lord Ashley spoke strongly in its favour. Clarendon was vehement
against it. The Lords limited the operation of the Bill to Protestant
Nonconformists ; the Commons protested against it, declaring that it
would "establish schism by law." Both Houses together presented a
petition for the enforcement of the laws against the Catholics, and the
Bill was consequently dropped. '

Charles was, in Clarendon's phrase, "infinitely troubled" by this
defeat. His feeling in favour of toleration was sincere, if not very deep,
and it is significant that the passage of the Act of Uniformity was
accompanied by a proclamation for the release of imprisoned Quakers
(August 9&, 1662). In the colonies he could carry his intentions into
effect. The charters of Rhode Island and Carolina, the instructions to
the Governors of Jamaica and Virginia^ attest the King's tolerant policy.
But at home the sons of Levi were too strong for him. After this,
according to Clarendon, Charles never treated any of the Bishops with
the respect he had formerly showed them, and often spoke of them
slightingly.

For the same reason the King was angry with Clarendon himself.
The Chancellor had been in favour of comprehension in a general way,
and had at first sought to conciliate the Presbyterians. But when he
found the slight concessions he thought sufficient ineffectual he declared
it useless to concede anything. "Their faction," said he, "is their
religion." In the same way Clarendon would have been glad if the
Act of Uniformity had been less rigorous, but when it was passed he
thought that it ought to be obeyed without any connivance, and he was
stiU more opposed to a systematic plan of toleration based upon the
dispensing power. In spite of his protests he was credited with inspiring
the opposition to the Bill, and its promoters, who were also his rivals,
made the most of the charge with the King. Clarendon's power seemed
shaken. The Earl of Bristol seized the Opportunity to bring forward a
charge of high treason against him (July 10, 1663), but the accusation
was ill managed, and the articles extravagant and iU supported.
Amongst other things Bristol alleged that Clarendon had said that the
King was popishly inclined and that he intended to legitimate the Duke
of Monmomth — suggestions which it was so undesirable to put into
circulation that Charles declared the charge a libel agaiinst himself and
his Government. Bristol was ruined instead of Clarendon.

CB. V.

102 The growing power of Parliament. [166O-5

From this time forward Clarendon's favour with the King sensibly
diminished, but his retention of power depended now more on Parliament
than the King. Parliament, and in it the House of Gommons, was more
and more the dominant factor in determining the policy of the State.
In 1660 the nation had surrendered itself unconditionally to the King.
"We submit and oblige ourselves and our posterities to your Majesty
for ever," said the Commons ; but in reality the last twenty years had
but strengthened the resolution of England to control its own fate.
Foreign observers who visited England after the Restoration noted with
wonder the keen interest which all classes of the people took in public
aflPairs. In this country, reported the French ambassadors in 1665,
every man thinks he has a right to talk about matters of State. Even
the watermen, as they rowed the Lords to Westminster, would try to get
them to speak about the political questions of the day. What happened
at Court was the continual subject of debate in the City. " As they are
naturally lazy," says another traveller, " and spend half their time taking
tobacco, they are all the while exercising their talents about the Govern-
ment ; talking of new customs, of the chimney-tax, the management of
the public finances and the lessening of trade." All this activity of
public opinion outside stimulated Parliament to assert itself. "Let
the King come in," said Harrington in 1660, "and let him call a
Parliament of the greatest cavaliers in England, so they be men of
estates, and let them sit but seven years, and they will all txirn common-
wealthsmen." The prediction was not yet fulfilled ; but there were signs
that it was on its way to fulfilment. Inevitably something of the spirit
which animated the Long Parliament of Charles I passed into the Long
Parliament of Charles II. During the civil troubles first one branch of
government, then another, had fallen under the control of the House of
Commons. It had assumed not only the legislative power but the direct
control of the executive. All the diiferent functions of administration
had been taken charge of by its committees ; all the highest questions
of policy had been subjected to its decision. Men might change and
principles might change, but such an experience could not be forgotten,
and the increasing independence and growing claims of the House of
Commons testified its consciousness of its past. King and Minister were
alike obliged in the long run to yield to its pressure. What Charles
wished to do became a minor question. The King of France, wrote
Courtin to Lionne in 1665, can make his subjects march as he pleases ;
but the King of England must march with his people. What Clarendon
thought best for the King's service was more and more liable to be over-
ruled, and he was obliged to conform himself, though not without a
struggle, to the views of Parliament.

Accordingly, Parliament proceeded to complete its ecclesiastical
settlement by a series of measures for the complete suppression of
Nonconformity. An Act specially directed against the Quakers had

1662-4] Religious persecution. 103

been passed in May, 1662. If five or more of them met for worship
they were to be fined five pounds each or three months' imprisonment
for the first offence, ten pounds or six months for a second, and to be
banished to the Plantations on a third conviction. In 1664 this Act
was strengthened and extended to Presbyterians and Independents in
general, under the pretext that their assemblies were " the seedplots and
nurseries of seditious opinions." A conventicle was defined as a meeting
of more than five persons over and above the members of a household ;
conviction was facilitated, and offenders who could not pay the cost of
their own transportation to the colonies were to serve five years as
indentured labourers; transported convicts who escaped or returned to
England before the expiration of their sentence were to suffer death as
felons. A year later came the Five Mile Act, which aggravated the lot
of ejected nonconformist ministers by prohibiting them from residing
within five miles of any corporate town or teaching in any public or
private school, unless they had taken a test. The test consisted , of the
non-resistance oath imposed by the Corporation Act, with the additional
pledge not to " endeavour at any time any alteration of government
either in Church or State." This closed the series of measures which some
historians have dubbed " the Clarendon Code." Clarendon approved of
the Conventicle Act ; his attitude with regard to the Five Mile Act is
uncertain. The King's compliance was due to his pecuniary necessities.

The growing power of Parliament was not only shown by the fact
that it forced its ecclesiastical policy upon the King. It influenced both
the relations of England to the rest of the British Isles, and still more
its relation to Europe.

The settlement of Scotland and Ireland had proceeded pari passu
with that of England. In both kingdoms the restoration of the old
constitution in 1660 entailed the restoration of their separate Parliaments,
and the undoing of the legislative union which Cromwell had effected.
Equality of commercial privileges perished with the Cromwellian union
or survived it only for a short time. The Navigation Act of 1660
excluded Scotland from the benefits of the colonial trade, though it
included Ireland. The Act for the encouragement of English trade
passed in 1663 imposed a heavy tax on the importation of Scottish
cattle and sheep ; Scottish corn was practically excluded, Scottish salt
ere long heavily burdened.

Clarendon hints that the King might have done well to maintain
the Union with Scotland, but that he "would not build according to
Cromwell's models." In Ireland Charles had to do this, whether he
would or not. The Cromwellian settlement rested on a solid legal basis,
since the last acts to which Charles I had given his assent before the
civil war began were a series of measures confiscating the lands of the
Irish rebels, in order to pay the cost of reducing that country. The new
colonists were in possession; all the machinery of government was in their

104 Restrictions on Irish trade. [leeo-e

hands, and English public opinion was unanimous in their support.
Despite the King's obligations to the Irish Catholics, despite his pity for
"the miserable condition of the Irish nation," all he could do was to
restore a few favoured individuals to their estates, and induce the soldiers
and the Adventurers to submit to a slight reduction of their share of the
land for the benefit of the dispossessed. On the other hand, the commercial
jealousy which found expression in the restrictions placed by England
upbn Scottish trade was still more strongly felt with regard to Irish.
In 1663 Irish shipping was entirely excluded from the colonial trade.
In 1666 the importation of Irish cattle, sheep and swine, alive or dead^
was totally prohibited. The latter Act led to a long struggle between
the country gentlemen who backed it and the Government. The King
yielded under compulsion ; the House of Lords resisted stubbornly, and
became involved in a heated controversy with the Commons ; Clarendon
sacrificed the last shreds of his popularity with the country party in his
endeavour to maintain the prosperity of Ireland and the rights of the
upper House and the King against the encroachments of the Commons.
But the lower House would hear of no compromise ; as ' in the case
of the ecclesiastical statutes, so in that of economic statutes, they
refused to leavei any loophole for the exercise of the King''s dispensing
power, and carried the day. " The House of Commons," commented
Clarendon, "seemed much more morose and obstinate than it had
formerly appeared to be, and solicitous to grasp as much power and
authority as any of their predecessors had done."

English foreign policy during the period between the Restoration
and the close of 1664 developed upon similar lines ; that is, its control
passed by degrees from the hands of the King and his Ministers into the
hands of the Parliament. Clarendon's policy, as stated by himself, was
straightforward and intelligible. " He laboured nothing more than that
his Majesty might enter into a firm peace with all his neighbours, as
most necessary for the reducing his own dominions into that temper of
subjection and obedience as they ought to be in." At first sight it
seemed easy to attain this modest aim. The fact that the King was
restored without the interposition of any foreign Power appeared to
leave him free to follow what policy he pleased. It is true that Charles
was personally pledged by his treaty with Spain in April, 1656, that
when he recovered his throne he would abandon Jamaica and other
possessions in the West Indies acquired since 1630, and would assist
Philip IV to regain Portugal. But it might be argued that the
King's restoration without Spanish aid freed him from these stipulations.
England was still nominally at war with Spain when the King returned ;
but a formal cessation of hostilities was proclaimed on September 10,
1660. But Charles turned a deaf ear to the Spanish demands for the
restoration of Jamaica and Dunkirk. Parliament was firm on that point J
and a Bill for annexing both places in perpetuity to the Grown of England

i6eo-7o] The alliance with Portugal. 105

passed the House of Commons on September 11, 1660. Their reten-
tion rendered an agreement with Spain impossible; the old treaty of
November 15, 1630, was republished, but hostilities in the West Indies
still continued, and in October, 1662, an expedition from Jamaica took
and destroyed Santiago de Cuba. A new treaty of peace and commerce
was not signed till May, 1667, and the American quarrels were not
settled till July, 1670.

During the same period Charles instead of assisting Spain to recover
Portugal adopted exactly the opposite policy. England had from the
first favoured Portuguese independence. In 1642 Charles I signed a
treaty with Portugal securing great privileges for English merchants,
which were further increased by Cromwell's treaty with Portugal in
1654. Blake's fleet helped to preserve Portugal from the navy of Spain,
and Cromwell's diplomacy laboured to compose her quarrel with Holland.
On the very eve of the Restoration, in April, 1660, the English Council
of State signed a treaty permitting Portugal to levy 12,000 men in
England. It was natural therefore that Portugal, abandoned by Louis
XIV at the Treaty of the Pyrenees, should turn to Charles II for aid as
soon as he was restored to his throne. In the summer of 1660 Francisco
de Mello, the Portuguese ambassador, proposed a match between Charles
and the Infanta Catharine, daughter of John IV, and sister of the
reigning king Alfonso VI. As an inducement he offered the cession
of Tangier and Bombay, commercial privileges and complete liberty of
conscience for English merchants, and a dowry of two million crusados.
The Cromwellian statesmen in the King's council, Albemarle and Sand-
wich, were strongly in favour of the proposed alliance; Ormond and
Hyde, the heads of the cavalier section, approved it; Bristol, the leader
of the Catholic party, worked hard with the aid of the Spanish am-
bassador to prevent its acceptance. The treaty was signed on June 23,
1661 ; the marriage followed on May 21, 1662. England became
pledged to assist Portugal with 2000 foot, 1000 horse, and ten ships of
war until her independence weis attained; Old soldiers were not difficult
to find at the moment; the removal of the Cromwellian garrisons in
Scotland, which took place about the end of 1661, supplied an organised
body of infantry, whUst Irish Catholics who had served the King in
Flanders helped to furnish the cavalry. Both did good service ; in the
battles of Amegial (June 8, 1663) and Montes Claros (June 17, 1665)
the English contingent bore a large part in winning the victory. English
diplomacy, too, represented by Fanshawe, Southwell and Sandwich,
worked indefatigably on behalf of Portugal until the treaty of February
13, 1668, secui-ed its independence.

By retaining Cromwell's conquests from Spain and by assisting
Portugal Charles returned to Cromwell's foreign policy, though he suc-
ceeded in avoiding open war with Spain. At the same time he naturally
drew nearer to France. At first he had testified his resentment of

106 England and France. [1660-2

Mazarin's close alliance with the usurper by ordering Bordeaux, the
ambassador who had been the instrument of the Cardinal in effecting it,
to leave England, But this feeling did not prevent the reestablishment
of good relations between the ,two Powers. Queen Henrietta Maria,
who exerted all her influence to restore them, proposed a match between
Charles and Hortense Mancini, Mazarin's niece, to whom the Cardinal
promised to give a dowry of 4 million livres. Charles refused the match
as beneath his dignity, but the Queen succeeded in negotiating a mar-
riage between the Princess Henrietta and Louis XIV's brother, the Duke
of Orleans. It took place on March 31, 1661, and the Duchess of
Orleans became ere long the channel for all confidential communications
between Charles and Louis.

The marriage of Charles with Catharine of Braganza formed a second
link with France. Debarred from assisting Portugal openly Louis was
anxious to prevent her reconquest by Spain, in order to keep that Power
weajj. Hence when Charles hesitated Louis pressed the match, and
promised to contribute 800,000 crowns towards the expense of defending
Portugal, besides permitting a certain number of French officers and
soldiers to take service under the Portuguese standards.

The sale of Dunkirk to France constituted a third link. It was an
expensive possession, for it required a garrison of nearly 4000 men, and
cost about ,£100,000 a year. The harbour was poor, which made it of
little value as a naval station, and with the abandonment of Cromwell's
plan for a great European league for the support of Protestantism its
military value was greatly diminished. For strategic reasons Albemarle
and Sandwich urged its sale; Tangier, they said, would be far more
valuable as a naval base, and it was impossible to hold both places.
For financial reasons, Southampton, the Lord Treasurer, took the same
line, and Clarendon both approved the plan and managed the bargain.
The two possible purchasers were France and Spain, and the former was
at once the better paymaster and the more desirable ally. After much
haggling between Clarendon and D'Estrades the price was finally fixed
at 2,500,000 livres ; and the transfer took place on October 27, 1662.

It seemed at the close of 1662 as if Charles had definitely resolved
to range himself on the side of France in her struggle with the Spanish
monarchy, and as if as close an alliance between Charles and Louis was
about to be formed as that which Cromwell had made with Mazarin.
But the difference was that religious interests had no part in determining
the policy of Charles, nor was his inclination towards France connected
with any definite scheme of European policy. His policy was mainly
dictated by commercial considerations, and he looked outside Europe.
" Upon the King's first arrival in England," says Clarendon, " he mani-
fested a very great desire to improve the general traffic and trade of the
nation, and upon all occasions conferred with the most active merchants
upon it, and offered all that he could contribute to the advancement

1660-2] England and the United Provinces. — Portugal. 107

thereof." He began by erecting a Council of Trade (Novepiber 7, 1660),
and by its side a Council for Foreign Plantations (December 1, 1660).

The alliance with Portugal was dictated by commercial consideration,
and it was popular because the Portuguese was " the most beneficiallest
trade that ever this nation was engaged in." Bombay was to be the
centre of a lucrative traffic with India, while the possession of Tangier
was not only to secure for England the trade of northern Africa, but to
enable it "to give the law to all the trade of the Mediterranean." When
Burnet visited England in 1663 "Tangier was talked of at a mighty
rate, as the foundation of a new empire." It was by holding out the
prospect of easy conquests in Africa and the Indies, and of enormous
mercantile profits, that D'Estrades, on behalf of Louis XIV, encouraged
Charles to accept the offers of Portugal.

The materialism of the King's policy exactly fitted the temper of his
people; but any attempt to obtain for England a larger share of the
commerce of the world was certain to produce a conflict with the present
holders of commercial dominion, the Dutch. Other causes of conflict
between England and Holland were not lacking. Charles II had a
personal grievance against the Dutch Government. He was anxious for
the restoration of his nephew, the Prince of Orange, to the political and
mihtary functions from which he had been debarred by the Act of
Exclusion in 1654, and the position was further complicated by a
dispute about the guardianship of William, who was but ten years old
in 1660. At the Hague, before he returned to England, Charles urgently
recommended the interests of his sister and her son to the States-General;
after his return he became still more pressing. The Dutch Government
revoked the Act of Exclusion (September 25, 1660) and the States of
Holland took the care of the Prince's education into their own hands.
The death of the Princess Mary on December 24!, 1660, reopened the
question. Charles at her request assumed the guardianship of the
Prince, which he shared by agreement with another uncle, the Elector
of Brandenburg: they entrusted William to the control of his grand-
mother, Amalia, Princess-Dowager of Orange, ousting the representatives
of Holland from their charge.

Portuguese affairs added to the friction. For nea,rly twenty years
the Dutch and Portuguese had been fighting over their possessions in
South America and the East Indies. Cromwell had sought to mediate
between the two States, and Charles pledged himself by a secret article
in his marriage-treaty to follow Cromwell's example. Downing, the
very diplomatist Cromwell laaA employed, was despatched again to the
Hague to continue the mediation. On August 6, 1661, a treaty was
signed by which the Portuguese retained Brazil and the Dutch Ceylon,
but its ratification was retarded till December, 1662, owing to disputes
about the comparative privileges of Dutch and English commerce in the
Portuguese possessions.

CH, V,

108 The origin of the Dutch War. [1662-5

These quarrels retarded the treaty between England and the United
Provinces which had been set on foot in 1661 and was not concluded till
Sieptember, 1662. It settled the long disputes about freedom of fishing
and the salute of the British flag, but it left two outstanding questions
undetermined. One was the question of the compensation claimed by
the owners of two English ships taken by the Dutch in 1643, the other
was the question of the restoration of Pularoon, one of the Spice Islands.
The Dutch had expelled the English from it about 1620; and the verdict
of the arbitrators appointed under the treaty of April 6, 1654, had
adjudged it to England. The new treaty promised that the long-delayed
transfer should be effected; but when one of the ships of the English
East India Company arrived with authority to take possession the Dutch
Governor refused to give it up. Besides this breach of faith, there were
fresh complaints of the capture of English ships in the East Indies and
the forcible obstruction of English traders in West Africa. Reprisals
inevitably followed. Shortly aftet the Restoration Charles had granted
letters-patent for the formation of the Royal African Company (Decem-
ber 18, 1660), to which he subsequently granted a charter (June 10,
1663). The Duke of York was the special patron of the company and
one of its founders. At his instigation in October, 1663, Robert Holmes,
with a small squadron, was sent to the African coast to protect the trade
of the company against the Dutch, which he effected by capturing most
of the Dutch stations there. England had also shadowy claims on the
territories Occupied by the Dutch West India Company in America.
On March 12, 1664, Charles granted to his brother James a patent for
Long Island and the whole country between the Connecticut and Dela-
ware rivers.' In May a small expedition under Colonel NicoUs set sail
from Portsmouth to put the Duke in possession.

Throughout 1664 the war-feeling in England grew stronget and
stronger. In April the Turkey Company and the East India Company
presented complaints to Parliament claiming that damages to the amount
of =^714,000 had been inflicted upon them by the Dutch, and the two
Houses petitioned the King to take effectual measures to obtain redress.
In October and the following months de Ruyter recaptured the English
possessions on the Gold Coast. In December an English squadron
under Allen attacked the Dutch Smyrna fleet. War was declared on
March 14, 1665.

Charles II was pushed into war by his people and by his brother.
"I never saw so great an appetite to war as is in both this town and
country, especially in the parliament men," he wrote to the Duchess
of Orleans on June 2, 1664. "I find myself almost the only man in
my kingdom who doth not desire war," he added three months later.
Clarendon too was notoriously opposed to war ; but, like his master, he
was obliged to follow the cvurent. When the English Government saw
that waj' was inevitable, it began to look round for allies. Fanshawe

1664-6] 2%e defeat of English diplomacy. 109

was sent to Madrid and Southwell to Lisbon, to negotiate a truce
between Spain and Portugal, and if possible an offensive and defensive
league with Spain. Sir Gilbert Talbot was sent to Denmark, and Henry
Coventry to Sweden, to secure the aid of those Powers against the Dutch.
Lord Carlingford went to Vienna to propose to the Emperor Leopold
a league between England and the House of Habsburg; Sir Walter
Vane was despatched to Berlin to gain the support of the Elector of
Brandenburg. But the only ally England could obtain was the Bishop
of Miinster, who offered his services in return for a subsidy, made a
treaty with Charles H on June 13, 1665, and invaded Holland two
months later. All this diplomatic activity was frustrated by the atti-
tude of Louis XIV. On April 27, 1662, he had signed an alliance with
Holland by which he was pledged, if Holland were attacked, to aid the
Dutch with 12,000 men, and to declare war against its assailant within
four months. Charles was badly served by Lord Holies, his ambassador
at Paris, and neither realised the precise nature of the engagements of
Louis to the Dutch nor the political motives which swayed the French
King. Through his sister he endeavoured in vain to procure the support
of the French King, or at least his neutrality, and argued that since
the Dutch were in reality the aggressors, Louis was not bound to help
them. It was aU in vain. Louis had no love for the Dutch, but,
in view of his designs against the Spanish Netherlands, their future
neutrality was necessary to him ; nor was he disposed to overthrow
their maritime and commercial power for the benefit of England.
When the war broke out he sent two extraordinary ambassadors to
England in April, 1665, to endeavour to mediate, and sought through
his diplomacy to prevent other Powers from taking part in the war.
The death of Philip IV of Spain (September 17, 1665) somewhat altered
the situation, since an agreement between England and Holland might
hinder the designs of Louis on the Netherlands, and its prolongation
might facilitate their execution. Accordingly he sent an auxiliary force
to the aid of the Dutch, which drove the Miinster forces out of Holland,
and declared war against England on January 26, 1666. The result was
decisive. The King of Denmark, guaranteed by France against any
danger from Sweden, allied himself with the Dutch on February 11, 1666.
The Elector of Brandenburg on February 16, 1666, made a treaty with
the Dutch, promising to aid them with 12,000 men. England's only
ally, the Bishop of Miinster, threatened alike by France and Brandenburg,
made his peace with the Dutch on April 18. Sweden, which had been
on the point of forming a league with England, declared itself neutral
on July 17, and offered its mediation in the quarrel. Finally, on
October 25, 1666, Holland, Denmark, Brandenburg, and the Dukes
of Brunswick-Liineburg formed what was known as the "Quadruple
Alliance" for mutual defence. The diplomatic defeat of England was
complete.

110 Effect of the Dutch War on England. [i665-6

At sea during the same period, in spite of some reverses, England
had more than held its own. The details of the naval war are related
elsewhere. Southwold Bay (June 3, 1665) was a great victory, and the
repulse at Bergen (August 16, 1665) had been compensated by the
capture of many Dutch ships during the next few months. The battle
of June 1-4, 1666, was a defeat, but it was avenged by the victory of
July 25, and by the burning of the Dutch merchantmen in the Vlie on
August 8. In the West Indies Jamaica and Barbados were two strong-
holds from which English expeditions sallied forth against the Dutch or
the French. Privateers from Jamaica captured St Eustatia, Santa Saba,
and Tobago in 1665. In 1666 fortune turned the other way. Antigua,
Montserrat, and the English half of St Christopher's fell into the hands
of the French, and Surinam was captured by the Dutch.

On the other hand, the internal condition of England at the close
of 1666 was extremely unfavourable. The strain of the war had been
aggravated by two extraordinary calamities. The plague, which raged
in London during the summer and autuqin of 1665, swept away nearly
70,000 persons out of a population of rather less than half a million.
It was stiU raging in the eastern and south-eastern counties during the
first half of 1666, and in Colchester alone between 4000 and 5000
persons perished from it. In September, 1666, came the Great Fire of
London, which is said to have destroyed 13,200 houses and reduced
two-thirds of the capital to smouldering ruins. Throughout England
there was wide-spread discontent, with complaints of heavy taxes, and of
abuses. "The nation," said an anonymous letter addressed to Charles
himself, " are ready with every pufF of wind to rise up in arms because
of the oppression that is laid upon them." There were rumours of
conspiracies for the restoration of the Republic. Ludlow, Algernon
Sidney, and other exiled republicans were summoned to Amsterdam.
It was said that the Dutch Government intended " to relieve the good
people," and that Dutch statesmen had at last come to see that their
government could not long subsist if monarchy continued in England.
De Witt suggested that Louis XIV should seize a convenient port in
Ireland, and call on that people to shake off the English yoke. In
Scotland there was still greater danger. The war with Holland had
closed the only remaining market for Scotch merchandise; and in the
western shires, exasperated by religious persecution, a general rising
would certainly have followed any landing of the Dutch troops. The
Pentland rising showed the temper of the Whigs ; and its suppression
at Bullion Green on November 27, 1666, was a piece of undeserved good
fortune for the Government.

The real difficulty of Charles the Second's Ministers, however, was not
the political, but the financial, situation. The King's ordinary revenue,
nominally ,£1,200,000 a year, was really about =£'900,000, and he was in
debt before the war began. In June, 1664, at the first threat of war.

1664-6] The financial breakdown. Ill

he had to borrow £1Q0,0QQ from the City of London in order to equip
a fleet for sea. Parliament voted large sums for the expenses of the
war. In December, 1664, it imposed a "Royal Aid" of £^,^11,500,
to be raised by a monthly assessment during the next three years
beginning in January, 1665. In October, 1665, it voted an additional
aid of <i&l, 250,000, to be levied in the next two years beginning in
January, 1666. Thus during 1665 the monthly assessment levied was
^68,500 per month, while during 1666 and 1667 it rose to 0^120,000
per mensem, which was what the Long Parliament had raised during the
first Dutch War. But this sum was far from suflicient. The expenses
of the navy between September 1, 1664, and September 29, 1666, came
to ^£"3,200,000, and of that sum about £200,000 was still owing. About
d&238,000 had been spent in subsidies to the Bishop of Miinster,
whose services had proved a very insufficient return. The deficiency
was freely attributed to malversation in high places. It was reported
that since the war began =6'4!00,000 had been diverted from the service
of the State to the Privy Purse, and people said : " Give the King the
Countess of Castlemaine, and he cares not what the people suffers." In
reality Charles was not to blame for the deficit. No doubt he was
extravagant in his private pleasures, but the embarrassments of the
State were due to other causes. The new taxes should have been
imposed when the preparations for war began, not months after war
had broken out. They dribbled in slowly ; not a penny of the " Royal
Aid " voted in December, 1664, reached the Exchequer till April, 1665.
They brought in less than their estimated yield ; the " Royal Aid " fell
short by about £85,000; the "additional aid" by about £100,000.
The Government had to borrow money from bankers at high rates for
its daily expenditure, and it could only borrow with great difficulty.
For there was no efficient way of anticipating the receipts of taxes
already voted by borrowing on the credit of them, nor was the device
of funding the debts of the State and assigning certain revenues to
provide the interest due upon them as yet naturalised in England. In
both respects the Dutch Government had a great advantage over the
English. Not only were the United Provinces a far richer country, in
which the rate of interest was much lower than it was in England and
the available capital much larger, but the whole machinery of public
finance was more highly developed, so that the Dutch could bear with
comparative ease the burden of a war expenditure which was crushing
to an economically more backward nation.

When Parliament met in September, 1666, it resolved to raise
£1,800,000 for the King's service; but long disputes followed before
the method of raising the sum could be agreed upon. Eventually it was
determined to raise £1,256,000 by a monthly assessment beginning in
January, 1667, and a poll-tax which was expected to produce £500,000,
but really brought in only half that sum. At the same time the House

m, y,

112 Negotiations for peace. [i667

of Commons proceeded to claim the control of the 'finances of the State.
Alrea4y in 1665, when the House voted the additional aid of 0^1,250,000,
a proviso had been introduced into the Bill requiring that the mopey
raised should be applicable only to the purposes of they war. But now,
besides the right of appropriating supplies, it claimed the right of
examining into their expenditure, and sent up a Bill nominating com-
missioners to inspect the public accounts. The King opposed it as an
encroachment on his prerogative, and the House of Lords backed him.
In the end. Parliament was prorogued before the Bill was perfected
(February 8, 1667), and Charles, at the suggestion of the Lords,
appointed commissioners of his own choice to carry out the proposed
examination (March, 1667). With insufficient supplies and with a
quarrel with the Commons on his hands, the King was left to face
the difficulties of the next year's war.

In this extremity the King's Council adopted a plan full of peril. It
was resolved to stand entirely upon the defensive ; to lay up the great
ships, and to send nothing but squadrons of light frigates to sea during
the next year ; to suffer the sailors who should have manned the fleet to
take service on board merchantmen; to fortify Sheerness and other places
in order to protect the ships in the river. No other course seemed open:
there was no money in hand either to repair the ships, or victual them,
or pay their crews. To the King and his political advisers it seemed a
safe and economical way out of their difficulties. Peace seemed close at
hand. Overtures had been made by the Dutch in the latter part of
1666, and in the spring of 1667 Charles had three negotiations on foot.
There was a public one through the Swedish mediators, which ended on
March 18, with an agreement for a general treaty to take place at Breda.
There was a secret attempt set on foot by Lisola, the Imperial ambas-
sador, to bring England and Holland to terms, in order that both might
league themselves with the House of Habsburg for the defence of the
Spanish Netherlands. Finally, through St Albans and the Queen-Mother,
Charles was privately treating with France on the basis of the restora-
tion of the French conquests in the West Indies, in return for the com-
plicity of England in the attack on the Netherlands. In April the two
Kings concluded their bargain, and in May the French army invaded
Flanders.

In the same month the negotiations at Breda began. It -v/as agreed
that both England and Holland should keep their conquests ; and after
Charles had at last abandoned the demand for the restoration of Pularoon
nothing but minor questions remained to be settled. Over these ques-
tions the English envoys at Breda, Holies and Coventry, haggled and
delayed. The King felt secure. Now that he had agreed with France
the Dutch would be obliged to come to his terms; and either Louis :«vould
prevent the Dutch fleet from putting to sea, or the preparations, made
would be sufficient to repel them. On the other hand thq Dutch, who

iGGO-7] Parliament and the army. 113

had refused to agree to a cessation of arms, were eager for peace, and
their eagerness was increased by the French invasion of the Netherlands.
De Witt resolved, by a sudden and decisive blow, to prevent the pro-
longation of the negotiations, and enforce the conclusion of peace. The
appearance of de Ruyter's fleet in the Thames, and the burning of the
ships in the Medway on June 13, were the result not only of a strategic
blunder but of diplomatic incompetence. The story of the disaster
itself is told in a later chapter. Peace was signed at Breda six weeks
later on the terms which the Dutch had offered in May (July 31, 1667).
Charles had made up his mind to accept them before the Dutch fleet
sailed, and de Witt with wise moderation did not attempt to raise his
demands.

In England public feeling, exasperated by the national disgrace,
demanded satisfaction. Men said in private that Clarendon and
Arlington, who were responsible for the King's foreign policy, with
Sir George Carteret and Sir William Coventry, who were responsible for
the administration of the navy, were to be sacrificed. Nothing but some
concession to the Nonconformists would put an end to domestic dis-
contents ; there must be a severe inquisition into the late miscarriages,
and Parliament must take the whole management of affairs into its own
hands. When Parliament met the first demand made was for the dis-
banding of the newly raised forces (July 15) ; for the fear of a standing
army had become one of the dominant instincts of all English politicians.
When the Cromwellian army was disbanded the intention was to leave
Charles II with no forces but his guards and a few companies scattered
through various garrisons. But Venner's rising in January, 1661, showed
the need for more troops, and Monck's regiment was continued in arms
under the name of the Coldstream Guards. The withdrawal of the
garrison of Dunkirk added a second battalion to the King's own
regiment, so that by 1663 Charles had a standing force of about
3400 foot and 1000 horse, quite apart from the troops in Scotland
and Ireland and the garrison of Tangier. Each addition had excited
the jealousy of Parliament, and the war caused a further increase.
Three regiments of foot and 23 troops of horse were added during 1665
and 1666, while in June, 1667, 12,000 more foot and 2400 horse were
raised to resist the threatened Dutch landing. Charles had over 20,000
armed men at his disposal, and it was freely reported that he meant to
rule by a standing army, and to assimilate the government of England
to that of France. Public opinion regarded the Duke of York as the
man who had pressed this design upon the King, and Clarendon as his tool.
There was some colour for the charge against the Chancellor. At the end
of June, 1667, he had combated the proposal to summon Parliament,
and had urged a dissolution and the calling of a new Parliament in the
autumn. In Council he had advised that the newly raised forces should
be supported by levying contributions on the counties in money or in
c. ji. H, V. cn. V. 8

114 The fall of Clarendon. [lee?

provisions, so long as the present emergency lasted. The belief that
Clarendon sought to alter the Constitution was without foundation;
yet, since his constitutional ideas were incompatible with the claim which
Parliament now made, its leaders were right in regarding him as their
eneniy. Appropriation of supplies, audit of accounts, control of the
armed forces of the nation, all appeared to him encroachments which
the King must resist to the last.

Qarendon was likewise regarded as the inspirer of the King's foi-eign
policy, though in reality he was merely its instrument. English opinion
attributed the Chatham disaster as much to French intrigue as Dutch
arms, watched with rising hostility the progress of the French in the
Netherlands, and blamed the Minister for subserviency to France. The
ambassadors of Austrisi, and Spain fanned the flame, and sought to over-
throw one whom they regarded as the creature of Louis XIV. Had the
Commons sat a day longer an address in favoiur of a league with thfe
House of Habsburg and a war with France would have been presented
to the King.

For the moment the sudden prorogation of Parliament (July 29)
saved Clarendon from direct attack ; but it still more embittered par-
liamentary feeling against him, because it seemed a personal insult to
the members. It did not diminish the King's difficulties. Charles was
obliged to disband the newly raised forces because the conclusion of peace
left him no excuse for maintaining them. He was obliged to dismiss
Clarendon because his retention would make peace at home impossible,
and on August 30 the Chancellor, by the King's order, gave up the Great
Seal. Clarendon, in his autobiography, attributes his fall to personal
reasons. He had been too bold with his master; he had told him plainly
that he had no prerogative to make vice virtue; the courtiers and the
mistress had poisoned the King's ears; this phrase had been misconstrued
and that act intentionally misrepresented. But the real reason lay much
deeper. It was true that the King had outlived any personal attach-
ment to his Minister, but he also perceived that the situation demanded
Ministers who possessed the confidence of Parliament. It was not
possible, he told Ormond, to keep Clarendon, "and to do, those things
with the Parliament that must be done or the government will be lost."
Clarendon did not realise this. " Parliaments," he told Charles in his
last interview, "were not formidable unless the King chose to make them
so ; it was yet in his own power to govern them, but if they found it was
in theirs to govern him, nobody knew what the end would be." Nobody
knew better than the King that the fii-st half of the sentence was a funda-
mental misconception ; as to the second, Charles felt that it was easier to
out-manoeuvre Parliament than to fight it. In the seven years which
had passed since he reentered London statecraft had come to mean not
the steady pursuit of a well-considered policy, but the art of managing
Parliament. And more and more Parliament signified the . House of

1667-74] The position of' Charles II. 116

Commons, " a beast not to be understood," because there were yet no
definite parties, and because no machinery had yet been devised for
securing cooperation between the executive and the legislative.

When Parliament met, the King yielded all the points at issue. He
had already disbanded the newly raised forces ; he now assented to the
Bill appointing Parliamentary Commissioners to examine the public
accounts (December 19, 1667), and permitted a searching enquiry into
the naval miscarriage of the late war. But, though Charles promised
never to employ Clarendon again, his enemies were not satisfied, and drew
up articles of impeachment for high treason against the fallen Minister.
The Lords refused to commit Clarendon, on the ground that the articles
accused him of treason in general only, and did not specify any particu-
lar treason. There followed a complete breach between the two Houses.
The Commons voted that the refusal of the Lords was an obstruction of
the public justice of the kingdom. In the meantime Clarendon, hearing
that Parliament was to be prorogued, and that he was to be tried by a
special Court erected for the purpose, took the King's advice and fled the
kingdom. The two Houses ordered the vindication he left behind him
to be burnt, and passed an Act which banished him for life, and made
his pardon impossible' without their consent.

In dismissing Clarendon Charles had submitted to the will of Parlia-
ment— not for the first time, but more conspicuously than he had done
before. But he did not feel that he had permanently surrendered ariy'
portion of his royal power. His concessions seemed to him, in his own
words, rather " inconvenient appearances than real mischiefs." His new
Ministers were his own choice, not imposed upon him by Parliament.
The removal of Clarendon was the removal of a check upon his freedom
of action; and in his heart Charles agreed with the courtier who told
him that he was now King, which he never had been before. He
began to meditate large projects at home and abroad, aiid initiated
a policy of his own which was distinct from the official policy 6f his
Government.

Clarendon lived until 1674 an exile in France. He spent the last
years of his life in compiling a vindication of his political career, and in
revising the exposition of constitutional royalism, which ultimately be-
came ^Q History of the Reh'ellkm. The fundamental principle of that
creed was the necessity of the union of Church and State. Clarendon's
great political achievement had been the realisation of that principle by
reuniting Parliamentary Government and the Anglican Church after
they had been separated by the Civil War. One might almost say that
the unconditional restoration of the old Church was the work of Claren-
don, as the unconditional restoration of monarchy was the work of
Monck. But, in achieving his purpose. Clarendon failed to perceive that
toleration had become necessary to the peace of the nation, and his error
led to the fall of the House of Stewart.

CH. V. 8 2

116

CHAPTER VI.

THE LITERATURE OF THE ENGLISH RESTORATION,
INCLUDING MILTON.

The Renaissance did not bear its perfect fruit in England till late.
Long after in Italy it had been defeated in its protracted struggle with
the reactionary element in the Church, it continued in England to find
fuller expression not only in the minds but in the characters of men.
In the Florence of Milton's day the spirit of the Renaissance lingered
only in the intellectual pastimes of the Academies. In England, where
the study of the classics continued hand in hand with that of the Bible,
the freedom won refused to stop short at the acquirement of mental
elegance. It embraced the whole man, raising before him an ideal
of life and conduct largely Hebraic in its consciousness of duty to a
Deity who had selected a nation (and, according to some, here and
there a person) for favour. At the same time, the chivalric ideals were
not dead. The memory of Sir Philip Sidney, the Elizabethan perfect
knight, was stiU active; Dante and Petrarch, "lofty fables and romances,"
and The Faerie Queene, were still consulted for moral guidance as well as
for pleasure. And the study of the classics had encouraged certain
notions of the Stoic philosophy, which were assimilated into the ideal.
Of this ideal, the result of the joint action of Reformation and Renais-
sance, John Milton in his early years was the supreme example. That
there were others, Mrs Hutchinson's record of the youth of her husband,
who was bom seven years after Milton, helps to show. There was little
in it of what we now imply by the name Puritan. The arts were freely
practised. Milton, who inherited a love of music from his father, pre-
served it to the end of his life and formed a friendship with Henry
Lawes, a Court musician. And the great heritage — as it had already
come to be — of Elizabethan imagination as lavished in the Elizabethan
drama was in his youth still a matter of glory, not, as it became later,
of shame. If Milton hissed academical comedies at Cambridge, he hissed
them not because they were stage-plays, but because they were silly. If
he wrote nothing for a theatre which had already begun to show signs
of decadence and immorality, he wrote (and that not long after the
publication of Histriomastix) two masques for performance, meditated

1630-7] Milton's early poems. 117

for many years the composition of a Biblical or historical drama, and
published, within three years of his death, a tragedy. His austerity was
not that of a hatred, but of a severe choice, of pleasure. An intellectual
and moral aristocrat, he disliked, not art, but vulgarity.

The humanist and the Puritan are often spoken of as two elements
at war in Milton. Rightly regarded, they would rather seem to be
interdependent, forming together the peculiar and beautiful result of
the interaction of Reformation and Renaissance. So early as 1630 we
find the two wrought into perfect harmony in the poem. At a solemn
musick. The time was to come when they would be forced into opposi-
tion. Meanwhile, the youthful Milton is almost, if not entirely, such a
man as he has been declared to have been — one who would not unnaturally
have sided with the Cavaliers against the Puritans. His disinclination to
take Orders may have been due partly to his inherited Calvinism, and
his dislike of the growing Arminianism which followed Laud's elevation
to the archbishopric ; the final motive seems to have been his desire to
reserve himself for something higher. He retired to his father's house at
Horton, and there, while preparing for a greater ta^k, he wrote, among
other things, two poems, L'AUegro and II Penseroso (1633 c.), which
bring back into a world of decadence and barren conceits (conceits
which his manuscripts prove him to have been at pains to avoid) some-
thing of the freshness of the Spenserian time, but chastened, scholarly,
and informed with the constant suggestiveness of classical allusion. The
poems paint nature as seen through two moods in the mind of a young
scholar ; they foreshadow, too, the coming conflict between those moods
as expressed in Cavalier and Roundhead. To the same years of prepara-
tion belong the two masques, Arcades (1633 c.) and Comus (1634). The
former is a work of the Jonsonian type : the latter is more interesting,
not only for its superior poetry, but for the vision of the age that shows
through it. Comtis has been described as a double allegory. If it re-
presents the conflict between virtue and vice, it represents also the conflict,
now growing yearly sharper, between the two parties in religion and
politics. In Lycidas (1637) we have a stiU stronger sign of the cleavage.
Here, into the perfect pastoral, the last expression of the Spenserian
influence, comes the first genuine note of the sublime passion for order
in liberty which inflamed the remainder of Milton's life. Laud's insist-
ence on uniformity was filling the pulpits with obsequious and greedy
hirelings. The "sacred office of speaking" was "bought and begun
with servitude and forswearing " ; and the prophet, who formed so large
a part of the poet as Milton conceived him, speaks for the first time in
direct reference to national aflTairs. This was before the final separation.
There were many afterwards to be found upon the other side who must
have agreed with the passage in Lycidas concerning St Peter ; and the
two voices are still one.

Milton's enthusiasm for freedom in religious matters was probably

CH. VI,

118 Milton's travels. [1638-41

intensified by what he saw and learned during his travels on the
Continent (1638-9). He must have heard from his friend Charles
Diddati (the descendant of a faniily of Lucca which had emigrated in
the sixteenth century to escape conformity with the Church) of the
vigilance of the Holy Office and the Jesuits; and that he started with an
almost dangerous amount of Protestant feeling may be deduced from the
story of Sir Henry Wotton's famous warning, '^pensieri stretti ed U viso
seiolto.'" Paris, the home of expferimental science, could not hold him,
and he moved on to Italy. The laiiguage he had already mastered ; the
country he doubtless regarded as still the home of culture and the arts.
Here he found matter to inflame him still further. . He left an England
where the battle was still to come for an Italy where it was long over.
Nearly a century before, the establishment of the Holy Office, the
activity of the Jesuits, and the accession of Paul IV had driven the
Protestants from Lucca, Siena, and elsewhere, to Geneva and other places
north of the Alps, to be joined there by Huguenot refugees from France.
The Catholic Reaction had come, and the Academies where Milton was
made an honoured guest were little more than schools of superficial
elegance, of " flattery and fustian." In Florence Milton contrived both
to speak his mind and to remain unmolested; in return, his Italian
friends told him their real thoughts on the state of learning and life
under the sway of the Church. In Rome he was shunned ; at Naples
Manso was afraid to make too much of him; at Florence, on his way
back, he visited Galileo ; at Geneva he was the guest of the Diodati
and was able to contrast the conditions of life in the capital of Pro-
testantism with that of the cities under the rule of the Church. To
Milton's foreign travels we owe, indeed, the beautiful Epitaphmm
Damonisy in which he laments, in strains of genuine grief though with
ample use of the conventional classic machinery, the death in England of
his friend Charles Diodati, and other poems in Latin and Italian which
prove him to have been still extremely susceptible to influences of beauty;
we owe to them also an increase of his bias against religious authority.

Milton reached home in August, 1639. He had intended to include
Sicily and Greece in his travels, but was recalled, as he himself records,
by a sense of duty to his country, where lovers of liberty were preparing
to strike a blow. His journey bore no immediate fruit; it was not till
two years later that he put forth the first of his pamphlets.

The resolve to lay aside poetry to a more fitting time was not
yet definitply formed; but the publication of the first pamphlet, Q/"
Reformation tquchvng Church discipline in England (1641) raises the
question how far Milton deserted his first ambition in order to writ? his
controversial prose works. More than any other man of his time, he
had tjie consciousness of being dedicated. In his view, all men were
dedicated to the service of the great Taskmaster; himself in particular
was chosen for "the accomplishment of greatest things." He abstained

1641-eo] Milton's prose works. 119

from trade or profession, mainly in order to be free for more exalted
work. His task was to be a poet; and his view of the office differed
widely from that current in his own day and in the age that followed.
A poet, in Milton's eyes, was not merely a sweet singer, but a prophet.
The poet must be in himself a true poem ; a man of knowledge, wisdom,
and religion; and he must sing, not for gain or pleasure, or even "with
God's help, for immortality" for himself, but for the service of God and
of his country. There was, then, no renunciation, certainly no betrayal, of
his high calling in the postponement of the great epic or drama for which
he had been preparing himself since youth. God and his country had
needs more pressing than poetry could satisfy, and, if the inception of the
pamphlets shows a change in his methods, it shows no change of final aim.

It is not within the province of this chapter to discuss the pamphlets
in detail. It will be enough to refer briefly to one or two general
characteristics of Milton's prose works. His argument is not clearly
conducted, nor is it truly philosophic. A constant discrepancy is to be
noticed between the aspiration that possesses him and the theorem that
he has to advance. The Areopagitica, for instance, shows no special
knowledge and advances no practical schemes; in the Tractate on
Education there is a deep fall from the principle to, the scheme proposed.
Of' rhetoric there is plenty, sometimes magnificent, at others merely
tinkling, at others tawdry. To read Milton's prose is to find frequent
cause for wonder how the poet who chastened and solidified English blank
verse after it had fallen into decay, could run so wild in working without
the restrictions of metre. The want of arrangement, of construction,
and of order, is alijqost as remarkable in the uncontroversial as in the
controversial works. And the grossness, the malignity of the vitupera-
tion in which he occasionally indulged cannot be wholly excused even
by a remembrance of the age in which he wrote, the enemies he was
attacking, or the life and death struggle in which he engaged them.

In Milton's prose we find, it has been said, the poet in the politician.
If the arguments are weak and the practical value small, the prose works
are aglow with the highest purposes of the greatest mind of his time.
The vision of the poet breaks through the question of the moment
to the expression of a vast idealism inherited from the less hampered
aspirations of the Elizabethans. However much this enthusiasm may be
superficially affected in Milton's case by party spirit or the need of the
moment, personal or political, it renders his prose more passionate and,
at its best, more lofty than any other prose in the language. In
an;angement and style we must mark a decline from the ordered dignity
of Hooker ; it is not so rich as Jeremy Taylor; for tempestuous passion,
striving to fo^rce expression from an insufficiently developed medium, it
has no equal. The passion at the root of it is the passion of liberty —
liberty always conditioned by the Divine Law as revealed in the "double
Scripture" of the Bible and the Spirit that is given to each man as a

120 Milton's Sonnets. [i642-58

yet more certain guide, and by the intellectual and aristocratic love of
order. And the passion is increased by the fact that many of these
pamphlets are strongly autobiographical. The Areopagitica was written
in order to facilitate the publication of The Doctrine and Discipline of
Divorce, which in its turn was written (whether Masson's later theory of
its date be correct or not) because of the author's personal sufferings in
wedlock — sufferings, if this theory be indeed correct, sufficient of them-
selves to account for his mainly Hebraic view of woman. The aspira-
tion, therefore, is never feigned. Milton speaks from his heart of hearts,
his rare spirit elevated with conscious superiority to time-sei-vers, slaves,
demagogues and fools, stung by personal griefs and inflamed with a
passion for freedom and order ; and his prose is typical of his age — an
age of vast ideals and makeshift practice.

If it is impossible to read Milton's prose without as much pain and
disappointment as pleasure, it is also impossible not to realise that its whole
effect was greatly for the good of English prose. His lowest vitupera-
tion, hardly less than his loftiest flights, helped to stretch the capacity
of the tongue ; and the application of Milton's scholarship to his own
language resulted in the fortifying and enriching of it for the benefit of
those that came after.

In the twenty years of battle, almost the only poetry produced by him
consists of a few sonnets ; not founded, like those of the Elizabethans,
on accepted conceits and fashionable ardours, but struck out from the
poet's heart. Perhaps for the first time in English literature we find the
sonnet used for an expression of genuine personal feeling which owed
nothing to Italian or French originals; Milton's sonnets were written
not because the poet would, but because he must ; and no more passion-
ate or truly lyrical sonnets are to be found in the language. And, when
the battle was over and the cause practically lost, the poet returned, old,
blind and unhappy, to the work to which he believed himself dedicated.

The twenty years had left their mark. If there is much of the poet
in the politician and theologian, there is a great deal of the theologian
in the poet. It is a useless but fascinating task to speculate what the
great epic or drama would have been like, had Milton produced it ten
years earlier, after years of peace and retirement. One thing is certain:
that the poem would have lacked certain priceless touches of self-revela-
tion. The best-known passage in Paradise Lost is that in which the
poet speaks directly of his own blindness (in. 1-55). On the other
hand, it is easy to imagine that the poem, whether epical or dramatic,
historical or sacred, would have been a more human poem. Aristocratic
and aloof, "nice of nature, honestly haughty and self-esteeming" as
Milton had always been, he found himself between 1658 and 1663 more
out of sympathy with the world about him than he had been before.
The principles that were the passion of his life were denied ; he was
blind, poor, surrounded by enemies and, during part of the time, in

leev] Paradise Lost. 121

personal clanger. It is not surprising that, in addition to some out-
breaks of bitterness, the poem shows an increase, an excess, of that
detachment from the affairs of common humanity which had always been
a feature of his sublime mind. Chosen many years earlier for the very
reason that it relieved him of the necessity of dramatising, of character-
ising, men and women, his subject now formed at once a refuge from an
overwhelming disappointment and a means of expressing his own exalta-
tion above the study of his worthless fellow men. At the same time, it
may well seem to the modern reader to be more aloof from the concerns
of humanity than it seemed to Milton. If he had rejected the idea of
an Arthurian or other legendary subject in favour of a Scriptural, it was
because the legends, even history itself, had less of actuality, of literal
truth and of human moment, than the subject of Paradise Lost. To
Milton, his angels and his demons were not only eternally, essentially
true, but more exactly and literally true than King Arthur. He took
the Bible narrative and enlarged it, supplying nothing from uninspired
sources but the imagery of his poem and such names and figures as were
regarded by himself and his times as essentially linked with eternal truth
by being personally existent sources of error and opposition. Criticism has
succeeded in discovering onlj? a single passage where Milton represents an
incident in his story otherwise than as recorded in the Bible ; and his
authority in that case (ix. 179-191, and 494 sqq.) is the Book of Wisdom.
Though to-day, therefore, the poem is read mainly by scholars, who
admire its learning, its technical beauties, and the constant stream of
classical allusion which gives a deeper meaning to every line, and by
such classes as the Russian peasants, to whom its story is still literally
true and capable of being illustrated by flaming woodcuts, it is possible
to regard Paradise Lost as more remote from the concerns of common
humanity than it was. It contains no human sweetness, no charity, no
love. Whatever of those elements there may have been in a man austere
and sublime from youth, twenty years of pamphleteering, together with
his private sorrows and the rejection of his ideals, had killed in him.
The world of chivalry had passed for ever. Woman was no longer the
lodestar, but the source of error; and man no longer the lord of the
world, but a traitor to his own greatness. The voice is the voice of a
man defeated. But to Milton, his contemporaries, and his successors
for some generations, it seemed that Paradise Lost stood not only for an
expression of the eternal truth, of matters of supreme and eternal
moment to mankind, but for a story of the warfare between combatants,
all of whom were perfectly familiar and personally existent beings.
That the story should be presented with all the learning at the poet's
command was in accordance not only with Milton's exalted idea of the
office of poetry, but with the constant humanist element in him.
Aspiring to the expression of thoughts and truths vaster than any that
poetry had yet dealt with, he lavished on his poem all the knowledge,

CH, VI.

122 Paradise Eegained. [i67i

the accomplishraent, and the beauty, that he had to bestow. But the
humanist in him was not now, as in the days of Lycidas, the master of
the Calvinistic theologian. Not only in the doctrine of victory over evil
by force, and the passages in which the spirit of the war still rings, may
we trace the influence of the twenty intervening years. Setting out to
place on record, as it were, as much of the eternal truth about God, the
Devil, and Man as his poem could contain, in the face of an age which
threatened already to forget or to deny that truth, Milton was led into
regions of disquisition outside the scope of epical poetry proper.

Paradise Lost is the last and belated voice of a great age that was
gone. It gathers up all the idealism, all the poetic labours, all and
far more than all the learning of the Elizabethans ; it takes the instru-
ment which from the days of Surrey, onwards had grown ;stowly towards
perfection, and rescues it from misuse in order to employ it on ^eater
themes than it had ever known. If the debt of the poem to the Renais-
sance is great, its debt to the Reformation is hardly less great, though it
contains in it the seeds of decay. The spiritual scope of the poem could
only be commanded by the choicest of the minds which were able to
understand and assimilate all that was vital in the Genevan doctrine-^
the realisation of the justice and might of* God and His direct concern
with the affairs of man ; the malignity and persistence of th^ Powers, of
Evil; the vastness of the scheme in which man is. a minute, but re-
sponsible and therefore important, element. Of the world into which
the poem was bom, it shows no impress, though here and there a bitter
reference recalls it. The nature of that world will be seen shortly ; it
was a world in which Calvinism was, except for an inarticulate remnant,
as dead as the tradition qf the English Renaissance. That the poem
was read, we know; and it is to Dryden's honour that he saw its merit.
But, so far as actual effect went, it fell on deaf ears. For its public
appreciation. Paradise Lost had to wait not only till the Revolution but
even later, till Addison, the mouthpiece of the greatly changed party of
the Whigs, expounded such of its beauties as he and his age could gras^p.

Paradise Lost, if Milton's greatest, was not his last message to the
faithful remnant and the host of foes that surrounded them. Paradise
Regained, his own favourite, and Samson Agonistes, published together
in one volume, followed. And it is difficult not to see in these two very
different works a kind of alternative suggested to the losing side.
Paradise Regained, a "poets' poem," has been even less widely read, but
more enthusiastically admired by a few, than Paradise Lost. Its severity
is greater, its display of imagination, learning, and poetic adornment
less; its nakedness being partly perhaps a protest against the false poetry,
as Milton considered it, in fashion during his later years, and partly
due to a feeling that the word of truth was sufficient of itself, Paradise
Regained has, however, a unity and a closeness of form that have
induced Wordsworth and Coleridge, among others, to rank it higher

i67i] Samson Agonistes. 123

than any other of Milton's poems. Its message is one of humility and
hope, of a peaceful expectation of release from the bondage of evil.
The message of Samson Agcnistes is very different. In adopting the
dramatic form and modelling his tragedy on Greek lines, Milton was
only carrying into execution an idea that had possessed him from his
earliest days. Since his return from Italy, the views of the author of
the Sonnet on Shakespeare, of Arcades and of Comus, with regard to the
acted drama had undergone a change, an approximation to the views of
Histriomastix, which may be noticed in the reference to Shakespeare in
Eikonoklastes (1649) and even earlier. He had rejected the dramatic form
for Paradise Lost, influenced, no doubt, to some extent by the discredit
into which the theatre had fallen, as well as by his sense of poetic fltness.
But he had retained his admiration of the dramatic form of tragedy as
" the gravest, morsdest and most profitable." Had the play been written
in his youth, there would have been, perhaps, no need for an apology.
To Samson Agonistes he prefixed an essay Of thai sort of Dramatic
Poetry called Tragedy, partly in order to justify his choice of form to
those remaining Puritans who might not grasp the distinction between
the acted and the unactable drama ; and partly to protest against what
he held to be the lower kind, which intermixed " comic stufiF with tragic
sadness and gravity... corruptly to gratify the people." If the simplicity
of Paradise Regained is a rejection of the Restoration ideal and practice
of poetry, it is also perhaps a rejection of the Spenserian. It is impos-
sible not to see in Samson Agonistes a complete rejection of Elizabethan
tragedy.

The play, then, is a tragedy on the Greek lines ; it has been accused
of lacking strength of design and vigour of handling. Read in the light
of Milton's life and times, it becomes the most passionately personal ex-
pression he has left. Of direct symbolism the play contains much. The
Philistines have triumphed over the chosen people ; Samson is bUnd and
at the mercy of his foes. Moreover, his chief fault is his marriage with
a Philistine woman ; and there can be no doubt that to some extent
Dalila stands for Milton's first wife, Mary Powell, and that Samson's
self-reproaches addressed to the Chorus and to Manoah and his scene
with Dalila represent a recrudescence of the old wound. The Chorus,
indeed, that follows the f-cene between Samson and Dalila is taken almost
literally from the pamphlets on divorce.

In spite of the final words of the Chorus, the burden of the play is
no message of resignation or patience. The prophet once more lifts up
his voice to denounce, not only the victorious enemy but the half-hearted
of his own side ; to draw a picture of the doom awaiting the oppressor;
almost to advise a last desperate struggle. The play and poem issued in
one volume represent what may be supposed to have been Milton's two
main moods during the last years of his life : violent indignation, reach-
ing almost to despair, and a withdrawal from the memories of the past,

124 The age succeeding Milton. [leeo-ss

and from the hateful present which he could not see, into the inner world
of his genius and his religion.

The tragedy that was then occupying the theatres was of a very
difiFerent kind ; but before it is examined the characteristics of the age
as a whole may be briefly noted. In the age of Milton men had first
fought with sword and pen for their ideals, and afterwards tried in
many ways to find practical expression for them ; in the age of Dryden,
the men of ideals were silent, and the defeated party had returned to
prominence, some of them weary of exile and poverty, others of an order
of things which had discouraged the decoration of life. Between the
two periods comes one of the sharpest divisions in the history of arts
and manners. It was natural that there should be among the Royalists
a reaction in favour of pleasure too strong for moderation and fine taste.
The ideals, again, that had sought for expression in revolt had sought
for it unsuccessfully, and the failure disposed men against ideals of any
kind and in favour, rather, of ease and security. And, in the third place,
the years of Puritan rule had effected so sharp and complete a cleavage
between what we may call the age of the English Renaissance and the
age succeeding them, that the nation found itself, in matters of art and
literature, beginning afresh, with no living or continuous standard of
taste for reference. We have seen the significant change of Milton's
attitude to Shakespeare ; by the time of the Restoration the spirit of
the Elizabethan world was completely dead, and the only use of the
Elizabethans which we find amounts practically to parody. The period,
then, was one of low ideals; it was one in which the mind, starting anew,
set to work to learn over again the world in which it found itself; it was
one in which material aims and pleasures, things of certain if small
return, were placed in the foreground ; and it was one which, feeling the
necessity of a new technique for the expression of its thoughts and
desires, chose its own models and developed them according to its own
needs. We have passed into a prosaic, a curious, a materialist, and an ex-
perimental period. For something of the temper of the times, no doubt,
Charles II in person was responsible. Charles was a man, as the epitaph
ascribed to Rochester, and the information given by Pepys, Hamilton
and others imply, of sound sense, low ideals, and shrewd taste, imbued
with French feehng in matters of literature, and preferring wit to aspira-
tion. His age is the age of the heroic drama — an attempt to nationalise
an exotic ; of the comedy of wit and manners and the death of romantic
comedy ; of the foundation of the Royal Society, of curiosity about
natural phenomena, and of such curiosity about the arts as may be found
in Evelyn's ScuJ/ptura, that strange book which not only deals with the
minutiae of processes, but attempts to link up the arts and sciences in a
"philosophy" which was the prominent need of the age. Later come
the philosophy of Locke, a patient investigation of the actual facts of

1658-75] The heroic drama. 126

the human understanding, and the scholarship of Bentley, both in
accordance with the spirit of the age. Finally, it was an age which,
being full not only of curiosity but of controversy, perfected the form of
didactic and argumentative poetry and wrought prose into a finished
instrument. Possibly no one represents so completely the average man
of his period as Samuel Pepys. His easy morality, his energetic curiosity,
his serious practice of the arts combined with his characteristically
uncertain taste, his materialism and his vulgarity, his care for detail
and his earnest desire to be a man of culture and elegance, sum up in
Uttle the main features of his time.

The great representative of his age, the man who, like a journalist of
genius, knew what his public wanted before they wanted it, and gave it
them in the best possible form, was John Dryden. Instead of the
remoteness and exaltation of Milton, we have the lower aims, the strong
sense, the strange lapses of taste, and the frequent experiments of Dryden.
Milton may be held, on the whole, to give the best expression to the
best minds of his time; Dryden to give the best expression to the
reigning fashions of his. Neither spoke, as Shakespeare had spoken, for
the nation. Milton was the voice of one of two opposed ideals, Dryden
the voice of the Court and of what we should now call society.

The theatre, falling lower and lower since the early years of the
reign of James I, was revived at the Restoration, to be no longer a
national institution, but the toy of the Court and the town. Sir William
D'Avenant, in his tentative productions at Rutland House and else-
where in and after 1658, had been led, partly by the necessity of a
disguise, and largely by the influence of what he had seen in Prance
and Italy, to introduce a form that lay between the heroic drama of
France and the opera. The Restoration brought back to England a
large body of men whose notions were French in character and origin.
Lacking a tradition, and knowing enough of the Elizabethan drama only
to misunderstand its form and aim, they turned to French models for
guidance. It was not long before they introduced, mainly by the aid of
Dryden, a form of tragedy which, though expressive in its native country
of national ideas and aims, was in England an exotic. It is true that
English heroic drama is far from strictly French or "classical" in form.
The "unities" are a bondage which the English have never borne
complacently. The Restoration dramatists studied Comeille and Racine
only to dilute them, as it were, with something of the complexity of plot
formerly learned of Spain and the freedom of movement characteristically
Enghsh. The attempt to transplant the spirit of the French tragedy
was more thorough in intention, but even less successful in result. The
French Court of Louis XIV had at least an unbroken tradition of
chivalry expressed in the typically French form of gallantry, an heroic
past and a stately present. In France, Corneille's drama of the great
problems of human life, Racine's drama of the ethical problems of a

126 Dryden's heroic plays. [1665-75

polite age, expressed the' facts of the society that enjoyed them. To the
Enghsh Court, with no heroic past and with an idea of gallantry thftt
had little in common with the chivalric, the two motives of love and
honour were merely matters of fashion. Where the French drama
embodied the difficulties and problems of real life, the English attempted
to introduce actuality only by lowering the spirit of the problems to the
morality of its patrons' practice. The morality was better than that of
the later prerRebellion tragedy of Ford or Webster ; that is all that can
be said in its favour. " Ce qu'on appeUe aimer en France" wrote Saint-
Evremond, " rCest que parler cTamour.'''' It was not so in England. And
the fact, to which the same excellent critic points — that the English like
to see blood and death on the stage instead of following the French, and
the classics in merely hearing of it — is another instance of the change
imdergone by the spirit of pseudo-classic drama in its transplantation.
Again, having no heroic tradition as a standard, it was forced to sub-
stitute rant and bombast for appropriate loftiness. No one now can read
the close of Dryden's Tyrannic Love (1669) without laughter. It is
the work of a man groping in the dark after elFect, and inspired partly
by a misunderstanding of the heroic, partly, perhaps, by a failure to
distinguish between the ebullient force of an Elizabethan author and
deliberate, even painful, exaggeration.

Charles and his Court demanded heroic tragedy, and Dryden, who was
not a dramatist of internal compulsion, gave it them, and gave it them, all
things considered, very good. If he helped to turn The Tempest into an
opera, he wrote All for Love on the basis of Antony and Cleopaira, and it
is scarcely too much to say that All for Love is as good a play of its
order as Antony amd Cleopatra is. And, though there is a wide difference
between The Conquest of Granada and the Scudery romance on which it
is founded, we cannot deny to it that " kind of generous and noble
spirit" which has been claimed for it. How the "refined" age, which,
in Evelyn's phrase, was "disgusted" with the "old plays", could have
tolerated the lapses of taste to be found in these heroic plays would be
hard to understand, were it not clear that, lacking its own tradition and
standard, it took from another nation a standard which it misinterpreted.
That there were some who deplored the resultant excesses. The Rehearsal
(1671) is there to prove; but it is easy to overestimate the signifi-
cance and effect of that burlesque. Aimed originally, not at Dryden
but at D'Avenant, the character of its "hero" was a piece of patch-
work. It has even been supposed that Sprat, Butler, and Chfford,
three of the authors of the play, were not above making sly hits at the
fourth, Buckingham. Dryden's. first heroic drama, The Indian Emperor,
had appeared in 1665; it was not till Aurengzehe (1675) that he
announced his intention of deserting the heroic metre which was only
one of the distinctive features of the heroic play, and so late as 1698
we find Crowne still employing that form. Dryden, with his unerring

1671-82] Crowne, Lee, and Otway. 127

eye for what his public wanted, was not likely to continue the use of a
form of expression which had been outgrown. The heroic play satisfied
a need of its time, and was, in one particular especially, of service to
English literature. Dryden avoided blank verse because he regarded it
as too " easy " for long works; the blank verse which he meant, however,
was not that of Marlowe or of Shakespeare, but the blank verse run to
seed of its last pre-Rebellioh practitioners. And, if in English hands
and to English ears the. rhymed heroics of Dryden are not suitable for
dramatic use, as the rhymed Alexandrines of Corneille and Racine were
in French ears, they at least brought back point, concentration and reason-
ableness, though at some loss of naturalness and ease. The discussions
on questions of ethics which we find in Dryden's dramas are neither so
sincere nor so sensible as those of the French dramatists ; but at least
they are, within their limits, to the point, and they show an argumenta-
tive power and a measure of reason which were new. And when, after
1675, Dryden in Alljbr Love (1678) turned to blank verse, it was all
the firmer and more effective for his years of work in the heroic metre.
There are elements, therefore, in the heroic drama, which, though
imitated from the French, are adapted to the needs and express the
characteristics of the English intellect of the period. The ^^ grandeur
Same Men exprmUe qui excite une tendre admiration,^'' according to the
prescription of Saint-Evremond, was, no doubt, a makeshift substitute
for the actual possession of a lofty ideal, and replaced a national aim by
the worship of the person, especially that of the King ; but, such as it
was, it was better than anything that the dregs of the pre-Rebellion
tragedy had had to offer.

Of the other writers of tragedy, Crowne is chiefly remarkable for the
lyrics introduced into his plays. In Nathaniel Lee we find the popular
bombast carried to extremes, though combined with "infinite fire."
Otway, lacking Dryden's humour, has a more poignant tenderness than
Dryden, quite as good a sense of character, and a greater sense of the
theatre. The Orphan and Venice Preserved outlived all Dryden's plays
on the stage, and showed what tragedy could achieve in this age, when
it had cast off the heroic influence.

In the comedy of the period we find the reverse of the picture.
Having exchanged, as it has been said, the telescope of the Elizabethans
for the.mi(a-oscope, the Restoration authors used the microscope nowhere
to better effect than in their comedy Romantic and poetic comedy
were dead. The opera and the ballet had come to take their places.
Jonsonian comedy, the comedy of "humours," or single characteristics
carried to the point of eccentricity, survived in the wholesome but
extravagant comedies of Shad well, whose Epsom Wells, and the comedies
of which it is an example, are valuable pictures of contemporary manners.
To some extent the Jonsonian principle of letting a characteristic
stand for a character survives in the Restoration drama, at least as far

CH. VI,

128 Bestoration comedy. [i6C4-i707

as Congreve, as its nomenclature tends to show ; but in comedy, more
perhaps than in any other branch of literature, the Restoration period
started afresh to study the life of the moment, the instances, not the
exceptions. The field is narrow at first, including only the men and
women of the Court and " the town " ; it widens in Vanbrugh, and in
Farquhar it expands still further. Its debt to French comedy, especially
to Moliere, and through French comedy to Plautus and Terence, there
is no disguising and no need to disguise ; for here there is no question of
forcing a foreign taste on people with no taste of their own, but of
borrowing a form for independent use. It was early discovered (and
perhaps unfortunately, says a historian of the English drama) that
one French plot was not enough for an English comedy ; indeed, there
is only one good English comedy, Congreve's Dovble-Dealer, that has a
single plot : the English stage needed more persons and more action,
just as it needed stronger characterisation than it could find in the
Spanish comedies of intrigue. With regard to its morality, such a
perversion as that of Moliere's Alceste into the Manly of Wycherley's
Plain-Dealer is a comprehensive comment on the general degradation
of tone for which no condemnation is too strong. It is ungracious
and . unpleasant work to call attention to the glaring error in work
which is unmatched in all English literature; but it must be stated
again that Restoration comedy is gross, licentious, and cynical, and —
more important still — that just because of its want of a moral standard
it failed, for all its wit and its use of the microscope, to interpret
human life in endm-ing terms. It began its career as the plaything
of a corrupt Court ; and it reflected the gross temper of a materialistic
period among a people always inclined to confuse grossness with humour
and the gratification of the appetites with pleasure. The accession of
James made no difference in this respect. After the Restoration it took
some years for the purer influence of Queen Mary — a good woman and
a good judge of a play — to make itself felt. But the growing disgust
with the immorality, not only of the drama but of the theatre, before
and behind the curtain, found expression in 1698 in a book, which all
must admire but the necessity for which all must regi-et, Jeremy Collier's
Short View of the Prqfaneness and Immorality of the English Stage, By
so much as Collier was better acquainted with his subject arid less of a
fanatic than Prynne, by so much is the Short View a. more damning
indictment than Histriomastix. It was answered by Congreve, among
others, with deplorable flippancy. Farquhar tried to turn it against
the purpose of its author, and failed. Dryden protested against its
exaggerations, and, like the great man he was, confessed with contrition
its substantial justice. But its effect was not seen immediately.
Farquhar's Sir Harry Wildair (to take a single instance) dates from thiee
yeais after its publication.

It was not till the Sentimental Comedy of Steele, who followed up a

1661-82] Sir George Ether ege. 129

hint given by CoUey Gibber, that the reform really began. Meanwhile,
from Etherege to Farquhar we find a social comedy which represents, with
some brilliance and a fair show of completeness, certain aspects of the
actual life lived by a small circle of men and women sufficiently "elegant,"
leisured and self-conscious to be interested in themselves and to provide
food for the "wit" which had changed its meaning since the days of the
metaphysical poets. All the types that composed the small circle are
revealed to us with an elegance and fineness of characterisation unknown
before. If plots, incidents, and people are alike borrowed from Moliere,
the effort is always towards approximation to the English social life of
the day. In 1661 Cowley had caused offence by daring to hint, in Cutter
of Coleman-Street, that there were black sheep among the Royalists:
Mrs Behn, in The Roundheads (168?) and The Rover (1677 and 1681)
boldly shows the new society regarding as objects of humour not only
the Roundheads, who, of course, are outrageously caricatured, but the
Cavaliers themselves. Old heroism and ideals are forgotten or scorned,
and the town is engrossed in its own little affairs of gallantry or roguery.
Immensely interested in itself, it likes to see itself reflected on the stage,
with some exaggeration of its wit, and possibly of its immorality.

The pioneer in this new comedy was Sir George Etherege. The
date of Etherege's return to England is, like many other facts in his
life, uncertain, but there is reason to believe that he lingered in Paris
long enough to see the production of some of Moliere's plays. On his
return he wrote The Comical Revenge (1664), a tragi-comedy in which
the serious portions are written in rhymed heroics. To Etherege,
therefore, belongs the honour of writing the earliest regular play in
which the use of rhyme was adopted. But his significance does not end
there. He was the first to introduce to England the new comedy,
which forsook eccentricities and moral castigation, and simply attempted
to transfer to the stage the life of the time. A witty man himself,
Etherege made the mistake of endowing all his characters with his own
wit; and the fault persisted throughout most of the Restoration comedy;
nevertheless his characters are portraits. Of them, as of the characters
of Restoration comedy in general, it may be said that, so far from being
abstractions, they represent the attempt to be as exact and realistic as
possible. The few chances enjoyed by modem playgoers of seeing
Restoration comedies acted are quite enough to prove these men and
women very much alive indeed. In She Would if she Could (1668)
Etherege developed the idea of the new comedy, and produced the
brightest and gayest of his pictures of contemporary life. In the under-
plot of his only other play. The Mam of Mode (1676) — the play which
contains the first of a long line of fops — ^Etherege, says Gosse, virtually
foimded English comedy as it was understood by Congreve, Goldsmith,
and Sheridan.

Dryden's first essay in comedy, The WUd GaMamt (1663) is, in effect,

0. M. B. V. OH, VI. d

130 Dryden, Wycherley, and Congreve. [lees-ivoo

a comedy of the old Jonsonian type of "humoursi" The value of
Etherege's work may be seen by a comparison of this play of Dryden's
and the plays of Wilson and Shadwell with^ Dryden's later comedies
and the school of younger writers, Wycherley, Congreve, Mrs Behn,
Vanbrughj and Farquhar. Dryden's comedy, as a whole, shows more
sense arid less wit than that ' of his fellows. In general, he is a large
borrower of plots, scenes, and characters from the French, which, how-
ever, he stamps with his own mark and that of his country. He
coarsens what he takes, as a comparison of Sir Martin Mar-all (1667)
with its original, VKtourdi,' is enough to show. He leans a little
towards farce, and is no whit less licentious than his fellows in the art;
on the other hand, he does not suffer from' the bleak cynicism and
cruelty of Etherege and Wycherley. Some of his women, indeed, have
breadth and sweetness. Possibly, his best dramatic work is to be
found in some of his tragi-comedies. Marriage h la Mode (1672),
Don Sebastian (1690), Amphitryon (1690), and even Love Triumphant
(1694). An even more important figure is that of Wycherley, a bom
playwright. To The Plain-Dealer we have ' already refeiTed. This,
with his three other comedies, was written before he had reached forty.
His gaiety is almost hideous ; he sees the worst of everything, and has
no spark of nobility to counteract his bitterness ; but he is an effective
if clumsy satirist, and the possessor of strong dramatic power.

With Congreve we reach the summit of this form of expression. His
output was very small, being checked partly by Collier's Short View and
partly by the social ambitions of the playwright, whom oflBces and
rewards had relieved of the necessity of work. The Old Bachelor (acted
in 1693) had been highly praised and adapted for representation by
Dryden. The Double-Dealer (1693) we have mentioned before. The
skill and vigour with which the single plot is kept alive and full of
interest to the end are masterly. With Love for Love (1695) he opened
the theatre in Lincoln's Inn Fields after the secession of Betterton and
others from Drury Lane; and in 1700, after the attack of Collier,
appeared his finest play. The Way of the World. It was his aim in this
play to substitute the folly of affectation for the folly of grossness,
and the result is a severe satire on the world of fashion and fopperyj
Congreve cannot be acquitted of the charges of frivolity, cynicism, and
indecency. On the other hand, he is never, like Wycherley, Vanbrugh,
or Otway in his comedies, offensive, and Millamant, in his last play, is a
woman so entirely fascinating in her wit and her wilfulness as to prove
him aware of something higher than the gross attractions dwelt on by
his fellows. It may be pointed out, too, that in The Double-Deakr
virtue is rewarded ; and, on the whole, it may be said that the faults of
Congreve are largely the faults of his age, while his merits are of his
own contriving. In him the characteristic "wit" of the age finds its
most perfect expression. Like Etherege, he suffers from too much of

1673-1707] Politics in the drama. 131

it; his servants talk as elegantly and pointedly as their masters and
mistresses ; but, as representing the talk of a society which had leisure
and ambition to be "polite" and exquisite, it is, in all probability,
not far from the truth, while the attainment by English prose of such
finish, flexibility, and point as his marks the advance on the previous
age. The writers of comedies in deserting poetry, with Etherege,
rendered invaluable service to the development of prose. On Mrs Behn
and other writers we need not dwell. Sir John Vanbrugh, a writer and
architect of mixed English and Flemish parentage, is noteworthy for
the unsurpassed gaiety and ease of his dialogue and his vivid pictures of
contemporary life. In Farquhar we reach a writer of greater signi-
ficance. No fine gentleman, but an Irish adventurer of genius, he
extended the field — especially in his last two plays, The Recruiting
Officer (1706) and T7ie BeavjPs Stratagem (1707) — to embrace types
outside the little parish of St James' and sentiments more modern and
humane than those of the " beaux " and " belles." His comedy comes
nearer to being national, to dealing with the life of the people at large,
than that of his contemporaries. His frequent references to current
events are apt and diverting, and his rejection of the traditional topics
of Bestoration comedy in favour of wider and more actual material was
the basis of a similar advance on the part of Lessing, whose Mirma von
Barnhelm owes more to Farquhar than some of its incidents.

It was in this age that the drama, especially the tragic drama, began
to be used for political ends, if not with the virulence shown by Henry
Fielding and others in the next century, at any rate with almost
unabashed openness. In Dryden's own case we have, notably, Amioyna
(1673), which raked up an old story for the purpose of inflaming public
opinion against the Dutch, and The Spanish Friar, a "Protestant play"
(1681) ; and The Diike of Guise (1682), written by Lee with Dryden's
aid, drew a parallel between Guise and Monmouth, and practically
foretold for the latter — in spite of the disclaimer in the epilogue and
the subsequent Vindication — an end similar to that of the former.
Otway's shameful caricature of Shaftesbury as Antonio in Venice
Preserved, though personal rather than political, is another instance.
Even more frequently than the play itself the prologue and epilogue
were used as political weapons. The curious custom by which the play-
wright spoke personally to the public through the mouth of an actor or
actress was at its height during this period. The result was almost
always inartistic, in some cases disgusting, as in the famous epilogue to
Tyrannic Love or in the first version of that to The Duke of Guise ; the
language was often indelicate, and the sentiments highly objectionable.
At the same time, in the hands of Dryden the prologue and epilogue
reached a very high level of epigrammatic point, and were admirably
adapted in their freedom to inflame political passions by sneers,
innuendos, or open attack or defence,

CH, VI. 9 — 2

132 Lyrical poetry. [leeo-iroo

In the plays of the period, too, may be found embedded — to its dis-
advantage and neglect by posterity — most of the lyrical poetry of the
time. In a self-conscious age, when feeling was at a low ebb and the
passion of love debased by the prevailing mode, good lyrical poetry was
rare. Marvell and Waller carried on the characteristics of the former
age; for the rest, the lyrics of Dryden, Crowne, Congreve, Pordage,
Rochester and others are both small in quantity and deficient in genuine
lyrical quality. Rochester, indeed, is often worthy of comparison with
Catullus ; but his lyrics, like those of his contemporaries, are rather
neatly finished than spontaneous, and their harmony is a matter of rule
more than of essence. A favourite form was the ode, and here, as else-
where, Dryden outstripped his fellows. The Pindariques of Cowley were
freely imitated by Sprat, and to Congreve belongs the honour of pointing
out that a Pindaric ode proper was not of irregular structure. Dryden's
odes are iixegular in structure, but almost faultless in accomplishment.
If Alexander's Feast (1697) is not poetry of the highest sort, it has
been justly called "the best thing of its kind"; and the first portion of
the Ode to the Memory of Mrs Anne Killigrew (1685-6) is famous as one
of the most superb pieces of verbal organ-music in the language.

The age, however, was not an age of song-birds, but of enquirers,
critics, prose-writers; and the best prose of the time was the work
of the critics. The men of "science" exercised an influence of their
own, for it was one of the merits of the new Royal Society to exact
from its members a "close, naked, natural way of speaking; positive
expressions, clear senses, a native easiness." From the turbulent
splendours of Milton we pass to the ordered, clarified prose, which is
the work of men who use it for the purpose of saying what they have
to say, of communicating their discoveries, thoughts, and arguments,
as clearly as possible. It is, as befits its purpose, for the most part a
plain and useful means of expression; yet in the hands of Dryden,
that great man of letters, it rises, with no professed aim at ornament,
into a thing of dignity and beauty. Dryden used prose for many
purposes : the Epistle to the Whigs that precedes The Medal is a piece
of political argument so clear, forcible, and ordered that it is difficult to
believe it a work not forty years younger than the AreopagtUca. But
his most important prose-works are in literary criticism, a new branch
of activity introduced into England from France, partly by Charles and
his Court, partly by a French exile, Saint-£vremond, who exercised a
very important influence on the criticism of his time. Modem French
writers find him too much dependent on prejudice imbibed in the
France of his youth, on personal fancy and taste, and lacking in reason
and conviction. To modern England, accustomed to an even more
thoroughly "impressionist" style of criticism, such a verdict seems strange.
Saint-!]6vriemond's letters (for they are little more) on the English, French,
and classical drama seem full of principle and reason, however little

1665-1700] LAterary criticism. — Satire. 133

knowledge of the English drama of the day his preference of ShadweU and
other "coarse" poets, as Dryden called them, to the more "polite" may
reveal. At any rate, his influence — and particularly his preference for
the modem drama over the ancient — had a great effect on English men
of letters. Everyone who wrote a play wrote in a preface his own
theories of play-writing ; and this is the form in which most of Dryden's
critical work — excepting the Essay of Dramatic Poesy (1665) — was done.
Dryden, while a large borrower from the French, is a stiurdy champion of
the English drama. He displays a truer taste in discriminating Eliza-
bethan authors than any of his fellows. Though he lent a hand in the
spoiling of The Tempest, and "tagged" Milton's lines in The Age of
Inrwceiwe, he recognised the true place of both the poets he attempted
to adapt. As a rule, his critical work is called out by some special need
of his own — the defence or the surrender of the heroic couplet in drama,for
instance; and it combines reason and enthusiasm in a manner that makes
it at once profitable and delightful to read. It was in this school, as the
preface to the translation of the Georgics shows, that Addison was trained ;
and by Dryden, Sprat, Rymer (whose manner is far better than his
deplorable literary matter), Congreve, and other critics, were laid the
foundations of the edifice completed in the following century.

Such an age as this makes fruitful ground for satire — a form of litera-
ture that looks not so much at the ideal itself as at the faults of those
who depart from it. And it is due to Dryden that the satire of this
period at its best is of supreme merit. The Hudibras of Samuel Butler,
much of which was written before the Restoration, is in some respects a
voice from the age that had passed. Its versification has all and more
than all the ruggedness of Donne or Marston at their worst : the author
chooses deliberately to make his effects by jocular antics of diction, which
his shrewd humour and close observation of detail carry off successfully.
But we look in vain for elevation, dignity, or strong purpose. Butler
shows to the full some of the worst characteristics of the age which
laughed at Hudibras; its easy ridicule of externals, its want of conviction
and of taste, its vulgarity and its scepticism. It is not Puritanism but
Puritans that he attacks, and he attacks them rather with caricature than
with satire. Neither Royalist nor Churchman, but sceptic and oppor-
tunist, he' writes less from belief in a cause than from the desire to make
fun of the external extravagances of its opponents, and there is as little
principle in his message as there is plan or cohesion in the poem he took
up and dropped and took up again. Reverence was not a characteristic
of the man who could so use his models, Don Quixote and The Faerie
Queene, as to debase them in Butler's manner. It might be objected that
there was as little conviction at the bottom of Dryden's satires as of
Butler's; and, allowing for all reasonable change of opinion, consistency
can hardly be claimed for the man who wrote Amhoyna with its prologue
and epilogue in 1673, and eight yeai's later attacked in Absalom and

OH. VI.

134 DryderHs satire. [lesi-a

Achitophel and The Medal the policy which he supposed to be Shaftes-
bury's. But here Dryden's genius, the dignity of his mind, the actual
superiority conferred on him, not by lofty purpose but by mere ability,
came to his rescue. He took to satire late in life, and then, probably,
rather on suggestion than from any ardent interest in politics; and the
qualities of his mind and the nature of his training for the work were
such that in his hands political satire reached its highest point,

Absalom and Achitophel, the first and greatest of these poems, was
published in November, 1681. The "Popish Plot" and the rejection
of the Exclusion Bill by the Lords had wrought popular feeling to a
height not reached in any preceding period of Charles' reign. The
Parliament at Oxford had been dissolved ; Shaftesbury was on his trial
for high treason; and it is said that Charles himself suggested to Dryden
that he should strike a blow in the fight. Dryden's blow was this satii-e,
which, though it failed of its main object on the acquittal of Shaftesbury
a few days after its publication, was one of the most powerful aids to the
King in his resistance to the Exclusionists. The story of Absalom and
David fitted aptly enough the circumstances of Monmouth and his father:
Achitophel, considerably changed, became Shaftesbury, whom Dryden
affected to regard as part inventor of the " Popish Plot " and the leader
in the decision to make war on the Dutch. The Biblical story could not,
of course, be closely followed, and the conduct of the fable, which ends
with a speech from the King, is its weakest part. Its strength lies in its
masterly characterisation, the finest in an age which Clarendon and Saint-
Evremond had helped to educate in a favourite field of literature, and
in Dryden's ability in presenting a case. To celebrate the acquittal of
Shaftesbury, a medal was struck, which formed the text of Dryden's next
satire. The MedoU, A Satire against Sedition (March, 1682), also suggested
to him, as report declared, by Charles II. In the introductory Epistle
to the Whigs and in the satire itself Dryden makes fun of the medal and
attacks the party; he returns to his invective on Shaftesbury, and explains
in a passage of great didactic force, sound sense and strong fancy, the
urasuitability of republican institutions to the climate and temper of
England, The Medal, like its predecessors, was not allowed to go un-
answered by the Whigs, and among the answers was Shadwell's The
Medal of John Bayes, a savage piece of scurrility. Dryden, for once,
used his satire for personal ends, and replied to Shadwell in October,
1682, with Mac FkcJcnoe, or, a Satire on the True Blue Protestant poet.
In this he fathers Shadwell on Flecknoe, an Irish priest and an indifferent
poet, who had died not long before, and represents the sire handing on his
mantle of dulness to his duller son. In the following month, he returned
to the attack with some 200 lines on Shadwell, Settle and others included
in the second part oi Absalom amd Achitophel, the rest of which was com-
posed by Nahum Tate, possibly (for the verse is above Tate's level) under
Dryden's revision. And in the same month with this, his last satire and

1682-8] . Dry den's religious poems. 135

the most violent attack he ever wrote, he put forth a remarkable piece,
the Religio Laaci, an examination of the credibility of the Christian
religion and the claims of the Church of England against the Catholic
Church and the Deists. The surprise that has been expressed at
Dryden's sudden excursion into theology is ungrounded. Theological
thought must have been called forth in all who had dwelt on the double
question, religious and political, raised by the "Popish Plot" and the
Exclusion Bill. Still less is there reason for suspecting Dryden's sincerity.
The poem could not serve his turn with Charles, of whose secret leanings
to Catholicism he must have been aware, or with the Duke of York.
It forms a sober and sincere expression of the opinions of a man of
fifty-one who was passing through the process of thought which led him
four years later to join the Catholic Church. The conversion was
followed by the publication of The Hind and the Panther (1687), in
which, with even more argumentative skill than was shown in the Religio
Laid, he supports the claims of the Church, commending at the same time
the policy of James II. The sincerity, again, of Dryden's conversion has
been questioned; and even Saintsbury admits that it may have been
helped on to some extent by the prospect of being on the winning side,
by the "journalist spirit" and by his dislike of the unliterary character
of the Protestant Whigs. Dryden indeed was always abreast or a little
in advance of the public opinion of his party. But it is from the Whig
party and its descendants that this charge of insincerity, together with
that of personal profligacy, proceeded, and neither rests on good founda-
tion. Sincere or not, Dryden held to his path. Except for the Britannia
Rediviva, an ode celebrating the birth of a son to James II, The Hind
and the Panther was his last word on matters of state and religion. The
Revolution found him on the losing side; he was deprived of his laureate-
ship ; his authority, save in matters of literature, was at an end.

We have only to compare the work of Oldham, who published his
Satires upon the Jesuits the year before the appearance of Absalom and
Achitophel, with the poems mentioned above, to see what Dryden did for
satire and didactic poetry. Oldham, student of Marvell though he was,
is a rugged writer. His hits are shrewd; but he has none of the "science"
of Dryden in the art of attack, and none of his dignity and intellectual
supremacy. He maintains throughout the tone to which Dryden descends
in the regrettable attack on the son of Shaftesbury in Absalom and
Achitophel. For the most part, only on the greatest provocation does
Dryden stoop to personalities. He strikes from above, and condescends
as he strikes. In most cases, though the. individual sufferer is un-
mistakable, Dryden succeeds in treating him as the embodiment of a
principle. He writes not as a moral reformer but as a man of sense,
and hits hardest when apparently most cool. There is no calculating
exactly the effect of such a weapon as this of Dryden's in the victory of
Charles over the Exclusionists. Besides the direct satire of Absalom and

CH, VI,

136 The novel and the Characters. [i 643-1 712

AehUophel, its severe and logical expression of the political thought of the
King's party, its scorn of popular rule and of such abstractions as " that
golden calf — a state," and its glorification of monarchy and of Charles^
account must be taken of the skill with which, by its very tone of ease
and superiority, it contrives to put a social stigma on those whom it
attacks in an age which was socially ambitious and socially sensitive.
The place of these poems as pure literature has been almost universally
acknowledged to be supreme in their kind. Poetry and argument go
hand in hand in a manner never before achieved, and the management of
the couplet-^for which Dryden had been trained by years of work in the
drama — is perfect. These didactic poems and the Fables from Chaucer
and Boccaccio to which he turned after the Revolution may be regarded
as the best poetry of a prosaic age. If skill in stating a case or telling
a story does not constitute the highest form of poetry, it is to Dryden's
honour that he gathered up all the reasoning power, the wit, and the
polish of his age and gave them expression with the best of the taste
that his labours had helped to form.

A last word must be added concerning another form of literary
expression, which the following century brought to perfection — the novel.
During the closing of the theatres after 1642, the heroic romances of
France made their way into England and were translated and imitated
freely by Orrery, Crowne, and others, while D'Avenanfs Gondihert and
Chamberlayne's Pharonnida are heroic romances in verse. The renascence
of the drama affected the demand for romances; but in Mrs Behn we find
an attempt to bring romance into touch with contemporary life. Her
prose novel Oroonoiko is a strange mixture of the romantic and the
realistic; a mixture even more strangely marked in The Fair Jilt. This
attempt was to bear little ftuit. A more important work is Congreve's
novel, Incognita, which reveals him as a humorist in prose fiction,
and a parodist of the heroic style. On the other hand, we have the
allegories of Banyan, which have no parentage but the Bible and the
vivid imagination of an untutored man. The voice of Bunyan is not the
voice of his age. He has no affinities with Milton save his knowledge of
the Bible ; he owes nothing to the other ^Vriters of his day. His imagi-
nation and sincerity made him forcible and turresting; the Bible made
him lucid and direct. His immediate influence was nothing, and the
temptation to dwell on his genius must be resisted. Despite the attempt
of Mrs Behn and such close interest in the common facts of life as Bunyan
shows in Mr Badman, the origin of the novel must be looked for not
in the fiction of this age, but in its history and in its "characters."
Clarendon and Burnet with their powers of characterisation and anecdote,
Butler with his Theophrastian Characters, Halifax, Saint-Evremond,
and the letter-writers and diarists, sowed the seeds of such work as the
Spectator papers on Sir Roger de Coverley, and their development
into the English novel.

137

CHAPTER VII.

THE ADMINISTRATIONS OF JOHN DE WITT AND
WILLIAM OF ORANGE.

(1651-88.)

The sudden demise of William II was the signal for a reaction against
the Orange party and policy. The Great Assembly of 1651 assured the
triumph of the principles of the "States party," which inherited the tradi-
tion of Oldenbameveldt, and the domination in the Union of the Province
of Holland. It was really called together to decide between two opposing
systems of government; and the critical conjuncttu-e of alFairs, which left
the Orangists without a leader, made the decision a foregone conclusion.
Its effect was to emphasise the sovereignty of the States of the several
Provinces at the expense of that of the States General of the Union. By
the thoroughgoing advocates of provincial autonomy it was indeed denied
that the States General possessed any of the attributes of sovereignty at
all. The Federal Assembly represented the Republic in the eyes of the
outside world ; but it had no authority save what was delegated to it by
the seven sovereign Provinces acting in accord. It could not coerce the
Provincial States or take action in opposition to their wishes. Such a
theory, had it been pushed to its extreme limits, would have proved from
the first unworkable. It had been corrected in practice by the existence
in the United Netherlands of two strong, though antagonistic, in-
fluences. The one was the extensive executive powers vested in successive
Princes of Orange. By their distinguished abilities, no less than by virtue
of the offices they filled, the Stadholders William I, Maurice, Frederick
Henry, and WiUiam II, exercised an authority which was strong enough
at critical moments to override opposition. They were in reality, what
they were often styled, "eminent heads" of the State. The other influence
was that of the predominant Province of Holland, which bore more than
half of the entire financial burden of the Union, and provided the greater
part of its indispensable fleet. The States of Holland jealously and
vigilantly asserted their independence and privileges, and their control
of the purse gave them an almost irresistible weight in the determination
of the policy of the Republic. Twice, in 1618 and 1650, had it been
necessary to settle the question of supremacy between Holland and the
Generality by the sword. But the imprisonment of Jacob de Witt and

OH. VII,

138 The Loevestein faction -Relations with England. [i625-5i

his five companions in the Castle of Loevestein by William II only made
their party, henceforth known as the Loevestein faction, the more
determined to seize the opportunity offered by the young Stadholder's
untimely death to ensure the triumph of their principles; and they
succeeded.

Before the end of the year, Jacob de Witt had been restored to his
old place in the Town Council, and his second son John appointed
Pensionary, of Dort (December 91, 1650). John de Witt was at this
time 25 years of age, having been bom on September 24, 1625. His
brother Comelis, two years his senior, was already a sherifi^ in the Govern-
ment of his native place. Both had been educated at Leyden and had
travelled in France and England together. John settled down in 1647
to practise as an advocate at the Hague; but with his appointment
as Pensionary a political career was opened to him. This post carried
with it a seat in the Provincial States and in the Great Assembly,
where, in virtue of his office, he was the spokesman of the town deputa-
tion. He soon distinguished himself by his industry and capacity for
affairs. In the deliberations of the Great Assembly he took an active
part ; but it was in the disputes and negotiations with England that his
pohtical and diplomatic talents were first exhibited.

The relations between the English and Dutch Republics had, ever
since the murder at the Hague of the Parliamentary envoy, Doreslaer, in
1649, been strained. There were many causes for embitterment between
two maritime nations, whose commemal interests clashed in almost every
part of the world. The rights of fishing, the so-called massacre of
Amboina, the battle of the Downs, the striking of the Dutch flag in the
Narrow Seas, the disputes between the two East India Companies — all
these were sores that rankled. The Civil War had for a number of years
prevented the English from pressing their grievances; but, when Cromwell
found himself in possession of the Government, he was no longer willing
to acquiesce in the Dutch monopoly of the carrying trade in English
harbours or to yield one jot of English pretensions to the dominion of the
seas. Cromwell's first ideas were peaceful but Utopian. Visions of the
formation of a great Protestant Coalition floated before his mind ; and he
wished, if possible, to get rid of the rivalry between the two neighbouring
Republics, by bringing about a close alliance between them, which should
differ little from political union. Accordingly, in March, 1651, a stately
embassy, at the head of which were Oliver St John and Walter Strickland,
was sent over to the Hague to carry these ideas into effect by inducing
the States General to consent to an intimate and strict alliance and to
the establishment of a great Common Council, to sit in London. Such
proposals were seen by the Dutch to imply the loss of their independence
and the practical absorption of the smaUer State in the larger. Received
with coldness by the States party, with undisguised and open hostility by
the Orangists and the mass of the population, the English mission was a

1651-3] John de Witt Grand Pensionary of Holland. 139

failure. The irritation was great in England, and it speedily showed itself
in vigorous action. On October 9, 1651, the celebrated Navigation Act
was passed, which forbade all foreign bottoms to import into the country
any merchandise except the products of the soil or of the industry of
their own country. By this Act a deadly blow was dealt at the carrying
trade of the Dutch, which was the main source of their prosperity. It
was essential at this critical juncture that the conduct of foreign affairs
should be in capable hands ; and in a stadholderless Republic the Grand
Pensionary (Raad-Penshnaris) of Holland, by his responsible position and
the varied character of his functions both in the Provincial States and in
the States General, was the man who by common consent exercised the
greatest weight in public, and especially in foreign, affairs. The position
so long filled by Oldenbameveldt was now open to a statesman of the
same mould as the great advocate, holding a similar office and professing
the same principles. In John de Witt Oldenbameveldt was to find a
fitting and competent successor. When the Great Assembly met, Jacob
Cats, a worthy man and a popular poet, was Grand Pensionary ; but he
was no politician. At the closing of the Assembly Cats resigned his
office, and was succeeded by the aged Adrian Pauw.

In the spring of 1652 a special embassy had been despatched to
Westminster, consisting at first of three members. Cats, Schaep, and
van der Perre, who were afterwards joined by Pauw himself. The most
strenuous efforts were made to induce the English Government to
withdraw or modify the obnoxious Act of Navigation, and to open
negotiations on the basis of the Treaty of Commerce of 1495 known as
the " Great Intercourse " — but to no purpose. All the old grievances of
the English against the Netherlanders were raked up, and reparation
demanded. More than this, the States were required to recognise uncon-
ditionally the English claim to the dominion of the sea, and to agree that,
whenever Dutch and English vessels should meet in "English waters," the
Dutchmen should strike sail and flag and in certain cases fire salutes.
The issuing of letters of marque by the English Government and the
seizure of seventy Dutch merchantmen widened still further a breach
which diplomacy was unable to close. Much against their will, the
Netherlanders found themselves forced to prepare for war (March, 1652);
and it finally broke out after an accidental encounter between Tromp and
Blake over the striking of the flag (May 29). An account has been given
in a previous volume of the hard-fought struggle between the two rival
Maritime Powers, which was signalised in the course of fifteen months by
twelve great sea-fights and a number of smaller engagements. It was in
the midst of this terrible War that the Pensionary of Dort was called to
the direction of affairs. During the absence of Adrian Pauw in England
he had acted as deputy in his place; and after the death of that statesman
he was (March, 1653) first appointed provisionally to fill his office, then
definitively elected (Jtily 30). Thus becoming Grand Pensionary at a

140 The First English War. [1653

moment of sore difficulty and anxiety, he speedily displayed a firmness and
clear-sightedness which more than justified the selection of so young a man
to a position of so great responsibility. The unpreparedness of the Dutch
navy for the conflict, and its inferiority in the size and equipment of its
ships, had caused the fortunes of war to turn decisively to the side of the
English. Both fleets had fought with heroic courage, victory alternating
for each of them with defeat, and the admirals on both sides were men of
exceptional merit. The death of Tromp, however, in battle (August 10,
1653) had caused consternation in the Netherlands, and de Witt on
entering upon his office found himself confronted with an almost desperate
situation. The great fisheries industry had ceased, business and commerce
were at a standstill. There was a deficiency in the supply of com and of all
the imported necessaries of life; beggary stared thousands in the face; and,
worst of all, there was no money in the treasury, nor any source from
which to obtain it. The mass of the population, always Orangist in
sentiment, attributed all their misfortunes to the change of Government,
and in many places tumults arose, which assumed serious proportions.

This condition of things made the States party, who from the
beginning had been averse from the War, ready to consider any reasonable
terms of peace ; and they found in the Grand Pensionary a zealous and
whole-hearted leader. Meanwhile Cromwell, with the army behind him,
had forcibly dissolved the Long Parliament and become practically
master of the State. He had never viewed the outbreak of war with
favour, for it had put a summary stop to his schemes for a close and
intimate union between the two Republics. No sooner therefore had he
obtained dictatorial powers than he lent a ready ear to peaceful proposals.
Many ineffectual attempts had already been made to open negotiations,
but had failed. Cromwell had in February, 1653, sent over a certain
Colonel Dolman, formerly in the States' service, to make known privately
his conciliatory disposition towards the United Provinces; and, acting
under the influence of de Witt, the States of Holland had taken upon
themselves to address certain proposals to the Parliament in a letter
sent without the assent of the States General. The Parliament,
however, not only refused to modify the terms proposed before the War,
but printed and published the letter with the title of the "Humble
Supplication of the States of Holland." Such a course of action was
intentionally offensive, and roused general indignation in the Nether-
lands. The States of Holland were blamed for the initiative they had
taken without the knowledge of the other Provinces, and loud outcries
were raised by the Orange party. It required all the persuasive powers
of de Witt to prevent the States General from replying to the Parliament
in the same arrogant tone in which they had been addressed. Owing,
however, to his arguments and efforts, moderate counsels prevailed, and
the States General declared themselves ready to appoint plenipotentiaries
to discuss the conditions of a treaty of peace.

1653] Negotiations for peace. • 141

De Witt would gladly have entrusted the mission to a single pleni-
potentiary whom he could thoroughly trust; but the jealousy of the
other Provinces would not permit the negotiations to be placed entirely
in the hands of Hollanders. It was agreed therefore to send four
envoys, two from Holland — Hieronymus van Bevemingh, Burgomaster of
Gouda, and WiUiam Nieuwpoort, Pensionary of Schiedam — with whpm
were associated representatives of the two other maritime Provinces,
the Zeelander, Paulus van der Perre, Pensionary of Middelburg, and
Allard Pieter Jongestal, President of the Court of Justice in Friesland.
Beverningh and Nieuwpoort were both good friends of de Witt, and to the
former of them he gave his entire confidence. The reception accorded
by the Council of State in England was not very encouraging. The old
demands were insisted upon, nothing less than political union — "una
gens, una respublica'''' — in other words, the annexation of the United
Provinces by the English Republic. There was to be one State under a
common Government, with the same laws, rights, possessions and interests.
Such proposals were absolutely unacceptable. A continuance of the War
appeared a lesser evil than loss of independence. All hopes of accom-
modation were not, however, abandoned. Van Bevemingh and van der
Perre were instructed to remain in London and continue the negotia-
tions, while the other two envoys returned home to confer with their
principals. For some months but little change took place in the situa-
tion. The War went on ; but the interchange of views as to possible
conditions of peace was not stopped. Nieuwpoort and Jongestal returned
to England in November; and in December Cromwell became Lord
Protector, and acquired a free hand. He at once assured the Dutch
ambassadors that he was sincerely anxious to bring to an end a war
which had from the outset grieved him. It was difficult, in the midst
of his protestations, to discover what were the Protector's actual aims.
Many conferences took place ; and Cromwell, though still proclaiming his
wish to bring about a close alliance, no longer made demands involving
the sacrifice of Dutch independence. The fear that an Orange restoration
in the Netherlands might resuscitate the Stewart cause and possibly lead
to attempts to bring about a royalist restoration in England haunted
his mind. At last he formulated his peace proposals to the pleni-
potentiaries in 27 articles. In these he made no mention of the union
of the two Republics. The States General were to pay an annual sum
for the right of fishing upon the English coasts, to maintain only a
limited number of ships, to strike the flag in the English seas, and to
recognise the right of search. But, in addition to these sufficiently
severe conditions, the States General were by Article 12 required to
bind themselves never to permit the Prince of Orange or any of his
race to obtain any of the civil or military dignities and powers which
had been held by his ancestors.

Great was the disappointment of de Witt on learning that the

OH. VII.

142 Cromwell and de Witt. — Diplomatic difficulties. [i654

Protector thus put forward a demand, which he knew would never be
conceded by the States General. The situation was " desperate," and the
envoys asked for their passports. In a speech to the States General the
Grand Pensionary urged the necessity for taking the strongest measures
for carrying on the War with vigour. The fleet must be strengthened
regardless of cost, and alliances sought with foreign Powers, two of which,
France and Denmark, had already shown an inclination to take sides
with the Dutch ; indeed, Denmark had begun to negotiate for a treaty
and had provoked the hostility of England by the closing of the Sound
to English commerce and by the seizure of English ships. This deter-
mined attitude had its effect upon Cromwell. He showed a willingness
to modify the terms ; but he insisted on the exclusion of the House of
Orange from the stadholdership and captain-generalship; and, on account
of the hostile action of Denmark, he refused to allow her to be included in
the Treaty of Peace. Just, however, as the Dutch plenipotentiaries were
on the point of embarking at Gravesend on their return, a messenger from
Cromwell arrived with the information that the Protector gave way so far
as regarded Denmark, and that he would be content with a secret article
in the matter of the exclusion. All this time confidential correspondence
was constantly passing between the Grand Pensionary and van Bevemingh,
and de Witt lost no time in dealing with the new situation. Van
Bevemingh was instructed to inform Cromwell that there was not the
least chance of securing the assent of the States General to such a secret
article. In a private interview with van Bevemingh Cromwell now gave
the plenipotentiary to understand that, if the Province of Holland would
guarantee the exclusion of the Prince of Orange from the stadholdership
and the post of Captain-General, he would accept it. De Witt, although
he saw clearly all the immense difficulties that stood in the way of
obtaining such a guarantee, set to work to accomplish the task. The
Grand Pensionary in the Hague and van Bevemingh in London in the
deepest secrecy conducted clandestine negotiations with Cromwell, while
openly de Witt was inducing the States General, and with success, to
agree to and ratify the treaty, out of which the article concerning the
exclusion of the House of Orange had been struck. On April 22 it was
signed and sent over to England. The only reference to the burning
question was contained in Article 82, the so-called '^temperament^
clause, by which the States General and the States severally undertook
that every Stadholder, Captain-General or commander of military or
naval forces was to be required to take an oath to observe the treaty.

Meanwhile a very delicate and dangerous diplomatic game was being
played — that of seeking to obtain in absolute secrecy the consent of the
States of Holland to the undisclosed Act of Seclusion. Quite unexpectedly,
and without agenda having been prepared, the States were summoned to
meet on April 28. All the members were first bound by oath to secrecy;
and hereupon the Grand Pensionary read to them an official letter from

1654] Act of Secluston-Holland and the States Genertil. 143

van Bevemingh and Nieuwpoort stating the requirement of Cromwell.
Surprised and perplexed, the deputies asked for time to consult their
principals before coming to a decision. It was agreed, however, in order
to avoid delay and publicity, that only the regent Burgomasters should
be informed of the contents of the envoys' despatch, once more under
oath of secrecy, and that the States should meet again in three days' time.
On May 1 the Assembly met, when the Pensionary read another despatch
which he had just received from London, notifying Cromwell's demand
that the Act should be handed over to him within a couple of days of
the ratification of the treaty — or he would not consider it binding upon
him. After stormy discussion, tinder the influence of Cromwell's threat
and de Witt's persuasive arguments, a majority, consisting of the nobles
and thirteen towns, voted for the signing of the "Act of Seclusion."
Five towns, Haarlem, Leyden, Alkmaar, Edam and Enkhuizen, however,
obstinately refused their assent. Despite the protest of the minority,
de Witt declared the Act to be passed ; and it was sent on the following
day to the two envoys in London, with instructions, however, not to
deliver it unless it were absolutely necessary.

Through the treachery of a clerk the secret was betrayed to William
Frederick, Stadholder of Friesland; and, as the rumour spread throughout
the country, a loud and threatening outcry arose against the States of
HoUand and the Grand Pensionary. Not only was the entire Orange
party up in arms, but the other Provinces bitterly resented the action
taken by the Hollanders as a breach of the Union. In the States
General de Witt endeavoured to meet the attacks upon him by evasive
replies, asserting in general terms that the States, his masters, had done
nothing that was illegal or outside their powers. The States, however,
themselves were not as courageous as their Pensionary and shrank before
the storm which they had raised, thanking their envoys for not having
handed in the Act to the English Government. Some five weeks passed,
but at length the patience of the States General was exhausted ; and on
Jime 6 it was resolved that orders be despatched to the envoys to send
all the secret instructions they had received from the States of Holland
to the States General, together with a copy of the Act of Seclusion. But
de Witt's extraordinary skill in political strategy and his talent for
diplomatic intrigue shone out the more brilliantly, the more hopeless
the embarrassments from which he had to extricate himself. At the
eleventh hour he determined to make one last eiFort to gain his end.
Acting on his advice, the States General gave instructions that the
despatch to the envoys should be written in cipher, not in the ordinary
form. With the despatch, however, he enclosed a letter to van Beverningh
and Nieuwpoort, informing them that the States of Holland assented to
the request of the States General, and asking them to send the copy of
the Act, if it were stUl in their possession. The plan succeeded. While
the despatch of the States General was being painfully deciphered,

144 Great ability of de Witt The "Beduction.'' [i650-5

van Bevemingh read de Witt's letter, at once grasped its meaning,
demanded an interview with the Protector, and delivered the Act of
Seclusion into his hands. When the deciphering was completed, it was
already too late to carry out the instructions of the States General.

Throughout the whole course of this crooked business there can be
no two opinions as to the ability displayed by the Grand Pensionary.
His correspondence, moreover, proves his honesty of purpose. He felt
peace to be absolutely necessary for the welfare of the Republic, so long
as its conditions were not humiliating or threatened the independence of
the State. Bitterly hostile as he was to the House of Orange, there
are no grounds for the accusation that the Act of Seclusion was desired
by him, still less that it was due to his instigation. Such a course
of chicanery and deception is, however, not to be defended either by its
motives or its results ; and, as a matter of fact, it brought unpopularity
upon de Witt and his party and was never forgotten or forgiven by
the great majority of the people of the Netherlands, who cherished the
memory of the great deeds of the House of Orange. Nothing, could
have more effectually enlisted the sympathy and affection of the populace
for the young Prince than the thought that he had been in an under-
hand way defrauded of his rights at the bidding of a foreign ruler.

Peace once concluded, commerce revived and with returning pros-
perity men's spirits grew calmer, and the angry manifestations against
the Act of Seclusion gradually died down. Even the two Princesses
of Orange were appeased by the personal explanations and marked
courtesy of de Witt, and thought it better not to run any risk of doing
injury to the interests of William by adopting an attitude of irrecon-
cilable hostility. The States of Holland admitted that their conduct
required exculpation; and the Grand Pensionary drew up a laboured
defence of their action in the matter of the Act of Seclusion in a
lengthy document known as the " Deduction of the States of HoUand."
This state-paper was far indeed from convincing the opponents of
de Witt's policy, notwithstanding the undoubted skill and acumen which
it displayed; but those opponents were far too divided amongst themselves
to be able to concentrate their efforts against the constantly increasing
power and influence of the Grand Pensionary. The Princess Dowager
and the Princess Royal were at enmity with one another and with Count
William Frederick, and their family bickerings and private ambitions
prevented the supporters of the House of Orange from being able to
pursue any common policy. Moreover, the marriage of de Witt in
February, 1655, with Wendela Bicker greatly strengthened his position.
Two of Wendela's uncles had been the leaders of Amsterdam's opposition
to William II in 1650 and had been declared incapable of henceforth
holding any municipal office. Through this marriage de Witt became
connected with several of the principal members of the burgher oligarchy
of the great commercial city, thus supplementing the powerful family

1656] De Witt's marriage.-^Mnancial reforms. 146

influence he already possessed in the south of Holland. The Grand
Pensionary, indeed, was soon surrounded by a group of relatives and
intimate friends, holding important official posts in public or local
administration. His brother Comelis was appointed Ruwaard (Governor)
of Putten in 1654 ; his father was made a member of the Chamber of
Finance in 1657; his cousins van Slingelandt and Vivien were in succession
Pensionaries of Dort; his wife's uncles, Comelis Bicker and Cornells de
Graefl', were all-powerful in Amsterdam. The most influential functionary
of the States General, the Griffier (Secretary), Nicolas Ruysch, de Witt's
predecessor as Pensionary of Dort, was his devoted adherent ; so were the
distinguished diplomatists van Bevemingh, van Beuningen and Nieuw-
poort. Successive vacancies in high commands in the army and navy and
in the presidencies of the Courts of Justice were filled with supporters of
the anti-Stadholder party; so that, in the absence of any serious rival to
his authority, the Grand Pensionary found himself able, while nominally
only a Minister in the service of the Provincial States of Holland, to
galjier into his hands the supreme direction alike of the foreign and
domestic affairs of the State. Not even Oldenbameveldt during the
youth of Maurice had possessed so wide and far-reaching an authority.

One of the great difficulties with which Holland had to contend was
that of finance. The Province had borne the greater part of the burden
of the War of Independence ; and although, with a view to lightening
its weight, the rate of interest had in 1640 been reduced from Q\ to 5 per
cent., the debt had kept growing, and at the close of the English War
amounted to 153,000,000 florins, the annual charge upon which reached
nearly 7,000,000 florins, De Witt began with retrenching expenditure,
wherever it could be done with safety, by a careful examination
into all superfluous and wasteful outgoings, and a better and more
vigilant administration of the public revenues. Finding it impossible,
however, to make the charges balance the receipts, and faced by ; an
annual deficit, the Grand Pensionary resolved upon the bold step of a
further reduction of interest. It was with difficulty that he persuaded
the States of Holland to agree to his proposal, that the rate of interest
should be reduced from 5 to 4 per cent. Such a step could not be taken
without a serious loss of income to the . numerous holders of public
securities. By establishing a sinking fund, however, for the paying off
of the entire debt in 41 years, he succeeded in carrying out his proposal.
This achieved, he was able to induce the States General to follow the
example of the Province, and to reduce the interest on the federal debt
likewise to 4 per cent.

No one saw more clearly than de Witt that the foremost interest of
a trading and colonising country like the United Provinces was peace,
and to this end all his efforts in the conduct of foreign affairs were
directed. Unfortunately his lot was cast in troubled and anxious times.
In the relations with England, in spite of the goodwill of the respective

a u. H. r. CH. VII. 10

146 WaH with Portugal and Sweden,. [1654-7

Goveminents, the trade rivalry caused continual controversies to arise.
In NieUwpoort, however, the States had an 6nvoy in whom the Grand
■Pensionary reposed the utmost confidence, and who succeeded in
ingratiating himself both with Cromwell and his Secretary of StEite,
Thurloe. Difficulties arose between the two countries with regard to
Portugal, and still more acutely in the Baltic. The death of Cromwell
in 1658 alone pteV^ilted active English ihtfervention in the war with
Portugal caused by the loss of Brazil, where the Portuguese rebels
against Ddtch rule in Pernambuco had had at first the secret and after-
wards the open support of the mother country. The last remnant of
the authority of the Dutch West India Company had disappeared so
long ago as 1654 with the loss of Reciff, and the English War had
prevented any active ' steps being taken to reassert it. There was no
indlination in the Netherlands to send any expedition across the Atlantic
to recover the lost colony ^ but it was felt that there was a claim against
Poi'tugal for compensation, And de Witt in 1657 determined to enforce
it.' War was declared against Portugal ; and the conquest of Ceylon and
Macassar followed. In Europe the hostilities, which dragged on for
some years, were confined to naval demonstrations on the Portuguese
coast. The complications in the north were much more serious.

In Sweden, on the abdication in 1654 of Christina the warlike and
ambitious Charles Gustavus ascended the throne. As has been already
seen, he aimed at nothing short of the conversion by force of arms of the
Baltic into a Swedish lake. But the interests of the United Provinces in
'the Baltic tralde were enormous. It was from the Baltic that their supplies
of com were brought. Aided by Frederick William of Brandenburg,
Chairies Gusta,vus eiltered upon a career of victory. Poland was overrun,
and the allied armies (1656) laid siege to Danzig, the emporium of the
wheat trade. Under pressure from the inerchaiits of Amsterdam de Witt
determined on an energetic policy. It was proposed by the States of
Holland, and agreed to by the States General, that a naval demonstration
Should be made to save the beleaguered town and preserve the balance of
power in the Baltic. A fleet of forty-two ships accordingly set sail
under Obdam de Wassenaar, which raised the blockade of Danzig, and by
an undetstaihding With the Poles placed a garrison in the town. This
act of vigour brought the King of Sweden to reason. At a conference at
Elbing (September, 1656) the former treaty of friendship between the
two Powers was renewed, and Danzig was declared a neutral port. This
check to Sweden was, however, to be the precursor of fresh strife.
Hostilities again broke out. Brandenburg changed sides, alid the Swedes
■tt^ere rapidly driven out of Poland. Their defeat encouraged Frederick III
of Denmark to declare war against his northern neighbours, in spite of
the counsel and remonstrances of the States. A treaty of defensive
alliance had recently been concluded between the United Provinces and
Denmark; and de Witt therefore regarded with alarm this bold assault

1658-60] Victories in the Bcdtic. Peace of C&penfmgen. 147

of the weaket ilpbn the stronger Scandinavian Power. It was too late.
Charles Gustavus attaokefl' and utterly defeated the Danes, and was able
to dictate terms of peace at Roeskilde (March, 1658), where Frederick
agreed to close the Sound to all foreign fleets. But when, on the
plea that the "Treaty of Roeskilde had not >been carried out by the
Danes, Charles 'Gustavus laid siege to Copenhagen, de Witt, who had
hitherto in his desire to avoid the risks ^of war confined himself to
diplomatic pressure, now felt that, unless the absolute dominion of the
Baltic was to be given up to the Swedish King, instant action must be
taken. It was a dangerous situation, for the Republic was at war with
Portugal and on far from friendly relations with either France or England.
But the Baltic question was vitsd, and de Witt did not hesitate. In
the beginning of October, Admiral Gbdam de Wassenaar sailed for
Copenhagen, which was obstinately defended, at the head of a fleet of
thirty-five vessels carrying 4000 troops. His orders were to destroy the
Swedish fleet and to raise the siege of Copenhagen. A terrific battle
took pla^se at the entrance into the Baltic, The Swedish fleet of forty-
five vessels, under the command of Wrangelj made a valia;nt defence
against theattaek of the Netherlanders. The two Dutch Vice-Admirals,
Witte de With and Pieter Floriszoon, were both killed ; Gbdam himself
was nearly taken prisoner ; but the Swedes suffered heavy loss and took
refuge in 'the harbour of >Landskrona. Copenhagen was saved from
capture. The siege, nevertheless, went on ; and, fearing the intervention
of France and England, de Witt prudently entered into negotiations
^ith those two Powers, and a convention was signed by which the three
States agreed to act together as mediators between the Kings of Sweden
and Denmark, and, if necessary, compel them to make peace. For
months the negotiations continued without an agreement being reached.
Both Kings were obstinate, but more especially Charles Gustavus, who
refused to accept the terms proposed by the mediators, and still threatened
ICopenhagen on the land side with a strong force. In these circumstances
de Ruyter, who was now in command of the Dutch fleet, was ordered to
exp^l the Swedes from the island of Fyen. On November 24, 1659, the
town of Nyborg was taken by storm, and the whole Swedish force there
entrenched was captured. The Swedish fleet took refuge in Landskrona,
where it was bloefcaded by de Ruyter. The proud spirit of Charles
Gustavus was broken by tlus disaster, and he died afew .months later
(February 23, 1660). Pea«e between Sweden and Denmark was at length
^^ed at Copenhagen (May 27), guaranteed by the ^mediating Powers.
The Swedes retained most of their conquests ; but the passage of the
Sound was made open. The firm, but prudent, policy of de Witt thus
successfully attained its aim ; and the Repubhc, after this liisplay of
maritime power, took its place with added weight in the councils of
Europe.

The sudden restoration of Charles II in May, 1660, to the throne
CH. vii. 10_2

148 Charles II in Holland. — Peace with Portugal. [ie60-2

of his ancestors placed de Witt and the States party in Holland in
a dilemma. Their hostility to the interests of the House of Stewart in
its hour of humiliation and distress had been marked ; but the Grand
Pensionary was too supple a statesman not to be able to accommodate
himself to the complete change in the situation. Charles was at Breda
when the invitation reached him to return to England. The States
General, the States of Holland, and de Witt himself, vied with one
another in their deferential attitude and in their adulation of the poverty-
stricken exile of yesterday^ who had now become a powerful king. His
reception at the Hague was magnificent. When he set sail from
Scheveningen, he was solemnly escorted to the beach by the members
of the States of Holland and of the States General. Profuse promises of
eternal friendship were exchanged. But the States party knew that the
change boded them no good. It was significant that, on his public visit
to the States of Holland, Charles handed to the Grand Pensionary; a
declaration signed by himself, commending to their care "the Princess my
sister and the Prince of Orange my nephew, two persons who are extremely
dear to me." It was nothing less than a demand for the rescinding of
the Act of Seclusion, which indeed speedily followed. De Witt, however,
despite the efforts of the Princess Royal, steadily declined to allow the
young Prince to be appointed to the civil and military posts held by his
ancestors. In many parts of the country, even in Holland itselfj there
were strong movements in favour of William III being at once nomi-
nated Captain- and Admiral-General. But de Witt would not consent
to this* The States of Holland, however, at his advice, by a unanimous
vote, agreed to regard the young Prince as their ward and to educate
him at the public expense, William, who had hitherto been under the
ban of the ruling authorities, was thus placed in a position which
virtually implied the ultimate reversion to him of hisi ancestral dignities.

Peace with Portugal was one of the results which flowed from the
restoration of Charles II, whose marriage with a Portuguese princess led
him to take a friendly interest in the settlement of this protracted dis-
pute. After many delays a treaty was at length signed, August 6, 1661,
though it was not ratified until the following year. By this treaty the
Dutch abandoned all claims in Brazil, subject to an indemnity of
8,000,000 florins to be paid in sixteen years. They were further compen-
sated by being left in possession of their conquests in the East Indies.
De Witt had to use all his firmness and skill in the accomplishment of
this diplomatic task. He had to face the opposition of Zeeland and
Gelderland and the wiles of the English ambassador, George Downing.
He had finally to force the hands of the procrastinating Portuguese
Government by the threat of the immediate despatch of a Dutch fleet
to Lisbon.

Thus in 1662 all outstanding difficulties and quarrels with foreign
Powers appeared to have been removed, and an era of peticeful develop-

1662-5] Disputes with. JEngland. 149

ment and progress to lie before the Dutch Republic. The issue was to
be far otherwise. An understanding with France had been arrived at
(April 27, 1662), and an offensive and defensive alliance concluded, a
pledge for the maintenance of which seemed to be assured by the sending
of Count d'Estrades, already well known in the Netherlands, as am-
bassador to the Hague. Between him and John de Witt the closest
ties of friendship and confidence were soon established. With England,
however, the relations of the United Provinces were strained from the
outset of Charles II's reign, and there was a constantly growing irritation
between the two countries, in spite of the efforts made by de Witt to
remain on friendly terms. The part, indeed, which the Grand Pensionary
took in the delivering up of the three regicides, Biu-ghstead, Corbet and
Okey, led to a charge being made against him of cowardice and sub-
serviency. It was all, however, of no avail. Downing, a very master of
intrigue, was secretly hostile to the Republic, and used his diplomatic
opportunities to aggravate the differences arising from the maritime and
commercial rivalry of the two nations. The English Government refused
to modify in any way the Act of Navigation, or its claims to the
sovereignty of the seas. A prolonged dispute arose as to the indemnity
to be paid for the seiziu-e of two English trading vessels in the East Indies.
There was a controversy of long standing about the rights of the English
and Dutch East India Companies to the possession of the island of Pularoon
in the Moluccas. A more serious grievance arose from the seizure, in Febru-
ary, 1664, of some of the Dutch possessions on the west coast of Africa by
an English expedition, commanded by Robert Holmes, on behalf of the
Royal African Company, of which the Duke of York was patron. Such
a flagrant violation of the law of nations in time of peace could not be
passed by. As the complaints of the States General to the English
Government were met by evasions, it was resolved in all secrecy to order
de Ruyter, who was cruising in the Mediterranean with a squadron of
twelve ships, to proceed to the coast of Guinea, and reconquer the lost
possessions. In October came a still worse piece of news from the West
Indies, to the effect that another English expedition, sent out under the
auspices of the Duke of York, had taken possession of the Dutch colony
of New Netherland on the river Hudson, and had changed the name of
the capital from New Amsterdam to New York. The States General
again protested in the strongest terms ; but nothing was done rashly to
provoke hostilities. De Witt was earnestly desirous of maintaining the
peace, but the war party in England was all-powerful ; and already in
December it was clear that nothing but the declaration of war was
wanting to make the rupture complete. ITiis followed in March, 1665,
and the two nations once more found themselves engaged in a fierce
struggle for the mastery of the seas.

The Dutch were far better prepared than in 1653, and the Admiral-
ties vied with each other in building ships and providing equipment.

160 The Second English War. TheBiskopofMiinster. [a664f^7i

The want of an Admiral-General was supplied by the immense diligence
and zeal of de Witt, who had. taken pains to make himself thoroughly
acquainted with all the details of nawal administration ; andwho personally,
with the Commissioners appointed by the Statesi General, visited; all the
ports and superintended the preparations. Inferior in some respects to
the splendidly equipped and disciplined fleet of England, the Dutch
nayy could at least boast that in Michael Adrianszoon de Ruyter it
possessed) a leader second to none in the whole history of sea warfare.
An account of iiie naval campaigns of 1665, 1666, 1667 is given in
another chapter. It isi sufficient here to say that, while the heroic
courage and determination exhibited on both sides have never been
surpassed^, victory on the whole inclined to the side of the Englishj
thoughitlie final dazzling exploit of de Ruyter in sailing up \he Medway
and burning the Englishi ships at their anchorage, before Chatham has
perhaps iimpressed the popular imagination more than any of the great,
battles,, in wJbieb. so much, skilL and endurance were called: forth.

The conduct and calmness of the Grand Pensionary thuoughout the =
vicissitudes of the struggle all authorities — enemies as well as friends-^
agree' in praising. With imperturbable serenity he faced aU the diffi-
culties and changes of fbrfcime, and inspired others with the patriotic
faith andi courage which animatedi himself. Not content with the
enormous labours involved in the direction and control of tihe diplomatic,
financial, and domestic afiairs of the; Republic,, he on more than onei
occasion himself accompanied the fleets to sea and exposed his persoiit
freely to all the dangers of the campaign, instilling into officers and me»
the; strength of will and unremitting energy which were apparent in alii
his actions. At no time in. his splendid career did John de Witt more
conclusively show his possession of rare quialities as a leader of men.

But though the navy had been raised to a high state; of efficiency
and was able to hold its own againsjb, the superior maritime strength of
England,it was far otherwise with the army, whose numbers and training
bad been allowed to fall faj; below the requirements of safety. Charles II
had concluded a. secret alliance with, the Bishop of Miinster, who had
^evances against the States for their refusal, to. admit his pretensions to
the lordship of Borkelo. 5'Qr.Ge had even been employed, to prevent him
0:om asserting his clajmP.. The Bishopi now (September 19, 1665)
declaired war and crossed the frontier at the head of; aji army of 18,000
men. There: was no organised force to oppose him, and no commander-
inrobief. William Frederick of Friesland had died (October 31, 1664)
fcom the resultsi of an accideRt and had been succeeded in his stad-
holdi^rsbip by his young son, Henry Casimir II, under the guardianship
of his iflother. In this emergency the States, oflfeyed the command to Joan
Maurice of Nassau-Siegen, distinguished as Gevemor of Dutch Brazil,
who, had lajbteifly been Governor of Cloves for the Elector pf Branden-
burg, A considerable part of Drente and Ovesyssel was overrun by the

1666-7] Dutch alliance with France. — Peace of Breda. 151

Miinster tropps before effectual means of i;esistance could be prepared,
De Witt, however, secured the assistance of a body of French, troops,
and another force of subsidised troops raised in the Brunswick-Liineburg
dominions under the cpmmand of Count George Frederick of Waldeck.
By these measures the danger was averted and; the Bishop compelled
(April 18, 1666) to conclude a peace by which he relinquished all his
claims on Borkelo. Already in the beginning of 1666 de Witt had begun
to feel his way to opening negotiations with England for peace. While
neglecting nothing to draw closer the bonds of alliance with France, who
had declared war against England (January, 1666), and to secure the
friendly copperation of Denmark and Brandenburg against possible
danger from Sweden or Miinster, the Graijd Pensionary was sincerely
anxious to relieve the Netherlands from the tremenfious jburden which the
cost of the war and the cessation of commerce imposed on the Provinces,
especially upon Holland. He knew that England was likewise suffering
heavily from the same causes, and he wfts, resplved to spare no effort to
promote a good understanding between the two nations. With this
object in view he proposed, after qonsultation with the Princess Dowager
of Orange, to the States oi^ Holland that they should take, charge of the
education of William IH, as "Child of State"; and the proposal ^^
carried into effect, April 9, 1.666. A commissipn was now appointed,
with the Grand Pensionary himself at its head, wh,pse duty -it was to see
that the young Prince was thoroughly instrujcted in the principles of the
Reformed religipn and in the good and wholesome rights, privileges
and maxims of the State. A similar proposal, it may be remembered,,
had been made in 1660 ; but the sudden death of, the Princess Royal
a few months later and the unfriendly attitude of the English King
had caused it to remain 3. dead letter. Exactly a year after the pass-
ing of this resolution, the plenipotentiaries of the Powers were slowly
gathering at Breda for the peace negptjajtions. The result pf the
meeting was not encouraging; there was endless h3,ggling over all the.
old grievances and causes of quarrel, and in the middle of June no sort
of progress had been made. The delay led to de Ruyter's humiliating
expedition to Chatham, when the sound of the Dutch guns was heard
in liondon (June 22). This surprising success led to the speedy conclusion
of peace (July 31, 1667), on terms which, though showing mpderation
on the part pf de Witt, were far more favourable to the Dutch thap
could at an earlier period have been thought possible. The Navigation
Act remained in force, but was qualified so far as to admit goods from
Germany and the southern Netherlands carried, in Dutch vessels ; while,
the question as to the saluting of the English, flag was left untouched.
As regards the East and West Indies the principle of m^, possidetis was
adopted, the date fixed being May 10, 1667, This gave New; Netherland
to England and Pularoon to the States, who also acquired the cplony
of Surinam and the island of Tob^p, which had been conquered by a

162 The "Eternal Edict." — France invades Holland. [i667

squadron under the command of the Zeelander Abraham Crynssen
(February, 1667).

The signing of the treaty was followed by measures being taken on
the part of the Province of Holland to maintain its supremacy in the
Union. Serious and widespread movements had for some time been on
foot for the overthrow of the States party and the conferring of the posts
of Stadholder and Captain-General on the Prince of Orange. To prevent
such a consummation, the States of Holland passed (August 5) unanimously
what was known as the " Eternal Edict." It decreed that no Captain-
or Admiral-General of the Union could be at the same time Stadholder
of a province : in Holland itself the office of Stadholder was for ever
abolished. This strong step was followed by the trial of the Sieur de Buat,
a French officer in the service of the States, before the Supreme Court
of Holland for treasonable correspondence, as an Orange agent, with the
enemy. Buat was condemned to death and executed (October 11).

No sooner was peace concluded with England than the Republic
found itself confronted by a new danger from the ambition of its former
ally, the King of France. The causes which led to the "War of
Devolution" need not be again recounted here. On May 21, 1667,
Louis XIV crossed the Belgian frontier with an army of 50,000 men.
It was not an invasion, but a state entry of the new ruler of the
«* Spanish" Netherlands (for Queen Maria Teresa accompanied the
expedition) into her inherited dominions. The Spanish Governor,
Castel-Rodrigo, was in no position to oppose such a force; and in the
course of three months the long line of frontier fortresses fell, almost
without resistance, into the hands of the French. The conquest of the
whole of the southern Netherlands appeared imminent. Great was
the alarm of the Dutch at such a prospect. It had long been a
fixed principle of their statesmen, " Greet Prance as a friend, not as a
neighbour"; and de Witt, whose policy it had always been to cultivate
the goodwill of France, was fully alive to the vital importance of having
a barrier State between the United Provinces and the powerful military
monarchy ruled by Louis XIV. He was in a most difficult position.
The Dutch Republic, which had just emerged exhausted from one great

war, could not venture to oppose by force — with only Spain as an ally

the ambitious schemes of the French monarch. To do so would be to
court disaster. With d'Estrades at the Hague, and through van Beu-
ningen at Paris, he entered into negotiations, with the aim, if possible,
of discovering some compromise which would satisfy the King and at
the same time avert in some measure the danger which threatened the
States. All his efforts were in vain. His only hope lay in forming
a coalition against France ; and he turned to England and Sweden. In
September John Meerman was sent on a special embassy to England,
and negotiations were opened with the Swedish envoy Dohna, at the
Hague. The fall of Clarendon and the rise to power of Arlington

1667-8] The War of Devolution. — The Triple Alliance. 153

brought about a complete change of English policy. Sir William
Temple, the English resident at Brussels, was sent to the Hague to
learn in person the views and aims of de Witt, and afterwards to
repair to London to confer with the home Government. Temple was
heart and soul in the accomplishment of his mission, and he returned to
the Hague (January 17, 1668) commissioned to express on the part
of the English Ministry their willingness to cooperate with the United
Provinces in common action against French pretensions. It was only
natural for the States General, and for de Witt himself, to regard
somewhat distrustfully this offer of alliance on the part of their recent
enemy. But Temple's persuasiveness prevailed; and, largely by his
personal exertions, the matter was driven through at express speed.
Thus, on January 23 the treaty which bound England and the United
Provinces to a defensive alliance and joint resistance to French aggres-
sion was signed by the English ambassador and the commissioners of
the States General. Three days later Dohna was able to inform Temple
and de Witt of the adhesion of Sweden to what was now the Triple
Alliance. There was great rejoicing among all parties in the Nether-
lands, which was marked by the presence of both the Prince of Orange
and Prince Joan Maurice of Nassau at a ball given by the Grand
Pensionary in honour of the occasion.

There were still, however, many difficulties to overcome. The French
King was indisposed to draw back in the ^11 tide of success. Spain was
unwilling to surrender territory. Swedish support was to a large extent
mercenary, and dependent upon subsidies. The firmness of de Witt
and the tact of Temple, however, overcame all obstacles. To prove that
they were in earnest a strong military force was gathered on the Scheldt
and the Yssel, and a fleet equipped. The Spanish Governor, Castel-
Rodrigo, was informed that, unless he consented to accept the mediation
of the allies, the States army would cross the frontier and occupy
Flanders. Louis XIV, now master of Franche Comt^ felt himself in a
strong position to negotiate and was ready to make concessions rather than
enter upon a war in which Spain would have the armed support of the
Triple Alliance. The preliminary conditions of peace were settled at
St Germain-en-Laye between the French Foreign Minister, Lionne,
and the Dutch and English ambassadors, van Beuningen and Trevor
(April 15), and confirmed by a conference of the Powers at Aachen
(May 2). The treaty was very advantageous to the French King, who
restored Franche Comtd, but retained in Flanders and Brabant most
of the towns he had occupied. A guarantee was given to Spain by
the three Powers of the remainder of her Belgian possessions ; but the
ephemeral character of the Triple Alliance rendered such a guarantee
of little real value. It was felt, nevertheless, by all that the result
achieved was a great personal triumph for the Grand Pensionary's
statesmanship. He had succeeded in checking the ambitious projects of

154 Peace of Aachen. — Treaty of Dover [lees-vi

Lojajjs XIV, at a moment when the French military power seemed to be
iraesjsjfcible, and in forcing him to conclude peace. At the Congress of
Aachen the Dutch Republic was able to take its place among the Great,
Powers of Europe and to pose as the arbiter of peace and war. Never
before or since did the United Provinces occupy so high a position of
infliuence and authority.; The Peace of Aachen, following closely upon
that of Breda, set the seal to the greatness of the administration of,
John de. Witt, The inscription upon a medal stijuck for the occasion
gives esxpression to the proud self-satisfaction felt throughout the States:,
"After having made the Laws secure, iiefiormed Religion, reconciled
Kings, maintained the Ifreedom of the Seas, established Peace in Europe
the Council of the United Netherlands has caused this medal to be struck
in 1668." It reads like an epitaph. The sequel will show that as such
it might well be regarded;.

The Peace of Aachen rankled in the mind of Louis XIV, and from
this time he vowed the destruction of the Dutch Republic and of the
Grajid Pensionary. His first efforts were directed to the detachment of
Charles n from the "Triple Bond." It was not a difficult task. Charles'
objept in entering it had been not to maintain Spain Iq, possession of
the southern Netherlands, but to detach the Dutch Republic from France.
Every possible ground of dispute with the Netherlanders arising out of the
Treaty of Breda was now raked up and treated as a diplomatic grievance.
In vain was van Beuningen sent on a special mission to Lpndon in June,
1670, to settle complaints about comparatively trifling matters in the
East Indies and in Surinam. There was a strong war party in England,
who wished to wipe out the memory of Chatham, and Charles only too
readily fell in witb- their wishes. On December 31, 1671, he concluded
at Dover a secret treaty with Louis XIV, which bpund him, in con-
sideration of a yearly subsidy of 3,000,000 francs and tijie acquisition
of Walcheren and the mouths, of the Scheldt, to abandon the Triple
Aljiance and at the bidding of Louis declare war upon the Dutch. At
tl^e same time stepsi were b^ing successfully taken to undermine the,
at all times, rather wavering attachment of Sweden to the Alliance.

At home in the United Provinces thp ppsition of de Witt had during
the English War become decidedly weaker. The bitterest attacks were
made upon him, and nothing but want of leaders prevented the Orange
pafty from the overthrow of the stadholderless Government. Even
among his ojd friends there was dissatisfaction at the ascendancy of what
may be styled the de Witt family connexion. Van Beverningh resigned
the post of Treasurer-General. Van Beuningen, who had great influence
in Amsterdam, became alienated. Indped, a strong opposition to de Witt,
was gra^nally formjing there, o^ wh^ch, the leader w^ Gillis Valckenier.
And, meanwhile, the !^rince of Orange was slowly growing to adolescence.
Of feeble health an4 weak in body, William was endpwed by natinre with
extraordinary intelligence and a strength of chai;^cter quite uncommon.

1658-68] l^he Prince of Orange and de Witt, ISS,

He had passed a somewhat miserable boyhood amidst the jars, of family
quarrels. His home was a hot-bed of intrigue, and he was keenly watchedi
by eager partisans and jealous enemies. But with a self-restraint that
was aimqst unnatural, observing everything, committing no false step,
uttering no rash words, William bided his time. Cold, calm apd im-
penetrable, in proud isolation, forming his plans for; the futm-e, confident
that bis hour would come, with a sagacity and a dissimulation beyond his
years the heir of the Nassaus went quietly on hia way. How many an
anxious moment must de Witt have passed, as he tri^d to read the
thoughts and to forecast the future of the Child of State, wbpse tutelage
the Province of Holland had placed largply in his hands ! The Eternal
Edict of August, 1667, is a measure of the fear with which the Grand
Pensipiiary and the Holland, Regents regarded the growing menace to the
domination of their party. The erectipB of this paper barrier gave a
sense of security. To the majority at, least, if not to all. The stpry
runs that, as the document lay on the table before him, de Witt's, cousin,
Vivien, the Pensionary of Dort,. stuck the point of hj^, penknife through
it. "What are you doing.'"' asked the Grand Pensionary. "I am trying
to. see what steel can do against parchment," was l^he reply.

The earnestness with which de Witt set to wock to persuade the'
other Provinces to follow the example of Holland sljows, that he was
haunted by the same suspicion as Vivien. He sucpeeded; quickly in
gaining over Gelderland, Utrecht, and Overyssel; b,ilt fpr a long time
Zeeland, Friesland, and Gi-oningen absolutely ref^used, their concurreBep.
In these Provinces the Orange partisans had the upper handj and they
remained deaf to all. the splicitations addressed tp them.

Meanwhile, in July, 1668, de Witt, whose five years' term o|', ofiipe
had been renewed in 1.658 and 1.663, was now fpr th.§, ^pufth, tim^
reappointed Grand Pensionary, and in recognition of his great services
with a doubled salary, besides a large gratuity. Hithertp, his salary
had been only 3000 fiorins; and since 1660 hp had d6;t;ived another
3000 florins from the emoluments of two other ofjScesi He had, how.-
ever, never cared for display ; but had lived like an ordinavybuj^gher in a
mo4est house, keeping only a single man-servant and dressing with gijeat,
simplicity. His mairiage had been very happy, and his only pleasure and
relaxation had been fpund. in the quiet joys of family and domestifi life,
Tjh.e death of his wife, which took place but a ievf weeks before hip. re^
election, was a heavy blow to him. De Witt on this occasion, as in 166,3ji
before entering upon this fresh period of o/fice requested the States o|
Holland tp gi^e him an Act of Indemnity and a promise of a judicial
post on his retirement.

Two months later (September, 1668), the Prince of Grange gave the
first clear sign of his intention to ckim to the full, as opportunity
offered, his ancestral rights and dignities. On the pretence of a visit to
Breda he made his way to Middelburg, where the States of Zeeland had

166 " Concept of Harmony ."-Designs of Louis XIV. [1668-71

just met, to take his seat, being now 18 years of age, as first noble in
their Assembly. Amidst the jubilation of the populace he made his
state entry into the town in a coach drawn by six horses, attended
by a numerous suite. Following the example of his ancestors, he merely
came to be installed in person in his post, after which by the leave of the
States he appointed his cousin, the Lord of Odyk, to act as his repre-
sentative. The installation over, he returned to the Hague, where
for another two years he was content to remain nominally under the
guardianship of the States of Holland. During this interval the Grand
Pensionary had at last succeeded in obtaining the consent of all the
Provinces to the Eternal Edict, his so-called "Concept of Harmony."
Zeeland, Friesland and Groningen, however, made it a condition of their
assent, that WiUiam, now in his twenty-first year, should be at once made
a member of the Council of State. It was still a question whether he
should have the right to vote or only to advise. De Witt was in favour
of the restricted power ; but, finding that he had not the support of
Amsterdam, he gave way. The Grand Pensionary had now to reckon with
the formation of a powerful middle party with Orange leanings, of which
GiUis Valckenier and Conrad van Beimingen at Amsterdam, and Caspar
Fagel, the influential Pensionary of Haarlem, were the leaders. Van
Beuningen and Valckenier were successively elected Burgomasters at
Amsterdam in opposition to all the influence of the Bickers and de Graefls
and the de Witt connexion. The election of Fagel as Secretary {Griffier)
to the States General (November, 1670) by removing him from the States of
Holland, however, strengthened de Witt's influence in the latter assembly,
as did also the appointment of Pieter de Groot, on his return from his
embassy in Sweden, to the post of Pensionary of Rotterdam. He was
a devoted adherent of the Grand Pensionary, whose downfall powerful
enemies in his own Provincial States were now working to bring about.

The steps taken by Louis XIV to break up the Triple Alliance and to
isolate the United Provinces have already been noted. The Secret Treaty of
Dover (December 31, 1671) had bound Charles II to join with the French
King in making war on a people still nominally allied with England. The
feelings of enmity to the Dutch on the part of Louis had not been con-
cealed. He had placed heavy duties on all goods from the United Provinces
entering French harbours. The States General in their turn had laid duties
on French goods entering the Netherlands, and a tariff war had ensued.
But, despite all these signs of ill-will, de Witt appeared to be blind to the
design and the preparations of Louis. Perhaps he could not bring himself
to believe that the French monarch had conceived so embittered a hatred
against himself personally, and had resolved at all costs to compass the
destruction of the Republic. De Witt knew that war would mean the
transfer of authority from his hands to those of the Prince, and he still
hoped by conciliation to avert it. His trusted confidant, Pieter de Groot,
the Pensionary of Rotterdam, was sent as ambassador to Paris. He was

1672] War with France and England.-Orange restoration. 15T

received with all personal courtesy, but could effect nothing. He soon
convinced himself that war was inevitable, and in his despatches urged
the Grand Pensionary to prepare for it. In March, 1672, h6 quitted
Paris, and on April 6 Louis declared war against the States. Already
on March 28 a similar declaration had been made by England. Miinster
and Cologne followed. The only allies of the United Provinces were
Spain, Brandenburg, and the Emperor.

At sea the Dutch had a fleet strong enough to defend their shores
under such a commander as de Ruyter even against an Anglo-French
coalition; but on land the condition of things was very diflerent.
Economy had been the watchword, and had led to repeated disband-
ments. The army was small in numbers and thoroughly disorganised.
The town levies (waardgelders) were called out, and foreign mercenaries
hurriedly recruited, but a trained staff of officers and proper cohesion were
wanting. Meanwhile a splendid French army, 120,000 strong, was ad-
vancing against the Provinces from the south under the command of some of
the first captains of the age, while their eastern frontier was attacked simul-
taneously from the side of Miinster and Cologne. There was practically
no resistance. Within a month Gelderland, Overyssel, Drente, and Utrecht
were overrun. The opening of the dykes alone saved Holland itself from
invasion. Black despair brooded over the land. Business ceased. Men
knew not what to do. AH eyes were turned to the young Prince of Orange.

Already at the first approach of war William, though not yet twenty-
two years of age, had been appointed Captain-General of the Union
amidst general rejoicings (February 25). The office had been granted
to him only for one campaign, with restricting conditions as to its
exercise, betokening the unwillingness with which at last the burgher-
regents yielded to the overwhelming force of public opinion. It was
but the beginning of a movement that nothing could check. The
Eternal Edict was swept on one side. On July 2 the States of
Zeeland elected William Stadholder; two days later the States of
Holland did the same. On the 8th he was made Captain- and Admiral-
General of the Union. The call came suddenly ; but it did not find the
Prince unprepared. Though he had had no experience of administration,
no schooling in the art of war, he set about his task with calm self-
confidence and determination. The mere fact that a Prince of Orange
was once more head of the State inspired confidence. That confidence
became redoubled when it was seen that this youth was dowered with all
the qualities of leadership, which were the heritage of his House.

The immediate cause which led to the revolution of July 2-4 was
the failure of de Groot's mission to move Louis XIV to terms of peace.
Amidst the shipwreck of his life's work, de Witt had through the months
of May and June laboured with unremitting zeal. Finance, the equip-
ment of the fleet, negotiations, the cutting of the dykes for the defence
of Holland — all had occupied his attention. Both he and his brother

CB. VII.

168 Popular hatred of the de Witts.^ William's firmness. ![i672

had stood hy the side of de Ruyter at the great sea-fight at Southwold
[Bay (June 6), which prevented the combined English and French fleets
from effecting a landing on the Dutch coast. But this display of
patriotic courage availed nothing to lessen the people's growing hatred
of the two brothers, who were looked upon as the enemies of the Prince
of 'Orange and as the primary cause of the misfortunes which had
fallen on the State. Attempts were made on the lives of both — ^^on John
at the Hague (June 21) ; on Comelis at Dort (June 23). In the face
of strong opposition, de Witt had just at this time sent Pieter de
Groot on a special mission to Louis XIV to supplicate for peace. He
was to offer the French King the surrender of Maestricht, with the
Generality Lands (States-Brabant and States-Flanders), and the payment
of all the costs of the war. The offer was scornfully rejected ; impossible
and humiliating terms were asked, including a large cession of territory
to France and other cessions fto England, Cologne, and Miinster, and an
enormous war indemnity of 16j000,000 florins. Asked for his advice by the
States of Holland, William replied : " All that stands in the missive is
unacceptable ; rather let us be hacked into pieces than accept such con-
ditions." His advice was accepted by a unanimous vote. But his High-
ness drew a difference between England and France. "The English
proposals," he said, " come not from the King, but from his Ministers;
therefore answer France that the conditions are unacceptable, nothing
more ; with England keep the n^otiations alive." Already William had
firmly grasped what were to be the unchanging principles of his whole
life's policy. To seek the friendship of England, and with her help, and,
if possible, with other allies, to beat back the aggression of France and
maintain against the ambition of Louis the freedom of nations and the
balance of power — these were the objects at which from the first he
aimed, and whose realisation he pursued with a resolution that nothing
could shake. On the present occasion great concessions were offered to
England ; but, although King Charles was well disposed to his nephew
personally, his demands were inadmissible and were rejected. "But don't
you see that the Republic is lost?" the English envoy is reported to
'have said. "I know one sure means of not seeing her downfall," was the
haughty reply of the Prince — " to die in the defence of the last ditch."

The Orange restoration had been bloodless, but a catastrophe was to
follow. The hatred which had long been felt against de Witt and the
oligarchic burgher party by the mass of the people had been intensified
by late events and now found vent in popular outbursts and acts of vio-
lence against members of the oligarchy which had so long ruled the land.
There was a rain of scandalous pamphlets against the Grand Pensionary,
who was charged, among other things, with malappropriation of public
funds. Rising from his sick bed, de Witt defended himself in the States,
and was by a unanimous vote exonerated (July 23). His brother
Comelis was equally an object of hatred. At Dort, where once the de Witts

167S] Murdtr of the brothers de Witt. 159

had been supreme, his pbrtrait in the Town Hall wsts torn in pieces and
the pictured head hung from a gallows. On July 9A he was suddenly
arrested on a charge, brought against him by a barber named Tichelaer,
of being an accomplice in a plot against the Prince, and was incaircefated
in the Gevangenpoort at the Hague. Oh August 4, John de Witt asked
the States of Holland to accept his resignatibn df the office of Grand
Pensionary and to give him the judicial post that had been promised to
him on his retirement. The resignation was accepted ; but, in accordance
with the wishes of the Prince, ho vOte'df thanks Was given to hiln for his
services. William, however, agreed that his request for an appointment
as judge in the High Court should be granted. Five days late Caspar
Fagel was chosen Grand Pensionary in his place. Meanwhile, Coi'nelis
de Witt had been lying in the Gevangenpoort awaiting his trial. Sii
judges were specially commissioned to try him. Oh August 19 he wrfs
put to the torture, and on the following day sentence was pronounced
against him of deprivation of all his offices and banishment from the lanfl.
The Ruwaard, on learning his fate, sent a message to his brother that he
wished to see him. John de Witt, though warned of the risk he was
running, proceeded forthwith to the prison, where he had a long inter-
view with Cornelis. Meanwhile a vast crowd collected outside and barred
all exit. Three cdmpanies of cavalry under Count Tilly had been posted
by the States of Holland near the prison, with orders, if necessary, to dis-
perse any rabble that seemed bent on mischief. Later, the civic guard
(jschuttery) were called out. The 'air was full of rumours ; and, hearing
that a body of peasantry were marching towards the town, the Deputed-
Councillors sent a message to Tilly, directing him to take two of his
-companies and close all ingress into the gates, leaving the civic guard to
keep the crowd in check. Tilly refused to leave his station without a
written order, and when he received it, exclaimed, "I will obey, but the
de Witts are now dead men." He was right. The sdhutferi) were
citizens with the sattie prejudices against the de Witts as the mob before
them ; and, instead of keeping Order, with a few exceptions they frater-
nised with the rabble. Seeing they had now a free hand, the crowd,
urged on by their leaders, foremost amOngst them a gfoldsmith named
Verhoeff, van Bankhem, one of the sheriffs, and the barber Tichelaer,
forced open the door of the prison and rushed in. It was about 4 pith.
The two brothers were seized, hurried with violence into the street and
there brutally murdered. They were literally torn to pieces, and finally
their bloodstained and hardly recdgnisable remains were hung up by the
feet to a lamp -post.

Was Willia,m in any way pri^^'to of morally implicated in this horrible
deed ? The answer must be, no. He was absent from the Hague at the
timle, and most careful research in the tecords has failed to discover anty
trace of complicity. The murder was %he savage act of a maddened
mob. It must, however, be admitted that the Prince refused to take

160 Progress of the War. [i672

any steps to punish the chief instigators of the riot, and that they were
in fact protected and rewarded. There is good evidence to show that
William was deeply moved when the news of the tragic ending of the
de Witts was brought to him; but his cold temperament led him to
regard the matter dispassionately, now that it was an accomplished fact,
from the point of view of political gain and loss. The impulse, which had
moved the crowd, had after all been love to himself and his House ; the
number of the leaders was large; to proceed against them criminally
would infallibly stir up party strife at a moment of crisis when the whole
strength of the country required to be concentrated on the task of resist-
ing the invader. Such were the arguments which seem to have weighed
with the Stadholder. It is to be regretted that he allowed any considera-
tions to influence him to leave this "execrable yaic^," as the new Grand
Pensionary Fagel termed it, unpunished. By acting as he did William III
has made it impossible for posterity to clear his own memory from
suspicion and his country from the charge of base ingratitude.

That the young Stadholder should have wished to be relieved of
any addition to the heavy cares and responsibilities which rested upon
his shoulders in the summer of 1672, may well be granted. The very
existence of the land depended upon the holding of the water-line (from
Scheldt to Zuyderzee) against the advance of Luxembourg and Turenne.
Had the French pressed on in June, there is little doubt it might have
been carried. But time was lost in petty sieges; and in August the Piince,
with the help of the experienced commander Waldeck, now appointed
Field-Marshal in the States service, and of van Bevemingh, deputy of
the States General in the field, and other capable advisers, had placed
the whole line in a thorough state of defence. Small vessels detached
from the fleet cruised up and down all navigable waters, and at the weak
points fortifications had been thrown up which were held by strong
garrisons. The whole force at William's disposal reached in the autumn
57,000 men,many of them experienced and disciplined soldiers. The success-
ful defence of Groningen against the Cologne-Miinster troops (July 21 to
August 26) checked the advance of the enemy on the eastern frontier.
The invasion was brought to a standstill. But the Prince was not
content with inaction. He made an attack on Woerden (October 10),
which failed. So did a more daring attempt to cut the French lines
of communication at Charleroi ; but the display of vigour and initiative
on the part of the young commander was of good service to his cause.
At the close of his first campaign William III had succeeded in winning
the confidence of his own troops and the respect of his foes. The surprise
of Coeverden (December 29) by a small force under the command of Raben-
haupt, the defender of Groningen, brought the year to an end with a gleam
of success. Luxembourg indeed had taken advantage of a hard winter to
march over the frozen waters, burning and plundering, to the very walls
of the Hague, but the thaw obliged him to retreat (Dpcember, 1672).

1673-5} Success of the defence.-^-Peace with England. 161

In the following year the tide began to turn in favour of the Nether-
landers* Spain and Austria lent active assistance. De Ruyter and
Comelis Tromp fought successfully with inferior forces against the allied
English and French fleets at Schooneveld (June 7 and 14); while at
Kykduin (August 21) the advantage was still more decisive. Maestricht
surrendered to the French in June, but William captured Naarden in
September ; and at the head of an allied force of Imperial, Spanish and
Dutch troops .besieged and took Bonn (Nbvember 5-12). The loss of this
important Rhine fortress compelled the French to evacuate the United
Netherlands. The French King's schemes of conquest had thus completely
failedi Once more a Prince of Orange had freed the country from
the yoke of a foreign foe. He was rewarded by the grant of almost
sovereign power. In the three reconquered Provinces of Gelderland,
Utrecht, and Overyssel he became Stadholder with greatly increased
prerogatives. Further, all the five stadholderships were declared to be
hereditary by the respective Provinces, as were also the offices of Captain-
and Admiral-General of the Union by the States General. Over the
conduct of foreign affairs he had complete control. So long as he
retained this coritrol he was content. On the wide field of international
politics William Ill's chief interest and attention were throughout his life
centred; in domestic affairs his assiduous care was so far as possible to avoid
complications, which might interfere with the carrying out of his plans
for curbing the ambition of Louis XIV by means of the English alliance.
The first great step was taken when peace with England was concluded
(February 19, 1674). The conditions were practically the same as at
Breda. All States ships were to strike the flag even when meeting a
single English man-of-war. The United Provinces were to pay a war
indemnity of 2,000,000 florins. Surinam was retained by the Dutch, and
New Netherland, which had been reconquered by a squadron under the
command of Evertsen in 1673, was restored to the English. Treaties of
peace were likewise signed with Miinster (April 22) and Cologne (May 11).
The Republic had succeeded in isolating France, with whom war still
continued, and had secured for herself a group of allies — the Emperor,
Spain, the Dukes of Brunswick-Liineburg, Brandenburg, and Denmark.

The Prince of Orange was the soul and guiding, spirit of the Coalition.
At the head of an allied army of some 70,000 men, William met Cond^
at Seneff (August 11, 1674), commanding an almost equal force* It was
the first pitched battle in which hie had held supreme command. Both
armies suffered severe losses, and no decisive advantage was gained ; but
the Prince displayed a coolnessy courage, and skill which greatly increased
his military renown. The year 1675 was marked by the despatch of
de.Riiyter with a weak squadron to the Mediterranean, to help the
Spaniards to put down an insurrection in Sicily. The great Admiral
bitterly complained to the States General of the condition of the ships
with which he had been sent to contend with a superior French fleet

0. U. H. V. CH. VII. 11

162 Death of de Buyter. — Louis and William. [levs-T

under Duquesne. Two battles were fought: the first off Stromboli
(April 22), with doubtful issue; the second off Messina a week later,
in which the Dutch were successful, but de Ruyter was wounded severely.
He died shortly afterwards. His was a loss that could not be replaced.
In a subsequent battle at Palermo the Dutch were defeated, and de
Ruyter's successor in command, Vice-Admiral de Haan, killed. In 1676
the States navy regained its laurels by a brilliant victory gained by
a combined Danish-Dutch fleet under Cornelis Tromp (June 11) at
Oland over a superior Swedish force. During the last years of the war
Dutch commerce suffered severely at the hands of the Dunkirk corsairs,
amongst whom Jean Bart made himself famous by his boldness and success.
On land, the war operations went on without any decisive events. In a
battle fought at Montcassel against the Duke of Orleans (April 11, 1677),
in an attempt to relieve St Omer, the allies were defeated, but they
were saved from a rout by the personal efforts of the young commander,
who conducted a masterly retreat. The great qualities of WiUiara III,
as a general, were always most evident in the hour of danger and defeat.

The lack of success attending the efforts of the allies gave added
force to the general desire for peace which was felt in the Netherlands.
The country was suffering severely from the heavy war charges, and
craved relief. Already in the spring of 1676 the French King, fearing
lest England should be induced to join the coalition against him, and
having troubles at home to occupy his attention, had made serious
proposals for peace, and negotiations had been opened at Nymegen. But
it was a long time before the plenipotentiaries met, and still longer
before any basis for a settlement could be arrived at. Meanwhile the
war went on. France was anxious to conclude a separate treaty with
the States, and to obtain this was willing. to make concessions. Public
opinion in the Netherlands was quite prepared to treat separately with
Louis ; but to this the Stadh older was resolutely opposed. He held that
it would be a breach of faith on the part of the States General to make
peace entirely in their own interests, and to leave the allies in the lurch
to whose help they had owed so much in their hour of jeopardy. He
had no faith in the French King's intentions. He had been working
steadily, since the Peace of Westminster had been concluded, to induce
England to join the coalition against . France, and thus to be able to
place an effectual barrier in the path of the ambitions of Louis. To
attain this end had been, from the time of his accession to power, the
chief aim, the pivot of his policy. William's opponents in the Provinces
accused him of love of war and of the glory to be achieved on the field
of battle. The desire for military fame was, it is not to be denied,
a consuming passion with him; but it was not the ruling motive.

It is not too much to say that England occupied in the mind and the
calculations of William III a place of vital interest and concern. He
had no sooner secured the position in the Netherlands which he looked

i6'74-8] William's relations with England. His marriage. 163

upon as his paternal heritage, than his ambition began to busy itself
with the possibilities which the future might have in store for him as the
son of the Princess Royal of England. After his uncles, Charles II and
James Duke of York, only James' two daughters stood between him and
the throne. He was, unless the Duke of York should have a son by his
second marriage, actually the next male of the blood-royal. ThiB fact that
the Duke of York had become a zealous convert to Roman Catholicism had
aroused a strong feeling of aversion from his succession on the part of the
large majority of the English nation, who naturally turned their eyes to
the young Dutch Stadholder, the representative of a race which had
done so much in defence of the Protestant cause. But the relations which
William established with a number of leading English statesmen, and
the part, however, that he took in Court intrigues and parliamentary
struggles during these years will be more appropriately treated else-
where in this volume. He played a difficult and a subtle game, and
he succeeded in gaining his end, chiefly because he knew his own mind
and was not deterred either by failures or by risks from going forward
along the path he had marked out for himself. For his sister's son King
Charles had perhaps as much affection as was to be expected from a man
of his heartless temperament ; but William's influence was not sufficient
to make Charles give up the French connexion, and form, as his nephew
urged and as the majority of the English people wished, an alliance with
the Dutch Republic against Louis. Thus things remained for some
years, but at last in 1676 there came a change. The difficulties with his
Parliament, and his knowledge of the influence his nephew possessed with
the Opposition, led Charles to see the advantage of drawing closer his
relations with him. Already in 1674 there had been proposals for
a marriage between him and his cousin Mary, the eldest daughter of the
Duke of York. But, apart from other reasons, the youth of the Princess
(bom 1662) led to a postponement of the plan. The project, which
had never been dropped, once more revived in 1677. His defeat at
Montcassel had made the Prince feel more strongly than ever the
necessity of securing the support of England in the war, and in the
summer of this year he sent over his friend and trusted confidant Bentinck
on a mission to London. The result was an invitation to William to
pay a personal visit to the English Court, with a view to the conclusion of
the marriage with Mary, and to the establishment of more friendly
political relations. On October 19 the Prince arrived in London, and
shortly afterwards the marriage was concluded which was to have such
far-reaching consequences for the history of England and of Europe.
But even at such a moment in his life William's thoughts were dominated
by politics ; and, when in the beginning of December he and Mary took
ship for Holland, he had won over King Charles to promise his support
to the conditions of peace offered by the allies to France, and his adhesion
to the coalition in case of the rejection. On January 10, 1678, the

CB. VII. 11 — 2

164

Peace negotiations. [i678

treaty between England and the United Provinces giving effect to tiiese
undertakings was signed and sealed. The results, however, did not fulfil
William's' expectations. The dynastic connexion had been viewed with
distrust both by the EngUsh ParUament and by the powerful pea^e
party in Holland, headed by Amsterdam. Indeed, in the Netherlands
the Stadholder found himself confronted by an almost general opposi-
tion to the further prosecution of the war. Not merely were Valckenieit
and Hooft, the two most influential leaders in Amsterdam, against
him; but in the ranks of the Opposition were to be found Fagel,
van Bevemingh and van Beuningen, and even William's young cousin,
Henry Casimir, the Stadholder of Friesland. French diplomacy, mean-
while, was kept well informed of all that was occurring, and took full
advantage of its knowledge in order to bring about that separate peace
which Louis XIV desired.

In the meantime, a vigorous campaign was conducted by the French
armies in the southern Netherlands. Ghent and Ypres fell, and the war
again drew very close to the Dutch frontiers. The dread of another
invasion strengthened the efforts of the peace party. Seizing their ad-
vantage, the French plenipotentiaries at Nymegen addressed themselves
directly to the States General with the offer of favourable conditions; and
on June 1 an armistice of six weeks was concluded. The French offered to
restore Maestricht and the district known as Overmaas to the States, to
conclude an advantageousi treaty of commerce, and to leave the Spanish
Netherlands covered by a line of fortresses. They claimed, however, as
the fruits of the war the incorporation of Franche Comte and suzerainty
over Lorraine. These conditions the States General, in spite of the
opposition of the Stadholder, agreed to accept, and they persuaded
Spain to acquiesce. The Emperor, Brandenburg, and Denmark, however,
refused the terms offered them, and were bitterly incensed at being
deserted. The French plenipotentiaries now suddenly announced that
they would not restore the conquered towns until full restitution for
her losses had been made to Sweden by Denmark and Brandenburg.
This sudden change of attitude led England to declare that, unless
before August 11 the French consented to the immediate restoration of
the towns, she would make common cause with the Republic in re-
opening the war (July 26). The aim of the French in delaying the
conclusion of the treaty had been to gain time for Luxembourg to
^reduce Mons, which he was blockading, by famine, for Spain had not
been included in the armistice, and so to obtain by the possession of so
important a place a more favourable position for negotiating with that
Power. The Prince, who had advanced to relieve the town, waited
anxiously in his camp for the day when the truce should end. The only
fear was that Mons might not be able to hold out. But at the very
last moment, just before midnight on August 10, the French plenijpo;
tentiaries signified to van ?evemingh their intention to sign the treaty

1678-85] Peace of Nymegen. — Opposition to William. 165

with the States on the conditions previously agreed upon; though
difficulties on certain points were raised to delay the signing of the treaty
with Spain. On August 13 news reached William of the signature of the
Treaty on the 10th by van Bevemingh, but not an official intimation.
On the morning of the 14th official information from d'Estrees was
brought to Luxembourg, who was on the point of communicating the fact
to William, when the Prince's advancing army compelled the Marshal
to join battle at St Denys. The issue was undecided ; but it achieved
its purpose of preventing the siurender of Mons. A month later
(September 17) peace with Spain was concluded, at the cost to that
Power of Franche Comt^ and twelve fortresses, and the French armies
evacuated the Spanish Netherlands.

The Peace of Nymegen brought a welcome respite to the Nether-
lands ; but, though it endured for ten years, it was felt to be an armed
truce rather than a permanent settlement of differences. It left Louis
XIV the dictator of Europe. Meanwhile his sleepless adversary in
Holland strove against almost insuperable difficulties to arouse his
countrymen to a sense of the dangers which threatened them, and to
revive the coalition which the conclusion of a separate peace by the
United Provinces at Nymegen had broken in pieces. But the old anti-
Stadholder party had again lifted up its head and offered strenuous
opposition to all schemes and proposals which might lead to a renewal
of war with its heavy imposts and interference with commerce. Of this
opposition Amsterdam was the head and centre, and it had the sup-
port of Henry Casimir, who was jealous of the supremacy of his cousin
in the Republic, the two Provinces of which he was Stadholder, Fries-
land and Groningen, following his lead. The death, in 1680, of Gillis
Valckenier, who had for a decade been the most influential man in
Amsterdam and had induced his fellow-citizens to offer a bitter and
stubborn resistance to William's policy, somewhat relieved the strained
situation. The Amsterdamers, however, continued to be an obstacle in
the Prince's path, though their leaders, Nicolaes Witsen and Johan Hudde,
were not men of the same calibre as Valckenier. WiUiam had also to
contend with the secret intrigues of the experienced French ambassador.
Count d'Avaux, who did his utmost, by threats, promises, and bribery,
to undermine the influence of the Stadholder, and, by fomenting the
divisions and party spirit in the United Provinces, to render them power-
less in the councils of Europe. In the southern Netherlands, Luxemburg
and Alsace^ LoUis was able to pursue his policy of plunder and aggression
unchecked. William's repeated efforts to form an armed alliance which
shoilld compel the French King to adhere to the terms of the Peace of
Nymegen were fruitless., His countrymen were determined to hold
aloof from foreign entanglements, so long as no one interfered with
their thriving trade and rapidly reviving prbsperity.

The events of 1685 were to give a shock to their self-complacency

AH. vu.

166 Accession of James II. — Attitude of William, [lesi-e

and be a lever in the hands of William of which he was not slow to avail
himself. These were the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes, and the
accession to the English throne of James II. Already, from 1681 on-
wards, the persecutions of the Protestants in France had led a constant
stream of refugees to seek shelter in the free Netherlands. But with
the Eevocation of the Edict their number was swelled by tens of
thousands ; and among the refugees were many bf the most industrious
and skilled workmen of France, who were received with open arms by
their fellow-Protestants in Holland, the towns vying with one another
in offering them freedom of settlement and municipal privileges. Great
was the impression produced by the tales that were brought by these
unhappy Huguenots of the character of the Fi-ench King and of his
government; and even in Amsterdam a strong feeling of enmity to Louis
and abhorrence of his methods of rule gained possession of the people.
D'Avaux had to confess that his influence grew less and less, while
that of the Stadholder increased. In August, 1686, William's skilful
and patient diplomacy was able to bring about an alliance between
the Republic, the Emperor, Brandenburg, Spain, and Sweden, for the
maintenance of the treaties of Miinster and Nymegen, and for common
defence. The coalition w£is, however, incomplete, for it did not include
England. In that country the accession of James had been followed by
a deliberate attempt on the part of the new King to set up absolute
rule and to establish Roman Catholicism as the religion of the State.
This necessitated the severance of all connexion with the Protestant
Powers, and a return once more to the policy by which the King of
England depended for support upon the subsidies of a foreign Power
in order to dispense with the necessity of applying to his own Parlia-
ment for money grants. As the feelings of the nation became more and
more outraged by the arbitrary acts of James, those who were deeply
attached to the cause of civil and religious liberty turned their eyes to
the Prince of Orange, who had never ceased to keep himself in close
touch with a number of leading English statesmen. At the same time
public opinion in the States, with its growing enmity to France, could
not remain unmoved by the spectacle of a Romish King in England in
league with Louis for the oppression of his Protestant subjects. The
spectre of 1672 began to loom large in the imagination of the Nether-
landers — the uneasy feeling that the Republic might find itself at any
moment face to face with a combined attack from France and England.
William took full advantage of the change of sentiment to press
forward by negotiations public and private to the realisation of his
unalterable and dominating life-purpose — the welding together of a
coalition against French overlordship in Europe. A man of inflexible
temper and one overmastering idea does not as a rule ingratiate himself
with others. This was eminently the case with William III. Haughty,
cold, domineering, somewhat hai'sh in his manner, he was not a man to

1677-89] William and Mary of Orange. IGT

win popular applause, or an attractive personality. Except to Waldeck
and Bentinck and a few confidants, he never unbosomed himself; he was
to the outside world a riddle, misunderstood and misjudged, as can be
seen by the portrait drawn of him in the memoirs of Constantine
Huyghens, who was for many years his secretary. No one suffered
more from the unamiable qualities of William than his wife. Gentle,
unassuming, sympathetic, deeply and sincerely religious, and filled with
a profound sense of duty, she was rightly regarded by the people
amongst whom by a marriage of state her lot had been cast, as a
model of what a woman, a wife and a princess should be. No Princess
of Orange ever succeeded in winning her way so completely to the
hearts and affections of the Dutch of all classes. And yet for years
her husband treated her with a frigid indifference and neglect, which
it is impossible to excuse. The estrangement between them did not
tend to increase William's popularity, and it caused pain and wonder to
many, among these to Bishop Burnet on his visit to the Hague in 1686.
He spoke to the Prince on the matter, and learnt to his astonishment that
the aversion, for it amoimted to this, arose chiefly from the fact that the
proud, masterful nature of the man could not endure the thought that
one day his wife would be a queen in her own right and that he would
be her subject. No sooner was Mary informed by the Bishop of the
Prince's grievance than she at once sought an interview with her
husband, and told him that she would never consent to accept the Crown
unless Parliament would grant to William the right not merely to the;
regal title but to the administration of the Government. " In return,"
she said, " I only ask this, that, as I shall observe the precept which
enjoins wives to obey their husbands, you will observe that which enjoins
husbands to love their wives." William was deeply touched, and from
that time there was reconciliation between them. Neither of them
can have suspected that within two years Mary would be called upon
to choose between the cause of her husband and her religion and the
ties of filial love. She did not hesitate to follow what she conceived
to be the path of duty. Side by side in Westminster Abbey on
February 21, 1689, William III and Mary II were crowned King and
Queen of England, but it was William who sat upon St Edward's Chair.

168

CHAPTER VIII.
THE , ANGLO-DUTCH WARS.

(1) NAVAL ADMINISTRATION UNDER CHARLES U AND JAMES IL

The history of naval administration between 1660 and 1688 falls
naturally into four periods : — (1) 1660-73, from the appointment of the
Duke of York to the office of Lord High Admiral, to his retirement after
the passing of the Test Act; (2) 1673-9, the first secretaryship of
Samuel Pepys ; (3) 1679-84, the interval of administrative disorder
which followed Pepys', resignation; (4) 1684-8, from the return of the
Duke of York until the Revolution — this period being also that of
Pepys' second secretaryship.

In the navy, as in other departments, the Restoration involved a
reversion to the old order. At the date of the King's return its admini-
strative direction was in the hands of an Admiralty Commission of
twenty-eight, appointed by the Rump Parliament in 1659, with a Navy
Board of seven experts under it. But so early as May 16, before his
landing at Dover, the King had appointed his brother James Lord High
Admiral of England; and on July 2 the existing commissions were
dissolved, and the ancient form of government by four "principal officers"
was restored. With them were associated three " commissioners," and
the "principal officers and commissioners of the navy" were usually known
as the Navy Board. In determining their remuneration, however, the
restored monarchy followed the precedents of the Commonwealth, and
offered an increased stipend in place of the traditional fee with allowances.
Upon the Navy Board of the Restoration experience was largely repre-
sented. Of the seven officials who composed it, four had been used to
the sea, one had an extensive military experience, one came of a family
of shipbuilders, and but one was altogether without knowledge of naval
affairs. This exception, curiously enough, was Samuel Pepys, the Clerk
of the Acts, for his brief tenure of office in 1660 as secretary to the
Generals of the Fleet, could scarcely have equipped him with any special
knowledge of the sea.

1660-73] Causes of administrative failure. 169

The older system of naval administration was thus restored; but
changes of considerable importance were effected in it, both before and
after the Second Dutch War. In 1662 an attempt was made to deal
with a serious abuse by prohibiting officials from trading in commodities
sold to the navy. In 1667 the increase of business caused by the war,
and the administrative confusion which it created, led to a reorganisa-
tion of the Comptroller's office, and the appointment of two assistant
Comptrollers, one for the accounts of the Treasurer, and the other for
the victuallers' and pursers' accounts. Last of all, in 1671, a separate
Comptroller was appointed for the stores, and the Treasurer of the
Navy was brought much more completely under the control of the
Navy Board. Nor did the Government of the Restoration disdain to
learn from its predecessors. In 1662 the practice was taken over from
the Commonwealth of reqtiiring security from pursers ; and in 1664!
resident commissioners were appointed, as during the First Dutch War,
for the dockyards at Portsmouth and Harwich, in addition to ' the com-
missioner assigned at the Restoration to Chatham, the "master-yard of
all the rest." In fact, naval administration during the period of the
Second Dutch War does not entirely deserve the indiscriminate con-
demnation which has been poured upon it. The men were at any rate
experienced in naval affairs, and some of them were men of ability ; they
effected material improvements in the system under which they worked ;
and the system thus improved was sufficiently good to survive without
any fundamental changes until the beginning of the nineteenth century.
Its disastrous failure during the period under rcAdew is to be accounted
for by moral and financial causes, rather than by structural defects.
The higher naval administration, itself not free from corruption, had
to contend with idleness and dishonesty in the lower ranks of the service,
due to a relaxation of the standards of public and private duty ; and
the combination of this with financial disorder ruined the Navy Office
under Charles II, as it would have ruined any other public department
in any country and at any time. When the management of the navy
came to be enquired into in 1668 after the close of the War, it was
found that the Principal Officers had been neglecting to carry out the
instructions of 1662 under which they were supposed to work. The
Treasurer had been remiss in attendance, and his accounts were two years
in arrears ; the Comptroller had neglected a large part of the details of
his office ; and the Surveyor had omitted to report to the Navy Board
on the state of the dockyards, ships and stores. Their defence was that
the business of the War had absorbed their attention ; but we find Pepys
writing : " The pest of this Office has all along been an indifference in
some of the principal members of it in seeing their work done, provided
they found themselves furnished with any tolerable pretence for their
personal failures in the doing it."

Still more important as a cause of disaster was the want of money,

CH. vin.

170 Administrative changes of 1673., [1665-79

the root of all evil in the navy of Charles II. For this the restored
monarchy was not entirely responsible, as it had inherited from the
interregnum navy debts of more than a million and a quarter. Asso-
ciated with this was a want of ready money; and the result was that when
the War with the Dutch broke out, in the spring of 1665, the credit of
the Government had sunk to the lowest ebb. This involved an enormous
waste, for the merchant "resolved to save himself in the uncertainty
of his payment by the greatness of his price " ; while the hardships to
private persons occasioned by delays in payment were almost intolerable.
At the end of the War, the accumulated debt of the navy was estimated
at over a million, at a time when its ordinary charge in time of peace
was to be reduced to ^£"200,000 a year. Measures of retrenchment were
adopted in 1669 ; but so difficult a situation could not be at once
remedied, and it was not until the later years of the Restoration period
that the burden was lightened. In 1686 the arrears had declined to
about £172,000.

When the Test Act in 1673 expelled James, Duke of York, from
office, the King delegated part of the functions of the Lord High Admiral
to a Commission ; but he reserved the Admiralty dues and the patronage
of the office to himself. This retention of powers in the King's hands
was probably intended to give an opportunity to the Duke, who, in
spite of the Test Act, retained until 1679 an important influence in
naval affairs. The Secretary to the new Commission was Samuel Pepys,
now promoted from the office of Clerk of the Acts ; but the changes of
1673 did not interfere with the character of the Navy Board as a body
of experts. Although they now took their orders from the Admiralty
Commission instead of from the Duke of York, the main features of
Admiralty policy were unchanged. It was the work of the new adminis-
tration to bring the Third Dutch War to a close, and then to repair, by
an energetic building programme, that depreciation of the navy which
was one of the results of the War. The Admiralty Commissioners were
sensible and vigilant, and they were remarkably well served by their
Secretary ; while the Navy Board was strong on the technical side of its
work, and was fortunate in numbering among its members an official so
thbroughly capable in his own department as was the great shipbuilder,
Anthony Deane. Moreover, although the financial difficulty was not
removed, and still continued to hamper and cripple the navy in every
possible way, a vigorous building policy was made possible by the better
support which Parliament now gave to naval expansion. The political
classes were beginning to understand and appreciate the importance of
sea-power to England. The Act of 1677 for the construction of thirty
new ships was a striking expression of the new parliamentary interest in
naval problems.

In 1679 the Popish Plot compelled the withdrawal of the Duke of
York and the resignation of Pepys; and the higher administration of the

16V9-88] The Special Commission of 1686. 171

navy passed to a new Admiralty Commission which was almost entirely
without naval experience. They induced the King to surrender into
their hands that part of the functions of the Lord High Admiral's office
which he had hitherto reserved to himself, and then proceeded, un-
checked in their zeal for retrenchment, to destroy the fighting efficiency of
the fleet. " No king," wrote Pepys, " ever did so unaccountable a thing
to oblige his people by, as to dissolve a Commission of the Admiralty
then in his own hand, who best understands the business of the sea of
any prince the world ever had, and things never better done, and put it
into hands which he knew were wholly ignorant thereof, sporting him-
self with their ignorance." The result which followed was inevitable.
The effective force at sea was reduced ; the ships in harbour were
allowed to fall out of repair ; the yards were hopelessly disorganised; and
waste and neglect appeared in every department of the administration.
In partictdar, the thirty new ships built under the Act of 1677 were
allowed to fall into a deplorable state through "the plain omission of the
necessary and ordinary cautions used for the preserving of new-built ships."

In 1684 the King found himself once more in a position to recall his
brother and to restore the old order in the navy. The Test Act still
prevented the Duke from actually holding office, ; so the King resumed
for himself the whole office of Lord High Admiral, executing it with the
advice and assistance of his brother ; and the Duke's recovery of his place
of influence in the navy carried with it the reappointment of Samuel
Pepys to the office of Secretary for the affairs of the Admiralty of
England, now formally constituted for the first time by letters-patent
under the Great Seal.

The important episode of the period 1684-8 is the establishment of
the Special Commission of 1686 — an experiment in organisation for
which Pepys himself was largely responsible. This Commission^ which
superseded for the period of its existence the old Navy Board, consisted
entirely of experts, and included the notable names of Sir John
Narbrough and Sir Anthony Deane, with Sir Phineas Pett as resident
Commissioner for Chatham and Sheemess. They acted under special
instructions, and were charged with the duty of putting the navy into a
state of thorough repair, an annual sum of ,£'400,000 being assigned for
three 'years with that object. The work was finished earlier than was
expected; and in 1688, after two and a half years' tenure of office, the
Special Commission was dissolved, and the system of government by
Principal Officers was restored. Their work was subsequently investigated
by a parliamentary Commission, which reported in 1692 " that the ships
built, rebuilt, and repaired by these commissioners were fully and well
performed, and the buildings £Uid other works by them erected and made
during the continuation of the said Commission were done with great
exactness, sufficiency, and frugality of expense in the managery and
conduct thereof."

172 Defidency of men. [leeo-ss

During the period of naval history which extended from the
Restoration to the Revolution, successive administrations, whether
incompetent or relatively eificient, were alike grievously hampered by
the deficiency of men, both in the dockyards and at sea. This is only
another aspect of the redoubtable financial problem ; for, except during
the years affected by the Plague, the deficiency was largely due to the
failures of the Government in the matter of pay. The state of things
during the Second Dutch War was appalling. We hear of wages fifty-two
months in arrear; and Pepys, by this time a hardened oflicial, writes
down in his Diary pitiable stories of poor seamen starving in the streets
because there is no money to pay them. This reacted upon discipline,
and both seamen and workmen in the yards gave a great deal of trouble
by their disorderly demeanour. At the close of the War the scarcity
of money was such that the dockyard authorities were sometimes com-
pelled to allow their men to go for a time into the employment of private
merchantsj so that they might earn money to enable them to buy bread.
The delays in payment of wages also involved the Government in much
needless expense ; for, in order to avoid the necessity of paying off surplus
men, ships were kept in commission longer than was really required. In
spite of the revival in 1664 of the Commonwealth scheme for the distri-
bution of prize-money, it was difficult to obtain a sufficient number of
men, and the deficiency could only be supplied by a somewhat indiscrimi-
nate use of the press. One result of this was that the material supplied
was often of the poorest kind — " poor patient labouring men and house-
keepers," men lame and palsied, and afterwards "little children and
never at sea before," who could not be suffered "to pester the ship."
So uncertain was the prospect of pay, that English prisoners took service
with the Dutch, and Pepys records that when they came up the Medway
the English tongue could be heard on board their ships. On the out-
break of the Third Dutch War in 1672 the same difficulties recurred,
although in a less aggravated form ; and so late as 1692, in the maturer
reflexions of his retirement, Pepys still places the " length and badness of
the payment of the seaman's wages " first among his "diseoiireigements."

In providing for sick and Wounded seamen the Government of the
Restoration imitated that of the Commonwealth. The Commission of
1664 was framed on the model of the Commission of 1653, and that
of 1672 considerably improved upon it. All the arrangements were
admirable upon paper ; but in this department, as in others, the want of
money prevented their being effectively earned out. It stands, however,
to the credit of the higher naval administration that, when at the close
of the Third Dutch War the temporary Commission of 1672 was dissolved,
its duties were assigned by an Admiralty warrant of 1674 to the
" Chirurgeon-general of his Majesty's navy," so that a permanent
provision was now made for sick and wounded seamen in time of peace.
"Mariners and soldiers maimed in his Majesty's service at sea" were

1660-88] Pay arid pensions. 173

also entitled to relief out of the Chest at Chatham, according to a
regular scale of compensation for the loss of a limb, or for other hurts
" according to the Chirurgeon's discretion."

During the period 1660-88 a good deal was done to place the rates
of pay, and especially of officers' pay, upon a more satisfactory footing.
In 1666 a revised scale of pay was established for flag-officers ; and in
1668 flag-officers who had served in the Second Dutch War received
" pensions " in proportion to the scale of pay on active service. This is
an important landmark in the history of naval organisation. Hitherto
it had been usual to regard officers as appointed for particular services
only, and as possessing no claim upon the Government when these services
had been discharged. The result of this was that, except in time of war,
the field of employment was far too small, and a number of good officers
were thrown upon their own resources. The change now actually effected
was a small one; but, when the Government thus formally recognised the
claim of a particular group of flag-officers to pay in time of peace, a
principle was established which was destined to lead in the long run to
the modem system of continuous employment. In 1674 the same scale
was established for flag-officers who had served in the Third Dutch War;
and the benefits of half-pay were extended to the captains of first- and
second-rates and to the second captains of flag-ships, and, a twelvemonth
later, to commanders of squadrons. , ,

In 1672 another important change was made with regard to pay by
the adoption of the principle of pensions on superannuation by age ; and
in 1673 this was extended to officers wounded in service at sea. In the
same year the principle was further extended so as to include volunteers
" borne by particular order of the Lord High Admiral," and to " the
officers of the land soldiers sei;ving on board any of his Majesty's ships,"
" both as to their own relief in case of wounds, and their widows and
orphans in case of death." Thus the advantages which seamen and
soldiers already enjoyed from the Chest at Chatham were now extended
to officers at the expense of the central Government.

In the wages of seamen the considerable increase which had taken
place under the Commonwealth was maintained. The misfortune of the
"poor seaman" under the later Stewarts was, not that his rate of pay
was insufficient, but that he could not get his money ; or, if he got it at
all, it was in the depreciated paper currency known as the "ticket."
A "ticket" was a certificate from the officers of his ship, issued to
each seaman, specifying the quality a,nd term of his service; and this,
when countersigned by the Navy Board, was the seaman's warrant for
demanding his wages from the Treasurer of the; Navy on shore. The
original purpose of these tickets was to save the necessity of transporting
large sums of money on board ship ; but the want of funds soon made
it the regular practice to discharge all seamen with tickets instead of
money, or with money for part of their time and a ticket for the rest.

OH. vui.

174 Victualling. [166O-88

Theoretically, the ticket should have supplied the seaman with credit
almost up to the full amount of his wages ; but, in practice, the long
waiting and uncertainty of payment caused a great depreciation of
tickets, and this gave rise to discontent among the seamen. In 1667
their grievance attracted attention, and the House of Commoils enquired
into " the buying and selling of tickets." The " infinite great disorder"
of the ticket office also attracted the notice of the Conimissioners of
Public Accounts ; but it was impossible to go behind the reply of the
Navy Board when asked to justify the practice : " We conceive the use
of tickets to be by no other means removable than by a supply of money
in every place, at all times, in readiness where and when... any... occasions
of discharging seamen shall arise."

The arrangements for victualling had always had an important
bearing upon the contentment and efficiency of the seamen. " English-
men," wrote Pepys, " and more especially seamen, love their bellies
above anything else, and therefore it must always be remembered, in
the management of the victualling of the navy, that to make any abate-
ment from them in the quantity or agreeableness of the victuals, is to
discourage and provoke them in the tenderest point, and will sooner
render them disgusted with the King's service than any one other hard-
ship that can be put upon them." But in this department also the want
of money had fatal effects, and contributed more than any other single
cause to the comparative. failure to provide victuals of good quality and
sufficient quantity, promptly delivered whei'e they were required. Before
the Restoration the victualling had been managed by victualling com-
missioners " upon account," the State keeping the business in its own
hands. But the system had little chance of a fair trial, owing to
financial embarrassments; and just before the King's return matters were
as bad as they could well be. The restored Government reverted to the
older system of contract ; but the contractor proved unable to meet the
large demands of the Second Dutch War. Still, no change could well
be made in the system until the Government was in a position to settle
accounts with him. Thus the victuals, though on the whole good in
quality, were deficient in quantity, while the contractor had an excellent
defence in the failure of the State to make payments on account at the
stipulated times. Probably now, as undoubtedly later, the backwardness
of the victualling in turn afiected the scarcity of men, for the sailors
deserted from ships where they could get no food.

The practical breakdown of the victualling system during the spring
and summer of 1665 led to a change in method, and in October of that
year Pepys was appointed Surveyor-general of the victualling, with a
subordinate surveyor in each port to keep the contractor's agents up to
the mark. The result was a slight improvement ; but the new arrange-
ment was only intended to be temporary, and it was abolished at the
conclusion of peace. The victualling during the Third Dutch War was

1660-88] Discipline. 176

managed by five victuallers in partnership ; and these did better on the
whole than a single contractor had done during the earlier War, because
they commanded a larger capital ; although the greatness of the demand
and the scarcity of the payment still caused frequent complaints of their
" dilatoriness." The Admiralty Commission of 1679, supine in other
departments, decided to revolutionise the whole system of the victualling,
and abandoned contract in favour of a state victualling department:
this reversion to the method of the interregnum appears to have resulted
in an improvement in the victualling of the navy.

The period between the Restoration and the Revolution witnessed
various attempts to improve discipline, both in the dockyards and at sea.
The first Articles of War to which the service had been subjected were
issued by the Commonwealth in 1652 ; and upon these the Government
of the Restoration founded a disciplinary statute, passed in 1661. An
Act of 1664 gave the Navy Board authority to punish disturbances or
riots in the yards and the embezzlement of stores and ammunition ; and
their powers against embezzlement were further extended when the expired
Act of 1664 was revived in 1671. An abuse of long standing had been
the taking of merchants' goods in the King's ships, which made it easy
for the officers to sell the King's stores under the pretence that they were
merchandise ; to waste time in the ports which ought to be spent at sea;
so to fill the ship's hold "that they have no room to throw by their
chests and other cumbersome things upon occasion of fight, whereby the
gun-decks are so encumbered that they cannot possibly make so good an
apposition to an enemy as otherwise they might"; and, lastly, to defraud
the custom-house. The abuse was peculiarly difficult to deal with, as the
merchants themselves tempted the captains to violate their instructions
and made it profitable for them to do so; and, although exemplary
punishments were inflicted, the practice was not easily eradicated. Similar
efforts were made, especially during the period 1673-9, to prevent captains
from being absent from their ships without leave ; but the attractions of
London were often too much for them, and, although the King took
" more than ordinary notice " of this kind of delinquency, discipline
continued to be far too lax. In the case of the ordinary seaman this
was partly due to impunctual payment ; but in the higher ranks of the
service it was due mainly to moral causes, and nothing could cure it
but the steady pressure of authority exerted over a long period of time.
It was not a case for heroic remedies, but for the gradual development of
a higher standard of duty ; and, although Pepys did his best, under
Restoration conditions it was impossible that he should succeed. Some
of the trouble appears to have been due to the favour shown by the
restored Government to "gentlemen captains," these "thinking them-
selves above the necessity of obeying orders and conforming themselves
to the rules and discipline of the navy, in reliance upon the protection
secured to them therein through the quality of their friends at Court."

176 Discipline. — Cruns. [leeo-ss

It is curious that in 1677, at a time when complaints against "gentle-
men captains" were frequent, regular provision was first made for
examining candidates for the office of lieutenant in the navy. In the
same year better security was also taken for the appointment of fit
persons to serve as naval chaplains, none being thereafter admitted in
that capaloity unless they were first approved by the Archbishop of
Canterbiu:y or the Bishop of London. In 1687 this duty was transferred
to the Bishop of Durham.

If the reign of James II had lasted longer, it might have been an
epoch of importance in the history of naval discipUne, The King was
a disciplinarian by nature, and he supported Pepys in an energetic
effort made between 1685 and 1688 to put down drunkenness and
debauchery among the captains. The political miscalculations of James II
did not affect the navy ; and imder this aspect the history of his un-
fortunate reign is a record of steady improvement, due to well-du-ected
energy. An impoi:tant new departure was the " establishment about
plate carriage and allowance for captains' tables," carried through by
Pepys and the King in 1686. This unostentatious title covered a serious
attempt to revive discipline in the navy by giving the Admiralty a
ready control over ships on foreign service, and at the same time so to
improve the position of the captains as to put them beyond the reach of
temptations to neglect public duty for private gain. It was clearly laid
down that commanders were not in futm:e to carry passengers or " any
money, bullion, jewels, or other merchandise" without royal warrant;
all orders for the proceeding of ships on any service were to be in
writings a copy being sent to the Secretary to the Admiralty both by
the superior giving the order and the inferior receiving it ; commanders
touching in foreign ports were to send "a particular account of their
proceedings" to the Admiralty ; and at the end of each voyage they were
to send in " a perfect journal thereof." With these additional demands
upon the commanders of ships was associated an increase in their emolu-
ments, taking the form of an extra allowance "for the support of their
tables," and varying from £SQ a year to £250, according to the ship's rate.

Pepys himself had something like a genius for the application of
business principles' to naval administration. His ambition was to
systematise everything by means of a methodical "establishment," and
two of these not already referred to are peculiarly characteristic of
his policy. In 1677 he obtained the adoption of a " solemn, universal,
and unalterable adjustment of the gvmning and manning of the whole
fleet," calculating with infinite labour, precision, and amplitude of detail
the number, weight, and type of guns to be carried by ships of each of
the six rates in "peace," "war abroad," and "war at home" respectively,
together with' the proportion of men required for each ship. In 1686,
with a view to the prevention of waste, he worked out an elaborate
"establishment" for boatswains' and carpenters' stores.

1660-88] Shipbuilding. — Naval progress. 177

The shipbuilding policy of the later Stewarts maintained, if it did
not increase, the strength of the navy inherited from the period of
the interregnum. Excluding fire-ships and yachts, there were 108 ships
on the navy list at the Revolution, as compared with 135 at the Restora-
tion; but the former figure included nine first-rates as against three,
and the fleet of 1688 was strongest in third- and fourth-rates, while
that of 1660 was strongest in fourth- and fifth-rates. The numerical
excess in the Commonwealth navy is more than accounted for by ships
of the two lowest rates. In this period the English builders were
to a certain extent indebted to foreign models. The history of the
yacht in the English navy begins with 1660, when the Mary was pre-
sented to Charles II by the Dutch. In 1663 and 1664 an improvement
in two-decked ships was effected by an adaptation from the French
and the Dutch; and in 1674 Sir Anthony Deane built the Harwich after
the dimensions of a French ship, the Superhe, which came to Spithead
with the French fleet during the Third Dutch War. She was recognised
as a great improvement upon the corresponding English type, and the
Harwich became the pattern for the second- and third-rates built under
the Act of 1677. The English builders also tried cautious experiments
with galleys, in imitation of the Mediterranean Powers.

In dealing with naval history before and after the Restoration,
there has been a tendency among historians to over-emphasise the
contrast between the efficiency of virtue and the incompetence of vice.
That the naval administrators of the Commonwealth were on the
whole more strenuous, upright, and devoted than their successors cannot
be denied ; but there are other factors in the explanation of their success,
which are too often left out of account. The Puritan colonels who con-
trolled the Commonwealth navy had already received a training, through
the Cromwellian army, in the principles of business as applied to war.
The confiscation of Royalist property placed at their disposal funds that
seemed almost unlimited, until the time came when they were exhausted,
and want of money began to create for the revolutionary Govern-
ment precisely the same difficulties which afterwards beset the restored
monarchy. Pepys and his colleagues had none of these advantages, and
the wonder is that without them they achieved so much. They had to
deal with the characteristic vices of the Restoration, exhibited throughout
the service — " the laziness of one, the private business or love of pleasure
in another, want of method in a third, and zeal to the afl'air in the most";
and they were perpetually entangled in the remorseless consequences
of bad finance. Yet, except during the period 1679 to 1684, there
was no abject incompetence, and much was effected from time to time,
at first towards the incorporation of the improvements of the revo-
lutionary period into the permanent system of the navy, and then
in the direction of independent reform. The naval progress of the
period may be perhaps partly attributed to the growing interest of

0. U. H. V. CH. VIII. 12

178 Naval progress. — Dutch and English jealousies, [leeo-ss

the political classes in sea-power, expressing itself at first in parlia-
mentary enquiry into corrupt administration, and then in parliamentary
grants appropriated to shipbuilding and other naval expenditure. But
something must be ascribed to the knowledge and interest in these
matters displayed both by Charles II and James II, and to the. fact
that in this department of affairs the Crown was always on the side
of intelligent policy and vigorous administration. And in Samuel Pepys,
" the right hand of the navy," the last two Stewart Kings had found
a great public servant, who exhibited just those qualities which the
navy required for its regeneration — a sound judgment, orderly business
methods, administrative energy and capacity, shrewdness and tact in
dealing with men, and above all a standard of public duty, which,
in spite of his earlier lapses, derived its character from the period
of Puritan supremacy.

(2) THE WARS (1664-74).

Indisputable as had been the English victory in the First Dutch
War (1652-4), it had not been sufficiently decisive to preclude a renewal
of the struggle, nor had the peace removed its principal causes. While
the naval strength of Holland was weakened but not annihilated, com-
mercial jealousy was embittered by the memories of the conflict. The
Dutch, conscious that their international importance rested above all on
their commerce, were not ready to leave unchallenged England's hardly-
won naval supremacy. Nor had the restoration of the Stewarts improved
the chances of peace. Charles II, while following the Protector in up-
holding the commercial interests of England, did not share the zeal for
Protestantism which had made Cromwell so anxious to end the strife
with the sister Republic. Moreover, the existing Government of the
United Provinces had expelled him from Holland at Cromwell's bidding,
and was identified with the exclusion from power of his relatives of the
House of Orange. Thus it was not on the side of peace that the in-
fiuence of the English Court was likely to be exerted, and the King's
connexion with the mercantile bodies which felt Dutch competition
most keenly, the East India and Royal African Companies, greatly
sti-engthened the advocates of the use of force against commercial rivals.
Almost from the beginning of the reign strained relations prevailed
between England and the United Provinces. The Dutch viewed with
so bitter a jealousy the English occupation of Tangier (January, 1662),
that at one time it seemed likely that Spain and her former provinces
might combine to oppose the establishment of an Enghsh naval station
at this important strategic point. That crisis passed away; but the
ill-will implied by the presence of de Ruyter's squadrpn in the Straits

1662-5] Collisions between Dutch and English. 179

remained. It was in vain that in September, 1662, a treaty was nego-
tiated in which the Provinces showed every disposition to be concihatory,
recognising the Enghsh " right of the flag," and promising to give up
the island of Pularobn. This last concession was never carried out, and
the treaty became a dead letter. Collisions between Dutch and English
traders in the East Indies and West Africa continued to occur — collisions
which, seeing how little control the home governments could exercise
over their representatives! in those distant quarters, it would have been
hard enough to prevent, even if the English Government had genuinely
wished to keep the peace. On both sides complaints were frequent. In
April, 1664, the Royal African Company protested that "the Dutch
leave no stone imtumed to discourage and ruin " their trade ; and in the
same month claims against the Dutch were reported to the House of
Lords for damages amounting to ■£ 800,000, of which the East India
Company demanded i?230,000 and the "traders to Africa " =£330,000.
But before this Charles II had taken a step which made war inevitable.
In October, 1663, he despatched to the Guinea Coast a small squadron
of men-of-war under Major (afterwards Sir) Robert Holmes, to protect
the Royal African Company against the encroachments of the Dutch.
Holmes had instructions to avoid hostilities, if possible ; but, according
to his own narrative of his proceedings, he met with a most unconcilia-
tory reception from the Dutch authorities, who fired upon him when he
attempted to negotiate and stirred up the natives to take part against
hiin. Thus provided with the excuse he wanted. Holmes retaliated
forcibly, capturing most of the Dutch possessions and vessels on the
coast.

Such proceedings, amounting as they did to acts of war, not un-
naturally provoked vigorous protests from the Dutch, and, at the request
of their ambassador. Holmes was thrown into the Tower on his return to
England and subjected to an examination before the Secretaries of State.
However, the Dutch did not confine themselves to seeking redress by
diplomatic means, but paid Charles back in his own coin. They had
at that moment in the Mediterranean a squadron under de Ruy ter,
ostensibly protecting Dutch trade against the Barbary corsairs; and,
when the English Government threatened to treat as a declaration of
war the despatch of Dutch reinforcements to West Africa, de Witt, while
apparently giving way, was able to steal a march on England by using
de Ruyter's ships for the purpose. Appearing on the Guinea Coast in
January, 1665, de Ruyter surprised several English vessels at Goree,
recovered that post and others which Holmes had seized, and captured
several of the English settlements. Thence he crossed to the West
Indies, only to be repulsed from Barbados (April, 1665), after which
he coasted along the American sea-board to Newfoundland, making many
prizes but failing to recover the Dutch settlements on the Hudson,
known as New Amsterdam, These had been captured in the previous

ca, VIII. 12 — 2

180 The outbreak of hostilities. [i664-5

autumn by an expedition under the command of Governor Nicholls of
Massachusetts who had renamed them New York, in honour of the Lord
High Admiral, James, Duke of York. Not till June, 1665, did he turn
homewards ; and long before that date open war had taken the place of
those irregular hostilities which both sides endeavoured to justify under
the name of "reprisals." During the winter of 1664-5 these had been
extended from colonial to European waters by Sir Thomas Allen's attack
on the homeward-bound Dutch Smyrna fleet in the Straits of Gibraltar
(December, 1664). The next step was the seizure of the Dutch ships in
English harbours and the confiscation of their cargoes. In February a
proclamation was issued warning merchant-ships in foreign parts not to
sail home alone for fear of the Dutch, but to wait for other vessels or for
proper convoy. Letters of reprisal were freely issued, and preparations
for war were generally pushed forward. The Dutch for their part spared
no effort to fit out as large a fleet as possible, levying heavy additional
taxes, and raising loans. Their application to Louis XIV for the assist-
ance due from France under the treaty of April, 1662, proved unsuccessful,
as Louis sought to use the opportunity to obtain from them a recognition
of his claims on the Spanish Netherlands, a concession to which they
would not agree. Meanwhile the Commons had voted d&2,500,000 for
the navy (February, 1665), and on March 4 Charles published his
declaration of war.

That the struggle on which England and Holland thus entered
would be of a purely naval character was made sufiiciently certain by
their common military weakness. Neither combatant could hope to achieve
anything on land beyond mere raids on exposed points; systematic
military operations, such as an invasion, were quite out of the question.
Hence the command of the sea was sought, not in order that naval
preponderance might open up a field for the operations of armies, but
to obtain security for the combatant's own commerce, and to inflict as
much injury as possible on the commerce and shipping of the enemy.
In the war of 1652-4 neither side had suspended its commerce, and the
operations had largely consisted of the attack and defence of great
convoys. Now the States-General, recognising the impossibility of success
in the double task of contesting the command of the sea and protecting
their own commerce, issued a proclamation prohibiting all their subjects
from stirring out of any of their ports, in the hope that, if thus relieved
of the duty of protecting merchant-ships, they might concentrate all
their energy and strength on gaining command of the sea by victory
over the enemy's fleet. Fully aware of the great advantages of being the
first to get to sea, each side made every effort to anticipate its enemy ;
but, while Charles had committed a serious imprudence in declaring war
when he was not in a position to strike at once, the defects in the Dutch
administration made their mobilisation even more backward, and, despite
all de Witt's efforts, the Zeeland squadron had not yet managed to join

1665] Battle of Lowestofi. 181

the main fleet in the Texel, when on April 23 the Duke of York appeared
off their coast at the head of over 100 sail. During more than a
fortnight he cruised off the Dutch harbours, capturing their homeward-
bound merchantmen, vainly challenging their fleet to battle. But Obdam,
to whom in de Ruyter's absence the command had been given, would
not come out when a third of his fleet was separated from him and the
enemy held the interior position, and he remained quiet till heavy weather
combined with shortness of provisions to drive the English home (May 15).
Then, having rallied the Zeelanders, Obdam crossed to the English coast,
hoping from reports of their unreadiness to catch his enemy at a dis-
advantage.

However, when on June 1 he appeared off Southwold Bay, to
which the English had moved from the Gunfleet two days before, he
found them ready and eager to engage. The English at once stood out
to sea, and spent all that day and the next in working out to the
eastward, Obdam, who had the wind (S.E.) of them, keeping away and
avoiding action. At daybreak next morning (June 3) the wind shifted
to the S.S.W., thereby giving the English the weather-gage and enabling
them to force on an action. Twice the fleets passed each other on
opposite tacks, exchanging a heavy flre, the English retaining the wind
despite an effort of the Dutch to weather Prince Rupert's squadron, which
led the fleet at the second "pass." Then, by promptly tacking, the fleet
came on to the same course as the Dutch, and bore down to closer
quarters to force the fighting. For some time the battle was very evenly
contested ; and, though the English appear to have throughout manoeuvred
with more skill than the Dutch, they could not altogether avoid some
confusion. Thus James himself seems to have changed places with
Sandwich in order to prevent the Dutch van from stretching ahead and
gaining the wind of the Earl's squadron, which on the port tack was
leading the English fleet. The decisive moment came when Obdam,
endeavouring to close with the Duke's flag-ship, perished in an explosion
which wrecked his ship and was the signal for the rout of the Dutch.
Night and a slackening of the pursuit, due probably to the unauthorised
intervention of one of the Duke's suite, nervous for his master's safety,
prevented the Dutch defeat from becoming a disaster, and enabled them
to find shelter among their shoals. The English had suffered too severely
in spars and rigging (for it was the Dutch practice to fire high so as to
cripple their opponents) to be able to establish a blockade of the Dutch
ports ; but nevertheless the English victory was incontestable. With the
loss of one old ship and about a thousand casualties, they had sunk and
destroyed over a dozen vessels, taken as many more, and inflicted on the
enemy a loss of about 5000 men. The old fault of indiscipline and
insubordination still marred the efficiency of the Dutch, and the English
fleet was in much better order and far smarter and more skilful in
manoeuvring.

CH. VIII.

182 SandwicKs cruise.— The intervention of France. [i665-6

The War had thus opened well for the English; but the subsequent
course of the campaign proved disappointing. The shortcomings of the
victualling department seriously impaired the efficiency of the fleet, and
despite a " hot press " and the embarcation of an unusual number of
landsmen, want of hands proved a great source of trouble. Moreover,
later in the year, the ravages of the Plague greatly increased the diffi-
culties of the Government and the disorders in the administration. Nor
was Sandwich, who had replaced James in the command, conspicuously
successful when at last he did get to sea (July 6). An attempt on some
Dutch East Indiamen in the neutral port of Bergen (August 2) was
repulsed with heavy loss; but more serious than the repulse was the fact
that, while Sandwich was thus out of the way, de Ruyter had reached
home in safety, so that the Dutch secured not only a valuable convoy
and many prizes, but also a commander-in-chief capable of reviving their
drooping courage. He was at once sent off to Bergen to bring home the
Indiamen in i:efuge there, a task he accomplished successfully despite the
efforts of Sandwich to intercept him. A storm which dispersed the Dutch
(September 3) -allowed Sandwich to capture four men-of-war and some
valuable merchantmen ; but they proved a source of more trouble than
profit, as Sandwich seems to have allowed a premature distribution of the
cargoes, a step which gave a handle to his numei-ous enemies, and mainly
accounted for his supersession. Towards the end of October, after the
English fleet had taken up its winter station at the Nore, the Dutch
made an ineffectual demonstration off the Thames ; the English, hard
hit by the ravages of the Plague, were too short of men to accept the
challenge, and, before long, bad weather drove the Dutch home.

Meanwhile (June, 1665) Charles, as has been more fully narrated in
a previous chapter, had secured the aid of Miinster's warlike prelate,
the restless and energetic Bernhard von Galen, who was the more ready
to lead his troops against the ill-guarded eastern frontier of the United
Provinces (September), since on several occasions the Republic had
thwarted his schemes. For war by land the Dutch were but ill-prepared,
and their eastern provinces were speedily oveiTun ; but here the Bishop's
successes came to an end. Charles could send his ally no troops, and the
Dutch could now claim French help against an undeniable aggression.
Louis, anxious lest the recent death of Philip IV of Spain (September 17,
N.S.) might induce England and the Dutch to sink their differences in
order to check his designs on the Spanish Netherlands, was determined to
prolong the war ; and accordingly he despatched 6000 men to support the
Dutch and gave orders to his admiral, the Due de Beaufort, to make
ready to bring the Toulon squadron round to the Atlantic for the
campaign of 1666.

The importance of the intervention of Prance is not to be measured
by the fact that de Beaufort never joined de Ruyter or fired a shot
in action. His squadron was nevertheless the principal cause of the

1666] The division of the fleet. 183

English defeat in the " Four Days' Battle." The strain of the war was
beginning to tell on the ill-managed finances of England, nor was it till
the end of May that Monck and Rupert, the new " Generals at Sea,"
were able to put out; and, even then, they had only some eighty fighting
ships under them, althoughj in order to concentrate all available force
against the principal enemy, it had been found necessary to recall the
squadron under Sir Jeremy Smyth, which had recently taken the Levant
" trade " out to the Mediterranean. Could this squadron have been left
in, the Straits of Gibraltar, it would have held the French at Toulon in
check, and have prevented de Beaufort from joining the Brest ships
under Duquesne or coming to the aid of the Dutch. But, after recalling
Smyth's squadron in order to concentrate, it was an inexcusable blunder
to divide the main fleet by detaching Rupert with twenty of the best
ships to attempt the destruction of the French at BeUeisle. To fix the
responsibility for this blunder is not easy. The evidence on the point is
inadequate and conflicting. On the one hand, in the account which
he gave to the Commons after the war, Monck states most explicitly
that the fleet was divided "by order from above"; and he declares that
he had been surprised by the proposal and had pointed out the risks
which would be incurred. That the final decision as to the movements
of the fleet rested not with the commanders but with the King and
Council seems clear from the language of the State Papers of the period,
while Rupert, in his version of the affair, speaks of "sailing in pursuance
of the orders he had duly received from the Duke of York." According
to Pepys, not an impartial witness against the rival who had superseded
his patron. Sandwich, the step was in the first instance suggested " from
the fleet." Sir William Coventry, the informant on whom he relied, had
an excellent reason for wishing to fix the blame on the admirals, for
according to Monck it was Coventry who had first come to the Nore to
submit the proposal to Monck and Rupert. If the evidence is not
enough to warrant us in definitely ascribing the plan to the Duke of
York, whose secretaiy Coventry was, Monck's seems the more credible of
the two statements.

But whoever was really at fault, the result was disastrous. Barely
had Rupert sailed (May 29) than Monck received orders to move from
the Downs to the Gunfleet ; and, in obeying these, he fell in with the
Dutch between the North Foreland and Dunkirk (June 1). Retreat
would perhaps have been the most prudent course, for the Dutch
had eighty sail to his fifty-four; but many of his fleet were "heavy
sailersj" and even retreat might not have averted a battle. Moreover,
Monck had the wind (S.W.) in his favour, while the Dutch were much
scattered, the majority being far to leeward, and consequently badly
placed for assisting the windwardmpst squadron, Cornells TVomp's, which
Monck hastened to attack with his whole force. Tromp had to cut his
cables and to bear away S.E., while de Ruyter and Evertsen strove to

OH, VUI,

184 The "Four Days' Battle." [leee

come to his help. But, before Monck could reap the fruits of his tactics,
the rapidly shoaling water forced him to tack to escape the sands, and
in standing back to the north-westward he could not avoid engaging the
Dutch centre and rear. Through these he fought his way gallantly, first
standing N.E., then tacking and working back W. "through the body"
of the hostile fleet, after which nightfall ended the engagement. Though
the shoals had intervened to mar the success of his stroke at Tromp,
Monck had given a brilliant example of tactical insight and daring, and
he might fairly claim to have had none the worst of the day. The
flag-ship of the Vice-Admiral of the White, Sir William Berkeley, was
missing, and two or three other vessels had been lost, apparently being
cut off through failing to keep the line ; but the Dutch had suffered as
much damage as they had inflicted, and two at least of their ships had
been sunk or fired.

Next morning (June 2) foimd the indefatigable Monck plying to
windward (S.S.W.) to renew the fight, the precision and order of his
line exciting the admiration of a French eye-witness in the Dutch fleet.
Having gained the wind, thanks to superior manoeuvring and to more
weatherly vessels, he "bore up round on" the enemy, and engaged
" more hotly than before." For some time the English had by no means
the worst of the action, dividing the enemy's fleet, and pressing very
hotly upon " the leewardmost part of them." However, numerical in-
feriority prevented the English from profiting by their superior discipline
and smarter manoeuvring ; and, when about 2 p.m. Monck, making a final
" pass," tacked back to the west, weathering most of the Dutch fleet, and
drew his ships together, he foimd it impossible to continue the contest.
In the course of the day some sixteen sail had reinforced de Ruyter,
while many of Monck's captains had gone off to repair damages without
waiting to obtain permission, so that he was left with less than forty
ships, and these much injured in masts and rigging. Retreat was there-
fore imperative, but it was carried out with order and skill, the sixteen
most effective vessels being formed into a line abreast in the rear to
cover their more crippled consorts, some of the worst of which, Dutch
prizes and other « slugg ships," Monck destroyed there and then. The
Dutch followed the retreating squadron; but, when next morning
(June 8) they attempted to press home the pursuit, they were so hotly
received that they sheered off to a more respectful distance. About
three in the afternoon ships were sighted to the southward, which, to
Monck's relief, soon proved to be Rupert's squadron returning to their
comrades' aid in response to the orders which had reached them at
St Helen's. The course was promptly altered to W.S.W.; but, before
a junction could be effected, several vessels ran on the Galloper Sand,
among them the Prince, the flag-ship of Sir George Ayscue, which, failing
to get off, surrendered somewhat tamely, and was burnt by her captors.
However, though the Dutch detached a squadron to intercept Rupert,

1666] End of the "Four Days' Battle." 185

the attempt failed, and the reunited English stood to the northward to
clear the Galloper, the Dutch standing away to gain the wind (S.S.E.).

Next morning (June 4), the English hastened to renew the engage-
ment, the Dutch lying-to to windward (S.W.) to await the attack, which
was led by Rupert's vessels. As the enemy showed a disinclination to
come to close quarters, the English on the starboard tack bore down
upon them, and forced their way through the Dutch line, with the result
that the Dutch fleet seems to have become divided into two groups, one
to leeward and a larger one to windward, between which the English
"stood backward and forward" several times, exchanging broadsides.
At length, as the English pressed heavily upon the leewardmost group,
the Dutch to windward bore up to their comrades'" aid, thereby allowing
Rupert and several supporters to weather them. But, as Rupert tacked
again, meaning to bear down to help Monck, on whose division the Dutch
were now pressing, some of his damaged masts fell and left him crippled.
Monck, likewise too much disabled to tack, was forced to bear away, and
failed to prevent the capture of two or three of the " lamed ships " in
his rear. The Dutch were, however, in little better plight, and, so soon
as Monck and Rupert had rejoined, " made no further after them," but
stood away homeward, " sis glad to be quit of us as we of them." It was
but a Pyrrhic victory they could claim. Without reckoning several
fire-ships which they had expended, they seem to have lost four or five
ships at least ; and, in view of the English practice of reserving their fire
for close quarters and " levelling most at the hulls," whereas the Dutch
fired high, disabling masts and rigging rather than doing execution
among the crews, it would be unreasonable to put the Dutch casualties
lower than the English, of which latter 3000 killed and wounded, with
1500 prisoners, seems an approximately correct estimate. The twenty
or thirty English ships usually alleged to have been lost or taken come
down, on investigation of the oflicial lists of the fleet before and after
the battle, to ten exclusive of fire-ships. And, if the English discipline
had not been strong enough to prevent the speedy quitting of the action
by some faint-hearted captains, the tenacity and endurance displayed by
most of the vanquished fairly entitles them to a share of the honours.
It was with some justice that the sailors cm-sed the division of the fleet
as the cause of the disaster; they had been outnumbered, not outfought,
and all they asked for was another chance on more equal terms.

Indeed, the real reason for calling the battle a Dutch victory was
that de Witt's strenuous exertions enabled the Dutch to be at sea again
by June 28 (O.S.), three weeks earlier than their rivals. However, they
made little use of this period. The French failed to appear, and without
French aid an invasion could not be contemplated. Their presence on
the English coast does not seem to have very seriously impeded com-
merce ; while, by the time the Dutch put out, " the buoy at the Nore,"
where the fleet was assembling, was "beginning to fill and to look proudly

186 I'he defeat avenged. [1666

again," as disabled ships were refitted, so that an attack on the English
at their moorings would have been hazardous. The chief trouble of the
English commanders was lack of men. The last battle had left the fleet
ill-mannied, and the counter-attraction of privateering proved a serious
competitor. Vigorous pressing supplied quantity rather than quality; and,
though the deficiency was to some extent met by shipping soldiers — an
expedient freely employed by the Dutch — in the end some fifteen vessels of
no particular value were left behind, and their crews distributed through
the fleet. At length, on July 19, the fleet, eighty-eight men-of-war and
seventeen fire-ships, left the Nore, and after managing to pass the Narrows
at one tide reached the Gunfleet (July 22), the Dutch withdrawing
eastward to bring the shelter of their friendly shoals close at hand in case
of defeat. Next day, the English sailed again with the wind at S.S.E.
and stood out through the King's Channel after the Dutch.

Bad weather prevented a battle till the 25th, when daybreak
found the Dutch on the port tack, steering S. by E. with the wind at
N.N.E. As they, though to windward, made no attempt to engage, the
English bore down upon them, Sir Thomas Allen, who led the van,
closing " as soon as he came to the head of the enemies' fleet." The
action speedily became general; and, though the Dutch appear to
have deliberately adopted the "half-moon" formation, which was con-
sidered an efifective method of meeting an enemy attacking in line
ahead, the English "plied them so close that they could not tack on
us." For some hours the battle was evenly contested ; but about 3 p.m.
the Frisian and North Holland squadrons, which formed the van, dis-
organised by the fall of Evertsen and two other flag-officers, gave way in
disorder; whereupon de Ruyter, unable to withstand any longer the
fierce attacks of Monck and Rupert, was forced to follow suit with the
centre. In the rear, where Tromp and the Zeelanders were opposed to
Sir Jeremy Smyth, matters were more even. The Blue, the weakest of
the EngHsh squadrons, included several heavy sailers, which were lagging
behind, and Tromp was able to hold on towards the south, keeping
the wind of Smyth, who, however, held on with him ; so that before long
the rears were completely separated from their main bodies which were
standing away eastward, the Dutch making for home, the English in
pursuit. Fortunately for de Ruyter, who exerted himself most gallantly
to cover his « maimed ships," the wind dropped considerably ; so that the
Dutch, who could sail better in light winds because they drew less water,
were able to keep ahead of their pursuers until, on the evening of the
26th, Monck and Rupert had the mortification of seeing their quarry
gain the shelter of the sand-banks and make their way into the Dearloo
Channel. There remained, however, the hope of intercepting Tromp;
and to this end the commanders anchored where he was likely to pass,
though most of their ships failing to follow this example were carried by the
tide to the leeward. Moreover Smyth, nervous about venturing too near

1666] Blockade of the Dutch coast. — Peace negotiations. 187

the banks, failed to keep very close on Ti'omp, so that the Zeeland
squadron also gaiiied the Wielings and safety (July 27, 0.S.). Yet j though
the Dutch had reason to congratulate themselves on having escaped with
the loss of only five or six sail, their defeat was more decisive than that
of the English in the " Four Days' Battle." Their shattered vessels had
to lie inactive in harbour, powerless to hinder Monck and Rupert, who
continued on the Dutch coast, holding their privateers in check, capturing
many prizes — a vessel taken on August 21 is spoken of as the eighty-
fifth taken since the fleet came out — and inflicting upon Dutch commerce
damage estimated at o£'l,000,000 by destroying the town of Brandaris
on the island of Schelling, together with some himdred-and-sixty
merchantmen lying in the Vlie (August 8).

But England was as incapable of following up on land the successes
which she had gained at sea as was her adversary; and she could no
longer rely on the renunciation of the Bishop of Miinster, who had been
forced to make peace in April, restoring to the Republic all his con-
quests. Lack of provisions at Itength drove the English home ; and the
Dutch, who were still hoping for a junction with de Beaufort, put to sea
about the end of August. Hearing of this, Rupert and Monck hastily
sailed from Southwold Bay (August 30) ; and, though a violent storm
which compelled them to bear away down Channel to St Helen's
(September 2), baulked them of the battle they desired, no junction
was effected, and the Dutch retvumed to the Wielings. By September 13
Rupert was again at sea, and he continued cruising in the Channel till
the end of the month ; while de Beaufort, who had ventured as far as
Dieppe, but was by no means anxious to risk his raw crews in action,
returned to Brest after a very brief stay within the reach of danger.
Once again de Ruyter put out; but again, just as Rupert was on the
point of bringing him to action, an exceptionally violent gale prevented
the fleets from engaging by driving them both to shelter, September 25 ;
and thus operations came to an end on both sides.

By this time both combatants were heartily anxious to end the war.
The hopes which had caused Charles II to embark upon it had been
disappointed. Far from proving lucrative, it was a heavy drain on
financial resoiu-ces already unequal to the requirements of an extravagant
Court, and an ill-managed administration. The Plague, the Great
Fire, disaffection at home, and risings in Scotland, combined, as has
been shown in an earlier chapter, to make peace urgent ; while de Witt,
alarmed by the designs of Louis XIV on the Netherlands, wanted to
be quit of a struggle which was inflicting serious losses on Dutch
commerce and shipping. Hence, when Charles made overtures (October,
1666) they were favourably received; and in May a conference met
at Breda. With peace thus appearing assured, Charles was reluctant
to spend money on preparations for a campaign which might not take
place. Accordingly, instead of restoring the fleet to a war footing

CB. VIII.

188 The Englishjleet laid lip.' — TJie Dutch in the Medway. [i667

by refitting the first- and second-rates which, as was then usual, had
been laid up during the winter, it was decided to send out a few light
squadrons to attack Dutch commerce. For commerce-destroying as a
weapon of the weaker belligerent a fairly plausible case can be made
out ; but its deliberate adoption by the combatant who had till then
certainly had the best of the contest, not merely threw away dearly-
won advantages, but might have entailed utterly disastrous as well as dis-
graceful consequences, had the enemy been able to improve the occasion
properly. Moreover, it seems clear that all the experts were against these
proceedings, not merely Rupert and Monck, but the Duke of York also.
However, Charles was determined to spend no more on the fleet, and the
command of the sea was deliberately allowed to go to the Dutch by default.

It would be easier to treat this misguided step as a mere error of
judgment, if adequate preparations had been made for local defence
of places likely to be attacked, or if the English Government had been
without information as to the movements and intentions of the Dutch.
No such extenuating circumstances can, however, be pleaded. So early as
April it was reported that the Dutch meant to block up the Thames ;
and at the end of the month thirty sail appeared in the Firth of Forth,
and, after demonstrating uselessly against Edinburgh, bombarded Burnt-
island without much more result. But all warnings were neglected, and
on May 9A the King ordered that, to avoid further expense, the third-
rates also should be laid up, and only small parties sent out " to distract
the enemy and to disturb their trade." Orders were also issued for
putting the various ports into a state of defence ; but, as the Council
declined to provide any money, " the peace being as good as made," the
orders remained a dead letter.

De Witt was not the man " to be registered to posterity as casting
away arms of offence and defence while in treaty with armed and active
enemies"; and he eagerly grasped the chance of carrying out a project he
had for some time entertained of attacking the English in their harbours.
Early in June some sixty-six sail left Holland on this errand, and by
7 p.m. on the 10th the half-finished works at Sheemess were in de
Ruyter's hands, and all was uproar and panic at Chatham. Monck,
hastening to the scene of danger, did all that one man could accomplish;
but the fatuous negligence of the Council had made effective measures of
resistance impossible : guns, ammunition, stores of every kind were lack-
ing, and he was none too well supported by the dockyard officials. All
in vain ships were sunk to block the passage of the Medway, and so
cover the vessels lying unmanned and unfitted in Gillingham Reach.
June la saw the humiliating results of Charles IPs policy. Not only
were the triumphant Dutch able to inflict on their impotent adversaries
a loss far heavier than that suffered in the " Four Days' Battle," sixteen
vessels in all being taken, burnt or scuttled by the defendei-s, among
them the famous Royal Charles and three other vessels of almost equal
strength; but these losses were as nothing in comparison with the

1667] The Peace of Breda. 189

disgrace and ignominy thus gratuitously incurred. The King's reluctance
to spend money on national defence was the sole cause of a humiliation
which might easily have been averted. In the previous autumn there
had been murmurs enough against the inadequate protection given
against privateers, and men had remembered how " in Oliver's time there
was better care taken to secure the coasts than now"; thus the exploits
of the Dutch in the Medway throw a lurid light on the Stewart
conception of the duty of national defence.

To the general relief, the Dutch proved unable to follow up the blow
they had given. Retiring to the Nore (June 16) they remained inactive
during all the next fortnight, merely hindering trade by their presence
at the mouth of the Thames. Now at last something was done to put
the coasts and forts into a proper state of preparation. Everywhere the
militia were called out. Rupert hurried down to Woolwich to erect
defences such as would prevent the Dutch from coming up the Thames to
London ; and, though exasperation and indignation with the Government
for its culpable negligence were universal, men flocked to arms. Early in
July the Dutch at last bestiiTed themselves to assault Landguard Fort ;
but they were repulsed with loss, and some troops whom they landed at
Felixstowe as a diversion were so warmly received by the local militia
that they "had much ado to keep themselves from disorder when re-
embarking." Equal unsuccess attended a squadron which was sent down
Channel to intercept the home-coming "Straits fleet." The prey got
safely into Dartmouth, which de Ruyter found too well prepared for him to
venture on an attack ; and, meanwhile, the ships he had left in the Thames
had been assailed by fire-ships and other small vessels under Sir Edward
Spragg (July 24), and had been forced to retire seawards. But the blow
at the Medway had done its work : the English negotiators had had to
abate their demands, and on July 26 official news was received that
peace had been concluded on the 21st. By its terms the Dutch i-etained
Pularoon and Lord Willoughby of Parham's settlement at Surinam
which they had just captured (March, 1667) ; the Navigation Act was
also somewhat modified in their favour, and the commercial treaty of
1662 was reaffirmed. But they had to recognise that "right of the
flag," which had been so long a cause of contention, and also to leave
New Amsterdam in English hands, thereby losing their foothold in North
America. Simultaneously England and France made mutual restoration
of their conquests in the West Indies, England also evacuating Nova
Scotia, which she had conquered in 1654.

That after the Dutch raid on the Medway England should have
obtained such favourable terms is largely to be ascribed to de Witt's
moderation, and to his anxiety not to estrange England in the face of
the growing danger from Louis XIV. But the United Provinces had
little to gain by continuing operations. The events of July had shown
little prospect of repeating the Chatham success, and their command of

190 The development of tactics. [i665-7

the sea rested on the somewhat doubtful title of the deliberate neglect of
the English to contest it. Heid Charles listened to reason and put; his:
fleet on a war footing in 1667, he might have obtained very favourable
terms. Up to the end of 1666 the balance of advantage had certainly'
lain with the English, well as de Ruyter had done. Many of the Dutch
captains were still, as in 1652-4, indifferent fighting men, and the
efficiferidy of the Dutch fleet had been gravely marred by the old fault of
indiscipline, exhibited at times by subordinate flag-officers such as Tromp
and van Nes, no less than by disobedient captains and mutinous crews.
On the other hand, while it cannot be denied that the service suffered
not a little through faction and the rivalries of the different commanders
and their followers, as has been seen the licence and low moral standards
of the Restoration period had not yet altogether corrupted the English
navy. Certainly in tactics and the handling of fleets the English
were superior to their enemy. In Myngs, Lawson, Penn, Allen and
many others, the English navy possessed capable and accomplished sub-
ordinates ; and, while James acquitted himself creditably enough at
Southwold Bay, it is certainly unfair to dismiss Rupert as a mere cavalry
officer at sea. Monck too, whatever his shortcomings on the seaman's side of
the admiral's art, was anything but an amateur in tactics. Indeed, there
seem to be good grounds for attributing to him a very important share in
the introduction of the new system of tactics, the development of which can
be traced in the Fighting Instructions of the period. These show clearly
that the close-hauled line ahead was a purely English innovation,
adopted because it admitted of the full utilisation of the gun-power on
which the English principally relied. Whatever the exact stage in its
evolution reached iii the First Dutch War, in the Second it may certainly
be regarded as the established English formation; and the detailed
accounts of the battles of 1665 and 1666 certainly leave the conviction,
not only that the greater skill with which the English manoeuvred
was the result of familiarity with this formation and of constant
practice, but that, notwithstanding any opposite impressions based on
Pepys' famous report of his conversation with Sir William Penn after
the "Four Days' Battle," instead of the English having learnt the line-
ahead from the Dutch, it was the Dutch who strove to imitate the
English formation— not always with much success. "Nothing," wrote
the French eye-witness of Monck's attack on June 2j 1666, "equals the
beautiful order of the English at sea. Never was a line drawn straighter
than that drawn by their ships. They fight like a line of cavalry
handled according to rule." It is only the blunder ' which exposed
Monck to greatly superior forces in the "Four Days' Battle," and
the criminal folly which brought about the humiliation of June, 1667,
that prevent us from looking on the Second Dutch War as a period of
naval success ; and for these errors neither the navy nor its commanders
can reasonably be held responsible.

i668-'72] TheTreatyof Dover.— The Third Dutch War. 191

That there were Englishmen who shared de Witt's fears of Louis was
proved by the next phase in the relations of England and Holland, the
Triple Alliance of 1668. But Temple and his supporters were powerless
to secure the permanence of an alliance which rested on no secure basis ;
and, so far as Charles was concerned, his assent to the alliance was a
piece of the grossest insincerity and political treachery. In the country
at large the sense of the danger from France which threatened both
England and the United Provinces was not yet strong enough to outweigh
the commercial jealousy of the Dutch, which had not at all diminished,
and the desire to vindicate the honour of the English arms by avenging
the raid on the Medway. Even Buckingham and Shaftesbury, who were
not in the full secret of the Treaty of Dover, were well disposed to the
French alliance as a return to the policy of the Protectorate, and a
guarantee for the adequate humiliation of the detested Hollanders.

Once the Treaty of Dover had been concluded, the outbreak of
hostilities was only a question of time. In vain de Witt sought to
conciliate Charles. His evident desire for peace was interpreted as a
proof of weakness ; and the only result was that Charles, having failed to
goad the Dutch into some act which he might treat as a provocation,
opened the game by attacking (March IS, 1672) the Dutch Smyrna
fleet on its homeward way up Channel. The attack, delivered without any
warning, not to speak of a declaration of war, was not merely a breach of
international decencies, but a discreditable failure, for the force employed
proved insufficient to overcome the convoy's escort, and most of the ships
escaped capture. Four days later (March 17) England declared war.

The conditions under which the Third Dutch War was fought
differed appreciably from those of the Second, since the combatants
sought to gain the command of the sea, not merely in order to protect
their own commerce and to destroy or drive off the enemy's mercantile
marine, but also with the intention of bringing their maritime operations
to bear directly on the course of the War by land. The English army
was stiU in its infancy; but by 1672 Charles had managed to raise forces
in England and Scotland quite large enough to have effected something
decisive, could they have been landed on the Dutch coast so as to
combine with the successful advance of Louis against the eastern frontier
of the Republic. The victories of June 1665 and July 1666 had been
barren of results, because the victors could not follow up their naval
successes by carrying the war into the enemy's country. If beaten at
sea now, the Dutch would be exposed to a danger even more serious
than the paralysis of their commerce.

Once again Charles had rushed into war before his forces were ready ;
and the imprudence might have cost him dear, had de Witt been able to
get his ships out in time to prevent the Duke of York, who had resumed the
command — for Monck's death (1670) had removed his principal rival —
from joining his French allies undisturbed. But the usual inefficiency of

192 The battle of Soutktvold Bay. [i672

the over-decentralised Dutch naval administration disappointed de Witt's
hopes of repeating the raid of 1667. The Zeeland squadron was late,
and when at last de Ruyter with seventy-five ships appeared at the
entrance to the Thames (May 5), the English were already on their way
down the Channel to meet the French. The junction took place at
Portsmouth on May 7; and the two fleets promptly set sail eastward
to bring the Dutch to action. Together they mustered rather over
ninety sail, excluding fire-ships, the French supplying about a third of
the force.

Contrary winds so much impeded progress that it was not till
May 17 that the allies were off the North Foreland ; and by that date
their water supplies were running short. Accordingly it was decided
to make for Southwold Bay, where they cast anchor on May 22, having
on the way fallen in with the Dutch (May 20), though bad weather had
prevented an action. It does not say much for the English administration
that the watering and provisioning should still have been incomplete six
days later, when, in the early morning of May 28, a scout brought the
news that the Dutch were standing into the bay before an easterly
breeze. Their adversaries appear to have been somewhat unprepared, for,
though they promptly weighed anchor and stood out to sea, the move-
ment was executed in some disorder, the English standing northward,
the French going out on the other tack to the S.S.E. and thus becoming
completely separated from their allies. Moreover, those English ships which
had been lying to leeward, nearer the shore, found it impossible to work out
to join the vessels to windward, which, being for the most part flag-ships
or other heavy vessels, could not bear down to rejoin their consorts
for fear of the shoals. Thus the line was never properly formed ; and,-
when de Ruyter, leaving the Zeeland squadron to "contain" the French,
bore down "like a torrent" on the English with the rest of his fleet,
the windwardmost ships came in for some severe treatment. For nearly
three hours the English stood northward, closely engaged, till about
11 a.m. Jordan, who was leading the Blue squadron, managed to get
ahead of the Dutch van, and tacking gained the wind. Sandwich being
" deep in the enemies' fleet " was unable to follow, but his rear-admiral,
Kempthorne, was more fortunate, weathering the enemy and forcing
them to tack and stand south. He then endeavoured to succour
his commander, now closely beset by fire-ships, three of which he
repulsed before a fourth succeeded in setting fire to the Royal James,
with fatal results to the ship and to Sandwich himself. About the
same time the Duke of York, who had shifted from the disabled
Prince to the St Michael, had to tack to avoid the Red Sand;
but, as the wind was too light to clear the smoke away, his action
was not at first perceived by the bulk of his squadron ; nor was it till
about 2 p.m. that Harman and Spragg discovered what he had done
and followed suit. By this time both fleets had lost their formation and

16'72] Remits of Southwold Bay. 193

had fallen into several groups, all standing southward towards the French
and the Zeelanders. James, who was hotly engaged, had some Dutch to
leeward, but a larger body, including de Ruyter, to windward. Jordan
and Kempthome were on de Ruyter's weather-quarter, pressing hard on
him, Harman and Spragg coming up from astern. For some hours the
action continued ; the St Michael was in turn disabled, so that when
Spragg came up James shifted to his flag-ship, the London; but the
English pressed so hotly on the leeward group of Dutch that, about
8 p.m., they bore away, whereupon de Ruyter also disengaged and made
oflF, eventually rallying the Zeeland squadron, and all standing away for
the Dutch coast.

During the night James stood after the Dutch, though with only
some thirty ships in company. At daybreak the enemy, seeing his
weakness, tacked back to the westward to engage him, but promptly
resumed their retreat on the appearance of the French and the Blue
squadron. The allies, now reunited and having the wind, stood after
the Dutch who were now to the southward. However, just as the English
van had come level with the leading Dutch ships and were about to
bear down on them in obedience to the Duke's signal, a sudden fog
prevented an engagement; and, when it cleared, the allies, finding the
Zeeland banks in dangerous proximity, tacked and stood away home,
the Dutch also seeking the shelter of their harbours.

Inasmuch as de Ruyter had so far crippled the allies that they had
to return home to refit, and that therefore the invasion had to be post-
poned, Southwold Bay was strategically a Dutch victory. Tactically,
however, it was a draw, if not slightly in favour of the allies. De Ruyter
had caught them at a disadvantage, and in spite of his inferiority in
numbers had at first had the best of the fight ; but in the end it was he
who had been forced to disengage, and the care with which for the rest
of the season he avoided another action suggests the inference that his
losses had been so heavy that he did not care to risk repeating them.
Certainly he left two prizes in English hands, and apparently one or
more of his ships were sunk. Seeing how lightly the French had been
engaged, it is a little hard to believe the story that they lost two ships ;
and, while the English crews suffered severely, having 700 killed and
about twice as many wounded, with several hundred prisoners, the Royal
James was the only ship lost, two others of the Blue squadron which
fell into Dutch hands having been retaken by their crews. To avert
defeat was, however, sufficient for de Ruyter. At that critical juncture in
Dutch affairs there was little to gain by running risks; and it was
enough that, when in July the allies reappeared on the coast, de Ruyter,
by maintaining his fleet in watchful readiness and by utilising fully
those friendly sand-banks which had so often proved the salvation of the
Dutch, prevented the threatened landing. Early in August a storm
and shortage of provisions drove the allies to their ports, with which

C. JU. H. V. CH, Vill, 13

194 Battles off the Schoonveldt. [1672-3

the major operations of the year ended, the French returning home
(September 19, 1672, O.S.).

Before the next campaign opened, the passage of the Test Act had
deprived James of the command, and his place was taken by his cousin
Rupert. The choice was probably the best possible, though Rupert
had the reputation of being "unlucky"; but it was bitterly resented
by Spragg, now Admiral of the Blue, who seems to have hoped for
the command, and whose Journal reflects his keen disappointment.
As before, the best chance for the Dutch was to deal a blow at one
of the hostile fleets before its ally could join it, and in April de Ruyter
crossed to the Thames with this object. But Rupert was ready for hini;
and he therefore put back to rally the unready Zeeland squadron,
so that Rupert was able to join d'Estrees and the French at Rye
unhindered (May 14!, O.S.). This junction effected, the allies' next aim
was to bring de Ruyter to action, or, if he refused to fight, to blockade
the Dutch ports and so cover the transport to Holland of the troops
which were collecting at Yarmouth. On May 23 they were off" the
Schoonveldt, where the Dutch were lying. Having only sixty ships to
oppose to eighty, de Ruyter showed no haste to give battle ; so a council
of war decided (May 27) to send in the lighter vessels as a "forlorn"
to force him out. However, the Dutch did not wait to be forced and
speedily engaged (May 28). From noon till dark the two fleets stood
backwards and forwards along the coast, first standing N.W. and then
tacking and working back to the S.E., the Dutch hugging the shore so
that the English, though they had the wind (W.S.W.), could not close
for fear of the shoals. Thus, though Rupert in the van pressed so
hard on his opponents that the Dutch were " cut asunder," he had not
sea-room enough to profit by his advantage, while Spragg put the
Zeelanders to flight only to find himself to leeward of de Ruyter, as the
latter stood back south, and consequently in some peril. About night-
fall, finding his fleet in five fathoms, Rupert decided to disengage and
bear away from so dangerous a place, the action thus ending with about
equal losses on both sides, the Dutch having one ship taken, the English
two disabled and three fire-ships expended. During the next week the allies
cruised oft' the Schoonveldt, refitting under much greater disadvantages
than the Dutch, who had the resources of their ports within easy reach.
On June 4 (O.S.) de Ruyter, having a strong N.E. wind in his favour, took
the oflfensive. The allies stood N.N.W., keeping as near the wind as
possible, Spragg leading and trying to stretch ahead and weather the
Dutch. This, however, he could not achieve; and at last the Dutch bore
down and engaged at some little distance, as usual directing their fire at
the English masts and rigging. Rupert vainly endeavoured to get to a
decisive range ; and, as the sea was too high for the English to use their
lower-deck guns, the action proved as inconclusive as its predecessor.
During the night the Dutch tacked and stood away S.E., pursued by

1673] JDe Ruyter and Rupert. 196

the allies till about 6 a.m., when Rupert, seeing that the sands would
shelter the enemy before he could overtake them, abandoned the chase.
A return home was now unavoidable. He had not lost any ships ; but
many of his vessels had been badly damaged, and he was short of men,
supplies and provisions, for the fleet had been " merely huddled out "
without being properly found or equipped, and the deficiencies had not
since been made good.

Thus, instead of covering the projected landing, the allies had to
relieve the Dutch coast of their presence for nearly six weeks at the best
season of the year. For this the blame must rest on an administration
which, despite all the energy and vigilance of Pepys, could not escape
the prevalent failings of the Restoration. In vain Rupert sought to
hasten the refitting ; men and materials alike were lacking ; and, though
2000 soldiers were embarked, it was not till July 17 (O.S.) that the repairs
were sufiiciently complete to let Rupert leave the Nore with some ninety
fighting ships, thirty of which were French. On the 24th he was off the
Schoonveldt, trying to draw de Ruyter out and force him to fight. But
though the Dutch put out (July 22), keeping with the allies as they
made northward, Rupert could not bring on the desired battle. No
sooner did he, thinking he had " drilled them a pretty distance," tack
and stand down to engage, than a shift of the wind gave the Dutch the
weather-gage and enabled them to regain "their old sanctuary," the
Schoonveldt. Into "that hole" Rupert would not follow them, and,
adopting the plan previously arranged, he stood away for the Texel.

The scheme proved efficacious ; only by keeping touch with the allied
fleets could de Ruyter prevent the landing of the troops from Yarmouth.
It would not have been enough to keep his fleet "in being" in harbour;
moreover, the East India fleet was due home, and he could not let that
valuable prize fall into Rupert's clutches. Thus on August 10 Rupert
had the satisfaction of seeing his enemy to leeward. He " bore down
at a great pace " upon them, but the Dutch would not fight at a dis-
advantage, and kept away till nightfall. During the night a shift of
wind to the S.E. put de Ruyter to windward, and enabled him to engage
on his own terms (August 11). Calculating on the disinclination to get
to close quarters which the French had continually displayed^ he deter-
mined to contain the allied van, formed by their thirty sail, with part of
the Zeeland squadron, whereby he was able to engage the sixty ships of
Rupert and Spragg with practically equal numbers. The battle, which
began about nine o'clock, speedily resolved itself into three separate
engagements ; in the van, d'Estrees, much to the dissatisfaction of his
rear-admiral, de Martel, allowed Bankaert's few ships to hold him in
check, and never attempted to close; in the centre, Rupert and de
Ruyter stood along together to the S.W., very hotly engaged ; astern
of them, Spragg, in deliberate disobedience of Rupert's orders, backed
his topsails to allow Tromp, who was a little astern, to come up with

CH. VIII. 13 — 2

196 Battle off the Texel. [i673

him, whereby the whole Blue squadron fell far behind the body of the
fleet. Tromp concentrated his attack on Spragg's flag-ship, and the
Royal Prince was speedily disabled and forced out of the line, Lord
Ossory, Spragg's rear-admiral, taking his place. About midday,, the
wind suddenly shifted to the S.W., which gaye the allies the weather-
gage, and deprived d'Estrees of his last excuse for not falling on the
detachment which was containing him. However, he stood away to the
S.E. and allowed Bankaert to bear up and actually pass through the
rear of the French fleet on his way to join de B,uyter against Rupert.
The Commander-in-Chief was thus very hard beset, having de Ruyter on
his lee q.uarter, and the Zeelanders to windward of him, while his rear-
admiral, Sir John Chicheley, who had fallen to leeward badly damaged,
was cut off' from the rest of the Red squadron and was in some peril, till
Rupert, pressing hard on the Dutch to leeward of him and forcipg them
to bear away, brought him relief. After this there followed a lull in the
action ; and Rupert perceiving the Blue squadron some leagues to leeward
decided to bear down and rejoin it. De Ruyter conformed tio the move,
and the two centres ran down parallel, within range of each other but
without firing. It was just as well that Rupert made the move. Spragg
had had a second flag-ship disabled, and in shifting to the Royal Charles
his boat was sunk and he himself drowned. Tromp then pressed hotly
on the Prince and other cripples, which were with difficulty protected by
Lord Ossory and a few supporters, who had forced Tromp to sheer o£F
when de Ruyter drew near, "bearing down with all the sail he could
to make himself master of our lamed ships." Meanwhile, Rupert was
making strenuous endeavours to induce certain vessels of the Blue and
Red, which were lying inactive to windward, to take their places in his
wake, Failing to do this, he pushed on and, interposing between
de Ruyter and the cripples, renewed the action very sharply. Had the
Fi-ench, who by this time had tacked find followed the Red, only obeyed
Rupert's repeated signals and borne down upon the enemy, the action
would probably have ended in a victory for the allies. " I must have
routed them," Rupert wrote ; " it was tibe greatest and plainest oppor-
tunity ever lost at sea." And the justice of his bitter complaints is
admitted by, de Martel.

Nightfall at length, parted the exhausted combatants, Rupert stand-
ing to sea under easy sail so as to caiTy off' the disabled ships,' and the
Dutch making for their own coast. Desperate as the fighting had been,
the only vessels lost were fire-ships and other small craft ; and, in spite
of his losses in officers and men and the injuries his ships had received,
Rupert had no intention of acknowledging defeat by quitting, the coast
He was furious at the conduct of the French, and some of his own captains
had behaved in a manner with, which he was strongly dissatisfied. But
the bad weather which followed almost immediately after the action, and
before damages could be repaired, forced him home (August 18, O.S.).

1673-4] The end of the War. — Treaty of London. 197

The season was now so far advanced that all thoughts of a descent upon
Holland had to be laid aside; the camp at Yarmouth was broken up
(September 1), and a little later the French departed for their own ports.

By this time not only were the relations between the French and
English fleets, admirals, oflScers and men alike, strained almost to break-
ing point, but the nation was heartily sick of the war; and the "dissatis-
faction at this conjunction with the French" was so great that "the
general speech in the City " was that " unless this alliance with France
be broken the nation will be ruined." National hostility to commercial
rivals was being obliterated by the rising tide of antipathy to France, in
which men saw the chaippion of the Roman Catholicism which they
dreaded. It was felt that English sailors were being sacrificed to fight
the battles of Louis ; and, when Parliamient met in October, it was all
but unanimous in its determination to bring the War to an end. Charles
was the more disposed to yield to its importunity, because the revolution
in Holland which had overthrown de Witt and had supplanted him by
the Prince of Orange had involved him in an attempt to ruin his own
nephew. The Dutch, eagerly grasping a chance of reducing the odds
against them, were ready to grant favourable terms, acknowledging fully
the " right of the flag " and restoring New York, which they had taken
in the previous July.

Thus on February 9, 1674 (O.S.), the Treaty of London ended a war
in which the honours certainly rested with the Dutch, and more especially
with de Ruyter. Nothing is more remarkable than the improvement in
tone, discipline, skill, and all-round efficiency displayed by the Dutch
navy in the Third Dutch War, the fruit very largely of the stringent
measures of reform taken by de Witt and de Ruyter after the Peace
of Breda. The Dutch had fought in a manner worthy of the best days
of their race ; they had realised the imminent peril of their country, and
had ably seconded their great leader's brilliant combination of offence
and defence, of vigorous attack and skilful avoidance of imequal combats.
That even de Ruyter's great skiU would have averted defeat if the French
had cooperated cordially it would be bold to affirm. Rupert might
fairly claim that, had d'Estrees played his part properly, the battle of the
Texel would have had a very different result ; and certainly he had no
cause to feel ashamed of his own share in the war. Spragg's sweeping
criticisms of his commander are the jealous words of a disappointed
rival, and Rupert had had to contend against an untrustworthy ally, a
defective administration, constant shortness of money, and a jealous and
disobedient subordinate, whose conduct was typical of the insubordination
and indiscipline which were gaining ground in the fleet. The Restora-
tion standard of conduct was making itself felt. The tone of the Court
could not but affect the navy; and the failures and other unsatisfactory
features of the Third Dutch War were the inevitable result of the King's
example.

CB. vui.

198

CHAPTER IX.

THE POLICY OF CHARLES H AND JAMES H.
(1667-87.)

Clarendon's dismissal was Charles' opportunity, and he proceeded to
take advantage of it with all the speed compatible with the caution of
a far-seeing calculator whose immediate future, even at crises appalling
to the most daring of his followers, was invariably pledged to his
personal pleasure, and with the leisurely readjustment that attends transi-
tions in great affairs. Clarendon was succeeded by the famous Cabal
— Sir Thomas Clifford, Lord Arlington, the Duke of Buckingham,
Lord Ashley, and the Earl of Lauderdale — the initials of whose names
gave notoriety and permanence to a word already in common use. They
formed a Ministry containing two of the cleverest and two of the most
capable men in all England; but, despite their varied talents, they never
enjoyed the complete confidence of the King and never acquired an
influence over his policy Comparable to that enjoyed by the late
Chancellor. Less than eighteen months after Clarendon's fall, Charles
wrote to his sister, Henrietta of Orleans: "One thing I desire you to
take as much as you can out of the King of France's head, that my
ministers are anything but what I will have them... whatsoever opinion
my ministers had been of, I would and do always follow my own judge-
ment, and, if they take any other measures than that, they will see
themselves mistaken in the end." Widely as the aims of the two men
differed and widely as their characters differed in almost every other
respect, Charles II may be compared to his nephew William of Orange,
in the uncommon tenacity with which he pursued his object. That he
was, when he chose, an excellent man of business, his Ministers were well
aware ; that he was among the most adroit men of his age his friends
and enemies, both politicians of England and the able diplomatists of
France, had;ample experience; but that, in power of projecting a great
scheme and maintaining it in the face of almost unexampled difficulties
and dangers, in coolness of judgment and in keenness of foresight he
deserved to be classed among statesmen of the first rank, only the history
of eighteen years could show.

1667] Charles' policy, home and foreign. 199

The policy of Clarendon at home had been a severely Anglican
royalism of the old style. In foreign affairs he had at the beginning of
the reign been regarded by Mazarin as consistently opposed to French
interests ; and, although there had of late years been more ground for
the popular belief that he was on the contrary their active promoter, he
had desired peace with the Dutch, had dreamed of an alliance between
England, Sweden, and Spain, and claimed to have prepared the way for
the Triple Alliance to oppose the encroachments of Louis XIV on the
territory of the Spanish monarchy. From Clarendon's retirement to the
end of the reign, the cardinal point in Charles' policy was dependence on
France: not however the submissive dependence of servility, but depend-
ence on support and supplies extorted by himself and used to free him
from servitude to the Church of England, either by the destruction of her
privileges or by compelling her enlistment in the service of the Crown.
Even when under Danby's Ministry the Court returned to a policy
resembling that of Clarendon, its intention was not to secure the
supremacy of the Church, but at the price of the political annihilation
of her adversaries, to buy her blind and perpetual support for the Crown.
The position of the Crown in the State was the constant object of
Charles' undertakings : his involved intrigues in aifairs both at home and
abroad were only the means to assure it.

The first field in which the influence of Charles' government was
decisively exerted on continental politics was the Low Countries. On
July 31, 1667, the Treaty of Breda was signed. Six weeks earlier, Louis
had declared what became known as the War of Devolution against
Spain, and had poured a large and well-equipped army under Turenne
into the Spanish Netherlands. On June 2 Charleroi was taken; and
before the end of August Toumay, Douay, Courtray, and Lille were in
French hands and the greater part of Flanders was occupied. The inten-
tion of Louis to make good the claim which he had openly abandoned to
the property, if not the title, of the Spanish throne was thus revealed to
the world with startling abruptness. To the Dutch the opening of the
Scheldt, which it clearly forecast, meant the rise of Antwerp and the
corresponding decline of Amsterdam; to the English it dimly fore-
shadowed the extension of Louis' system — ^the systeni of Catholic
absolutism — over practically the whole of civilised Europe. Far-seeing
ininds could perhaps perceive that the curtain had been rung up on
a drama of incalculable gravity, of which the scene was to shift from one
end of Europe to the other, and the last act was not to be played till
after the lapse of more than a generation. The opponents of French
aggrandisement were fortunate in the English Minister at Brussels.
Sir William Temple had during the negotiations at Breda convinced
himself that the only means of safeguarding the peace of Europe from
Louis' anibition lay in an alliance between England ai;d Holland, and in
the following months urged the plan repeatedly on his Government. In

200 The Triple Alliance. [lees

September he took the opportiinity of a trip to Holland to discuss the
matter with John de Witt, with the result that Buckingham and
Arlington held a series of conferences with the Dutch and Spanish
ambassadors in London and discussed the idea from every point of view.
So rapidly did the situation mature that at the end of December
Temple returned to the Hague, this time on an official mission, and
before a month was out had signed the momentous treaty which, on the
accession of Sweden a few months later, received the name of the Triple
Alliance. This treaty, ratified on January 13, 1668, took the form of
two alliances : by the first, which was purely defensive, the contracting
parties undertook, in case of attack, each to come to the assistance of
the other with a specified force by land and sea; by the second, they
undertook to restore peace between France and Spain. Louis had
already offered to make peace on one of two conditions : either he would
keep what he had got, or he would take in exchange Franche Comte and
three fortresses in the Netherlands, without in either case explicitly
surrendering the claim that he had set up by going to war. By the
Alliance, the Dutch and English Governments now bound themselves
to persuade Spain to accept one of the alternatives offered, or, failing
this, to compel her by force of arms ; and moreover, by a secret article,
should the King of France refuse to make good his offer of peace,
then to combine " with all their united force and power " not only to
compel him to make peace but also to continue the war till France
was reduced to the boundaries set by the Treaty of the Pyrenees. The
effect of the alliance was immediate. Despite the severity of the
weather, Conde was despatched with a force of fifteen thousand men into
Franche Comt^ and overran the province in a fortnight; and Louis,
having thus provided himself with a powerful diplomatic weapon, opened
negotiations for a peace with Spain, which, on May 29, was concluded at
Aix-la-Chapelle on the basis of the first alternative, France surrendering
Franche Comte and consolidating her north-east frontier by a long line
of fortresses in Flanders and Hainault.

To John de Witt and Holland the Ti-iple Alliance was of capital
importance. Although the Dutch were ostensibly on the best of public
terms with the French Government, this friendship was but a hollow
pretence. Colbert's economic system had already threatened the commerce
of the Dutch; Louis despised and detested them as a nation of Protestant
and republican tradesmen ; and it was evident that, once the bulwark of
the Spanish Netherlands was down, the turn of the Dutch would come
soon. De Witt had not been without qualms at the thought of break-
ing with France for an alliance with the changeful fortunes of England,
and he had been surprised at the readiness with which Charles fell in
with his proposals during the negotiations for the treaty; but he had, in
fact, no choice in his search for support. For him it was the English
alliance or nothing. What vitiated his calculation was that he could

1668] Parliament and toleration. 201

not penetrate the intentions of Charles. He did not know that, at
the very moment when Charles was proposing to Holland an offensive
alliance against France, he was also proposing to France an alliance
against HoUand and Spain, and to Spain an alliance against France to
the disadvantage of Holland. Charles had no more liking for the Dutch
than Louis had ; but he wished to make his weight felt, to detach the
Dutch from their traditional alliance with France, and to put himself in
a position where all the European rivals would compete for his services.
The Triple Alliance had not been long completed, when he betrayed
the secret article to Louis ; and within a few days of the Peace of Aix-
la-Chapelle he was offering Louis a reciprocal alliance on the closest
terms. The object of Charles had been gained : Louis was filled with a
burning desire for revenge upon the Dutch, the rivals in trade not of
France, but of England, and had been forced to realise that for the
success of his European schemes it was necessary to buy the support of
England. Incidentally, the Triple Alliance was the most popular hit in
England that Charles' government had yet made.

When Parliament met on February 10, 1668, the two subjects
contained in the King's Speech were the Triple Alliance and an intention
to achieve "a better union and composure in the minds of my Protestant
subjects in matters of religion." While Temple and Arlington had been
absorbed in foreign affairs, Buckingham and Sir Orlando Bridgeman,
Lord Keeper of the Privy Seal, had been engaged in a series of
conferences with the leading nonconformist divines, such as Baxter and
Manton, in order if possible to devise a scheme for the admission oi the
dissenting body into the Established Church. The opinion of certain
Anglican clergymen also was taken ; and Lord Chief Justice Hale, who
attended the meetings, drafted a Comprehension Bill, to be laid before
Parliament. At the same time, to guarantee a more business-like adminis-
tration, the Privy Council was reorganised in a number of committees,
the most important being that for foreign affairs, an eminently practical
system that had been disliked and long hindered by Clarendon.

Charles II had always had a leaning towards toleration, combined
with a desire in particular to free the Catholics from their heavy
disabilities. The House of Commons on the contrary had always shoAsoi
the bigoted zeal of persecuting Anglicanism ; and, now that a moderate
proposal for the relief of dissenters was in the air, could be trusted to
prevent its taking effect. For once the Cabal had found a question on
which all its members were agreed: Clifford and Arlington were, or were
about to be, Roman Catholics ; Buckingham was the patron of the
Independents; civil liberty was the guiding principle of Ashley's life;
and Lauderdale, who was chiefly concerned with Scotland, was a.n
administrator rather than a statesman and, if he had an opinipji a,t all,
viewed the proposal favourably. Yet neither the success of the Govern-
ment abroad, nor the promise of better order at home and the strange

202 Charles and Borne.— James" conversion. [16G8-70

unani

_„flimity of the Ministers in an age of divided Ministries, could mollify
the Commons, who proceeded to petition the King for a proclamation
against conventicles and to read a Bill for their suppression by 114. votes
to 78. Their natural bias was accentuated by the chance, since the
policy of the Triple Alliance was irreproachable, of opposing the Court
on the question of religion. Their Bill was passed, but, to their
indignation, did not reach a second reading in the Lords, where it was
dropped on the prorogation of Parliament; they returned, however, to the
charge, and in April, 1670, a Bill of increased stringency for continuing
the Conventicle Act, which had expired in 1668, became law. The
Commons made it plain to the King that, however gladly they might be
rid of Clarendon's personality, so far as the Church was concerned they
were not going to desert his principles.

There can be little doubt that this had a great effect on Charles'
mind. The Commons' uncompromising determination made it im-
possible for him, were they unresisted, to retain a shadow of authority
or to pursue the national policy towards which the Triple Alliance
seemed to point the way. His statesmanlike dream had been of a
national Church, formally organised on the basis of the Roman Catholic
religion, but broad enough to include the majority of moderate
Protestants, depending but slightly on Rome in political affairs, and
perfectly tolerant of dissent. But, because neither Rome would admit
such privileges nor Parliament so much as allow a temporary toleration,
a dream it remained. In 1668, he seems to have made another attempt
in the same direction. Charles' own son, his eldest bastard, bom to him
by a lady of good family in Jersey, had been bred a Catholic and had
recently entered the Society of Jesus at Rome. Under the name of James
de la Cloche he was now at his father's request despatched by the Jesuit
General to receive a communication from the mouth of Charles, who saw
him and sent him back with an oral commission as his "secret ambassa-
dor to the Father General." The rest is shrouded in mystery. The
return of the youth to Rome, the nature of his mission, his subsequent
career, are hidden from us: nothing more is known for certain of the
eldest child of Charles II. Nor did more considerable results attend the
journey to London of the papal Internuncio at Brussels a short time
after, and his secret interview with the King at the Pope's command.
The decisive action was to be taken in another quarter.

In January, 1669, a remarkable meeting took place at St James'
Palace. The King was present and informed the Duke of York,
Clifford, Arlington, and Arundel, that he desired to reconcile himself to
the Catholic faith and to turn England Catholic with him. A short time
before, James had announced his conversion to his brother, but while
the Duke's change was probably in the main religious, Charles was
acting rather from political motives. In the course of the next year
James' conversion was suspected, though it was not until the spring of

i67o] Negotiations for the Treaty of Dover. 203

1676 that he ceased attending the royal chapel and all England knew
him for a Papist ; but Charles dissembled his religion till the day of his
death. For the present there was no question in his mind of a public
profession unless he could make sure of its political results ; but he was
so far moved by the actual situation as to assure the French ambassador
a few months later that he intended to go over, " and that, besides the
spiritual advantage he should gain from doing so, he also considered
that it was the only way of reestablishing the monarchy." Only under
a Catholic constitution, as it seemed to Charles, might a king of
England hope to be absolute.

From the point of view of Louis XIV the political element in
Charles' projected conversion had the merit of bringing him within
reach of the French purse-strings. Louis wanted Charles' support, but
at least his neutrality : Charles wanted Louis' support, but above all his
money. This is the key to the complicated and mysterious negotiations
between the two Courts from this date to Charles' final triumph, the
question at bottom being how much pressure Charles could put on
Louis by a tacit threat to make terms with Parliament, and how far
Louis could allow or compel Charles to go in that direction without the
situation becoming too dangerous. For six months before the meeting
at St James' Palace Charles had been discussing the basis of a com-
mercial treaty with France by means of Buckingham and Colbert
de Croissy ; and it was due to Buckingham's suggestion that the further
questions arising should pass through the hands of the King's sister, the
Duchess of Orleans, that the affair took the now well-known lines of what
can only be regarded as one of the deepest plots in history. To facilitate
proceedings and to avert suspicion the Abbe Pregnani, a fashionable
Parisian astrologer, was sent to London to act as a means of communica-
tion; and the better part of a year was spent in a detailed correspondence
between the two Courts concerning the best course to be adopted.

The scheme thus set afoot was to remodel England upon the example
of France and to introduce Catholicism and absolute monarchy, hand in
hand, by means of French gold and French force. In return for this
assistance Charles was to declare joint war with Louis on the Dutch and
to recognise that Louis was not bound by his wife's renunciation of her
claim to the Spanish crown. On a first consideration of the matter,
Charles wished the opening move in the game to be his declaration
of Catholicism. Colbert de Croissy, however, pointed out that the excite-
ment caused by this step would be so intense throughout the Protestant
world and would so distinctly place the Dutch in the position of
champions of the reformed religion that it would be hopeless to expect
the English nation to consent to war with them ; and, although Charles
would not commit himself to put the foreign war first and the civil
conflict second, he was so much struck by the justice of the remark that
he tacitly fell into line with the French proposal. The interest of

204 "Madame." — The Treaty of Dover. [i67o

France was not to support him in a prolonged dispute with his subjects,
unless it were conducive to success on the Continent : to put religion
first might mean postponing the Dutch war indefinitely, while the
strength that would accrue to him in money and arms by the success
of a war supported by English commercial jealousy would put his
opponents at home in an inferior position when he turned on them
afterwards. On May 5, 1670, the Duchess of Orleans reached Dover,
whither Charles, whose hand was strengthened by the substantial supply
voted at the spring sitting of Parliament, journeyed to meet her. The
negotiations were complete; the time was spent by Charles and his
sister in unaffected happiness ; and on June 1 the Treaty of Dover
was signed by Colbert for France, by Arlington, Clifford, Arundelj
and Sir Richard Bellings for England. Henrietta did not live to see the
fruits of the treaty in which her share had been so great that it was
named by the French " le traite de Madame.'''' She had been ill before
her arrival in England ; on her return to Paris on June 18 her symptoms
continued, and on the 29th, after drinking a glass of chicory water, she
died in a few hours, believing herself and believed by all the world to be
the victim of poison. The cause of her death is now scientifically known
to have been a perforating ulcer of the stomach.

The treaty, which consisted of ten articles and three additional
clauses, set forth the joint policy of the two monarchs in some detail
for the subjugation of England. Louis was to furnish Charles with six
thousand men at his own expense and ^150,000, and was, together with
Charles, to fix the date of the stroke. For the attack on Holland
Charles was to furnish six thousand men to serve under the French
commander-in-chief, and fifty ships of war to serve together with thirty
French under the Duke of York as admiral — the whole at the expense of
Loiiis. Charles was to take Walcheren, Sluys, and Cadsand as his share
of the spoil ; the rights of the Prince of Orange were as far as possible
to be preserved; and Louis was to pay Charles ^225,000 yearly while
the war lasted. For the success of " la grands affavre^ as Charles called
it to his sister, he reckoned further on his resources at home. The
Gqvemor of Hull was a Catholic; those of Portsmouth, Plymouth,
Windsor, and other strong places, were devoted to his service; the
CathoHc sentiment and force of Ireland were ready to hand; and
Lauderdale controlled an army twenty thousand strong in Scotland,
bound to serve anywhere within the British dominions. If the design
should succeed, he would find himself at the head of a Catholic State
and master of his kingdom.

A necessary consequence of the Treaty of Dover was a second treaty.
All the Ministers knew of the negotiations; but only those who were
in the Catholic plot could be acquainted with their result. Therefore,
to cover the traces of the real business, an elaborate sham treaty was
drafted at Charles' suggestion by Buckingham, who was led to imagine

1670-2] he trait6mTaul4.-^NeliGwynSii" Madam Carwell." 205

that he was doing the work for which all the trouble had been taken.
"Le traits simtiM'" went over the ground of the real treaty, except
that no mention was made of Catholicism, while the subsidy offered
towards its establishment was added to that offered for the purpose
of the Dutch war, and that the combined military forces were to
serve under an English general. As Buckingham expected to be that
general, he was all the more delighted with the treaty, which was signed
in February, 1671, by himself, Ashley and Lauderdale. He only began
to discover his mistake, when Charles induced Louis to forego the troops
thus provided for and replied by a jeer to Buckingham's expostulations
on his deprivation of the command.

In April, 1670, as the price for the renewed Conventicle Act, the
Commons had voted a tax calculated to bring in £300,000 a year for
eight years, and in the October session they added a supply of ^£"800,000 ;
but, as the annual expenses of the services alone amounted to half
a million, and the King's debts to over two million pounds, the financial
prospects, despite a further supply obtained in the following March
in response to a royal proclamation against Papists, could hardly be
considered brilliant. The attitude of the Commons, moreover, made
it clear that, although Parliament was now prorogued from one date to
another, doing little business till February, 1673, the French ambassador
had been only too accurate in his prophecy of the results that would
follow the King's public change of religion. In promising the late
proclamation Charles had only ventured to hint at ' exemption for the
Catholic Royalists who had fought for his father ; and there could be no
doubt that any attempt to put in action the great Catholic scheme
would ruin the hopes of the Dutch war, interrupt the stream of French
gold, and perhaps overturn the monarchy itself in the fury it would let
loose in England. Arlington, who had been of the King's original
opinion, agreed with Charles that the declaration must be definitely post-
poned till the war had placed him in an overwhelmingly strong position.
In the meantime Charles amused himself with two new mistresses, the
two most famous of the thirteen whose names have been preserved;
Nell Gwyn, the darling of London audiences, did not cost the nation
above £4000 a year in revenues; the other, a young Breton lady
who had come to England in the suite of Henrietta of Orleans, Louise
de Keroualle, soon Duchess of Portsmouth, drew an income of £40,000
besides gifts amounting to many times that sum.

Money was always a difficulty at Charles' Court, and, now that
the spring of 1672 was fixed by Louis for his attack on Holland, a
difficulty that pressed. Further, the French preparations for the war
and the likelihood that England would assist in it were becoming known;
and to summon Parliament would be to court disaster. The audacity of
Chfford suggested a source of supply that needed nothing but a procla-
mation to tap it. During the Commonwealth and since the Restoration

206 The Stop of the Exchequer. [i672

the Government had acquired the habit of obtaining assistance from the
London goldsmiths, who thus became bankers. The public deposited
their money with the bankers, who paid 6 per cent, on deposits, and
made loans at 8 per cent, to merchants and others requiring advances.
Charles' Government found the system particularly useful as a means of
realising the taxes that had been voted but not collected : supplies were
rendered immediately available by bankers' advances on the security
of the votes, and the Exchequer derived a certain continuity from the
process. At the present time nearly i&l,400,000 had been advanced
by the bankers to the Exchequer, when it was suddenly announced
that none of the capital would be repaid for a whole year, A panic
ensued; bankers were forced to suspend their engagements; merchants
were unable to meet their bills ; and a large proportion of the ten
thousand persons to whom the sum thus quietly pocketed by Charles
belonged were ruined. Nor did the mischief end there. Although the
" Stop of the Exchequer " was intended for a period of twelve months
only, and although in the following year the Lord Chancellor actually
assured Parliament that all arrears had been made good and that interest
would continue to be paid at the bankers' rate, as promised in the
proclamation, not a penny was forthcoming till 1674, when interest
at about 6 per cent, was paid on the capital without arrears and
continued till 1683. Legal proceedings were instituted by the creditors,
who finally obtained an Act under William III for payment of arrears
at 3 per cent, till half the capital was refunded ; but the Act remained
inoperative, and the debt, which was first taken over by the South Sea
Company, was ultimately incorporated in the National Debt. It was
estimated that the total loss to the bankers and their creditors amounted
to three million pounds.

One startling event after another now broke upon the nation and
made, said Baxter, " all Protestant hearts to tremble." The Stop of
the Exchequer took place on January 2, 1672. On March 16 the
King- issued a Declaration of Indulgence, suspending " all manner of
penal laws in matters ecclesiastical against whatsoever sort of Noncon-
formists or recusants." On March 17 war was declared against the
Dutch Republic. Hostilities had actually begun before their official
declaration; for after seeking in vain for a plausible pretext to break
with their allies, and after de Witt had gone almost to the extreme
of conciliation to keep the peace, the Government gave orders to
force a war by an act of open piracy. On March 13 Holmes, the
admiral in command at Portsmouth, who had opened the first Dutch
war, sailed out to where a Dutch merchant fleet, laden with a rich cargo
from the Levant, lay at anchor ofi" the Isle of Wight, and opened
fire upon it. War was rendered inevitable; but the treasure, the
expected capture of which would help to defray it, escaped, for the
Government and the admiral had laid their plans so badly that the

1672-3] The Declaration of Indulgence. 207

Dutch, after returning the English fire, were able to sail off' with the
loss of only two ships.

The story of the war, which may be regarded as one thread in the
double policy of the Dover treaty, does not belong to this chapter. The
Declaration of Indulgence (March 15, 1672), which was the other, was
a kind of trial flight of the grand religious revolution that had been
planned by Charles. Even at the time it was vehemently suspected that
its true object was to favour the Catholics ; but it was a fact that owing
to Bridgeman's protest Catholics could only claim the right to worship
privately, while Protestant dissenters could do so in public, and that it
was actively supported by Ashley and other prominent men whose Pro-
testantism was less suspected than the King's. The gaols were opened ;
Bunyan left his prison at Bedford ; and hundreds of nonconformists, and
especially Quakers (for the persecution had been very fierce against them),
walked the streets again in freedom. Still there was much hesitation.
The Presbyterians, with their strongly democratic views on Church
matters, disliked the personal nature of the relief accorded them by
the King, and also being relieved as merely part of the whole body of
dissenters, most of whom had experienced a less conciliatory treatment in
the past. All feared to bring on themselves the disapprobation of Par-
liament. However, the Government had succeeded for the moment. A
nonconformist deputation to thank the King was introduced by Arlington.
Bridgeman surrendered the Privy Seal ; Clifford, with a peerage, stepped
into the high place of Lord Treasurer ; Ashley became Earl of Shaftesbury
and Lord Chancellor ; Arlington was made an Earl, Lauderdale a Duke,
and both received the Garter. Although the Declaration was but a
shadow of the real scheme in Charles' head, it was considered by sound
Anglicans to be a staggering blow to the Church : " Papists and swarms
of sectaries " astonished the world of London by the numbers in which
they met publicly ; and on the following Easter Day it was remarked to
the general scandal that the Duke of York, who attended church with
the King, refrained from partaking of the Communion for the second
year in succession. So lively was the agitation on the subject of Catholic
toleration that when Parliament met in February, 1673, after a recess of
practically two years, Charles attempted to ride the storm that was
known to be brewing by a display of personal authority. " 1 shall take
it very ill," he said, " to receive contradiction in what I have done. And
I will deal plainly with you : I am resolved to stick to my Declaration."

Meanwhile, negotiations had been proceeding with the Dutch. The
war had gone badly for Holland ; but neither had it gone well for Eng-
land, and the despatch, after all, of an English contingent to Louis'
army had by no means mollified Buckingham's disappointment, since it
had gone under command of the Duke of Monmouth. Consequently
Buckingham was more inclined to the Dutch, and less to the French,
than he had been two years before. Ambassadors arrived from the

208 .. .'^Delenda est Carthago." [i673

Republic ; and Buckingham and Arlington created a sensation by cross-
ing the Channel in person, ostensibly to discuss terms of peace. They
found themselves in the midst of a revolution. The successes of Louis
had enraged the populace against their, magistrates; and on the very day
of the ambassadors' arrival at the Hague the young Prince of Orange, as
Stadholder, had been raised to the office of his ancestors. Scarcdy six
weeks later Cornelius and John de Witt were torn to pieces in the streets.
The news of his nephew's restored and quasi-monarchical authority could
not but be pleasing to Charles, who had entertained him on a visit to
England in the autumn of 1670 ; but it soon appeared that William was
impervious both to threats and to bribes. Lord Halifax, who joined the
two Ministers in the Prince's camp, inclined to peace on terms favourable
to the Dutch ; and Buckingham, though still demanding a high price for
England's defection from France, was urgent for peace, and indeed at
one moment could scarcely be restrained by Arlington from signing a
treaty on the spot. But the lowest terms oiFered were such as William
would not accept* Then Buckingham tried to work on his despair.
"Do you not see," he said, "that all is lost.'' Do you not see?" "I
know a sture way never to see it," answered the Prince — " to die on the
last dyke." The embassy moved on to the French King's camp, and here
the tfue nature of the mission, which was known to Louis and had been
secretly entrusted by Charles to Arlington, came out, The peace over-
tures had been arranged primarily in order to throw dust in Protestant
eyes and put the Republic in the position of having rejected an olFer :
the real business was the signature of an engagement between Charles
and Louis that neither would ma,ke peace before the demands of the
other were satisfied, while they agreed upon joint terms which the
Prince of Orange was sure to refuse. Buckingham had been tricked
again.

Charles had thus prepared opinion at home for the prosecution of the
war and for a large supply to support it. No better advocate for his
cause could have been found than the new Chancellor, Shaftesbury, who
followed the Speech from the Throne with a skilful and inflammatory
harangue on the text "Delenda est Carthago,'" that obtained an imme-
diate vote of a million and a quarter pounds, to be spread over a period
of eighteen months. But the Commons were less manageable on the
delicate question of the Indulgence. Though, when the subject was in-
troduced, the House showed a general hesitation to touch it, the silence
was that of a calm before the storm; once loosened, tongues wagged
freely. Why had not legal and ecclesiastical advice been taken before
the Declaration ? What authority could such a Declaration have ? It
was not even made under the Great Seal, the judges appointed under
which swore to carry out the Acts of Parliament that the King now claimed
to override. Acts of Parliament ! Why, the Declaration broke forty
of them. Sufficient doubt, however, existed on the whole subject of the

1673] Charles cancels the Declaration. 209

Royal dispensing power to turn the debate into a serious rather than an
angry channel. A division gave a vote of 168 to 116 in favour of the
resolution, "That Penal Statutes in matters ecclesiastical cannot be
suspended but by act of Parliament,'" which was embodied in a respect-
ful petition to the King that the laws should once more be given,
their full force.

At Court counsels were divided. There could be no denying that
the situation was most serious. Buckingham, Clifford, and Lauderdale
were for force : a considerable army, assembled at Blackheath under the
experienced command of Marshal Schomberg and Colonel Fitzgerald^
might be used against Parliament while the Scotch forces seized New-
castle. For Charles to submit at such a crisis might be the first step on
the road trodden by his father ; whereas a determined stroke would free
him from danger. Shaftesbury was for dissolution, and Charles himself
favoured the idea, with the intention, it would seem, of carrying on his
policy by a personal government without any Parliament at all. But
this would mean peace with the Dutch and presumably the refusal of
assistance from France. To Arlington, the Minister most trusted by
the King, this consideration appealed strongly : by dissolving Parliament
at this moment Charles would sacrifice all hope of fulfilling the Dover
policy and would have to face a national opposition without support ;
while, if he gave way now and carried the war to a successful conclusion,
he would stiU be in as good a position as ever to dictate terms to his
people. On behalf of Louis, Colbert de Groissy brought forward the
same arguments. He went even further. Charles' cooperation in the
war was of such importance to his master that he was authorised to
promise at the end of it not only the 6000 men already stipulated, but
12,000 or 15,000, or even his whole might, for the conquest of England.

This offer was decisive. On the same evening, March 8, Charles
cancelled the Declaration; and the next morning he appeared in the
House of Lords to announce his assent to the Commons' petition. The
news was received with general delight and celebrated by bonfires all
over the town. Nevertheless the Commons were unsatisfied. They
hurried through the remaining stages of the Subsidy Bill, but lingered
over religion. Possibly they noticed that, although Charles had not
asserted his right to dispense with the law, he had at the same time not
abandoned it. In their fear of Catholicism they proceeded to consider
a subject that had formerly only roused parliamentary opposition,
namely, the toleration of Protestant Dissent, and professed themselves
willing to pass an Act which should secure it. But it was more character-
istic of the Cavalier Parliament that out of the debates on this measure
of toleration, which did not pass, grew the project for the most famous
of all measures of persecution, which did. A Bill against the increase
of Catholicism had come down from the House of Lords: it was now
proposed to insert in it a proviso imposing on all holders of civil and

0. M. H. V. OH. K. 14

210 TJte Test Act.— The Cabal dissolved. [i67S

military office an oath explicitly denying the doctrine of transubstantia-
tion in the sacrament, which would render it impossible for any Catholic
to serve the Crown even in the most humble capacity. The amendment
was adopted, the Bill triumphantly passed, and returned to the Lords.
There a curious scene took place. Clifford denounced the Bill with
such fury that the Commons were flustered; he was answered by: the
Earl of Bristol, "a Catholic," he described himself, "of the Church of
Rome, not a Catholic of the Court of Rome," that the Bill was for the
good of the nation and that their duty was to judge it "not as Roman
Catholics, but as faithful members of a Protestant Parliament"; and,
strangest of all, Arlington and Shaftesbury, the King's two chief
Ministers, rose to press its passage. Arlington had coveted Clifford's
place: Shaftesbury, it is said, had received from Arlington a hint as
to the real scope of the Treaty of Dover. Moreover, Halifax and
Sir William Coventry, who were Shaftesbury's near relatives, were
among the keenest forces of the Opposition. So the Bill passed and
received the royal assent and became the Test Act. On March 29
Parliament was prorogued.

Before the year was out, the Act had worked important results.
Clifford gave up the Treasurer's staff and retired to the country, to die,
it was believed, by his own hand. The Duke of York surrendered all
his offices. Prince Rupert, a strong Protestant, took command of the
fleet. But there were further consequences of a less direct character.
Arlington withdrew from his post of Secretary of State and accepted
the colourless office of Lord Chamberlain. Shaftesbury, suspected by
the King to have been bribed by Spain and by the Duke of York to
have opposed his second marriage, which took place in the autumn, was
dismissed and immediately flung himself into violent opposition to the
Court. " It is only laying down my robe," he said, " and buckling on
my sword." Sir Heneage Finch, the Attorney-General, became Lord
Keeper and Earl of Nottingham. Sir Joseph Williamson succeeded
Arlington as Secretary of State. Sir Thomas Osborne, a Yorkshire
baronet of small fortune and Cavalier principles, took up the Treasurer's
staff. Buckingham, Lauderdale and Arlington were attacked in the
Commons on their meeting in October. The great Cabal Ministry had
been scattered to the winds.

It was now admitted by all the partners to the Catholic scheme that
it must finally be abandoned. Arlington declared it impossible, Charles
spoke of it no more, and the French ambassador, who had devoted all his
energy to its furtherance, begged Louis to recall him. Colbert de Croissy
had learnt from his friends in Parliament, among them the poet WaUer|
that there were not four members who believed that there was any other
means of preserving the Protestant religion but peace with Holland^ or
who considered the French alliance to have any object other than the
establishment of Popery in England. The new Treasurer did not return

1673-4] James' second marriage. 211

Colbert's visit, and he felt that he could no longer be useful as Louis'
representative. In January, 1674, he withdrew to France, leaving in his
place the Comte de Ruvigny, an elderly Protestant of respectable character,
who detested "fe sale trqfic"oi buying men, women, and parties, in which
he found himself busily engaged. Ruvigny had not been a month at
the head of the embassy, when peace was made with the Dutch.

Meanwhile, the Duke of York's marriage had provided another topic
of explosive interest. Anne Hyde, his first wife, died a Catholic early
in the year 1672, leaving two daughters, Mary and Anne, who were now
being brought up in the Protestant faith, and, the King's marriage being
barren, were after their father the nearest heirs to the throne. Now, it
was desirable both that there should be an heir male and that, for the
better guarantee of his title, he should be sprung from a royal line on
both sides. The question, therefore, of a second wife for the Duke was
of much importance ; but, since he was himself a Catholic, the choice
was perforce narrowed to the marriageable Catholic princesses of Europe.
The Spanish interest could provide an Austrian archduchess (Claudia
Felicitas, daughter of Ferdinand Charles of Tyrol); and, as Spain had
a lively concern in upholding the Dutch Republic as a barrier to the
claims of Louis, this was perhaps the nearest approach to a Protestant
match that could be made ; but when the Austrians demanded conditions
imfavourable to France, the negotiations fell through and the field was
left open to candidates of the French Court, from among whom the
Princess Mary of Modena was finally selected. On September 30, 1673,
the Princess, who was barely fifteen years of age, was married to James
by proxy, the Earl of Peterborough taking the place of his master, the
Duke. In order to get the ceremony over before the meeting of Parlia-
ment, the papal dispensation, necessary since Mary had taken the first
step towards entering a convent, was not awaited and was ultimately
not obtained without abject supplications from England and the good
offices of Louis. To the politicians of the papal Court, who preferred
Spain to France, the match was by no means welcome. Among Pro-
testants at home, that is to say, in nine-tenths of the nation, it created an
uproar. Apart from the vulgar belief that Mary was " the Pope's eldest
daughter," it was evidence of the relations existing between Charles and
Louis. Personally James enjoyed but little popularity. His conversion
to the Catholic religion had rendered him an object of real distrust ; his
marriage rmder the auspices of the French King, so as to assure a Catholic
and almost a French succession, now revived aU the most violent suspicions
that had attended the beginning of the war. Meeting on October 20,
the Commons voted an address to the King, praying that the marriage
should not be consummated, and that the Duke should not wed " any
person but of the Protestant religion." Hereupon Parliament was
promptly adjourned for a week. When they reassembled, the Commons
were informed that the marriage had been completed, and were coolly

14—2

212 Parliament prorogued.-Gossip about Monmouth. [1673-6

reminded by Charles that they had for several months been aware of the
negotiations for a match between the Duke and another Princess, a,lso
a Catholic, without expressing dissatisfaction. Since this observation
was unanswerable by argument, the Commons solaced themselves by the
practical step of refusing a supply, on account chiefly of the war, but
also of "the danger of Popery and popish counsels and counsellors";
again addressed the King in favour of a dissolution of the proxy
marriage, and on November 3 voted the standing army a grievance.
Early on the morrow, before the address could be presented, Charles
appeared in the Lords and prorogued Parliament for two months.

Nor was the meeting of Parliament in January, 1674, more peaceful
or more productive. To meet the repeated charges that the alliance
with France meant the introduction of Popery into England, Charles
laid before a committee of both Houses the "traiti simuU^ concluded to
disguise the real business at Dover, with the assurance that it was the
only treaty with France in existence. The speech, however, was so ill
composed and delivered, that the Commons proceeded on their business
without the least sign of being conciliated. No supply was voted,
but heady debates took place on grievances and on the subject of
evil counsellors, until, matters going from bad to worse, the King,
after announcing that peace was concluded with the Dutch, suddenly
prorogued Parliament till the following November, Members hastened
away from Westminster in alarm and disgust. But their astonishment
was still greater, when Charles, who had kept his intention secret from
his most trusted advisers, announced that Ptirliament should stand
further prorogued till April, 1675, He had received 500,000 crowns
from Louis to enable him to do without it.

The disordered state of affairs inclined many minds towards the only
policy which seemed capable of giving quiet to the kingdom, namely,
that of assuring a Protestant succession to the throne. At the time of
Clarendon's fall, the Chancellor's enemies and successors, fearful lest his
son-in-law should avenge him by compassing their overthrow, took
counsel whether it were not possible to supplant James as heir pre-
sumptive of the King. Within a few years of the Restoration, rumours
had even been afloat of the Duke's apprehension that Charles would
recognise as legitimate his handsome young son, whom he created Duke
of Monmouth ; and there was talk of attempts to extract from the King
documents relating to him without the damaging epithets naturalis et
ilkgitimus. But, however deeply such gossip may have infected Mon-
mouth's ambitious dreams, it soon became evident that his father would
give no countenance to schemes of the kind; and a more plausible
means seemed to have been discovered in the project of obtaining for
the King a divorce from his Queen and of remarrying him to a lady
capable of beaiing him lawful issue. The proceedings about the same
time in Lord Roos' divorce case, which ended in 1676 by an Act of

i6'7i-4] Divines on divorce. — William of Orange. 213

Parliament dissolving his marriage, lent a practical interest to the
notion, for which the divorce of Henry VIII might also furnish a
precedent. Divines were consulted on the point; and about the year
1671 Gilbert Burnet, afterwards Bishop of Salisbury, gave his opinion,
at the instance of the Duke of Lauderdale, that a woman's barrenness
was just cause for divorce or polygamy, and that polygamy was lawful
according to the New Testament. Such was the talk at the Court of
Charles II : talk that gained fresh force from the crisis of the Duke of
York's marriage. As a practical suggestion, however, the idea of the
King's divorce depended wholly upon the King, and Charles made it
plain that he was not going to inflict this last insult upon his patient
wife. Even when she was supposed to be mortally ill, the utmost drawn
from him on the engrossing domestic subject was that, if he married
again, the lady would have to be very, very beautiful. Charles was
resolute not to be the cat's-paw of any party in his matrimonial affairs.

Thus it was that men's eyes turned overseas to the King's nephew,
the grandson of Charles I, who was now guiding the policy of the
Dutch Republic. William of Orange had taken over the machinery of
de Witt's Government and consolidated in himself the power of the
State; moreover he had a high reputation in England, He had
formed connexions with Sir William Temple, with Shaftesbury, William
Howard, afterwards Lord Howard of Escrick, and Halifax, who com-
posed the nucleus of an Orange party in Parliament ; and it was perhaps
in his interest that the Earl of Carlisle, with the support of Halifax and
Shaftesbury, introduced a motion into the Lords to restrict future royal
marriages within the bounds of the Protestant religion, under penalty
of incapacity to succeed to the throne. This motion was rejected with
scorn ; but in the course of the year 1674 a great advance was made in
the Prince's interest by the acceptance at Court of the idea of marrying
to him the Duke of York's eldest daughter, Mary. Partisans of the
Prince hit upon the scheme as one likely to aflbrd them protection
against the vengeance of the Duke. Charles, who in the spring had
declined a second visit from William in order to please Louis, now that
he had extracted a sufficient subsidy from his ally, conceived that a
Protestant match would allay the excitement caused by the Modenese
marriage and would guarantee him and to some extent his brother
against the most dangerous political elements in the kingdom. Negotia-
tions were accordingly begun without the knowledge of the Duke, who
consented with as good a grace as possible to the project in which he
thus found himself involved. Arlington, who was specially responsible
for the scheme, and Ossory, the young son of the Duke of Ormond, went
to the Hague in December to put the matter to the Prince ; but their
mission was unsuccessful. To the proposal which Ossory made, William
replied agreeably, but without assenting ; he was in the midst of war, he
said; the Princess was very young, and he did not know whether he

OB. IX.

214 Government by machine. [1674

would be personally acceptable. He thought it better to postpone
consideration of the match until he could come to England.. Save
Arlington's retirement from politics, everything therefore remained
doubtful.

The spectacle presented by the state of England at this juncture
was deplorable. The policy of Dover appeared to have all but destroyed
the stability of the kingdom. The factitious enthusiasm which had
greeted the Restoration had long since died out. For the first seven
years despite war, plague, fire, and some suspicion of the Govemmentj
the country had been quiet under the control of a Minister whose ideas
were in sympathy, if not identical, with those of the majority of
Englishmen. On his downfall the reins of policy were seized by the
King, whose mind had been formed in a new time and on foreign soil,
and who within seven more years brought the kingdom to the verge of
disruption. Charles' lassitude of temper concealed from his subjects the
independence of intellect and pertinacity of character that drove him
towards an absolutism detested by them. Yet such was his skill that
the difficulties which crowded on the nation were ascribed less to him,
their author, than to advisers, of whom certainly some had followed him
with alacrity, but others had been wholly ignorant of the scope of his
plans. The dissolution of the Cabal marks a turning-point in the
King's policy. Charles was clever enough to see when the game was up.
He had attempted to mount with the support of the Catholic revival to
heights he saw occupied by his cousin across the Channel. He had
failed, but he had at least concealed from his people his object and his
failure in it. Now he dropped Catholicism as a political force for ever.
His most useful weapon was still unimpaired : the neutrality, of England
was still necessary for the plans of France. He had been able to obtain
from Louis a considerable price for freeing himself from the last pressure
put on him by Parliament in the matter of the Dutch war. He now
proceeded to use his freedom by following a new line, which, if success-
fully pursued, would place him in much the same position as that just
abandoned^

In Sir Thomas Osborne, created successively Earl and Marquis of
Danby, Charles had found a Minister of extraordinary capacity. Danby
was the first man of his time to apply himself systematically to the
problems of finance that underlie all administration, while he combined
with this energy the talent for managing men and affairs that alone
could make it effective. He invented, it may be said, government by
machine. Bribery of members of Parliament was already known, having
been first practised on a large scale by the Spanish ambassador Molina
at the crisis of Clarendon's dismissal and occasionally resorted to by
others ; but the art was not properly understood until Danby mastered,
organised, and ruled by it. Numerous pensions and places existed which
had hitherto been bestowed without thought of services to be rendered

1674-9] Danhy's finance. 215

by their holders : these were so diatribiited by the Treasurer as to ensure
to the Government a compact body of voters, whose loyalty depended
on their obedience to a common paymaster, Danby, in short, discovered
that patronage was the soul of party. He could thus reckon on solid
support for the measures of the Court, while by strict economy he
reduced the national expenditure to a point which guaranteed the
Government against the necessity of constant begging from Parliament.
For the farm of the excise he was able to obtain =£"550,000 per annum,
an increase of ,£'20,000 on the sum obtained by his predecessor; the
return from the hearth-tax mounted from ^^145,000 to £16i9,,0Q0, the
Irish revenue from ^190,000 to ^£"240,000; and he was soon able to
borrow money at 8 per cent., or 2 per cent, lower than the ordinary rate
for private borrowers. When a rumour gained credit in the spring of
1674 that a fresh Stop of the Exchequer was contemplated, it was
oflBcially contradicted in the Gazette as " false and scandalous." On his
arrival at the Treasury Danby found the Government in enormous
arrears for dockyard works and for the wages of sick and wounded
sailors. On these counts alone he gradually paid out ^136,000 and
d&93,000 respectively. The household debts were soon reduced by
=^9,000. The army and navy left on his hands at the conclusion of
the war were paid off at the rate of over d&100,000 a month for
fifteen months; and it should be remembered to Danby's credit
that he found means to pay in cash, where formerly promissory notes
and truck had been forced on the men in part discharge. It was again
Danby who managed to begin and to continue the payment of interest
on the debt caused by the Stop of 1672, who put Charles in a position
of security at home and enabled him to pay for a large permanent
addition to the fleet, and who on his fall from office in 1679 left over
i&100,000 in an Exchequer which before his control of it had hardly
ever been a penny to the good. Danby's reorganisation of the royed
finance had more to do with the growth of national prosperity in
the latter part of the century than has generally been acknowledged.
From the first his administration produced seeming marvels. Before
the end of September, 1674, he had reduced the weekly expenses of
government to o&l 0,000 below the revenue, and, taking the precaution
of putting the Duchess of Portsmouth in his debt, had thus in less than
a year's time provided a sure basis from which to start on a new scheme
of national policy.

This was no less than to place all possible opponents of the
Crown in the position in which the Test Act had placed the Catholics :
namely, to reduce them to impotence by obliging them either to
accept office upon the Court terms or to remain incapacitated for
ever by their exclusion from it. Under cover of his affection for
the Church of England and his fear of "the pernicious designs of
ill men," Charles was in a fair way, if he should be successful, to

216 The Non-resisting Test. [i675

bring about a revolution that amounted, as Andrew Marvell justly
declared, to " a dissettlement of the whole birthright of England." The
engine to accomplish this was the so-called Non-resisting Test, which
early in the session of April, 1675, was introduced into the Lords under
the title of a Bill to prevent the Dangers which may arise from Persons
disaffected to the Government. It proposed to exact from all offidalsj
justices of the peace, and members of both Houses of Parliament, a
declaration that to take up arms against the King, "on any pretence
whatsoever," was unlawful, and an oath never to attempt any alteration
in government or religion "now established by law." Practically the
Bill was an assault on the Country party — the descendants of Hampden
and Pym — and on every shade of Nonconformity by the full force of the
Church, the Cavaliers and the Court. Charles was offering a perpetued
tenure of power to Anglicanism, and, in the Ministry of Danby, whose
opposition to France was generally known, a guarantee to the nation of
a really English Government at the price of supremacy for Danby and
himself. The Court sought beforehand to create a suitable atmosphere
for the measure by erecting a statue of Charles I at Charing Cross and
by a severe Declaration against Popery ; and on both sides strenuous
preparation was made for a struggle, which was to define parliamentary
positions with exquisite clearness. The King, the Minister, the Bishops,
and all whom royal, ministerial, and episcopal influence cbuld touch were
for the measure; the Catholics, who had schemes of their own that
would be ruined by it, the Nonconformists, the Country party against.
Louis, who saw in Danby his worst enemy, was against ; the Dutch and
Spanish Governments, who felt him their best fi-iend, for. In the
Commons the golden age seemed to have arrived, and fortune rained
every coinage in Europe.

For seventeen days the semed ranks of the Bishops waged unequal war
with the keen eloquence of Shaftesbury, the wit and wisdom of Halifax,
the terrible ridicule of Buckingham. Against the three most brilliant
men in the kingdom they were ill-matched, supported though they were
by the presence of Charles, who appeared regularly at the fireside of the
House of Lords to watch the course of debate and was likened to the sun,
blinding his opponents. If, however, the Court was worsted in argument,
it was victorious in numbers ; and the Bill was passed and sent down to
the Commons. Here the most violent scenes had in the meantime taken
place. While the Test was being debated in the Lords, the Country
party in the lower House, under the leadership of Lords Russell and
Cavendish, Sacheverell, Powle, Littleton, Sir William Coventry, and
Colonel Birch, attacked Danby and put forward a popular policy to
rival his. They demanded the recall of the English troops serving
under the French flag abroad, the exclusion of Catholics from both
Houses, the exclusion of placemen from Parliament, and refused to
consider fresh legislation till they were satisfied. The excitement was

1675] The "prorogation without precedent." 217

intense. Swords were drawn on the floor of the House. Nevertheless,
Danby had so well organised his adherents that there was every expecta-
tion of the Test being carried in the Commons also, when chance put
a weapon into the hands of his adversaries, which they were prompt to
seize. A certain Dr Shirley, who had an action in the Court of Chancery
against Sir John Fagg, member for Steyning, appealed to the House of
Lords. The case was one of privilege as well as of law and led to an
instant revival of the dispute occasioned between the two Houses by
Skinner's case in 1666. Shaftesbury fomented the dispute with such
dexterity that before the middle of Jime Charles found himself obliged
to prorogue Parliament till October, before the Non-resisting Test
could be discussed in the Commons. Danby's great scheme vanished
for ever.

All parties, however, prepared with diligence for the autumn session,
when it was known that the Country party contemplated pursuing its
advantage with vigour. The Duke of York had received £9Xi,0W from
Louis for distribution, and had established an understanding with Shaftes-
bury. Van Beuningen, the Dutch, and Don Pedro Ronquillo, the Spanish
ambassador, provided themselves with means for combating the influence of
Ruvigny. Louis, who by his connexion with the Commons was striving
to prevent Danby from becoming too strong, at the same time guarded
himself against Charles being reduced to impotence by oflering him
0^100,000 a year to dissolve Parliament, should supply be refused excepit
on condition of a breach with France. The death of Turenne in Jvily
was a terrible blow to his arms, and subsequent reverses rendered the good-
will of the English Government even more important to him than before.
The session opened in the temper foreseen. Further proposals were
made to suppress Popery. The Commons refused money for paying off
anticipations on the revenue. Supply was only voted for the specific
purpose of building ships. Fresh attempts were made to put an end to
bribery of members by the Court. But Danby's strength was so great and
the foothold of his combined opponents so precarious that, to stop further
business, Shaftesbury managed to revive the dispute between the Houses
in the case of Shirley, while at the same time he pressed for a dissolution.
It was almost certain that a new Parliament would contain far more
members hostile to the Court than the corrupt Cavalier Parliament.
Charles replied to the proposal, to the discomfiture of its authors, by
proroguing Parliament for the unprecedented period of fifteen months,
&om November, 1675, to February, 1677. Louis, though he had bargained
for a dissolution, feared to arouse opposition at Court ; and Charles,
who was so sure of his game that the first .PI 00,000 had already been
entered in his accounts, obtained his price without difficulty. When
Danby refused to touch the accompanying agreement, he wrote out,
signed and sealed it with his own hands. " King says, he had rather be
a poor king than no king," is the pregnant phrase of a letter-writer

218 Shaftesbury. [1675-7

some time before ; ,£100,000 a year was not wealth, but it was enough
to enable Charles to " dish " his Parliament.

The year 1676, which saw the defeat of Danby's attempt at a
perpetual endowment of the Anglican-Cavaher system, saw also the
birth of the Whig party. In contracting his alliance with the parlia?-
mentary Opposition Ruvigny had frequent occasion to treat with a
committee of Lords, containing Buckingham, Wharton, and, chief among
them in vigour of intellect and character, Shaftesbury. From that time
onwards Shaftesbury enjoyed a growing ascendancy over the opponents
of Court policy. In the Lords he became their recognised leader; and the
adoption of his demand for the dissolution of Parliament is evidence of
his following in the Commons also. His unscrupulous force in pursuing
his object enhanced the authority he had won by his acknowledged
ability and impartiality as Lord Chancellor, while his object was capable
of commanding support from aU sections of the Opposition, Popeiy and
slavery, in Shaftesbury's memorable phrase, went hand in hand ; and it
was his work to combine men of all classes and characters to keep them
out. If Danby invented the machine in government, Shaftesbury dis-
covered the art of organising popular sentiment on a grand scale. The
Green Ribbon Club, which was founded about this time by means of an
extensive system of agents, agitators, and pamphleteers, gave the tone
with increasing certainty to political feeling throughout the country,
and during the next seven years played a part in English politics that
can only be compared to that of the Jacobin club in France. The head-
quarters of the Green Ribbon Club were in the King's Head tavern at
the bottom of Chancery Lane ; and of the club Shaftesbury was the
president and the soul. The name Whig does not occur till some years
later ; the thing was already in existence.

From Christmas, 1675, to the middle of 1677 Charles drew his allow-
ance from Louis in regular quarterly instalments. When Parliament
met at the beginning of the latter year, the Whigs despaired of obtain-
ing any success in a House of Commons of which one-third was calculated
to be in permanent employment under the Crown, and yet another third
to wait — *' like so many jackdaws for cheese " said Danby — ^for pay at
the end of each session. The remaining third was in the pay of Louis,
who in this session distributed among them nearly ^3000. There-
fore they adopted the extraordinary course of moving in both Houses
that after so long a prorogation Parliament had ceased to have any legal
existence. The statute of Edward III on which they rested their case,
was manifestly obsolete, and their action only resulted in Shaftesbury,
Buckingham, Salisbury, and Wharton being sent to the Tower for con-
tempt of Parliament. After a few weeks the last three made submission
and were released ; but Shaftesbury lay in prison for a year before he
could bring himself to face the ordeal. " Thus," said Marvell, « a pro-
rogation without precedent was warranted by an imprisonment without

1677-8] William marries Mary. 219'

example." Not only was Danby freed from the presence of his chief
opponent, but the incident gave him such strength that he was able
to obtain a vote of ^£"600,000. When, however, he introduced a BiU
to secure the Protestant religion, in case a Catholic should succeed to the
throne, the Commons threw it out, merely because a Catholic succession
seemed thereby to be legalised. They pressed the King to join the
alliance against Louis XIV and by the end of May were so far em-
boldened as to refuse further supply save on condition that all alliances
should be submitted to them. Charles angrily adjourned them, and,
when the Dutch ambassador spoke to him on the subject, tossed his
handkerchief into the air, saying, " I care just that for Parliament."
Before it met again, Charles had extorted an additional ^£"100,000 from
Louis, through his new and penetrating ambassador Barillon, and
followed up this success by marrying James' eldest daughter Mary to
the Prince of Orange with such secrecy that Barillon knew nothing till
the betrothal was complete. James' hand was easily forced. Charles
and Danby hoped by the marriage to consolidate their situation, and
when Louis refused further payments, summoned Parliament for January,
1678, instead of, as had been agreed, in April. At a public banquet
Danby gave the toast " Confusion to all that are not for a war with
France," and on January 10 a treaty was signed at the Hague binding
England and Holland to compel the King of Freince to make peace.

The alliance with William came too late for Charles. Three years
before it might have won him a national support ; but, now that the
Opposition was committed equally by policy and by the secret receipt
of money from Louis to attack the royal power, it could only lead to
confusion more obscure than ever. Louis was willing to help Charles
if he could avoid strengthening Danby ; Danby, to crush the Whigs
if he could avoid supporting Louis; the Whigs, to overthrow Danby
at any cost. In February Charles, who had refused a large offer from
Louis, obtained a vote of a million for a French war; but Louis'
success in taking Ghent and Ypres, and the suspicion caused by the
discovery of a secret article in the treaty of January, binding Charles
and William to assist each other against their rebellious subjects, made
the King recoil from risking a defeat that would place him in a position
of inferiority. In May he signed another treaty with Louis, engaging
to disband his army and dissolve Parliament in return for a huge subsidy,
while at the same time Barillon entered into a strict alliance with the
Whigs for the attainment of the same objects ; but on Louis' depart-
ing from the terms of peace he had offered to accept, Charles, to the
horror of the Whigs, made instant preparations for continuing the war
in close agreement with the Dutch.

Thus all parties in England had entered into engagements which
they dared not fulfil. Each threatened, offered, retracted, and advanced
again only to di'aw back, while each was in the dark as to the secret

220 Peace signed at Nymegen. — Titus Oates. [1678

intrigues and concessions made by the others. Suddenly the complicated
knot was cut by the signature of treaties of peace at Nymegen, on
August 10 between France and the States-General, and on September 17
between France and Spain. From the Peace of Nymegen, which, though
Holland had shown her strength, gave Louis Franche Comte and his
north-eastern frontier with the most magnificent position held by any
monarch between Charles V and Napoleon, Charles, albeit he had figured
as its mediator, derived no profit. But its result was to give him for
the moment an overwhelming advantage at home. With a formidable
army released from foreign service, his pocket full of money, and Danby's
organisation in Parliament, he seemed on the point of triumph. It was
still Louis' interest to support the Opposition against a Minister who
might turn against him ; but the forces against the Whigs seemed too
strong and, despairing of the future, they talked of acknowledging their
defeat and retiring from politics, when without warning an event occurred
that completely changed the situation.

The political atmosphere was electric. Since Claarles' accession hardly
a year had passed that was not surcharged with trouble and alarm, none in
the last eight that was not fuU of horrible rumotu-s due to the rift between
a Protestant country which remembered the Gunpowder Plot and a Catholic
Court which had planned the treason of Dover. Thus it is not strange
that when Titus Oates, an Anglican clergyman who had been reconciled
the year before to Rome, came forward in August, 1678, to denounce a
vast Jesuit conspiracy against the King's life and the Protestant religion,
his tale of wild lies met with a degree of credence that later ages would
perhaps have refused to it. Oates was afterwards shown to be a man of
infamous character; but channels of communication were bad and suspect,
and in those days news travelled slowly. He had actually spent some
months in Jesuit colleges at Valladohd and Saint-Omer, and on his ex-
pulsion from the latter returned to England, to concoct, with the aid of
local colour thus acquired and of a silly London parson, his information
concerning the Popish Plot. The Pope, he declared, had commanded,
a;nd the Jesuits undertaken, a conquest of the kingdom ; an army of
20,000 men was ready under the orders of Lord Bellasis to carry it out ;
London was again to be burned, the King assassinated, and the Duke of
York also, unless he would consent to his brother's murder. In all the
arrangements he had been, he said, a trusted emissary, and he had been
present at a Jesuit "consult," held on April 24, 1678, at the White
Horse tavern in the Strand, where means were concerted for disposing of
Charles. Over a hundred conspirators, mostly Jesuits, were mentioned
by name, the most prominent besides Lord Bellasis being the Lords
Arundel of Wardour, Powis, Petre, and Stafford, Sir William Godolphin,
who was ambassador in Spain, Mr Edward Coleman, and Sir George
Wakeman, the royal physician.

With much mystery Oates contrived to bring his great " discovery "

1673-8] The Coleman correspondence-Godfrey murdered. 221

to the notice of Charles, who treated it with contempt. But Danby
urged that the Privy Council should be informed ; and, when the Duke
of York discovered that forged treasonable letters were being sent to his
Jesuit confessor, Charles could no longer resist. On September 28 and
the two following days Gates was examined at the Council Board. The
King caught him lying, but the extent and gravity of his charges
demanded investigation ; so, under Oates' guidance, a guard was de-
spatched at night to arrest the chief persons incriminated. In one
important point Gates' story was confirmed. He had accused Coleman,
who had for some years acted as James' private secretary, of carrying on
a treasonable correspondence with Pere de La Chaise, the Jesuit confessor
of the King of France. When Coleman was arrested, the papers seized
at his house proved this to be true.

From the moment when Charles, in 1673, cancelled his declaration of
indulgence, the Catholics had nothing to hope from him. The more
active among them turned to the Duke of York as their natural leader,
and began to organise a party in his interest. They fought the Non-
resisting Test hard, and congratulated themselves on its failure to
establish the royal power. They hoped eagerly for the day when they
should be supreme. Closely in touch with the Jesuits in England and
France, Coleman laid the threads of a widespread intrigue, which can be
traced up to the end of the year 1676, for filching the reins of power
from the King by the aid of French money and support and placing
them in the hands of his master, the Duke. When the unlucky secretary
stood his trial for treason, his correspondence with Pere de La Chaise was
the heaviest evidence against him. What was concerted in these dark
channels between 1676 and 1678 is unknown ; but there exist clear
indications that the Jesuit activity did not cease. There was no " plot "
in Gates' sense ; but there was quite enough of plotting to cost men their
heads under the English law of treason, and Titus evidently had some
knowledge of the facts, which he embroidered to suit his own purpose.

When Gates was summoned before the Privy Council, he probably
believed that he was about to be summarily got rid of. He therefore
took the precaution to place his information beyond reach of the Court
by leaving a sworn copy with Sir Edmund Berry Godfrey, a London
magistrate celebrated for having on a previous occasion resisted royal
pressure in the popular cause. Intense excitement had already been
caused by the arrest of the Jesuits and the rumours of Coleman's letters:
it now swelled into a feverish panic, when on Gctober 12 Godfrey dis-
appeared, and when five days later his corpse was found in a field at the
foot of Primrose Hill, transfixed by his own sword. It is certain that
he was murdered, but not by robbers and in no common way. He had
been strangled, his sword thmst through his heart after death, and
his body brought from a distance and arranged where it was found so
ajs to simulate the appearance of suicide. Whatever may be the true

222 Popular and parliamentary agitation. [i678

explanation of the mystery of his death — and the only one that seems
alike reasonable and supported by circumstantial evidence makes Jesuit
agents guilty of his murder — to the citizens of London and Englishmen
generally Godfrey's miu-der seemed the first blow in a wholesale massacre
of Protestants and sure proof of Gates' veracity at every point. The
country went mad with terror and hatred, and a grievous persecution of
Catholics set in under the guidance of Gates, the crew of perjurers who
followed his lead, and their political supporters. For the Whigs dis-
covered in Gates' revelations the means of fanning up a popular fury
against the Court that might well seem irresistible. Gut of the debates
in Parliament on Coleman's letters grew the project of excluding the
Duke of York from the throne. When on Gctober 21 Parliament
met, both Houses flung themselves eagerly into the agitation. Under
Shaftesbury's influence committees were appointed, addresses were made,
for every conceivable purpose connected with the Plot; a Bill was
prepared to disable Catholics by a test oath from sitting in either
House ; Gates and Bedloe, his chief coadjutor, were heard at the bar of
both; and on November 1 a joint resolution was voted that "there hath
been and still is a damnable and hellish plot, contrived and carried on
by popish recusants, for the assassinating and murdering the King and
rooting out and destroying the Protestant religion." According to an
estimate prepared for Danby in 1676, the number of recusants in the
whole province of Canterbury did not exceed 12,000 ; but great doubt
prevailed as to the total strength of the Catholics, of whom there were
said to be 30,000 in London alone, and it is certain that the size of
Gates' "Popish army" did not seem at all improbable. Events now
moved fast. While the informers were lodged at Whitehall, pensioned,
feasted, and acclaimed as saviours of society, on November 2 Sacheverell
asked the lawyers in the Commons « whether the King and Parliament
may not dispose of the succession to the Crown"; on the same day
Shafbesbury, supported by Halifax and Essex, moved in the Lords, and
on tiie 4th, Russell in the Commons, that the Duke of York should
be dismissed from the King's presence and counsels; on November 20
the Test Bill sent up by them passed the Lords, though with the
proviso, obtained by almost incredible exertion on the part of James and
Danby, that it should not extend to the Duke of York ; and by the first
week in December Coleman and another Catholic layman had been tried
for high treason, convicted, and executed. In attacking the Duke, the
Whigs concerted their action with Barillon. Both, for different reasons,
wanted to be rid of Danby and of the army, and they agreed that an
attack on James was the best way. If Danby upheld him, the Minister
could be accused of popery : if he withdrew his support from James, he
would be surrendering the prerogative, on which his power depended.
Danby supported James, and, in a short time, fell. While an attempt
was made to have the militia called out for a fixed period of forty-two

1678-9] Danhy'sfalL- The Cavalier Partiament dissolved. 223

days, the Whigs persisted in their cry for the disbandment of the army ;
and on December 26, a few days after the impeachment had been voted
of the five Catholic Lords accused by Oates, a supply was granted and
appropriated to that object. The combined fear of the Court, of
Catholicism, and of France, and the energy of the French ambassador
and of the politicians who harped on that fear, were rapidly demolishing
the Treasurer's organisation. At this moment the personal assault was
delivered. Danby had refused the post of Secretary of State to Ralph
Montagu, ambassador in Paris; Montagu now revenged himself by
taking 50,000 crowns from Louis to publish the instructions he had
received from Danby in March, 1678, in which 6,000,000 francs were
demanded of the King of France as the price for thfe dissolution of
Parliament. That Danby had always strongly disapproved of such
negotiations, which were forced on him by Charles, mattered little. He
tried to forestall Montagu, but in vain : the production of the papers in
Parliament caused an afirighted clamour for his dismissal ; he could not
effectively defend himself without betraying the King; and his im-
peachment was voted, when Charles, in a desperate attempt to save his
Minister (January 24, 1679), dissolved the Cavalier Parliament which
had sat for nearly eighteen years, had restored the authority of Crown
and Church, and had in turn betrayed and been betrayed by both.

The Whigs swept the country, though at an enormous cost in beer
and gold ; and when the new Parliament met on March 6, 1679, it was
found that the Government could count on a mere handful of twenty
or thirty members in the Commons, as against a hundred and fifty in
the old. Danby, who in the interval had been dismissed from office and,
as compensation, been given a marquisate and, as security, a general
pardon, took refuge from the impeachment by hiding at Whitehall.
The Commons then proceeded against him by Bill of attainder. Four
days before the Bill would have had effect, Danby appeared in the
House of Lords and was committed to the Tower. There he remained
for five years. He had done more than any man to consolidate the
royal power ; his downfall gave an immense impetus to the attack of the
Whigs upon it. Charles was left to govern alone.

It is beyond our purpose to disentangle here the confused intrigues
which filled the next two bloody and panic-stricken years. Above the
vulgar web of plot and counterplot, in which treacheries, perjuries, and
forgeries were the tools of Catholic and Protestant alike, two figures
stand out clear in the history of the time : the one of Shaftesbury, under
cover of the Popish Plot levelling stroke after stroke at the Duke of
York in the belief that, unless he were ruined, he would ruin England;
the other of Charles, maintaining his brother's defence, in the hope that
through him he would save the rights of the Throne. From the first the
King took the line of offering every possible concession, whether real
or illusory, that was not vital to his interests. Within a few days of

224 The Exclusion Bill. [i679

Danby's imprisonment the Privy Council was remodelled on a scheme
devised by Sir William Temple, by which he trusted to restore concord
to the State. To prevent caballing the new council was to contain
thirty members, instead oi fifty, so as to deliberate in a single body ; it
was to be rich, so as to have authority; it was to be half official and half
popular, so as to hold the balance between different ideas. Charles
welcomed the scheme, to the joy of its promoters ; to their yet greater
joy he consented to include Halifax in the Council : but to their amaze-
ment he insisted upon naming Shaftesbury its president. In point of
fact the King intended the Council to fail and soon made it impossible
for the Whigs, who had already lost credit with their friends by serving,
to remain upon it. Shaftesbury was dismissed in October: his chief
supporters resigned three months later. But Halifax, nicknamed for
his moderate policy "the Trimmer," remained, and with Essex and
Sunderland the new Secretary of State, formed a coalition that obtained
for them the name of "the Triumvirate."

Early in March, to avoid the storm brewing in Parliament, Charles
had ordered his brother, much against his will, abroad to Brussels.
On May 11, a Bill was introduced into the Commons "to disable
the Duke of York to inherit the imperial crown of this realm." The
Exclusion Bill was the work of Shaftesbm-y, and it dominated English
politics for two years. On May 15 it was read for the first time;
but on the 26th Charles, to stop its progress, first prorogued and after-
wards dissolved his second Parliament, against the advice of his whole
Council. One Act of this Parliament alone, the Habeas Corpus Act, is
on the statute book ; and that only passed its third reading in the Lords
because the Whig tellers in joke counted one very fat lord as ten.

The whole summer was hot with blood and excitement. In the
seventeenth century the law, both in theory and in practice, was far less
favourable to persons accused of crime, especially against the State, than
it has come to be in a more humane age. Dissection of evidence and
cross-examination of witnesses were arts unknown till a century later.
Spies and parish constables took the place of professional police ; perjury
was seldom detected ; and the whole administration of justice was
coloured by the knowledge that the acquittal of a traitor might mean
civil war. For the murder of Godfrey three innocent men were hanged.
Six Jesuit fathers and three others were executed, chiefly owing to Oates'
evidence, for treasons of which they were guiltless ; and in the early autumn
began a number of prosecutions and convictions of priests throughout the
country under a statute of Elizabeth which made it treason for a priest
to be within the land. But in July the important trial of Sir George
Wakeman resulted in the acquittal of Wakeman and his fellow-prisoners.
So far little decisive evidence had been put forward by the defence at the
trials, and it was almost due to chance that at Wakeman's a witness was
called who proved Oates' perjury beyond a doubt, Oates tried to buUy

1679] Charles falls ill. 225

the Court; but Scroggs, the Lord Chief Justice, a strong, brutal, and
honest man, rated him in such vigorous style that he was reduced to
a state of collapse, and the jury for the first time disbelieved his
evidence. Scroggs was furiously attacked by the Whig Lords and the
Whig mob : but the informer had received a check from which he never
wholly recovered. More than Wakeman's life hung upon the trial,
for in the preceding November Gates, inspired by the Whig leaders,
had accused the Queen of high treason in conspiring with Wakeman
against Charles' life. K the accusation could be supported, Shaftesbury
hoped to force the King to a divorce and a Protestant marriage. For
his part, Charles, as he said, was willing to give Gates line enough;
but he was determined never to let the Whigs off the hook on which
he was skilfully playing them. Baffled on this side, Shaftesbury turned
his hopes towards Monmouth, who in June gained great reputation
by suppressing the Bothwell Brigg rebellion in Scotland. But thereby
he definitely sacrificed the support of Halifax; for though Halifax,
who told Temple that "the plot must be handled as if it were true,
whether it were so or no," was anxious to restrain by law the power of a
Catholic sovereign, he refused to countenance such a revolution as the
Exclusion Bill implied. And the proposal seemed even to portend a
second civil war : on the prorogation of Parliament in May Shaftesbury
had sworn to have the heads of those who advised it.

In August the King was taken violently ill at Windsor, and both
sides eagerly prepared for the event of his death. While the Trium-
virate summoned James in swift secrecy from Brussels and arranged for
his proclamation as King, the Whigs planned insurrection. They were
ready to seize the Tower, Dover Castle, and Portsmouth, to arrest the
Duke's supporters ; and it was beheved that a large force could have taken
the field in a few days under the banner of Monmouthw Fortunately for
the country, Charles recovered as quickly as he had been struck down,
and before his brother arrived was out of danger. The rejoicing of those
who saw how near the nation had been to a civil war exasperated the
dismay of the Whigs. James returned to Brussels, but for a brief
visit only : on October 7 it was announced in the Gazette that he
would remove to Scotland, whither he proceeded after a triumphant
reception in the City before the end of the month. Monmouth on
the other hand was banished to Holland, and when at the end of
November he returned without leave and insolently struck the bar
sinister from his arms, the King refused to see him, deprived him of
all his offices, and ordered him to quit London. Monmouth at length
obeyed, but only to make the semi-royal progress through the West,
that afterwards had such ill-fated results.

Charles' fourth Parliament had met on October 7, 1679. It was
imnlediately prorogued, adjourned, and again prorogued to October,
1680. Charles had acted, as usual in matters of importance, without

0. M. H. V. (!H. IX. 15

226 The Exclusion Bill thrown out. [168O

the advice of his Council, and by way of retort to a petition for an
early meeting, got up by Shaftesbury. He calculated that without means
of agitating in Parliament the Whigs would be driven to unconsti-
tutional procedure which would further alarm all moderate men. The
Whig managers, taken by surprise, could do nothing but procure
petitions from all over the country ; the Government met them by a
flood of counter-addresses, expressing confidence in the King's wisdom
and abhorrence of the petitioners. Petitioners and Abhorrers divided
the nation ; and it was this quaint incident that solidified the Court
party, to which the nickname of "Tory," bestowed on it by no less
a godfather than Titus Gates himself, henceforth persistently attached
itself. Next, Shaftesbury was drawn into a negotiation with the Court
on the lines of a divorce and a Protestant marriage for Charles. He
hoped for success, when suddenly, to his intense chagrin, the King
on January 29, 1680, declared that, as James' absence had not produced
the desired result, he was about to recall him. The Whig leader
retaliated by setting about stories of a certain " Black Box," which,
if found, should contain the contract of marriage between Charles
and Lucy Walters, the Duke of Monmouth's mother. Well into the
summer, the Black Box occupied the Council and the pubUc and
produced several memorable pamphlets asserting and proclamations
denying its existence. At the end of June, Shaftesbury with a number
of Whig Lords and commoners tried to present the Duke of York
to the grand jury of Westminster as a popish recusant ; but the judges
discharged the jury before a bill could be found.

At last the meeting of Parliament could be delayed no longer,
and the Exclusion BiU was speedily introduced. To remove a source
of disturbance, the King had forced his brother to withdraw again
to Edinburgh, and, to James' horror, offered a compromise, known as
"the Expedients," by which, when he came to the throne, he should
retain the title of King, but forfeit all the power. Halifax viewed
the Expedients with favour, but the Commons, taking their cue from
Shaftesbury, rejected them with insult. Abhorrers were violently at-
tacked, members expelled for discrediting the Plot, and on November 15,
Russell, attended by a great company and " with a mighty shout,"
presented the Exclusion Bill to the Lords. Its passage was pressed
with all the passion, the force, the eloquence of the famous Whig
orators. Charles was present at the debate and witnessed the defection
of Sunderland, who with the Duchess of Portsmouth had been moved by
fear and bribes to join his enemies. When Monmouth urged Exclusion
as the only means to safeguard the King's life, he broke in with a
loud whisper, "the kiss of Judas." Treachery, fame, and eloquence
seemed like to carry the day; but Halifax, in a superb effort, met
them at every turn. He rose to speak fifteen or sixteen times,
and it was due to his exertions that at nine o'clock in the evening.

leso-i] Charles' last Parliament. 227

after a debate of six hours, the Bill was thrown out by 63 to 30.
Maddened by their defeat, the Commons plunged into a series of
indiscriminate attacks on their opponents. Supplies were refused, and
a Bill for a Protestant Association for the government of the country
with Monmouth at its head was being prepared, when on January 10,
1681, Charles prorogued and then dissolved Parliament. Writs for
a new Parliament were instantly issued, but in order to avoid the hostile
atmosphere of the capital, Charles, on the advice of Danby, who con-
tinued to correspond with him from the Tower, summoned it to meet,
not at Westminster but at Oxford. The London mob, fiercely hostile
to the Court, was completely under Shaftesbury's influence ; and Charles
had reason to believe that an attempt would be made to place Parlia-
ment under the control of the City.

One tragic success was scored by the angry Commons. On Novem-
ber 29, 1680, his sixty-ninth birthday, Lord Stafford was brought to the
bar of the House of Lords on the charge of high treason made against
him two years before by Oates, and after a trial of seven days was
found guilty. The perjured evidence marshalled against him was so
strong as to obtain a verdict that was not whoUy partisan ; but, though
Charles' belief in Stafford's innocence had been shaken, the result
was a political defeat that the King felt keenly. One month later
Stafford was led to the scaffold; when the executioner showed his
head to the crowd a howl of joy broke from their lips.

While the Whigs, who were again returned to Parliament with
a powerful majority, pledged to demand the Exclusion, the Association,
and the restriction of the King's right to prorogue and dissolve Parlia-
ment, rode down to Oxford with bands of armed retainers, the
Government prepared likewise for the fray. Windsor Castle, the
Tower, Lambeth Palace, and Whitehall were put in a state of defence ;
and a regiment was posted along the Oxford road, for the event of
the King being forced to retreat. From time to time during the last
eighteen months Charles had been negotiating for a money-treaty
with Barillon, and just before the dissolution had obtained what he
wanted. For a sum of 12,500,000 francs, to be paid in the course of
the next three years, he agreed to disengage himself from the Spanish
alliance which he had concluded after his breach with Louis, and to
prevent the interference of Parliament with the schemes of the French
Government. The fear of Parliament compelled Louis to make Charles
independent of his people. " If the King would be advised," said
Halifax to Sir John Reresby, " it is in his power to make all his
opponents tremble." Charles had in fact timed his stroke to perfection.
The crisis of the struggle had arrived. He had obtained security on
the side of finance at the precise moment when, unless he took the
offensive, the day would be lost to him. The Parliament that now
met (March 21) lived but a week, and it was his last. Charles offered

OH. IX. Ifi— 2

228 The Tory reaction. [lesi

a compromise: it was refused. Shaftesbury approached the King
personally, but was met by an open declaration of war. On March 26,
the Exclusion Bill was voted. The 28th was fixed for its first reading ;
but on the morning, while Sir William Jones was appealing to Magna
Carta, the Commons were summoned to the King's presence. They
thought they had come to receive his surrender and crowded eagerly
into the House of Lords. Charles, who had kept his intention absolutely
secret, thereupon ordered the Lord Chancellor to declare Parliament
dissolved. He soon afterwards drove off to Windsor ; the Whigs fled.
Shaftesbury in vain tried to hold his followers together; but they
refused to fulfil their engagements. Their power was broken at a blow.

Within these two and a half years the long struggle that had
filled the history of England since the dismissal of Clarendon had
reached its culminating point. For ten years the King lived at odds
with Parliament, the Commons striving to control the royaj power,
Charles to free it. Then the Country party, transformed by Shaftesbury
into the Whig organisation, seized on the Popish Plot as a means to
oust the King. Charles met them by a cool and Fabian strategy,
always seeming on the point of defeat, and always driving them to
greater violence, till their excesses had alienated the country and he
could strike a decisive blow. He gave Parliament just enough rope
to hang itself. Though belief in the Popish Plot was not yet dead,
and though he could not save from the gallows the venerable Archbishop
Plunkett, Catholic Primate of Ireland, who was convicted on perjured
evidence for an alleged Irish Plot and executed on July 1, 1681, Charles
was thenceforth secure. A policy of fierce retaliation on the Whigs was
immediately carried out, while the nation looked on undisturbed ; the
doctrine of " non-resistance " was pushed to its furthest limits ; Filmer's
Patriarcha, written during the Civil War to maintain the divine right of
kings, was published and favourably received ; and Dryden's magnificent
satires, Absalom cmd Achiiophel and The Medal, gave lasting expression
to the ideas that underlay the Tory reaction.

The first step of the Court was to safeguard itself in the City. A
conviction for high treason was obtained at Oxford against Stephen
College, a henchman of the Green Ribbon Club. But the City con-
trolled the election of the London Sheriffs; the Sheriffs saw that
Middlesex juries were composed of staunch Whigs ; and in the autumn,
when a similar accusation was brought aga,inst Shaftesbury,' the grand
jury ignored the Bill. Shaftesbury had offered, if he were released
without trial, to go into voluntary exile ; but, though Halifax, who was
now the King's most influential adviser, strongly urged that his terms
should be accepted, Charles said that he could not trust his great
enemy's word and refused. So long as London remained Whig,
Shaftesbury was unassailable. Accordingly, in the following year a
formidable attack was begun on the self-governing corporation of the

1682-3] Quo Warranto. — Rye House plot. 229

City by means of a writ of Quo Warranto, brought in the Court of
King's Bench and calling on the City to show cause why it should not
forfeit its charter on account of abuse of its privileges. Once or twice
before in the course of the reign the process had been made use of against
corrupt boroughs : now it was systematically adopted for the purpose of
rooting out self-government in England. The proceedings against the
City charter, which were of immense length, only terminated in June,
1683 ; though the case for the Crown was in all respects weak and in
some frivolous, judgment was entered against the City and the charter
forfeited. Charles oiFered to restore it on his own terms, the chief being
that he should have a veto on the election of the principal officers;
the City accepted, then withdrew its acceptance, whereupon the King
proceeded without more ado to nominate its officers directly. At the
same time proceedings were instituted against the charters of other
towns ; and, while some were forfeited, others were voluntarily sur-
rendered. Early in 1682 Hereford surrendered its charter; Nottingham
followed ; then York ; and as many as sixty-six cities and towns, whose
charters were forfeited or remodelled, passed under the control of the
Crown. The discredit of this momentous revolution fell chiefly upon
Halifax; but he seems not to have been specially responsible for the
scheme.

Long before the fight for the charters was over, the stronghold of
London was captured by the Tories. On Midsummer Day, 1682, by a
combination of force and fraud the Lord Mayor, who had been won
over by the Court, foisted two Tory Sheriffs on the City and, before the
year was out, made sure that a Tory Mayor would succeed him. The
Whig leader, and indeed all of prominence in the party, were at
the mercy of the Crown, should they be prosecuted : their safety had
lain in the certainty of a Whig panel ; and the return of the Duke of
York to London and to office, the open defiance of the Test Act, and a
renewal of the most rigorous persecution of dissenters by the triumphant
Tories indicated the extent of the mercy that would be shown. Driven
to desperation, the members of the Green Ribbon Club plotted open
rebellion. A council of six, consisting of Monmouth, Essex, Russell,
Algernon Sidney, Hampden, and Howard, with Shaftesbury as its
president, debated plans for a general insurrection and a simultaneous
movement under Argyll in Scotland, while a plot for the assassination
of Charles and James was hatched by the old Cromwellians, Wildman,
Rumbold, and Rumsey, and by Robert Ferguson, nicknamed "the Plotter."
But everything was in confusion : those concerned had diffiarent ideas
and different intentions ; their support was doubtful ; Monmouth, on
a second Western tour, found the country-folk unwilling for war;
Shaftesbury had lost his old mastery and, fearful of arrest at his house
in Aldersgate Street, was skulking in the London slums. The pope-
burning on November 17 had been named as a signal for the rising, and.

230 Charles' success, and death. [i683-5

when the Government prohibited it, Shaftesbury felt that the game was
up : he fled to Holland and died on January 21, 1683, embittered and
broken. The remainder persevered ; and a day was fixed in April for
attacking the King on his return from Newmarket at Rumbold's abode,
the Rye House ; but, owing to a fire in the town, Charles returned a week
sooner than was expected and escaped. In June both plots came to light.
Lord Howard tui-ned traitor, and Russell and Sidney were brought to the
bar for high treason. Against Sidney the law was strained by Jeffi-eys, the
new Lord Chief Justice, but Russell was legally and justly convicted. Both
were executed, and Essex committed suicide in the Tower. Monmouth
was allowed to hide, was then forgiven, and then exiled. Thus the Whig
opposition was finally destroyed. Charles had attained the object of so
many years' endeavour : he was King, absolute and uncontrolled.

Meanwhile, the seizure of Strassburg by Louis in 1681 and the sub-
sequent attack on Luxemburg had roused the fears of Europe to the
highest degree, and strenuous efforts were made and backed by Halifax to
obtain the cooperation of England against him. Charles, however, true
to the policy that had won him success at home, took advantage of the
crisis, while engaging in dilatory negotiations with the allies, to extort
at the end of November, 1681, a million Uvres from Louis as the price
of his neutrality. Halifax, the Duke of Ormond, and Danby, now
released from the Tower, pressed him to summon Parliament ; in 1683
Charles married Princess Anne of York to Prince George of Denmark,
who, though in the French interest, was a Protestant ; but, although in
the autumn of 1684 there was certainly talk of an arrangement between
himself, Halifax, Monmouth, and the Prince of Orange against the Duke
of York, Sunderland, and the French, it is doubtful whether he more
than played with the scheme. But on February 2, 1685, Charles, being
then fifty-four years old, was seized, as is now established beyond doubt,
by an apoplectic fit. He lingered for some days, apologising for being
such "an unconscionable time in dying," and on the 6th, after being
received into the Roman Catholic Church by Huddlestone, the priest
who had saved his life after the battle of Worcester, expired. Among
his last words were: "Let not poor Nelly starve." The nation loved
him well and mourned him long.

Charles IPs brilliant gifts, his love of pleasure, his indolent coolness
amid the thrilling and tragic vicissitudes of his reign, while endearing his
memory to many English people, have obscured the height of his political
genius. At the time of his death he had, in fact, fully accomplished, by
secret means and without the force destined to support it, the secular
part of the policy into which he had entered at Dover nearly fifteen
years before for the destruction of English liberties and the consolida-
tion of his own power. He left to his brother a kingdom compact, loyal
and prosperous, which James, in the attempt to carry out the religious
side of the policy of that splendid treason, within four years turned

1685] Accession and character of James. 231

against himself, to the ruin of the House of Stewart and the undoing
of all Charles' work. The new King, who combined his grandfather's
Scottish stubbornness with the raw Catholicism of a convert, owed to
the ungraciousness of his manners a wholly undeserved reputation for
probity and veracity. He was easily prejudiced, easily alarmed, never
forgot a foe, and seldom remembered a friend. With a passion for
revenge and an exceptional want of imagination, foresight, and political
tact, he longed at the same time to play a great national part on the
European stage and to establish Catholicism in England, so that its
subsequent destruction should be impossible. He thought that everyone
who did not agree with him was a rebel. He was convinced that his
father had lost crown and head by an unaccountable weakness for
making concessions. Moderate counsels were neglected, Halifax and
Danby disgraced and driven to opposition, and the royal confidence was
reposed in men of servile character and ignorant ambition.

The new reign, however, began well. James' declaration that he
would preserve, defend, and support " this Government, both in Church
and State, as it is now by law established" was received with general
satisfaction; and it was certain that the Parliament summoned for
May 19 would be overwhelmingly Tory. Meanwhile James, having
made Rochester, the second son of Lord Chancellor Clarendon, Lord
Treasurer, confirmed Sunderland as Secretary of State, and removed
Halifax to the pompous position of Lord President of the Council,
renewed through BariUon his brother's engagements to France and sent
John, Lord ChurchiU, to Versailles to express his warm gratitude for
Louis' support, which took the shape of an immediate gift of some
£40,000 and large promises of help for the future. The King had thus
security, as he thought, for the fulfilment of the religious schemes that had
already been inaugvu:ated. Mass was said at Whitehall with open doors,
and the Catholics everywhere raised their heads in joyful expectation.

Before Parliament met, the new Government had already made its
mark. On May 7, Titus Gates was indicted for perjury, convicted on two
counts, and sentenced to be flogged from Aldgate to Newgate, and from
Newgate to Tyburn. Though the sentence was carried out with the utmost
brutality. Gates sm-vived ; but Dangerfield, another perjurer, died of a
similar whipping and of a subsequent assault by a savage Tory, who, to
relieve the Government of odium, was himself hanged for murder. The
signal was given for the persecution of dissenters; throughout the
country the penal laws were sharpened against them, and Baxter, their
revered and temperate chief, was bullied by Jeffreys, fined, and im-
prisoned. Parliament showed itself as favourably disposed as could be
hoped. The Commons not only voted to James for life the whole of
the revenue enjoyed by the late King, but an extraordinary supply of
if 400,000 ; the proceedings against Danby and the Catholic peers were
terminated ; and a Bill reversing Stafford's attainder was well advanced,

CH. IX.

232 Sedffmoor. — The "Bloody Assizes." [less

when its passage was interrupted — as it proved for nearly a century and
a half — by the news that the Duke of Monmouth had landed in arms in
the west of England.

Monmouth had heard in Holland the news of his father's death with
dismay. His cousin William advised him to seek fame against the
Turks, and he himself contemplated retiring into private life ; but the
counsel of other exiles and of malcontents in England prevailed. While
Argyll, in pursuance of the old Rye House plan, was to rouse the High-
lands, Monmouth undertook to invade England as champion of freedom
and Protestantism. On June 11, he landed with a small force at Lyme
Regis, proclaimed himself King, and after some futile manoeuvring with
raw country levies, attempted to surprise the royal troops under Lord
Feversham, a nephew of the great Turenne, and Churchill, at Sedgmoor
on the night of -July 5. His men were scattered ; he fled, was captured,
brought to London, and, being already attainted, was executed on Tower
Hill on the 15th. James took his fill of revenge. After the battle Colonel
Kirke, who had earned a vile reputation at Tangier, was let loose on the
country with his regiment, known in ironical allusion to the emblem on
their standard as "Kirke's Lambs." Then Jeffreys, accompanied by four
judges, went on the western circuit to what have ever since been known
as the "Bloody Assizes." A few examples were made in London; in
Hampshire, Dorset and Somerset 320 persons were hanged; 841 trans-
ported; one woman was beheaded; one was burnt alive. There was
plunder too : the Queen and her maids of honour trafficked in slaves and
ransoms, and Jeffreys returned to London rich with the proceeds of the
pardons he had sold. He was welcomed by the King, and in September
was appointed Lord Chancellor in place of Lord Guilford, who had died
in disgrace because of his protest against the proceedings of the King.

Three days before Sedgmoor Parliament had adjourned. When it
met again on November 9, the spell of ecstatic loyalty, if not broken,
was plainly weakened. Beneath the surface, the tendency of the Court
and the horrors of the rebellion were working a reaction. James had
now an army of 20,000 men, largely quartered at Hounslow, for the
maintenance of which the attempt on his throne would serve him as a
pretext, while the deficiency of experienced Protestants warranted his
officering it with Catholics. He hoped at the same time to abolish the
militia, the only force which could, he conceived, be used against him.
When Halifax urged that commissions to Catholics were illegal, he was
dismissed from office and his name struck off the list of privy councillors.
The King assured Barillon that, come what might, he should keep the
army on foot. If he were to reign with the goodwill of his people, his
need was, besides supply for the army, the repeal of the Test Act. IBut,
while the Test Act was popular, a standing army was hated; and, a
few days before Parliament met, came the news from over the channel
that Louis, in the cause of political absolutism, had put the final

1685-6] The Dispensing Power. 233

touch to the persecution of the Huguenots that had raged with increas-
ing violence for the last three years. James was informed in advance
of the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes, and expressed his entire
approval of it. Yet even so high a Tory as Sir Roger L'Estrange
declared that the Protestant religion must be "the trump card" of the
Government; and, while the sight of Huguenot refugees incensed the
minds of the populace against France and Rome, a powerful minority
was preparing in Parliament to oppose the King's policy. In the
Commons an artful stand was taken on the question of supply, and not
more than £700,000, exactly half of the sum wanted by James, was
voted ; but the disposition evinced by both Houses to take his dealings
with religion into account was even more serious. He felt that the
result would be unfavourable and, coming swiftly to a decision, prorogued
Parliament on November 20, without even awaiting the passage of the
Money Bill. Recalcitrant members who held posts under Government
were dismissed. Compton, Bishop of London, who had spoken bravely
of the danger to his Church, was removed from the deanery of the Chapel
Royal and the Privy Council. In James IPs reign Parliament met no more.
Compared with his brother, James was an ignorant man, and the
Ignorance that possessed him most was ignorance of the value of time.
Unless he were constant in pressing on the cause he had at heart, he
thought his religion delivered over to its enemies and himself false to his
trust. Under the influence of this miscalculation and of the delusion
that high-churchmen were more than half Catholic, he proceeded to
crowd into the remainder of his reign an astounding number of follies.
A committee consisting of Sunderland, several Catholic peers, the Jesuit
Petre, and "lying Dick Talbot" who, though the traducer of James'
first wife, had been raised by him to the earldom of Tyrconnel, had
already been formed to watch over the Catholic interests. The King
published two papers of theological argument, found in his late brother's
strong-box, as proof that Charles II had been a Catholic. By this and
by his personal declaration to the same effect James thought to convince
Anglicans that they were in eiTor ; in reality he only irritated them. He
now determined to obtain public admittance for Catholics to offices both
of State and of Church. The royal Dispensing Power was ill -defined : then
let it be defined according to his wishes. Four timid or unsympathetic
judges and the Solicitor-General, Heneage Finch, were removed ; and a
collusive case was brought under the Test Act against Sir Edward Hales,
a Catholic who had been appointed Governor of Dover. Hales pleaded
a dispensation by letters-patent, and the King's right to dispense with
the statute was upheld by eleven out of twelve judges. The judgment
gave James his opportunity. Catholics were sworn of the Privy Council ;
a Catholic was confirmed in the mastership of University College,
Oxford, where with the aid of a Jesuit chaplain he publicly said mass ;
a. Catholic was appointed Dean of Christchurch ; the ambassador of the

OH. IX,

234 Compton, Dryden, and Penn. [ie86-7

Catholic Elector Palatine was obliged, against his Prince's inclination,
to open a chapel for Catholic service in the City; and favours were
showered on the obsequious Cartwright, the sycophantic Crew, the
cautious and eloquent Sprat. When Dr Sharp, Dean of Norwich and
Rector of St Giles' in the Fields, animadverted in a sermon on the
motives of converts, James called on Compton to suspend him. Compton
refused. James bethought him of using the ecclesiastical supremacy
of the Crowii to crush the rising resistance of the Church, and, dis-
regarding the statute of 13 Charles II, cap. 12, on the pretext that it
had only abolished the extraordinary powers of the Court of High
Commission, constituted an Ecclesiastical Commission Court, to which
he delegated all his disciplinary powers over the Church. Sancroft,
Archbishop of Canterbury, refused to serve on the commission, which
under the direction of Jeffreys and Sunderland immediately suspended
Compton for refusing to suspend Sharp. But the King gained little
from his victory. In face of his attack, the Church recovered the dignity
of which she had lost something in the days of unquestioning subserviency,
Compton became a popular hero, and a wag nicknamed the commission
the " Congregatio de Propaga/nda Fide.""

James' administration had reached a point where it was impossible
to stand still. He must go either forward or backward, and there were
no thoughts of turning back. The storm now broke on Rochester. The
Lord Treasurer, a convinced churchman, had shown himself adverse to
the recent development of the royal policy; and Sunderland, who possessed
the complete confidence of the Queen and aimed at sole influence over
the King, determined to get rid of him. Rochester was given his choice
between conversion and dismissal, chose the latter, and left office. On
January 7, 1687, the Treasury was put into commission ; and, a month
later, Tyrconnel succeeded Clarendon at the head of the government in
Ireland. The threat to the Church was unmistakable. Clarendon and
Rochester were the King's brothers-in-law, his old personal friends,
devoted to the monarchy, and among the most experienced servants of
the Crown. It was evident that James, who professed to desire nothing
but toleration, had dismissed them merely for being Protestants. • The
hubbub was great ; and, since he still hoped to obtain from Parliament
the repeal of the Test Acts, he was forced to look for support in the
country. Dryden went over, and produced his strange and beautiful
poem. The Hind and the Panther ; yet, though lesser men went with
him, it was clear that the number of conversions was not sufficient ; and
the High Commission proved incapable of suppressing the numberless
pamphlets put forth all over the country against Roime. But an alliance
between all dissenters from the Church of England might perhaps break
down its protecting walls. Toleration might be made to do further
service. William Penn, the celebrated Quaker, had, since his return in
1684 from the colony that bears his name, been much at Court and had

1687] The beginning of the end. 236

come to exercise a certain influence over the King's mind. His object
was universal toleration, and he attended James' advance in that direction
with joy. James would have much preferred a combination of the
Cathohc and Anglican Churches against all outside them; but he had
no choice. On April 4, 1687, he issued a Declaration of Indulgence,
not only suspending all penal laws in religious matters, but abrogating
all religious tests, allowing public worship to all men, and forbidding
his subjects to interfere with any religious assembly. "You are therefore
to be hugged now," wrote Halifax in his famed Letter to a Dissenter, of
which 20,000 copies were circulated, " only that you may the better be
squeezed at another time."

Alone among the Powers of Europe, France had approved and
encouraged the headlong course of the King of England. It was as
much to Louis' interest as ever that England should remain neutral in
the European situation, and he was well aware that a substantial agree-
ment between James and his Parliament would probably mean her
adherence to the Grand Alliance which William of Orange was forming
against him. The League of Augsburg, formed in 1686 between the
Empire, Spain, Sweden, and several German Princes, was countenanced
by the austere and upright Pope, Innocent XI. All these. Catholic as
well as Protestant, desired nothing so much as to see England united
and peaceful. The envoys of the secular States backed Rochester against
Sunderland and lamented his fall. William, who through his agent
Dykvelt and by visits of both Burnet and Penn was in close touch with
English opinion, advised that the King should obtain a general toleration
from Parliament, without at the same time touching or dispensing with the
tests. Had James, after a quiet administration for some years, acted on
his advice, there can be little doubt that he would have succeeded amid the
gratitude of Catholics and Protestants and enjoyed a long and prosperous
reign. But his mind was dominated by Barillon, by Smiderland and by
his Jesuit confessors, who under a strongly French bias ruined them-
selves and him and the whole body of English Catholics. By Pope
Innocent his attitude was deeply reprobated. His impolitic zeal had
previously evoked pontifical rebukes. His importunities in favour of his
wife's relatives and of Petre, his favourite, met with procrastination and
refusal. He sent as ambassador to Rome Lord Castlemaine, who was
personally obnoxious and carried objectionable instructions. He forced
the papal Nuncio in England, the suave Count d'Adda, into a com-
promising situation. He neglected the good of the Catholic Church, as
seen by the Pope, with the obstinacy with which he neglected the good
of his Crown, as seen by all his wisest statesmen. " All the advices sent
from Rome," said Cardinal Howard, whose influence as Cardinal Protector
of England the Jesuits felt bitterly, " were for slow, calm, and moderate
courses. But he saw violent courses were more acceptable, and would
probably be followed." His foresight was justified by the event.

236

CHAPTER X.

THE REVOLUTION AND THE REVOLUTION SETTLEMENT
IN GREAT BRITAIN.

(1) ENGLAND.
(1687—1702.)

The period 1687-1702 is unique in the history of England. Such
achievements as the Bill of Rights and the Act of Settlement, the
foundation of a National Bank and a National Debt, the Toleration
Act and the withdrawal of the Press-Licensing Act, would have exercised
an influence both deep and wide at any time and among any people.
But, as taking place among this people and in this period, they had a
peculiar value; for their influence transcended the bounds of one country
and had a European significance and effect. The question of the removal
of the Tests engaged the attention of Princes and diplomatists in Europe,
as well as of Dissenting ministers and Catholic priests in England.
Continental statesmen watched the results of divisions in the English
House of Commons, knowing that on a casual party vote the fate of a
great alliance might depend. The resolutions of the Bank and the state
of the currency in England decided the fate of a campaign on the
Continent. A native-born King deserted England and tried to reconquer
it with the aid of Frenchmen and Irishmen; a forei^ potentate defended
it with an army of Swedes, Dutchmen, Brandenburgers, and Englishmen.
The rule of an English-bom King threatened disgrace and humiliation
to his country; the rule of a Dutchman brought it power and glory
^England no longer revolved in an orbit of her own ; her course was
deflected, and her movements were determined, by the presence of other
bodies in the political firmament. International policy is here sub-
ordinate to internal history; but, none the less, the coiu"se of domestic
policy can often be explained only by reference to continental problems.

The disasters of James II were chiefly due to the fact that he
mistook tributary streams for main currents of national thought. Thus,
he gathered from the widely different opinions of the clergy that the
Establishment was divided in doctrine; he did not perceive that it
would unite against Catholicism. And, as he perceived the disunion and
was blind to the latent strength of the Establishment, so he saw the

1687] Second Declaration of Indulgence. 237

superficial unity, and was blind to the underlying divisions, between
Dissenters and Catholics. Obstinate and courageous, sincerely believing
that concession had ruined his father and his brother, he was the very
man to ignore obstacles and attempt impossibilities. He at first thought
that the resolute expression of his will would move the Establishment
to consent to the toleration of Catholics. When this expectation failed,
he turned to the Dissenters, and relied upon their coalescence with the
Catholics to secure toleration for both parties. Such were some of the
motives which inspired the Declaration of Indulgence (issued April 4,
1687), by which he suspended all penal statutes against Catholics and
Dissenters, and admitted them to public oiHce in corporations, army, or
civil service.

The Declaration had been issued on the sole ground of the royal
prerogative, by which, it was claimed, the laws could be suspended,
Unfortunately for James, though opinion veered as to the true limits
of royal power, it was steady on the one point on which he elected
to challenge it. Parliament had pronounced a similar Declaration of
Charles II illegal, and the King had acquiesced and withdrawn it
(1672). If precedents counted for anything, James was legally in the
wrong ; and, if the legal irregularity was clear, so also was the politics,!
motive inspiring it. It was obvious that a power which could enforce
the doctrines of toleration might eventually also enforce the doctrines
of absolutism, in the teeth of Parliament. Hence, by a strange but
intelligible paradox, the establishment of liberty in religion would lead
to the destruction of it in politics. But, while recognising that political
motives inspired James, it is not necessary to assume that they excluded
all other considerations. His religious sincerity does not seem to have
been questioned by the foreign diplomatists at his Comrt. His conver-
sion to the principle of toleration was perhaps late; but the influence of
the great WiUiam Penn upon him may explain much. At any rate,
when the conversion was once effected, it remained permanent. Long
afterwards, when in exile — and when he had much to lose by his attitude —
James continued to profess at least a theoretical zeal for toleration.

An attack upon the Universities accompanied the Declaration, and
supplied the mirror in which Englishmen read that toleration meant
hostility to the Establishment. The proceedings against Cambridge are
particularly important, because resistance was here offered even before
the issue of the Declaration. On February 9, 1687, the Vice-Chancellor
of Cambridge (Peachell) received a royal letter, commanding him to
confer the degree of M.A. upon Alban Francis, a Benedictine. Nearly
the whole Senate at once signed a protest a,gainst the proposal, describing
their resistance as proceeding not "from any principle of disobedience
and stubbornness, but from a conscientious sense of our obligations to
laws and oaths." Eventually the Vice-Chancellor, with eight delegates
(including Isaac Newton), was summoned before the Court of High

238 Attack on the Universities. — The Dissenters. [i687

Commission (April and May, 1687). Peachell, aftfer being thoroughly
bullied by Jeffreys, was deprived of his office. But the protest succeeded,
and Francis was left without a degree. The proceedings at Oxford were
different and more violent. Catholic influences had already been intro-
duced into Christ Church and University College without much open
protest; In April, 1687, James had sent a letter recommending Anthony
Farmer — a man of bad character who was a convert to Catholicism —
for the presidency of Magdalen. But the Fellows had already met and
elected John Hough to the post. They were hereupon cited before the
Commission, and ultimately expelled. They offered a more dignified, if
less successful, resistance than the Cambridge Vice- Chancellor and his
companions; but the Oxford opposition, being subsequent to the Declara-
tion, was more natural and has therefore less historic significance.

The interference of James with the Universities has more value as
an illustration of ecclesiastical and popular resentment than as an instance
of royal illegality. For it is hard to say that James had sinned against
established custom. Letters mandatory or dispensatory had expelled
or appointed Fellows under Charles I and II often enough to create
precedents. Professed Lutherans had been admitted to colleges; the
ambassador of Morocco had lately received a degree at Cambridge, in
direct defiance of statutes and in the absence of loud or general dis-
approval. But when James tried to leaven the colleges with Roman
Catholic Fellows the academic bodies suddenly discovered and denounced
the inroad on their privileges. The conviction that the King desired to
override the existing law was becoming deep-rooted, and it nowhere
found a better expression than in the controversial protests of University
officials. But, if James had not violated the statutes or departed from
the custom of the Universities, he had certainly broken his word. He
had confirmed all the suspicions awakened in the Declaration by an
assault upon institutions which every Anglican believed to be nurseries
of the learning, the piety, and the steadfastness of his Church. He had
attempted to humiliate and degrade, he might actually mean to destroy,
the Church which he had repeatedly sworn to defend. Anglicans began
to feel that his measures tended, as the Prince of Orange told the English
ambassador, "really to sap the foundations of the Protestant religion."

Meanwhile, the Dissenters were beginning to suspect James as an ally.
All the eloquence of the great William Penn, the reputed author of the
Declaration, could not win over the Nonconformists. It was significant
that he could not even secure the whole body of the Quakers, amongst
whom his personal influence had hitherto been boundless. And, apart
from them, the majority of the Dissenters looked askance at the Declara-
tion, and their chief divines, Baxter and Howe, actually denounced it.
The joint admission of Dissenters and Catholics to office in the cor-
porations was producing extraordinary results. Thus, Newcastle had a
Papist Mayor and a Puritan Council, and the corporation vetoed every

1687] Halifax and the Prince of Orange. 239

loyfil address put forward by its Catholic head. Such a result was
typical and indeed inevitable; and all the suspicions which could possibly
arise from so unnatural a union were subtly suggested or emphasised by
a pamphlet from the pen of Halifax.

The famous Letter to a Dissenter (published apparently in the middle
of August, 1687) dissected the Declaration with inimitable irony. The
incongruity of an alliance between liberty and infallibility, between
Tiverton weavers and Jesuit priests was skilfully exposed, and well
spiced with allusions to the Popish plot and Romish treachery. Halifax
then proceeded to point out the danger of afitonting the Church of
England "from a desire of ease and revenge." The Declaration depended
Solely on the sincerity of the Comi, for which there was no guarantee ;
and the first act of Princess Mary of Orange, on her accession, might be
to cancel it. Was it worth while to accept a favour of dubious perma-
nence, from a suspected source, at the certain price of alienating the
whole Establishment.? The air of detachment and seriousness, which
Halifax always preserved even in the wittiest and most prejudiced of his
pamphlets, made the effect of this appeal more remarkable. Twenty
thousand copies were sold ; and twenty-four answers, each excelling the
other in violence of abuse and feebleness of argument, vainly endeavoured
to counteract the effect of the most successful pamphlet of the age.

It was followed, at an interval of three and a half months, by another
communication which was inferior to it in literary grace, but surpassed
it in political importance. The document, which put into the shade
even a pamphlet by Halifax, was a letter written by Fagel, Grand
Pensionary of Holland, authoritatively announcing the views of the
Prince and Princess of Orange upon the Declaration. Though their
opinions had been known to James and to diplomatists so early as
June, 1687, they were not revealed to the English people until the
publication of Fagel's letter in November. Fagel announced that the
Prince and Princess desired toleration, and wished no man to be per-
secuted for matters of private conscience. But, while several religions
might be tolerated in private, the Prince and Princess thought that
there could not in one State be two, " public and established." Hence
they could approve nothing "so much against the existing laws," as
removal of the Tests, those necessary safeguards against the Catholics.
Such language was admirably chosen. The Prince and Princess dis-
claimed the right of interference, while clearly condemning the methods
of James ; they profusely protested their duty and affection to the King,
while delicately insinuating that his Declaration was illegal. The success
of FagePs letter was so extraordinary that, by the beginning of 1688,
forty-five thousand copies had actually been sold. From this time the
position of the Prince of Orange, as the protector of the public liberties
and the Protestant religion, was recognised by most members of the
Established Church and by the majority of Dissenters.

OH. Z.

240 James and Parliament. — Mission of Dykvelt. [i687

The ablest of English, and one of the ablest of European, statesmen
had thus pronounced against the Declaration of James. But, apart from
these weighty commentaries, the facts themselves seemed to the English
people to show clearly enough that the royal policy was directed first
against the Established Church, and ultimately against the Constitution.
James was quite aware of their suspicions, and of the danger pf putting
himself legally in the , wrong. He accordingly sought to secure the
sanction of Parliament for the repeal of the Tests and for the establish-
ment of religious toleration. With this view he made persistent efforts
during the summer of 1687 to establish his personal influence over
members of Parliament by securing their adhesion to himself. When this
system of "closetting" (as it was called) proved a hopeless failure, he
dissolved Parliament (July 2). One last resource remained : a new Parlia-
ment might be packed, and the public officers turned into electioneering
agents. If officials refused to act this part, they could be turned out.
In these circumstances, half the Lords Lieutenant and eight hundred
Protestant magistrates speedily resigned or were dismissed. James pro-
ceeded to fill the corporations, the benches of magistrates and the state
departments with his own nominees. Commissions of " Regulators "
filled the corporation councils and the commissions of the peace with
Catholics and Dissenters, and expelled from the public departments any
officials likely to resist the King. Such violent changes could not be
accomplished without disorganising the machinery of State and producing
universal discontent. The continuance of drastic reforms in the public
service, together with a lavish creation of peers, might at any time place
both Houses of Parliament at the feet of James. A revolution of this
kind, if systematically pursued, must eventually be met by a revolution
of another kind; and from this time forward passive constitutional
opposition began to develop into active resistance. By the winter of
1687 James might have read the signs, for almost all the nobility had
deserted his Court and retired to their country estates. Foreign diplo-
matists at least were not deceived, a,nd the sagacious Prince of Orange
understood that the time for active interference was approaching.

In spite of some previous disputes the differences between William
and James did not become acute till 1687. The beginnings of a real
quarrel may be dated from that year, when William sent Dykvelt to
England on a mission whose professed object was one of diplomatic
compliment to James (February — May). Dykvelt speedily revealed his
real purpose by arranging for secret interviews with Devonshire, Halifax,
Danby, Shrewsbury, and others, and endeavouring to ascertain their views
as to the Declaration and the policy of James. It appears that Dykvelt ,
repeated the main substance of these conversations to James, and that
there is no reason to suspect any direct attempt at conspiracy. But
none the less his mission marks an epoch in the history of the time.
William concluded from Dykvdt's report that be ipust abandon all

1687-8] A ttitude of William of Orange-Birth of a Prince. 241

hope of bringing England into the continental alliance by conciliating
James himself. That this deduction was correct can be seen from the
memoirs of James which, though not entirely composed by himself, sub-
stantially represent his views. He there explains that, in the war which
was seen to be approaching, it seemed to him that France would attack
and weaken the Dutch Republic. As the Dutch were our rivals in trade
he thought that England might gain and could not lose by neutrality.
This account omits one all-important consideration. James, though in
his own way a national king, was not wholly swayed by cynical calcula-
tion of England's self-interest. He might perhaps have been willing in
certain eventualities to act as the ally of Louis ; he would certainly have
been delighted to remain neutral. But, as he said on the eve of his
downfall in 1688, he never would declare war upon France. To William
the safety of Etu:ope and of his own country was bound up with
bringing England into the scale against France. The neutrality of James,
therefore, compelled William and foreign diplomatists to interfere in
England, and turned an internal struggle between King and people
into an international event of the greatest magnitude.

After May, 1687, the relations of William with the Opposition
Lords, which up to this time appear to have been quite constitutional,
began to develop into a conspiracy against James. If James would not
join the coalition against Louis in Europe, William would join the
Opposition Lords against James in England. Even during Dykvelt's
mission Danby had let fall some dark hints about a design ; and Shrews-
bury, who came to Holland in August, may have gone further. But
William was determined neither to hazard any rash or premature
attempt, nor to appear in England as a foreign invader. Both of
these resolutions induced slowness and caution, and deepen the obscurity
which hangs over his policy during the winter of 1687. All that can
be said with certainty is that, very early in 1688, he made it clear that
he would take no action unless he received a definite invitation from
leading Englishmen. This was secured to him in June, 1688 ; and the
two events precipitating the crisis were the birth of a son to James,
and the trial of the seven Bishops.

It was kno^vn that James IPs queen, Mary of Modfena, was about to
become a mother, and it was believed that the most momentous issues
would be determined by the sex of her child. The party of prerogative
declared that the birth of a son to James would solve all difficulties, and
produce the discomfiture of the " Orangeists." At least one foreign
diplomat had a different opinion. " Such an event," wrote Hoffmann,
the Emperor's resident in London (April 2), " would only consolidate
the union among them, increase their aversion from the King, and make
them use every effort to prevent the Catholic succession to the Crown."
The news of the birth of James Edward (the " Old Pretender ") on
June 10 speedily proved that Hofi'mann was right. The " Orangeists "

0. M. a. V. Oil. X. 10

242 The Seven Bishops. — Invitation to William. [1688

alleged that the Queen had never been with child, and thait the pseudo-
prince had been smuggled up the backstairs in a warming-pan. The
readiness with which this fable was circulated and believed is a measure
of the unpopularity of James. But statesmen were not content with the
effects of the warming-pan lie upon popular opinion. They speedily
resolved that, since the birth of a son appeared to assure a Catholic
successor to James, the only way of preventing this was to invoke the
interference of the Prince of Orange.

At this critical moment James succeeded in alienating the one great
institution in the State not already hostile to him. The clergy of the
Establishment held the doctrine of passive obedience so strongly that
they advocated submission even to the decrees of a Nero. In 1687,
James had rightly deemed their opposition almost unthinkable; in 1688,
he took the only measure which could possibly have produced it. Not
content with the establishment of practical toleration, he was determined
to make the Establishment acknowledge the justice and wisdom of his
policy. On May 4, 1688, he reissued the Declaration of Indulgence,
and commanded the Anglican clergy to read it to their congregations.
But even the advocates of non-resistance had no intention of becoming
personal advocates of a measure which struck at their own supremacy.
The Established Church was at length forced to oppose him in self-
defence. On May 18, Bancroft, Archbishop of Canterbury, and six
other Bishops, petitioned to be excused reading the Declaration. In
point of fact, very few of the clergy actually read it on either of the
prescribed days (May 20 and 27). James could not attack the whole
mass of the clergy ; but he promptly indicted his episcopal petitioners
for libel. He seems to have meant that they should be tried, con-
demned, and then released by royal pardon. The plan was clumsy and
the error fatal. When the so-called martyrs of the Church passed to the
Tower, every eye was fixed upon them ; the soldiers at the gates knelt
to receive their blessing. Popular enthusiasm penetrated the Law Courts;
the judges were not wholly on the side of James, and the jury at length
proved to be decisively against him. On June SO the seven Bishops were
acquitted amid indescribable enthusiasm. Halifax waved his hat in the
face of the Court like a schoolboy, and the people lit bonfires in the
streets and shouted themselves hoarse with exultation.

On the same night seven men assembled at Shrewsbury's house and
signed a letter of invitation to William. This letter, which asked the
Prince of Orange to bring over an army and secure the liberties of the
people, was carried to Holland by Admiral Herbert in the disguise of a
common sailor. The signatories were the Earl of Devonshire, Henry
Sydney, and Admiral Russell, who represented the extreme Whig party;
Shrewsbury, a moderate Whig; Compton, Bishop of London, a Trimmer;
Lumley, an ex-Catholic; and Danby, an ex-champion of prerogative.
Two conspicuous Opposition Lords, the Marquis of Halifax and Lord

1688] Attitude <yf James. — William's allies. 243

Nottingham, stood aloof, and preferred to rely upon passive constitu-
tional opposition. But the diverse character of the signatories shows how
James had contrived to unite against himself almost all parties in the
State. Besides the letter of invitation, William soon received assurances
from Lord Churchill, Kirke, and Trelawney, leading officers in the army,
from Vice- Admiral Herbert, whose influence was great with the navy, and
finally from Sunderland, the most influential adviser of James. As Sunder-
land was at this moment receiving the gold of Louis, it is permissible to
doubt whether he earned the gratitude of William. But apart from
his assurances, William was confident of strong support in England, and
forthwith began to organise his army and fleet for immediate action.

In view of the intrigues above mentioned it can cause no surprise that
Hoflmann should have reported in September that King James had
against him almost everybody in his kingdom, and that even his soldiers
had become " his most dangerous enemies." To secure himself against
disaffection in the army, which had been infected by the " No Popery "
riots and Protestant vehemence of the capital, James had introduced
some Irish troops into England in August. Their appearance occasioned
murmurs, riots, discontent and the publication of the scurrilous ballad
LUlibullero. So extraordinary was the popularity of this song that its
author, Thomas Wharton, afterwards boasted that he had sung a king
out of three kingdoms by it. James did not venture to land any more
Irish troops. He was equally afraid to turn for aid to France, for he
knew that an open alliance with Louis would be dangerous in the
existing state of English feeling, while a secret league was infinitely
hazardous. Perhaps he would have risked it, had he realised the extent
of his danger. Louis XIV had repeatedly sent warnings of the design
of the Prince of Orange ; but James, with an excess of cunning, argued
that these were only pretexts for entrapping him into an alliance with
France. He seems to have believed the assurances of Mary, William,
and the Dutch ambassador, that no design against England was afoot.
His memoirs relate that Sunderland never failed to ridicule the idea
mercilessly when it was discussed in council. As to the motives of this most
acute and perfidious of politicians, many conjectures have been offered ;
but the advantage of his policy to the cause of William remains undeniable.

The task of William had only begun when his naval and military
preparations were complete. He had to convince German Princes and
Dutch burghers that their safety could only be assured by an expedition
which would remove the Dutch army to England, and leave the German
lands open to attack from the most powerful military sovereign in the
world. The German Princes, with Frederick William of Brandenburg
foremost among them, had hitherto remained more or less neutral.
Though secretly hostile to Louis, they feared the French armies which
had so often triumphed over the German, and doubted whether the
Dutch navy would triumph over the English. But the Great Elector's

en. X. 16—2

244 Policy of Louis XIV. [less

son, Frederick III, who succeeded him on April 29, 1688^ finally brought
Brandenburg out of its neutrality. , He cooperated heartily with William,
and lent him troops for his English expedition under the command of the
famous Schomberg^ithe Protestant ex-Marshal of France. The Landgrave
of Hesse-Cassel and the Brunswick-Liineburg Duke at Celle speedily con-
cluded treaties of alliance with William; the Elector of Hanover intimated
approval ; and the Elector of Saxony was drawn in. The Spanish Habsburg
appears to have regarded with complacency the proposed expedition to
dethrone a Catholic King, for his envoy at the Hague subsequently ordered
masses to be sung for its success. His Austrian kinsman was more
scrupulous, and it was not until William had established relations with the
Pope (Innocent XI) that he made any impression on the Emperor. Leopold
was at length reconciled to the enterprise by the Papal dispensation,
and yielded a reluctant consent. Thus the Prince of Orange was assured
of assistance from many foreign Princes, before his own people, through
their organ, the States-General, had pronounced in its favour. While the
destinies of Europe were suspended on the vote of the States -General,
Louis XIV suddenly intervened and took the decision from its hands.

The policy of Louis at this crisis can be best understood on the
assumption that his attention was fixed upon Germany rather than upon
England or Holland. He presumably thought the establishment of his
own power on the Rhine to be easier and more immediately probable
than the success of William in any design against England. Yet, during
the trial of the Bishops he had vainly offered large sums of money and
the loan of his fleet to James, and later had repeatedly warned him of
William's designs. Losing patience, he at last attempted to force the
English King's hand ; but the result of his effort was only to play the
game of his rival. On September 2, his ambassador, d'Avaux, made an
announcement to the assembled States-General of the Dutch Republic,
of which the immediate effect was to secure for WiUiam the object at
which he had so consistently aimed. D'Avaux pronounced the vast
naval and military preparations of William to be a menace to England.
Owing to the bonds of "friendship and aUiance" existing between
England and France, any enterprise undertaken by the Dutch against
England would involve an immediate declaration of war from France.
The States-General were struck dumb with rage by this haughty and
insulting menace. The mighty armaments of William, which had
appeared to lay a heavy burden upon his country, were now seen to be
the instruments of its salvation. But one difficulty still remained.
After the threats of Louis the Dutch were never likely to allow William
to go on his apparently quixotic expedition to England. But just as the
diplomacy of Louis had won over the Dutch to William's schemes of an
alliance against France, the diplomacy of James was to reconcile them
to his plan of an expedition against England.

James received the news of Louis' friendly intervention in his favour

1688] The expedition sails. 245

with the utmost embarrassment. Conscious of his weakness at home, he
resolved not to compromise his position further by exciting suspicions
about a secret engagement with France. At the moment when the aid of
the French fleet was of vital importance, since his own fleet was smaller
than that of the Dutch, James resolved to pose as the patriotic indepen-
dent sovereign, secure in his island kingdom. He emphatically denied the
existence of any alliance with France, and openly rejected her profiered
assistance. By this masterpiece of folly he contrived not only to injure
the feelings of the French King, but to awaken his suspicions. Louis
was justly indignant and turned to pursue his own most pressing needs,
well assured that James would soon find out the need of relying upon
France. On September 25, Louis threw the whole of his vast military
force, not upon the Dutch frontier, but against the middle Rhine.
Thus the continued impolicy of James and the momentary misjudgment
of Louis brought about what the ability of William himself could not
perhaps have eflected. The States-General, fully assured that the Dutch
frontier could not be attacked in force before the end of the year, gave
the long-desired consent, and bade the Prince of Orange God-speed on
his bold venture for the English Crown.

By September a large army and a vast fleet of transports had been
collected, and in October all was ready. On October 19, Herbert
embarked his squadron at Helvoetsluys, and the Dutch warships sailed
from the Texel, only to be driven back by a terrific storm. The enter-
prise now stood confessed ; and even James was aroused to a sense of
impending danger, and employed the temporary respite in a desperate
effort to restore his popularity. On October 27, he dismissed
Sunderland, borrowed money from the French King, and implored his
aid. He summoned before him the Bishops, whom he had once treated
with such disdain, and begged for their advice. He gave back their
privileges to the Universities, replaced many of the dismissed public
servants, and restored the charters to London and many other cities.
Finally, he dissolved the Ecclesiastical Commission and promised to
summon a new Parliament in November. But James was as reckless
in his policy of conciliation as he had once been in that of compulsion,
and the bewildering suddenness of the changes inspired universal distrust.
His concessions were openly attributed to motives of fear and necessity,
created by the action of a foreign Prince. And, in truth, at this very
moment a proclamation of the Prince of Orange lay in the portfolio of
Fagel, demanding the very reforms that James was hurriedly conceding.

In 1688, as in 1588 and 1798, the course of English history was
profoimdly affected by the chances of wind and weather. William
had to wait long, chafing at a delay which seemed infinitely hazardous.
But at last on November 1, the "Protestant breeze" bore gaily out to
sea the whole vast flotilla of 600 ships, with 15,000 soldiers aboard.
Like Henry of Bolingbroke and Edward of York, WiUiam had at first

246 WilUam's landing and proclamation. [1688

thought of landing in Yorkshire. But the unkindly wind forced him to
run for the west coast, though it made up for this by binding King
James' fleet in the Thames. As William's fl^eet passed the straits of
Dover, the assembled crowds on either coast could hear the clash of
cymbals and roll of drums, celebrating his birthday. The breeze bore
the fleet strongly past Plymouth and then suddenly dropped, allowing it
to get back to the harbour of Torbay. The services of the breeze were
not yet over, for it revived on the night of the 6th, and dispersed
the fleet of King James, which had sailed up in the hope of disturbing
the landing. The disembarkation began on the 5th, and was speedily
effected. On the 18th William's cavalry reached Exeter, and on the
19th the inhabitants were cheering the English regiments of Mackay
and Talmash, gaping at the Dutch guards and the Swedish horse, and
gazing on the stately form of Schomberg and the impassive face of
William. The numerical superiority of the foreign troops to the
English regiments in William's army illustrated the proportion between
the international and the insular significance of the great enterprise.

On the banner of William were inscribed the words Pro Religimie
protestante — Pro libera Parlamento, and beneath them his own proud
motto, Je maintiendrai. His proclamation, published in England on
November 5, expanded these sentiments. It declared that there was
no attempt at conquest, and that the Prince had only come at the in-
vitation of Lords Temporal and Spiritual. It denounced the dispensing
power, the expulsion of the Judges, the establishment of the Court of
High Commission, the attack on the corporations, and the raising of an
army of Irish Papists. It concluded by hinting, in accordance with the
widespread popular rumour, that the Prince of Wales was a supposititious
child, and that Parliament must decide on his legitimacy. The pro-
clamation was speedily followed by a supplementary manifesto denouncing
" the pretended redressments and concessions " of James as illusory, and
declaring that only a settlement by a free Parliament could be final or
satisfactory. It is not easy to see how far this proclamation represents
William's real views ; but its purpose was to excite popular feeling rather
than to propound a definite settlement. In particular it contained no
hint of William's intention of bringing England into the alliance against
France. On the still more urgent question of his own designs upon
the Crown, the proclamation is equally silent.

On November 16 tidings of the landing at Torbay arrived, and James
at once directed the royal army to concentrate at Salisbury. On the
17th James decided to join his army, of which Lord Churchill was
commander-in-chief. When James set out, half-a-dozen noblemen had
already joined William; Danby had raised the north and captured York ;
Devonshire was in arms at Derby, Delamere in Cheshire. The serious
moral effect of these defections was such as to leave no resource to James
but an immediate battle. But, on the morning of the @3rd, he had already

1688] First flight of James. 247

decided to retreat, "as," wrote Barillon to Louis, " he had intended from
the first." On the night of the 24<th, Churchill and the Duke of Grafton
fled to William. On the 25th James, as he left Andover, learnt of the
defection of Ormond and Prince George of Denmark. On nearing
London the unhappy father heard of the flight of his daughter the
Princess Anne. He found his capital in a ferment, and his hopes at
their lowest ebb. So disastrous had been these last few days to James
that the prescient Hoffmann was already able to foretell the result of
the struggle. On December 9 he wrote to the Emperor that the English
affair would be terminated in two or three months, and that all the forces
now in arms would soon march conjointly against France.

When departing for Salisbiuy, James had refused a petition for a
new Parliament, on the ground that the invasion made it impossible.
But on November 27 he summoned a presentable substitute in the shape
of a great Council of Peers, which thirty or forty attended. At the
meeting Clarendon bitterly reproached the King, while Halifax spoke
with more delicacy and respect. Their speeches outlined clearly the
difference between the two parties represented by them. The High
Churchmen were incensed with James because of his attack on the
Establishment; the Moderates were less hostile because less fanatical.
The upshot was a resolution to send Nottingham, Halifax, and Godolphin
as Commissioners to treat with the Prince of Orange. On December 2
they started on their mission, which they appear to have conducted in
good faith. In reality they had been completely deceived by the King,
who merely wished to gain time for preparing his flight to France. On
December 9, James despatched his wife and the Prince of Wales to
France by way of Portsmouth, promising to follow them in twenty-four
hours. During the night of the lOth-llth, he cancelled the recently
prepared writs of the new Parliament, and also wrote a letter to Feversham,
who interpreted it as an order to disband the royal army under his
command. At three in the morning, taking with him the Great Seal,
which was afterwards fished up from the Thames, James secretly fled from
Whitehall to Sheemess. On the afternoon of the same day the Commis-
sioners returned to London, to find the city in terror and the King gone.

The flight of James has always been regarded as the most fatsd of aU
his mistakes. His avowed intention was to dissolve the Government of
the State and to produce confusion by his flight, so as to make it clear
to the people that the return pf the King was the sole security pf law
and order. But be had taken measures before his departure which were
actually instrumental in preventing this result. He had summoned the
Peers to assist the Privy Council on the 11th; and it was natural, when
they met and heard of his flight, that they should assume provisional
authority. The assembly chose Halifax as its president, and drafted a
resolution to cooperate with the Prince of Orange in prociuring a free
Parliament. On the 13th, they received a letter from James with the

248 Second flight of Javies. [lesa

bewildering news that he had fallen into the hands of the mob at
Faversham, in Kent. Assistance was promptly sent, and on the 16th,
the Earl of Feversham, amid shouting crowds, escorted the King back
to the palace he had deserted. On the same day the Privy Council
Registers show that James held a last Privy Coimcil, attended by eight
councillors, at which some orders were issued to the Lords Lieutenant and
the Secretary of the Admiralty. But neither the Lords Lieutenant nor
Samuel Pepys seem to have paid any attention to the last commands
which King James ever issued in England.

The duplicity with which James had deceived not only William but
his own Commissioners, his evident desire to produce disorder, his craven
flight — all these things provoked general indignation. But his flight
brought something more than wrath and humiliation upon James — it
revealed his innermost secret. It was now fatally clear that France was
the goal on which he had determined for his flight, and that he would
trust to French arms for his restoration. France was the Power which
had persecuted the Protestants and humiliated England ; William, who
had always defended the one, was now ready to befriend the other. The
Prince of Orange saw his advantage and made prompt use of it. Until
the flight of James, it seems certain that he had hoped for no more than
a regency. Now — from the moment of the flight — ^he seems to have
conceived the plan of directly assuming the Crown. His obvious policy
was to convince England that James was the ally of France, that
hereditary enemy of her race and her religion. Hence the second flight
of James was, with consummate skill, facilitated by William. At ten on
the night of December 17 the Dutch guards invested Whitehall, and
carried off King James to Rochester early the next morning. Once
there, James found his guards relaxed, and avenues of escape open. The
man whom Turenne had declared to be inaccessible to fear was now a
prey to almost childish terrors. He declared that thei'e was but one step
from the prison to the grave, and the memory of the fate of Richard II
and of his own father hovered before his eyes. He therefore eagerly seized
his opportunity and, on December 23, 1688, quitted the soil of England
for ever. By this second flight, which William had deliberately en-
couraged, James committed political suicide. When Hofi'mann first
heard' of the intended flight of the Queen and the Prince of Wales, he
expressed his opinion to the Emperor that, if they went to France, the
son would lose his crown. This far-sighted prediction applied even more
strongly to the case of James himself. By remaining in England, James
might have retained great influence and caused great difficulties, as his
father had contrived to do while discredited and a prisoner. But once in
France, however uncontrolled, he seemed the sworn friend, almost the
henchman, of England's traditional foe. When William heard the news
of the King's flight, he bade the French ambassador quit England
within twenty-four hours. The action marked the complete immediate

1689] Effects of James" flight. — Projects for a Settlement. 249

harmony between the wishes of the English people and the policy of the
Dutch Stadholder. The protector of the pubhc liberties and the Pro-
testant religion of England had, with the applause of the nation, enlisted
its resources in the service of that "Great Design" which he so inflexibly
pursued, and of that " Grand Alliance " of which he was the recognised
head. The English people did not as yet realise that "the Great
Deliverer" had, in Halifax' luminous sentence, merely "taken England
on his way to France."

With the opening of the year 1689 our interest shifts from the affairs
of France and the Grand Alliance to the internal problems of England.
All parties were agreed that James, as an actually ruling sovereign, was
now an impossibility ; but all parties differed as to the new settlement.
The main lines of division were already shaped in December; but they
were blurred and confused by the flight of James. The extreme High
Church Tories, headed by Clarendon, advocated a regency, with James
as the nominal sovereign; Danby and a small body of Tories argued
that James had abdicated by flight, that proofs of his son's legitimacy
were unobtainable, and that judgment therefore going by default, the
next legal successor was Mary. The Whigs, under Somers and Maynard,
went further and proposed the simple and logical plan of declaring the
throne vacant and filling it by election. Halifax headed a fourth party
of "Trimmers" or Moderates, who advocated giving the Crown to
William and Mary, He objected to the plans both of Somers and
Clarendon, wishing the settlement to rest, not upon logical perfection or
historic precedent, but simply upon grounds of practical necessity.

On the news of James' second flight William had, at the request of
the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, the members of Charles H's Parlia-
ments and the Common Council of London, assumed the administration.
Following their instructions, he issued a circular to constituent bodies,
requesting them to elect representatives for a Convention. William
made no attempt to interfere with the elections. The secret of his calm
is to be found in a momentous interview with Halifax about this time,
which Halifax has recorded with his own hand. It shows clearly that
WiUiam was resolved to retire if James returned to England, and to
refuse the Regency if it was offered him. Regarding his succession
to full power as practically eissured, he awaited the progress of events
with imperturbable calm. Perhaps no member of the Convention
Parliament, which assembled on January 22, as yet thought that events
would end in the way which William already foresaw. The Commons
speedily (January 28) resolved that James, "having endeavoured to
subvert the constitution by breaking the original contract between King
and people, and by the advice of Jesuits and other persons, had violated
the fundamental laws and withdrawn himself out of the kingdom,
and that the throne had thereby become vacant." The logic of the

250 Debates on the Settlement. [i689

resolution was as bad as its grammar ; for it was obvious that, though
desertion of the kingdom might produce vacancy of the throne, by
all precedents misgovemment and acceptance of bad advice could not.
Yet all three reasons were alleged as causes of vacancy and abdication.
The lack of logic marked in fact the compromise of principles and the
blending of views between the moderate Tories and the Whigs.

On January 29 this resolution was sent up to the Lords, together
with another, to the effect that a Popish King had been found by
experience inconsistent with a Protestant Government. This second
resolution excited no dispute, and even no comment; but the first gave
rise to the most envenomed controversy. The parties of Clarendon,
Danby and Halifax were in conflict in the Lords, with startling results.
The Lords threw out the " vacancy " clause ; the Commons declined to
accept this amendment; and the two Houses were thus at a complete
deadlock. A conference took place on February 6, in which the views of
all parties were stated with remarkable clearness. Clarendon and Pem-
broke appealed to the seven disputed successions in Enghsh history to
prove that the vacancy of the throne had never been assumed, and that
the hereditary principle had always theoretically prevailed. But there
was a flaw in this argument which the Whigs were not slow to see.
Maynard pointed out that if, as even Tories admitted, James had
lost the exercise of his power, someone had a right now to that power.
Both Houses had agreed to the resolution that no Papist could in future
be King, and therefore Clarendon's faction, while urging that James was
the nominal King, could not propose the Prince of Wales as either the
actual or eventual ruler. Why not, then, admit the Whig doctrine of
the original contract between King and people, with its proviso that the
throne became elective when the contract was broken ? The Whigs had
the worst of the precedents and the best of the arguments; but their
doctrine of an elective Crown still appeared too revolutionary for the
Lords. At this point Halifax intervened, basing his appeal neither on
history nor on logic, but on the grounds of practical common-sense.
He argued that the Crown would only be made elective in the way of
exception and pro hoc vice, and would then revert to the original here-
ditary channel. Frankly admitting the need of some break with tradition,
he advanced the overwhelming plea of necessity, the defence of revolu-
tionaries as well as of tyrants. When the Lords again debated the
question alone, Halifax, to the great wrath of Clarendon, "drove
furiously," and carried the acceptance of the Commons' resolution intact.
It only remained now to settle the succession. William had declared
publidy, at the beginning of the month, that he would return to
Holland unless he were chosen King regnant conjointly with his wife,
with the whole administration vested in himself. On February 6 the
Lords resolved, without a division, that the Prince and Princess of
Orange should be declared King and Queen of England, William

1689] William and Mary proclaimed. — Bill of Rights. 251

accepted the vote on behalf of Mary and himself, and within a week
the pair were proclaimed King and Queen from the steps of Whitehall.

With the settlement of the Crown immediate practical difficulties
vanished, anarchy was averted, and a vigorous external policy was
continuously pursued. But the great constitutional problems, the
sphere of direct royal power, the relations of King to Parliament, to the
Courts of Justice, and to the army — all these were still unsettled. A
committee, appointed to secure the laws and liberties of the kingdom,
with the all-accomplished Somers in the chair, had already drawn up a
Declaration of Right (February 12). This resolution was afterwards
expanded, renamed the Bill of Rights, and passed as a statute by
the new Parliament (October). The Declaration and the Bill were
intended as a final summing-up and settlement of the long struggle
between King and Parliament, and as a manifesto and defence of the
Revolution. The Bill of Rights therefore opens with a lengthy con-
troversial statement as to the misdeeds of James and the virtues of
William, before " asserting the ancient rights and liberties of England."
It would be difficult to say that new rights were claimed or old laws
infringed. But new precedents were certainly created ; for on almost
all disputed points the verdict went decisively in favour of Parliament
and against the King. The reason why the greatness of the change was
not very obvious at the Revolution is to be sought in what took place
at the Restoration. By the settlement of 1660 the powers of Parliament
were greatly enlarged, and the substantial increase of its powers became
apparent long before 1688. The Revolution of 1688, in increasing the
power of Parliament, only moved along a path already marked out for
it by the political developments of the generation immediately preceding.
In this fact lies the chief explanation of the anomaly, on which Macaulay
so frequently insisted, that the great changes of the Bill of Rights were
accomplished without any positive change in law.

The Bill of Rights denounced as illegal the assumption of a royal
power of suspending or dispensing with laws, or of erecting a Court
of High Commission or other special Courts. Levying money by
prerogative, or keeping a standing army in peace-time without
consent of Parliament, are likewise declared to be against the law.
Parliament is to be free in its elections, in its subjects of debate, and
" ought to be held frequently." The rights of the people as a whole
are secured in the right to petition the King. The rights of the
sovereign are restricted by the provision that Papists, and those marry-
ing Papists, are de facto excluded from the throne. On these terms,
and with these limitations, William and Mary are acknowledged as
joint sovereigns. There were two serious omissions, subsequently re-
moved by the Act of Settlement. No real attempt was made to exempt
the judges from undue royal influence, and a clause including Sophia
of Brunswick-Liineburg in the succession w£is struck out by the Lords.

252 Bill of Bights-Political theorists of the Beoolution. [i689

Perhaps the most striking insertion in the Bill of Rights was the provi-
sion declaring standing armies illegal, and placing the power of the
sword beneath the control of Parliament. Yet an express law declared the
whole power of the militia, and immemorial custom admitted the general
control of the army, to lie solely with the King. Hence this provision was
an innovation, and a very great one, based on the general repugnance to
standing armies, initiated during the Protectorate and expressed in the
Parliaments of the Restoration, but nowhere decisively asserted by statute
or custom. William, who said he came to England to restore the invaded
liberties of the people, not to circumscribe the acknowledged rights of the
Crown, was to find the novelty of this particular provision most unpleasing.
Incidentally, the parliamentary control over the army tended towards a
similar control over foreign policy. Eventually, it was the most important
influence in establishing and maintaining one of the fundamental maxims
of our modem constitution, that the military power in the State is and
must be subordinate to the civil. It is doubtless in the main true that
the Bill of Rights makes few positive legal changes, but the provision as
to the power of the sword is one of them. Here at least the Bill of
Rights breaks with the black-letter of precedent, and asserts new principles
of fundamental and far-reaching importance.

To a well-informed contemporary observer the smallness of the actual
change effected by the Revolution would hardly have been apparent.
He must have noted the triumph of the policy of the Exclusionists in
the provision excluding Papists from the Crown. During 1680-1, that
party had been utterly broken ; its leaders had died upon the scaffold or
fled the country in disgrace. Within eight years from that date its
main principle had first been championed by Halifax, the greatest of
its opponents, and finally accepted by the country as a whole. The
cause of this remarkable change is to be found, partly in the accidental
circumstances of the Revolution, partly in the slow growth of a political
theory which owed far less to Coke and the precedents of the past than
to Harrington, Locke, and the philosophy of the future. The main
ideas on which the Revolution was based were expressed by Harrington
and Locke. Of these, the one may be said to have taught the lessons of
forty years of revolution, the other to have provided the theory by
which the change of government was to be defended.

During the years 164<0-60 every political theory had received some
application and every one in turn had been found wanting. The con-
viction had gradually been enforced that the old monarchy, with all its
practical disadvantages, was superior to the new republic with all its
theoretical perfections. Monarchy, though somewhat limited by, the
increased influence of Parliament, emerged from the welter of anarchy
powerful and venerated. Regicide became, in the eyes of the, nation,
the most odious of crimes, and this belief was based on reasonable as
well as upon sentimental grounds. For Harririgton, while advocating

1689] Harrington and Locke. 263

fantastic schemes for a republic, had contrived to demonstrate the prac-
tical advantages of a monarchy. This was the unforeseen result of his
assertion that the sole test and proof of good government was the con-
nexion of property with power. To confine the franchise to property-
holders would manifestly produce a government based on experience and
stability. So argued Harrington, and his readers drew an unexpected
inference. The characteristics, of the old monarchy had been inequality
of pc|ssessions, gradatipn of classes, the supremacy of rich over poorj of
land over capital. What were all these but the reign of property, which
produced securities for stable government.'' It was this tendency in
political thought, that largely accounts for the sudden and total
disappearance of republicanism, which is so remarkable a phenomenon
in 1688. William excluded all regicides from his amnesty ; and in the
vast flood of pamphlets called forth by the Revolution it is hard to
find one of note or importance which may be called republican.

The union of property and power produced a just balance in the
State, and for this discovery, though it was also to be found in the later
pamphlets of Milton, Harrington was regarded as the Columbus of
political science. His ideas permeate the whole Revolution settlement,
in which there is but little appeal to absolute or general principle, and
hardly a whisper of parliamentary reform. Private property in land is
the basis of all authority ; power is rigidly confined to an aristocracy of
freeholders, and the reign of property is acknowledged and complete.
"For the divine right of Kings," writes Lord Acton, "it [the Revolu-
tion] established the divine right of freeholders ; and their domination
extended for seyenty years under the authority of John Locke, the
philosopher of government by the gentry."

It is true to say that there existed few or no republicans in 1688,
if that term designates men who desired to abolish the hereditary
monarchy. But, if it means men who asserted the doctrine of popular
sovereignty, then there were many such, of whom the most eminent was
Locke. His "Two Treatises on Government" were not published till
the summer of 1689. But he had been the intimate of Shaftesbury, and,
as the friend of Somers and other leading Whigs, had first-hand
knowledge of the ideas of the Revolution settlement. Indeed the incon-
sistencies and contradictions, the imperfections,, and the over-emphasis, of
his work betray too clearly that his theory was intended to apply to
practical political needs. It was in fact chiefly in practical applications
that the originality of Locke consisted. There was nothing very new in
his doctrines of contract between king and people, of limitations on royal
power and extensions of popular sovereignty, and of the justification for
the deposition of kings. But ideas which had floated in the brains of
solitary thinkers, or had amused the intellects of scholastics, were used by
Locke for the practical purpose of glorifying and defending an actual
and not an imagined Revolution.

264 Locke and the Original Contract. [ie89

It must always be regretted that Locke did not directly measure
blades with Hobbes. In the Leviathan the latter had written the
greatest work on political thought as yet produced in England, and the
ablest defence of absolute monarchy ever published in Europe. But his
cynical attack on the clergy had alienated the Establishment, and
extreme loyalty found its philosopher not in Hobbes but in Filmer. The
Patriarcha of Sir Robert Filmer — a popular exposition of the doctrines of
Divine Right and passive obedience — had been written in 1642 and pub-
lished in 1680. It was adopted in all its tenets by the University of
Oxford, and became generally popular with the royalist party. Hence
Locke set out with the primary intention of destroying " Sir Robert ""
and " his wonderful system," rather than of confuting Hobbes. Locke
easily disposed of Filmer and "the hereditary jurisdiction of Adam," and
it was only in constructing his own theory in the second part of his treatise
that he came indirectly into contact with Hobbes.

The end of all government is the good of the people, and the good
of the people Locke defines as " the preservation of (private) property," to
" secure which men enter into society." On that ground and with that
object people meet together and make an Original Contract to submit to
a common recognised authority. This contract is broken, and the society
dissolved, when private property and personal liberty are endangered.
With an absolute Prince the people cannot be assured of this preserva-
tion and these rights, for the absolute sovereign, being above law, is not
bound to respect it. Hence the people as a whole are the best judge
whether the general good is being endangered and whether the social con-
tract is near to breaking. To avoid a reckless sanction of revolution,
Locke carefully defines the cases in which resistance is justifiable, in
the instance of a hypothetical State, whose constitution is transparently
based on the English. These cases are : first, when a single person sets
his own arbitrary will in place of the laws which are the will of society ;
next, interference with the electors or ways of election; then, the
delivery of the people into the subjection of a foreign Power; lastly,
neglect or abandonment of the government by the supreme executive
power. In all these cases government is dissolved, the contract broken,
and resistance justifiable. It will not escape notice that all these cases
included actions of which James might plausibly be accused. Locke
argued for a particular purpose, with practical qualifications ; and he
fairly pays the penalty of one who binds up a political pamphlet in
the cover of a philosophic treatise. He can claim as a recompense that
he became the oracle of the Whigs| that he inspired the political ideas
of his country for nearly a hundred years, and was for at least fifty the
most influential political philosopher in Europe.

The English Revolution, unlike the French, never carried its origin-
ating principles to the extreme of logical severity. It showed little
idealism and much common-sense, often allowing practical considerations

1688-9] General features of the Revolution. 256

to outweigh consistency or principle. Moreover, its international and
diplomatic character rendered personal factors of great importance,
and the form which it finally assumed was profoundly affected by the
personalities of both William and James. In his exile James was
accustomed to ascribe every disaster to his advisers. But it is certain
that Mary of Modena, Father Petre, and the extreme Catholics opposed
some of his most impolitic measures, and that Penn and Sunderland
opposed others. And, even supposing his ordinary counsellors to
have been unwise, James had frequently disbelieved the information
and disregarded the advice of Louis. His actions and opinions during
and after 1688 exhibit a complete misunderstanding of the limits of
the possible, and show that he lived in a world of illusion. If to these
considerations is added that of his well-known haughtiness and love of
power, it is reasonable to conclude that his worst counsellor was himself,
and his neglect of other advice the main cause of his fall. On the other
hand, the respect and deference shown by William to his English advisers
was one of the main reasons of his success. The firm stand of the seven
Bishops, the pen of Burnet, the voice of Clarendon, and the policy of
Compton, brought the Established Church for the moment on to
the side of WiUiam. The calm diplomacy of Shrewsbmy and the
resolute purpose of Danby brought over the moderate Whigs and Tories ;
the well-timed desertion of Churchill secured the army. The eloquence
of Somers inspired the Commons to settle the Succession, and the
arguments of Halifax induced the Lords to agree in it. The influence of
Halifax, or of his "trimming" policy, is apparent everywhere — in the
moderation, the cautious temporising, the concessions to expediency, and
the compromises of principle, in which the Revolution abounded.

The last cause of the moderation and tranquillity of the Revolution
is to be found in the personality of William, and in the elements
and forces which he controlled. His European outlook enabled him to
entertain views of a purely practical kind and to judge the struggle
with a calmness which no Englishman could equal. He decided
to interfere only when assiu-ed of powerful support, and when his own
interests would have been endangered by delay. The impolicy of James
and the caution of William combined to produce a result very rare in
history — namely, a foreign intervention which successfully accomplished
a great internal revolution with the minimum of bloodshed and change.
Other explanations are to be foimd in more impersonal forces, especially
in the course of events which bewildered contemporaries by their sudden
and kaleidoscopic changes. The vigorous minority, which supported
William, alone had a clear-cut plan and purpose. Hence it came about
that even ardent royalists were surprised into revolt against their King.
This is admirably illustrated by two well-known incidents recorded in
Clarendon's Diary. On November 16, 1688, Clarendon hears of the
flight of his son, Lord Cornbury, to William, and writes : " O God, that

CH. X,

266 General features of the Revolution. [less-s

my son should be a rebel ! The Lord in his mercy look upon me, and
enable me to support myself under this most grievous calamity!" On
November 30 he records calmly and without comment that he has him-
self decided to fly to the Prince of Orange. His change of front is
bewilderingly sudden, but there is no reason to doubt his sincerity. In
revolutions events move and men think with unwonted rapidity.

The pressure of events had wrought strange conversions among the
Tory landed gentry, but the impression made upon the people as a whole
had similar and even more striking effects. The indifference of the
people to a revolution is usually the cause of its failure ; here it was the
reason of its success. " The People," said Halifax, " can seldom agree to
move together against a Government, but they can sit still to see it
undone." Indeed, though at first cold towards William, the people
refused to stir a finger for James, and their indifference most powerfully
influenced the event. It rendered the Revolution, although aristocratic
in appearance and execution, popular in principle and in its eventual result.
Hence the religious motive, though, not at first sight the most apparent,
is stiU the deepest cause of the Revolution. In the Exclusion period
the people had' shown that, if the choice had to be made, they preferred
a Protestant sovereign with very large powers to. a Catholic with very
limited ones. Of 1688 Guizot boldly asserts that " in no country and at
no time has the faith of the masses exercised more control over the faith
of their government." There can be little doubt that this view is correct,
though the revolution was initiated by the great nobles, effected by the
aid of a foreign ruler and a composite army, and consummated by a
constitutional settlement made by country gentlemen in the House of
Commons. Never, perhaps, have the goodwill of a people, the rebellion
of an aristocracy, and the armed interference of a foreigner, had equally
striking and beneficent results.

The character of WiUiam, though excellently suited to effect, was
little calculated to sustain, a successful revolution. Bred a soldier from
his boyhood, he had the excellences and defects of his training. He was
swift to decide and to execute, calm in judgment, resolute in pm-pose,
serene and immovable in the face of tumult or danger. But he was
ready on occasion to sanction acts of ruthless cruelty, and he often
showed considerable lack of scruple and some indifference to high prin-
ciple. His cold, keen nature made him deficient in sympathy, and
unable to consider or even to perceive, other views than his own. Able
to overawe and to command, he was never able to awaken enthusiasm or
inspire affection. Thus it came about that, with many of the quahties of a
great general, he could never win victories over Conde or Luxembourg;
and, though possessing almost all the essentials of a great diplomatist, he
could never bind together a divided alliance with the graceful art of a
Marlborough. Though he achieved his real aims, he never struck the
popular imagination as forcibly as many a lesser man. He lives in history

1689-1702] Character and aims of William III. 257

not as the idol of cheering mobs but as the champion of threatened liberties,
not as the darling of one country but as the preserver of many.

William was not qualified by previous training or character to
understand the proud and jealous nation over which it was now his lot
to rule. He had spent twenty years of his life in a vain attempt to
understand the vagaries of the Council of Amsterdam, and he was too old
and too impatient to humour or cajole a new representative assembly.
His letters to Heinsius, Grand Pensionary of Holland, are fuU of
complaints about the ruinous delays and the trivialities of Parlia-
ment, its strange prejudices and fatal blindness. The impossibility of
forecasting the attitude of the Commons from day to day, the cabals
which produce such astounding changes and turn people from black to
white, the stupidity of individuals, the hateful spirit of party, the
intrigues which will finish by destroying the country and himself — all
these he confides to his sympathetic correspondent. " Les gens,"" wrote
he, January 21, 1698, "ne s'occupent id que cfune pritendue liberie,
tandis gu'ils sont fords de reconnaitre quHls n'ont Jamais Hh si libres,
et qu'ils n'ont meme rien a redouter de man pairtP His people were
unable to discern his true character ; and he bitterly, but not altogether
justly, resented their failure to understand him. He had no ability for
finance, and while possessing the energy, he had not the gifts of a great
administrator. Though devoid of ostentation, his manners were harsh
and repellent, and showed none of the graces to which England was
accustomed in her kings. His wretched health seriously affected his
temper and disposition. Calm and steady at great crises, he was often
peevish and irascible on lesser occasions, chafing at small delays and
slight irritations. His fondness for Dutchmen and favourites, though
to some extent justified by the untrustworthiness of the most prominent
Englishmen, cannot be excused in the cases of Keppel and Lady Orkney.
These trivial excuses for the slight esteem in which the English held
him, were strengthened by one far deeper and more fundamental, which
caused his unpopularity to increase with the advance of years and with
the unfolding of his policy.

William's political ideas were large and grand — ^those of an inter-
national statesman genuinely labouring for the good of Europe as a
whole. To his "great design" he really subordinated every particular
interest, so far as in him lay. Thus, in 1689 he forced his own country-
men into a disadvantageous and humiliating convention with England,
and treated their remonstrances with indifference. By looking for the
same magnanimity in his new subjects, he showed how fimdamentally
he misread their temperament. He had declared to the English that he
came to restore their Parliament and religion ; it became increasingly
evident that he had come to engage them in continental war. He did
not /emember that England had been comparatively free from conti-
nental warfare since the death of Elizabeth, and had retained a horror

e. M. H. V. CH. X. 17

258 Character and imfiuence of Mary. [1689-94

of stantiing armies since the death of Cromwell. Nor could he see that,
after 1692, her interests were far less engaged in the struggle than those
of the land Powers. When, on April 6, 1701, he wrote to Heinsius
that he had to do with people " whom it is necessary to lead by indirect
ways for their own good," he put into a single sentence both his own
defence and the justification of his English subjects.

The defects in William's character, which obscured its real elements
of greatness, were in no small measure disguised by the influence of his
wife. Mary was the most popular of women, and her gentle charm did
much to counteract the unfavourable personal impression produced by
her husband. Though William sometimes added harshness to the crime
of infidelity, her devotion towards him never ceased. Her letters
breathe a spirit of exquisite sincerity and gentleness, and evince a
resigned and touching belief in Providence. Indeed, the whole-hearted
religious fervour of Mary did much to incline the Church of England to
acquiesce in the new order. The Calvinistic William was not unnaturally
or unjustly suspected of lukewarmness towards the Establishment. But
the influence of Mary, her unaffected piety and zeal for the Church, and
the care with which she watched over the appointment of Bishops;
disarmed the resentment of the Tories. Moreover, as Regent in 1690
and 1692 she showed some capacity in civil affairs, and a courage little
short of heroic after the appalling news of Beachy Head (1690).

William gradually became aware of her devotion and her services

and softened towards her in later years. When her death occurred
(December 28, 1694), he was so painfully aflfected that it seemed he
would follow her to the grave. The nation mourned with him, and
Prior, in touching verse, bade him forget that " grief which hinders
Europe being freed." But the English could not continue to regard the
foreign ruler in the same light as when he had been the husband of the
warm-hearted English Queen. After her death his popularity, which
had never been great, declined so rapidly, as not only to retard the
continuance of the war, but even to endanger the throne.

The difficulties which beset William at the beginning pf his reign
were increased by the natural reaction after the Revolution. A resolute
minority had effected a settlement substantially upon its own lines ; it
was certain that the more traditional and conservative forces, which had
yielded to the shock of circumstance, would soon reassert their strength.
William formed his first administration with the express view of lessen-
ing the effect of this recoil, by balancing between the diff*erent parties.
He seems lin this to have followed the counsel of the famous " Trimmer"
Halifax, who himself became Privy Seal and who advised the appoint-
ment of the Whig Shrewsbury and the Tory Nottingham as Secretaries
of State. In his contemporai^y account Burnet says, that the inclusion
of Nottingham in the Ministry " first preserved the Church, and then
the Crown." As Nottingham, though only a moder9,te Tory, was a

1689] William's first Parliament. 259

notorious champion of the Chupch, as religious questions were now
specially in the foreground, all devout Chiurchmen hailed his appoint-
ment and that of Caermarthen (Danby), who was made President of the
Council, as an earnest of the good intentions of the Calvinistic King.

The religious measures of William's reign are dealt with elsewhere.
The Toleration Act passed in 1689 secured the loyalty of the Dissenters
to the existing regime, though various signs hinted at future trouble
between Dissent and Establishment. At the same time the imposition
of a new oath of allegiance and supremacy produced the depos'ition of
the Archbishop of Canterbury and six other bishops, and caused the
famous schism of the Non-jurors within the Established Church itself.
Meanwhile, the financial settlement was producing important results
by making the King more dependent on Parliament. The Commons
granted the King an annual revenue of about .£'800,000. But the duties
and customs, amounting to about four hundred thousand, which had
been settled for life on James, were granted to William and Mary for
only foiur years. The principle thus suggested, of creating conditions"
which enforced on the King the frequent summoning of Parliament, was
further developed by the Mutiny Act. This Act, suggested by the
mutiny of a regiment in William's service, passed the conventional con-
demnation on standing armies unsanctioned by Parliament. It expressly
declared illegal the establishment of Courts-martial and military disci-
pline, unless annually reenacted by statute, though such powers had till
now always been exercised by royal prerogative. So long as William
possessed a standing army, which it was obvious he would always do his
utmost to retain, an annual summoning of Parliament would be essential.

In October, 1689, the new Parliament met, legalised the acts of the
Convention Parliament, and passed the Bill of Rights. The Whigs,
flushed with success and intoxicated by their recent triumph, resolved
to make their opponents atone for the sins of the past Everything
was thus thrown into confusion, for it was possible, by reviving the
memories of the Rye House Plot, to attack members of the existing
Ministry, The Lords appointed a committee, popularly known as the
" Murder Committee," to enquire who were answerable for the deaths of
Russell, Sidney, and other Exclusionists. Though John Howe and John
Hampden were implacable in the Commons, Shrewsbury managed to
repress the most violent outbursts in the Lordis, and the proceedings of
the murder committee speedily collapsed. But the Whigs had another
expedient for persecuting their opponents. They inserted clauses in the
Corporation Bill, to render any man, who had been a party to the
surrender of his town charter under Charles II, incapable of holding
oflice in his borough for seven years. This clause, which would have
resulted in a wholesale disfranchisement of Tories, was brought forward
in the absence of many members. But the proposal was too violent ;
some of the moderate Whigs hesitated ; the Tories hurried back to town.

ca. X. 17—2

260 Act of Grace. [i689-9o

The obnoxious clause was rejected (January, 1690), and the Tories,
emboldened by their success, then tried to pass an Indemnity Bill, which
provided for a general amnesty for the past. But here they met with a
reverse ; the moderate Whigs came back to their allegiance, and threw
the Bill out in committee. The reunited Whigs were proceeding to
engraft upon the original Bill a Bill of pains and penalties against various
Tory offenders, when their progress was suddenly interrupted. The King,
who had viewed these disputes with the utmost impatience, dissolved
Parliament (February, 1690).

WUliam was so disgusted with the violence of the previous Parlia-
ment that, in the general election which followed, he for the first time
resorted to an unsparing use of political corruption. The result was
the triumph of the moderate Tory party. Even before the results of
the election were known, William had decided to effect changes in the
Ministry. The dismissal of Halifax forms a real landmark in ministerial
history (February, 1690). Henceforth the King was without his most
'conciliatory and imprejudiced advisers, and the policy of " trimming"
and of compromise was gradually abandoned. The wits said that the
King had exchanged the " White Marquis " (Halifax) for the " Black "
(Caermarthen), thus implying that, for the moment, Tory influence
predominated. On the new Parliament William pressed a measure,
which was largely due to his own personal initiative, and which has
justly been claimed as one of his chief titles to renown — namely, an
Act of Grace (May 20, 1690), exempting only regicides and thirty others
from pardon. After very little discussion the House, as if ashamed of
its violence in the previous session, accepted the Bill. Past errors and
criminals were thus bin:ied in oblivion, and a fruitful cause of bitterness
removed. Above all it at last became possible for real energy to be
infused into the conduct of the war, and for William to take the field
with a united nation at his back.

The great campaigns of the period in which the Grand Alliance
waged war in Italy and Flanders, in Ireland and Catalonia, on the
Danube and the Rhine, in the Channel and in the Mediterranean, can
only be noticed here in their more insular aspects. To the continfental
Powers the most imminent danger was from the land forces of Louis.
Unlike them England had most to fear from the predominance of the
sea-power of France. Throughout 1689 William seems not to have
realised the immense peril threatening from Ireland, so long as the
question of naval supremacy hung in the balance. The English in
Ireland were confronted by a revolt of three-fourths of the population,
and by the more formidable presence of veteran regiments from France,
They might well be overmatched, if the French fleet could sweep the
seas and blockade the coast of Ireland. Towards the end of 1689
William realised the danger; and henceforth he showed remarkable energy.
In June, 1690, he sailed from England to assume command in Ireland,

1690-4] William's Irish campaign. — La Hogue. 261

leaving Mary as Regent with a council of nine to assist her. In his
absence the Grand Alliance fared ill alike on sea and land. On July 1
Luxembourg won a great victory over the Allied Army at Fleurus ; on
the previous day Admiral ToUrville severely defeated the Allied Fleet off
Beachy Head. Disgrace accompanied disaster, for Admiral Herbert (Lord
Torrington), by allowing the main brunt of the fighting to be borne by
the Dutch, somewhat unjustly incurred the censiu-e most fatal to a sailor.
The strategic consequences were not as serious as is sometimes supposed,
nor was the Cross of St George almost banished from the seas. None
the less,Tom-ville triumphantly swept the Channel, threatened the southern
coasts, and burnt Teignmouth. In this extremity the spirit of the nation
rose; subscriptions poured in; crowds of volunteers rushed to arms;
and London took the lead in patriotic ai-dour. But the hour of suspense
was not long, for, on July 4, a courier rode through the City with the
news that WiUiam had won a great victory in Ireland.

William had come to Ireland only just in time. On the very day
that the sea-power of England was temporarily destroyed he was able
triumphantly to restore its military renown. By his victory of the Boyne
(July 1) William secured the fall of Drogheda and Dublin and the
flight of James from Ireland. But as yet William's power stopped
at low-water-mark. Without a fleet he found it impossible to reduce
Limerick, though Marlborough was able to capture Cork and Kinsale.
In 1691, Russell replaced Torrington in command of the navy, and
held in check the sea-power of France. The inevitable result was the
fall of the hopes of Louis and James in Ireland. In July the last Irish
army was routed at Aughrim, and the appearance of an English squadron
in the Shannon decided the fate of Limerick, the last Irish fortress of
note which held out (October 3, 1691). On May 19 (O.S.), 1692, the
French fleet was utterly defeated by Admiral Russell off Cape La Hogue,
under the very eyes of King James, who watched in anguish from the
shore. Henceforward the command of the sea was triumphantly restored
to England. After this the French could carry on a destructive priva-
teering warfare, and the English were also repelled with great loss from
attacks on the French coast at St Malo (August, 1692) and at Brest
(1694). But such reverses were irritant rather than dangerous; and,
the fighting fleet of France having been once swept from the seas,
neither England nor Ireland could be in vital danger of invasion. Not
even William's defeat at Steinkirke (August 3, 1692, O.S.) nor the fall
of Namur (May) could da^h the hopes of England.

Two attempts to restore James had thus failed, the first at the
Boyne, the second ofi' Cape La Hogue — a third remained to be planned.
The energy and ibrmness which James had once displayed, alike in the
shock of battle and amid civic strife, had deserted him at the end of 1688,
and they never returned. In Ireland he showed a vacillation and weak-
ness admitted by his own followers, and openly proclaimed by French

CH. X.

262 James at St Germain. — Assassination Plot. [i689-96

generals and statesmen. The inconsistent series of proclamations issued
to his rebellious subjects (1689-93) awoke dismay in his supporters and
scorn in his opponents. In 1693 (July 29) Luxembourg achieved his last
triumph over WiUiam by worsting him in the bloody rout of Neerwinden
(Landen). The hopes of James now stood high, for in this same year
the French privateers destroyed an enormous Anglo-Dutch convoy from
Smyrna, But in 1694, though an English expedition to Brest was disas-
trously repulsed, the English navy swept the seas, and WiUiam held his
own in Flanders. In 1695 he took the offensive, and, finding the incom-
petent Villeroi at the head of the French army in the place of Luxembourg,
was able to recaptvire Namur (October, 1695) in the most brilliant and
successful campaign which he ever directed. During the last months of
1694 the English fleet had triumphantly wintered in the Bay of Cadiz,
and had thus assured England's command over both Mediterranean and
Atlantic. Louis thus found his fleet swept from the seas, and his armies
seriously weakened on the land.

Few historic contrasts have more pathos than that which these
years presented between the luxurious splendours and the thronging
crowds of courtiers which surrounded the omnipotent sovereign at
Versailles, and the unreal pageantry, the fast dwindling band of exiles,
which clung to the phantom King at St Germain. Like most exiles,
James vastly exaggerated the strength of the party in his favour in
England. His delusions were fostered by assurances from Godolphim^
Marlborough, and Russell, and by correspondence with Anne, Penn,
Halifax, Dartmouth, and Shrewsbury. In spite of aU his flatterers, Louis
had a more real grasp of the English situation than that to which James
and his followers attained. He now made it clear that he would not
risk sending a French force until a rising offering fair chances of success
should have broken out in England, This resolution on the part of
Louis determined the form of the third and last serious attempt to
reestablish James. In January, 1696, the Duke of Berwick, the natural
son of James, came over to England in disguise, and, failing to organise
an armed insurrection, hurried back to France to avoid being party to
a plot, A plan to assassinate William was at this time being devised by
George Porter and a few other Jacobites in England, The plot was not
unknown to James, and the exiled monarch came to Calais to await the
flash of a beacon fire from Dover cliffs, which was to be the announce-
ment of William's death. On receiving the signal, James was to step
on board a fleet of French transports, and convey an expeditionary
forcei to England. That signal never came, for the "Assassination Plot"
was detected (February M, 1696). Porter turned King's evidence, with
the result that his own life was spared by William, though Sir John
Fenwick, who knew nothing of the real nature of the plot, was executed.
While he was awaiting the signal James had written pious letters
to de Ilanc4 the austere Cistercian Abbot of La Trappe, hinting that

1692-6] England and the War. 263

"a visible interference of the good God for His greater glory" would soon
be manifested in his favour. When this did not appear, his thoughts
turned elsewhere ; and henceforward he edified divines by his devotion
to religion, as much as he enraged statesmen by his indiffference to
politics. After 1696, when James refused the French offer to support
his election to the Crown of Poland, Louis ceased to regard him as an
independent political factor, as, indeed, he ceased to consider himself.
The influence of de Ranee had transformed him into a mystical recluse,
whose garments were touched by pilgrims from afar, whose miracles
were attested by bishops, whose holiness was admitted by the Pope.

The progress of the War, from the shame of Beachy Head and Stein-
kirke to the triumphs of La Hogue and Namur, had been viewed in
England with mingled feelings. After 1692, and still more after 1694,
the war seemed to be carried on for aggrandisement rather than defence,
for gain not for existence. England's trade interests in the Indies or
Mediterranean might indeed be secured or impaired by the progress
of the war in Flanders. But many English did not measure the war
either by the loss of convoys or ships to Whig merchants, or by gain
in security to German Princes and Dutch btirghers. The landed
gentry, who formed the backbone of the Tory party, simply calculated
whether the war in Flanders really gave adequate benefits to England"
in return for its enormous expense and frequent disasters. This exclusive!
consideration of insular interests, which made Parliament willing to grant
large sums for the navy, but reluctant to increase the army, William
could not understand. He speaks contemptuously of "the inconceivable
bhndness of people here," and ascribes it to the spirit of piarty;
yet in this matter he was really thwarted on national, not ilpon
partisan, grounds. But the causes of his irritation were perfectly natural.
He could not but be conscious, though his gaze was fixed upon Europe
rather than upon the Indies, that the War was exalting beyond measure
the maritime and commercial supremacy of England. The Dutch were
forced by treaty to supply a larger proportion of troops than of ships'
to the common cause. Hence their commerce and marine suffered. If
William's conversations with Montanus are to be believed, he had
realised long before 1688 that the inclusion of England in the Alliance
must advance her shipping and commerce to the detriment of that of
his own people. In any case, he had realised this during the war, and
Was therefore exasperated on finding that, when he had sacrificed so much
for the common cause, England did so little to help him. He was giving
her the commercial and naval empire of the globe, and she showed her
gratitude by cutting down the numbers of the army and starving his
military campaigns.

Milton had discovered that war moved by two main nerves, one of
iron and the other of gold; and Louis had declared in the midst bf his
victories that the Power with the last gold piece would win. Hence it is

264 Bounty Act. — Whig commercial policy. [i67i-96

as much to the superiority of organisation and method in developing
their economic resources, as to their superiority in naval power, that the
English kingdom and the Dutch Republic owed their eventual triumph
over France. That England should depend on her own food supplies in
time of war, and upon a prosperous landed class in time of peace, had
been accepted dogmas for some years before 1688. A series of severe
prohibitory Acts, beginning in 1671, had penalised and checked the
importation of foreign corn. The Bounty Act of 1689 gave large
bounties on the export of corn to foreign countries, and thus increased the
home output. The economic result was to produce immense immediate
prosperity to English agriculture, though com was encouraged to the
detriment of turnip and grass cultivation, and to the retarding of a more
scientific system of agriculture. As with the economic effects, so with
the political, the result was to give prosperity to what was existent with-
out providing for the future. The new Act favoured the landed gentry
at the expense of the merchant, gave an undue preference to the land-
lord, who possessed capital, and discouraged the small yeoman who did
not. The result was to increase and make permanent the power of the
landed gentry and of real property, the confirmation of which was so
distinct a mark of the Revolution settlement. The Bounty Act was the
economic counterpart of the philosophy of Locke and Harrington. It
was by the operation of this Act that the landowners were enabled to hold
at bay for so long the lising forces of wealth and commerce. The
earlier economic laws of the reign gave security to the landed class,
just as the later gave security to the commercial ; and these facts, though
marking the transition of political power from Tory to Whig, show that
the Revolution settlement was likewise national in character and aim.

The general commercial policy of England is perhaps the only depart-
ment of public life in which the Revolution made no striking or even
apparent innovation. Though immense developments of her commerce
and shipping took place within the period, England's trade really increased
by means of the sword or diplomacy, and not in the main through any
specifically new commercial provisions. For the main lines of mercantilist
policy were already laid in the Poor Laws, the Corn Laws, and the
Navigation Laws. A broad system of national policy thus existed,
which was amended in detail but not disturbed in principle. In 1696
a reorganisation of the committee of the Privy Council dealing with
commerce and colonies was necessitated by the persistent criticisms of
Parliament. The Board of Trade was constituted with a permanent staff
as well as privy councillors, in order to prevent further encroachments
of Pai'liament upon the executive. By these means some order was
reintroduced into departments which had been carefully organised by
James, and much neglected by William. The chief effect of the new
Board, of which Locke was an active member, was the adoption of an
exclusive mercantilist policy, which gradually ruined the nascent linen

1692-6] Finance. — The Land Tax. 265

and cloth industries of Ireland, in order to protect the drapers and
clothiers of England.

The debts of the Protectorate and the extravagances of the
Restoration monarchy had been immense ; but the outbreak of the
continental war speedily entailed expenditure on a scale unkno^¥n
to Cromwell or to Charles. The extravagant Charles had maintained
an army of less than nine thousand men; for the frugal and thrifty
James an annual income of less than fifteen thousand pounds had usually
sufficed. Englishmen recalled these days with regret when the Dutch
deliverer showed them the cost of freedom by demanding an army of
over eighty thousand men and an income of nearly six millions (1693).
The first real measures to grapple with the problems of expenditure and
revenue were taken in 1692, and the impulse came in the main from the
Whig party and their famous financier Montagu. The method of raising
subsidies which had prevailed in the first half of the century was now
hopelessly obsolete. Under the Commonwealth and the Restoration a
new plan had been tried. The sum to be raised was fixed, and then
distributed according to assessments based on the reputed wealth of
each county. In 1692 a newer and more exact valuation of landed
estates was made, and it was decided to fix a rate on the values of the
rentals which should vary as necessity demanded. The only serious draw-
back was that the new valuation was in many respects inaccurate, and fell
with undue severity on the Eastern Counties. Still, the new tax was the
most productive yet imposed, and when, as in 1693, the rate of 4«. in the
pound was imposed, about two millions annually fiowed into the Exchequer.

Nothing is more obvious to a modern observer than that there must
occur crises in the history of every nation, when it can no longer settle
all its obligations at the end of each year. Such a crisis had already
occurred in the history of France and of Holland, both of which had large
debts. It had, in fact, also occurred in England, when Charles II refused
to repay to the goldsmiths the sum of ^^1,300,000 which he had
borrowed from them (January, 1672). In 1692 the creditors had received
no interest for ten years, and they seemed to have no prospect of repay-
ment of capital. With this unhappy example before him, the average
Englishman might well consider the contraction of a debt by Govern-
ment, which extended beyond the end of the year, to be suggested by
the discreditable shifts of a royal spendthrift or the mischievous in-
novations of a foreigner. All this was very diiferent in Holland, where
Sir William Temple had long ago pointed out the advantages of a
national debt as a sound investment for private individuals. On every
side and in every enterprise stock- jobbing drew on or deluded the in-
dividual investor. Watered stock and bogus companies, over-capitalisation
and falsification of accounts — none of the expedients or disasters of modem
speculation were wanting. The scale was indeed small, but the modem

266 The National Deht.-Prqjects for a National Bank. [i640-93

financial world already existed in miniature. Montagu had resolved to
divert to the national Exchequer some of that wealth which private
enterprise was hiding in' cupboards or dissipating in companies. He
dould not but perceive the double advantage of providing individuals
with good investments on national security and the State with easily-
raised loans. Two things were wanting — a national debt and a national
biEtnk, the chief agents which impart steadiness and balance to modern
finance ; and both Montagu was now to provide. The proposal of a
Government loan for nine hundred thousand pounds was carried through
Parliament (1693). The loan was based on the ordinary principles upon
which national debts were then founded. It pledged the existing credit
of the State, and it also levied a tax upon posterity ; for it was certain
that the annuities established by it could not be extinguished for at least
half a century. The principles so clearly established were certain to
receive a speedy extension.

At the end of 1693, Montagu, face to face with another serious
deficit, was ready with a host of expedients, in the shape of a poll-tax,
stamp duties, and lottery loans. But, despite all this ingenuity, another
million was needed, and supplied by the expedient of a national bank.
The idea of a national bank was far less familiar to Englishmen than
that of a system of a national credit. Before this time merchants
had usually kept their surplus cash in their own houses, buried it like
Pepys in their gardens, or deposited it in the Tower or Corporation
Treasury, But, from 1640 onwards, the uncertainties of war and distrust
of the Government constrained them to place their money in the strong-
rooms of the goldsmiths. From these causes the system of banking and
exchange received an unprecedented development, and under Charles II
private banks became numerous and flourishing. The most famous of
early private bankers was Sir Francis Child, who numbered among his
customers Cromwell and the Prince of Orange, Churchill and Nell Gwyn.
After England had secured her own private banks, she began to examine
the national banks of other countries. Those of Venice and Genoa had
long been famous ; the Bank of Amsterdam was now the most renowned
financial institution in the world, and Englishmen were never slow to
borrow the methods and the practice of Dutch finance.

Business men generally began to realise that the lowering of interest,
the circulation of a paper currency, and the general steadiness of the
financial world would all be secured by the establishment of a national
bank. The scheme appears to have been first suggested in a reasonable form
by Francis Cradock in 1660; and henceforward innumerable pamphlets
on the subject were issued, varying in merit from the masterly expositions
of Petty to the ridiculous fallacies of Chamberlain and iwiurray, Tlie
commercial necessity for such an institution had been obvious even in
the time of the Restoration ; the pohtical necessity for it became over-
whelming after the Revolution. The goldsmiths, who acted as private

1691-4] MstabUshment of the Bank of England. 267

bankers, speedily found that the more business they did with the Govern-
ment the less they did with the public. A contemporary authority
tells us that, when King William sought even a small loan from the
City of London, Ministers of State went from shop to shop and office
to office soliciting it. Even these trivial loans were furnished rather
from motives of honour and patriotism than from hope of gain. It
was at this moment that William Paterson, a traveller of vast financial
experience, genius, and resoiu-ce, submitted to the Government a pamphlet
containing a practical plan for a national bank (1691). The Government
was favourable, but Parliament was adverse, and for three years the
subject dropped. But in 1694 Montagu planned to raise his loan of
o&l,200,000 by establishing a bank, and found himself strongly supported
by the City. Montagu's plan, which was an adaptation of Paterson's,
was to raise the loan, with its interest of 8 per cent, secured by a new
duty on tonnage. Iliose who took up the loan were to form a company,
with the title of " Governor and Company of the Bank of England."
They were permitted to borrow money at 4^ per cent-., while lending to
the Government at 8. They were allowed to transact private business,
but restricted from trading in anything but bills of exchange, bullion,
and forfeited pledges. Paterson, in a new pamphlet (1694), demonstrated
that the Bank's action must have beneficial effects, and lower the rate of
interest just as the Banks of Amsterdam and Genoa had done. The
consequence must be to attract money and trade from abroad, and thus
to benefit all borrowers, merchants, and ultimately also landed proprietors.
The comparative ease with which the Bill passed the two Houses, and
the extraordinary readiness with which it was subscribed in the City,
appear very siu:prising in face of the enormous clamour raised outside the
walls of Parliament; The objections put forward throw a ray of powerful
light upon the economic knowledge and political condition of the age.
The economic arguments against it were that the establishment of
the Bank would render it hard to borrow money upon mortgage, and
thereby diminish the value of land. In addition, the free circulation
of money would be impeded, and local centres be denuded of cash. The
political arguments against the BiU partook more of prejudice than of
weight, except in one instance. The reasonable objection that the Bank
might endanger public liberty by its relations with the Crown, was
removed by the insertion of a clause preventing the Bank from advancing
loans to the Crown save by Act of Parliament. The other political
arguments, brought forward as they were by men of both parties, had
an agreeable variety. The Whig section argued that the Bank would
introduce absolutism, the Tory that it would introduce republicanism.
The Tory party saw a more special danger to the landed interest, and
declared with some plausibility that a private company of Whig mer-
chants were thus endowed with power in perpetuity. The whole question
seems to have been decided less on the merits of the new institution.

268 Character of the Bank. [x696

than from motives of expediency and patriotism. As Caermarth^n
pointed out in the Lords, there might be objectionable clauses in the
Bill, but it was the only means of providing money for the navy to take
the sea that summer. This practical argument sufficed, where aU others
might havfe failed.

Like so many other measures of the time, the Bill for establishing
the Bank, though it bore the Whig stamp, was still the outcome of
compromise and was directed to a genuinely national end. It is less
clear, than in the case of his other financial measures, how far Montagu
understood the real value of his creation — whether he was making shift
with an expedient designed to be temporary, or whether he intended his
creation to rival the great banks of the Continent, or realised that it
might become the greatest of financial institutions. On the whole, it
would seem that the Bank in its origin was carefully adjusted to the
needs of the time, with due regard to the spirit of individual enterprise
and with care to avoid too much dependence on the State. It differed
fundamentally from all banks except those of Genoa and Stockholm.
Other banks were primarily established as offices of exchange, as places
where good coin could be obtained, or as banks of deposit — ^that is, safes
from which in theory at least the original coins could be recovered.
But the Bank of England boldly circulated notes, without pretending
that its paper currency corresponded exactly to the amount of its
bullion. Again, its notes were not legal tender in England, as were the
notes of the national banks of Amsterdam, Genoa and Venice. Thirdly,
it had in no sense an exclusive monopoly ; for the Government reserved
the right of discharging the loan and dissolving the organisation in
1705, and raised up a formidable rival to it in 1696. The new Bank
was eminently original, and in its originality lay no small part of its
danger, for it had many of the burdens and singularly few of the
advantages of a connexion with the State.

The dangers which so speedily menaced the Bank were partially
caused by the inexperience of its promoters, but even more by the malice of
its opponents. The goldsmiths bought up the notes which the Bank issued
for circulation and waited their time to inflict a blow on an institution
whose success they believed would seriously injure their own private
banks. The operation of the Recoinage Act supplied the opportunity
in two years. This measure had long been rendered necessary because
the clipped or damaged coins of James I or Elizabeth had been treated
as of equal value with the good milled coins of Charles II and James 11.
To the amazement of contemporaries, increased issues of milled crowns
did not increase the circulation of good currency. Gresham's law, that
bad money drives out good, was illustrated on a gigantic scale, and bad
money circulated, while most of the good coins were melted down,
exported, and sold as bullion. Both in town and country the face value
of the coins rose on the average to a,bout twice their peal value as metal.

1696-7] Secoinage Act. 269

Stringent Acts to prevent exportation and melting proved ineffective,
and a drastic recoinage became essential. Singularly enough the remedy
eventually adopted was framed by the united counsels of the greatest
lawyer, tibe greatest financier, the greatest political, and the greatest
natural philosopher of the age, namely, Soraers, Montagu, Locke, and
Newton.

The main principles of the settlement were laid down by Locke in
his famous currency pamphlets. His views, that the new coinage should
follow the established standard in weight and denomination, and that
the loss incurred by recoinage should be borne by the State, were
accepted by the Ministry. The actual form of the Bill was suggestied
by Somers and carried by Montagu, whilst the practical measures of
recoinage were taken by Sir Isaac Newton as Master of the Mint. By
the Recoinage Act (January, 1696), it was provided that the old
clipped coins should cease to be legal tender on May 4, though full
equivalents of their face value in the new milled coins were to be issued
as fast as possible. The withdrawal from circulation of such large
amounts of coin made itself sensibly felt, and it was this veiy moment
of distress that the goldsmiths selected to deliver their long-planned
stroke against the Bank.

On May 4 the goldsmiths organised a run on the Bank, at the
moment when the Treasury had swallowed all available coin. Ruin and
bankruptcy seemed imminent. The Directors refused to cash such notes
as they held to have been presented with malicious intent, bidding the
goldsmiths seek their remedy at law. But a run on the Bank had
begun, and they could not refuse to honour notes presented by ordinary
creditors. Yet even here they were able to pay only a percentage.
The recoinage went on slowly ; the scarcity of coin showed no relaxation
for three months, and very little for twelve. In January, 1G97,
William could still tell Heinsius that he had no money to secure the
ratification of the treaty with Denmark and no subsidies to pay his
troops — ^nay, could not even despatch a certain diplomatic agent, being
actually unable to defray his travelling expenses. If such were the
straits of princes, it may be imagined what were those of the Bank
Directors or of still humbler persons. It was only after March, 1697,
that the crisis had definitely passed, either for the Bank or the country.
The difficulties had been enormous and the sufferings great, while the
actual expenses of recoinage involved the Exchequer in a loss of little
under three millions. Money and suffering would both have been saved,
had the remedy been adopted some years earlier. As it was, it came but
just in time. Had it been deferred a year longer, the consequence
might have been more serious than the loss of a pitched battle by land
or sea. But the settlement was successful, and the most subtle and one
of the most serious causes of commercial crises and fiuctuation was
removed by the establishment of a sound currency system.

270 The Land Bank. [i696-7

Before they had recovered from the attack of the goldsmiths, the
Bank Directors had to meet an assault from the landed gentry, thus
experiencing at once the united force of the economic and the political
opposition to their original establishment. A coalition of Whig and
Tory landed gentry, with the support of King William, carried a
badly-devised project for the establishment of a Land Bank in spite
of Montagu's opposition (May, 1696). ' Subscriptions opened in June,
and owing to the almost total failure to attract subscribers, the
project was entirely abandoned on August 1. But it was one of the
ironies of the situation that the Bank of England, which had been so
much damaged by the creation of the Land Bank, was even more
endangered by its destruction. Hardly were their rivals crushed than
Montagu applied to the Directors of the Bank of England for an
immediate loan, which the Land Bank had promised but, in consequence
of its failure, had not supplied. Montagu pleaded William's direct
statement that nothing short of ^£"200,000 in cash could enable his army
to take the field. On August 15 the Directors made a further call of 20
per cent., which the General Court of subscribers accepted from patriotic
rather than financial motives. In ten days the bullion was pouring into
the King's coflFers, the Allies presented an imposing front in the field,
and a decision of the money-market had, not for the last time, exercised
a momentous effect upon a military icampaign.

Montagu wrote to William, telling him that, as the Bank had risked
all for the Government, Government must now risk something for the
Bank. WiUiam assented, not perhaps perceiving that he entrenched the
Whig party in the citadel of the State, by settling the Bank on & firm
basis. In view of the scandalous treatment meted out to the Bank by the
Government in 1696, the privileges granted in 1697, though immemse,
were hardly excessive. The Bank was to be guaranteed its position till
1710, when the Government received the right of discharging its obliga-
tions. It was allowed authority to issue notes, on condition that they
should be payable on demand. Last, and perhaps most importajit,
a monopoly was granted ; no society of the nature of a bank was to be
authorised by Parliament till 1710. The neglect to establish branch
institutions and secure the organisation of local credit was to entail much
future distress in the country. To this and other faulty provisions it was
due that, during the first century of existence of the Bank, it had to
undergo crises more serious than its predecessors at Genoa, Venice or
Amsterdam had encountered in the same number of years.

Even now the Bank of England remained only a joint-stock
company, pursuing the ends of individual enterprise, under the control
and with the encouragement of the State. Though Montagu eventually
provided that the Bank should become a national institution, he imme-
diately secured that it should be a partisan one. The failure of the
Land Bank had meant the rout of Jacobites and Tories, and the Whig

1676-95] Political influence of the Bank. — The Press. 271

merchants, who had risked their fortunes in the Bank of England, had
fought for William as energetically and more successfully than his
soldiers in the field. For the moment a Whig policy was imposed on a
willing nation. The Bank plumped its weight on the side of Revolution
and against the Church, and the bags of Whig money-lenders out-
weighed the sermons of Jacobite clergymen. Addison's famous allegory
pictures the Stewart rushing into the Grocers' Hall, turning money-bags
into bladders and gold coin into rubbish, and sending the goddess Credit
off in a fainting fit. Whether or not James II would really have
repudiated the State obligations contracted after 1688, is doubtful. But
the belief that he would was a wide-spread and deep-rooted superstition,
which contributed immensely to the stability of the new order of things
and to the supremacy of the Whig party.

Before turning to the development of party government, we may deal
with the great measure which established the freedom of the Press. For
both these changes had eventually international effects, far wider than are
usually caused by events of such an apparently domestic character. It is
impossible to view any part of the reign of William without perceiving
to how great an extent public opinion criticised and influenced political
action. Even James himself had showed deference to that supreme
tribunal, before it passed its irrevocable sentence upon him. The
criticisms of minorities in Parliament had frequently revealed cases of
grave injustice, and had prevented the perpetration of scandalous political
jobs and maladministration alike under Charles, James and William. But
a force stronger than the voices of the Opposition in Parliament was
required to extend and to secure the power of public opinion, and that
force could only be found in a free press. In the Areojpagitica Milton
had nobly pleaded that cause ; but the great soldier of the Common-
wealth had exercised the most rigorous press-censorship ever known.
Under Charles and James the Licensing Acts had been renewed ; and in
1676 Simderland had expressed his desire to suppress the "damnable
trade " of supplying news-letters to the coffee-houses.

During the turmoil of the Revolution shoals of pamphlets had been
unchecked by licensing or censorship. The pamphlets of Burnet, Locke,
Somers, Chamberlain, and Paterson most powerfully influenced and
moulded religious, political, and economic opinion. Owing to a series
of accidents, needless to relate and unimportant in themselves, it was
eventually decided (1695) not to renew the Licensing Act. Henceforth,
the number of printing presses was not limited and vexatious restrictions
were removed. Ministers stiU reserved the right of prosecuting printers
for attacks on the Government, and under Anne, both Godolphin and
Bolingbroke showed that serious restrictions could be iipposed on the
press through this means and by the expedient of a paper-tax. But, apart
from these restrictions, the liberty of the Press — with its subtle influences
of suggestion, it§ broad powers of criticism, abuse and exhortation,

272 Privy Council committees. [1689-1702

with all its immeasurable consequences for securing the toleration and
freedom of opinion — was at last acknowledged and established.

To understand the political movements of the time, it is needful
to grasp the form of the executive Government, as it then existed. The
King could check the Lords by a threat of creating peers, and the
Commons by the use of his veto and the power of dissolution. In
these cases his power was immediate. But in administration also he had
a wide and direct influence apart from his Ministers. King James had,
with general applause, personally directed the naval administration and
written his own speeches for Parliament and Privy Council. The relations
of the King and his Council are equally significant. It is certain that
before the reign of William, the power of the Privy Council had passed
into the hands of a number of committees, which the King directly con-
trolled. Some of these committees were permanent or " standing," as
for Ireland and for trade ; others secret, as for foreign affairs and foreign
and domestic intelligence ; others appointed ad hoc for various special
purposes, diplomatic, commercial or judicial. All these bodies were
indifferently described as " cabinets," though the term was more usually
applied to the foreign committee and to that for intelligence. These
committees dealt with matters in detail, decided upon them, and
acquainted the King with their decisions, which, if approved by the King,
were presented to the Privy Council. Discussions sometimes took place
at that Council ; but its consent was not very much more than a
formality. The power and authority of the King were really supreme.
He alone constituted and selected the committees, and could dismiss
recalcitrant committee members or privy councillors with a stroke of his
pen. Further, he alone gave authority and legality to the committees.
During William's reign those Ministers, who were members of the most
committees and who held the dozen most important offices of State,
gradually began to form a kind of general committee. This body is
sometimes termed the Cabinet, and to it William often deferred. But
he could always set aside its decisions as he did those of other com-
mittees, and its authority depended wholly upon his will. This is shown
by the admitted fact that the King could take a step of his own in
foreign policy on the advice of a single Minister. It is also evident that
he could on his own authority, as in 1690 and 1692, constitute a Council
or Cabinet, whose numbers varied at his pleasure, as the supreme
authority in his absence. The King's position, therefore, was that he
transacted business with a number of different committees, in which he
formed the centre of power and union. He had the main direction of
foreign affairs, and immense opportunities for influence and control in
other directions. He was really his own chief Minister; but, from
inexperience in domestic affairs and preoccupation in foreign, William
could not attend to administrative details or gauge the shifting currents
of popular opinion. It is very evident that, under such conditions,

1689-94] The executive and the legislature. 273

a system of party government, based on a united Ministry, could not
easily arise. For the King was the pivot on which everything turned ;
and till the end of 1692 he refused either to be the instrument of a*single
party, or to devolve his power upon a single man or group of men.

Li his relations with Parliament, William, his Ministers, and the
House of Commons, were alike dominated by a most mischievous theory,
to which the great authority of Locke had recently lent renewed life.
This was the theory that legislature and executive were and ought to
remain separate, that the King's Ministers were the executive, the two
Houses the critical body. There was no doubt a sense in which this was
true, in that Parliament and the Ministry ought to some extent to be
independent of each other. But it was madness to assert this theory in
its full completeness just after the Revolution had placed new and great
powers in the hands of the Commons, In the event of an absolute
exclusion of Crown officials from the Lower House, one of two results must
have followed. Either the King would have drawn his Ministers ex-
clusively from the peers — in which case administration would have been
entirely in the hands of the aristocracy ; or he would have trained a staff
of clerks — in which case administration would have been in the hands of
a bureaucracy. In either case the Commons would have been a body
which could check, criticise and harass, but not actively direct the
Government. The strength of the popular House must therefore have
been weakened and endangered.

The insight of men of William's day did not pierce into the future ;
it was governed by remembrance of the past. Men were oppressed with
the fear of the Crown and of the undue influence eeeercised by Charles
and James upon members of Parliament, upon corporations, and electors.
This was the real cause of the vigour of Locke's^ theory and the real
origin of the Place-Bills, of which the earliest was brought before the
Commons at Christmas, 1692. It actually provided for the entire and
absolute exclusion from the Commons of all holding ofEee under the
Crown. When it was known that existing place-holders would not be
disturbed till the dissolution of the existing Parliament, the Bill passed
the Commons with marvellous rapidity. It was thrown out by the
narrowest majorities in the Lords. After various adventures the Place-
Bill was finally rejected in the Commons in 1694. Thus was averted for
the time being the danger of an absolute separation between executive
and legislature, while the regular session of the latter was assured by the
passing of a Bill providing for Triennial Parliaments (1694).

The extraordinary conduct of Parliament was largely due to imper-
fect harmony not only between King, Ministers, and legislature, but
between party-leaders and their followers. This the Whigs were the
first to realise, in a dim, imperfect fashion, through the agency of the
discredited Sunderland. That ex-Minister's career had been such as to
disgrace him even in that age of loose political conscience and easy public

0. M. H. v. CB. X. 18

274: The Whig "Junto." [1692-9

virtue. But his past did not prevent him from giving, not only the
Whigs, but William himself, some valuable lessons in the art of govern-
ment: In 1693 Sunderland counselled William to favour the Whigs and
admit them to office, first because their political theory favoured the
Revolution, next because they favoured the war, and last because they
were the stronger party in the Lower House. The fact that the
majority of the Commons, which in 1690 was certainly Tory, was in
1693 uncertain or inclining to be Whig, marks the lack of cohesion and
the presence of chaos in the parties. This indeed is the explanation of
the extraordinary vicissitudes that befel the various Place and Triennial
Bills. lAfter 1692 the Tories were gradually beginning to oppose the
war, and the immense power of Crown influence over parliamentary
placemen was naturally thrown against them. In addition to this
a small knot or junto of statesmen was gradually imparting to the Whigs
an organisation and discipline, such as Shaftesbuiy had given to the
Exclusionists. Somers,v already the first among the lawyers, Montagu,
destined to prove the first of the financiers, Whartouj the first of the
wire-pullers, and Bussell, the naval hero of the day, formed the famous
Whig " Junto," soon to be the ruling force in politics. It is certain that
William did not appreciate the full import of Sunderland's advice ; but
he gradually and almost unconsciously began to act upon it. Soraers
had been made a peer and Lord Keeper so early as March, 1693 ; the
Tory Nottingham was courteously dismissed; the Whig Shrewsbury
resumed the seals of Secretary. The situation then became curious ; for
William's chief confidence was not yet given to the Whigs, though they
formed the bulk of his Ministry. He still relied in the main upon the
Tory Caermarthen and upon Sunderland, who was not a Minister at all.
In 1695 Caermarthen was implicated in the scandals of the East India
Company, and was obliged to resign. His withdrawal was followed in
,1697 by that of Godolphin, the last of the Tory Ministers. The Ministry
became exclusively Whig, just at the moment when the Peace of Ryswyk
was carried to a successful conclusion amid general rejoicings. With peace
the old hatred of standing armies reasserted itself, and the forces were
immediately cut down to 10,000 men in the face of William's intense
disapproval. It was in vain that Somers wrote the famous " Balancing
Letter," to calm the national hatred of militarism. The feeling may
not have been justified, yet it was at least not partisan, but genuinely
national. For, though, the majority of the Commons was Whig, it
united with the Tories against its own leaders; and in 1699 a hostile
House forced William to dismiss his famous « Blues," his dearly-loved
regiments of Dutch Guards. In 1699 Parhament severely attacked the
grants of Irish lands, made by the King to his Dutch favourites and to
Lady Orkney, and in the next year actually passed a Bill for their re-
sumption. William in despair at length summoned the Tories Rochester
and Godolphin to the Ministry. They succeeded in checking the attacks

1699-1701] The Act of Settlement. — Death of James II. 275

on the King, by giving a free rein to attacks upon the former Ministers ;
Bentinck (now Earl of Portland), Russell (now Lord Orford), Montagu
(now Earl of Halifax), and Somers, were all impeached. But it was not
for nothing that William had filled the Upper House with Whig Bishops
and peers. The impeachments eventually failed; but their effect had
been to remove &om office and to discredit the intended victims.

In the midst of all the turmoil and party intrigue of 1701, the
Ministry contrived to add the keystone to the arch of the Revolution
by passing the Act of Settlement. This famous Act had been neces-
sitated by the death of the Duke of Gloucester-^thfe only surviving
son of Anne. The Act supplied two important omissions in the Bill
of Rights. In the first place judges were to receive fixed salaries, and
to be removable only after being convicted in the law-courts or on
address from both Houses of Parliament. In other words the judge,
though appointed, could not be removed, by the King. A long step
was. thus taken towards that ■ separation of the powers, which Locke
declared essential to liberty, and which Montesquieu was actually to
regard as the characteristic excellence of the English constitution. The
other important provision of the Act of Settlement decided that the
Crown should pass on the death of Anne to the Electress Sophia and her
Protestant descendants. It is often said that this provision established
the elective character of the English Crown. This was not the opinion
of contemporaries, nor was it that of Burke. Mary and William had
been acknowledged Queen and King, because the Prince of Wales was
aheady excluded by the resolution that no Papist could reign, and the
Act of Settlement merely confirmed this principle. Expediency had
rendered it needful to alter the succession, and to make the Crown
elective pro hoc vice, but the case was not intended to form a precedent!
In this, as in every other instance, the Revolution settlement rested upon
compromise rather than upon the general principles, which, however,
the particular action went far towards establishing in each case.

The Act of Settlement had not been passed before the international
situation began to dwarf the importance of internal events. The acces-
sion of Louis' grandson, Philip, to the whole inheritance of Spain
destroyed the balance of power and endangered the existence of Holland.
England, secure on the other side of the Channel, remained unmoved,
arid William wrote to Heinsius that he would secretly engage her in the
coming war. But he did not find it easy to attain this object. At
length the pride of Louis and the Whig merchants'" evident apprehension
of being entirely excluded from the commerce of the New World, began
to stir the pulse of the nation. This resentment was inflamed to the
highest pitch by Louis' action on the death of James (September 6,
1701), in recognising his son as James III of England. In a moment,
the country was wild with rage, and William, riding on the wave of
popular anger, was able to include England in his "Great Alliance."

CH. X, 18—2

276 William's death.~His political action in England. [i689-i'702

But just when a new and vaster struggle than he had yet waged was
opening — at the moment of all others when he wished to live — it was
ordained that he should die. He had fractured his collar rbone, and a
chill, which followed on the accident, was too much for his enfeebled
frame. He died at Kensington on March 8, 1702.

On a survey of the whole period of the Revolution and reignj the
imagination is struck by the comparatively small part played by William
upon the English stage, and the immense figure which he made upon
the European. By a tragic irony, he spent his life in opposing in
England the very tendencies which he was promoting abroad^ On the
Continent William stood for the principle that the too great predomin-
ance of one Power, being dangerous to all the others, must be checked
by their imion. Yet it was right that there should be a balance of
power in the Constitution as well as in diplomacy, in England as well as
in Europe. By apportioning the balance of power between King and
Parliament, by separating the jpdicial from the executive powers, the
Act of Settlement did much to further the theory of checks and balances.
According to this theory no power is absolute and uncontrolled in the
State, and where there are limitations on power the rights of minorities
are secured. The checks upon uncontrolled executive power imposed by
the existence of a quasi-independent legislature and judicature were
strengthened by the growth of party government, the development of
political, and the beginning of religious, toleration, and the estabhshment
of a free press. Such theoretical views and such practical checks had not
been unknown in Holland even before their adoption in England. But,
speaking generally, nothing was more opposed to contemporary political
thought than Locke's view that different powers in the State should move
in independent spheres, and that none should be uncontrolled or supremie.
Nothing has therefore exercised more influence upon the future than this
view, and its effect is revealed in the framing of the constitution of the
United States, and in any other constitution which has taken the English
polity for its model.

In England William was too anxious to retain the great privileges
of the Crown, unable to see that, by this policy, he invited all o&sx
powers in the State in resistance to the predominance of one — the
Executive. Hence he sometimes had to face in England a coalition
of both parties or even of Parliament and people. Judgment or his
fortune always enabled him to avert a crisis which would, have been
disastrous, but many of the great reforms of the age were undertaken
in his despite or without his decided approval. In the constitutional
and legislative problems, whose settlement so profoundly affected the
destiny of political institutions, William exercised an influence which
was actually small and not always beneficial. The immense develop-
ment of the national power and resources, the foundation of what were
to be the most renowned system of national credit and the most famous

Remits of the Revolution Settlement. 277

financial institution in the world — all these he viewed with indifference
or even hostility. In commercial and colonial policy he had no active
interest, though he was careful to seciure England's rights in the
diplomatic treaties of the time. On the other hand, it is only fair to
say that in urging forward the need of political amnesty in the Act of
Grace, and the cause of religious liberty in the Toleration Act, he was
at once more enlightened and more disinterested than any Englishman
of the time. James or Halifax desired religious liberty, Nottingham
and Somers political toleration, perhaps more earnestly than William.
But no single Englishman so sincerely desired and so simultaneously
and consistently forwarded both causes.

The constitutional principles introduced by the Revolution can
hardly be said to be new, and the curiously concrete method of their
application only rendered probable, and did not finally determine, their
development and triumph. The Bill of Rights expressed the idea that
resistance to tyranny was justifiable, and the Act of Settlement did much
to forward the imperfectly apprehended view that government finally
rested on consent of the majority, and that the gift of the crown lay
ultimately with the people. Thus were foreshadowed for a particular
end the principles, which eventually became general and absolute, which
enabled Jefferson to overthrow the sway of England's constitutional
Parliament over America, and Rousseau to assail the rule of absolute
kings in Europe.

While veneration is paid to Locke, to Halifax, and to Somers, for
devising the theory and creating the practice of a constitution which
has been the model to so many others in the world, something must
be allowed to the great man who defended it from external assault,
and who accomplished as great a work for the good of Europe as any
of these achieved for the institutions of England. William did for the
continental polity what Locke and Halifax did for the English. He
asserted and maintained, in the name of the allied States of Europe,
the right of confining within due bounds the aggressive and predomi-
nating spirit of one nation or element which endangered the liberty
of all others. It is possible to suppose that, if Locke and Halifax had
never lived, England might have still preserved her freedom; but it
is impossible to hold that, if William had never lived, the States of
western Europe might not have lost theirs. And, in securing the one
object, William really secured the other, for by arresting the progress of
despotic France he assured the triumph of constitutional England. It
was in this final sense that the interests of England and of Europe,
the policies of Halifax and of William, were inseparable. And though
Englishmen persist in regarding William as a ruler often unsympathetic
or indifferent to their special interests, Em:ope cannot fail to see in him
one who laboriously and triumphantly toiled, amid infinite difficulties,
for the general interests of a continent.

278 The Restoration in Scotland. [166O

(2) SCOTLAND FROM THE RESTORATION TO THE UNION OF
THE PARLIAMENTS.

(1660—1707.)

The political situation in Scotland at the Restoration of Charles II
in 1660 would have taxed the vigour and prudence of the most experi-
enced statesmen. At no previous period had the nation been more
distracted in its aims or torn with conflicting passions. The great revolt
against the ecclesiastical policy of James VI and Charles I, which had
issued in the overthrow of the royal authority and the reestablishment
of Presbyteriahism, had eventually resulted in a national catastrophe.
Triumphant Presbyterianism had been cleft in twain by its own internal
divisions, and had lost the support of the nobility by whose aid alone it
had successfully waged war with Charles I. Then came the domination
of the Commonwealth and Protectorate, when for ten years the nation
had to accept such institutions and methods of government 'as an alien
power deemed to be in the interest of both countries. The domina-
tion had on the whole been beneficent, but it had been the result of
conquest, and no considerable section of the Scottish people were in
sympathy with the political or religious ideas either of Commonwealth
or Protectorate.

It was, thei-efore, with an enthusiasm almost as general and spon-
taneous as the feeling displayed in England that Scotland hailed the
restoration of her ancient line of kings. The burst of loyalty was at once
the expression of hope for the future and joy at the deliverance from a
rule under which the national ideals could never be realised. But the
momentary exaltation of feeling could not conceal the fact that no possible
policy of the new government could satisfy all parties in the State or har-
monise their divisions. The paramount public concern remained what it
had been since the Reformation a century before— the question of the
national religion in doctrine and polity. At the Reformation there had
been two clearly-defined parties — Protestants on the one side and Roman
Catholics oh the other — and the issue between them could not be mis-
understood. At the Restoration Protestantism was the religion of the
nation, with the exception of a remnant that still clung to the old
faith; but it was a Protestantism so divided in doctrine, sj)irit, and
aspirations as virtually to create a number of distinct religious bodies

1649-60] Charles II and Scottish Presbyterianism. 279

incapable of harmonious action towards a common end. There was
that section of the Presbyterians, known as the "Protesters" or
"Remonstrants," who in 1650 had rejected Charles as their King,
till he should have furnished satisfactory evidence that in his heart
as well as with his lips he had given his sanction to the National
Covenant of 1638 and the Solemn League and Covenant of 1643. But,
as Charles was never likely to afford this satisfaction, the Protesters
from the beginning stood in irreconcilable opposition to his govern-
ment* On the other hand, the main body of the Presbyterians, known
as the " Resolutioners," who had sanctioned the coronation of Charles
after his father's death in 1649, were disposed to accept him as
their King on easier terms : if he would guarantee Presbyterianism as
the polity of the national Church, they would not rigorously insist on
his acceptance of the Covenants. But in this main body itself there
were degrees of strictness, alike regarding doctrine and forms of Church
government. It was now more than twenty years since the signing of
the National Covenant; and a new generation had arisen for, whom the
Covenants were only a memory and not a palladium won by blood and
tears. During the reign that had begun it was to be seen with what
different degrees of rigour or steadfastness the new generation held to
the faith of Andrew Melville and Henderson.

At the restoration of Charles, however, the salient fact was that in
numbers and strength of conviction the Presbyterians were the dominant
religious party in the country ; and it was with this fact that Charles
and his advisers had to reckon in whatever policy they chose to adopt.
As to what that policy should be Charles had no hesitation from the
first. Presbyterianism had dethroned his father, and, once more in the
ascendant, it might take the same measures with himself. But, if Presby-
terianism had been found incompatible with the Stewart conception of
the royal prerogative, it had also been found alien to the spirit and
traditions of the feudal nobility. It had been only by the support of
the nobles that the revolt against Charles I had succeeded ; but in the
course of the struggle the nobles had discovered that the interests
of their order were vitally bound up with the interests of the Cro^vn.
Thus, at the date when Charles ascended the throne, the Scottish
nobles as a body were hostile to Presbyterianism and were prepared
to support the royal authority in supplanting it. Had they been of
the same mind as in the period preceding the National Covenant;
Charles could not have carried out that ecclesiastical policy which was to
be the absorbing object of himself and his successor, and which was
eventually to end in the national rejection of the House of Stewart. In
approving or abetting that policy, therefore, the nobility as an order
must share the responsibility of the Crown.

ITie first measures of the new reign implied a direct return to the
methods of government which James VI ha,d bequeathed to Charles I,

280 Appointment of Privy Council. [leeo-i

The Parliament, which met in 1641, had, in the presence and with the
sanction of Charles, enacted that all officers of State, Priv)' Councillors,
and Lords of Session should be chosen by the King " with the advice and
approbation " of the Estates. Without waiting for the meeting of Parlia-
inent Charles II appointed his own Privy Council, and, following further
the precedent of James VI, he arranged that a section of it should sit in
London and that a part of this section should consist of Englishmen, of
whom the most notable was Edward Hyde, afterwards Earl of Clarendon.
Of the Scotsmen who were chosen, some had once been Covenanters, but
all had since given satisfactory proofs of their attachment to the Crown.
The man who was to be the dominating spirit of the Council and
Charles' chief instrument in the government of Scotland was John,
second Earl of Lauderdale, once an ardent Covenanter, but who by his
nine years' imprisonment after ins capture at the battle of Worcester
had done full expiation for his backsliding from loyalty. To Lauderdale
was given the office of Secretary, which involved residence in London,
and thus placed him at an advantage over every other member of the
Council. The " King of Scotland " — such was the current designation for
the holder of the office; and no Secretary of the Council was more of a
King than Lauderdale, who swayed, while he only seemed to approve, the
mind of his master. Lauderdale's ideal for the administration of Scottish
affairs was "the good old form of government by his Majesty's Privy
Council " ; and, in point of fact, it was through his Privy Council that
Charles mainly governed Scotland from the beginning to the end of his
reign.

It was on January 1, 1660, that Monck had crossed the Tweed, and
on May 25 that Charles had landed at Dover, but it was not till August
that an ostensible executive body was established in Scotland. As the
Privy Council was still in England and the meeting of Parliament was
postponed till the beginning of the next year, a temporary executive
body was found in the Committee of the Estates which had been
captured by Monck in 1651. The proceedings of this Committee left
little doubt as to the future policy of the Government. A body of
" Protesters " which met in Edinburgh to draft a petition to Charles was
broken up, and all but one of them were imprisoned in the Castle — an
action which was followed the next day by a prohibition against all
assemblies "without his Majesty's official authority." Protesters and
Resolutioners were alike disquieted by these proceedings; but some
comfort was found in a letter from Charles (August, 1660), in which it
was ambiguously stated that the Church of Scotland, as it was settled by
law, would be maintained " without violation." When the Parliament
at length met (January, 1661), it was brought home to the whole body
of the Presbyterians that they had little to hope from a King to whom,
with good reason, the Covenants and everything connected with them
were a hideous remembrance. Carefully packed by the methods which

1660-1] Establishment of Episcopacy. 281

had been devised by James VI, Parliament simply registered decrees
which had been drafted by the King and his Privy Council in
London. The Commissioner chosen to represent the royal authority
was John, Earl of Middleton, who, as a renegade Covenanter, an-
nounced in his own person the intentions of the Government. The
work of the Parliament may be briefly summarised: it restored the
constitution which had been fashioned by James VI, and which, as
inherited by his son, had provoked the revolt that had brought
forth the Covenants. By a Rescissory Act the proceedings of every
Parliament since 1683 (those of 1650 and 1651, over which Charles
himself had presided, being practically, though not nominally, included)
were declared null and void, and the King was proclaimed " Supreme
Governor of his Kingdom over all persons and in all causes." As a sub-
stantial evidence of its loyalty, the Parliament further voted an annual
grant of ^£"40,000 to the King — an excess of liberality which, according
to a contemporary loyalist, " became the ruin of this Kingdom." It was
an ancient custom of the Scots to nickname their Parliaments from some
peculiarity that distinguished them ; and the first Parliament of Charles
came to be known as the " Drunken Parliament."

As Charles was now " Supreme Governor of his Kingdom over aU
persons and in all causes," it only depended on his pleasure what Church
should be imposed on the nation. It fell to the Privy Council, which
met at Holyrood after the rising of the Parliament, to announce his
momentous decision. In his letter of the previous year Charles had
declared his intention of maintaining the Church "as it was settled by
law"; and this Church, it was now decreed, was the Episcopal Church as
it had been established by James VI and confirmed by his son. It was
in September (1661) that the decree was announced ; and, that no time
might be lost in giving it effect, four persons were sent to England in
the following December to receive consecration, as there were no bishops
in Scotland to communicate it. Among the four there were two who
were to play very different parts and to bequeath very different memories.
The one was James Sharp, who had been a prominent Resolutioner and
was now Archbishop-elect of St Andrews. In the beginning of 1660
Sharp had been sent to London by his brother ministers to promote
their interests in view of the expected Restoration. They had misjudged
their agent; for Sharp returned to Scotland as an instrument of the
Court, whose ecclesiastical policy he was to promote with all the astute- ■
ness and persistency which were the leading traits of his character. If
Sharp was a bom ecclesiastic, Robert Leighton, subsequently Archbishop
of Glasgow, was a natural saint— a "Christianised Plato," Coleridge
called him — whose unhappy destiny it was to be cast in a time when
saintly attributes seemed but the timid hesitations of a character
incapable of strenuous conviction. To Leighton the strife between
Episcopalian and Presbyterian appeared but " a drunken scuffle in the

282 Restitution of Lay Patronage. [1662-3

dark"; as, however, he had once been a Covenanting Presbyterian and
eventually accepted an archbishopric, his former brethren had an obvious
rejoinder.

The Privy Council had done its work in decreeing the reestablish-
ment of Episcopacy; but the constitution required that Parliament
should ratify its action. In May, 1662, therefore. Parliament again met,
and completed the work of the Council by readmitting the Bishops to
its sittings, and reinstating them in their " accustomed dignities, privi-
leges, and jurisdictions, of which they had been deprived during the
ascendancy of the Covenants." Another Act, passed on June 11, was the
direct occasion of the subsequent conflict between the Government and
a section of the people which is the dominant fact of Charles' reign.
The Covfenanting Parliament of 164<9 had abolished lay patronage ; and
many of the existing ministers held their charges direct from their con-
gregations and presbyteries. It was now enacted that by September 20
following all such ministers should receive presentation from their lawful
patrons or demit their cures. When the appointed day came, it appeared
that few of the ministers in the diocese of Glasgow had taken the pre-
scribed step. At a sederunt in Glasgow, therefore, the Privy Council
further ordained that, if any minister did not conform to the law by
November 1, his parishioners should cease to attend his ministrations
and to pay him his stipend. Even in the eyes of Sharp this action was
" so rash a thing " that he could not have believed it " till he saw it in
print." Convinced of its own impolicy, the Council postponed the day
of grace till February 1, 1663 ; but, even when that day came, about a
third of the whole ministry had still refused to give in their submission.

Middleton had proved himself a rash and tactless administrator ; and
in the Secretary Lauderdale he had an enemy at Court who made the
most of his blunders. Since the beginning of his administration there
had been rivalry between the two for the first place in Charles' councils ;
but the influence of Lauderdale at length prevailed, and Middleton was
recalled from a position for which neither his character nor his previous
career had even in a remote degi'ee adapted him. Nevertheless the
policy which he had inaugurated was the policy which the Government
of Charles had deliberately adopted, and the action of his successors was
but its logical and necessary consequence. It had been decreed that the
Covenants were incompatible with the royal prerogative, and in the
execution of the Marquis of Argyll and of the Protester, James Guthrie,
the Government had proclaimed to the nation its judgment on the cause
of which they had been the most prominent champions.

Middleton was succeeded in the commissionership by John, Earl of
Rothes, a. man, according to Burnet, of " quick apprehension, with a
clear judgment," but, as an illiterate debauchee, incapable of the serious
statesmanship which his office demanded. Rothes was at first the tool
of Lauderdale, but, as Lauderdale was to discover, not the most suitable

ie6»-4] Measures against Recusants. 283

instrument for giving effect to his Scottish policy. In June, 1663, the
Restoration Parliament met in its third and last session — Lauderdale
himself being present — and crowned the work which had been begun
under the administration of Middleton. One of its Acts restored the
method of choosing the Lords of the Articles which had been devised by
James VI, and which, as was said, virtually converted Parliament into
the " baron court" of the King ; and another authorised the raising of a
militia of 20,000 foot and 2000 horse for the double purpose of sup-
pressing disorder in Scotland, and of being a serviceable instrument in
England should Charles ever have occasion to require it. But it was
another Act, significantly known as " the Bishops' Dragnet," which was
to have the most momentous consequences during the remainder of the
reign. By this Act " against separation and disobedience to the royal
authority," heavy fines were imposed on absentees from the parish
churches, and a relation between subject and ruler was thus created
which explains the chapter of woes that was to follow.

The prime object of the Government was now to exact obedience to
the new constitution in Church and State. It was in the case of the
Church, however, that it had to encounter its chief difficulties; two-
thirds of the public business, it was said by a statesman of the time,
directly or indirectly concerned religion. To enforce acceptance of the
new religious order the Court of High Commission, which had proved so
obnoxious in the reigns of James VI and Charles I, was revived (1664)
at the suggestion of Archbishop Sharp. But more drastic means were
required to coerce the spirit of resistance which had been evoked by the
Restoration policy; : and these means were now conveniently at hand.
In the body of dragoons which had been levied with the sanction of
Parliament the Government had an instrument which it could use with
convincing effect on contumacious recusants. The Privy Council sought
to. enforce its decrees by the imposition of heavy fines; and, to
ensure that the fines should be forthcoming, the dragoons were quar-
tered on recalcitrant parties till they were " eaten up." It was in the
south-western counties — Ayrshire, Wigtownshire, and Dumfriesshire —
that the Government was most persistently defied ; and it was in these
shires that the Protesters had found the most numerous following, and
where the largest body of ministers had demitted their cures rather than
accept them at the hands of a lay patron. In place of these ejected
ministers, incumbents had been substituted (1663) who, for the most
part, had had no previous training for their office, and whom a colleague
of Lauderdale described as " insufficient, scandalous, imprudent fellows."
Thus the Westland Whigs, as they came to be called, had the choice of
three alternatives — to attend the ministrations of " the King's curates,"
to pay a heavy fine, or to be "eaten up" by the dragoons. The dilemma
had again arisen with which Scotland had been familiar since the
Reformation — allegiance to a legitimate King or obedience to the

284 The Pentland Rising. — Letters of Indulgence, [leee-g

dictates of conscience. The memory of the successfal revolt against
Charles I was an encouraging precedent ; and, as the history of the reign
proves, the recusants of the west were at all times prepared to follow it.
The occasion came in November, 1666, when Sir James Turner, one of
the commanders of the dragoons, who had made himself specially ob-
noxious, was seized and made prisoner by a party of the men of Gallowdy.
This action proved to be the signal for revolt; joined by increasing
numbers, the insurgents marched through Ayrshire and Lanarkshire,
and in a body some 3000 strong, amid incessant winter rains, made their
way towards Edinburgh. At Colinton, three miles to the west of the
capital, they foimd themselves in a critical position ; the inhabitants of
the surrounding country were hostile ; the forces of the Government were
closing "in upon them ; and their only safety lay in a rapid retreat. At
Rullion Green, on the southern slope of the Pentland Hills, they were
overtaken and dispersed by the royal troops led by Sir Thomas Dalziel,
fifty falling in the action and about eighty being taken. The haunting
dread of the statesmen friendly to the Restoration was the possibility of
a national uprising such as had overthrown the authority of Charles I ;
and it was in cruel fear that the Privy Council proceeded to the punish-
ment of the leaders of the rebellion. Over thirty were hanged in different
towns; the rank and file were for the most part transported to the
Barbados, and the agents of the Government were enriched by fines and
confiscations.

The results of Rothes' administration had not commended him to
Charles, and he had, moreover, made an enemy of Lauderdale, whom
he and Archbishop Sharp had been endeavouring to supplant. Again
Lauderdale triumphed, and Rothes was deprived of the commissionership
(September, 1667), Lauderdale himself taking his place. It had been
the contention of Lauderdale that the Pentland Rising was the result of
the oppressive measures of the late administration, and it was in a spirit
of conciliation that he entered on his charge. Two military agents of
the late Government, Sir James Turner and Sir William Bellenden,
were disgraced and removed from their posts; and by what is known as
the First Letter of Indulgence (1669) permission was given to such
ejected ministers as had lived "peaceably and orderly" to occupy charges
which happened to be vacant. But to accept the Indulgence implied
the acceptance of Episcopacy, and only forty-two ministers succumbed
to the temptation. Conventicles, hot-beds of sedition, as the Govern-
ment regarded them, became more numerous than ever; and, which gave
special ground for alarm, those who frequented them now began to carry
weapons along with their Bibles. Against his will, therefdre, Lauderdale
was driven to a succession of measures which surpassed in severity those
of his predecessor Rothes. In the second session of a Parliament, which
had met in 1669, he passed what he called a " clanking act " against
conventicles, which in spite of its stringency signally failed in its object.

1672-9] The"HigklandH.ost"-MurderofArchb. Sharp. 286

A second Indulgence (1672) equally missed its aim of bringing over the
majority of the recalcitrant ministers, and only intensified the zeal of
those who refused to profit by it. But there were other weapons at
Lauderdale's disposal which might prove more effectual. Since the
Reformation a succession of repressive statutes had been passed against
Homan Catholics, which in their case had operated with deadly effect
and which might be equally successful in the case of refractory Pro-
testants. In 1674 all heritors and masters were declared responsible for
the conformity of their tenants and servants ; and in the following year
"Letters of Intercommuning " (the Scottish form of the "boycott")
prohibited all intercourse with above a hundred persons, eighteen of
whom were ministers. But, in the districts against which they were
specially aimed, even these enactments proved of no avail; and in 1667
an Act of the Privy Council imposed a bond on heritors and masters for
the loyal behaviour of all persons whatever who resided on their lands.
To enforce this Act^ which exasperated many who had shown no signs of
disloyalty, Lauderdale took a step which was the crowning act of his
coercive policy. To avert another rising, which every year made more
probable, he quartered in Ayrshire a host of 6000 highlanders and 3000
lowland militia, with instructions to help themselves to whatever accom-
modation and necessaries they might find to their taste. The special
business of the " Highland Host " was to disarm the denoted districts
and to exact the bond from all who had hitherto refused it: — tasks which,
after a month's Ixrsurious living at free quarters, they performed to the
satisfaction of the Government.

A succession of tragic events (1679) brought Lauderdale's satrapy
to a close. On Magus Muir, near St Andrews, Archbishop Sharp was
murdered by a band of zealots, who in their own eyes were the instru-
ments of Heaven in taking off an apostate and a persecutor of the saints.
Within a month after Sharp's assassination the long-anticipated rising
came to a head in the disaffected west. On May 29, the anni-
versary of the Restoration, a band of eighty armed recusants entered
the village of Rutherglen, extinguished the festal fires, and burned all
the Acts which had overthrown the Church of the Covenants. Three
days later, at Drumclog in Ayrshire, they defeated John Graham of
Claverhouse, who at a later day was to be their avenger of blood. Their
next movement was on Glasgow, where they had many sympathisers ; but
the town was well garrisoned, and they were forced to retreat to Hamil-
ton in Lanarkshire. Ever in dread of an uprising such as had produced
the Covenants, the Government took vigorous measures to suppress the
revolt before it attained more formidable proportions. Orders were
issued for the levy of 15,000 men ; and the Duke of Monmouth, who had
married the heiress of Buccleuch, and was known to disapprove of the
policy of Lauderdale, was sent down from England to command them.
On June 22 the two armies faced each other at Bothwell Bridge on the

286 Battle of Bothwell Bridge. [i679^80

Clyde, and a vain attempt was made by the insurgents to gain con-
cessions that would have stultified all the past policy of the Government.
Their supplication refused, they chose to abide the issue of battle ; but
the increase of their numbers had turned their camp into a debating
assembly, and the ministers " preached and prayed against each other."
Against such an enemy Monmouth had an easy task ; and, though a
resolute stand was made at the Bridge, his victory was complete. — about
400 being slain and 1200 taken. Bound two and two, the prisoners
were led to Edinburgh, where for five months the majority of them were
kept in Greyfriars' Churchyard, exposed day and night to the weather.
By the end of July 400 of them had been allowed to return home on
the condition of their remaining peaceable subjects; but others, 250
in number, refusing to give the necessary pledge, were shipped to
Barbados-^never to reach their destination, as the vessel in which they
sailed was wrecked off the Orkneys, 'and the majority of them perished.

Lauderdale had failed, as Bothes had failed, to give a satisfactory
account of his stewardship; the revolt that had resulted in Bothwell
Bridge had been more formidable than the Pentland Rising. Both in
England and Scotland he had made many enemies, and the English
Commons demanded his removal from the King's councils on the ground
that he had assailed the liberties of both countries. Lauderdale had at
least been a faibhful servant of his master; and it was against his own
will, as he knew it was against his own interests, that Charles deprived
him of the commissionership and put in his place James, Duke of York,
afterwards James VII. The policy of the three successive Commissioniers
had not made Scotland a happy and peaceable country, but it had suc-
ceeded in breaking the once mighty power of Presbyterianism. The
three Acts of Indulgence (Monmouth had procured the third) had cut
deep into the ranks of nonconformity, as had been wofuUy shown in the
camp at Bothwell Bridge. Of the irreconcilable recusants of the west
only a remnant was now left after fines, confiscations, slaughter, and
transportation. Outlaws with a price upon their heads, this intractable
remnant still bade defiance to authority, and on the mountains, moors,
and mosses flocked to hear their preachers in armed conventicle. Of
these preachers two hold a supreme place in the Covenanting martyr-
ology — Donald CargiU and Richard Cameron. Under the inspiration of
these two leaders, a section of the proscribed recusants formed themselves
into a body, known as the "Society People," or Cameronians, with a
definite set of tenets and a definite programme of action. In a Declara-
tion, affixed to the market-Cross of Sanquhar (1680) they formally
disowned Charles as their King on the ground " of his perjury and breach
of Covenant to God and Kirk." The doctrine of the Declaration — that
rulers might be dethroned when they failed in their duty to their sub-
jects— was no novelty in the history of the Christian Church, but it
was a doctrine that involved internecine war between people and king.

1680-1] Duke of York Royal Commissioner. 287

Extirpation of the dreaded sect, therefore, was the only policy left to
a Government whose existence was bound up with a definite form of
ecclesiastical establishment; and the hunting of conventiclers became
the special work of the dragoons. Little more than a year after the
Sanquhar Declaration, Cameron and Cargill had finished their course.
At Airds Moss, in Ayrshire, a band of the " Wanderers " was defeated
by the royal troops, Cameron being among the slain; and Cargill,
captured in the following year, was executed in Edinburgh, hailing
the day of his death as the most joyful of his pilgrimage on earth.

It was not till July, 1681, that the Duke of York made his appear-
ance in his capacity of Royal Commissioner. He had already been twice
in Scotland, and had made himself acceptable to the leading loyalists,
and specially to the Highland chiefs, who at a later day were to give
notable proof of their attachment to the House of Stewart. It was
considered a propitious step that shortly after his arrival he summoned a
meeting of Parliament — ^the first that had assembled for nine years ; but
the Acts it was required to pass were a gloonvy portent of what was to
come. By one of these Acts — the Act of Succession — it was declared
that " no difference in religion . . . can alter or divert the right of suc-
cession and lineal descent of the Crown." As the Duke was a known
Roman Catholic and the presumptive heir to the throne, the drift of
this Act could not be mistaken. But it was another Act that raised the
greatest alarm — even among well-disposed loyalists. This was a Test
Act to be imposed on aU persons holding offices of trust in Church and
State. So self-contradictory were its terms that, in the general opinion
he who took it implied that he was Presbyterian, Episcopalian, and
Roman Catholic at once. On this ground Sir James Dalrymple, Presi-
dent of the Court of Session, demitted his office rather than come under
an impossible obligation — eighty of the Episcopalian clergy similarly
refusing to do injury to their consciences. The Earl of Argyll agreed
to take the Test "as far as it was consistent with itself" ; but this con-
ditional pledge was not found satisfactory, and he was committed for
trial, which he eluded by escaping from the Castle of Edinburgh where
he had been confined. To introduce Catholicism and to prepare the way
for his own succession to the throne — such were the manifest ends to
which James' action was tending. But, divided as Scottish Protestants
might be among themselves, they were united in their dread and hatred
of Rome; and various popular manifestations might have warned James
of the dangerous path he was treading. The students at the Univer-
sity of Edinburgh burned the Pope in effigy, and those of Glasgow
ostentatiously wore the blue riband of the Covenant (1680) — significant
indications of the drift of public opinion.

While James was thus alienating many who had hitherto been
faithful supporters of the Throne, the struggle between the Government
and the Westland Whigs proceeded with increasing exasperation on

288 The Apologetical Declaration. [i 684-5

both sides. Armed conventicles were still held in various parts of the
country; and, goaded to desperation, their frequenters at length virtually
declared open war against authority. In their Apologetical Declaration
(1684) they announced that, if attacked, they would defend themselves
with weapons in their hands. As they had thus openly proclaimed them-
selves outlaws, the commanders of the Government troops, the most noted
of whom were Graham of Glaverhouse and Sir Thomas Dalziel, received
simple instructions for dealing with their prisoners. If they refused to
abjure the " Apologetical Declaration," they were shot ; if they abjured it,
they were detained for further examination.

The reign of Charles II, which had begun amid such exuberant
manifestations Of loyalty, closed amid the gloomy forebodings of every
class in the country. "Though we change the governors," wrote a
moderate loyalist, "yet we find no change in the arbitrary government."
No class or order in the country had reason to be satisfied with the
policy that had followed the Restoration, in the affairs of either Church
or State. Presbyterians, of every shade of opinion had been more
atringently treated than in the reigns of James VI or Charles I. Nor
had Episcopalians, though their Church had received the sanction of
the State, found themselves in a position compatible with the dignity
and credit of religion — their clergy in all ranks being the nominees of
the Crown^ and retaining their charges' on the condition of absolute
obedience to its mandates. For the trading and commercial classes the
reign had been disastrous owing to two principal causes. Free trade
with England, which had been enjoyed during the Commonwealth and
Protectorate, was abolished at the Restoration, with the result that the
country lost its best market for com and cattle. Still more calamitous
had been England's ten years' war with Holland, which had begun in
1664. Holland had for centuries been the main outlet for Scottish
exports, and by the closing of its ports foreign trade was for the time
practically annihilated. No dass had hailed the Restoration with greater
fervour than the nobles ; but their hopes also had been disappointed by
a policy which had ignored their order as a whole and given places of
authority and trust to a favoured few, who were prepared to be the facile
instruments of every new fiat of the royal pleasure. When Charles II
died on February 6, 1685, it was with unhappy memories of the past and
grave uneasiness for the future that the nation saw James VII ascend the
throne.

It was an ominous beginning of the new reign, that James on assum-
ing the Crown did not take the Coronation oath — an omission which
was made the gravest charge against him at the crisis of his fate. An
Indemnity j granted at his accession, hardly affected the existing situation,
as every nonconformist was expressly excluded from its operation. The
first year of his reign, indeed, was marked by greater severities against

1685-7] Accession of James VII. — ArgylFs invasion. 289

these persons than at any previous period ; and among the people who
were the principal sufferers it was known as the "Black Year," the
" Killing Time." On April 23, 1685, James' first and only Parliament
met, with William, Duke of Queensberry, as Commissioner. The chief
reason why it had been summoned (so its members were informed in a
royal letter) was that it might have an opportunity " of being exemplary
to others " — the "others" being the English Parliament which was about
to meet. " Exemplary " the Estates proved, and in a high degree. They
pledged themselves to provide a national army whenever it was required,
voted the excise to the Crown in perpetuity^ and (most stringent of aU.
measures of the kind) enacted that all persons proved to have attended a
conventicle should be punished with death and confiscation.

While the Estates were sitting, an attempt was made to effect a
revolution. In concert with the Duke of Monmouth, the Earl of
Argyll, who had fled to Holland in the previous reign, had approached
the west coast at the head of an armament, in the expectation of being
joined by his own clansmen and the disaffected people of the west. In
this expectation he was disappointed ; and delay and mismanagement
on the part of the leaders of the expedition doomed it to failure.
Captured at Inchinnan in Renfrewshire, Argyll was conveyed to Edin-
burgh, where he met the same fate as his father, the Covenanting
Marquis. Connected with Argyll's enterprise is one of the black pages
in the national history. As a precautionary measure it was deemed
necessary to bestow in a safe place aU who were in ward for religious
offences. But secure prisons were not numerous in Scotland. About
200 men and women, therefore, were committed to the vaults of Dun-
nottar Castle in Kincardineshire, and there confined for two months
amid conditions which made their lives a prolonged torture. The
danger past, the survivors were offered the alternative of recantation or
the Plantations : the majority chose the Plantations.

The proceedings in connexion with the second session of the Parlia-
ment, which met at the end of April, 1687, left the country in no doubt
as to James' ultimate intentions. As Queensberry, the Commissioner
of the previous year, had refused to become a Roman Catholic, the office
had been conferred on Viscount Melfort who had been more compliant.
This in itself was a significant circumstance, but it was a letter from
James to the Parliament that raised the gravest alarm. In this letter
the Parliament was recommended to repeal the penal laws against his
" innocent subjects, those of the Roman Catholic religion." The Estates
replied that they would take his recommendation into their " serious
and dutiful consideration " and " go as great lengths therein," as their
consciences would allow, but expressed their assurance that "His Majesty
will be careful to secure the Protestant religion established by law."
After this rebuff James resolved to have done with Parliaments, and he
turned to the Privy Council as the convenient instrument for enforcing

C. M. H. V. CH. X. 19

290 Letters of Indulgence. — Execution of Benwick. [less

his desires. He had in mere courtesy, the Council was informed,
requested the Parliament to abolish the penal laws against Roman
Catholics ; but this request had been wholly unnecessary. The Council
was, therefore, commanded to rescind the laws in question, to permit the
Catholics the free practice of their religion, and to set apart the Chapel
Royal of Holyrood for their special use. Even in the Council, however,
there was opposition, and James found it necessary to remove eleven
Protestants and to put in their places Catholics, among whom were the
Earl of Traquair and the Duke of Gordon.

These were sufficiently clear indications of the object James had in
view, and there were other circumstances equally fitted to warn the
nation that its religion was in danger. The Lord Chancellor, James,
Earl of Perth, and the two Secretaries of State, Viscount Melfort, and
Alexander, Earl of Moray, had all become Catholics. A Catholic
press was set up in Holyrood under the management of the pamphleteer
Sir Roger I'Estrange, and Catholic worship was celebrated in the Chapel.
It was not only the Presbyterians who were alarmed at James' policy ;
their fears were equally shared by the Episcopalians. The Episcopal
clergy of the diocese of Aberdeen, the most intensely Episcopalian part
of the kingdom, represented to their Bishop the iniquity of abolishing
the penal laws against Roman Catholics; and the Bishop of Dunkeld and
the Archbishop of Glasgow were deprived because of their opposition
to James' action. James could not shut his eyes to the storm he was
evoking, and to avert it he took the same step as he had found necessary
in England. He published three successive Letters of Indulgence, in the
last of which he offered freedom of worship to all nonconformists,
Protestant and Roman Catholic alike, provided they taught nothing
"to alienate the hearts" of his subjects. By the main body of the
Presbyterians this last Letter was accepted, and many of them who had
fled to Holland now returned to their own country. To the followers
of Cameron, however, the Indulgence brought no respite ; only a Cove-
nanted king could satisfy their ideal of a State and Chui-ch which had
the sanction of Heaven. But their deliverance from the dragoons at
least was fast approaching, though they were to yield one more victim
to the political necessities of the Restoration. In February, 1688, the
year that was to prove fatal to the Stewarts, James Renwick, who had
succeeded Richard Cameron as the leader of the devoted remnant, was
executed in Edinburgh. In his last words from the scaffold he uttered
the warning and prophecy that Scotland "must be rid of Scotland before
the delivery came" — words which were to be literally fulfilled in the
transformation which she was to undergo in the impending revolution.

The birth of a Prince of Wales (June 30, 1688), which involved a
Catholic succession and the eventual dominion of Rome, raised the same
forebodings in Scotland as in England. England was now turning to
William of Orange as a deliverer, and in William Scotland also saw hta:

1688-9] Dethronement of James. 291

best hope. It was on September 18 that the news of his coming was
received; on December 18 William was in Whitehall. Without a
struggle James' authority came to an end in Scotland, and for a time
law was in abeyance. The Catholic Chapel in Holyrood was sacked by
the Edinburgh populace, and the Presbyterians of the west "rabbled"
and evicted the obnoxious King's curates with a harshness which showed
that their own sufferings had not taught them charity. At length,
on the petition of about thirty nobles and eighty gentlemen, William
issued a summons for the meeting of the Estates, which duly assembled
on March 14, 1689, with a decisive majority in favour of the Revo-
lution. Without and within the Convention, the situation showed that
the country was at a turning-point in its destinies. The Castle of
Edinburgh was held for James by the Duke of Gordon ; and Graham of
Claverhouse, now Viscount Dundee, had come down from London at the
head of a troop of sixty horse, prepared to act for the exiled King. On
their part the supporters of William had introduced armed men from
the west to be ready for battle if the occasion should arise. Unmolested,
however, the Convention proceeded with the momentous business for
which it had met ; and its action proved that the cause of William was
in the ascendant. By a majority of fifteen the Duke of Hamilton was
chosen President ; and, when two days after, letters came from William
and James, William's was at once read, while before James' was opened
it was voted that nothing it contained should invalidate the Convention.
On April 11 the House agreed to a formal " Declaration," consisting
of two parts — a Claim of Right, and an offer of the Crown to William
and Mary. The Claim asserted that the Estates had the constitutional
right to dethrone a ruler who had violated the laws of the kingdom ;
and it was found that in fifteen cases James had infringed the constitu-
tion. On these grounds he was declared to have " forefaulted " the
throne; and representatives were commissioned to proceed to London and
make formal offer of the Scottish Crown to William and Mary. The
ceremony was held at Whitehall on May 11, when William and
Mary took the Coronation Oath which James had ignored. To one of
its clauses, which bound the sovereign to be "careful to root out all
heretics," William raised a demur ; but the words were explained to his
satisfaction, and that they could be so explained significantly denoted
the fact that a new age had begun. Thus Scotland had cast out her
native prince — the 109th of his line, as was her proud boast to the
nations. In widely different circumstances and with widely different
results, the same national inspiration had dethroned James as had over-
thrown his father. It was the dread of Rome that had inspired the
revolt against Charles I, and it was the same dread that had brought
disaster to his son. With the Revolution the spectre of Rome ceased
to haunt the spirit of the nation, and new cares and new interests were
henceforth to determine its future destinies.

CH. X. 19—2

292 The Revolution Parliament. [i689

In ascending the throne of Scotland William had not behind him
the general popular enthusiasm which had hailed Charles II at the
Restoration. The first Parliament of Charles was virtually unanimous,
and in the exuberance of its loyalty gave its sanction to all the royal
measures. Very different was the temper of the first Parliament of
William. It was not thought prudent to risk a new election ; and the
Convention that had dethroned James was continued as a Parliament
under the new King. To the chagrin of the Duke of Hamilton, who
had been President of the Convention, his place was given to the Earl of
Crawford, an ardent Presbyterian. With him, for the management of
business, was associated as Lord Advocate Sir James Dalrymple, who
had no preference for any form of polity, whether in Church or State,
but was simply a statesman of cold, clear, and large intelligence. That
William associated these two men as his representatives shows that he
saw the necessity of a tentative policy. On Dalrymple devolved the
task of upholding the rights of the Crown, which William was fully
resolved to maintain. The Parliament met in June, 1689; and Dalrymple
found that all his great powers would be taxed to secure his meister's
interests. Three difierent sections in the House were bent on giving
trouble — Jacobites, who desired the recall of James, Whigs who aimed
at curtailing the royal prerogative, and a body of dissatisfied politicians,
who came to be known as the Club or the Country Party, ready to play
fast and loose, as opportunity offered. It was on the mode of electing
the Lords of the Articles that the opposition was mainly concentrated.
The later Stewart Kings had virtually assumed the privilege of appoint-
ing these officials and thus made themselves masters of the Parliament.
William in his instructions offered a remedy for this grievance ; instead
of twenty -foiu: Lords there should be thirty -three, of whom the Estates,
from which the Bishops were excluded as the result of the Revolution,
should each choose eleven — the remainder to be made up from officers
of State without election. The Opposition refused to accept the com-
promise, and the question remained in abeyance. But the main concern
of the session was the settlement of the question whether Presbyterianism
or Episcopacy was to be the national Church. William's recommenda-
tion was that, if the Presbyterians proved the predominant body in the
nation, theirs should be the chosen Church. The decision at which the
Parliament actually arrived showed the uncertainty of the public mind.
Episcopacy was abolished, but Presbyterianism was not put in its place —
.a conclusion which cut off the hopes of the one party and could not
satisfy the other.

While Parliament was still sitting, the supporters of James made a
bold stroke for his restoration. The hero of the adventure was Viscount
Dxmdee, whom both his instincts and his interests attached to the House
of Stewart. In the Highlands, henceforward to be the stronghold of
Jacobite hopes, he succeeded in collecting a force with which he threatened

1689-90] KilliecranMe. — Establishment of Presbyterianism. 293

to descend into the Lowland country. Met at Killiecrankie (July 27)
by General Mackay, he fell in the hour of a brilliant victory, and, as
there was no one equal to carrying on his enterprise, the danger to the
Government passEfd as quickly as it had arisen.

The Government was safe from immediate danger; but the most
critical question with which it had to deal — the settlement of religion —
had yet to be faced. The predominance of national feeling in favour of
Presbyterianism was not so decisive as to make it clear which form
of polity should receive the preference. Moreover, the difficulties of
William and his advisers were increased by the fact that the Church
of England had declared her resolution to stand or fall with her
sister Church in Scotland. In his uncertainty William took the advice
of one who of all men was best fitted to give it — William Carstares, a
Presbyterian minister who had been exiled in the reign of Charles II,
and had made William's acquaintance in HoUand. Mainly on the
counsel of Carstares, William resolved to establish Presbyterianism as the
national Church ; and with this object the Parliament met in its second
session (1690). The same parties appeared as in the previous year ; but
the extreme Whigs were conciliated by the abolition of the Lords of the
Articles ; and the Government succeeded in giving effect to its ecclesias-
tical measures. The assumption of the later Stewarts that the King
was "supreme over all persons and in aU causes ecclesiastical" was
declared unconstitutional; sixty ministers, the survivors of those who
had been ejected since 1661, were restored to their parishes ; and Presby-
terianism was established as the national Church. Finally, against the
wishes of William, patronage was annulled and the right of electing
ministers conferred on the congregations.

In spite of the sanction which had thus been given to Presbyterianism,
it was with grave apprehensions that William and his advisers looked
forward to the meeting of the General Assembly, which had been fixed for
the following October. It was the first Assembly since that which had
been broken up by the officials of the Commonwealth in 1653 ; and the
natural dread was that the now triumphant Presbyterians would mete out
such treatment to the Episcopalians as might endanger the peace of the
country. A hundred and eighty members, laymen and divines, appeared
on the appointed day, but among them were none from the north — the
stronghold of Episcopacy ; and, though three Cameronian ministers were
received at their own express desire, they did not represent the majority
of that body, to whom the Revolution Settlement was an unblessed
compromise. The main business of the Assembly was to make arrange-
ments for setting the new Church in order; and with this object it
appointed two Commissioners, one for the north and the other for the
south of the river Tay. The duty of the Commissioners was to restore
church order and to extrude such ministers, Presbyterians and Episcopa-
lians alike, as failed to give satisfaction in their doctrines and practices.

294 Massacre of Glencoe. [1692

The Commissioner for the south had a comparatively easy task, as there
he had the sympathy of clergy and people; but in the Episcopalian
north the work of purification met with determined opposition, and so
harsh were the measures employed that the Government had to control
the zeal of the inquisition.

So far as the Lowland country was concerned, the Government had
no reason to fear a serious rising in favour of the exiled King; but in the
Highlands there were symptoms of unrest which demanded vigorous
measures if the public peace was to be secure. For various reasons the
sympathies of many of the Highland chiefs went with the Stewart.
James, we have seen, had, while Commissioner vmder his brother, made a
special effort to conciliate them ; and in the eyes of the chiefs of the
west, the ascendancy of the House of Argyll, assured by the Revolu-
tion, was a hateful fact that made them the natural enemies of the new
Government. As the disaffected chiefs were led to believe that a French
armament was about to arrive in the interests of James, their attitude
became more and more menacing; and it was necessary to take measures
to avert a probable rising.

First, as a means of conciliating the impecunious chiefs, over £\^fiQQ
was distributed among them, but with so little effect that Dah-ymple was in
doubt whether the money would not have been better employed " to settle
the Highlands or to ravage them." This measure having failed, an order
was issued commanding all chiefs who had not yet done so to take the
oath of allegiance by January 1, 1692, under " the utmost penalty of the
law." All the chiefs took the oath by the prescribed date except Mac-
donald of Glencoe, who in bravado postponed the obnoxious act till the
day of grace was past. As in Dalrymple's opinion the Clan Macdonald
was "the worst in all the Highlands," he resolved, with unconcealed
satisfaction, that it should be made an example of what the Government
could effect against its enemies. Through his action as prime mover,
a troop of a hundred and twenty men were quartered in the vale of
Glencoe, and were hospitably entertained by the inhabitants for nearly
a fortnight. On the morning of February 13, the errand of blood on
which they had come was accomplished. The chief and thirty-seven
of his clan were butchered, and the remainder escaped massacre only
through the darkness of the morning and the neighbourhood of the
hills. Had the Massacre of Glencoe occurred at any period previous to
the Revolution, it would have been regarded merely as another of the
long list of atrocities recorded in Highland history; but it was the
interest of the Jacobites to stigmatise the existing Government, and at
home and abroad they denounced the crime as an example of the iniquity
of which it was capable. It was against Dalrymple, detested for other
reasons, that the clamour was loudest; and, though William himself had
signed the letters of fire and sword against the Macdonalds, he was at
length (1696) constrained to grant a commission for an enquiry. As

1693] The "Assurance." 295

its result, Dalrymple resigned his office of Secretary, and remained in
privacy till the next reign, when his remarkable gifts were to be signally
displayed in the service of his country.

The great problem for William in the government of Scotland was
to conciliate the Episcopalians who composed such a formidable body of
his subjects. On the loyalty of the Presbyterians he could securely
reckon, since, however they might grumble and protest, they would in
no event find it their interest to prefer the Stewart to himself The
Episcopalians, on the other hand, who had lost their status through his
accession and had no prospect of recovering it, were his natural enemies,
and their one aim must be to undo the Revolution. It was thus
evidently William's interest ,to make their position as tolerable as was
consistent with the maintenance of his own authoi'ity. In 1693 the
Parliament again met — the first time since 1690; and his representatives
succeeded in carrying two measures intended to improve the existing
situation. From the peculiar tenure by which William held the Crown
the Jacobites had found a convenient ambiguity in the terms of the
Oath of Allegiance : they might swear that he was King in fact, but
with the mental reservation that he was not King of right. To remove
the ambiguity it was enacted that to the Oath of Allegiance there should
be added an " Assurance " affirming that William was King of right as
well as in fact. It reveals the difficulty of William's position that the
" Assurance " was as obnoxious to the Presbyterians as to the Episco-
palians against whom it was specially aimed ; in the eyes of the former
the exaction of such a pledge was an assumption of the Crown over the
Church which had been the damning offence of William's predecessors.
The other important Act of the session equally failed in its object of
improving the ecclesiastical situation. By the terms of this Act all
ministers were to be admitted into the national Church who should
subscribe the Confession of Faith, the Oath of Allegiance, and the
Assurance. To the Presbyterians the Act seemed only a deep-laid
scheme to swamp the Church with Episcopalians, and to the Episco-
palians the conditions it offered were incompatible at once with their
principles and their aspirations. Thus abortive proved William's well-
meant scheme of comprehension, and alike for religion and the State
its failure was to be a national disaster in the years that were to
come.

The last important event of William's reign was one which is writteri
large in Scottish annals and, in its origin and its effects, is to be
regarded as one of the most significant in the national history. In the
process of public affairs since the Revolution, it had become evident that
a new spirit reigned in the councils of the statesmen who were responsible
for the conduct of the country; and in no sphere of their action had the
change been more conspicuous than in their settlement of religion. The
framers of the Solemn League and Covenant had sought to impose

CH. X,

296 The. Darien Expedition. [i695-i7oo

Presbytery on the three nations on the ground that it was the one form
of polity whieh had the sanction of Heaven ; the authors of the Revolu-
tion Settlement had established . Presbytery as the national Churchy
because it was the most expedient policy in the interests of the new
regime. Thus in the minds of statesmen secular had overridden theo-
logical considerations ; and it was now to be proved that a similar change
had come over the spirit of the nation. In the year 1695 James Pater-
son brought forward his scheme for the founding of a Scottish colony on
the Isthmus of Darien : the scheme received the sanction of the Scottish
Parliament and of the King; and subscriptions were promised from
Holland, always on good terms with Scotland, and at first from London.
But the enterprise, so promisingly begun, evoked the commercial jealousy
of English traders; and, to the bitter indignation of the Scots,
William was persuaded to withdraw his sanction. Thrown upon their
own resources, the promoters of the scheme in Scotland appealed to
their own countrymen ; subscription lists were opened, and the response
by all ranks and classes of the nation recalled the days of the signing of
the National Covenant. The entei-prise thus launched proved a tempo-
rary national calamity. A pestilential climate, the active opposition of
the English merchants, and the hostility of the Spaniards, who claimed
possession of the Isthmus, baffled the efforts of the colonists to effect
a settlement; and three successive expeditions experienced the same
fate. The immediate result of the tragical failure of what was a
national enterprise was exasperation against William and England;
and this remained an abiding feeling to the close of the reign. But
in the national development the Darien scheme has a wider signifi-
cance. That the nation which for a century and a half had been
dominated by theological interests should have thrown itself with such
enthusiasm into a purely secular enterprise was a striking proof that a
revolution had been wrought in the public mind. Scotland, following
the example of other countries in Europe, had in fact entered on
a stage of development in which material interests had become the
prime consideration, alike in her foreign relations and in her internal
economy.

Such being now the dominant national preoccupation, the result of
the Darien scheme could not but suggest to responsible statesmen both in
England and Scotland that the existing relations of both countries could
not remain as they were — that complete separation or a closer union lay
in the necessity of things. During the closing years of William's reign
the state of opinion in Scotland pointed to the former alternative as the
more probable event. Yet amid all the clamour against William and
the English there was one consideration that held the majority of the
nation fast to the Revolution Settlement — the dread of the return of the
Stewart with absolutism and Roman Catholicism as its inevitable result.
A common Protestantism, a common political ideal, and common material

1702-3] Accession of Anne. — Meeting of Estates. 297

interests, on the one hand, and national sentiment and national antipa-
thies, on the other — between these warring forces the two nations had
to decide whether their destinies were to lie apart or to be joined in
indissoluble union.

Throughout the reign of Anne (1702-14) the dominant concern of
Scotland was the Union — first, as an impending and, afterwards, as an
accomplished fact. It had been the dying counsel of William that, in
the interest of both countries, the Union should be effected at the
earliest date possible; and, as it chanced, the Tory Queen Anne was
of the same opinion as her Whig predecessor. Anne's first action in
Scottish affairs decisively showed that she and her advisers had the great
object at heart. In her first speech to the English Parliament she
expressly suggested that Commissioners from both countries should be
appointed to treat regarding the conditions under which the Union
might be accomplished. The Commissioners were actually appointed
(1702); but public opinion in neither country was sufficiently ripe for
the momentous transaction, and their meetings led to no immediate
result. It was the proceedings in the successive sessions of the Scottish
Parliament which at length convinced both nations that there was no
other alternative than complete severance or closer union.

By an Act of the previous reign (1696), similar to one passed in the
Parliament of England, it had been settled that the existing Parliament
should meet twenty days after the King's death, and should continue to
sit for six months thereafter. As the Parliament did not meet within
the prescribed period, the Duke of Hamilton protested that it could not
be held a legal body ; and, at the head of fifty-seven members, he marched
out of the House. The members who remained, a hundred and twenty
in number and contemptuously nicknamed the " Rump," were virtually
unanimous in passing a succession of Whig measures, and, what is speci-
ally noteworthy, in response to the Queen's request desired her to nomi-
nate Scottish Commissioners to treat regarding union with a similar body
representing England. But it was not this Parliament that was to have
the responsibility of consummating the Treaty of Union. In 1703 a new
Parliament was returned — the first elected since 1689, and destined to be
the last in its succession. In the previous year the English Bill against
Occasional Conformity, which would have deprived Dissenters of civic
status, had been introduced into the English Parliament ; and, though
it was defeated by the Lords, it had been ardently supported by the
Commons. In the eyes of the Scottish Presbyterians the approval which
the Bill had received could only portend the eventual triumph of Epis-
copacy in both countries ; and to avert the dreaded event they spared no
effort to secure a majority in the new Parliament, Their efforts were
successful, and it was a Parliament with a Whig and Presbyterian
majority that carried the Union. This was to be its great achievement ;

298 llie Act of Security. — Union Commissioners. [i703-6

but its action during its three antecedent sessions gave little promise of
such a result. The one motive animating all parties was hostility to
England and the determination to let her know that Scotland was an
independent kingdom. The Duke of Queensberry, who was continued
as Commissioner in the new Parliament, was instructed in the first place
to obtain a grant of supply, and, next, to secure the passing of an Act
of Settlement similar to the English Act which devolved the Crown on
the Electress Sophia and her heirs. In neither object did he succeed;
what the Parliament did, Whig and Tory agreeing, was to pass an Act
of Security, which declared that, twenty days after the death of the
reigning sovereign without issue, the Estates were to name a successor
who should be a Protestant and a descendant of the House of Stewart :
whoever this successor might be, he or she must not be the person
designated by the Parliament of England unless under conditions that
secured to Scotland complete freedom of government, religion, and
trade. To such an Act, which virtually declared Scotland an inde-
pendent kingdom, the Government could not give its sanction ; and the
session closed amid mutual recrimination between the Commissioner
and the House.

When this refractory Parliament met in the following year (1704),
the new Commissioner, the Marquis of Tweeddale, found it as resolute
as ever to have its own way : no supply would be granted tiU the Act of
Security received the royal sanction. As the less of two evils, Godolphin,
the English Treasurer, advised the Queen to yield; and the Act was
passed. It was intended as a defiance to England, but by the irony of
events it was the chief immediate cause in furthering union. As a direct
reply to Scotland's challenge, the Tory House of Lords and the Whig
House of Commons passed an Act which declared that, unless the Crown
of Scotland were settled by Christmas Day, 1705, all Scotsmen would be
declared aliens and the importation of Scottish commodities prohibited.
By the same Act, however, the Queen was empowered to appoint Com-
missioners to negotiate a union between the two countries, never less
disposed to fraternal feelings than at this moment. But the threat
contained in the English Alien Act had the desired result. The Scottish
Estates were satisfied with having asserted the national feeling in the
Act of Secmrity; and, when they met in the following year (1705) under
the presidency of the Earl of Argyll, they passed an "Act for a
Treaty with England," by which the Queen was desired to appoint
Commissioners to negotiate the terms on which the union might be
concluded.

The two Commissions, each consisting of thirty-one representatives,
met on April 16, 1706, and in nine weeks accomplished a task which in
the opinion of the majority of both nations had seemed "a chimera of
the English ministry." By the terms of the proposed Treaty, as it
finally emerged from their hands, the two kingdoms were to be united

1706-7] The Treaty of Union. 299

under the name of Great Britain ; the United Kingdom was to be repre-
sented by one Parliament ; and the Crown was to devolve on the House
of Hanover in accordance with the English Act of Settlement, There
was to be complete freedom of trade between the two countries, both
at home and abroad; in the case of certain commodities — malt, salt,
stamped paper, vellum and parchment, etc., Scotland was for a time
to be partially exempt from duties ; and her proportion of the land-tax
was to be one-fortieth of that of England. In compensation for her losses
at the hands of various English trading companies and of her share
in England's national debt, she was to receive an "equivalent" of
^398,085. lOj. Od., which was to be expended in recouping the parties
who had suffered these losses and in encouraging trade and industry.
In the United Parliament sixteen Scottish peers, elected by their own
body, were to sit in the House of Lords, and forty-five Scottish members
in the House of Commons. Scotland was to retain her own Courts of
Law, with the addition of a Court of Exchequer which was to deal
exclusively with fiscal questions. The privileges of the Royal Bui'ghs
and the feudal jurisdictions of the nobles were to remain intact ; and,
finally, as sign and symbol of the completed union, the arms of the two
countries were to be conjoined, as her Majesty saw fit, on "all flags,
banners, standards, and ensigns both at sea and land."

The Articles, as drafted by the two Commissions, had now to receive
the sanction of the Parliaments of both countries, and, as the greatest
opposition was anticipated from the Parliament of Scotland, it was
deemed prudent that it should first sit in judgment on the Treaty.
The last of Scottish Parliaments, it met in its last session on October S,
1706, with Queensberry as Commissioner, Lord Seafield as Chancellor,
and the Earl of Mar as Secretary of State. In the teeth of a hostility
which threatened civil war, the Government addressed itself to the task
of passing the Treaty into law. From the Convention of Burghs and
from every royal burgh except Ayr, petitions poured in, denoimcing the
proposed union ; in Edinburgh and Glasgow there were open riots, and
at Dumfries the Treaty was publicly burned. It was from the national
Church, which dreaded union as inevitably involving the ruin of Presby-
tery, that the most dangerous opposition was anticipated ; but its leaders
were appeased by an Act of Security which guaranteed the existing
establishment " to continue without any alteration to the people of this
land to all generations." Opposed at almost every step by the diiFerent
parties in the House, the Articles were at length successfully carried
without essential modification ; and on January 16, 1707, Queensberry
touched the Act of Union with the royal sceptre, and at the same time,
as inviolably bound up with it, the Act for the security of the national
Church. In the English Parliament, the Articles had met with little
opposition, and on March 6 the Queen gave the royal assent to the Act
in the presence of the Lords and Commons.

OH. X,

300 Results of the Treaty of Union.

The Treaty of Union, which had thus been sanctioned by the Parlia-
ments of both nations, was not to result in immediate and fraternal
cooperation. How the Treaty was regarded by the general educated
opinion of Scotland, it is difficult to determine ; for, as a leading Jacobite
of the time admitted, the petitions against it were in general inspired
and even manufactured by the Jacobite party. By the mass of the
people, influenced by national sentiment and traditional dislike of
England, it was long considered as a disgraceful transaction — the work
of venal statesmen and traitors to their country. And in the years that
immediately followed there was not a class which did not find ground for
alarm in the treatment it received from a legislature in which English
influence was necessarily predominant. The nobility were irritated by
what they considered infringements of their order ; the Church saw in an
Act that restored patronage a dehberate intention of reviving Episco-
pacy; the traders and merchants were exasperated by taxation which
they declared to be at once unjust and a breach of the Treaty of Union.
Not till towards the middle of the eighteenth century did the national
prosperity become so apparent as to convince the majority of Scotsmen
that the Union had been a necessity and a blessing. The preeminent
advantage that Union brought to both countries, had, indeed, been the
same — strength and security as the result of their combined resources.
Had Scotland become an independent kingdom retaining her ancient
traditions, England would have been seriously crippled in the course she
was to run. On the other hand, Scotland, to hold her own in the
conflict of material interests in which the nations were now engaged,
would have required a fleet and an army, the maintenance of which
would have overstrained her resources and permanently retarded their
development. Relieved from this necessity and no longer dominated by
theological preoccupations, she was at liberty to pursue the new paths
on which she had entered at the Revolution ; and it was only these new
conditions that rendered possible her growth in material prosperity and
her contribution to the world's thought, which make the close of the
eighteenth century the most distinguished period in her annals.

i66o] Charles II and Ireland. 801

(3) IRELAND FROM THE RESTORATION TO THE
ACT OF RESUMPTION.

(1660—1700.)

In the fulness of his joy at finding himself safely seated on the
throne of his fathers Charles II had expressed his desire to make his
people as truly happy as he himself was. So far as Ireland was con-
cerned, it was soon apparent that the attempt to make all happy was
Ukely to end in gratifying nobody. There had been a rebellion in
Ireland; the rebellion had been suppressed with the result that the
greater part of the soil of the country had passed into the hands of those
who had been instrumental in suppressing it. That the Irish had
deserved their fate every Englishman was convinced. On the other hand
the Irish were not slow to point out to Charles that the rebellion had
been condoned by the treaties of 1646 and 1648-9, and that in sharing
his exile with him they were entitled to share also his restoration. The
argument, so long as no one enquired too closely into the premisses on
which it was based, appeared plausible enough. But by accepting his
restoration at the hands of the new settlers Charles had deprived himself
of all choice in the matter. His decision to leave the decision of the
question to Parliament was accepted as satisfactory by the Convention
of Estates that met at Dublin in February, 1660. Being in possession,
the colonists could afiPord to wait. But it was otherwise with the Irish,
whose impatience to recover their forfeited properties led them in some
isolated instances to attempt a forcible ejection of the new occupants. The
latter did not fail to make the most of these disturbances, in order to impress
upon their friends in England the danger of a fresh rebellion. Pressure
was brought to bear on the King; and on June 1 strict orders were
issued to suppress aU such disorderly proceedings, and to confirm the
adventurers and soldiers in the temporary possession of their estates.
StiU, there can be no question that Charles was seriously anxious to
gratify, as far as he possibly could, all reasonable claims on the part of
his quondam allies ; and, being led to believe that a sufficient fund of
lands existed to enable him to do so, without touching the interests of
the adventurers and soldiers, he issued, on November 30, a Declaration for
settling the affairs of Ireland.

302- The Declaration and Act of Settlement. [1660-3

The Declaration (afterwards embodied in the Act of Settlement)
was admirably calculated to satisfy everybody, on the one condition that
sufficient lands could be found for the purpose. The plan on which it
was based had been suggested by the agents of the new settlers, in the
belief that few Irish would be able to prove their innocency. To make
sure of this point, they took care that in selecting the commission before
which the Irish were to plead their claims, their own interests should be
exclusively represented. But in this they overshot their mark. For,
after wasting much time and displaying incredible partiality, the
commission was dissolved. Checked in this direction, the new settlers
(or, as they called themselves, " the English interest ") found themselves
suddenly attacked by the old settlers (nicknamed "the Irish interest"),
who pointed out that, if there was a deficiency of land to satisfy the
Irish according to the King's intentions, it could easily be made good by
forcing the adventurers to disgorge the lands they had illegally acquired
under the so-called Doubling Ordinance of 1643. The controversy
waxed hot in the Parliament which met in May, 1661 ; and the new
settlers, finding themselves likely to be outvoted if they tried to pass the
Declaration as it stood; effected a compromise, by which it was agreed to
refer the matter to the King in Council. Backed by English opinion,
they hoped to recover in London what ground they had lost in Dublin.
But as Ormond, whom Charles appointed Lord Lieutenant in November,
clearly recognised, the question, though veiled as one between the old
and new settlers, was in reality a contest between the latter and the Irish
claiming restoration. The Irish, with the support of the old settlers,
held a strong position. Unfortunately, by disclaiming the character
of rebels and by insisting too strongly on the simple justice of their
demands, they managed to put themselves in a false position. The
production of the original instructions from the Supreme Council to
their agents abroad, authorising them to dispose of the kingdom to any
Catholic Prince who would take it under his protection, settled the
matter against them. The debates in Council which had threatened to
prove interminable found a sudden conclusion; and the Bill for the
Settlement of Ireland, being returned to the Irish Parliament, passed in
May, 1662, and received the royal assent in September.

As a concession to the Irish a commission, consisting of seven
Englishmen nominally unconnected with any interest in Ireland, was
appointed to decide the claims to innocence. The Commissioners opened
their Court on September 20 ; but it was not tiU January 13, 1663, that
they actually began their sittings. More than 4000 claims for restoration,
it was said, had been entered. By the end of the month only twenty-
seven cases had been decided; but, of these, twenty-one had been
admitted. The Cromwellians were alarmed. Complaints of partiality
were raised against the Commissioners. A proposal to require proofs of
innocency more stringent than those already exacted was not carried out ;

1663-9] An Act of Eooplanation. — Trade restrictions, 303

but the dissatisfaction caused by the proceedings of the Commissioners
grew from day to day. A plot to overturn the Government was detected
and several individuals implicated in it were executed. The incident
exercised a sobering effect on all parties. Urged by their fears, the
Cromwellians expressed a readiness to come to terms. Their offer to
surrender one-third of the estates in their possession on May 7, 1659,
vFas accepted ; and on this basis a Bill for the Explanation of the Act of
Settlement was drawn up and, after various interruptions, became law on
December 23, 1665.

The end had come at last. Taking the total arable land of Ireland
at Sir William Petty's estimate of about seven and a half million
plantation acres, and discriminating three sets of proprietors, viz. (1) the
native interest, including families of Anglo-Norman descent ; (2) the
Irish interest, %.e. the planters introduced by Elizabeth and James I,
including the Church of Ireland; (3) the English interest, i.e. the
Cromwellian element, it wotdd appear that by the operation of the Acts
of Settlement and Explanation an equal portion of land (or about two
and a half million acres) was definitely assigned to each class. Of the
multitude, who could expect no hearing in the new Court of Claims that
opened its sittings on January 4, 1666, to administer the Acts, hundreds
took to the congenial calling of Tories (outlaws).

The settlement had not come a minute too soon. The economic
crisis through which England was at this time passing had led to a
strong demand for protection against the introduction of Irish live-stock
into the English market. An Act had accordingly been passed in 1663,
limiting the importation of Irish cattle to the first six months of the
year. The measure, though it pressed heavily on Ireland, only slowly
recovering from the ravages of war, was not attended with the success
that had been predicted for it ; and in October, 1665, a Bill was intro-
duced absolutely prohibiting the importation of all live-stock from
Ireland. The Bill was opposed in the House of Lords ; and, the proro-
gation of Parliament having put a temporary stop to proceedings, it was
hoped that the generous contribution of 30,000 head of Irish cattle to-
wards the relief of London, after the Great Fire, would incline the English
Commons to a more liberal treatment of the Irish landowners. Tliese
hopes were disappointed. For no sooner had Parliament reassembled
in the autumn of 1666, than the Commons promptly agreed to a Bill for
the virtual exclusion of all great cattle, sheep, and swine as well as of all
beef, pork and bacon, on the ground that such imports were destructive
of the prosperity of the country and a "common nuisance." On
January 18, 1667, the BiU, after a fierce contest in the House of Lords,
received the royal assent. The consequences of the measure were soon
apparent. From statistics taken at the time it appears that whereas in
1665 57,545 oxen and 99,564 sheep were exported from Ireland, in 1669
the number had fallen to 1454 oxeo and 1120 sheep. On the other

304 The woollen industry. — Religious toleration. [leer-S

hand, barrelled beef, butter, tallow, hides, and above all wool, which rose
from 181,013 stone to 254,760, showed a remarkable increase. These
statistics are significant. By closing the English market against Irish
live-stock, the Act practically killed the chief existing Irish industry.
Unable to find a market for their lean cattle the Irish landowners turned
their land into sheep-walks and took to fattening their own stock for the
provision trade. Irish wool was of excellent quality ; but its exportation
(except to England) was severely restricted, and finding no legal outlet
for it the Irish established a woollen industry of their own. Owing
largely to Ormond's encouragement the industry began to flourish.
English capital found its way into the country; skilled labour was in-
troduced ; and, though debarred by the Act of Navigation from directly
participating in the colonial trade, Ireland, owing to the cheapness
of living and labour, was ere long able not merely to compete with
England but even to undersell her in the European market. The linen
manufacture revived. Other trades followed in the wake of the chief
industries; and for twenty years Ireland enjoyied a period of unexampled
commercial prosperity.

As a result, religious discord lost much of its asperity. No doubt,
the restoration of Episcopacy and the ejection of their ministers caused
much bitter feeling among the Presbyterians of Ulster, especially where
they constituted the bulk of the population. But such struggles as
those which soured the existence and frustrated the labours of Jeremy
Taylor in the diocese of Down and Connor were happily exceptioliial;
and it may be said that throughout the whole reign the position of
the Protestant nonconformists in Ireland contrasted favourably with
that of their fellows in England and Scotland. Nor had the Roman
Catholics much reason to complain. The policy inaugurated by the
Commonwealth of excluding them from corporate towns was theoretically
maintained; but there was no attempt made to interfere with individual
liberty of conscience or to exclude them from the higher professions.
Ormond, whose object was to stimulate a feeling of loyalty to the CrOwii
by repressing the religious bigotry of both Protestants and Catholics,
had, shortly after assuming the government, been much gratified by the
presentation of an address by Peter Walsh, a Franciscan friar, on behalf
of a number of Catholic clergy and gentry, protesting their rmfeigned
loyalty to the Crown and disclaiming all foreign power " either papal
or princely, spiritual or temporal." The Loyal Remonstrance, as it
was called, was greeted with contumely by the Ultramontanes ; but it
afforded Ormond the opportunity he wanted of drawing a distinction
between loyal and disloyal Roman Catholicism. Whether his policy of
playing one party off against the other, with the avowed object of
ultimately weakening both, would have been followed by the success he
expected may be doubted; but it was certainly attended by a more
tolerant treatment of the C?i(tholics generally.

1669-77] Ormond recalled. — Catholic intrigues. 305

Before, however, it had time to fully develop, Ormond was recalled.
The real reason of his removal, though veiled by charges of issuing a
commission of martial law in time of peace, and of misapplication of
the revenue, is to be found in the intrigues which had led to the down-
fall of his friend the Earl of Clarendon. His successor. Lord Robartes,
owed his appointment to the zeal with which he had advocated the
claim of the Crown to exercise a dispensing power in the matter of
religious tests; but, having during his six months of office managed
to render himself personally objectionable to all classes of the com-
munity, except to the more rigid Presbyterians, with whose tenets he
sympathised, he retired in a huff in May, 1670. He was followed by
John Lord Berkeley of Stratton. Berkeley's appointment, though
apparently devoid of political significance, was like that of Robartes,
a step carefully calculated in the spirit of the Treaty of Dover. Of
a naturally indolent disposition, Berkeley, through his wife and his
secretary. Sir Ellis Leighton, was entirely under Catholic influence.

With Leighton's assistance Richard Talbot, better known by his
subsequent title of Duke of Tyrconnel, and his brother Peter, the
recently-appointed titular Archbishop of Dublin, speedily effected a
radical change in the conduct of public aflairs. Not only was the favour
that had hitherto been shown to the Remonstrants withdrawn and a
systematic attempt made to prosecute them out of existence ; but, under
colour of carrying out the King's intentions, a number of Catholics were
placed on the* Commission of the Peace, and a proclamation was issued
in March, 1672, dispensing with the Oath of Supremacy as a condition
of their admission to the Corporations. Moreover, at Talbot's instiga-
tion, the King consented to the appointment of a committee to consider
the desirability of instituting an " impartial " enquiry into the execution
of the Acts of Settlement. The indignation of the Protestants was
unmistakable ; and, foreseeing a storm in Parliament, Charles prudently
transferred the government to Arthur Capel, Earl of Essex, a zealous
Protestant. As he had anticipated, the English Parliament had no
sooner met than a vigorous address was presented to him in March, 1673,
insisting on the maintenance of the Acts of Settlement, the revocation
of the Commission of Enquiry, and the removal of Talbot from his
counsels. Charles yielded. AH the same, he had no intention of
surrendering the advantage he had gained. Essex gradually began to
perceive which way the wind was blowing. For himself he was willing
enough to pursue a neutral policy ; but, to his credit, he was too honest
to become a mere tool for the subversion of the Protestant interest and
for exploiting the country in the interests of the harpies that battened
on the extravagance of the King. When he refused to carry on the
government without being allowed to exercise any control over the
revenue, he was recalled (1677).

The unexpected reappointment of Ormond was hailed with satisfaction

C. M. H. V. CH. X. 20

306 Popish Plot. — Catholic reaction. [ie77-87

by the Irish Protestants. Recent events had not tended to inspire
them with confidence in the Government. The finances of the country
were in disorder ; and, though Orraond had obtained Charles' consent to
a more rigorous control of the revenue, the only radical remedy for the
situation lay, as he clearly saw, in summoning a Parliament. Before,
however, anything could be done in this direction, the Government was
distracted by the news of the discovery of a popish plot in England,
with ramifications extending, it was alleged, to Ireland. Uncertain at first
what credit to give to Gates'" revelations, Ormond thought it prudent to
arrest one or two suspicious individuals, and to issue orders for disarming
the Catholics. His moderation, however, gave great offence to Shaftes-
bury and his allies, and knowing, as he said, that his position was a
slippery one, he saw himself constrained to issue a proclamation to
encourage persons to come forward to make discoveries of the plot. The
proclamation, though it did not fail to bring forth a host of informers
and to lead in the end to the judicial murder of Oliver Plunkett,
Catholic Archbishop of Armagh, failed to answer the expectations of
the managers of the agitation. When the reaction came, Ormond's
diificulties wore olF; but only, as it proved, to be followed, after a short
pause, by others of an even more serious nature.

The opportunity, for which Charles had long been waiting, to free
himself from the control of the Protestant party in Ireland, seemed to
have arrived at last. By the advice of the Duke of York and Talbot
he resolved to recall Ormond, to divide the civil from' the military
authority, and, by placing the latter in the hands of a trusty Catholic, to
remodel the army on a Catholic basis. At the same time a commission
was to be issued for the establishment of a Court of Grace, nominally to
enable the new settlers to strengthen their defeasible titles, really as a
means of clipping their properties in the interest of the Irish. It is
hard to say to what lengths Charles was willing to go; but before
matters coidd be arranged he died. His death did not materially affect
the situation. Ormond, having proclaimed James II, retired from the
government. Pending the appointment of his successor the government
was placed in commission, and in the interval advantage was taken of
Monmouth's rebellion to effect a partial disarmament of the Protestants.
In January, 1686, the Earl of Clarendon was sworn Lord Lieutenant;
but the real director of Irish affairs was Talbot, whom James shortly
after his accession had created Earl of Tyrconnel, and whom he now
appointed commander-in-chief of the army. In pursuance of the plan
already agreed upon, Tyrconnel set to work at once to remodel the
army on a Catholic basis. His proceedings did not fail to alarm the
Protestants ; and, as Clarendon, whose pride was hurt at the daily insults
offered to his authority, failed to prove as subservient an instrument as
James had expected to find in him, he was recalled and the government
transferred to Tyrconnel (January, 1687).

lesv-g] Tyrconnel Viceroy. — Bevolt of Derry. 307

This appointment, while it inspired the Protestants with the gravest
apprehensions, so that thousands of them, it was said, disposed of their
property and fled the country, afforded the liveliest satisfaction to the
natives, who, in the expectation of a speedy reversal of the Acts of Settle-
ment, were already in imagination revelling in the recovery of their forfeited
estates. The fears and hopes of both alike were well founded. Towards the
end of August Tyrconnel was granted an interview with James at Chester,
who approved his proceedings and, it is asserted on credible authority,
arranged with him a plan whereby, in the event of his policy in England
miscarrying and the succession falling to a Protestant, Ireland was to be
put in a position to maintain itself as an independent kingdom.

Events moved faster than either expected. With the cheers of his
own army ringing in his ears at the acquittal of the Bishops, James
turned for assistance to Tyrconnel, as his father had to StraiTord,
and, despite the warning voice of Sunderland, 8000 Irish troops were
transported to England during the autumn of 1688. The assistance,
purchased at the price of exasperating public opinion in England,
proved of no use to James, while by compelling Tyrconnel to denude
Deny of its garrison the opportunity was given for a revolt which
was destined to upset all his plans. Recognising his mistake, he
ordered the Earl of Antrim to proceed with his regiment to Derry.
But the tinder had already taken fire. Alarmed at the menacing
attitude of the natives and by rumours of an intended repetition of the
horrors of 164!l, the citizens of Derry, actuated by one of those sudden
impulses of self-preservation that override all habits of obedience to
authority, gave the signal for rebellion by closing the gates of the city
in the face of the royal army. Enniskillen followed suit, and every-
where the Protestant colonists drew together for safety and formed
military associations for their defence. Taken by surprise, Tyrconnel
seemed to hesitate. Thinking he might be won over, William sent
Richard Hamilton over to negotiate terms with him. Hamilton be-
trayed his trust ; and, after Tyrconnel had thus learnt the real state of
alFairs in England, his hesitation, real or affected, quickly passed away.
By the end of January, 1689, he had got together an army of 36,000
men ; and, though they were badly officered and but partly armed, the
prospect according to Pointis, whom Louis had sent over to report
on the situation, was encouraging.

Meanwhile a strong force under Hamilton was despatched into the
north, to put an end to the resistance there. At Dromore he came up
with the bulk of the Protestants under Sir Arthur Rawdon and Major
Baker. Seeing themselves overmatched, they broke and fled, some to
Coleraine, others to Derry and Enniskillen, breaking down the bridges
in their rear, and destroying everything they could not carry away with
them. On March 12 — two days before the "Break of Dromore" —
James, accompanied by the Count d'Avaux as Louis' plenipotentiary and

CH. X. 20—2

308 James lands at Kinsale. — Political situation. [i689

a number of French officers who were to assist him in organising his forces,
landed at Kinsale with a small army of about 1200 men, for the most part
his own subjects. On landing, he was heartily welcomed by the Catholics
of the district ; and a promise on his part to take the Protestants under
his protection went some way to disarm opposition on their part. At
Cork he was met by Tyrconnel, who escorted him in triumph to
Dublin.

AU the same, James' heart was not in the enterprise. He had
hoped with Louis' assistance to have made a direct descent on England.
But Louis was anxious at almost any price to avoid an open breach with
England. By assisting James to establish himself firmly in Ireland he
hoped, at a moderate cost to himself, to prevent William from interfering
actively on the Continent. It is doubtful whether James saw through Louis'
scheme; but it was not long before Tjnrconnel recognised James' perfect
indifference to Ireland, and perceived, from his endeavour to reconcile the
Protestants, that his thoughts were all the time concentrated on England.
For such a plan, however, Tyrconnel was not to be had. First and
foremost, he was an Irishman. His object, to put it plainly, was to sever
the connexion with Great Britain. If James was willing to be King of
Ireland, well and good ; if not, then Tyrconnel was ready to offer the
crown to Louis. But in this he reckoned without Louis himself, who
no sooner heard of the intention than he clearly indicated his dislike
to the proposal. In the background stood d'Avaiix, cynically urging
the extirpation of the Protestants as the only rational solution of
the situation.

On March 24 James made his public entry into Dublin. Next day
he published a batch of proclamations, commanding all his subjects who
had fled the kingdom to return to their allegiance, under a general
promise of taking the Protestants into his protection; forbidding
robberies ; ordering a market to be opened for the provisioning of the
army; raising the nominal value of the currency, and convoking a
Parliament to meet at Dublin on May 7. At the same time, he created
Tyrconnel a Duke, and admitted d'Avaux to a seat at the Privy
Council. This done, he announced his intention of proceeding in person
tp Derry. Once in possession of that city, there was nothing to prevent
him from crossing with his army into Scotland. Tyrconnel and d'Avaux
did their utmost to dissuade him; but, supported by Melfort and the
English Jacobites, he held to his purpose, and shortly afterwards set out
for the north.

Since their rout at Dromore the Protestants of Ulster found them-
selves in a precarious position. Driven northwards by Hamilton's
advancing forces, as many as were able to do so took shipping and fled
to England ; a few accepted protection from the Irish general ; others
found a refuge in Enniskillen and Derry, the rest ensconced themselves
in Coleraine, whence they appealed to Robert Lundy at Derry for help.

1689] James before Derry. — "No Surrender.'' 309

Lundy's position was a peculiar one. He was a Protestant, and had been
appointed military governor of Derry at the instance of one of the most
trusted leaders of the party, William Stewart, Viscount Mountjoy.
Yet he had from the first failed to give entire satisfaction to the
more resolutely-minded citizens, who suspected him, perhaps not alto-
gether without reason, of being secretly a Jacobite; and it must be
admitted that, whether he was a traitor at heart or not, his conduct had the
effect of nearly wrecking the Protestant cause. Sligo in particular, with
almost as good a chance of holding out as Enniskillen, was lost by
his contradictory orders. On the other hand, his advice to evacuate
Coleraine appears to have been founded on sound military reasons ; and
he cannot be held responsible for the panic-stricken flight that followed
its rejection. Owing to bad weather, the almost impassable condition
of the roads, and the difficulty of finding provisions in a country almost
devoid of inhabitants, James' army advancing in two divisions — the
one under Hamilton against Deny, the other under Galmoy against
EnniskiUen — made slow progress. On April 13 the former came up
with Lundy's outposts at Cladyford, about three miles above Strabane on
the Finn, and, after some sharp fighting, succeeded two days later in
forcing a passage at Castlefinn. Finding their flank turned and their
retreat menaced, Lundy's raw levies broke and fled in wild confusion to
Derry, closely followed for some miles by Hamilton's cavalry. The bulk
of them got safely into the city, but a number of isolated parties were
wiped out.

Disgusted and dismayed at the conduct of his troops, Lundy saw no
chance of holding out against the overwhelming force which, with King
James at its head, was now rapidly approaching the city. At a council
of war he gave his advice in favotu" of a capitulation. In the light of
subsequent events his conduct may be regarded as an act of treachery ;
but it should be remembered that all competent military authorities
agreed in believing that Derry was indefensible. Military opinion
proved wrong ; but, if the successful defence of Derry forms one of the
most brilliant pages in Irish history, the odds were that, like that of
Drogheda, it would prove one of the bloodiest. Informed of what had
passed at the council, James appeared under the walls of the city on
April 18, expecting an easy surrender. But both he and Lundy failed
to reckon on the fierce spirit of racial hatred that burned in the breasts
of the citizens. While negotiations for a surrender were proceeding, a
cannon-ball, fired either by accident or of set pxn:pose, came very near
to cutting short James' life, while at the same time it put an end to his
hopes and Lundy's authority. A feeble apology followed ; but that same
night Lundy slipped out of the city ; the defence was reorganised, and
next morning, with a defiant shout of " No surrender," Derry entered on
her memorable fifteen weeks' siege.

The unexpected resistance with which he had met completely upset

310 Opening of the Irish Parliament. [i689

James' plans ; and on April 29 he left the camp, to open the Parliament
summoned by him to meet at Dublin on May 7. Considering the pre-
cautions taken by Tyrconnel to regulate the elections, it was only to be
expected that the Parliament, which assembled on the day appointed,
should have consisted almost exclusively of men who either in their
own persons or in those of their fathers before them had suffered most
severely by the plantations that had in large measure caused their
rebellion, and by the confiscations that had followed on its suppression.
They had now, as they thought, got the upper hand of their enemies —
the colonists ; they had got a King of their own religion ; and it was only
natural that they should have determined to^se their power to recover
possession of those estates of which they had, in their opinion, been most
unjustifiably robbed.

In his opening speech James, after gratefully acknowledging their
loyalty, expressed his firm resolve to put an end to all calumnies against
him, by granting full liberty of conscience to all his subjects, and to
recognise no test or distinction between them but that of loyalty ; as for
those who had been injured by the late Acts of Settlement, he was ready
to agree to any plan that might be found to relieve them "as far as
might be consistent with reason, justice, and the public good of his
people." It was from his own point of view a politic speech ; though
to most of his hearers his reference to the necessity for a revision of
the Acts of Settlement must have seemed rather lacking in warmth.
Unfortunately the object he had before him of uniting Protestants and
Catholics into a body of loyalists, quite apart from the fact that it
suited nobody's purpose but his own, was utterly impracticable. The
protection of a King who could not protect himself was not likely to
impress the Protestants ; and, to gratify the Catholics, he was bound to
upset the Act of Settlement. To do this, however, was equivalent to
forfeiting all chance of recovering England. The question as to which
course he would pursue was soon brought to a practical issue.

On May 12 a Bill was introduced into the House of Commons for
repealing the Acts of Settlement and Explanation. In the preamble to
it, in which the causes which gave rise to those measures are discussed,
nothing is more remarkable than the intense hatred displayed against
Ormond, who "by his interest and power cherished and supported a
fanatical republican party... and to transfer the calamitous consequences
of his fatal conduct from himself upon your trusty Roman Catholic
subjects... interposed betwixt them and his late Majesty's general
indulgence and pardon." The absurdity of the charge is apparent on
the face of it; but a scapegoat had to be found, and it would hardly
have suited the purposes of those who were trying to procure its repeal
to remember that the Act of Settlement was simply the price Charles
had paid for his restoration. As James listened to the debates in the
House of Lords, the hopelessness of his position began to dawn upon

1689] Its legislation. — Proceedings in England. 311

him. Not he, but Tyrconnel, was master of the situation, and nothing
would satisfy Tyrconnel but an absolute repeal. To his intimates James
€idmitted that he had no other choice than to consent. The Irish, he
said, were determined to " ram that and much more down his throat."

When the session came to a close on July 20, he had given his assent
to thirty-five Acts, some of them no doubt of great, others of question-
able, utility. Taken together, they represent the political ideal of the
party led by Tyrconnel — parliamentary independence, the restoration of
the land to its original owners, and freedom of trade. Unfortunately,
however legitimate they were in themselves, they were claims that could
only be made good by the sword.

Meanwhile the situation in general had undergone little change.
Though hard pressed and with a garrison sadly diminished by hunger
and sickness, Derry still continued to bid defiance to her besiegers; but,
as July drew to a close, her powers of resistance rapidly declined, and
any day, any hour could see her forced to capitulate. The fate of
Enniskillen hung in the same balance. Hitherto, by distracting the
attention of James' generals the Enniskilleners had rendered Derry
excellent service. But even to their powers of resistance there was a
limit ; and, if Derry fell, they too were bound to .succumb.

Absorbed in their own affairs. Englishmen had at first paid little
attention to Ireland. After his flight there had been a natural revulsion
of feeling in James' favour; but this feeling had quickly given place to
one of intense resentment, when the news arrived of his landing in
Ireland. In its indignation, Parliament insisted on an instant declara-
tion of war against France. Putting his own construction on the
address, William thought that the hour had at last arrived for setting
his scheme of the Grand Alliance in motion. Parliament thought
otherwise. From being a subject of secondary importance, Ireland
suddenly became the sole topic of interest. As time went on and
Derry remained unrelieved, public opinion grew restless. In June, a
committee of the Lords was appointed to enquire into the causes of the
miscarriages in Ireland. Witnesses, including Archbishop King, were
examined: the minute books of the Committee of Council for Irish
aflairs and the Admiralty books were called for and closely inspected.
The evidence elicited was of a contradictory sort; but it was generally
admitted that with a little foresight the rebellion might have been
prevented. Even after Tyrconnel had declared for James, the Pro-
testants could, with a little help, easily have held their own; but no
attention had been paid to their appeals for assistance; on the contrary,
Sir William Harbord had been heard to say that " Ireland could wait:
land there would be cheap enough shortly."

The fact is the muddle was due to causes which in the circum-
stances were unavoidable. The Committee for Irish affairs had been
active enough. ALready on March SO orders had been issued for axx

08. 3?,

312 Derry relieved. — Schomherg in Ireland. [ie89

army of over 22,000 men to be got ready to march on May 1 ; and on
April 29, when it was evident that Derry, contrary to all expectation,
was managing to hold out, instructions were sent to Major-General Kirke
to sail with four regiments and what provisions he could collect to its
relief. But weeks passed away ; and it was only after receiving a second
order that Kirke, "un homme caprideux^'' as Schomberg called him, at
last set sail. The middle of June had arrived before his fleet appeared
in Lough Foyle. Even then he could not make up his mind to attack
the boom which the besiegers had thrown across the river. At last
a peremptory message from Schomberg, who had been appointed com-
mander-in-chief of the forces for Ireland, compelled him to move.
The task proved easier than had been expected, and on July 28
Derry was relieved.

His failure to capture Derry was a terrible disappointment to James;
but the news of the complete defeat, on July 31, at Newtown Butler, of
the army he had sent to reduce Enniskillen under Viscount Mountcashel,
followed as it was by that of the loss of Sligo, was in the circumstances
little less than a calamity. Dundee's death (July 27) had put an end to
his hopes of assistance from Scotland, and the question of how he was to
maintain himself was becoming daily more difficult to solve. From raising
the nominal value of the currency he had proceeded to the issue of a debased
coinage, with the natural result of ruining what little commerce there
was left to the country. Provisions for the army could only be obtained
at the sword's point ; and, with bankruptcy staring him in the face, the
temptation to follow d'Avaux' advice and lay forcible hands on the
Protestants became almost irresistible. In the midst of his troubles
came the news that Schomberg, with an army which rumour placed at
about 20,000 men, had landed in county Down. The feeling at Dublin
was one of utter consternation. The advisability of retiring beyoiid the
line of the Shannon was discussed; but neither James nor Tyrconnel
would listen to the suggestion; and, when it was foimd that Dublin was
not immediately menaced, the feeling of panic gradually yielded to
bolder counsels.

As a matter of fact the situation was not nearly so critical as it had
at first sight appeared to be. So far from being 20,000 men strong, Schom-
berg's army, composed mainly of raw recruits, badly equipped and worse
officered, was barely more than half that size. Belfast of course fell
into his hands; but Carrickfergus had to be reduced by force. Having
been joined by most of the Enniskillen horse Schomberg on September 2
moved southward by way of Lisbum and Newry to Dundalk. Here he
was brought to a standstill by lack of provisions ; and, recognising the
necessity of keeping open his connexion by sea, he entrenched himself
on a little slip of land to the north of the town, where he was practi-
cally secure from attack, and where reinforcements could easily reach
him. His action, unavoidable under the circumstances, revealed his

1689-90] Schorriberg's campaign. — William in Ireland. 313

weakness to the enemy. Enthusiasm took the place of despondency in
the Irish ranks, and with an army over 20,000 strong James marched
northward. On September 21 the two armies stood face to face at
Dundalk, both eager for the fray, but neither willing to yield the other
the advantage of an attack. Finding it impossible to draw Schomberg,
James, after laying the country bare of provisions, retired with his army to
Ardee, where, owing to the bad roads and broken-down bridges, he was
as inaccessible to Schomberg as the latter was to him at Dundalk. The
autumn was cold and wet, and both armies suiFered severely from sick-
ness; so that, when at the beginning of November James moved into
winter-quarters, Schomberg promptly followed his example.

The campaign, which closed with the recovery of Sligo by Sarsfield,
had ended better for James than could reasonably have been expected
after his successive defeats. On the other hand, Schomberg's management
of the war caused great dissatisfaction in England, where it was generally
felt — and the feeling was shared by William — that he might have risked a
little more than he did. The feeling was excusable; but the real blame
lay with the commissariat department; and the fact that the commis-
sary-general, Henry Shales, was, or had been, a Papist, furnished the
Whigs with an admirable opportunity of pointing their argument that
nothing but mismanagement could be expected, so long as Tory influence
was allowed to make itself felt in the King's coimsels. To William,
however, it had become evident that the subjugation of Ireland was a
matter of first necessity, if he was not to become a mere puppet in the
hands of the Whigs. In this dilemma, he announced his intention of
going himself to Ireland. The proposal was not agreeable to the
Whigs, and even his own friends thought it a risky experiment ; but it
was received with applause by the country, and, taking advantage of
the situation, he dissolved Parliament. The general elections answered
his expectations; and on June 11, 1690, he set sail from Chester for
Carrickfergus.

Meanwhile, in Ireland both sides had been busily occupied in recruit-
ing their armies for the coming campaign. The priests worked hard for
James, and many a man who came to mass found himself before the
day closed enrolled in the army. Provisions seem to have been plentiful
in the Irish camp ; but there was a great dearth of money and war
material. Schomberg's difficulties, on the other hand, arose chiefly from
scarcity of provisions and forage, in which respect the loss of Sligo,
which was only partly made good by the capture of Belturbet by
Colonel Wolseley in December, 1689, made itself severely felt. In
January he was compelled to disband a number of regiments, and
to send their officers to gather recruits in England. Suffering as he
did from iU-health, it was with a feeling of intense relief that he heard
of William's determination to come to Ireland himself. From that
moment things began perceptibly to improve. Under the management

314 William and James. — Battle of the Boyne. [i690

of Shales' successor, Pereira, provisions became more plentiful ; and at
the beginning of March a stream of recruits set in, including nearly
7000 Danes under the personal conduct of Duke Ferdinand William of
Wiirtemberg. That nothing might be wanting when William arrived,
stores were laid up, forage collected, roads and bridges on the proposed
line of march repaired, and finally in May the fort of Charlemont was
attacked and captured.

Nor had Louis been altogether wanting to his ally. At James' re-
quest d'Avaux was recalled; and on March 14 the Due de Lauzun landed
at Cork with 7000 veterans, a park of artillery, and considerable stores
of arms and ammunition. Numerically both armies were about equal ;
but in general efficiency William's was infinitely superior. So great,
indeed, was the disorder in the Irish camp, that Lauzun at once recog-
nised the hopelessness of a contest on equal terms, and, as d'Avaux had
formerly urged, he too advised setting Dublin in flames and retreating
behind the line of the Shannon. To his credit, James refused his
consent to such a step. When the news of William's landing reached
him on June 16, he moved his army to Dundalk. 1'he position was
strategically a good one, though it had the disadvantage of exposing
his base at Dublin to a flanking movement from the direction of
Armagh. Urged by this consideration and by the importunate advice
of Lauzun to avoid risking a battle, he fell back on Drogheda. If he
meant to fight, the spot was, as Schomberg had long foreseen, the best he
could have chosen. But from the fact that fully a third of his available
force was scattered in garrisons, it can hardly have been his intention to
risk a decisive battle.

William meanwhile was following closely on his heels. To those
who urged precaution in the pursuit he replied that he had not come
to Ireland to let the grass grow under his feet ; and on June 30, sixteen
days after his landing, both armies stood facing each other with only
the Boyne between them. The odds against James were very great.
Still, the advantage of position lay with him, and to the experienced eye
of Schomberg the determination of William to force a passage on the
following morning (July 1) seemed little short of folly. Unfortunately
for himself, James could not make up his mind either to fight or retreat.
His indecision lost him the battle. Forced by William's impetuous
attack to turn and defend himself when he was actually on the point
of retiring, he was unable to bring half his army into action before his
adversary had crossed the river at three diiferent points. Taken more or
less by surprise, the Irish and their allies, especially the cavalry, fought
with a determination that fully justified Schomberg's criticism of
William's tactics. Seeing the centre division falter in the attack,
Schomberg himself plunged into the river, when he was surrounded
by a body of hostile cavalry and killed. His death allowed the main
body of the Irish to make good its retreat through the pass of Duleek,

1690] Flight of James. — First siege of Limerick. 315

and, according to the Duke of Berwick, saved James' army from destruc-
tion. Among the earliest to quit the field was James. At Dublin he
snatched a few hours' rest; and, having laid his express commands on the
mayor to prevent any attempt to pillage or fire the city, he hastened to
Waterford, where he took ship for France.

To William as to Mary the flight of James was a great relief; and,
in anticipation that, now that the chief actor was gone, resistance to his
authority would cease, he allowed the fruits of his victory in large measure
to slip from his grasp. The fact was he had yet to learn that the Irish
had not taken up arms out of any feeling of loyalty to James, but solely
and entirely in their own interests. They were acute enough to see that
Tyrconnel's attempt to restore things to the status quo ante October 2S,
1641, had failed and they would have been glad to lay down their arms
on terms of a general amnesty. For himself, William would readily
have agreed to purchase peace on these terms. Unfortunately the desire
for revenge on the part of the colonists rendered a policy of conciliation
impossible. Baser motives cooperated. The Irish were still in possession
of thousands of acres of fertile land, and the desire to get hold of them
was as strong in the breasts of Englishmen as it had been in the days
of Parsons and Borlase. So it came to pass that, instead of a general
amnesty, which would in aU likelihood have put a speedy end to the war,
the proclamation of pardon published on July 7 to all who should lay
down arms by August 1 was, as it had been in the days of Cromwell,
confined to the tenant and landless man. The result might have been
foreseen. With ruin staring them in the face, the Irish resolved to sell
their lives as dearly as possible, and in the extremity of their position the
landless man and the landowner awaited their fate shoulder to shoulder.

After the loss of much precious time William, on July 9, despatched
Lieutenant-General Douglas with a considerable force to take Athlone,
while he himself with the bulk of the army set out two days later in the
direction of Limerick, whither Tyrconnel had withdrawn with the bulk
of his forces. Wexford, Waterford, Duncannon, Clonmel, and other places
fell into his hands. At Carrick-on-Suir he received intelligence of the
battle ofiF Beachy Head, and, thinking his presence required in England,
he handed over the command of the army to Count Solms and returned
to Dublin. There he was met with more reassuring news, and in the
belief that the war would be over in a fortnight he returned to the
camp. On August 8 he was joined by Douglas, who had failed to
capture Athlone, and the next day he sat down before Limerick.

The situation within the city was strange. Tyrconnel, who had
James' authority to come to terms with William or to continue the
war as he thought most conducive to his interests, was inclined to treat.
He was convinced that the city could not hold out against a regular
siege, and his opinion was shared by Lauzun. On the other hand the
Irish, animated by Sarsfield and with the example of Derry before them,

CB. z.

316 Siege raised. — Marlborough. — St Ruth. [i690-i

insisted on defending the place. Finding it impossible to convince them
of the futility of their resolution, Tyrconnel withdrew with Lauzun and
the French regiments to Galway, leaving Major-Generals Boisselot and
Sarsfield with about 6000 men to conduct the defence of the city. The
summons to surrender had hardly been rejected, when information reached
the besieged that William's heavy siege-guns were approaching. Acting
on the spur of the moment, Sarsfield, having collected about 500 horse,
crossed the Shannon at Killaloe, and surprising the escort at Ballyneety
within seven miles of Limerick, blew up the entire train. The loss of
his artillery delayed William's operations ; and, after several desperate
efforts to storm the place, seeing the rainy season approaching, he raised
the siege on August 31, and sailed for England on September 5.

His failure to capture Limerick was a surprise to everybody, and
not least of all to Louis, who, after James' sudden reappearance at
Versailles full of complaints against the Irish, had issued orders recalling
all his troops from Ireland in the belief that " the game there was lost."
In obedience to his commands. Lauzun was busily attending to their
embarcation at Galway, when the news that the siege had been raised
caused him to delay their departure in the expectation of fresh orders;
but, more than a week having elapsed and no orders arriving, he and the
French brigade sailed from Galwaj' on September 12. With him went
Tyrconnel, moved to this step partly in order to explain his conduct,
partly to solicit fresh assistance.

Hardly had the French withdrawn when an English fleet, with about
5000 men under the command of the Earl of Marlborough, appeared
before Cork. Landing hard by the city on September 22, and being
joined by the Duke of Wiirtemberg with 4000 foot and 1500 horse, he
forced the place to surrender within a week and at once proceeded to
attack Kinsale, which, after a vigorous but short defence, capitulated
on October 15. Though compelled to abandon the greater part of
Munster, the possession of the line of the Shannon enabled the Irish
during the winter to carry on an exasperating guerilla warfare, with
which Ginkel, who had succeeded to the command of the army, found it
almost impossible to cope, even with the help of a strong militia force
which he had raised.

In January, 1691, Tyrconnel returned from France with an assurance
of further assistance from Louis. But month after month passed away,
and the hope of assistance had almost died out, when, early in May,
St Euth, accompanied by d'Usson and a number of Fi-ench oiKcers,
arrived at Limerick with large supplies of ammunition and other pro-
visions, and with a commission rendering him practically independent
of Tyrconnel in the command of the army. St Ruth's arrival scattered
the gloom that had begun to settle down on the Irish; and, encouraged
by his presence and energetic measures, they quickly recovered confidence
in themselves and their cause.

i69i] Ginkel in command. — Athlone captured. 317

Meanwhile, Ginkel on his side had been busily engaged in preparing
for the coming campaign; and, on taking the field towards the end
of May, he found himself at the head of 20,000 well equipped
troops with a train of artillery such as Ireland had never seen. Con-
centrating his army at Mullingar, he set out for Athlone on June 6.
Ballymore, which the Irish had occupied with a small garrison, was
easily captured; but at this point he lost more than a week waiting
for his pontoons, and it was not until the 19th that he arrived before
Athlone,

The town lying partly on the Leinster, partly on the Connaught
side of the Shannon, and connected only by a bridge, occupied a strong
strategical position. To St Ruth it seemed absolutely impossible for
Ginkel to capture it by a direct attack ; and, in the belief that his real
object was to attempt a turning movement from the direction of Banagher
several miles lower down the river, he had concentrated his main force
somewhat to the south of the town, leaving the direction of the defence
to d'Usson. On the 22nd, Ginkel opened a heavy fire upon the enemy's
entrenchments on the opposite side of the river. Day and night for days
together the cannonade continued. But every attempt to cross the river
failed, and as forage began to grow scarce GinkePs position became very
critical. At a council of war on the 30th the advisability of raising the
siege was discussed; but in the end it was decided to make one more
effort. The defence had somewhat slackened ; and, encouraged by the
unusual lowness of the Shannon, a picked body of men succeeded early
next morning, in fording the river a few yards below the bridge. Others
followed, and, before the Irish had time to recover from their surprise,
Athlone was captured. St Ruth, who could hardly believe his ears when
the news reached him, made a desperate efibrt to recover the position, of
which his negligence more than anything else had deprived him ; but,
failing in this, he withdrew his army in the direction of Galway.

The success was one for which William had been anxiously waiting. A
year had passed since the battle of the Boyne and Ireland was apparently
as far as ever from being reduced. He had missed one opportunity, and,
in the determination not to miss another, he had given his sanction to a
proclamation (to be issued at the first moment of success) offering a
free pardon with the recovery of their estates and liberty of religion to
all who should lay down their arms within a limited time, or by their
action be instrumental in bringing the war to a close. The proclamation,
published on July 7, though it failed to exercise any immediate effect,
undoubtedly prepared the way for the surrender of Galway and Limerick.
The terms offered by it being calculated to give great offence both in
^England and Ireland to those who hoped to see the Irish, according to
Lord Justice Porter's expression, " quite beggared," it was kept as secret
as such a thing could be.

Having crossed the Shannon and reorganised his army with as little

318 Battle of Aughrim. — Surrender of Galway. [i69i

loss of time as possible, Ginkel set out in pursuit of St Ruth. On
July 12 he came up with him near Aughrim, half-way between Athlone
and Galway. St Ruth had made up his mind to fight. His army,
though weaker in cavalry, was, so far as numbers went, equal to Ginkel's;
and he had the advantage of occupying a strong position. For two
hours the issue of the battle hung in the balance. The Irish fought
with unexampled bravery; and, seeing the enemy waver, St Ruth was
already counting the day his own, when a cannon-ball put an end to his
life. His death decided the battle. Deprived of their commander and
ignorant of his plans, the Irish continued fighting desperately for some
time longer. Then they broke and fled. No quarter was given, and
night alone put an end to the slaughter.

A week later Ginkel appeared before Galway. He was anxious to
finish the war as soon as possible, and at once offered the benefit of the
recent proclamation, if the city would submit "without further trouble."
D'Usson, who commanded the garrison, at first refused ; but in the end,
"considering the ill-will of the citizens," he consented to capitulate.
Articles based on the proclamation of July 7, securing the inhabitants
in the possession of their properties and the private exercise of their
religion, were drawn up ; and, having signed them on the 21st, d'Usson
surrendered the city and withdrew with the garrison to Limerick.
Thither also Ginkel prepared to march. But bad weather, and the
necessity under which he lay of recruiting his army and providing horses
to drag his siege-artillery from Athlone, greatly delayed his progress.
August was drawing to a close before he reached Limerick. It was too
late in the year to begin regular siege operations ; and his hope of
forcing a surrender rested mainly on the effect which a heavy bombard-
ment was likely to produce on the already depressed spirits of the garrison.

As in the previous year, opinion in the city was divided, as to whether
it should be defended or not. Mindful of the mistake he had formerly
made, Tyrconnel now insisted on carrying on the defence to the uttermost.
Of the ability of the city to hold out there could be no question. But
the situation was no longer the same. On August 14 Tyrconnel died.
His death deepened the present feeling of despondency, and even Sarsfield
began to waver. The summons to surrender was, however, rejected, and
on August 30 Ginkel opened up a heavy fire on the city; but the distance
was too great to do much damage, and it was soon evident that so long
as the Irish continued in unmolested possession of county Clare, the mere
battering of the walls was of little use. The pontoons were accordingly
got ready; and, advantage being taken of a particularly dark night, a
landing was effected on the opposite side, before the Irish, who were
looking rather to see the siege raised than for any such assault, had
recovered from their surprise. Their camp fell into Ginkel's hands ; but
otherwise he reaped no advantage from his success.

A week elapsed, and, seeing no sign of surrender, Ginkel recrossed

i69i] Limerick capitulates. — Articles. 319

the river on September 22 with fully half his army, for the purpose of
destroying the works that commanded the bridge on the other side.
Had the Irish been properly commanded, the experiment might have
cost him dear. As it was, the works were rushed, and the defenders driven
helter-skelter back over the bridge. Fearing for the city, the officer
in charge of the gate raised the drawbridge, and in an instant what had
been a mere rout was turned into a bloody disaster. Terrified at what
had happened the garrison broke from control and called wildly to
surrender. Twenty-four hours later a truce was concluded.

The moment for which Ginkel had been waiting had at last arrived,
and, rather than lose the chance thus offered him to end the war, he
resolved to grant all that his instructions allowed him to concede. On
their side, the Irish, naturally anxious to make as good a bargain as
possible, submitted as conditions of surrender seven articles, which, besides
indemnifying them for their rebellion, would have secured them in the
possession of their estates and the public exercise of their religion, and
would practically have placed them on a position of equality with the
Protestants. Knowing nothing of their legal disabilities, Ginkel would
have conceded even these terms ; but, at the instigation of those about
him, he returned them as incompatible with the laws of the realm, and
formulated his own demands in twelve articles. These twelve articles
provided the basis for the civil and military treaties of Limerick signed
on October S. By the military treaty it was agreed, that all persons of
whatever quality or condition who desired to leave the country should
have liberty to depart with their families and portable goods, and that
Ginkel should provide the necessary shipping for them. By the civil
treaty, it was conceded that the Irish Catholics should enjoy all those
religious rights which they possessed in the reign of Charles II, with
such further privileges as their Majesties (William and Mary) might with
the consent of Parliament in the future procure for them, and that they
and all Irish still in arms, who should immediately submit and take the
oath of allegiance, should be secured in the free and undisputed posses-
sion of their estates as they possessed them according to the Act of
Settlement. In other words, the price of the surrender of Limerick was
to be a general indemnity and a return to the state of affairs that had
existed in the reign of Charles II. In the full belief that the debt would
be loyally discharged, Limerick was forthwith sxirrendered to Ginkel. By
the middle of December, the last of the 12,000 men who elected to seek
their fortunes abroad had quitted Ireland; and three months later a royal
proclamation declared the war at an end,

Ireland was once more at peace; but the peace was one that brought
no satisfaction with it. The conquerors, angry at seeing their prey
escape them, sulkily protested against being held to an agreement which
ftimished no guarantee against a fresh rebellion. The feeling that they
had been betrayed found open expression in a sermon preached by

CH. X.

320 Legislative independence of Ireland. [i69i-3

Dopping, Bishop of Meath, before the Lords Justices Coningsby and
Porter in Christ Church, Dublin, on the Sunday after the signature of
the treaty. A preacher more agreeable to Government was found in the
person of Moreton, Bishop of Kildare, who argued eloquently on keeping
faith with the Irish; but Dopping's view of the situation was that
generally taken, and his words found an echo in England.

For the English Parliament had no sooner met on October 22, than
it passed an Act rendering it compulsory on all members of the Irish
Parliament to take the Oath of Supremacy and to subscribe the Declara-
tion against Transubstantiation. This Act was not only a flagrant
breach of the spirit of the Treaty of Limerick, but a direct attack
on the independence of the Irish Parliament. It, however, so entirely
harmonised with the sentiment prevailing in Ireland among the colonists
that no exception was taken to it; and the Parliament convened on
October 5, 1692, under Lord Sidney, who had succeeded Coningsby and
Porter in the government, "paid" as Molyneux admits "an entire
obedience to it." But that in doing so the colonists had no intention
of recognising the subordination of the Irish Parliament to that of
England, soon became apparent. The Parliament had been called for the
double purpose of confirming the Treaty of Limerick and settling a
revenue. Bills to these ends had been transmitted from England, with
an intimation that, so far as the treaty was concerned, it had been
sufficiently discussed in England, and nothing further was required
beyond a simple confirmation. The Commons took oiFence at the
message. They were willing enough to admit that the Crown of
Ireland was inherent in that of England ; but Ireland was a kingdom
and not a colony, and in their legislative capacity they were independent
of England. The treaty as it stood was, they asserted, too dangerous
to be allowed to pass ; and, though they were ready, under the peculiar
circumstances, to consent to the taxes demanded, they were compelled to
assert that they and they alone had the right to originate money-bills.

The Lord Lieutenant was in a difficult position; but there can be no
question that, in causing a protest to be entered on the Journals of the
House against their claim to originate money-bills as a breach of
Poynings' Law, he acted entirely in accordance with public opinion in
England. All the same, the quarrel afibrded a very welcome opportunity
to the English Parliament for attacking William on his Irish policy. In
its zeal the House of Commons even proposed to enquire into the grounds
of Sidney's protest ; but, on second thoughts, the point was quietly
dropped, and in addressing the King the House contented itself with
complaining of the encouragement shown to Irish Papists, and the
misapplication of the forfeited estates. In his answer the King pro-
mised to remedy what was found amiss ; but, to put an end to the
discussion, he prorogued Parliament. Sidney, however, was recalled,
and the administration placed in the hands of Lords Justices, in one

1693-6] Anti-Catholic legislation. — Tory opposition. 321

of whom, Lord Capel, the colonists found a man of their own way of
thinking.

Two years elapsed. The country was rapidly recovering from the
effects of the war; but great distress prevailed among the natives, and
as a natural consequence the Tories were much in evidence. Under the
pretext that fresh rebellion was hatching, a proclamation setting a price
of £5 on the head of every Tory killed in action was published, and did
something to abate the mischief, though, as a contemporary historian
remarks, " It is to be feared that many innocent persons fell a sacrifice
to the temptation of the reward." In their eagerness to keep down the
Irish the colonists even yielded to Capel's persuasion to waive their claim
to originate money-bills, on being allowed a free hand to regulate matters
as they wished between themselves and the Irish Catholics. An under-
standing on these terms having been arrived at, Capel was appointed
Lord Deputy, and a Parliament was summoned for August 27, 1695.
Supplies to the amount of J'163,325 having been voted, the Commons
immediately turned to a consideration of the state of the nation. The
causes of the recent calamities they traced chiefly to the long inter-
mission of Parliaments, to the proclamation of March 8, 1672, permitting
Papists to reside in corporate towns, and in general to the favour shown
them by Government since the Restoration, To remedy these evils the
proclamation of March, 1672, was declared void, and Acts were passed
prohibiting parents from sending their children abroad to be educated in
any Catholic seminary; disqualifying Papists from teaching in schools at
home ; rendering it penal for any Catholic, except those privileged to do
so by the Articles of Galway and Limerick, to carry arms, or to possess
a horse worth more than ^^5 ; limiting the number of holydays to those
marked as such in the liturgy of the Church of Ireland ; and rendering
all who refused to work on Catholic holydays liable to be fined or
whipped. Finally, an Act was passed abrogating all Acts passed in
James' Parliament, and ordering the records relating to the same to be
destroyed, which was accordingly done on October 2.

This outburst of fanatical legislation did not pass unchallenged.
Among the members of both Houses there were some who, much as they
disliked and feared the Catholics, felt even a greater dislike for the
Puritan nonconformists. The spirit that had animated Bramhall and
Jeremy Taylor reasserted itself; and, under the guidance of Lord
Chancellor Porter, a party of opposition, to which the titles Tory, High
Church, Jacobite were indifferently applied, came into existence, and
proved strong enough to throw out a Toleration Bill, with which William
had intended to reward the loyalty of the Presbyterians. Parliament
was prorogued on December 14. In May, 1696, Capel died and Porter
became Lord Justice ; but he, too, dying in December, the government
was placed in the hands of de Ruvigny, Earl of Galway, and the Marquis
of Winchester.

c. M. H. V. cn. X. 21

322 Woollen industry destroyed. [i697-9

Parliament, after several adjournments, reassembled on July S7, 1697.
The situation was practically unaltered; and, having voted a supply of
of 150,000, the Commons proceeded to gratify their craving for further
protection against Roman Catholicism. But when a Bill limiting the
reversal of the outlawries following on the Rebellion was submitted to
them, they broke with Government in a way quite inexplicable to the
Lords Justices. The question was one that, in their opinion, touched the
disposal of the forfeited properties ; and they were highly dissatisfied with
the way in which William had disposed of them. Better, they insisted,
that the properties should remain in the old families than be squandered
in that fashion. Forced to withdraw the Bill for one of a less sweeping
nature, and safeguarding the interests of a number of the old nobility and
gentry, Government hoped that, in its new-found zeal to protect the
victims of the Revolution, Parliament would at last consent to ratify the
Articles of Limerick. But here the current of anti-Catholic feeling ran
with irresistible violence; and, instead of a fuU confirmation of the
Articles, a Bill was passed (though it escaped rejection in the House
of Lords by only a single vote) confirming, as the preamble to it ex-
pressly admits, only so much of them as consisted with the safety and
welfare of his Majesty's subjects in Ireland. Whether in doing as it did
Parliament acted within its constitutional rights or not, is a moot point;
but there can be no doubt that its repudiation of the treaty was
as politically unwise as it was morally unjustifiable.

Meanwhile, a certain measure of commercial prosperity had retimied
to the country; and in 1698 Ireland possessed a quite flourishing woollen
industry, a no less flourishing provision trade, besides a number of smaller
industries, of which linen, glass, iron, fisheries were the most noticeable.
But it was on the development of the woollen manufacture that the
hopes of the commercial prosperity of the nation rested. Unfortunately,
the success with which it had been attended had aroused the jealous fears
of the English manufacturers, and there were not wanting warning
voices to point out the political danger likely to accrue to England by
allowing Ireland to attain a position of wealthy independence. Still,
it was not an easy matter to invite the Irish to assist in the destruction
of their own commercial prosperity; and, in preparing a Bill for laying
additional duties on all woollen fabrics exported from Irelandj great care
was taken to represent it as an encouragement of the linen industry. To
the surprise of the Lords Justices, the Irish Parliament, on reassembling
in the autumn of 1698, agreed without much discussion to a Bill placing
duties of from 10 per cent, to 20 per cent, on all woollen goods (except
friezes) exported from Ireland for a limited period of three years and
three months, beginning on March 25, 1699. It is probable that these
duties were regarded as countervaihng and not prohibitive, and it is
evident that in limiting the duration of the Act the Parliament only
consented to an experiment. But, before it had time to test its

1699-1700] The forfeitures. — Act of Resumption. 323

working, the English Parliament clinched the matter by an Act expressly
forbidding, mider the severest possible penalties, the exportation from
Ireland of all wool and woollen goods except to England, and even this
only under duties which were intended to be absolutely prohibitive.

Having thus, as it supposed, sufficiently safeguarded English com-
mercial interests by an unblushing infringement of the privileges of the
Irish Parliament, the English House of Commons proceeded, with an
equal disregard of the prerogative of the Crown, to call it to account
for the way in which the Irish forfeitures had been disposed of. A
commission of seven members was appointed to enquire into the matter ;
and, on the strength of a report signed by four out of the seven, it was
unanimously resolved that a Bill should be brought in to apply all the
forfeited lands in Ireland, and the grants thereof since February 13, 1689,
to the use of the public. A Bill for the resumption of all grants, and
for vesting the disposal of the forfeited estates in the hands of thirteen
trustees, with a clause protecting the interests of the Irish included in the
Articles of Galway and Limerick, was accordingly passed ; but, in the
welUgrounded apprehension that it would be rejected by the Lords, it
was adroitly tacked to a Bill of Supply. The manoeuvre succeeded ; but
it led to a fierce passage of arms between the two Houses, and the
measure was only allowed to pass on William's intervention (April 10,
1700). It proved a failure. Instead of the £1,699,343, which it had
been confidently asserted would accrue to the Crown after all legal
obligations had been met, less than half (or ^£'724,501) was recovered, and
this only after compromising the public faith, insulting the sovereign,
inflicting incalculable mischief, both of a public and private nature, and
in the case of the Earl of Galway directly infringing an Act of the Irish
Parliament, confirming the estate granted to him by William for his
services during the war.

Historically, the Act of Resumption closes the chapter which opened
with the Act for the plantation of Leix and Offaly. For nearly one
hundred and fifty years the process of confiscation and colonisation
following on rebellion and conquest had continued with little intermission,
till at last there was practically no more land to confiscate. The Ireland
of the O'Neills and Fitzgeralds, of the wild Irish and the gentry of the
Pale has passed away for ever. With the eighteenth century, we enter
on a new and, to most of us, more familiar period of Irish history.

21—2

824

CHAPTER XL

RELIGIOUS TOLERATION IN ENGLAND.

When we speak of toleration, we mean that there is a dominant
religion, but that dissent from it is not of itself an offence against the
law. As the word was used in the seventeenth century, it fell far short
of religious equality ; for it did not mean that dissenters were to have
the same political rights as others ; but it did mean that the State
allowed them full civil rights, and protected all peaceable and decent
worship. On one side, religious beliefs must not be made an excuse for
overt acts of treason, breach of the peace, or scandalous immorality. On
the other, they must not be taken as summary proof that such acts have
been committed.

Toleration may be universal, in the sense that all beliefs are so
protected ; but it is more commonly incomplete. Certain sects may be
forbidden, or subjected to special disabilities. Thus Protestantism has
been tolerated in Spain since 1868, but only on condition that it gives
no public sign of its existence. A notice at the street corner, or a Bible
exposed for sale, would be illegal. Even in England, a decent and sober
expression of atheistic belief still seems to be a crime in law. But law
and practice often differ widely. The authorities may limit or disregard
the legal rights of an unpopular sect, or stir up the mob to lawless
violence ; oi", again, they may leave persecuting laws unexecuted, or even
frustrate them by annual acts of indemnity. But this kind of practical
toleration is precarious: and if the dissenter runs little danger, he cannot
feel free from stigma till the law is formally repealed.

There could not be much idea of toleration in the Middle Ages,
when the Latin Church turned religion into a concrete law, summing up
all virtue in obedience, all vice in disobedience, and handing over
oifenders to the secular arm. Disobedience per se was an ordinary
offence for which penance might be done or ordinary punishment
inflicted; and no question of heresy arose till the authority of the
Church was disputed. But then there was no mercy. Heresy was a sin

1534-V5] Church and dissent under Tudors and Stewarts. 326

that brought down the wrath of heaven on the land, so horrible a sin
that even the records of the trials were systematically destroyed.

Of course every persecuted sect pleads for toleration ; but nothing
is gained till toleration finds advocates in the dominant Church, or at
least till the sectaries take some better ground than that error ought not
to persecute truth. Neither of these conditions was fulfilled in England
before the seventeenth century. Sir Thomas More indeed, on the eve of
the Reformation, drew a clear picture of toleration. But that was in
Utopia : when it became a practical question, he proved as merciless a
persecutor as others. In making Scripture (and therefore its meaning,
as determined by sound learning) superior to Church authority, the
Reformers made persecution logically indefensible. But they did not
see the full meaning of what they had done. They took over ways of
thinking from the Middle Ages, and made less of a break with the past
than is commonly supposed. If they made the Church national, they
fully agreed with the Roman Catholics that there ought to be one
Church only, and that no dissent could be allowed. This was the domi-
nant theory from the separation in 1534 to the Toleration Act of 1689.
Edward VI established a single form of Common Prayer in 1649, and in
1552 required all persons to attend on Sundays and holydays on pain
of ecclesiastical censures, to which Elizabeth added fines in 1559. The
system was now complete ; and with most persons the only doubt was
where to draw the line — what doctrines or practices must be enforced,
and what might be left open. Comprehension was a method open to
discussion, but toleration was utterly ungodly.

For a few years the system seemed a complete success ; but Puritan
conventicles began in 1567, Romish after 1571 ; then first Elizabeth and
James struck hard at both parties, and afterwards Charles I struck so
hard at the Puritans, who represented much of the best religious life of
the time, that he drove over the moderate men to their side. However,
it is not surprising that the Roman Catholics generally fared worse than
the Protestant sectaries, and were expressly shut out even from the
Toleration of 1689.

The English Roman Catholics were commonly loyal enough, and in the
Civil War much too loyal to please the Parliament, In fact the Stewarts
(after the first years of James I) were not very zealous against them.
But there was a real difficulty in the way of toleration, after the BuU of
Pius V in 1571 forbade them to be loyal subjects, and still more when, a
few years later, seminary priests came over from Douay. If some of
these devoted themselves in good faith to spiritual ministrations, there
were others who stirred up sedition or encouraged assassination ; and it
was not easy for the Government to draw the line between them. Besides
this, the modern principle that overt acts are needed to constitute
treason was not yet established ; it is therefore not surprising that some
of them should have suffered for refusing to disavow treasonable beliefs

CH, XI.

326 The Civil War. [i575-i644

which they never dreamed of carrying out in practice. The Roman
Catholics came out of the Reformation discredited by the Marian perse-
cution ; and this was followed ' by the Bull against Elizabeth, ' the
Massacre of St Bartholomew, the coming of the Douay priests, the
Armada, the Gunpowder Plot, the Irish Massacre, the Popish Plot,' and
the designs of James II, while the intervals were filled up with plots
and rumours of plots which never gave time for suspicion to die away.
Till the last danger was dispelled at Culloden, the English were never
allowed to forget that the struggle with the Roman Curia was a struggle
of life and death for everything of value to the nation.

It was different with the Puritans. Their loyalty was never in
doubt before the Civil War, and even the Church was in no serious
danger from them for at least a generation after Cartwright's time.
Speaking generallyj they were sober and serious churchmen, who wanted
only a little more libeirty inside the Church. Anabaptists and Brownists
were the only revolutionaries, and the more violent of these were mostly
exiles on Dutch and New England soil. On their behalf pleas for
toleration were put forth by Leonard Busher so early as 1614, and by
others after him. Of coiuse they had no effect. Toleration was a new
idea; the Anabaptists were a specially obnoxious sect; and Busher's first
principle, that the State has no right to meddle with religion,' ran
directly contrary to the main current of English thought.

So things drifted from bad to worse, till at the meeting of the Long
Parliament in 1640 the Government had practically no supporters.
Reform was pushed into revolution; and indeed revolution is almost
unavoidable when a king cannot be trusted. But then it was seen that,
however the mass of the nation might resent the administration of
Charles and Laud, they had no quarrel with monarchy or with the
Church. So the end of the Civil Wars found Church matters in strange
confusion. Had the King conquered, there would have been an orderly
episcopal Church of some sort ; and if the Presbyterians had got their
way, the Scotch discipline would have been regularly organised all over
the country. In neither case would there have been any question of
toleration. In this respect the Presbyterians were narrower than Laud,
who had no great dislike of heterodoxy that was not Puritan — witness
his patronage of Chillingworth and Jeremy Taylor.

But the Presbyterians did not get their way. The Covenant was
forced on England by the military necessities of 1643 ; but it was never
generally liked. It was Scotch ; it was newfangled ; it was too rigid for
some, too morose for others. The Episcopalians awaited their time ; but
the Independents represent a ferment of thought such as was never seen
again till the French Revolution. It was greatest in the army, where
every man was welcome who " had the root of the matter in him," and
could be trusted to fight against the King: Within these limits, tolera-
tion was already established, to the disgust of the Presbyterians. And

1644-9] The drift towards Toleration. 327

the principle of 1647 was that of 1789. Saints and Jacobins both began
with the sovereignty of the people ; only, the Saints never forgot that
they were God's people. It was a principle which could not but pro-
foundly influence the development of politics and society, of religion,
and of philosophy. So we see three distinct lines of thought slowly
coming out from the enthusiasm of the time, in which they lay con-
fusedly together. First, the Independents proper maintained the right
of every congregation to settle its own worship ; then, they dealt with
the King as a public servant who had betrayed his trust ; then, in 1653,
they set on foot the far-reaching reforms of the Nominated Parliament.
So far Cromwell had gone with them ; but now he had to stop them.
He could not let them unsettle the whole structure of society in hope of
Christ's return on the morrow. The reign of the Saints was over, though
the Instrument of Government reflected their ideas, so far as they were
consistent with order. The purely religious side of the current enthu-
siasm came next to the front ; and, after a stormy transition period of
plots and Fifth-Monarchy dreamings, it was partly absorbed by the
great centre party of serious persons, and partly settled down upon the
claim of the Quakers for the individual conscience guided by the inner
light. Later in character, though scarcely later in date than the other
two, a third movement made its appearance. Reaction as it was from
the enthusiasm, it was largely shaped by the enthusiasm. It held some
of the best religious thought of the time, yet was largely irreligious. For
good or bad reasons many were tired of controversy ; and the stress laid
on personal religion in an age of controversy tended to emphasise the
central doctrines which may commend themselves to reason, and to
throw the rest into the background. In one direction we have the
Cambridge Platonists and the beginnings of the Latitudinarians, in
a:i!iother Biddl? and the Unitarians ; and in different ways we note fore-
shadowings of the Deists and the Arians of the next age, with its shallow
moralism and indifference to religion.

Now, all these three lines of thought pointed to toleration. If con-
gregations ought to be independent, they must not be restrained by a
state Church ; if the individual conscience is free, it must not be coerced
by others ; if reason is to judge, the shibboleths of controversy are not
worth enforcing. Accordingly, the first effective demand for toleration
in England is contained in the Agreement of the People, presented to
Parliament by the oificers of the army in January, 1649. They agree
that Christianity in its purest form be " held forth and recommended as
the public profession in this, nation," and that its teachers be paid by the
State, but not by tithes. That to this public profession none be compelled
by penalties or otherwise, but that all who profess faith in God by Jesus
Christ shall be protected in their worship, " so as they abuse not this
liberty to the civil injury of others, or to the actual disturbance of the
public peace." This means full toleration of all Christian worship ; for

CB. XI.

328 The Commonwealth. [i649-58

the principle is not infringed by the further provision that " this liberty
shall not necessarily extend to popery or prelacy." Serious as the excep-
tion was, it might be defended after the Civil War as a political necessity.

Cromwell is the only man who has ever ruled England with success
from an almost isolated position. He crushed the Episcopalians in the
first period of civil war, the Presbyterians in the second ■ (1648-51),
aiid separated himself from the Independents, when he allowed the
Nominated Parliament to resign its powers (December, 1653). Levellers
and Quakers detested him, though he was on terms of personal respect
with Fox; and even a man so free from partisanship as Baxter tho-
roughly distrusted him. But Cromwell was always enough of an Inde-
pendent to keep in touch with the army ; and his policy was that of the
Independents, with the unpractical items omitted. At one point he
went beyond the toleration they offered to all Christians, for he allowed
the retiu-n of the Jews, who had been banished from England since the
time of Edward I. The Instrument of Government and the Humile
Petition and Advice, under which he ruled, simply copy the clause already
quoted from the Agreement of the People, but with one significant change.
The limitation which the Agreement indicates is now made actual.
" Provided that this liberty shall not extend to popery or prelacy, nor
to such as under the profession of Christ hold forth and practice licen-
tiousness." The Humble Petition also shuts out those who publish
horrible blasphemies, while requiring belief in the Trinity and that
Scripture is "the revealed Will and Word of God."

The Episcopalians said that it was the execution of the King which
made impassable the gulf between them and Cromwell ; but it was quite
as much the systematic fines and sequestrations which the financial
distress of the Parliament induced it to levy from the "malignants"
who had fought for the King, Royalists and fanatics never ceased to
plot, and could sometimes plot together, against Cromwell. No wonder
if he struck at them with harsh measures. Thus his proclamation of
November 24, 1655, forbade sequestered or ejected ministers to keep any
school either public or private, or either publicly or privately (except in
their own family) preach or use the Book of Common Prayer, But
Cromwell seems to have meant this rather in terrorem than for serious
use. He was on friendly terms with such an Episcopalian as Ussher,
and allowed his daughters to be married by the form of the forbidden
Book. In any case, the law was not steadily enforced. Thus Morton,
Jeremy Taylor, and others, were left unmolested in their private chap-
laincies ; and a large proportion of the Episcopalian clergy retained their
livings throughout the interregnum, often saying the Prayers of the
Litm-gy by rote, or disguising them with a few alterations. Even the
Roman Catholics were virtually tolerated so far as concerned religion,
though they suffered heavily as malignants,

'Phe oppression of Cromwell's government brought together Episco<

1658-62] The Restoration. 329

palians,' who formed the bulk of the " malignants," and Presbyterians,
who had also suffered defeat from him; and the confusion which followed
on his death convinced the bulk of the nation that the only hope of good
order was in the immediate recall of the King. So the Restoration was
carried out by a coalition of the two parties which had always been
opposed to toleration. Jeremy Taylor certainly advocated it ' in his
L^erty of Prophesying (1647) ; but he is much the reverse of a typical
Episcopalian, and even he does not keep clear of the sceptical argument
that most questions are uncertain, which logically leads back to the old
doctrine that truth (when certainly known) has a right to suppress error.
So there was no more serious thought of toleration. Charles haid pro-
mised from Breda (April 14, 1660) "a liberty to tender consciences,"
and that no man should be called in question for such religious opiiiions
as do not disturb the peace of the kingdom. But this promise had to
be put into shape by Parliament; and it soon appeared that comprehen'
sion, not toleration, was in view.

The Presbyterians were no longer the haughty Covenanters of twenty
years before. Moderate men like Baxter tended to Presbyterianism as a
via media between the Laudian churchmen and the fanatics of the Com-
monwealth. So now the mass of the party wanted only some ceremonies
abolished and others made optional, freedom for extempore prayer, and
the autocratic power of the Bishops limited by councils of presbyters.
They flattered themselves that, if they brought back the King, they
would be able to make their own terms with the Episcopalians, and then
the united Church could put idowli the sects. A vigorous persecution of
Quakers was set on foot before Venner's insurrection (January 6, 1661).

The Convention Parliament, for which "malignants" had not been
supposed to vote, held the balance fairly even, though it yielded more and
more to the rising tide of royalism. But the new Parliament, which met
in May, 1661, was almost entirely Cavalier. It began by imposing the
Sacrament on its own members, and went on to pass the Corporation
Act. By this all members of corporations were required (1) to swear
(besides the oaths of allegiance and supremacy) "that it is not lawful on
any pretence whatever to take arms against the King, and that I do
abhor that traitorous position of taking arms by his authority against
his person," eis was done in 1642 ; (2) to declare the Covenant null and
imlawful; (3) to have received the Sacrament according to the rites of
the Church of England within a year before their election.

Presbyterianism as a political power was destroyed at once by its
exclusion from the Commons and the corporations; but could it not still
obtain some concessions in matters of religion? The answer was the
Act of Uniformity (May 19, 1662). All persons in Holy Orders, all
teachers in the Universities, and all public or .private schoolmasters, were
to make the same declarations as members of corporations, and all public
ministers further to declare their "unfeigned assent and consent to all

330 The Act of Uniformty. [lees

and everything contained and prescribed" in the Book of Common
Prayer recently revised; while all Orders not episcopal were made legally
invalid. And the revision of the Book had not been conciliatory. The
Bishops at the Savoy Conference refused nearly all the demands of the
Presbyterians, and the concessions afterwards made by Convocation were
not very important. Few of the "offences to tender consciences'" were
removed, and one or two more were added, such as the reading of Bel and
the Dragon. Harsher still was the provision that the assent and consent
must be declared before St Bartholomew's Day (August 24) — just before
the half-year's tithes fell due. Some clergy were unable to make it,
solely because the Book had not reached them in time. But if the Pres-
byterians got very little by the revision, the Laudians at the other end
of the scale got nothing, for the amendments in that direction proposed
by Sancroft were all rejected. The restored Church took its stand with
the Articles unaltered, and the Liturgy very little changed from its form
of 1559, or even from that of 1552.

Once again, and for the last time, England returned to the old ideal
of a single national Church with no dissent allowed. And from that
Church the Puritanism which had been struggling within it for the last
century was now shut out by law. The national Church had been sub-
stantially national till it was narrowed into a party by Laud; and now
it was condemned to remain a party in the nation — no doubt the strongest
party, but still not more than a party; for one whole side of the religious
life of the nation was driven into opposition. So persecution assumed a
new character. Elizabeth might plead that the contest with Rome was
in the main a struggle with foreign enemies for the very existence of
Church and State in their national form ; and even Laud might fairly
say that the Puritans would put him down, if he did not put them down.
But there was no excuse of self-defence in 1662. The mass of the Non-
conformists were no enemies of the Church, and desired no great changes
in it: and, had they been ever so evil-disposed, the Church was utterly
beyond the reach of attack. Baxter would have had no more chance
against it than Lodowick Muggleton. But, if there was no valid plea of
self-defence, persecution was pure and simple revenge on the defeated
party; and of mere revenge the better sort of churchmen would sooner
or later be ashamed.

They were half ashamed all along. Even the Cavalier Parliament
only passed the Act by a majority of six (186 to 180). The Lords would
have exempted schoolmasters and allowed a maintenance to ejected
ministers, as the Commonwealth had done, and Clarendon himself wished
to give the King some power of dispensation; but the Commons would
allow no change. The distress caused by the Act was great and wide-
spread. Near two thousand ministers — including those already displaced
by the old royalist incumbents — went out; and these were of the
better sort, for of course all time-servers conformed. Thenceforth the

1662-7] The contest under Charles II. 331

controversy never rested till the Revolution. On the side of the Church
were Sheldon's chaplains, first Thomas Tomkins, then Samuel Parker
(James IPs Bishop of Oxford, 1686) and men of learning like Richard
Perrinchief and Herbert Thomdike. The main argument was rather
political than religious. Nonconformists had been rebels beforej and
were still rebels at heart. The worst they got was less than they
deserved, and they would not complain if they were honest men. Herbert
Thomdike was more of a Laudian, and wanted the Catholic faith en-
forced, and the laws of the primitive Church within the first six General
Councils, This, however, was not the general view of Sheldon and the
Bishops. Roger L'Estrange, writing as a layman and a man of the worldj
refers to the answer of the Judges in 1604, that it was an offence "very
near to treason and felony" to coUect petitions in a public cause as
the Puritans had done, in order to tell the King that, if he denied
their suit, many thousands of his subjects would be discontented. The
most remarkable position he takes is that the malcontents had perfect
freiedom of conscience already; because they were free to think what
they pleased; but that freedom of action in religion must be absolutely
at the command of the State. This last might have been a hint from
Hobbes. On the other side were moderate men like Corbet, who advo-
cated " an establishment, a limited toleration, and a discreet connivance."
The limited toleration was meant to shut out the Roman Catholics, on
the ground that it was part of their religion to kill kings, and to
persecute all who difiered from them. Later, in 1675, Herbert Croft,
Bishop of Hereford, published The Naked Truth, which called out a host
of answers. Croft saw no need of any Confession beyond the Apostles'
Creed; and, as for ceremonies, the only wonder was that anyone thought
it worth while to dispute about them.

One of the most eiFective charges against the Nonconformists was that
they were disciples and allies of the Jesuits, who also held meetings in
holes and comers, set up "enthusiastic" preaching, hated the Liturgy,
and laboured for the overthrow of Church and State. In fact, the Church
was a bulwark of Protestantism, and the Nonconformists themselves
lamented that the separation weakened it in the critical times that
followed. The Puritan controversy was very soon entangled with the
Roman, and gradually became secondary to it. Charles II was a Roman
Catholic, so far as he had any serious belief at all ; and this drew him
to France, which under Louis XIV was moving towards a distinctly
Romanising policy, very unlike that of Richelieu. So the history of his
reign resolves itself into a triangular contest of King, Commons and
Nonconformists. The Commons are resolute for persecution; but they
are also resolute for the liberties of England as they stood at the open-
ing of the Civil War. The King is plotting to restore despotism and
Romanism, leaning on French subsidies, and striving to win the Noncon-
formists to his plans by first letting loose the Commons to persecute

332 The contest imder Charles II. [leea-v

them, then offering them an illegal dispensation — which also covered the
Roman Catholics: It was a hard choice for them; and the future of
England turned very much on the question whether they would have
sense enough to see that religious liberty is precarious without civil
liberty. If the King gave them toleration for his own purposes, he could
also revoke it for his own purposes.

Alongside of this triangular contest which brought politics into
religion, there was another which had a more directly philosophical bear-
ing, however little some of the combatants may have perceived it. The
sharpest clash of the Civil War was that of men who thought Episcopacy
needful and Calvinism false against men who thought Calvinism needful
and Episcopacy sinful. These were the main parties, though the division
was not sharp ; for some Episcopalians like Hammond were decided
Calvinists, and many of the later Presbyterians modified the Calvinism
and allowed a limited Episcopacy. But, even so, the two parties were
never the whole of the nation. There were always many who believed in,
and perhaps fought for, one side or the other without regarding the
difference as vital.- The common intercourse of life was teaching moderate
men of all parties a good deal of mutual respect ; and intermarriages were
not always unfortunate as in Milton's case. A good foundation is already
laid for legal toleration, when the regret that a decent neighbour is on
the wrong side is — not because it will bring him to hell some day, but
because it gets him into trouble now. And this was often the feeling,
even as regards Roman Catholics.

The larger number of these men went their own way without much
regard to the reason of the thing ; but, as others thought it out more or
less distinctly, opinions from all sides drew together to form a third party
in favour of toleration. The Puritan side contributed something.
Baxter and Howe were not the only champions of past controversy who
fell back in later life upon the simplest teaching of a common Christ-
ianity. On the Episcopalian side also we find a succession of conspicuous
men more or less of this way of thinking, such as Chillingworth, John
Hales, Jeremy Taylor (three friends of Laud), Hammond, Sir Thomas
Browne, Wilkins and the Cambridge Platonists, Tillotson and Locke.
Greatly as in many respects they differed from each other, they were as
earnest in religion as any of the zealots, and all upheld toleration and
respect for other men's conclusions. Nothing marks more clearly the
change of feeling than the way Locke takes it as self-evident that the
saving power of a religion is not to be reached by an assent of the old
sort, but only by full belief in such religion.

Now that we have seen the forces at work in the transition period
(1662-89), we can trace the history of their action. The first despair
of the Nonconformists was soothed by a proclamation which announced
the King's desire to exempt peaceable persons from the penalties of the
Act. Next year (1663) a Bill was brought in enabling him to dispense

1663-73] The Test Act. 333

not only with the Act of Uniformity but with all other such Acts, and
to grant such dispensation not only to Protestants but to Roman
Catholic recusants. The aim was too clear. The Nonconformists them-
selves would not support the proposed, and the Commons took alarm.
Next year (1664) they passed the first Conventicle Act, making penal
aU meetings of more than five persons (beyond a household, if any)
for worship other than that prescribed by the Liturgy. And in
1665 they followed this up with the Five Mile Act, which forbade an
ejected minister to come within five miles of any market-town or of any
place where he used to minister aforetime, unless he took the oath of
non-resistance, and further swore that he would at no time endeavour
any alteration of government, either in Church or State. This completed
Clarendon's work of persecution; for the second Conventicle Act (1670)
was not passed till after his fall, and the Test Act, as we shall see, was
not aimed chiefly at the Puritans.

Charles was watching his opportunity. The fall of Clarendon in
1667 made way for the Cabal and an attempt at comprehension. The
scheme of 1668 bore the name of John Wilkins, one of the founders of
the Royal Society, and a man of such eminence that his marriage with
Cromwell's sister did not prevent his appointment to the see of Chester.
Its chief novelty was that those ordained by presbyters were to receive
imposition of hands from the Bishop with the form " Take thou legal
authority"; so that it was not a re-ordination, but simply a calling
according to the existing law. The scheme had strong support, but the
Commons threw it out : nor would the King have cared to strengthen
the Church.

In 1670 came the secret Treaty of Dover. The first condition, that
Charles should declare himself a Roman Catholic, had to be postponed ;
but the other — war with the United Provinces — could be taken up at
once. Charles won over to it Ashley, the political advocate of the
Nonconformists, by promising an illegal indulgence not extending to
Roman Catholics (issued in 1672), while French subsidies enabled him
to do without Parliament. But the Dutch held France and England
together at bay so long that Parliament had to be summoned (1673).
It met in a dangerous temper, for grave and just suspicions of a Romish
plot were widespread, and yet could not be fully proved. They began
by forcing the King to recall the Indulgence and promise that it should
never be made a precedent. Their next step was a Test Act, of which
the provisions and the results have been alike described in a previous
chapter. It required from all persons in the employment of the State
the oaths of allegiance and supremacy, a declaration against transub-
stantiation, and reception of the Sacrament according to the Liturgy.
The Duke of York avowed himself a Roman Catholic; Clifford laid
down the Treasurer's staff, and numbers of officials resigned their posts.
Suspicion was now thoroughly roused, and deepened yearly. The

CR. XI.

334 The Popish Plot. [i673-86

Nonconformists themselves supported the Test Act. Men suspectedi
and suspected with reason, more than they could prove; and then they
grew wild. In vain Parliament strove to force the King into a clear
and consistent Protestant foreign policy. Genuine Popish plots in great
variety were always hatching in Stewart times, and, if Gates and Bedloe
piled up a monstrous heap of perjuries, they piled them over a
foundation of truth. At first they got little credit: the panic was
only let loose by Godfrey's murder — for murder it seems to have
been — but at such a time as this every tale went down. It was the
worst panic in English history, for Danby and Shaftesbury encouraged
it, each for his own purposes. For once the penal laws against Roman
Catholics were strictly enforced, and became a real persecution. The
King played his game with consummate skill. Let the managers of
the agitation sacrifice as many victims as they pleased : he " gave them
line," and waited for the reaction when the series of judicial murders
became too shocking. There was good reason for preventing the
succession of the Duke of York ; but Shaftesbury scandalised all decent
feeling by proposing the King's bastard, Monmouth.

So the last years of Charles II were a time of reaction. A loyalist
revival swept away Shaftesbury and the Exclusion Bill, and Protestant
suspicion was abated. After all, the Papists were not so bad as Gates
had made out. Charles used his victory with moderation, and was careful
to give no further provocations. Hardly a murmur was raised when the
Duke of York became King in 1685 ; for Monmouth's rebellion was an
utter failure. None but exiles could have dreamed of success for so wild
an enterprise.

Gur first impression may be that the reign of Charles II is a pure
and simple falling-back from the toleration which seemed approach-
ing in Cromwell's time. It began with persecution systematic and
extensive — Quakers lay in jail by; thousands — and it ended with few
signs of amendment. Every attempt to relax its severity, had been
defeated; and in 1685 persecution and passive obedience seemed as
much the dominant creed as in 1662. But in 1662 these principles
were an enthusiasm; in 1685 they were little more than orthodoxy,
and men were not wanting who saw this. The University of Gxford
might proclaim passive obedience (1662); but Bishop Morley from his
death-bed (1684) warned the Duke of York that, if ever the clergy
wanted a way out of it, they would certainly find one. So, too, with
persecution. The belief of educated men was more and more coming
round to toleration. It was adopted by men of all sorts — ^by divines
like Tillotson, by royalists like Bishop Croft, lawyers like Grlando
Bridgpman, students like Wilkins and Locke, politicians like Shaftesbury,
men of the world like John Churchill, the fixture Marlborough. The
cause was really won ; but a shock was needed to show that it was won.
That shock was given by James II.

1685-8] The rdgn of James II. 335

James began with fair professions ; but his tactions soon revived the
worst suspicions. Had his one object been to convince the nation that
a Roman Catholic is never to be trusted, he could not have done his
work better. The open parade of Roman worship and the open favour
shown at Goiu-t to crowds of Roman Catholics and renegades gave
offence enough, and the matter became serious when James packed the
Bench till he obtained fi'om his judges what he could not get from the
most loyal Parliament on record — power to dispense with the Test
Act — and when he proceeded to officer the army and the ci'^il service
with Roman Catholics. Before long the most devoted loyalists took
alarm, and the English Roman Catholics themselves mostly held aloof.
The Pope was for moderation, but the Jesuits and the renegades urged
the King to reckless haste.

So far James had reckoned on the Church, in hopes of getting a
legal toleration for recusants only. He thought he could do what
he pleased with men who preached passive obedience. But Morley's
warning now came true. Instead of practising their doctrine, they
began to reconsider it. They had taken for granted that an English
King would be a good son of the Church ; and they might fairly doubt
whether quite the same obedience was due to such an enemy as James.
They could go a long way with the King; but, when the successive
blows of the new High Commission, the suspension of Compton, Bishop
of London, and the attacks on the Universities and the Charterhouse
brought them face to face with Romanism and despotism, they settled
down into opposition.

Meanwhile James had changed his tactics. If the Church would
not help him, he could turn to the Nonconformists. They had been
persecuted with much severity since 1681, and might be grateful for
relief. So in April, 1687, came out a Declaration of Indulgence. King
James expounded that conscience ought not to be constrained, and that
such constraint had always been contrary to his inclination, promised
to protect and maintain the Chiu-ch as by law established, and finished
up by guaranteeing to all men their lands and properties, particularly
church and abbey lands. To carry out this liberal policy, he " thinks
fit, by virtue of Our royal prerogative," to suspend all penal laws and
aU religious tests affecting Nonconformists and recusants.

The jails were emptied. The Nonconformists were invited to White-
hall, and plied with the seductions of Court favour. It was a strange
promotion for them. "The other day they were Sons of Belial; now
they were Angels of Light." But would they help the Jesuits and the
King to pull down the Church? Some were willing, but leaders like
Baxter and Howe and Bunyan ranged themselves on the other side, and
presently (about August) the case was summed up by Halifax in his
Letter to a Dissenter. Could they believe in this sudden change.'' Was
Popery the only friend to liberty? Would they justify the dispensing

336 The Revolution. [1688-9

power and all its consequences? Were they willing to repeal and enact
laws with the Roman Consistory for Lords of the Articles? It was idle
for the Court to offer securities or "equivalents" to Protestantism. As
Halifax said later in his Anatomy of an Eguivaient: "If laws were binding,
let them be observed: if not, they were no security." Such arguments
as these were decisive; and, though a few of the dissenters like Penn
supported the Court, it soon appeared that the main body of them pre-
ferred a Church which persecuted by law to a King who claimed the
right of suspending laws wholesale at his pleasure.

In truth, it was not now a persecuting Church. Even in the time of
exile the Caroline divines never showed much leaning to Rome. In the
main they were as resolute Protestants as the Puritans themselves; and
now the common danger drew even extreme men like Bancroft closer to
the Nonconformists. The old quarrels were dropped, and all was peace
and charity in the Protestant fold. Very few "remained in their
peevishness." So, when James added insult to injury by reissuing the
Declaration of Indulgence in May, 1688, and ordering the clergy to read
it in church, dissenters and churchmen stood together against him. Even
the Roman Catholics— the English Roman Catholics — would not lift a
hand to save him. What the Revolution overthrew was little more than
a cabal of Jesuits and renegades.

Now, the condition of this league of Protestants was that the Non-
conformists were to be secured relief by law — toleration certainly, and
if possible comprehension. Accordingly, so soon as William and Mary
were fairly settled on the throne, the work was taken in hand. It was a
Tory and a zealous churchman who brought in the Bills. The Earl of
Nottingham (then Mr Daniel Finch) had borne a hand in framing
them in the days of the Popish Plot; but Shaftesbury would not hear of
them. Now, he laid them on the table of the Lords, and the Toleration
Act passed without difficulty (May 24, 1689). It enacted that the Act
of Uniformity and the persecuting Acts should not apply to persons
taking the oaths of allegiance and supremacy and making the declaration
against transubstantiation, provided only they did not hold meetings
with locked doors. Ministers were also required to sign the Articles
excepting those on Church government; and the Anabaptists were further
excused the clause approving Infant Baptism. The Quakers had to
"promise and solemnly declare" themselves good subjects who renounced
the authority of the Pope and believed in the Trinity and the inspiration
of the Bible. Dissenting chapels were to be certified, and there was to
be a penalty of twenty pounds for disturbing the same. But Papists and
those who denied the Trinity were expressly excluded from the benefit
of the Act. Toleration was thus established in practice, though not in
theory; for the persecuting statutes were still the law of the land, and
toleration was only an exemption. So late as 1787 the Methodists were
liable to the penalties of the Conventicle Act, and could gain no relief

1689-90] Toleration and Comprehension. 337

till they were not only licensed, but licensed as dissenters. As for the
Roman Catholics, after the Revolution connivance was the most they
could expect, and this they generally got. Toleration such as William or
Halifax would have given them was hardly a matter of practical politics:
the Tories were against it to a man, and most of the Whigs too. Fresh
persecuting statutes were enacted later, especially after the Tory reaction
of 1699 and Bolingbroke's plot of 1715; and though they soon fell into
disuse, no great relief was given by law till 1778, and even then it led to
the Gordon riots.

After the Toleration Act, the Comprehension Bill. This Bill,
brought forward in 1689, relaxed the subscription to the Articles, made
the "nocent ceremonies" optional in most churches, and admitted Pres-
byterian ministers without reordination. The Bishop was to lay his
hands on them with the words, "Take thou authority to preach — in the
Church of England." It ended by proposiiig to ask the King and Queen
for a commission to revise the Liturgy. But now came difficulties.
The mass of the clergy were Tories and High-churchmen; and, now that
they had got over the panic of 1688, they were most unwilling to make
any changes so as to let in dissenters. If Nottingham himself was for
comprehension, he chiefly aimed at making the Church strong enough to
enforce the Test Act, which the dissenters largely evaded by the practice
of occasional conformity. And this again raised difficulties on the other
side. The veterans of 1662 might look back wistfully to the Church
from which they had been expelled; but a younger generation was
growing up which preferred to remain outside. Better be content with
toleration than become unwelcome guests of a hostile Church. More-
over, there were many dissenters whom no comprehension could include;
and every such person saw the danger to himself of Nottingham's policy.
The greater the success of comprehension, the greater the danger for
those not comprehended. Indeed, the men who raised the Sacheverell riots
(' 710) and passed the Schism Act (1714) were quite capable of repealing
the Toleration Act

Thus the Comprehension Bill was attacked on both sides — by the
High-churchmen who hated the idea, and by the dissenters who feared
its success — and the Whigs were divided, one section of them wanting
Comprehension, the other preferring to relax the Test Act. However,
an Ecclesiastical Commission was appointed which revised the Liturgy.
But Convocation refused even to discuss their labours, and proved so
mutinous that it had to be prorogued. The Comprehension Bill
was dropped.

0. M. H. V. CH. XI. 22

338

CHAPTER XII.

AUSTRIA, POLAND, AND TURKEY.

The second half of the seventeenth century is perhaps the most
critical period in the history of Austria, as it certainly is in the history
of the great House of Habsburg, with whose fortunes those of Austria
have for ages been inextricably intertwined. The Spanish monarchy, in
the hands of the elder branch, was steadily sinking through impotence
towards partition. Portugal had to be surrendered in 1668; and the
feeble throne of Charles II was only preserved tiU the close of the
century by constant cessions of territory to French greed and by the
costly aid of European coalitions. The Austrian Habsbiu-gs seemed to
be threatened with a similar fate. Their dreams of a revived Imperial
control over Germany, which might have been realised if Ferdinand II
coiild have been his own Wallenstein, instead of having to employ so
unmanageable an agent, were shattered by the victories of Gustavus
Adolphus, by the disiptegrating diplomacy of Richelieu, and in the end
by the military strength of France. The Treaty of Westphalia not only
transferred the Habsburg rights in Elsass to the Bourbon, but, by
securing to the Princes of the Empire the independent control of their
foreign relations, it made Germany the loosest and most impotent of
federations. Nothing held it together except the survival of a great
tradition and a grandiose title, together with the more practical unifying
force of the dread of Turkish aggression. This danger enabled Leopold I,
the son and successor of Ferdinand III, to obtain his election to the
Imperial dignity in 1658, in spite of the intrigues of Mazarin. But,
with the aid of French gold, the Electors were induced to extort from
the young Emperor in his capitulation a [pledge that he would abstain
from sending assistance to Spain. And PVance gave added force to the
pledge by joining in the same year the League of the Rhine, formed by
those Electors and Princes whose territories would have to be traversed
by troops on their way from Austria to the Netherlands.

In face of the League of the Rhine and the continued danger
of cooperation between France and Sweden, it was impossible to gain
substantial power for the German monarchy. If the Austrian Habsburgs

1526-1665] The Austrian dominions. 339

were to retain their position among the great dynasties of Europe, they
must rely solely upon their personal dominions. These, however, were
not to be compared in the matter of unity and cohesion with the
territories of any other first-rate Power. It is true that Bohemia, whose
revolt had given occasion to the Thirty Years' War, had been coerced
into orthodoxy and sullen submission. It is also true that the fatal
practice of subdivision, revived in the last century by Ferdinand I, was
now abandoned, and that, on the extinction of the Tyrolese branch in
1665, the whole bundle of Habsburg territories was permanently com-
bined under the personal rule of the head of the House. But these
territories were held together by nothing more substantial than the
recognition of a common ruler. Each province had its own estates, its
own oiiScials, and its own rule or custom of succession. Leopold I ruled
in each by a separate title; and, though he had absolute control of foreign
relations, he was by no means possessed of equal authority in domestic
matters. While Louis XIV could raise taxes at will, Leopold I could
only augment an inadequate revenue by bargaining with the various
estates. The Habsburg succession in Hungary and Bohemia had to be
secured by carefully arranging for the recognition of the heir during his
father's lifetime. And the provinces were not only independent units ;
many of them were divided by differences of race and religion. The
greatest difficulties, now that Bohemia was subdued, presented them-
selves in Hungary. Since 1526 the Habsburgs had claimed to be Kings
of Hungary; but they had never governed more than a few of the
western coxmties with their capital at Pressburg. Buda (Ofen) was
the seat of a Turkish Pasha who ruled some seven-tenths of Hungary
proper. And further east was the principality of Transylvania, in-
habited by Magyars, Saxons and Roumanians. Transylvania had been
ruled by a voivod in dependence upon the Hungarian Crown since the
eleventh century, imtil, in the sixteenth, John Zapolya, after disputing
that Crown itself with Ferdinand I, succeeded in casting off all Hun-
garian control; and his successors, by playing off the Turks against
the Habsburg dynasty, were able to maintain a stormy and aggressive
independence. In the middle of the seventeenth century it seemed that
Transylvania would become hereditary in the House of RAkdczy, and
that this family, by extending its power over Poland, Moldavia and
WaUachia, might for a time hold the balance between the Crescent and
the Cross. The injiuy which this would have done to Austria was not
merely political. The rulers of Transylvania, Bethlen Gabor and the
two George Rdkdcays, had allied themselves in the course of the Thirty
Years' War with the Protestant opponents of the House of Habsburg.
Both Transylvania and Austrian Hungary contained a large and restless
Protestant element, which resisted all eflbrts at proselytism as vigorously
as the national spirit of the Magyars resented the Habsburg attempts to
subject them to German domination. The presence of German troops
CH. XII. 22 — 3

340 Critical period in Austrian history. [i658-99

upon Hungarian soil provoked bitter resentment, even when they came
to defend the country against foreign invasion ; while it was an equally
grievous wrong to ask Hungarian soldiers to serve beyond the limits of
their native land. And these mutinous subjects were always ready to
appeal to the Turk for assistance against their alien ruler. The Pro-
testants, especially, preferred the tolerant government of the Pasha of
Buda to the bigotry and persecution of the Jesuit-ridden Court of
Vienna.

In spite of all her diiBculties, external and internal, Austria, unlike
Spain, emerged from the critical half century, not only with undivided
dominions, but on the whole with increased strength and prestige. In
the series of coalitions which first checked and then foiled the ambitious
designs of Louis XIV the Austrian ruler played a part hardly second to
that of William III of Orange, But for the momentous decision of
Leopold I to come to the assistance of the sorely-pressed Dutch in
1673, the French King, with the interested connivance of the degenerate
Stewarts, and with the help of Turenne, Conde, and Luxembourg, must
have firmly founded his supremacy in western Europe. Without Austria
and Prince Eugene, no league could have been formed strong enough to
prevent the retention by Philip of Anjou of the whole dominions of
Spain. The western policy of Austria in this period, though chequered
by reverses and leading to some bitter disappointments, is in itself no
discreditable part of Austrian history. And any apparent discredit is
removed when it is remembered that, aU the time, the Habsburgs were
fighting a double battle against domestic disaflfection and Turkish
aggression. Moreover, from this eastern struggle, of which only one
salient episode, the relief of Vienna in 1683, has succeeded in fixing the
attention of western Europe, Austria emerged victorious. By the end
of the century Transylvania had been reunited to the Hungarian Crown,
the Turks had been driven from almost the whole of Hungary, and that
kingdom had been permanently subjected to the House of Habsburg. It
is this eastern side of Austrian history which is the subject of the
present chapter. The interest and importance of the events narrated
in it may appear slight to the western reader, and the policy of Austria
may often be blamed as vacillating, short-sighted and oppressive. But
how different would have been the history of the eighteenth and
nineteenth centuries, if Austria had fallen from her rank among the
foremost Powers of Europe !

The ruler whose long reign witnessed some of the most critical
moments in the fortunes of Austria, was singularly unfitted by nature
and training to guide the State through troubled times. Leopold I,
"the little Emperor in red stockings," was the second son of Fer-
dinand III and the Infanta Maria Anna of Spain. He was originally
brought up for the Church until the death (from small-pox) in 1654
of his elder brother made him heir to the Austrian dominions. He

1658] Accession of Leopold I. 341

never lost the impress of his early education, and never freed himself
from the control of the Jesuits, whose power was even more unrestricted
during his reign than in those of his father and grandfather. In private
life Leopold was irreproachable. He was chaste, pious, a lover of
justice and honesty. The time which he could spare from the labours
of state and from punctilious attendance at religious services was devoted
to the chase, to music, and to the collection of rare books and curios.
As compared with contemporary sovereigns like Louis XIV of France
and Charles II of England, he was a model of virtue, and the Jesuits
were never tired of extolling the merits of their august pupil. But
Machiavelli declared that a perfectly good Prince must be ruined among
so many who are evil, and a less cynical observer must admit that a
ruler needs other qualities than the virtues which adorn a private
station. With these qualities Leopold was inadequately endowed. He
did not shirk the labour of audiences or of signing public documents ;
but he had little insight or initiative, an imperfect knowledge of men
or power of choosing fitting instruments, and no consistency of purpose
except what was inspired by his religious counsellors. Nor were his
defects counterbalanced by the help of Ministers of exceptional ability.
Prince Wenceslas von Lobkowitz, the only member of the Emperor's
council who rose above mediocrity, was opposed to the anti-French
policy by which alone Austria could maintain either safety or dignity.
The eminent generals whose victories saved Austria from annihilation,
Montecuculi, Charles of Lorraine, Lewis of Baden, and Eugene of Savoy,
were all of alien birth. The most invaluable service of aU, the relief
of Vienna, was rendered by a foreign king, John Sobieski. Yet, in
spite of the bigotry and the childish pedantry which sometimes exposed
Leopold to deserved contempt, he had one quality which has often
redeemed the rule of a feeble prince — a sublime confidence in the justice
of his cause, and a belief, which never wavered, in the fortunes of his
dynasty and his Church.

The clue to the difiiculties and dangers of Leopold I in the east,
and also to such success as he ultimately achieved, is to be found in
his relations with the Ottoman Turks. Throughout the sixteenth
century the Austrian dominions had been the most substantial barrier
between central Europe and the threatened advance of Turkish power ;
and this had done more than anything else to secure the election of
successive Habsburgs to the Imperial throne. Fortunately for Europe,
the unique opportunity offered by the Thirty Years' VVar had been
lost by the Turks, in consequence of the internal decline of their State.
Since the death of Solyman the Magnificent in 1566 the iron discipline
which held together the Turkish forces had been sensibly relaxed.
Degenerate Sultans ceased to lead their armies into the field, passed
their lives in the enervating atmosphere of the harem, and became the
puppets of female intrigue. The constitution of the once invincible army

342 The decline of Turkish power. [isee-iees

gradually underwent a momentous change. The Janissaries and Sipahis,
originally celibate, were allowed to marry, and speedily began to demand
admission to the corps as a right for their sons. T^e tribute of
Christian children, upon which the military and civil administration had
so long rested, ceased to be exacted with regularity, and in the course
of the seventeenth century became obsolete. The need for it dis-
appeared, when the supply of orthodox recruits was more than sufficient
to fiU the ranks; and the Christian subjects of the Porte were more
valuable as cultivators and tax-payers than as breeders of soldiers. A
hereditary fighting force was more interested in struggling for pay and
privilege than in keeping up its own efficiency; and, as the numbers
of the regular troops increased, they grew more formidable to their
own Government than to its enemies. Meanwhile the civil adminis-
tration became equally unsatisfactory. Favouritism and corruption,
the twin cankers of Oriental rule, determined the choice of the highest
officers in the State. The Pashas in the various provinces thought more
of enriching themselves than of serving their master, and the subject
peoples began to resent unlicensed oppression. The evils which had
undermined the empire of Rome seemed to be reproduced in the
dominions of the Sultan. For nearly eighty years the Turkish power
ceased to expand. The frontier in Hungary fluctuated till the Treaty
of Zsitva-Torok in 1606, after which it remained without important
change till 1663. In maritime enterprise, which had been forced upon
the Turks (as formerly upon the Romans) against their habits and pre-
possessions, the decline was even more marked than on the mainland.
The battle of Lepanto, fruitless as it was in many ways, had shown the
vulnerable point of Turkish domination. In the seventeenth century
the Christian sailors of the Mediterranean began, not merely to hold
their own, but to venture on reprisals for past injuries. It was these
insults which roused the Turks to enter upon the first war of conquest
which they had undertaken since the reduction of Cyprus. The Knights
of Malta had been the most daring aggressors ; but with characteristic
prudence the Porte sought a more vulnerable and a more remunerative
victim in the republic of Venice. In 1645, in the time of Ibrahim,
an ambitious but incompetent Sultan, a Turkish fleet escorted a
considerable army to the island of Crete. The harbour of Canea was
speedily taken, and in 1648 the Turks began the long and famous siege
of Candia. The defence was obstinately maintained for twenty years, and
in this protracted war the Venetians showed some of their old maritime
skill and daring. Not only did they succeed in frequently interrupting
the Turkish communications with the island, but they won victories in
naval encounters, and even recovered for a time the islands of Lemnos
and Tenedos. They were aided and encouraged by anarchy and revo-
lutions in the Turkish capital which, in a more civilised and coherent
State, would probably have put an end to foreign war. Ibrahim was

1572-1658] Revival of Turkey. 343

deposed in 1648 in favour of his son Mohammad IV, a boy of seven,
and was soon afterwards murdered. The Turks were unaccustomed to
minorities, and during the early years of the new reign power was
obstinately disputed between the mother and the grandmother of the
young Sultan. At last the younger Sultana rid herself by assassination
of her rival, and in 1656 gave the office of Vezir to an Albanian
septuagenarian, Mohammad Kiuprili, the founder of a ministerial
dynasty which for forty years made the Tiu-ks once more an object
of dread to Europe. In spite of his advanced years, Kiuprili displayed
equal energy and ability. By ruthless severity he crushed disaffection
and disorder, restored discipline in the army, and deprived the provincial
Governors of the independence which they had so grossly misused. At
the same time, he determined to prosecute the war in Crete and to
restore Turkish supremacy in Hungary. The Turkish army was no
longer as efficient as in the days of the great Sultans ; and in the interval
the forces of the great States of Europe had been enormously improved.
But the Turks were still a formidable fighting force, and in the
organisation of their commissariat and of all the auxiliary departments
of military administration they were superior to any nation except the
French.

The revival of Turkey, which was contemporaneous with the accession
of Leopold I, constituted a danger of the first magnitude to Austria,
and also to two other eastern States, Russia and Poland, which, in spite
of mutual rivalry, were forced by common defensive interests into
cooperation with Austria. Russia under the House of Romanoff had
recovered tmity after the internal disturbances at the beginning of the
seventeenth century, and in the reign of Alexis (1645-76) was beginning
to feel her way towards a place among European Powers. Her progress
westwards was barred by Sweden and Poland, and southwards by the
Tartar tribes of the Crimea and the Kuban, which had been under
vassalage to Turkey since the fifteenth century. But, though Russian
aggrandisement was destined to be ultimately ruinous to Poland, her
most immediate enemies were Sweden, which blocked the way to the
Baltic, and Turkey, which stood between Russia and the Black Sea.
And both Sweden and Turkey were the enemies of Austria. Poland
was in a somewhat similar position as regards external relations, though
her domestic government was wholly difierent. For centiu-ies Poland
had been the foremost Slav State in Europe, but she had begun to decline
since 1572 when, on the extinction of the male line of Jagello, she had
made her monarchy elective and adopted a constitution which trans-
formed the kingdom into an oligarchical republic. Geography made
Poland the enemy of Turkey ; the history of the State had involved
it in a prolonged and bitter quarrel with Sweden. In 1587 the Poles
had elected as King the Roman Catholic Sigismund Vasa, whose
mother was a Jagello princess and who in 1692 inherited the Swedish

CH. XII.

344 Transylvania and Poland. [i656-eo

throne. His advent in Sweden was followed by the revolt of that
country under a younger and Protestant branch of the House of Vasa,
and in the resultant war Poland had been stripped of her provinces on
the eastern Baltic. This war was, as has been related in a previous
volume, renewed in 1656, when the bellicose Charles X attacked John
Casimir of Poland, who had refused to recognise the former's accession
to the Swedish throne. One of the last acts of Ferdinand HI was to
conclude a treaty for the defence of Poland against the dreaded power of
Sweden. Leopold I inherited this alliance and did not hesitate to fulfil
its obligations. The Tsar of Russia, though he was actually quarrelling
with John Casimir over the Ukraine, was equally ready to oppose the
Swedes. Charles X, who might have called in the Turks to help him
against this coalition, appealed to a more congenial though weaker ally,
the Prince of Transylvania. George Rd,k(5czy H, who had succeeded
his father in 1648, found his mountainous principality, over which both
Turkish Sultan and Hungarian King claimed the suzerainty, by no
means adequate to his ambition. He accepted the overtures of Sweden
in the hope that, like his predecessor Stephen Bithory, he might find his
way to the Polish throne. But Charles X was recalled by the news that
the Danes, the inveterate enemies of Sweden, had attacked his peninsular
kingdom. In his absence the combination of Poles, Russians, and
Austrian troops under Montecuculi, made short work of RAkdczy, who
was driven back to Transylvania. Charles X found consolation and
revenge in the rapid reduction of Denmark ; but, as has been related, his
enemies were too many for him. After profiting by his enterprise to
throw off Polish suzerainty over East Prussia, the Great Elector of
Brandenburg cooperated with Montecuculi ; and the English and Dutch
fleets threatened to carry the allied forces into Zealand and even into
Sweden itself. Louis XIV had found it necessary to threaten a diversion
in western Germany in favour of his ally, when, at the critical moment,
the death of Charles X brought about the pacification of the North
by the treaties of Oliva (between Sweden and Poland, May 8, 1660),
Copenhagen (between Sweden and Denmark, Jime 5, 1660), and Kardis
(between Sweden and Russia, June 21, 1661).

Meanwhile, Mohammad Kiuprili had found in this war the pretext
which he desired for intervention in eastern Europe. He had no reason
to support the integrity of Poland or to desire the victory of the Poles ;
but he was determined to restore Turkish control over Transylvania, and
he had reason to suspect Rdkdczy of tampering with the fidelity of the
rulers of WaUachia and Moldavia. On the pretext that the invasion of
Poland was a breach of Rd,kdczy'fi obligations as a vassal, he decreed his
deposition and ordered the Estates to choose a successor. They sub-
missively chose Francis Redei ; but Rdkdczy speedily deposed his feeble
rival, in the confident hope that the Turks would be too fully occupied
in Crete to pay much attention to the affairs of a distant province.

1658-61] Turkish attack an Transylvania. 846

Kiuprili met this defiance by leading an overwhelming army in 1658
to cooperate with the Fasha of Buda against Transylvania. The open
country was laid waste, and the population sold into slavery. The
towns only saved themselves from the same fate by payment of heavy
contributions. The haughty Vezir nominated Achatius Barczai Prince of
Transylvania, and forced the Estates to acknowledge him. All pretence
of free election was disregarded. The annual tribute was raised from
15,000 to 50,000 florins, and a large war indemnity was demanded. But
Rdkdczy obstinately continued the struggle against overwhelming force,
and appealed to Leopold I as King of Hungary to send him assistance.
The Court at Vienna was watching with growing uneasiness the treat-
ment of Transylvania as a dependency of the Porte. But Leopold had
no standing army ; he was anxious to avoid a great eastern war ; and
Rdkdczy's recent action in Poland was not yet forgiven. All that
Austria would do in 1658 was to offer diplomatic remonstrances, which
the Porte treated with contempt. In spite of the return of John
Kemenyi, Rd,kdczy's lieutenant in the Polish war, who had been carried
off into captivity by the Crimean Tartars, and in spite of assistance from
the deposed Hospodars of Wallachia and Moldavia, Rdkdczy's cause was
hopeless. In May, 1660, he was mortally wounded in a heroic struggle
against heavy odds, and a fortnight later he died at Grosswardein.

In August, after an obstinate resistance, Grosswardein was forced
to surrender to the Turks. But the patriots were not yet reduced to
despair. In January, 1661, John Kemenyi was chosen Prince of
Transylvania; and soon afterwards Achatius Barczai, whose troubled
reign was identified in the people's mind with humiliating submission to
the oppressive invader, was put to death. Kemenyi renewed the appeal
for help to Vienna, where, as a bom Hungarian, he was more acceptable
than Rakdczy had been. The appeal was supported by the Palatine
and the chief nobles of Hungary, and Leopold could hardly refuse to
help in the defence of his own kingdom, which was now threatened
by the victorious Turks, though he was still desirous of avoiding any
open declaration of war. In 1661 Montecuculi was sent into Hungary
with the wholly inadequate force of 10,000 men, which were to be
reinforced by Hungarian levies. This was a virtual recognition of
Kemenyi ; and the Turks replied by forcing the Estates of Transylvania
to accept another nominee of their own, Michael Apaffy, the fifth holder
of the perilous dignity within three years. Meanwhile Montecuculi's
campaign had produced little result. His original plan of diverting the
Turks from Transylvania by an attack upon Buda was overruled from
Vienna, and he was ordered to effect a junction with Kemenjd on the
Theiss in Upper Hungary. Together they advanced into Transylvania
as far as Klausenburg (Kolozsvdr) ; but the population gave them a cold
welcome. The Turks refused to fight a battle, and the army was
seriously weakened by disease and privation. Montecuculi, a cautious

346 Austria involved in war with the Turks. [leei-s

and methodical general, determined to retreat towards his base. Leaving
a garrison in Klausenburg, and 2000 men to act with Kemenyi, he
returned to the valley of the Theiss. During the winter Kemenyi nearly
succeeded in surprising Apaffy at Schassburg in the Saxon region, but
he was detained by artful pretence of negotiation until the arrival of
a Turkish relieving force, and in the encounter which followed he
was slain, whether by the enemy or by treachery was never known
(January 23, 1662).

After the death of Kemenyi hostilities languished for a year;
Mohammad Kiuprili had died in November, 1661» and the Sultan
gave the vacant office to his son Ahmad Kiuprili, the ablest and most
famous Turkish commander of the century. The success which had
attended the father's severity enabled the son to rule with greater
leniency; and for a time Europe hoped that the Porte under new
guidance might abandon its aggressive policy. The Himgarians de-
manded the withdrawal of the German troops, whom they had called
to their assistance. The Protestants clamoured for the redress of their
grievances and resisted all proposals in the Diet for a reasoned plan
of defence. The Austrian Ministers were so irritated by what they
considered gross ingratitude that they opened negotiations with the
Turks; and the Vezir was only too glad to lull suspicions while he
made preparations for a campaign on a grand scale, which was intended
to complete the conquest of Hungary and to carry the Crescent to the
walls of Vienna. The result was a futile congi-ess at Temesvar, and a
complete neglect of military preparations on the part of Austria. In
1663 the Turks threw off all concealment, and commenced open war
against the Emperor. At Adrianople Ahmad Kiuprili received the
sacred standard from the hands of the Sultan, and in June he led an
imposing army of over 120,000 men to Belgrade. In face of such a
force it was hopeless to think of defending Transylvania. Klausenburg
opened its gates to Apaffy, whose authority remained undisputed till his
death. Meanwhile, the Vezir had advanced from Belgrade to Buda,
whence his army threw itself like a slow but irresistible flood upon
western Hungary. The Austrian Government was wholly unprepared for
resistance. Leopold was ill with small-pox, and all that the Ministers
could do was to send Montecuculi with some 6000 troops to " play the
Croat " in face of the overwhelming enemy. Fortunately the Turks, in
spite of their strength, were delayed by the necessity of capturing the
various fortresses which defended the course of the Danube and its tribu-
taries. One of these, Neuhausel (Ursek Ujvar), offered an invaluable
resistance, and it was not till September 25 that the garrison surrendered
with the honours of war. Montecuculi, too weak to attempt the relief
of Neuhausel, sought to cover Pressburg and the eastern frontier of
Austria by throwing himself into the long island of Schutt, formed by
two channels of the Danube, where he was joined by the tardy levies of

1664] Battle of St Gothard. 347

Hungarian militia, and by the warlike Ban of Croatia, Niklas Zrinyi,
whose dashing guerilla tactics were lauded by fiery patriots in contrast
to the methodical procedure of the Commander-in-Chief. The strength
of Montecuculi's position was never seriously tested, as Kiuprili contented
himself with the capture of Neuhausel, and retired into winter-quarters
to prepare for a more energetic advance in the following year.

The news that, after the interval of a century, a Turkish army
comparable to that of Solyman the Magnificent was advancing west-
wards under a young and capable leader, made a profound impression
in Eiu-ope, and woke some faint echo of the old crusading ardour.
Hungarian malcontents rallied to the House of Habsbiu-g when they
found their homes desolated by the Tartar bands, whose predatory
instincts were imperfectly restrained by the discipline enforced among
the regular troops of Turkey. The sluggish Diet at Ratisbon, to which
Leopold appealed in person, voted a levy of money and troops from
the Empire. Even Louis XIV, abandoning the selfish alliance with the
Turks which his predecessors had maintained, and not unwilling to pose
as the disinterested protector of a rival State, sent 4000 men under
General Jean de Coligny to serve with Montecuculi. The prospect of
external assistance encouraged the Austrian troops to begin the cam-
paign instead of waiting to be attacked. The cavalry under Souches
defeated and harassed the outlying forces on the right wing of the
Turks, and even recovered some of the forts which had been taken in
the previous year. Kiuprili was slow to commence his march, and his
delay enabled the French and German auxiliaries to effect their junction
with the main army. When the Turks advanced, it was seen that they
kept to the southern side of the Danube, and that they were diverging
from the main valley towards Styria in order to turn the defences of
Pressburg. Montecuculi waited for them behind the Raab. As the
Turks marched south-westwards along the right bank of the river, the
Christians kept pace with them on the other side. At last, under the
convent of St Gothard, Kiuprili found a convenient angle of the river
at which the passage of troops could be protected by artillery placed
at the two comers of the arc. Here he determined to brush away
the one serious obstacle to his advance. A victory would give him
unimpeded entry into the main Austrian dominions; and already the
Imperial Court was preparing to abandon Vienna for greater safety in
Linz. On August 1 large bodies of Janissaries were thrown across the
Raab and began to fortify a position on the left bank. Montecuculi,
unable to dispute the actual passage, drew up his army in three divisions.
The centre was formed by the troops of the Imperial Diet, the French
were on the left wing, and the Austrians and Hungarians were on the
right. Their great advantage was that the Tiu-ks could only cross in
detachments, and were therefore unable to make full use of their superior
numbers. But the first onslaught of the infidels, delivered with the

CH. xu.

348 Peace of Fasvar. [i664-9

confidence begotten of past victories, broke the ill-organised Germans
in the centre and produced serious disorder. The Austrian right wing,
however, taking the advancing Turks on the flank, gave the Germans time
to rally, and the impetuous onslaught of the French completed the rout
of the Janissaries, who refused quarteir and were cut to pieces. Mean-
while, Turkish reinforcements had crossed the Raab in the rear, and
against them Montecuculi hurled his united forces. After an obstinate
conflict, the Turks were utterly broken and driven back into the river.
Most of the cannon on the right bank were captured, and the projected
invasion of Austria had perforce to be abandoned.

The battle of St Gothard is of supreme importance in the light of
future events, because it gave the first proof that the Turks had lost
their military superiority. Their courage and their obstinate fighting
power were as indisputable as ever ; but their arms and their tactics were
those of the time of Solyman, and they had made no progress in the
art of war. On the other hand, the Christian troops had profited by
the lessons and experience of the Thirty Years' War. In artillery, in
cavahy, and above all in the use of the pike, the supreme infantry
weapon of that day, they were the masters of their opponents. The
great achievement of Montecuculi foreshadowed the later victories of
Charles of Lorraine and Prince Eugene. But while Europe was exulting
at the disappearance of a great danger, it was astounded to learn that
the victor had made a hasty and not very creditable peace. Montecuculi's
army was too exhausted and too ill-united to attempt the arduous task
of driving the Turks out of Hungary; and there were Ministers in
Vienna who held that the continuance of the Turkish peril served a
useful purpose in making Hungary dependent upon Austria. By the
Treaty of Vasvar, signed on August 10, a truce for twenty years was
aiTanged between Austria and the Turks. Apaffy was recognised as
Prince of Transylvania; the free election of his successor was guaranteed,
and the principality was to be evacuated both by Turkish and Austrian
troops ; but the Sultan's suzerainty over it was maintained. The Turks
kept their most important conquests, Grosswardein and Neuhausel ; but,
in compensation for the latter, the Emperor was to be allowed to build
a new fortress on the Waag. Finally, a sum of 200,000 florins was to
be given to the Porte. The Austrians called it a gift ; but it was easy
to regard it in Constantinople as a tribute. Ahmad Kiuprili, in spite
of his defeat, was able to return with the credit of one who had enlarged
the bounds of Turkish rule, and he set himself to maintain and enhance
his reputation by bringing the long war of Candia to an end. In 1666
he took the command in person, and against his iron determination the
heroic efibrts of the great Venetian general, Francesco Morosini, and
of the volunteers who flocked from aU countries to the service of the
Republic proved unavailing. In September, 1669, the defenders of
Candia capitulated, and the whole island of Crete, with the exception

1648-69] Austria, France, and Poland. 349

of the coast fortresses of Suda, Spinalonga, and Karabusa, passed from
Venetian to Turkish rule. The natives had shown little courage or
loyalty during the war, and a large number of them hastened to curry
favour with their conquerors by adopting the Mohammadan religion.

While the Turks were restoring and strengthening their ascendancy
in the Mediterranean, the Austrian Government had three difficult
questions to deal with. The War of Devolution, provoked by the
preposterous claims of Louis XIV in the Netherlands, led to the earliest
proposals of a European coalition to check the ambition of France. Of
such a coalition Leopold I, who had just married the Infanta Margaret,
the presumptive heiress of her brother Charles II, was the natural
leader, and its most energetic advocate was the Austrian ambassador,
Francis de Lisola, who was the first to formulate that policy of
vigorous opposition to Louis XIV which was afterwards pursued by his
master and by William of Orange. But at this time the Austrian
Ministers, the Princes von Auersperg and Lobkowitz, were dominated by
the French envoy, Bretel de Gremonville. Not only did Leopold remain
neutral in the Netherlands war, but on January 19, 1668, he was induced
by his love of peace to conclude a secret treaty with France for the
eventual partition of the Spanish inheritance. By this he virtually
admitted the force of Louis XIV's contention that his wife's renunciation
of her claims was invalid.

As against this weakness of Austrian policy in the west must be set
a strenuous struggle to oppose the dangerous growth of French influence
in Poland. John Casimir, the last of the Vasa Kings, had in 1648
renounced his Orders, to succeed his brother on the Polish throne and to
marry his widowed sister-in-law, Mary di Gonzaga, daughter of the Duke
of Nevers. On his death the right of election would be freed from any
strong dynastic claims, and the prize of the Polish Crown would be
thrown open to unlimited competition. The reign of John Casimir was
a time of unrest. Poland was saved by its allies from the attack of
Charles X of Sweden ; but the Peace of Oliva was followed by a renewal
of the long struggle with Russia for the hazardous right of ruling the
turbulent Cossacks of the Ukraine. During the Swedish war Poland had
relied upon the Emperor's help, and Austrian influence had been so
predominant at Warsaw that schemes were entertained for adding the
great Slav kingdom to the possessions of the House of Habsburg. But
since 1660 the influence of the Queen had been actively exerted on the
side of France, and a strong party was formed to support the candidature
of a French prince as John Casimir's successor. In 1663 Mary brought
about a marriage between her favourite niece, Anne of Bavaria, and the
Due d'Enghien, son of the great Conde. A strenuous effort was now
made to induce the Poles to elect either Enghien or his father during
the lifetime of the reigning King. As soon as this should be done, John
Casimir pledged himself to abdicate and to retire to a more congenial

350 Election of Michael Wisniowiecki. [i667-9

life in France, where rich benefices were allotted for his maintenance.
The intrigue was so openly carried on that it was not difBcult for
Austrian diplomacy to excite ill-feeling in Poland against the attempt
to interfere with freedom of election by allowing a reigning king to
dictate the choice of his successor. An opposition party was formed
under Lubomirski, the Grand Hetman or commander-in-chief of the
Polish forces. The Coiui; attempted to put down this opposition by
force. Lubomirski's command was transferred to John Sobieski,
whose wife, Mary d'Arquien, was a Frenchwoman, and who now
becomes identified with French interests in Poland. Civil war broke
out; but John Casimir was as unable to defeat domestic enemies
as he was to gain a triumph over foreign foes. In 1667 he lost his
wife, and in the following year he insisted upon abdication. The
election which followed was a wild scramble. The most prominent
candidate was Philip William of Neuburg, who had married the sister of
John Casimir. He had originally been supported by Austria, in order
to checkmate the dangerous pretensions of the Conde princes. But the
War of Devolution had modified the situation. Louis XIV had set
himself to isolate the Netherlands by preventing the entry of foreign
troops to their assistance. With this aim he had appealed to Philip'
William, the acknowledged owner since 1666 of the border duchies of
Jiilich and Berg; and to secure his aid he had promised the official
support of France to his candidature in Poland. Secretly, however, the
French envoys were instructed to gain votes for Conde. On the other
hand Leopold's advocacy of Philip William was cooled by the agreement
between the latter and France, and the influence of Austria was employed
on behalf of Prince Charles Leopold of Lorraine, the nephew of the
reigning Duke Charles III ; and the life-long enemy of France. But in
the end the foreign intrigues served only to counterbalance each other,
and on June 19, 1669, the choice of the Diet fell upon a Lithuanian
Puist (descendant of the ancient royal house of Poland), Michael
Korybut Wisniowiecki, who had neither wealth nor ability to excite
the jealousy of his compeers, and who accepted the Crown with tears
of genuine reluctance. The election was a bitter disappointment to
Louis XIV, who had been led by his agents to anticipate Conde's
success ; and the defeat of France was emphasised in the following year,
when the new King was married to the Emperor's sister Eleonora Maria.
Alike in his relations with France and with Poland, the Emperor
was constantly hampered by the continuance of dangerous discontent in
Hungary. Any gratitude which might have been felt for the great
service rendered at St Gothard was obliterated by the hasty conclusion
of the Peace of Vasvar. The treaty itself was denounced, not only as a
betrayal of Hungarian interests, but as a breach of the coronation oath,
by which Leopold was pledged not to make peace or war without con-
sulting the Estates. The fortress of Leopoldstadt, erected on the Waag

1666-7] Conspiracy of Hungarian nobles. 361

in accordance with the treaty, was regarded as a new stronghold of
Austrian oppression rather than as a barrier against the Turks. The
old demand was raised for the removal of all German troops from
Himgarian soil. A widespread suspicion prevailed that Hungary was
to be deprived of its liberties and coerced into religious uniformity by
the same methods which had been employed in Bohemia in the time of
Ferdinand II. The most formidable malcontents were the nobles, who
felt their privileges as well as the cause of national independence to be
at stake. Neither their exemption from taxation nor their right to
defend their interests with arms was likely to survive the establishment
of a Habsburg despotism. Niklas Zrinyi, the fiery champion and poet
of the Hungarian nationality, had died on a boar-hunt near Vienna soon
after the Turkish war. His brother, Peter Zrinyi, succeeded as Ban of
Croatia, and also to some share of Niklas' influence and popularity. With
him were associated his brother-in-law, Francis Frangipani, the descendant
of a family which had come to Hungary with the Angevin Kings in
the thirteenth century; Francis Nadasdy, who had long enjoyed the
special favour and confidence of Leopold ; Stephen Tokolyi, a wealthy
landowner in northern Hungary ; the Styrian Count Tattenbach ; and,
above all, the Palatine of Hungary, Francis Vesselenyi. In 1666 an
important recruit was gained by the marriage of Zrinyi's beautiful
daughter, Helen, to Francis Rdkdczy, the son of the former Prince
George II of Transylvania, who inherited from his father a great name
and from his mother the immense wealth of the Bdthory family. The
wedding served, like many such ceremonies, to cover a conference of the
great nobles, in which the growing conspiracy against Habsburg rule was
extended and consolidated. A whole network of threads was woven
between the chief conspirators and with the foreign States from which
assistance was hoped or desired. Michael Apaffy, as an interested enemy
of the Habsburgs, was early in the confidence of the malcontents, and
served as a medium of communication with the Turks. Overtures were
also made to John Sobieski and the anti-Austrian party in Poland, and
to certain of the German Princes, especially those belonging to the
League of the Rhine. But the most intimate relations were established
with Gremonville, the restless envoy of France at Vienna, who was
prepared, if necessary, to play a Hungarian rebellion as a card in his
diplomatic game with the Ministers of the Imperial Court.

So vast and many-sided a plot — resembling in many ways the
Jacobite organisation in England in the early eighteenth century —
could hardly have escaped detection, if all the parties had been loyal
and disinterested. Its disclosure became certain, when a jealous rivalry
grew up among the leaders, when personal ambition became stronger
than devotion to a common cause, and when the failure to gain any
assurance of foreign aid began to excite disappointment and alarm.
ApaiFy's zeal rapidly cooled, as he saw in the young Rdkdczy a dangerous

352 Suppression of the Hungarian conspiracy. [i667-7i

rival in the affections of the Transylvanians. Ahmad Kiuprili woxild
undertake no other enterprise until his work in Crete was completed.
All prospect of help from Poland was removed by the election of
Wisniowiecki. The German Princes had no love for Hungary, nor
Hungary for them. Worst of all, Louis XIV, so long as he was
negotiating with Leopold about a Spanish partition, and so long as
there was a chance of this partition treaty being carried out, was com-
pelled to disavow all the formal and informal promises of GremonviUe.
The death in March, 1667, of Vesselenyi^ the most sincere patriot among
the confederates, was a serious blow to the cause. Zrinyi, giving the
reins to his imagination, aimed at an independent principality in Croatia
and Slavonia, if not at the Crown of Hungary, while his son-in-law was
to recover Transylvania for the House of RAkdczy. Nadasdy, a rival
rather than a colleague, was chiefly anxious to assert his own claim to
the office of Palatine. From one quarter and another information came
to Lobkowitz, who in 1669 succeeded in supplanting Auersperg as
chief Minister. In 1670, when sufficient damnatory evidence had been
collected, he struck hard and promptly. Troops were sent into Hungary
to cope with any attempt at armed rebellion. The leading plotters
were seized and brought to trial. The enquiry which followed was secret
and was in all probability biassed and unfair. But it is hardly possible
to doubt the substantial justice of the sentences which were pronounced.
On April 30, 1671, Zrinyi, Frangipani and Nadasdy were put to death.
Tattenbach shared their fate in December. The life of Francis RAkdczy
was saved by the mediation of his mother, Sophia BAthory, who had the
double merit of being wealthy and also a devout Roman Catholic; but
he had to abandon all his ambitious designs, and died in obscurity in
1676. Stephen Tokolyi died in 1670, while obstinately defending his
castle against the Imperial troops; but he bequeathed the championship
of the Hungarian cause to his more famous son Emeric.

On the suppression of the famous conspiracy of the Hungarian
magnates followed a reign of terror, which has loaded the name of
Lobkowitz with obloquy in Hungarian tradition. AU the designs which
had been attributed to the Austrian Government were now put into
practice. The nobles could only escape suspicion and trial by the most
abject submission. The Protestants were punished for treason as well as
for heresy. Their preachers were sent to the galleys, and their churches
were either closed or handed over to the Catholics. The time-honoured
office of Palatine was suppressed; and Caspar von Ampringen, High
Master of the German Order, was sent with full powers as Governor to
Pfessburg. The Jesuit advisers of Leopold believed that Hungary might
be reduced by the methods which had proved successful in Bohemia. The
Magyar, though inferior as a plotter, is, however, a more resolute rebel
than the Slav. Possibly, if there had been no external difficulties, his
obstinacy might have been overcome. But European affairs at this time

1672-4] War between Poland and Turkey. 353

underwent a momentous change. In 1673 Leopold, after more than ample
provocation, broke loose from France and allied himself with Brandenburg
for the defence of the United Provinces. It is true that, until the fall
of Lobkowitz in October, 1674, there was still a curious reluctance at
Vienna to make the breach with Louis XIV irreparable. The Great
Elector was so disgusted that he forsook the coalition for a time ; and
Montecuculi resigned his command because, as he is represented to have
said, he preferred to receive commands direct from Paris rather than
roundabout by way of Vienna. But enough had been done to convince
Louis XIV that the secret treaty of January 19, 1668, was waste-paper,
that the old quarrel with the Austrian Habsburgs was still to be fought
out, and that he must make use of any weapons which lay to his
hand. He was therefore willing and eager in 1674 to encourage those
Hungarian rebels who were urged either by patriotism or by Protestant
zeal to resist the oppressive and persecuting rule of Ampringen. Ever
since 1671 they had conducted a guerilla war in northern Hungary
against the Imperial troops. Their nearest patron was Michael Apaffy,
whose right-hand man, Michael Teleki, became the commander of the
rebel forces. As Louis XIV was too busied in the west to give direct
assistance to the Hungarian rising, he set himself to bring about the
intervention of Poland. There the rule of the unfortunate Michael
Wisniowiecki had been hopeless from the first. The French faction
treated his authority with contempt, and their opposition would probably
have kindled a civil war, but for the outbreak of a new struggle with the
Turks.

This conflict had its origin in the Ukraine, which in 1667 had been
divided between Russia and Poland, the whole district on the left bank
of the Dnieper being assigned to Russia, while the town of Kieif was to
remain in her occupation for two years. The partition was a grievance
to the turbulent Cossacks, who desired to recover their unity and who
equally resented control from Warsaw or from Moscow. After two
years of desultory warfare the Cossack Hetman Doroszenko appealed
for aid to the Turks. Ahmad Kiuprili responded to the appeal in
1672 by once more leading an imposing atmy northwards. The Sultan
was induced to accompany his troops on what was little more than a
triumphant march. Kameniec was carried by storm; Lemberg sur-
rendered; and the whole of Podolia was at the mercy of the invaders.
The timid King Michael became a suppliant for peace, and agreed by
the Treaty of Buczdcz (October 18, 1672) to cede Podolia, to acknowledge
Turkish suzerainty over the Ukraine, and to pay an annual tribute of
220,000 ducats. Mohammad IV returned in triumph to Adrianople.

But the elation of the Turks was premature. The haughty spirit of
the Poles was roused by the news of the King's abject surrender. In
response to the fiery appeals of Sobieski, the shameful treaty was repu-
diated. Kiuprili had to return northwards, where he threw a strong

0. M. H. V. CH. XII. 23

354 Election of John SohiesU, [i673-7:

garrison into Kameniec and advanced to the siege of Khoczim. Under
its walls he was attacked by Sobieski, and suffered a defeat hardly less
signal and complete than that of St Gothard (November 11, 1673). On
the previous day King Michael had died, and the throne of Poland was
once more vacant. In spite of the perilous condition of the kingdom,
there was no lack of foreign candidates. Among the princes discussed
was James, Duke of York, who had just been deprived of office in England
by his notable refusal to comply: with the provisions of the Test Act,
But the most formidable competitors were those who could coimt on
the support of either France or Austria, The Emperor again favoured
Charles Leopold of Lorraine, whose prospective duchy had been in French:
occupation since 1670, To strengthen his candidature Charles Leopold
was eager to marry the widow of the late King^ Philip William of
Neuburg was still living, but on this occasion put forward his son, who
could claim descent through his mother from King Sigismund III, and
who was equally willing to marry the dowager Queen. The Frenchenvpy
was instructed to oppose at all costs the election of Charles of Lorraine,
to give a sort of official support to the Neuburg prince, but to act with
such prudent opportunism that whoever gained the Crown should believe
himself indebted for it to the support of France.

As might have been anticipated, the choice of the Diet fell upon
the vigorous champion of the nation's honour, John Sobieski (May 21,
1674), His accession was a triumph for Louis XIV, as that of his pre-
decessor had been for the Emperor. Sobieski was bound to France by
early associations, by the influence of his wife, Mary d'Arquien, and by
his identification during recent years with the French party in Poland.
Louis naturally sought to make the most of what might prove invaluable,
assistance in the east. He sent the Marquis of Bethune, who had
married an elder sister of the new Queen of Poland, to carry his con-
gratulations to Sobieski ; and on June 11, 1675, a treaty of aUiance was
signed between France and Poland, The Polish King was to receive a
subsidy of 200,000 crowns, and French assistance in the design of re-
storing Polish suzerainty over East Prussia, In return, he was to allow
recruiting in his dominions for the French service and to give a helping
hand to the Hungarian rebels. Thus Louis had it in his power to stir
up formidable difficulties which would divert the forces of Austria and
also those of the Elector of Brandenburg, who had rejoined the coalition
against France, On May 27, 1677, B^hune signed a treaty with Apaily
and his allies by which, in return for French subsidies and aid from
Poland, an army of 15,000 men was to make war upon the Emperor

> Charles Leopold of Lorraine succeeded his uncle Charles III in 1675 in the
titulaf duchy which he never ruled. Although he failed in his candidature for the
Polish Crown, he married the Archduchess Eleonora Maria, the widow of King
Michael, in 1678. The grandson of this marriage, Francis Stephen, hecame the
husband of Maria Theresa and the ancestor of the later House of Lorraine-Habsburg.

le^s-s] Poland, Turkey, and Hungary. 365

under the command of Teleki. Between these two dates, great efforts
were made by Prance to bring about peace between Poland and Turkey.
So long as the war lasted, neither Power could give effective assistance to
Hungary ; but its termination would enable France to bring either the
Turks or the Poles into the field against the Emperor. The task was a
difficult one, because Kiuprili refused to surrender any of the conquests
of 1672, and Sobieski could only hope to make the Crown hereditary in
his family by freeing Pohsh soil from the infidel. In 1675 the Polish
King won a second brilliant victory at Lemberg. But the Turk had the
more lasting resources, and in 1676 Sobieski fouiid himself hemmed in
by superior numbers. In October he agreed to the Treaty of Zurawna,
by which the Turks retained the greater part of Podolia with the town
of Kameniec, but recognised Polish suzerainty over western Ukraine.

In spite of all this diplomatic activity, the Hungarian revolt gained
little from foreign assistance, and exerted far less influence upon the
western war than had been anticipated at Versailles. Apaffy foimd it
necessary to regulate his actions in accordance with the will of the Porte,
which was not yet prepared for an open rupture with Austria. Ahmad
Kiuprili, who had extended the empire of Turkey to its furthest bounds
in Europe by the inclusion of Neuhausel in its Hungarian dominions and
by the acquisition of Podolia and Crete, died a few days after the signing
of the Treaty of Zurawna. His successor, Kara Mustafa, had by his energy
and strength of will gained the confidence of the two Kiuprilis and the
favour of the Sultan. He had become son-in-law of Mohammad, and thus
brother-in-law of Ahmad Kiuprili. In all his actions he displayed that
hatred and haughty contempt for the Giaours which had been handed
down from the days of Turkish triumph. Already, as Kamakam (deputy
of the Vezir), he had persuaded Mohammad IV to express to the French
Minister his willingness to make war upon the Emperor as soon as peace
was made with Poland. This momentous decision was formally approved
by the French Cotmcil of State, and the conclusion of the Ti-eaty of
Zurawna was welcomed with enthusiasm at Versailles. But, though
Kara Mustafa never abandoned his design, he was compelled to postpone
its execution. The Cossack Hetman Doroszenko, profoundly disappointed
by the Treaty of Zurawna, appealed to the Tsar for assistance against his
recent allies. In 1677 the Turks found themselves involved in a war
with Russia — the one Christian Power for which they entertained a vague
but real respect. So long as this war continued, it was hopeless for
France or any other Power to expect Turkish intervention. Apaffy
found it advisable to restrain his enthusiasm for the Himgarian rebels.
Iii 1678 his representative, Teleki, withdrew of his own accord from the
command of the insurgent forces and adroitly suggested as his successor
Emeric Tokolyi, who was betrothed to his daughter. The new Hungarian
leader possessed all the personal qualities which gain affection and loyalty;
and his name stiU holds a high place in the traditions of his countrymen.

cH. XII. 23—2

356 France, Poland, and Austria. [1677-^9

But, in spite of his fiery courJage, his persuasive eloquence, his constancy
in misfortune, and the dramatic vicissitudes of his career, it is clear that
the hatred of Austria which he inherited from his father was stronger
than his devotion to the real interests of his country, and that hiS
action on more than one momentous occasion was determined by personal
ambition. It was of evil omen that he celebrated his acceptance of the
national leadership by the issue of coins which had on their reverse the
legend, " TdJcoh/i princeps partium Huhgariae dommus" and on their
obverse, "Ludovicus XIV, Galliae Rex, Protector Hungariae.""

The disappointment caused in France by the failure of the Turks to
take up arms against Austria was neither so bitter nor so lasting as the
resentment excited by the defection of Poland. Both personal and political
motives combined to bring this about. The grasping Mary d'Arquien
complained that the pension given her as Queen was no larger than that
which she had received as the wife of the Grand Hetman, and demanded
the elevation of her father, a dissipated elderly nobleman, from the rank
of marquis to that of duke and peer of JFrance. Louis XIV refused to grant
this impudent request, and excused his apparent parsimony by recalling
the large sums which he had expended in the, Polish election. Sobieski
himself, while as a doting husband he supported his wife's demands, felt
that Louis had, for his own reasons, urged him into the Treaty of Zurawna,
though he could have extortepl better terms if he had waited for Russian
assistance. Besides, Poland was overwhelmingly Roman Catholic, and
its clergy, as well as the Pope, opposed the giving of aid to the Hun-
garian Protestants. In truth, had Sobieski followed the dictates of
France, he must have incurred the hostility of his subjects. Although
he received the crown on less onerous terms than his predecessor, he was
only the first magistra,te of a republic. Thus, in spite of the efforts of
Bethune, the Polish King drifted further from France and nearer to the
Emperor, wjio held out a prospect of his daughter's hand being given to
Sobieski's son, and of the King's father-in-law becoming a Prince of the
Empire and being endowed with lands in Silesia. In 1677 Sobieski
pledged himself to give no aid to Leopold's rebellious subjects, and went
so far as to prohibit the departure of troops which Bethune had recruited
in Poland for aiding the Hungarians.

In 1679 Leopold, after a good deal of hesitation, followed the
example set by his allies, Holland and Spain, in making the Treaty of
Nymegen ^vith France. His troops had at the end of 1678 driven
Tokolyi from his strongholds in Upper Hungary; he was secure from
opposition on the part of either Poland or Turkey ; and, now that his
hands were free in the west, it was naturally expected that he would
complete the task of subjugating Hungary, which he had begim in 1670
and which had been interrupted in 1673 by his war with France. But the
Emperor, though slow and timid, was not without intelligence, and what
his mind had once grasped was not readily forgotten. He had learned

1679-81] Religious toleration in Hungary. 357

one lesson thoroughly since 1668. The dream that the peace of Europe
could be assured by a friendship between Bourbon and Habsburg had
proved wholly illusory. Leopold realised that the ambition of France
could only be satisfied by the ruin of his own House, and that all other
interests, even that of religion, must be subordinated to the supreme
necessity of fighting his relentless enemy. He had learned yet another
lesson also, but this less thoroughly. He was convinced, for the time at
any rate, that his policy of harshness and persecution in Hungary had
been ill-judged and unsuccessful, and he was prepared to try the
alternative method of conciliation. He was further impelled in the
same direction by the dictatorial measures of Louis XIV, the Chambers
of Reunion, the ominous annexation in 1681 of Strassburg and Casale,
and the difficulty of inducing the States of Europe or even of Germany
to take any active measures against the monstrous encroachments of
France. Under these circumstances it was eminently desirable to adopt
any means of healing the open sore in Hungary. And so, in 1679,
Leopold recalled Ampringen, whose rule was as distasteful to patriotic
Catholics as to oppressed Protesta.nts. In the next year he con-
cluded a truce with Tokolyi which was later extended for, two years.
In 1681 he convened a Diet at Oedenburg, at which very great
concessions were ofiered. The office of Governor was abolished, while
that of Palatine was restored and confeired upon the popular Paul
Esterhdzy. A complete amnesty was promised for past disloyalty, and
even the Catholics consented to a decree that no Hungarian should
henceforth be molested in the free exercise of his religion. A large
number of towns and villages were named in which the erection of
Protestant chvu-ches was allowed. The Emperor was to observe his
coronation oath with regard to the maintenance of foreign troops,
and was to take the advice of a Hungarian coimcil upon Hungarian
affairs.

Substantial as these concessions were, and extremely distasteful to
the Catholic party, they failed to satisfy either the extreme Protestants
or the extreme nationalists. Emeric Tokolyi declined to attend the Diet
at Oedenbui'g, rejected its decrees as inadequate and insincere, and at
the close of 1681 sent three envoys to Constantinople to offer to the
Sultan the suzerainty over Hungary. His motives and their justification
will always be open to dispute. From the Austrian point of view, he
acted as the hireling of France and as an ambitious and unscrupulous
rebel who was resolved at all costs to gain a principality for himself.
From the opposite point of view, he was the resolute defender of political
and religious liberty who refused to be deluded by the deceptive promises
of an intolerant despot — promises which were only extorted by the fear
of France and Turkey and would be withdrawn as soon as that fear had
disappeared. The truth probably lies between the two extremes, and
the desire to avenge the deaths of his father's associates in 1671 may

358 Turkish hostility to Austria. [1682

have weighed quite as much with Tokolyi as the love of liberty or personal
ambition.

The conduct of the Imperial Government in the year 1682 displayed
equal short-sightedness and irresolution. In the previous year the Turks
had concluded the war with Russia by abandoning the Ukraine and
leaving KiefF to be a Russian city. In January, 1682, the envoys of
Tokolyi received the definite assurance of Turkish support. Kara Mustafa
never wavered in his intention of undertaking the direct attack upon
Vienna which he had planned six years before. The very fact that the
plan was opposed by rival aspirants to the Sultan's favour made him the
more resolute to insist upon a policy which had become essential to the
niaintenance of his own ascendancy. But, in spite of warnings, Leopold
and his Ministers refused to believe in the imminence of danger from the
east. They had decided at the end of 1681 to send Count Albert
Caprara as a special envoy to demand the prolongation of the Truce of
Vasvar, which would expire in 1684). Although their resident am-
bassador warned them that a special mission would be interpreted as a
proof of fear and weakness, they had little doubt as to the acceptance
of their demand. They contitiued the policy of conciliation in Hungary,
and carried complaisance so far as to give approval to a marriage
between Tokolyi, who had repudiated his betrothal to Teleki's daughter,
and Helen Zrinyi, the widow of Francis Rdkdczy. A representative of
the Emperor attended the wedding, which was celebrated on June 15,
1682, at the bride's castle of Munkdcs. By this marriage Tokolyi
strengthened his hold upon the patriotic party, and brought imder his
control not only the greatest inheritance in Hungary but also the person
of his stepson, Francis Rdkdczy II, the heir to a great name and an
inspiring tradition.

In the summer the confidence of the Austrian Ministers received a
rude shock. Caprara reported that the Turks evaded his demands by
suggesting impossible conditions for the renewal of the treaty, and that
in his opinion the Vezir was resolved upon war. Tokolyi, once secure of
his bride (who was fourteen years his senior), concluded a treaty with
the Pasha of Buda, raised the standard of revolt in the name of
" God and liberty," and overpowered the surprised garrisons in Upper
Hungary. But blindness still prevailed in Vienna. In September the
truce with Tokolyi was renewed, leaving him in possession of his recent
conquests ; and the triumphant rebel was actually accepted as mediator
to endeavour to bring about the prolongation of peace with the Turks.
Under the influence of the Spanish ambassador. Marquis Borgomainero,
more time was spent in discussing the measures for checking the distant
aggressions of Louis XIV than in providing for the defence of Austria
and its capital. Meanwhile Kara Mustafa was deceiving Caprara by
artfully spaced-out interviews, and was employing the time in making
elaborate preparations for a' campaign which might, so fax as official

1682-3] Turkish advance against Austria. 359

intimations went, be directed against Austria or Poland or the republic
of Venice. It was not until December 21 that the mask was finally
thrown aside. In a last interview Caprara was informed that the Turks
would not renew the treaty unless Leopoldstadt were razed, a number of
towns near Neuhausel surrendered, and Tokolyi recognised as King of
Upper Hungary under Turkish suzerainty. Such demands were equivalent
to a declaration of war from a State which refused to respect the rules
of international etiquette. In the spring of 1683 the nucleus of an
enormous army was collected at Adrianople; and on March 31 the
Sultan and his Vezir started on their eventful march. At Belgrade
Mohammad IV entrusted the sacred banner to Kara Mustafa, who now
assumed the supreme command. As the army advanced, it received recruits
from all the vassal provinces of Turkey ; and, by the time it reached
Essek on the Drave, its numbers had swollen to over 250,000 men.

Once convinced that Austria was again threatened with a Turkish
invasion, the Imperial Ministers showed no lack of energy. Agents were
sent to all Christian States to urge them to combine their efforts against
the common foe. Although, as Louis XIV sneeringly remarked, crusades
had gorie out of fashion since the days of St Louis, the response was
not wholly discreditable to the fellow-feeling which still feebly survived
in Christendom. It is true that some States held selfishly aloof.
Charles II of England was the pensioner of France, and had had quite
enough of wars and of parliaments. William of Orange was powerless,
against the opposition of the republican party, to send aid to an ally
whose overthrow would be as fatal to Holland as to Austria itself.
Frederick William of Brandenburg was playing his own game, and it
was not the correct move at the moment to support a prince who
disputed his claims in Silesia and who would not agree to help him to
drive the Swedes from Pomerania. Spain was too anxiously watching
France to be able to spare assistance even for her closest ally. But
Innocent XI worthily discharged the duties of the first bishop of
western Christendom. He sent money to Austria, and fatherly ex-
hortations to all the rulers who belonged to his communion. Venice
eagerly promised help against its old oppressor. The sluggish Germanic
Diet voted money, and among the Princes who promised to lead their
troops to the defence of their suzerain were Maximilian Emanuel of
Bavaria, Leopold's prospective son-in-law, John George of Saxony, and
the young George Lewis of Brunswick-Liineburg, afterwards King
George I of Great Britain (four of whose brothers likewise served
against the Turks). But the nearest and most invaluable ally was the
most experienced and successful of living combatants against the Turk,
the King of Poland. On March 31, 1683, John Sobieski signed the
momentous treaty by which he undertook to furnish a force of 40,000
men. The French envoy, Vitry, resorted to the tactics which Louis XIV
had prescribed as the only safeguard, if Poland were alienated from

360 Louis XIV and the Turks. [i676-83

France, and tried to stir up opposition in the Diet. But he had to deal
with a King who knew all the methods of French diplomacy in the past.
His letters were discovered, and he was dismissed with contumely from
Warsaw. Louis had to pay a heavy penalty for his creditable refusal to
bestow unmerited rank upon the Marquis d'Arquien. For, after all, the
French King was as keenly interested in the Turkish invasion as the
Emperor himself — not that, as some thought, he had brought it about.
Constantinople was the only European iCourt at which his influence
counted for nothing. The most haughty and imperious of rulers in
insisting upon the privileges of his representatives, he could not protect
his envoys from contemptuous treatment and even from imprisonment
at the hands of the Turks. But he had known of Kara Mustafa's
design in 1676, had welcomed the Turkish peace with Russia as enabling
the Vezir to put it into execution, had planned his aggressive Reunions
in the confident hope that his foremost opponent would be paralysed by
the task of defending his own country. Louis XIV would never have
admitted that he was a traitor to the Christian cause. The Turk,
according to Louis' purpose, was to be a tool and not a master. As
soon as he had swept the Habsburgs out of the way and advarfced with
his hordes to the upper Danube, Germany must appeal to the Most
Christian King, and Louis as the victorious champion of the Cross would
recover that imperial dignity which, according to the belief and teaching
of French historians, had been wrongfully wrested from their kings as
the heirs of Charlemagne. Crusades would have come into fashion again,
when they fitted in with the interests of France.

The criminal blindness of the Austrian Government had delayed the
appeal for help so long that it nearly came too late. For some months
the Habsburg dominions had to provide their own defence. The veteran
Montecuculi, who had so often urged the maintenance of a standing
army as the one defence against the Turks, had died in 1681. His last
service was to persuade his master to retain some 30,000 of the troops
which had been raised in the recent war with France. These formed the
nucleus of the Imperial army which was placed under the command of
Leopold's brother-in-law, Charles of Lorraine, and which was joined
by the youthful Eugene of Savoy, among other volunteers. For a
moment the Imperial general meditated aggression as the best method
of defence and advanced to attack Neuhausel. But the risk of being cut
off from the Austrian frontier was too great, and the Duke fell back to
cover Vienna. On July 7, the Emperor with his wife and family quitted
his capital amidst the murmurs of his subjects, to seek a safer refuge in
Passau. Only at the last moment were measures taken to destroy the
defenceless suburbs and to strengthen the neglected fortifications of the
city. If Kara Mustafa had hurried his advance, he could hardly have
failed to carry Vienna by storm. But he lost several precious days on
the way, and it was not till July 17 that he completed the blockade of

1683] Siege of Vienna. 361

the city, which was to last for two anxious months. Charles of Lorraine
had left a garrison of 13,000 regular troops, but had himself withdrawn
with his main force, in order to harass the besiegers until the arrival of
foreign aid should enable him to make a strenuous attempt to force the
raising of the siege.

The story of the defence of Vienna is the most heroic page in the
stirring annals of the city. Grateful recollection has preserved the
memory of all who played a prominent part in the obstinate resistance
which was offered to the overwhelming force of the enemy, from the
Governor, Count Rudiger Starhemberg, to the leader of the corps of
University volunteers. Local tradition preserved a record of every sally,
of the desperate struggles which raged round each bastion. Kara
Mustafa might have taken the city over and over again, if he had
pressed the attack with that obstinate determination and that disregard
of human life which had been shown by Mohammad II in the storming
of Constantinople. But he preferred to wait until exhaustion, plague,
and famine compelled an unconditional surrender. And even so he
came within measurable distance of success. The limits of human
endurance had almost been reached, when on September 11 the relieving
army appeared on the slopes of the Kahlenberg. Charles of Lorraine
had played his part manfully. He had impeded the supplies and
interrupted the communications of the besiegers, and he had successfully
defended Pressburg from the attack of Tokdlyi. But his chief care had
been to hasten the assembling, of the relieving forces from Germany and
from Poland. In response to the Duke's urgent appeals, John Sobieski
commenced his march with only 26,000 men, instead of waiting for the
collection of the full contingent fixed by the treaty. At Hollabrunn he
was joined by Charles of Lorraine, who accompanied him to Tuln, where
a bridge of boats had been carefully protected to secure the crossing of
the Danube. To Tuln came the Bavarians and Saxons with a number
of German volunteers, who had already assembled at Krems. On the
southern bank of the river the whole Christian force, numbering nearly
70,000 men, was marshalled, and without delay set out on the difficult
mai'ch through the Wiener Wald to the hills commanding a view of the
city of Vienna and the eastward plain. Some fears had been entertained
that difficulty might be caused by the jealous rivalry of a King, two
Electors, and an Imperial general. To avert this, the Emperor actually
started down the river with the intention of assuming the command in
person. But his arrival would certainly have irritated the Polish King^
whose superior rank and experience were not disputed by his colleagues.
It was under his supreme command that the army was drawn up on the
morning of the eventful September 12. On the left, nearest the river,
were the Imperial troops under the Duke of Lorraine; in the centre
were the Germans under the two Electors ; while the right wing was
formed by the Poles with an Austrian contingent.

OH. ZII.

362 Relief of Vienna. [i683

____ _-_

It was no easy task which lay before them ; but it was facilitated by
the gross ignorance and incompetence of Kara Mustafa. He had refused
to believe till the last minute in the arrival of the Poles, and he had
taken no precautions to cover the besieging army. He could easily have
detached sufficient troops to destroy the bridge at Tuln or to hold the
passes of the Wiener Wald. Even when the enemy was in sight, he
refused to follow the advice of Ibrahim, the Pasha of Buda, to withdraw
his seasoned troops from the trenches and to fortify a strong position on
his western front. Between the Kahlenberg and the plain were a number
of valleys formed by streams running into the Danube. Each of the in-
tervening slopes might have been held by the Turks, and days must then
have been spent in forcing an arduous path to the city walls. But all
precautions had been neglected. The left wing of the allies, which had the
hardest task, swept away the Moldavian and Wallachian auxiliaries, and
the whole line threw itself with the impetuosity of assured success upon
the Turkish camp. The Vezir was carried away with his panic-stricken
troops. The Janissaries, surprised in the trenches between the relieving
vanguard and the exultant garrison, were cut to pieces. Darkness was
setting in, when the eight hours' combat came to an end, and the relief
of Vienna was accomplished. The victors had so little anticipated such
a speedy and complete triumph that they remained under arms all night,
in the belief that the Turkish retreat must have been of the nature of a
stratagem. It was not till day dawned that they discovered that the
vast encampment which surrounded Vienna was deserted. As a matter
of fact the flight of the Turks was so hasty that by 10 o'clock the next
morning the foremost fugitives had reached Kaab, a journey which it had
taken the army eight days to cover on its advance.

It is saddening to turn from a heroic deed of arms, in which all
worked together with complete enthusiasm and harmony, to the pitiful
misunderstandings which followed. To a coalition success is almost
as disintegrating as defeat. The Elector of Saxony stayed to escort
the Emperor to the thanksgiving service in St Stephen's on the 14th,
but started homewards with his troops that very evening, declaring that
Protestants were regarded with little favour in Vienna and that the
Saxons had no share in the spoils. He had some grounds for the com-
plaint that the saving of Vienna was celebrated rather as a Roman
Catholic than as a Christian victory. More serious was the want of
concord between the Emperor and the King of Poland, and yet it was
almost inevitable. Leopold, grateful as he was, could not but feel that
he was dwarfed in his own and in his subjects' estimation by the
magnificent achievements of his preserver. He had been willing to take
the command, but had feared to come forward, lest he should hurt the
susceptibilities of his ally ; and now he was an outsider in the celebration
of the defence of his own capital. The susceptible Viennese had crowded
to kiss the hands of Sobieski ; they looked with some coldness on the

1683] Retreat of the Turks. 363

ruler who had been safe on the upper Danube during both the siege
and the final battle. John III of Poland, on his side, was eager for
fame, greedy of praise, and inclined to resent anything which seemed to
suggest an inadequate recognition of his own or his soldiers' services.
But he could not prevent people from saying, with truth, that the Poles
(through no fault of their own) had had less fighting to do than the
Germans, and, with equal truth, that they had taken a larger share of
the booty. From this it was easy to deduce the insulting insinuation
that they were more efficient plunderers than soldiers. The two rulers
did not meet till the 17th, and their interview did not make them better
friends. Leopold strove to be cordial ; but it was not in his nature to
unbend, and he was bound by the strictest rules of imperial etiquette to
remain covered and to withhold the coveted title of " Majesty." The
King naturally thought that it was an occasion when strict etiquette was
rather out of place ; and he was still more annoyed when his eldest son
on his approach failed to attract the notice of the preoccupied Emperor.
He withdrew rather sullenly to his tent, and left his marshal to do the
honours of the Polish camp to his visitors.

Incipient quarrels, and the miasma emitted by the imperfectly
cleared battlefield, made it imperative to remove the troops from
Vienna; and on September 18 the pursuit of the enemy was begun.
It was, however, too late to overtake the Turkish army. At Raab
Kara Mustafa had put to death Ibrahim Pasha, whose advice he
had rejected, and whose accusations before the Sultan he had good
reason to dread. Thence the defeated Vezir made his way to Buda.
Meanwhile, the Christian army had crossed the Danube at Pressburg
by the bridge of boats which had been brought down from Tuln, and
after a few days' rest continued their march along the north bank.
Near Parkdny the Poles, who were in advance, were routed on October 7
by a superior Turkish force ; but their flight was stopped by the arrival
of the Imperial cavalry under Charles of Lorraine. Two days later,
when the infantry had come up, the Turks were again attacked and
completely routed. This victory was followed not only by the surrender
of Parkdny, but also by the capture of Gran, the frontier fortress of
the Turkish dominions on the right bank of the Danube. This disaster,
the first in which an actual possession of the Turks had been regained
by a Christian force, completed the alienation of the Sultan from his
Vezir. Kara Mustafa, instead of attempting to relieve Gran, had con-
tinued his retreat to Essek and Belgrade. The blame for the defeat
at Parkdny he laid upon Tokolyi, who had been within easy march
of the battlefield but had rendered no assistance to his allies. The
Hungarian leader, whose following had been diminished by a well-timed
offer of amnesty &om the Emperor, and whose efforts to make terms
for himself through Sobieski had failed, was now absolutely dependent
upon Turkish assistance. To defend himself against the charges of

364 The Holy League against the Turks. [i683-98

the Vezir, he risked his safety by a personal visit to the Sultan at
Adrianople. His eloquence, strengthened by the support of Kara Mus-
tafa's numerous enemies, prevailed with ; Mohanjmad IV. ; Not only was
he allowed to depart with renewed promises of aid, but his personal
enemy was removed by death. On December 25 the emissaries of the
Sultan carried to Kara Mustafa at Belgrade the fatal bowstring, and
the immense wealth which his avarice had accumulated was confiscated
by his sovereign.

No sooner had the glorious campaign of 1683 closed, than the
Emperor Leopold was confronted by the same momentous question
which had been so hotly debated by the Austrian Ministers in the
previous year. Were his most vital interests in the east or in the west ?
Would he transform a war which had been forced upon him for the
defence of his own dominions into an aggressive crusade for wresting
from the Turks the Christian lands which had so long groaned under
their rule ? Or would he make peace with the disappointed invaders of
Austria, and turn his whole strength to the task of resisting Louis XIV,
who remained in possession of Strassburg, and who, at the time when
Vienna was in its greatest straits, had renewed the attack upon Luxem-
burg, which with a parade of magnanimity he had suspended in 1682 ?
On the one side was the influence of the Spanish ambassador at Vienna,
Borgomainero, who hoped to gain the support of Charles of Lorraine
for a scheme which might lead to recovering his lost duchy. On the
other side were the urgent representations of Pope Innocent XI and of
the victorious generals, including the chivalrous Duke of Lorraine, who
placed the interests of Christendom far above the recovery of his own
inheritance. Leopold, with equal wisdom and docility, followed the
guidance of the Church. On March 5, 1684, at Linz, where the Emperor
resided while his capital was purified and rebuiltj was signed the Holy
League between Austria, Poland, and Venice. The three Powers pledged
themselves to carry on war against the Turks and to conclude no
separate peace with the infidel. Each State was to retain any conquests
which it might make. The Pope was recognised as the patron and
protector of the League, and a solemn oath to carry out its terms was
transmitted to him from each of the members.

From this treaty dates the continuous war which lasted till the
Peace of Carlowitz (1684-98), which finally freed Europe from the
Turkish terror, and which assured to the Austrian Habsburgs a foremost
place among the Great Powers, The contributions of the three allies
to the ultimate success were unequal in merit and in extent. That of
Poland was unquestionably the least. John Sobieski did little to
maintain, and nothing to enhance, the fame which he had won at
Khoczim, at Lemberg, and in the relief of Vienna. He was not un-
faithful to his allies, but he was fatally hampered by domestic difficulties,
by the opposition of interested partisans of France among the nobles

1684-96] War between Venice and the Turks. 365

of Poland and Lithuania, and by the influence of his wife, who returned
to her old love for her native country. These troubles broke the spirit
and clouded the later years of the hero-King. Sobieski died in 1696
without having achieved either of the objects dearest to his heart. He
had failed to drive the Turks from Kameniec and Podolia, and he did
not succeed in securing the succession of his son to the throne of which
he was the last illustrious occupant.

In the case of Venice, on the other hand, the war was signalised by
many creditable achievements. Taking full advantage of the fact that
the main Turkish forces were occupied in the north, the Republic
organised simultaneous attacks upon the Dalmatian coast and upon
Greece. In the latter the chief command was entrusted to Francesco
Morosini, the hero of the defence of Candia. He began the campaign
in 1684 by capturing the island of Santa Maura and the town of
Prevesa. In 1685, with the help of an army of German mercenaries,
he commenced his gi'eat enterprise, the conquest of the Morea, which
gave him the name of "the Peloponnesian." Koron was taken in
August, and the fall of Kalamata made him master of the peninsula
of Maina. In the next year the Turks were defeated in an attempt
to relieve Nauplia by Count Konigsmarck, who commanded the German
troops ; and the svirrender of the garrison gave to Venice almost complete
mastery of the; southern Morea. The campaign of 1687 is the most
famous in the history of the war. In July the Turkish entrenchments
near Patras were carried by storm, and an entry was secured into the
gulf of Corinth. Accompanied by the fleet, the army marched along
the coast to Corinth, which was occupied on August 7. After fortifying
the Isthmus, the Venetian forces proceeded into Attica and laid siege
to Athens. The bombs of the besiegers reduced to ruin the Parthenon
and the Propylaea, and the Turks surrendered the city on September 28.
With the fall of Athens the record of uninterrupted success came to an
end. In 1688 the city was evacuated, partly on account of an outbreak
of plague, and partly in order to concentrate all the forces of the Republic
on the conquest of Negropont, This enterprise ended in complete and
disastrous failure. Konigsmarck died in September; and on their de-
parture from Negropont in October the German troops were disbanded
and sent home. The later history of the war is comparatively unevent-
ful. Morosini resigned his command in 1689; and in the next year
Monemvasia, "the last Turkish stronghold in the Morea, was starved into
surrender. But all attempts to extend or retain Venetian domination
beyond the Isthmus ended in failure. Morosini tried to encourage his
fellow-countrymen by returning to Greece at the age of seventy-five;
but he died at Napoli (January 16, 1694)) before he had time to put
his reputation to a new test. His successor Zeno attacked Chios, but
was completely defeated by a Turkish fleet and was punished for his
incompetence by imprisonment in Venice. The Turkish Government

366 Austrian successes in the east. [i684-6

was steadily , improving its naval and military forces as the war went
on ; and the Republic owed the retention of most of its conquests in
Greece and Dalmatia to the obstinate exertions of Austria.

As compared with her allies, Austria bore the brunt of the war,
and to her fell the largest and the most durable share of the spoils.
Four eminent commanders, Duke Charles of Lorraine, the Elector Max
Emanuel of Bavaria, Margrave Lewis of Baden-Baden, and Prince
Eugene of Savoy, had taken part in the relief of Vienna; and they
bpcame the protagonists in the great eastern struggle: With the excep-
tion of 1684, when an over-confident attack upon Buda ended in the
complete repulse of the besiegers, each of the early years of the war
was marked by at least one distinguished feat of arms. In fact the
superiority of the German arms and tactics, thanks largely to the
teaching of Montecuculi, was so great that some contemporary critics
complained that the successes gained were not more rapid and complete.
For this they blamed the lateness of the season in which the campaigns
were begun, and the jealousy with which both the Elector of Bavaria
and the Margrave of Baden regarded the Duke of Lorraine. But it
must also be remembered that, in addition to the main campaigns, the
Austrians were fighting against rebels in northern Hungary and against
the Turks in Slavonia and Bosnia; that the central war was mainly
a war of sieges ; and that the Turks, if inferior in the open field, were
still stubborn opponents behind walls or entrenchments. A series of
almost unbroken victories began in 1685 with the siege of Neuhausel.
The Turks, instead of attempting to effect a direct relief, marched to
attack Gran, where they were defeated with gi-eat loss by Charles of
Lorraine with his main army (August 16). Three days later Aeneas
Caprara, who had been left with a small force to maintain the siege till
the Duke's return, succeeded in storming the fortress which had been
originally constructed by Ferdinand I, and had been the great prize of
Ahmad Kiuprili in 1663. In the next year the Imperial army, to which
volunteers now flocked from all parts of Europe, advanced to the second
siege of Buda. The garrison offered as obstinate a defence as before,
and the Vezir Kara Ibrahim led a large army to its succour. But the
Duke of Lorraine pressed his attack in spite of many disappointments,
and on September 2, after a siege of ten weeks, the ancient capital of
Hungary was added to the dominions of the Habsburg King. Equally
gratifying to Leopold and almost equally important were the successes
gained in 1686 in Upper Hungary. Tokolyi, defeated by General Schulz
near Eperies, appealed for aid to the Pasha of Grosswardein, who received
him with royal honouts and then sent him in chains to Adrianople.
Although he was subsequently released and even restored to favour, his
cause had suffered a blow from which it never recovered. By the end
of 1686 Eperies, Kaschan, Tokay and a number of other towns had
submitted to the Emperor. Only the fortress of Munk^cs held out

1687] Austrian ascendancy in Hungary. 367

under the command of Helen Zrinyi, a more obstinate rebel even than
her husband.

The campaign of 1687 opened with a reverse. Max Emanuel of
Bavaria had long urged that he was entitled to a separate command by
his rank as a gi'eat German Prince and as the Emperor's son-in-law.
The fear that his discontent might lead to the withdrawal of the
Bavarian contingent compelled the Austrian Government to divide the
army between the Duke of Lorraine and the Elector. Their imperfect
cooperation helped to bring about the repulse of an attack on the
important fortress of Essek, where the great bridge over the marshy
valley of the Drave was the main link in the line of communication
between southern Hungary and Belgrade. But the failure was no un-
mixed evil, since it encouraged the Vezir to follow the retreating army
and to risk a pitched battle at Harkdny, near Mohdcs. Here the Turks
suffered a crushing defeat (August 12), which did more than any other
single event to overthrow that Turkish ascendancy in Hungary which
had been founded upon Solyman's great victory at MohAcs more than a
hundred and fifty years before. General Diinewald, following the fleeing
enemy, took Essek and Peterwardein, and thus opened the way into
Servia. In the north Erlau surrendered, and Charles of Lorraine,
entering into Transylvania, received from Apaffy an acknowledgment of
vassalage to the Habsburg King of Hungary. Earlier in the year a
special Court had been erected at Eperies under General Caraffa to
enquire into the guilt of Tokolyi's associates, and its severity had for the
moment intimidated the malcontents. On October 31 a Diet was opened
at Pressburg, which recognised the Hungarian Crown as hereditary in
the male Habsburg line, and repealed the famous clause in the Golden
Bull of 1222, supposed to give the Hungarians a right of armed insur-
rection in defence of their liberties. The concessions to Protestants
made at Oedenburg in 1681 were confirmed. Leopold celebrated his
triumph in the formal coronation of his nine year old son, Joseph,
on December 9. A few weeks later Munkdcs was at last forced to
surrender, and Helen Zrinyi with her children became the Emperor's
prisoner.

But the most important results of the battle of Hark^ny were felt in
Turkey. A mutiny broke out in the retreating army, and the muti-
neers demanded the head of the Vezir. When this was conceded, they
proceeded to insist upon the deposition of Mohammad IV, who had
preferred the pleasures of the chase to the tasks of government and of
military command (November, 1687). Solyman II, whose life had,
contrary to all precedents, been Spared by his brother, now emerged
from his prison to mount the throne. He was wholly unable to control
the disorderly troops; and for months Constantinople was given over
to anarchy and lawless pillage, luitil the citizens themselves rose and
put the ringleaders to death. So great was the disorder that an easy

?,68 Continued defeats of the Turks. [1688-90

triumph seemed to be assured to the Imperialists if they were prompt
to move in 1688. But precious time was wasted in an intrigue
which ended in the transfer of the supreme command from the Duke
of LoiTaine to the Elector of Bavaria. It was not till July that the
latter joined the army, and not tiU August that he advanced from
Peterwardein to besiege Belgrade. Fortunately for him, the Turks
had not taken full advantage of the respite given to them ; and on
September 6 the famous fortress at the junction of the Save and the
Danube was carried by storm. ThiB capture of Belgrade, as Leopold
himself said, opened the way to Constantinople, and pious churchmen
began to anticipate confidently the complete expulsion of the infidels
from the soil of Europe. But they reckoned without the Most Christian
King. Louis XIV had watched with ever-increasing chagrin the
progress of the Austrian arms. Every defeat of the Turks and the
Hungarian rebels diminished his chances of gaining the Spanish succes-
sion for his House. It became necessary for him to strike before the
Eastern War was at an end; and, in spite of the twenty years' truce
which he had concluded in 1684, he now recommenced those acts of
aggression which in the next year involved the Western Powers in
another great war. But he nearly overreached himself. William III
joined Spain in urging the Emperor to accept the peace which the
humbled Turks had more than once ofifered in vain. The negotiations,
however, which were conducted in the winter of 1688-9 came to no
result. The Tiu^ks became less yielding, when they discovered that
France was about to make a diversion in their favour ; and Leopold was
obstinately loyal to his allies in Venice and Poland. To the intense
chagrin of Spain and the Maritime Powers, the Emperor decided to
continue the war against the Turks.

It was a courageous but a rash decision. The outbreak of war with
France, which compelled Leopold to send considerable forces imder
Charles of Lorraine and the Elector of Bavaria to the Rhine, restored
the Ibalance in the eastern struggle which had hitherto been so decisively
adverse to the Turks. In 1689 the change was not yet apparent. In
addition to their wars with Poland and Venice, the Turks had to face a
new enemy in the Russians who invaded the Crimea. Lewis of Baden,
who had succeeded to the command of the Imperial army, was able to
overrun Servia, where he made himself master of Nizza and Widdin.
But in the winter the Sultan gave the office of Vezir to Mustafa Kiuprili,5
the^ brother of the famous Ahmad. Mustafa displayed all the reforming
zeal which characterised the members of his House, while he surpassed
them in religious tolerance. His great desire was to deprive the enemies'
of the Porte of the advantages which they had hitherto gained from the
discontent of the subject Christians. At the same time, he set himself
to reorganise the military organisation and to rekindle discord in
Hungary. The death of Apaffy in April, 1690, was followed by the

1690-7] Revival of Turkish power. 369

recognition of his son as Prince of Transylvania. But the Turks, in
exercise of the suzerainty which they, had never relinquished, nominated
Tokolyi and sent him into Transylvania to revive the old spirit of hos-
tility to the House of Habsburg. Taking advantage of the diversion
thus caused, the Vezir attacked the Austrian garrisons in Servia, re-
captured Widdin and Nizza, and by supreme good fortune succeeded in
reducing Belgrade (Octpber 8, 1690). The loss of this great fortress
endangered all the Ausjtrian gains in Hungary, but fortunately Essek
still blocked the passage over the Drave, In 1691 Kiuprili led his army
from Belgrade against Peterwardein. Lewis of Baden, who had in the
meantime driven Tokolyi from Transylvania and compelled that province
tp renew its submission to the Emperor, now hurried southwards to the
defence of southern Hungary, At Szalankemen (August 19) be won
the greatest of his victories and the Vezii;, who had held office for barely
two years, was among the slain. But the Austrian army was top ex-
hausted to attempt to cross the Save or to attack Belgrade,

The battle of Szalankemen marks a turning-point in the history of
the war. Both sides relaxed their efforts. The intrigues of France in
Constantinople succeeded in preventing the conclusion of peace. On the
other hand the influence of the Emperor's western allies, and especially
of William III, induced him to abandon all ideas of further conquest
and to stand on the defensive in Hungary, Lewis of Baden succeeded in
taking Grosswardein in 1692, but in the following year he was despatched
to the Rhine, For four years the Imperialists, under the successive com-
mands of Croy, Caprara and the young Frederick Augustus of Saxony,
achieved practically nothing, and more than once narrowly escaped
disastrous defeat. Meanwhile changes of rulers occurred in Constanti-
nople, On the death of Solyman II in 1691, his brother Ahmad had
ascended the throne. The latter's death in 1695 was followed by the
accession of his nephew, Mustafa II, the son of the deposed Mohammad IV^
The new Sultan was a young man in the prime of life and eager for
military fame. Instead pf entrusting all responsibility to a Vezir he
undertook the command of his army in person. The Turks, always
responsive to the call of an energetic leader, displayed their old warlike
spirit. In 1695 and 1696 they defeated the Imperial forces in Hungary
and repovered some pf their lost predominance in the jEgean, It seemed
as if events would justify tbe solemn warning of Montecuculi that his
master should never wage a long war against the Turks, as their power
remained imshaken by defeat. In 1697 the Sultan at the head of a
formidable army mardied from Belgrade up the vaUey of the Theiss in
the direction of Szegedin, whence he could throw himself by way of the
Maros into Transylvania, Frederick Augustus of Saxony, with all his
physical strength and courage, possessed neither the character nor the
capacity needed for a, great general, yet it was impossible for the
Emperor to dismiss an ally who had brought an independent force to his

0. M. H. v. OH. Xil. 24

370 The battle of Zenta. [i696-7

service. From this dilemma Leopold was saved by events lii Poland. In
1696 John Sobieski died after thirteen years of disappointment and
chagrin. For the third time within thirty years there was a scramble
for the still coveted Crown. The most prominent candidates were at
first the young James Sobieski, who had married the sister of the
Empress, and the Prince of Conti, who was backed by all the influence of
France. Neither could prevail against the other ; and the choice of the
Diet fell in 1697 upon the Elector of Saxony, who changed his religion
to gain a kingdom which remained in his House for two generations.
Augustus II (as he was now called) quitted the army to repair to
Poland. The vacant command was at once conferred upon Prince
Eugene, who had been set free by the termination of the war in Italy on
the defection of the Duke of Savoy in 1696 from the Grand Alliance.
Eugene had expected an attack upon Peterwardein, and was at first
disconcerted by the Sultan's northward march. With great promptness,
however, he set out in pursuit up the Theiss and overtook the Turks as
they were crossing the river at Zenta (September 11, 1697). Only two
hours of daylight remained when Eugene's main army joined the cavalry
which had ridden on in advance. Arranging his troops in a semi-circle,
he ordered a simultaneous attack upon the imperfect entrenchments
which covered the Turkish position. The vigour of the onslaught
carried all before it, and the defenders were driven back in headlong
flight to the temporary bridge. As the river was low, the right wing,
by taking advantage of sand-banks in the channel, succeeded in closing
iJie access to the bridge. This converted the rout into a massacre.
The Turkish soldiers who escaped the sword of the enemy were forced
over the steep bank to find a watery grave in the Theiss. Twilight was
setting in as the great victory was completed, and Eugene declared in
his report that " the sun refused to set, until its last rays had witnessed
the complete triumph of your Imperial Majesty's glorious arms." The
Sultan, who had witnessed from the further bank the annihilation of his
army, fled in despair to Temesvar, and thence to Belgrade. Eugene,
after a brief raid into Bosnia, proceeded to Vienna, to receive the thanks
of his grateful employer.

Events now tended rapidly in the direction of peace. In November,
1697, the allies concluded the Treaty of Ryswyk with Louis XIV ; and
this, added to the recent defeat at Zelita, put an end to the obstinate
determination of the Turks to continue the war. They were once more
exposed to attack from the undivided forces of Austria, and they had
another formidable enemy in Peter the Great, who had conquered Azoff
in 1696, and eagerly desired to make Russia a maritime Power by
extending his rule to the Black Sea. On the other hand, Leopold had
long abandoned the ambitious designs which had been entertained at
the time of the capture of Belgrade ; and any inclination to renew them
was removed by the pressing interest of the approaching succession in

1698-9] The Peace of Carlowitz. 37l

Spain and by the strenuous appeals of the Mai-itime Powers that he
would put an end to the distracting troubles of the eastern war. The
youthful rulers of Poland and Russia were less peacefully inclined ; but
both had begun to form plans against Sweden which required that they
should have their hands free. In October, 1698, the Turks, for the first
time, sent envoys to a general European congress at Carlowitz between
Peterwardein and Belgrade. Under the mediating influence of Lord
Paget, the English representative, actual possession at the time was
taken as the basis of negotiations, and it only remained to determine
what exceptions to the gipneral rule should be admitted. As between
Austria and the Porte the diificulties were not considerable. The
Austrians desired the surrender of Tokolyi, who since his expulsion from
Transylvania had served in the Tvurkish ranks. The Sultan was eager
to retain at any rate some shadow of his long-established authority
over Transylvania. Both demands were ultimately withdrawn, and the
Emperor allowed the Turks to retain the banat of Temesvar, enclosed
between the waters of the Theiss and the Maros. With that exception,
the whole of Hungary was left to the House of Habsbtirg. To Poland,
whose chief service had been the bringing of Russia into the Christian
alliance, Podolia and Kameniec were restored ; and Venice was confirmed
in its conquests in Dalmatia and the Morea. The three treaties in
which these stipulations were embodied were signed on January 26,
1699. Russia, though represented at the congress^ only concluded a
truce for two years by which she remained in occupation of Azoff. A
special agreement between Austria and the Turks stipulated that Tokolyi
should be interned in Asia Minor ; and there, far from the scene of their
former exploits, he and his wife spent the remaining years of their lives.

24—2

372

CHAPTER XIII.

THE TREATIES OF PARTITION AND THE
SPANISH SUCCESSION.

During the long reign of Philip IV a great change took place in the
European position of Spain. This King renewed the warlike policy
of Philip II, and Spanish troops again fought on the battlefields of
the Continent. More than once during the Thirty Years' War, the
ambassador of the Catholic King exerted a decisive influence on the
actions of the Court of Vienna. Thus, the whole career of Wallenstein
can only be realised by keeping in remembrance his relations to the King
of Spain, who supported him in the epoch of his greatest power and
was one of the chief authors of his fall. The actual turning-point in
the development of Spain was the war in which she contended against
the combined strength of England and France. The French Marshal
Turenne and the English Admirals Blake and Stayner put an end to
the predominance of the Spanish Power by land and sea. The French
monarchy under Louis XIV wrested from Spain her military ascendancy,
while her maritime power, already weakened in her eighty years' war
against the United Provinces, was dealt still heavier blows by the navy
of the Protector Oliver Cromwell.

About the same time Philip IV lost the sway over the neighbouring
kingdom of Portugal acquired by his grandfather Philip II. The union
of the two countries had always been highly unpopular with the
Portuguese — the more so, since it had drawn on them the enmity of the
Dutch. In the East and in the West, the Portuguese colonies had to
sustain the attacks of their Dutch rivals, who succeeded in despoiling
Portugal of the most valuable of her possessions in India and South
America. It was thus only natural that the support of the people of
Portugal was easily gained for the rights of John IV, of the House
of Braganza, who in 1640 took possession of the Portuguese throne.
From this time onward, Portugal never again submitted to the Spanish
yoke. Philip, indeed, tried to maintain his inherited rule; but the
defeat of his armies obliged him to renounce his claims. If to this is

1665-1700] Spain under Charles II. 373

added the loweriiHg of Spain's prestige by the definite separation from
her of the northern Netherlands, whose independence she had to
acknowledge shortly before the Peace of Westphalia, as well as by the
losses she suffered in the Treaty of the Pyrenees, it will be clear how
much less formidable the power of Spain was when the melancholic
King Philip IV shut his eyes, than it had been at his accession.

The new King was Charles II, the only son of Philip IV. At the
time of his father's death he was a weakly child of four years; and
no one believed that he would grow up and one day take into his own
hands the government of his vast dominions. The question of the
Spanish Succession became urgent since the very day of Charles II's
accession, and remained so through the whole of his reign, which
extended over not less than thirty-five years.

Spain was a great monarchy without a monarch, says Ranke, referring
to the condition of Spain in 1665. This saying admirably characterises
the entire epoch of Charles 11. In his name the government of the
country was conducted in turn by the favourites of the Queen-Mother,
who by the wiU of Philip IV was called to the regency, and by several
Prime Ministers nominated, by the monarch himself. Nothing that
might be called a personal policy of Charles II ever became manifest.
Even when the great question of the Succession, which was of immediate
interest to himself, had to be decided, he failed to act with any energy.
The result was a continuous increase of the influence of the Grandees of
Spain, who may be said to have, for the time of Charles' reign, acquired
a decisive voice in the conduct of the domestic as well as of the foreign
policy of the kingdom.

" Every Grandee is a sort of Prince," says a foreign observer. The
government of Spain seemed to have changed from a monarchy into
an aristocracy. The contrary might have been asserted of France. The
superiority of the absolute monarchy established by Richelieu over the
declining power of Spain had shown itself already in the long struggle
terminated by the Treaty of the Pyrenees. However, the enmity
between the two neighbours did not end with the conclusion of the Peace.
Two years after Charles' accession war broke out anew between them.
Wholly unexpected by the Spanish Government, whom Louis XIV's
quite recent show of friendship had deceived, French troops in May,
1667, invaded the Spanish Netherlands i several fortresses were easily
taken; and the whole country would have been subjected to a French
conquest, if the help which Spain was unable to lend had not come
from another quarter. The famous Triple Alliance between England,
Holland, and Sweden obliged Louis to conclude the Treaty of Aachen,
by which he had to give up his claims on the Netherlands and to
restore Franche Comte, which had been already conquered by Conde.
However, he was allowed to keep possession of twelve places in
Flanders; and the position of Spain as towards France had after all

OH. XUI.

374 National decay. [1665-1700

been considerably weakened, for it was less by her own efforts than by
those of the Triple Alliance that the march of the French armies had
been stayed.

The Spaniards were equally unsuccessful in the management of their
political and military affairs during the ensuing War, in which Spain
formed part of a coalition against France. Louis XIV, in his deep
hatred of his Dutch enemies, had entered into a negotiation with Spain
with the professed purpose of partitioning the Dutch Republic between
them. For one moment only the Spanish statesmen seemed inclined to
accept such a proposal. Soon enough they were brought to recognise that
they were threatened with a greater danger by the growing ascendancy
of the French monarchy than by the ancient subjects of their country.
Spain therefore joined the enemies of Louis XIV. The War, the events
of which are related elsewhere in this volume, ended with new losses for
Spain. In the third War against Louis XIV in which Spain took pait,
the Spanish armies also fought with little success. If by the Peace of
Ryswyk the French King had to restore nearly aU the conquests made
by him in the course of the W^ar, it was by the strength of her allies,
not by her own efforts, that this result was secured for Spain.

This extraordinary diminution of the weight which Spain could cast
into the balance of Europe is of course attributable to the general decay
of the country, of which the reasons are not far to seek.

"Loyalty and superstition," writes Buckle, "were the leading principles
which influenced the Spanish mind and governed the march of Spanish
history." "When there were able sovereigns," he says again, "the
country prospered; when there were weak Princes it declined." Thus, the
weakness and the mistakes of the Crown, together with the increasing
power of the Church, account for the rapid decline of Spain in the
seventeenth century. King Charles II, owing to his infirmity of body
and mind, throughout his reign paid little attention to public affairs.
It was accounted a great thing, and a rare occurrence, if he worked four
or five hours in a day, and people knew it must be a very extraordinary
business which one morning in May, 1694, made him miss his dinner, served
punctually at noon. The whole administration was lazy and indolent.
William III had told Alexander Stanhope, before sending him in 1690
as envoy to Madrid, that he must arm himself with great patience, if he
meant to submit to the slowness of movement awaiting him at that
Court. " They manage," writes Stanhope, " all their own affairs with
the same phlegm, seldom resolving anything till the occasion be past."
" This country," he says on another occasion, " is in a most miserable
condition. No head to govern, and every man in office does what he
pleases, without fear of being called to account." Very frequently the
officers in high position were quite old men, who had done good service
in former years. When Stanhope, one day, reminded the Secretary of
State for the North, a man more than fourscore years old, of a piece of

1665-1700] Administrative collapse.— The Church. 375

business that had previously been treated between them, the Spaniard
did not remember to have ever heard of it.

The weakest point of the administration was the public finances.
Every means had to be tried to fill the royal coffers. Year by year, the
Jlotas came from Mexico and Peru laden with bullion ; but, owing to the
large assignments granted beforehand, little of it came into the King's
coffers. The bills sent abroad by the Government were often returned
protested. In 1693, no branch of the public revenue could exhibit a
credit of 100,000 crowns. In order to get money, the dignity of a Grandee
of Spain was sometimes sold ; so were, generally, the viceroyships and
Governments in the Indies, as well as some of the high offices at home.
The wages and sa,laries of all Ministers and officers were, in 1693, reduced
by one-third of their amounts. The revenues were already anticipated
for many years. Even the worst of all means for procuring money for
the Government was applied; namely, a depreciation of the coinage.
No wonder, if on so weak a basis it was not possible for Spain to maintain
the high position which she had formerly held among the great Powers
of the world. Her army, once the best in Europe, was now in a very
miserable condition. The troops fighting in Catalonia in 1699 are
described as " all starving and deserting as fast as they can." The navy
was no better. When Stanhope first came to Spain, it owned, he says,
eighteen good men-of-war, which in 1693 were reduced to two or three.

While the Government and the people of Spain became poor, the
Church continued to grow richer. Her deciding influence was felt
through the whole life of Spanish society. The greatest power in
the country was the Inquisition ; it was greater than the King's, and
menaced the safety of all — not only the subjects of the King, but also
foreign Protestants living in Spain. When Oliver Cromwell had de-
manded liberty from the Inquisition for the English merchants, war
with Spain had ensued. Since that time the power of the Inquisition
had risen still higher. In 1691, a Swiss Protestant whom Stanhope had
taken into his service was carried away prisoner by orders of the Inqui-
sition, and everybody told the English envoy that he could have no
remedy. Three years later, he tried to intercede for some French
Protestants without any success. 'The King himself told Stanhope that
he never meddled in any proceedings relating to matters of religion,
even if instituted against his own domestics. At Palma in Majorca
three autos dej'i took place in the course of one week in 1691, Jews
and heretics being the victims. They were the richest men of the island,
and of course their property was forfeited. The fanaticism of the people
against all Protestants was boundless. "It is a hard matter," writes
Stanhope, "for a heretic to learn any truth among them, when they
think the cause of their religion concerned." In 1691 the body of
Stanhope's chaplain, after being buried with the utmost secrecy, was
torn out of its grave and mutilated.

376 Depopulation and distress. [ig65-i7oo

Sinqe, in 1609, the Church in Spain had won her greatest triumph
by the expulsion of the Moriscos, the industrious descendants of the
Moorsi the wealth of the Spanish nation had constantly been declining.
The Moriscos had been the best agriculturists in Spain ; they had been
the principal cultivators of rice, cotton and sugar; in their hands lay
the manufacture of silk and paper. The products of their energy were'
all but entirely destroyed, as were some other branches of manufacture
that had flourished in the sixteenth century. Industry and commerce
were reduced to the narrowest conceivable scale. Populous and wealthy
cities became thinly peopled and poor. Madrid, in the course of the
seventeenth century, lost half the total of its inhabitaftts. Still
greater was the ruin of the ancient wealth and the reduction of the
population at Seville and Toledo, at Segovia ahd Burgos. In several
parts of Spain wide districts were totally deserted. James Stanhope,
travelling from Madrid to the east coast, found Aranjuez, where the
Court resided, as pleasant a place as any in Europe. But after
quitting it he made no stay anywhere till he reached Alicante, "there
being not one good town or good inn in all the road; and we went
sometimes above forty English miles without meeting with so much as
one house except a wretched venta."" Poverty and misery increased
in Spain from year to year. The total ruin of the nation seemed
the inevitable result of the system of administration under Charles II.
The scarcity of corn more than once led to a famine. In 1699 the
common people were reduced to the utmost extremity. The British
Minister could only with difficulty procure the bread required for his
table. His secretary saw five poor women suffocated by the pressure
of the crowd before a bakehouse ; and 20,000 beggars from the country
flocked into the capital, in order to be saved from starvation. It was this
want of bread that caused two dangerous risings in Madrid and Valladolid,
the earlier of which was of the highest political importance, since it
brought about the fall of the Minister Oropesia, and the rise of the
French party at Court. The rabble assembled before the royal palace,
and forced the ailing monarch to appear before them : and promise the
change of Government for which they clamoured.

"The hinge on which the whole reign of Louis XIV was turning," is
the phrase applied by the French historian Mignet to the great question
of the Spanish Succession. This question originated in the fact that the
two mightiest dynasties on the Continent simultaneously laid claim to
the inheritance of the Spanish kings of the House of Habsburg. Two
daughters of Philip III had been married to Princes of the Houses of
Bourbon and Austria; the elder becoming the wife of King Louis XIII
of France, theiyounger of the Emperor Ferdinand III. The mamage
contract signed in 1660 by the Ministers of France and Spain contained
several articles, concerning the intended marriage between Louis XIV,
King of France, and Maria Teresa, daughter of Philip IV, King of Spain.

1665-97] The Spanish Succession question. 377

The future Queen of France had to renounce all her hereditary rights
on the dominions of her father; she and her descendants male and
female were never to succeed in the kingdoms and other territories
imder the sceptre of his Catholic Majesty. She had to profess this for
her own part by two formal acts of renunciation. It might still have
been doubtful how far the rights of her descendants were in reality
annulled by such a declaration; and the French Court at least was
resolved not to acknowledge that the renunciation possessed such a force.
The Spanish consort of Louis XIII had signed a similar renunciation,
which nevertheless had not been considered in France as a matter of
great consequence. However, this question seemed not to be very
urgent at the time of Philip's death in 1665. For he left a son, born to
him four years before, by his second wife. This son was Charles II, the
last scion of the Habsburg dynasty in Spain. He married twice, but
had no children. Thus, after the renunciation of the eldest, it was the
second surviving .daughter of Philip IV, Margaret, in whose person
would be embodied the rights to the Spanish throne after the death
of Charles II. This was expressly stated in the testament of Philip IV.
Margaret became in 1666 the wife of the Emperor Leopold I. Of her
children only one daughter grew up, Maria Antonia, who married
Maximilian Emanuel, Elector of Bavaria. It was the only son of
this couple, the Electoral Prince Joseph Ferdinand, whose title to
the succession to the Spanish throne, derived by him from his grand-
mother, Margaret, and restricted by no act of renunciation, was the
most valid and therefore seemed to have the best chance of being
generally acknowledged. Maria Antonia, indeed, had likewise been
induced by her father, the Emperor Leopold, to transfer her Spanish
claims to himself and to his sons by another marriage; but the force
of such a resignation was more than doubtful, and certainly it could
not touch the rights of her own posterity. Thus, midway between the
French and the Austrian pretensions, stood, superior to both, the claim
of the Electoral Prince Joseph Ferdinand. This claim was likely to be
neglected so long as the great military Powers of France and Austria
were each of them inclined to lay its hand on the whole inheritance for
a member of their respective dynasties ; but it was not less likely to
come to the front and meet with general acceptance, if at any time
either of these two Powers. despaired of entering into possession of the
inheritance in defiance of the rival claimant.

However, there were not only the diverging claims of three European
dynasties which had to be settled. What made the question of thd
Spanish Succession really difficult, was the interest which the Maritime
Powers took in its solution. The English and the Dutch, who had been
rivals in their commercial enterprises for a hundred years, who had at
different times fought each other as open enemies since the days of Oliver
Cromwell — rthese two nations nevertheless stood together in the common

3'?;8 English and Dutch commercial interests, [leeo-g?

interest of their commercial policy. ' Both of them wished to exclude
French competition from the trade they carried on with the Spanish
monarchy. Thus they were both alarmed at the prospect of the change
that would occur in the economic condition of Spain, when the rule over
the monarchy of Philip II should pass from the weak tenure of her present
King, to be placed in the hands of the mightiest Prince in Europe.

" The preservation of the commerce between the kingdoms of Great
Britain and Spain was one of the chief motives that induced our twd
royal predecessors to enter into the late long, expensive war, and one of
the principal benefits expected by our people from the conclusion of a
peace after such a glorious and uninterrupted course of successes, and is
of the greatest importance to the interest of our subjects, and to the
riches of our dominions." These words occur in the instructions given
in 1716 to Paul Methuen, the first British Minister accredited at
Madrid after the close of the War of the Spanish Succession. They
were intended to express the purpose which England had followed
throughout all the successive stages of the Spanish question, both in
peace and in war.

The commercial intercourse which England and Holland maintained
with Spain and her dependencies was indeed highly important. Yet,
for the reasons indicated above, the industry of Spain had never reached
any very considerable height — not even, as some believe, in the sixteenth
century, when her influence in European politics had attained to its
highest point. It was therefore only natural that an enormous amount
of foreign manufactures was imported into Spain. England, Holland
and France were the principal nations trading in the many articles
of European industry. Especially between England and Holland there
was constant emulation as to their respective shares in the commerce with
Spain and her colonies. During the whole of the seventeenth century,
it had been doubtful which of the two Maritime Powers would derive
the greater advantage from this trade. Before the English Civil War,
the competition of the Dutch having ceased in consequence of their war
with Spain, the English had become, as Roger Coke said, "proprietors
of the trade with Spain and by consequence great sharers in the wealth
of the West Indies." But, when Oliver's breach with Spain followed,
the relation between the two nations seemed altogether inverted ; the
English trade to Spain stopped, while the Dutch, having made their
peace, were the masters of the Spanish commerce. After the Restora-
tion, however, the English Government succeeded in restoring the trade
on the ancient basis. The old privileges were renewed ; the English
merchants were enabled to take up their old position in Spanish
commerce, and held it in competition with the Dutch through the
lifetime of Charles II of Spain.

Looking back to the time before the War of the Spanish Succession^
William Wood, in his Suirvey qf Trade, states that the goods exported

1605-96] Spanish feeling. — Infirmity of Charles II. 379

by the English to Spain were different kinds of cloths, stuffs, cotton
and silk, fish and other commodities. The goods imported from Spain
in return were wine, oil, wool, iron, and other articles, and the balance
paid to England in bullion had been very great. A considerable number
of British merchants at that time lived in Cadiz and other ports of
Spain, which were the marts of the English manufactures for the Indies.

Besides this, a great carrying-trade was carried on by English ships
between Spain and other countries. Even the intercourse between Spain
and her colonies in the West was, under the names of Spanish firms, in
a great measure carried on by English and Dutch merchants. If to this
£ire added the numerous legal and illegal advantages gained by British
and Dutch merchants, the large smuggling trade in progress between
the West Indies and the American continent, the deficiencies of the
Habsburg administration in Spain as compared with that of nations
much further advanced in their economic development, it becomes
evident why the British and Dutch merchants derived the greatest
benefit from the colonial possessions of Spain. To the Crown not much
was left besides the trouble of administration. The enormous amount
of bullion brought over every year by the silver-fleets from the New
World only reached the Spanish ports in order to fill the pockets of
the foreign merchants.

Ever since the testament of Philip IV, confirmed by the Cortes of
Spain, had been drawn up for settling the Succession to the throne, this
great question had continued to occupy the minds of the Spanish people
as well as the Cabinets of Europe, The weak physical constitution of
Charles II seemed to presage a premature death. He was never healthy
and often so ill that his life was despaired of. The well-known Habsburg
type seemed in him exaggerated to a caricature. His lower jaw stood
out so far that the two rows of teeth could hardly meet. His diseases
were so many that even at his Court there were some persons, and the
doctors among them, who would repeat the saying common among the
superstitious people, that his sufferings were caused by witchcraft.
Whenever his health improved, the recovery was ascribed to a miracle.
In his dangerous illness in 1696 the King was cured by the intervention
of St Diego of Alcala, whose body had been brought to him in his
greatest extremity.

Every fit of illness that befell Charles II alarmed Europe. But still
the Powers postponed during many years any decisive resolution on the
point, the more so since the policy of Louis XIV set difficult problems
enough to European diplomacy. Nothing had been settled, when the
Congress was at work at Ryswyk to secure anew the peace of Europe.
Indeed, the great question more than once threatened to confuse the labour
of the diplomatists — especially in the autumn of 1696, when not only
Charles II, but also his Queen, who had been believed of late to be with
child, was dangerously ill. A few weeks later William III had to oppose

380 The Succession question after Bysxioyk. [i697-«

the Imperial Court, which wished the Spanish Succession to be fixed by
one of the articles pf the Treaty to be concluded. Practically no serious
negotiation had been opened on the Spanish question, and no decision
had been taken in regard to it, when the peace instruments were signed
at Ryswyk.

In lany endeavour to describe the development of this question from
the Treaty of Ryswyk onward to the outbreak of the War of the
Spanish Succession, it is necessary to distinguish between the proceedings
and events which took place at the Court of Madrid, and the politicsd
transactions among the European statesmen outside Spain. For neither
could his Catholic Majesty alone make an arrangement sure to satisfy all
and therefore to meet with a general assent, nor were the other Powers
likely, even if they came to an unanimous conclusion, to obtain for it the
approval of the Spainish nation. Castilian pride would never admit the
possibility that the monarchy of Philip II could be dismembered, or give
room to any doubt, except as to whether the sole heir of the monarchy
of Charles II should be: a Bourbon or a Habsburg or a Bavai'ian prince;
and, further, held it indispensable that the choice should be determined
within Spain itself. On the other hand, the political pretensions and
commercial interests of the Powers concerned in the first or in the second
line were so diverse that it seemed hardly possible to find a satisfactory
solution without proceeding to a partition of the vast empire.

More than at any former period in the life of Charles II, the
intrigues as to the Succession began after the Peace of Ryswyk to
perturb court life at Madrid, where each candidate had his own party —
where at one day the French, at another the Austrian or Bavarian^
influence seemed to prevail. Next to these, the hereditary right of
the Duke of Savoy, whose great-grandmother had been a daughter
of Philip II, was also much discussed. Indeed, in addition to these
European dynasties, the pretensions of cei-tain noble personages in
Spain were also occasionally brought up who could lay claim to at least
one or another part of the great inheritance. Among these was even
the bearer of the great name of Montezuma.

During the greater part of the following year, while the health of
Charles II was in a very desperate state, the general inclination in Spain
seemed to be in favour of a IVench Prince. The ambassador of Louis XIV
made all imaginable endeavours, squandering great sums of money, to
strengthen the French sympathies among the common people. His
influence grew stronger every day. "The French ambassador," wrote
Stanhope, "dares all this Court, as a hawk does larks." It might be
expected that no opposition would be attempted, if after the death of
the invalid monarch a Bourbon prince should come into the country as
his, successor. And this single condition only had to be fulfilled, that
the two neighbouring monarchies should remain distinct from each other.

The Austrian party at the Court of Madrid consisted at this time

1698] Court intrigues at Madrid. — Queen Mary Anne. 331

only of a few persons, among whom Queen Mary Anne, Charles' second
wife, was the most important. She was a Palatine princess and sister-
in-law to the Emperor Leopold, whose ambassador, Count Harrach,
was her regular adviser. For some months they struggled hard against
the French influence, trying to obtain a recognition of the claims of
the Archdukes in Spain. But the King's growing weakness seemed to
indicate an approaching crisis. Under these circumstances, when, as one
authority tells us, the French gained and the Germans visibly lost ground
every day. Queen Mary Anne was prudent enough to make her peace
with the French party. Moreover, she had been disappointed of late by
the conduct of the Court of Vienna towards herself. The Austrian
ambassador had come so seldom to ask for an audience, and the letters
of the Emperor had been so dry, that she believed he would not lend her
his assistance. Her constant fear was lest, after the King's death, she
might be locked up in the convent of Toledo, the usual place of retire-
ment for the royal widows in Spain. She did not believe in the assurances
of Coimt Harrach, that, in case she would lend her aid in bringing one of
the Archdukes into Spain, she would really govern and the new monarch
would be dependent on her; moreover, she had lost all hope of ever
seeing the succession settled on an Austrian prince. On the other hand,
she had every reason to set her hopes on Louis XIV, The French
ambassador, and still more his lady, to whom the Queen was much
attached, made her the most far-reaching promises. She should continue
in her position even after Charles' death; indeed, the question was dis-
cussed whether she might not become the Queen of a Bourbon King of
Spain, as she had been the consort of a scion of the House of Habsburg.
She was additionally confirmed in her French feeling by Louis XIV
seeming in return inclined to make concessions concerning certain terri-
torial questions disputed between him and the Queen of Spain's brother,
the Elector Palatine John William. In consequence, she was now as
much in the French interest as she had before been in the German.
Indeed, after these successes of the French policy, one might have
expected that immediately after Charles IPs death a descendant of
Louis XIV would have appeared in Spain and, amidst the applause of
the Grandees as well as the common people, ascended the vacant throne.
At the same time, however, while his affairs in Spain wore so favour-
able an aspect, Louis XIV was labouring at a solution of the Spanish
question in a wholly different sense. Since the first month of this year,
1698, negotiations were in progress between him and William III, with
the purpose of partitioning the Spanish monarchy. From the language
held by the Earl of Portland, the favourite Minister of the British
monarch, Louis became convinced that a Bourbon Succession in Spain
would meet with the opposition not only of Austria, but also of the
Maritime Powers. A European war would be the inevitable consequence
of any attempt to bring about this Succession. The French King,

382 France and the Bavarian claim. [i698

therefore, began to listen to proposals coming from the British statesmen,
aiming at the succession of the young Electoral Prince of Bavaria.

" What ! " exclaimed Marshal Tallard, who negotiated with
William III by order of Louis XIV, "iSpain, India, Italy, the Nether-
lands-^all this to fall to a son of the Elector of Bavai'ia!" But soon
afterwards the opposition of France to such a scheme was laid aside.
It is not easy to say what were the real motives that induced the King of
France to prefer the Bavarian candidature to the succession of one of his
grandsons — or perhaps we should rather ask, was this really his prefer-
ence.'' If the Electoral Prince became King of Spain, as it was proposed
by the English, this would in itself be more advantageous' to France than
the succession of an Archduke, which to Louis was the most disagreeable
of all possibilities. In such a solution France, moreover, would find her
profit, since it was intended that some parts of the great inheritance
should be detached from the main body to enlarge the Austrian as well
as the French dominions. While, therefore, Louis' dynasty was interested
in the Bourbon Succession, France would gain through the Bavarian
candidature. If to this is added the natural wish of the French monarch,
when only a few months had passed since the Peace of Ryswyk, to pre-
serve France from a new war, there were reasons enough to incline Louis
to the plan of a Partition implied in the British proposal.

During six months, from spring to autumn, 1698, French policy
seemed to be working at the same time for two difierent purposes.
Harcourt, the ambassador in Spain, tried his utmost and spared no
money to bring about the entry of a Bourbon King at the moment of
the daily expected catastrophe. In France, England, and Holland, mean-
while, statesmen were endeavouring to find out another expedient by
proclaiming the young Joseph Ferdinand heir of Charles II, though not
without detaching some portions of the inheritance for the benefit of the
other pretenders. One only of these schemes could be realised. Did
Louis XIV deceive William III, intending merely to amuse him in order
to be the better able to execute his plans in Spain ? Or, as some think,
were Harcourt's endeavours meant only to make an impression on the
Maritime Powers, to give them a high, opinion of the influence which
Francie possessed in Spain, of her sympathies with the Spanish people,
of the good prospects awaiting her candidate in Spain,. in case France
should proceed to extremities? No doubt, all this is very probable;
and not less probable is it that the splendid military reviews held near
the French capital in summer, 1698, in the presence of Portland and
Wassenaer, the two intimate friends of William III, the confidants of
his policy iii England and Holland, were intended to inform the world
how rich and powerful France still was after the conclusion of the War ;
what large resources she possessed — while a great part of the British
army had of late been disbanded; how valuable an ally and how
formidable an enemy she would be in any future war ; and how advisable,

1698] Illness of Charles II. — Harcourfs instructions. 383

therefore, it was to make acceptaible proposals to the King of France
in the treaty to be negotiated.

But if we must allow that of the two different schemes of policy with
which Louis XIV was occupied in 1698, only one could in the end be
realised, it by no means follows that the King did not take both schemes
seriously. He seems to have desired that either way should be left open
to him, so that he might choose the one or the other, according to the
course of events. If the death of Charles II had occurred in 1698 and
the French preparations had been finished, Louis would assuredly not
have hesitated to send a Bourbon prince as the new King to Spain, and
to defy the Powers and their Partition Treaty. This is exactly what he
did afterwards — in 1700.

In 1698, indeed, the preparations of his ambassador in Spain had not
reached the degree of perfection requisite for success, in case King Charles
should die. Louis had therefore to observe the greatest caution. His
intentions are clearly explained in a letter to Harcourt, written on
September 15, 1698, when the negotiation with William III was draiwing
near to its conclusion. With aU goodwill on the side of the Spaniards,
Louis finds things not yet ripe to build his entire policy on the future
succession of one of his grandsons. For it is oiily the people that
wish it — none of the Grandees, except Cardinal Porto-Carrero, whosiB
timid natvure, moreover, does not allow him to give any but general
assurances. No force is ready in Spain to support the French claim.
Nay, even if the troops of Louis XIV should succeed in entering Spain
and in establishing his grandson on the throne, it would stiU be necessary
to take by force the kingdoms of Naples and Sicily, the Indies, Milan,
the Netherlands, and the other territories belonging to the monarchy of
Spain; for the other Powers would certainly form a league against
IVance still stronger than the last. So King Louis proposes to conclude
on special terms a treaty with the King of England. This treaty, how-
ever, is not to be published during the lifetime of the present King of
Spain. If Charles should die, and if Porto-Carrero and other well-
intentioned persons should then ask whether Louis would not send one
of his grandsons to Spain, Harcourt was to make answer as follows.
AU the King of France had hitherto been able to do was to move
his troops near the Spanish frontier — which was indeed the principal
measure that must precede the sending of the Bourbon prince in person —
but now he, the ambassador, had to inform his master what facilities and
what assistance his troops would find on their way through Spain ; what
places of safety would be delivered into their hands ; what confidence
might be placed in the several viceroys and governors ; and that only in
reply to such information could his master give him his orders, so that
within a few days they might receive the answer desired by them.

This time, however, the sick King survived, and the expected catas-
trophe in Spain did not happen. This only added to the importance

on. XIII.

384 First Treaty of Partition. [legs

of the negotiations between Louis and William ; thqy were protracted
through many months, a considerable number of offers and demands
being exchanged. All these labours at last terminated in the First Treaty
of Partition, signed at the Hague on October 11, 1698, By this Treaty
neither France nor Austria, but the Electoral Prince, was declared though
not the sole yet the principal heir of the Spanish monarchy, Spain
proper, India and the Netherlands, which latter were already under the
governorship of the Elector of Bavaria, were assigned to his son, Joseph
Ferdinand. The Italian dependencies, however, were detached from
Spain proper. The French Dauphin was to receive, the kingdoms of
Naples and Sicily, the places belonging to Spain along the coast, Tuscany
and the marquisate of Finale ; together with the Spanish province of
Guipuzcoa, contiguous to France, The duchy of Milan was to fall to
Archduke Charles, the second son of Leopold. This agreement was, after
the exchange of the ratifications, to be communicated to the Emperor
and to the Elector of Bavariaj in order to obtain their, apprpbatj^on.

The Treaty of the Hague did not long remain unknown to the
Spaniards. Some time since, the Court of Madrid had been alaimed
by the familiar intercourse of Tallard with King William, as well a^
with the foremost Dutch statesman, the Pensionary Heinsius. From
Holland, where no political negotiation could be kept secret, news
reached Madrid, through different channels, of an intended Partition
of the Spanish monarchy. Vehement indignation arose among the
Spanish people. "They will rather," wrote Stanhope, "deliver them-
selves up to the French or the devil, so they may go all together, than
be dismembered,"

Thus it was as an immediate consequence of the Partition Treaty—
not, as Ranke says, independently of it — that the idea arose in Spain
of securing a recognition of the rights of the Electoral Prince by the
Government, not indeed in the sense of Louis and William, but as a
means of transferring the dominions of the Crown of Spain undiminished
from Charles II to his successor. Herein lay the fundamental distinction
between the two schemes for settling the Spanish question. In a letter
from Louis XIV to Harcourt, he clearly es;plains the difference. He
considers that the Electoral Prince, when of age, will not object to
the renunciations imposed on him by the Partition Treaty, if this treaty
should be the sole source of his right ; but that, were he appointed by
a royal will, his title would be much stronger, and he might on some
future day declare that, during his minority, the Powers had done hiin
injustice, alienating from him part of his inheritance. Harcourt was
therefore to do his utmost to prevent a will being made by Chai'les II.

In this attempt, however, he failed. , On November 14, 1698, the
Spanish monarch assembled his councillors round him in his palace.
He said that he had called them together on account of the most
considerable matter that could concern the monarchy ; that, since his

1698-9] Charles' will in favour of Joseph Ferdinand. 385

last fits of illnesSjhe had been advised to dispose of the Succession before
his death ; which, in consequence, he had done, and so would have them
know his last will before God should call him. In the document, then
read by his secretary, the King had appointed the Electoral Prince of
Bavaria his successor to the Crown, confirming at the same time the
testament of Philip IV. In case of a minority of the future King, Queen
Mary Anne was to hold the regency together with a Junta of six persons.
And, when the King should have become competent to take the govern-
ment into his own hands, she was to have a fixed income of 800,000
doUars, and liberty to live in any, town in Spain that she might prefer.
The councillors, after hearing all this, retired without giving an opinion
or even making a reply.

This will of Qiarles II was the counter-stroke of Spain against
the policy of the Partition Treaty, an attempt to save the integrity of
the monarchy, to deliver it from the danger of being dismembered which
threatened it from the agreement between France and the Maritime
Powers. Charles had ordered his councillors to keep the secret; but
the solemn act performed in the royal palace could not fail to command
general a,ttention., A fortnight later, Harcourt was able to send exact
details to France; within a few weeks the news had spread through
Europe, and everywhere it caused the greatest excitement in the diplo-
matic world. Those who were ignorant of the contents of the Partition
Treaty, as the Ministers of the Emperor still were at that time, were
inclined to believe "that this great transaction could not have been
accomplished without the previous knowledge and consent of France" — ;
the more so since the French Ministers seemed to be well satisfied with
the news from Madrid. Others, familiar with the intentions of William
and Louis, like Grand Pensionary Heinsius, declared that France would
never consent to , the will, and that her ambassador in Spain would
doubtless hand in a note of protest. Marshal TaUard went so far as
to assert that, if this intelligence as to the will should prove true, he
was sorry to say that a new war was imminent. In England the
public looked with indiflference, or even with satisfaction, on the
supposed settlement of the great Spanish question, being delivered
from the fear that a French prince might succeed in Spain, and glad
not to be disturbed in their trade with that country and its colonies.

Who can say whether by the succession of the Electoral Prince,
had it taken place in one form or another, a general war would
really have been avoided ? In Austria at least, there was little in-
clination to submit either to the Partition Treaty or to the will of
Charles II. But now an imexpected event happened. The young
Joseph Ferdinand suddenly died (February 6, 1699). The cause of his
death was ofiicially said to have been small-pox; but reports were
spread — and the -Elector himself seemed to believe in them — to the
effect that some minister design had ended the life of his son.

0. M. H. V. OH. XIII. 25

386 Effect of the Pnnces death. [i697-9

The political situation wtis once more totally changed. How often
the immediate decease of Charles II had been foretold ! But now the
ailing monarch survived, and his youthful heir was dead. A new
arrangement had to be devised.

In London, in Paris, at the Hague, the unexpected news caused the
greatest consternation. Pensionary Heinsius for some hours refused to
see anybody. Next day, speaking to the Imperial ambassador, he said,
"This reminds us how transitory worldly affairs are." His fear was
that France might now recommence her intrigues in Spain. The two
monarchs of England and France hesitated openly to declare themselves,
each of them being desirous of knowing what the other would do, before
he gave his own opinion. " You will, in fact," wrote Louis to Tallard,
" wait for his answer before making any overture to him on my part."
Tallard answered that he was requested by William to send a courier
to his master to know his opinion about this important event. " But,"
Tallard's letter concluded, " either I am much mistaken or they will again
enter into negotiations." This proved indeed to be true. The first
question was whether, after the death of the person in whose interest
it was principally designed, the Treaty of Partition still practically
existed. There was annexed to the Treaty a secret Article, which
appointed the Elector of Bavaria, in case his son should die without
chUdren, the heir of Joseph Ferdinand in all the kingdoms and States
assigned to that Prince. Could this secret Article remain in force
although, contrary to its supposition, the Prince had died before the King
of Spain, whose dominions he was to inherit ? Or, in other words, could
the Elector be considered as the heir, not only of his son's property, but
also of his rights of inheritance ? At first, the answer seemed not to be
quite clear; but later, on the part both of the French and of the
English, the conclusion was reached that the secret Article became
inoperative. William read it over attentively, and convinced himself
that new engagements must be entered upon.

Before we attempt to describe the ensuing negotiations and their
result, the Second Treaty of Partition, it may be useful to recall
William Ill's difficulties in England, to which reference has been made in
an earlier chapter, and the hindrance they proved to the freedom of his
actions abroad. Now that the War was over, public opinion in England
was expectant of a lasting peace, and the old aversion against a standing
land-army, dating from the military rule of Oliver Cromwell, had been
revived. On the other hand, the requirements of European politics, the
necessity of maintaining the position England had won by the War, of
opposing the dangers that threatened from Louis XIV and from the
question of the Spanish Succession, of which the solution might be near
at hand, were not yet generally felt in England. In December, 1697, his
Ministers suffered a resolution to be passed in the Commons that all the
land forces raised since 1680 should be disbanded; but William, by means

1698] William III and his Parliament. 387

of his Civil List, succeeded for the present in keeping more troops under
arms than he was allowed by the said parliamentary resolutioa. Hence
in the negotiation for the First Partition Treaty Louis had to observe a
certain moderation in his demands. When, however, in December, 1698,
a new Parliament had assembled, in which the Opposition was still
stronger, the Commons resolved that the land forces should be reduced to
7000 men, and consist only of English-bom subjects. This meant the
dismissal of several thousands of Dutch troops whom the King had
brought over with him from Holland and who were still in his pay.

William, both disappointed and affronted, thought at least for a
moment of leaving the counti-y, since it would be no longer in his power
to secure for England the position in Europe which he had crossed the
sea to assure to her. The draft of the speech in which he indicated his
intention, not of abdicating, but of absenting himself till his presence
should become necessary for England's defence, still exists, though the
speech was never delivered. William remained at his post.

His new move, made after some months, to the same purpose as
before, by means of a message to the House asking for a retention of the
Dutch troops, met with a flat refusal, in what he called a "vefy im-
pertinent" address, to whose doctrinaire constitutionalism he had^ however,
to submit. But events told for him. As if to encourage Louis in his
resistance against the demands of William, Marshal Tallard wrote to his
master : " All that has passed this year in Parliament, and the discontent
of several Lords, have so weakened the royal authority that there is hardly
any more attention paid to it."

The rebuffs which William met in England could not but diminish
the weight of his power in the balance of Europe; and they must be
remembered in order to understand the charactier of the negotiations as
to the Spanish Succession reopened between England and France after
the death of the Bavarian Prince. The pretensions now set up by
Louis XIV went much beyond those which he had previously advanced;
William, unable to risk a new war, was obliged to accept them.
The principal heads of a new Partition Treaty were arranged, and
together with Louis, William sought to win for them the assent of
the Emperor, not without the fear that a separate agreement might be
concluded between the Houses of Bourbon and Austria. Louis himself
was to such a degree master of the situation that not only did he seem
able to choose between WiUiam and Leopold, but, at the vfcry time
when these negotiations were going on, and after the Treaty was signed,
his party in Spain was at work to secure the whole inheritance of
Charles II, without any dismemberment, for his grandson.

It was seen above that the Treaty of October 11, 1698, was held to
have become inoperative after the death of Joseph Ferdinand. Never-
theless, William had in mind the possibility of adhering, or rather of
returning, to this Treaty, by taking up, in accordance with its secret

OH. XIII. 25 — 2

388 Negotiations for the Second Partition Treaty. [1699

Article, the claim of the Elector, Joseph Ferdinand's father^ The King
of England and the States General^ as Tallard reported, were not averse
from making a new treaty; but, if this should not succeed, they desired the
liberty of requiring the execution of the Treaty of the Hague. Thus,
soon after the death of Joseph Ferdinand, the same persons who had
accomplished the First Treaty of Partition are found again at work to
find the basis for a new agreement. If Max Emanuel, ih spite of the
secret Article, could not take his son's place, there were obstacles of a
diiferent kind to prevent the succession of other claimants whose names
were again brought forward. The Duke of Savoy would never receive the
support of England since he had deserted his allies in 1696, while France
was equally disinclined to countenance the claim of Portugal, which she
did not want to see once more united to Spain. In these circumstances,
the Powers negotiating as to the Spanish Succession naturally confined
themselves to the two principal candidates ; or, to put it more plainly,
they examined the problem how the whole of the Spanish inheritance
might best be divided between the Houses of Bourbon and Austria.

Such was the origin of the Second Treaty of Partition. Louis XIV
made the earliest proposal, laying down his opinion in a letter fuU of poli-
tical spirit, written to Tallard in February, 1699, a few days only after the
death of Joseph Ferdinand. " The partition of the monarchy of Spain,"
he began, " divided by the Treaty of the Hague among my son and two
other cla,imants, is naturally reduced to a division between two by the
death of the Electoral Prince of Bavaria.... The question has, thereforej
to be settled how a partition can be made into two equal halves and in
a manner to assure the public tranquillity." He goes on to say that
Europe would be alarmed to see his power rise above that of the House
of Austria. But, on the oilier hand, he declares the power of the
Emperor to have been so much augmented by the advantageous Peace
lately concluded with the Porte at Carlowitz, that the general interest
would, in case of a further increase of this power, require that France
should be enabled to counterbalance it.

According to this principle, the meaning of Louis' proposal was to
distribute the dominions which by the First Partition Treaty had been
assigned to Joseph Ferdinand. With seeming disinterestedness, he was
ready to give Spain and the Indies to the Archduke, adding to the
Dauphin's portion, as it had been settled by the First Treaty of Partition,
only the duchy of Milan. This acquisition would not, as he put it, cause
any jealousy on the side of England or the States General, since it did
not increase the power of France by sea; so that from this source there
could not arise any disturbance of the trade of the Maritime Powers.
Louis also dwelt on the geographic position of Milan, which, should
Spain fall to the lot of the Archduke, might furnish a communication
between the dominions of the two branches of the House of Austria so
easy as to be prejudicial to the interests of the remainder of Europe,

1699] Second Treaty of Partition. 389

But he foresaw how difficult it would be to obtain the consent oif
England for a French acquisition of Milan, and therefore suggested at
once as an expedient that this duchy might be given to the Duke of
Lorraine, whose territory would in exchange be transferred to France.
A similar arraiigement was indicated as to the kingdoms of Naples and
Sicily, with the possibility that the French dominibnS might be still
fui-ther enlarged by the duchy of Savoy ttnd the county of Nice. With
regard, in fine, to the Catholib Netherlands, they were to fall neither to
the Dauphin nor to the Archduke. The question was left open which of
four possibilities might be preferred when the time came for a decision.

The foundations were herewith laid for a fresh agreement between thie
two Kings. It is manifest how the pretensions of France had increased
since the conclusion of the First Treaty of Partition. Louis could dare
so much, because he knew of William's difficulties in his last parliamentary
campaign. How could William refuse what Louis demanded, when he had
no hope of carrying his ParUament along with him to a war against France?

The result of some months' negotiations between William and Tallard
was the project of a new Partition Treaty, which received the approval
of the two Kings and was signed on June 11, 1699. The States General,
to be sure, had not yet given their assent, and much less the Emperor. If
the two Kings could, during the lifetime of Charles II, have broughtitheir
project into the form of a definite treaty, signed by the four Great Powers
of Europe, there would have been a chance — the best within reach— of
avoiding a general war. For Spain alone was too weak to oppose the
will of Europe ; and even Louis XIV would hardly have ventured to
violate a treaty bearing the signatures of England, Holland, and the
Emperor, besides his own. According to this project, the Dauphin was to
have as his share the kingdoms of Naples and Sicily, the places along the
coast of Tuscany, hitherto belonging to Spain, the marquisate of Finale,
and the province of Guipuzcoa. To these acquisitions was to be added,
in exchange for Milan, the duchy of Lorraine, or, if the reigning Diake
Leopold Joseph Charles should be unwilling to give it up, another
adjacent province, such as Navarre or Savoy or Luxemburg; so that in
any case a considerable aggrandisement of France proper would havb
resulted from this treaty. Spaiii, ho\\^eVer, with all the rest of the
inheritance of Charles II, was to fall to Archduke Charles, yoilhger son
of the Emperor Leopold; and care was to be taken that the two branches
of the House of Austria always remained separated.

This project was sent to Vienna ; and it was hoped, since the Archduke
was intended to be the principal heir of Charles II, that it would meet
with the approval of the Emperor; "I am glad," wrote William to
Heinsius on July 6, 1699, "Mr'Hop has begun the negotiations at Vienna,
and that no bad impression seems to have beien made at the outset."
But hereupon we hear of complaints as to the delays at the Imperial
Coui"t, which William feared might lead to the consummatioh of the

390 Attitude of the Emperor and Spain. [i699-i7oo

,great work without the Emperor. Nevertheless, the Powers were already
discussing the place where the further negotiations should be carried on ;
and it was uncertain whether this should be Vienna, which King William
thought best, or the Hague, as preferred by Louis. As in other points,
so in this, William was ready to yield; "but however," he says, "if
France will not have it otherwise, it must be so."

Hop had in his negotiations at Vienna not at once communicated the
project of the new Treaty of Partition. The Emperor at that time still
adhered to the idea that the whole inheritance must come to his House.
When he learned what had been agreed on between England and France,
he seemed, indeed, not so very much disappointed, for he saw his share
would be large. He did not, however, yet know the exact nature of the
stipulations. Thus, in the conference held by his Ministers on August 31,
1699, it was resolved to remonstrate against the injustice of these pro-
positions, and especially to observe that the Emperor could not afford
Milan, In vain William hoped to come to an imderstanding with Vienna,
offering some additional concessions to the Emperor in compensation for
Milan. When the news reached the Austrian capital that the Court of
Spain had solemnly protested against the Partition Treaty, and that the
Marquez de Canales had communicated to the Lords Justices in London
a paper so extraordinary both in its contents and in its language, that he
was ordered to leave England within eighteen days, the effect on the
Imperial Court was a growing antipathy to any partition policy. Al the
same time it was hoped, at Vienna, that a favourable impression would be
created in Spain, if the Einperor seemed to stand firm against any
dismemberment of the Spanish monarchy. Would not Charles II, in his
indignation against the policy of William and Louis, be easily induced
to make a will in favour of the Archduke as the only possible way of
avoiding a Partition ?

It was clear enough that the Treaty had to be concluded without
the Emperor, if it was to be concluded at all. The negotiations with
Holland were continued until March, 1700, when, on the 25th, the
instrument had received the signatures of the plenipotentiaries of
England, France, and the States General, Article VII stated that the
Emperor should be invited to accede to the Treaty within three months,
and, if, after this term had elapsed, he should refuse to enter into it, the
three contracting Powers would join in nominating a Prince to whom
the share now assigned to the Archduke would then be given. But still
the Emperor refused to accede to the Partition Treaty, never ceasing to
hope that his son would obtain the Spanish inheritance undiminished.
He would have the whole of Spain, or he would have war.

As to all essential points, the Second Treaty of Partition in its
definite form was in close accord with the project of the previous year.
Spain, the transatlantic possessions and the Netherlands were assigned
tp the second son of the Emperor Leopold, and were never to pass into

i7oo] Spanish and Imperial opposition. 391

the hands of the Austrian line of the Habsburgs. The Spanish posses-
sions in Italy were to be transferred to the Dauphin, although Milan
was to be exchanged for the duchy of Lorraine. The other possible
methods of dealing with Milan, mentioned in the project, were this time
treated in a secret Article, with the evident intention of its not being
disclosed to the Austrians when the rest of the Treaty should be presented
in Vienna. In this secret Article it was also provided that, beyond the
three months allowed by Article VII for the accession of the Emperor
to the Treaty, his assent should still be accepted within two months
after the official announcement of Charles II's death by the Most
Christian King.

In May, 1700, the Second Treaty of Partition was officially com-
municated to the Courts of Vienna and Madrid. Charles II, we are
told, " flew into an extraordinary passion, and the Queen in her rage
smashed to pieces everything in her room." Some days of general
excitement followed. The King came from Aranjuez into his capital,
to show his people that he was still alive. In the Council of State
a very tumultuous scene was enacted. Charles wrote letters fuU of
sorrow and complaints to the Emperor, to the Pope, to the petty
Princes in Italy, with the view of touching the hearts of them all, and
of gathering them round him against the Powers which had made a
treaty for the dismemberment of the monarchy handed down to him
from his ancestors. Most naturally, the unhappy Prince tiumed his eyes
especially towards Austria. Charles and Leopold seemed to be natural
allies against the Partitioning Powers. Queen Mary Anne promised
Count Harrach that she would persuade her husband rather to lose all
than to suffer the monarchy to be dismembered and himself alienated
from Austria, by assenting to the infamous project of France, England,
and Holland, Indeed, some preparations were made to place the
Austrians in possession of the Spanish dependencies either diu-ing the
lifetime of Charles II or immediately after his death. Strict orders were
sent from Madrid to the several Governors and commanders to maintain
a state of constant defence and to remain in contact with the Court
of Vienna, so as to be able, if necessary, to obtain assistance from it.
A considerable augmentation of the army was actually resolved on by
the Emperor. On the other side, Louis XIV had for some time been
gradually increasing the French troops near the Spanish frontier, so that
he was able to march an army into Spain within a very short space of
time.

If all this looked like the preparations for a war between Spain and
Austria, on the one side, and the Powers which had concluded the
Partition Treaty on the other — a war which might perhaps break out
even before the death of the King of Spain — it was Louis XIV who
averted this danger in a very skilful way. He promised the Courts of
Vienna and Madrid to enter into no hostility against Spain, and to

392 The decision in Spain. [i7oo

take no step in the matter of the Succession, so long as Charles II
lived, on condition that the Emperor likewise desisted from sending any
troops into Spain or Italy. This proposal was accepted in Vienna.

About this time, when the political situation seemed no longer to
indicate the imminent outburst of an European war, affairs were hurried
on to a speedy decision in Spain. Charles II had seldom been seen
so strong and in such good spirits as he was in August, 1700. A few
weeks later the disease that had never left him assumed a more serious
character than it had ever shown before. The last hour of the King of
Spain, who had so often looked death in the face, was clearly at hand.
Some weeks of the greatest excitement followed — the last efforts being
made on the side of each Government to secure the victory of its own
policy; the Partitioning Powers seeking, in the twelfth hour, to bring
the Emperor into their Treaty ; Leopold still hesitating, with the hope
of securing the whole; Louis XIV openly professing to adhere to the
method of hi& Ti-eaty with William III, and at the same time watching
with the greatest attention the strife of parties in Spain. It was at this
critical period that, independently of all these endeiavours, of all
diplomatic labours and of all political intrigues, the die was cast as to
the question of the Spanish Succession, and of peace and war in Europe ;
and the decision was made in Spain itself, by the last action of its
dying monarch.

For the last time a German and a French party are to be found at
the Court of Madrid, each at work on behalf of its candidate. The
Council of Castile had addressed a supplication to the King, as being in
sE fragile state of health, to confer on his loyal subjects the benefit of
nominating a successor to his Crown. Queen Mary Anne, supported by
Count Harrach, tried hard to induce her husband to make a will in favour
of the Archduke. For some days she seemed to have won her game; the
instrument was ready; and nothing was wanting but the signature of the
monarch. Nay, it is 'possible that even the signature had been added,
when the adverse party succeeded in bringing about the burning of
the will. Hereupon Cardinal Porto-Carrero, the head of the French
faction, won a deciding influence over the dying King. He represented
the feelings of the whole clergy in Spain, all of whom wished to see a
French prince ascend their throne. These feelings had been ftirther
strengthened, inasmuch as the Pope had, some weeks before, written a
letter to Charles II to recommend the succession of the Duke of Anjou.
The King's confessors worked together with the Cardinal-Primate. Tlius
the power of the Church contributed towards bringing the Crown of
Spain to the grandson of Louis XIV. The will of Charles II, bearing
date October 2, 1700, was signed by the King on the following day.
His sufferings were still prolonged for nearly a month. On the last
of October, when the Nuncio had bestowed the Papal benediction on
the moribund King, the Grandees Oi Spain were introduced into the

noo] Last will of Charles II. 393

adjacent chamber. They were told by the King's confessor — for his own
voice was extinct — in the King's name, to be obedient to his will, to pay
respect to her Majesty, his consort, and to keep unity among themselves,
for so he hoped to keep the monarchy undivided. Touched to their
hearts and with tears in their eyes, the assembly listened to the last
message of their unhappy King. On the following day, November 1,
1700, Charles II had breathed his last.

In presence of a large number of nobles, who had come to be present at
their King's death, the wiU was opened at once. Its purpose and contents
were in accordance with the aims pursued by Spanish policy during the
preceding forty years. It was the final attempt to haiid over the monarchy
of Philip II, with all its world-wide interests and possessions, undivided
to the coming generation — ^the last protest against the policy of the
Partition Treaties. The will prescribed that no part of the monarchy
should be alienated from its main body, and that this should never be
united with any other foreign State. One prince was to inherit the
whole, and this was to be Duke Philip of Anjou, second son of the
Dauphin of France. To make his right clear, it was declared that
the renunciations of the two Infantas, married to princes of the House
of Boui'bon, had only been made in order to prevent the union of the
two kingdoms, and that, so long as this danger was avoided, these
renunciations could not del^ract from the natural right of inheritance.
Failing the Duke of Anjou, his younger brother, the Duke of Berry,
was named successor; Archduke Charles only in the third place;
and, after him, the Duke of Savoy. Article XIII expressed a pious
hope that the Duke of Anjou, the future King of Spain, might become
the husband of an archduchess, and daughter of the Emperor, so that by
this means the peace and tranquillity of Christendom might be secured.
A Council of Regency, of which Cardinal Porto-Carrero was to be the
most important member, was to carry on the government of Spain until
the arrival of the new King.

When the will became known in Spain, the people's joy was general,
as the danger of a dismemberment seemed happily to be avoided. How-
ever, the great question was not yet decided. This decision had to be
given in France, at the Court of Louis XIV. Nobody could say, tvhich
way this monarch would prefer — ^whether he would adhere to the Treaty
with William III or accept the Crown of Spain for his grandson. Till
the news of Charles' death reached the French capital, no definite reso-
lution had been taken. It would be unjust to say of Louis XIV that
his intention had been from the beginning to throw over the Partition
Treaty, so soon as a wiU favourable to his House should be in his hands.
Even when he was sure of such a will, while King Charles was still alive,
he ordered his ambassador in Holland to assure the Pensionary that it
was his intention to adhere to his engagements, rather than accept any
offers that might be made to him. In addition to this, he still continued

394 The problem to he solved by Louis XIV. [ivoo

his efforts to obtain the accession of the Court of Vienna to the Treaty
of Partition. No doubt, if he could have succeeded in this endeavour,
the situation would have been very different from what it proved to be
immediately on the death of Charles. As it was, however stringent the
engagements of Louis were towards England and Holland, the work of
the Partition Treaty still remained incomplete.

It was this side of the question which had to be considered when the
courier brought the news from Madrid that Charles had died (November 1,
17O0), and that Philip of Anjou was, by the royal testament, appointed
to be King of Spain. The Emperor, who had hitherto refused to accede
to the Partition Treaty, would certainly be still less inclined to do so
now. For, in case Louis declined the proffered Crown for his grandsons,
which of course he would have to do, if he adhered to the Treaty, this
same Crown would be offered at once to the son of the Emperon The
Spanish ambassador in Paris was instructed by the Junta, in case of a
French refusal, to bid the courier, who had brought the will to Paris,
continue his journey to Vienna without delay, in order to make the
same offer there. The Archduke would certainly be acknowledged as King
in all the Spanish dominions, in accordance with the provisions of the
deceased King's will. Louis would therefore have to face the alternative —
either of allowing the power of the House of Austria, hostile to France as
it was, to be immensely increased by the accession of an Archduke in Spain,
and the monarchy of Charles V, against which his ancestors had struggled
in so many bloody wars, to be renewed, without any advantage accruing to
France, or of seeking to secure for himself the benefits stipulated by the
Partition Treaty. This, indeed, meant a war against the xmited strength of
Austria and Spain. It was at least doubtful, whether in such a war Louis
would have had the assistance of England and Holland, who had joined
him in the Partition Treaty for no other reason but because they wished
to avoid a new war. Moreover, if Spain should call a French Prince to
her throne, did this imply so great an injustice to France that she should
declare war against Spain ? " If war was inevitable, it should be made
to defend the justest cause ; and certainly such was the cause of the
will." Thus wrote Torcy, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs,
who took part in the memorable conferences held among the intimates
of Louis XIV under the King's own presidency. Moreover, another con-
sideration may have had its effect on the mind of Louis. If the Spanish
marriages of himself and his father had really been prompted by the idea
of establishing a right on the part of their dynasty to the Spanish
throne, should he now, when the hoir of fulfilment had come, disdain
to gather in the fruits of the policy consisten1;ly pursued by France
during more than half a century ?

Such were the motives that induced King Louis to accept the will
and to break the Treaty. If this was contrary to right, yet there were
reasons enough to serve as an excuse. And, certainly, it was not the

i70o] Louis XIV accepts the will of Charles II. 395

worst violation of international justice which history has tp record in
the reign of the great King Louis.

The acceptance of the will was announced to the world with all the
solemnity which the Roi Soldi liked to show on important occasions.
He called his grandson into his cabinet to tell him what his new dignity
was. The Spanish ambassador was sent for to pay homage to his new
sovereign as the first of his subjects. Then the folding-doors were flung
open that communicated with a large saloon, where the whole Court was
assembled; The old monarch's eyes, with a look full of majesty, scanned
the numerous company before he began to speak. "Gentlemen," he
said, pointing to the Duke of Anjou, " you see here the King of Spain.
His descent called him to this Crown ; the deceased King so ordered it
by his testament; the whole nation desired it, and earnestly entreated me
to give my assent ; such was the wUl of Heaven ; I have fulfilled it with
joy." Then he turned to his grandson : " Be a good Spaniard ; that is
now your first duty; but remember that you are born a Frenchman,
and maintain unity between the two nations ; this is the way to make
them happy and to preserve the peace of Europe." After the shouts of
joy from the company had ceased, Louis once more addressed his grand-
son. "Let us now give thanks to God; may it please Your Majesty to
attend Mass." The two Kings then proceeded to chiu-ch; Louis desiring
his grandson to walk on his right and thus conceding to Philip the
honour due to a foreign monarch.

"I never," wrote William to Heinsius on November 16, 1700, on
hearing that the will had been accepted by Louis XIV, "relied much on
engagements with France; but I must confess, I did not think they would
on this occasion have broken, in the face of the whole world, a solemn
treaty before it was well accomplished." Not less concerned was the
Emperor Leopold by the news from Madrid and Paris* But soon he
regarded the future with better hope, since the last step of Louis XIV must
doubtless have the result of bringing back to him the Maritime Powers,
his old allies against France. Such was indeed the actual course of
events. Very soon negotiations were begun with the purpose of renew-
ing the Grand Alliance of 1689. William and Heinsius were at once
convinced of the necessity of war ; and so was the Emperor ; although
some time, passed before the English and Dutch nations acquired the
same perception. In all countries pamphlet-writers were at work to
bring public opinion into accordance with the intentions of the Govern-
ments. In Austria they showed that the renunciations of the two
Infantas had not lost their validity and could not have been set aside by
the will of Charles II; that this King, who had been an enemy to France
through all his life, would never, while in the full possession of his mental
powers, have made a will in favour of a French Prince. At the same
time they had information that, when the dead King's body was examined,
his brain and heart had been found totally destroyed by disease, so that

396 Effect of the acceptance in England. [i7oo-i

his signing the will a few weeks before his death could not have been an
act done with freedom of will and mind. If therefore the testament
was null and void, and the renunciations were in force, the right of the
House of Habsburg was proved beyond all doubt. English writers upon
the subject, among whom Daniel Defoe in his Two Great Questions
considered was the most prominent, likewise denied the right of the Duke
of Anjou, and dwelt more fully on the consequences which his succession
would entail for England — especially the ruin of the commercial interests
in the Mediterranean, the Baltic, the East and West Indies. They
recommended the renewal of the alliance with the Emperor. Defoe
became one of the principal advocates in England of a war against
France; and when, on account of the above-mentioned pamphlet, he
was reproached as being more Dutch than English in his feelings, he
gave his answer in his grim satire TTie True-born Englishman, published
in January, 1701, which gained him the confidence of William III.

Louis XIV himself did much to facilitate the task of William III
and Heinsius, which consisted in bringing the nations of England and
Holland to understand that their own interests were menaced by the
Spanish kingship of Philip of Anjou. The famous words, "7Z n'j/ a
plus de Pyr&nees^ generally ascribed to King Louis, were indeed not
spoken by him, but by the Spanish ambassador in Paris, who by the
phrase merely meant to indicate the close relations between the two
countries, caused by the accession of a Bourbon King in Madrid,
without contemplating the thought of a total union between France
and Spain. It was of more consequence, that, in December, 1700,
Louis thought fit, with solemn expressions, to reserve the eventual
rights of the new King of Spain to the Crown of France. Very likely
even this did not imply anything beyond the wish to avert the result
that a Prince of his House should be placed under a disability as to the
succession in France, in case other claimants should fail. And even then,
according to the opinion of Louis, it did hot follow that his gi-andsori
would rule over the united kingdoms of France and Spain. The question
for him was only to secure a King to France in any and evei-y emergenicy,
whatever might one day become of Spain ; for, after all, France was
nearer to his heart and always the principal object of his care. If this
be a just, as it certainly is a benevolent, interpretation of the French
King's actions, yet they were not very prudent, inasmuch as contemjjoraries
might easily see in them a proof of his intention to prepare the total
union of France and Spain.

For six months it was still doubtful whether peace or war woidd
ensue on the last steps of Louis XIV. William had to observe the
utmost caution towards the Parliament, opened in February, 1701. He
had to deal with a Tory majority, little inclined for a new war, and so
little dissatisfied with the succession of Philip of Anjou, that they thought
it much preferable to the policy of the Partition Treaties. And, since

i70i] English puhUc fueling supports William. 397

these treaties, as indeed their character seemed to require, had been kept
secret from Parliament, nay, even from part of the Ministry, they were
now criticised in a very unfriendly manner in both Houses. The Commons
resolved to impeach before the Lords several of the King's principal
councillors, among whom were Portland and Somers, for the part they
had taken in those treaties.

But the events and the rashness of Louis XIV were the best allies
of William in his parliamentary campaign. In February, 1701, the
fortresses in the southern Netherlands forming the Dutch Barrier against
France had, in fuU peace and quite unexpectedly, been taken by French
troops. The Dutch garrisons had, for the present, received orders to
retire.

In March negotiations were opened at the Hague with the French
Minister d'Avaux. They showed very speedily that France was not
wUling to make any concessions. Instead of the . Treaties of Partition,
the Peace of Ryswyk was to be the basis of any agreement between
France and the Maritime Powers. No Dutch Barrier and no compensa-
tion for the Emperor would be granted.

In this condition of things William contrived in masterly fashion
to draw advantages from his double position as English sovereign and
as Stadholder General in Holland. He induced the States General,
according to his wont, to be silent or to represent in writing the dangers
which threatened both nations from Louis XIV. The consequence was
that by degrees public feeling in England underwent a change. The
English became aware that it was unwise to separate the policy of
England from that of Holland ; they began to see the dangers from the
union of the French and Spanish navies; they heard that companies
were being formed in France to turn to the best advantage the facilities
of commerce with Spain; many pamphlets were written; and, as an expres-
sion of the widely prevalent feeling, the so-called "Kentish Petition"
was delivered to the Commons, to implore them to have regard to the
voice of the people, and to enable the King "powerfully to assist his
allies before it is too late." The Lords, among whom the Whigs pre-
dominated, showed themselves more eager than the Commons to support
the King in his foreign policy. But, as the Tories began likewise to see the
necessity of a war against France, the Lower House ceased to withstand
the demands of the whole nation ; and, when Parliament had been
prorogued on June 24, 1701, William could fed sure of every support
for which he could wish in this quarter, in case of a breach with France.

From this time forward William had no longer to be afraid of any
serious opposition to his policy from the two nations whose destinies were
entrusted to him. In July, 1701, the negotiations with the Emperor were
opened in form at the Hague. Leopold hafi, for several months past,.
been endeavouring tp bring about a renewal of the Grand Alliance of
1689, by the secret Article of which the Maritime Powers had been bound

398 The Grand Alliance concluded. [iToi

to support the Emperor and his line in their claims on the Spanish in-
heritance. But he was ready to renounce part of it, if only the balance
of Europe were not disturbed. He wished to secure for his House the
Italian possessions of the Spanish Oown. For the Maritime Powers,
indeed, it was of greater consequence not to allow Spain herself and her
transatlantic territories to fall under the control of France. Neverthe-
less, the negotiation was opened on a basis not greatly differing from the
Emperor's standpoint. William and Heinsius wished that only the
restitution of the Belgic Provinces and Milan might be demanded from
Louis, so that this moderation might display their peaceful intention
and convince the world, should these demands be refused, that war was
unavoidable. The Austrians were not satisfied with such an arrangement.
Belgium, they said, would be valuable as a barrier against France only
for the States General ; for the Emperor it would be an embarrassing
task to govern these Provinces. And as to Italy, the security of the
House of Austria's possessions would be endangered if it received only
Milan, while Naples and Sicily were left to France. The Maritime
Powers yielded to Leopold's demands, chiefly through the influence of
Marlborough, who acted as English plenipotentiary in these negotiations.
They consented that Austria should obtain the whole of the Spanish
possessions in Italy ; while the Emperor had to assent to the insertion
in the Treaty of an Article by which any conquests that the Maritime
Powers might make in the West Indies should be assured to them.

Such was the basis on which the Treaty of the Hague, called the
Grand Alliance, was signed on September 7, 1701. In the second
Article the three Powers declared that nothing was more essential to
the establishment of the general peace than that the Emperor should
obtain satisfaction for his claims to the Spanish Succession, and that
England and Holland should for their part acquire security for their
dominions and for the navigation and commerce of their subjects.
These two principles contain the essence of the whole transaction. The
coming War would, on the side of the Maritime Powers, be carried on
in furtherance of their commercial interests, on the side of the Emperor
for his political aggrandisement. And, although to him were assigned
only the Italian possessions of Spain, yet he had no intention of hereby
giving up his pretensions to the whole Spanish Succession. When,
therefore, the two words "infer cdia^ had by mistake been left out in
the Latin translation of the French text, the Austrian ambassador,
Count Wratislaw, did not rest till they were added again. Belgium
was to become a barrier for the security of the States General against
France. Nothing was said of Spain proper; but the silence as to
the main portion of Charles II's inheritance seemed practically to
include the acknowledgment of Philip V, though the Emperor could
not be expected to accord it in form. Indeed the doubtful tenom* of
the treaty left open the possibility of a demand being preferred at a later

i70i] Louis XIV recognises "James III." 399

date by the House of Austria for a larger share than that originally
contemplated. An interval of two months from the day of exchanging
the ratifications was to be allowed for securing, if possible, the ends of
the treaty by amicable means. But nobody any longer believed in such
a possibility. On the other hand, it is worth while to notice the
similarity which existed between the articles of the Grand Alliance, and
those of the Treaty of Utrecht, which set a final period to a European
War of twelve years. A partition of the Spanish inheritance, not
unlike that at which William III had aimed, proved ultimately to be
the most satisfactory solution of the problem.

No sooner had the Grand Alliance been concluded, than Louis XIV
took a further step by which, more than by any other, he aroused the
hostile feelings of the people in England. In September, 1701, when
the growing weakness of James II seemed to indicate his approaching
end, Louis appeared at the death-bed of the exiled King, to announce
the formal declaration that his royal friend might die without anxiety
about his son, the Prince of Wales, since he, the monarch of France, was
willing to acknowledge him as King of England, Scotland, and Ireland.
Louis kept his promise. When James had died, his young heir, called
James III by his adherents, was treated and honoured as King of
England by the French monarch and his whole Court.

Notwithstanding all this, Louis had no intention of breaking the
treaties or of provoking William III. Though since 1697 William had
been acknowledged by French diplomacy as King of Great Britain, yet
this acknowledgment had been given only implicitly, not expressly, by
Article IV of the Treaty of Ryswyk between France and England,
which provided that his Most Christian Majesty would not disturb the
King of Great Britain in the free and full possession of his kingdoms.
This form had been chosen in 1697, in order that it might be possible
for King Louis to continue to give the title of King to James II for the
future, as he had hitherto done. Now, in 1701, it was asserted on the
French side that King Louis meant strictly to observe the said Article,
and that the title of King of England, accorded to the son of James,
would not secure to him any other support from France except what
was needed for his mere subsistence — indeed, nothing beyond what had
been granted to his father. There was, however, little probability that
these arguments, artful as they were, would be understood in England.
William himself was deeply mortified when he heard the news from
St Germain. Being at table with some other persons, he pulled his
hat over his eyes, so as to disguise his emotion. In England the
patriotic indignation rose to a height which it had seldom reached
before. It was the year in which the Act of Settlement had declared
the Protestant Succession a principle never to be abandoned. And now
the King of France had ventured to demand that England should accept
from his hand a Catholic sovereign, just as he had bestowed a King on

en. XIII,

400 England and the War. [1701-2

Spain. In all parts of the kingdom meetings were held and i-esolutions
passed to express the confidence of a loyal people in their King, and
their willingness to assist him in his action.

In these circumstances the negotiatiops with France prescribed by
Article III of the Grand Alliance were not so much as begun. No one
any longer believed that peace could be preserved in Europe. Towards
the end of his life, in his last Parliament, King William met with every
support he could desire. He opened the session, as Tuidal says, with
the best speech that he, or perhaps any other Prince, had ever made to
his people. It was answered by addresses of the two Houses, full of
fervour and resolution. The Commons, moreover, in a special address
required the King to add an article to the Treaties of Alliance, to the
effect that no peace should be concluded with France until reparation was
made for the iijdignity offered to the nation by the French monaxch in
declaring the Pretender to be King of England,, Scotland, and Ireland;
The forces of England, it was further resolved, were to be 40,000 soldiers^
and the same number was voted for the sea service. In the spring of 1702
everything was prepared to guarantee the success for the coming War, in
which England would be the leading Power. King William, indeed, did
not live to see his life's work crowned by the humiliation of Louis XIV.
But, when in March, 1702, he felt his last hour come, he said he had
looked at death on all occasions without any terror; sometimes he
would have been glad to have been delivered out of all his troubles ; but
he confessed that he now saw another scene, and could wish to live a
little longer.

401

CHAPTER XIV.

THE WAR OF THE SPANISH SUCCESSION.

(1) CAMPAIGNS AND NEGOTIATIONS.

If the action of Louis XIV in accepting the will of Charles II of
Spain had proved insufficient to rouse England and the United Provinces
to war, at Vienna its effects had been greater. The Emperor had steadily
rejected the compromise of a partition, because he had always trusted
that a will would leave the whole inheritance to the Archduke, and he
was not inclined; to swallow this disappointment without a protest or
to acquiesce without resistance in the accession of Philip V. Yet the
prospects of successfully disputing Philip's claim were not of the brightest,
A great war was impending in the Baltic; the Emperor's hereditary
dominions were still feeling the strain and exhaustion of the recent wars
in east and west ; Hungary, quite recently reconquered from the Turk,
was. seething with discontent; and the lukewarmuess displayed by the
Princes of Germany in the defence of the Empire against Louis promised
ill for their support of Leopold's claims on the Spanish inheritance.
And as, moreover, the Maritime Powers hung back and compelled the
reluctant William III to recognise the new King of Spain, it is not
wonderful that a party among the Emperor's advisers, headed by
Margrave Lewis of Baden-Baden, should have counselled submission.
These counsels were, indeed, so far followed that overtures were made in
order to discover if any compensation could be obtained. Moderation
and slight concessions might have avoided war ; but Louis, blinded by
the success he had already achieved, adopted an uncompromisingly
aggressive attitude, and, by rejecting the idea of providing a "satisfac-
tion" for the unsuccessful claimant to the Spanish inheritance, drove the
Emperor over to the war party in his "conference," of whom Prince
Eugene of Saxony and Archdukes Charles and Joseph were the leaders.

Accordingly, in the spring and early summer of 1701, while Austria's
diplomats sought to rouse Europe in the Emperor's cause, a considerable
army was gradually collected in southern Tyrol to contest the French
occupation of Lombaxdy. Here the connivance of the Dukes of Savoy
and Mantua had enabled the French to secure the Spanish possessions in
the valley of the Po ; aad Marshal Catinat was able to push forward to

C. M. H. V. CH. XIV. 2(5

402 Eugene's operations against Catinat. [1701

Lake Garda and there take up his position, in order to bar the
advance of the Austrians from Tyrol upon Lombardy. Deficiencies of
transport and organisation for the time rendered the Imperial army
immobile ; but it appeared most probable that, when Eugene's energy
and administrative talents should have overcome these obstacles, his
advance would follow the Adige. A more direct advance on Milan by
the Engadine or Valtelline would involve the passage of more difficult
country and the violation of Swiss neutrality ; a move west of Lake Garda
on Brescia meant taking an equally imsatisfactory route; and, though the
Venetians, whose territory separated Tyrol from the Milanese, had not
absolutely refused a passage to the Imperialists, it was understood that
they had forbidden th|em the use of; the country between the Adige and
the Adriatic. Catinat, at any rate, trusted Venetian neutrality to
protect his right flank, which r^ted on the Adige, and, relying on this,
confidently awaited an attack. This was some time in coniing, for Eugene's '
force was far short of the numbers promised him ; and it was not tUl
the end of May that, under cover of a feint down the right bank of the
Adige against Chiuse, he carried the bulk of his 6000 horse and 16,000
foot over Monte Baldo by difficult and little-known momitain-pa,ths, and,
moviiig by Verona (May 28) and thence down the left of the Adige,
established himself on Catinat's flank,

Eugene had thus scored the first trick in the game; but Catinat
might have restored matters, had he either fallen on Guttenstein's
exposed division, which had thi-eatened Chiuse, or concentrated his
troops, and, imitating his adversary's disregard of the neutrality which
Venice seemed powerless to defend, crossed the Adige to force a decisive
battle on the inferior force opposed to him. He did neither; but,'
harassed by Eugene's feint and unable to discover whether he intended
to strike west across the Adige or southward over the Po against Modena
or Naples, he scattered his army in detachments along the Adige from
Rivoli to Carpi, a front of over 60 miles. Eugene did not miss such a
chance. On July 9 he fell in force on Saint-Fremont's division at Carpi,
and drove it and the reinforcements which Tesse brought up from Legnago
back on Nogara with heavy loss, thus piercing the French line and
forcing Catinat to recoil behind the Mincio, where the French rallied,
their right at Mantua, their left at Goito. But this position also
Catinat failed to maintain. A move north-west enabled Eugene to
rejoin Guttenstein (July 15) ; and, crossing the Mincio almost unopposed
at Peschiera (July 28), he again placed himself on Catinat's flank,
threatening his communications with Milan. To cover Milan, the
French fell back to the Oglio (August 16), Eugene pressing on westwai-d'
by Brescia, and being on the point of forcing this line also near Pontoglio,
when he heard (August 24) that Marshal Villeroi had arrived from France
and superseded the unfortunate Catinat. The Imperialists thereupon fell
back to Chiari, where, on September 1, they sustained the attack of

1700-2] The formation of the " Grand Alliance." 403

Villeroi's superior numbers, inflicting on them a sharp repulse. This
success allowed Eugene to retain his position unmolested; and, when with
November both sides wept into winter-quarters, the Imperialists were
left in possession of the greater, part of the duchy of Mantua, though a
closely blockaded French garrispn held out in the capital. The winter
was made memorable by Eugene's celebrated raid on Cremona and capture
of Marshal Villerpi (February 1, 1702) — an exploit which, though the
town was finally recovered, compelled the French to fall back behind the,
Adda, leaving their magazines to Eugene, who also occupied the tpmtory .
of Parma. The Dukes of Modena and Guastalla now declared for the
Imperialists; and the outbreak of an insurrection in the Emperor's
favour in Naples compelled the Spanish contingent with the French
army to withdraw thither.

Meanwhile the diplomats had not been idle, and, when the campaign
of 1702 opened, hostilities were no longer confined to Italy, bjit had
assumed the dimensions of a general European war. The arrogance and
aggressions of Louis had effected what the warnings of William III and
Heinsius had failed to do. By securing for French traders the Asiento,
or monopoly of the supply of slaves to Spanish America (August), Louis
so roused England, that William felt able to conclude with the Emperor
the Treaty of the Hague (September 7), which pledged the Emperor
and the Maritime Powers to secure Europe against the union of France
and Spain, and to obtain territorial compensation for the Habsburgs
and commercial concessions for the Maritime Powers. The recently
recognised kingdom of Prussia was already bound by the "Crown
Treaty " to support the Emperor, and during the winter of 1701-2 the
majority of the German Princes were enlisted on the side of the Grand
Alliance; — among them the Electors of Mainz and Trier, the Landgraves
of Hesse-Cassel and Hesse-Darmstadt, and the Electors John William of
the Palatinate and George Lewis of Hanover, with his uncle, Duke
George William of Celle. The Franconian and Swabian Circles at, first
contemplated declaring themselves neutral, but they were soon won over
to unite with the two Rhenish Circles, the Austrian, and the Westphalian.;
and a conference of these Circles held at Nordlingen in March, 1702,
promised to put into the field a, joint force of 54,000 men. The Baltic
Powers held aloof from the Coalition; but, thanks to the intervention of
England and Holland in the conflict between Denmark and Sweden in
1700, the troops both of Denmark and of Holstein-Gottorp were available
for hire by the Maritime Powers.

Not all the German Powers, however, were mustered among the
adherents of the Coalition. Hatred of his Liineburg cousins inclined
Antony Uhic of Brunswick- WoHienbiittel to take the side of Louis,
but Celle and Hanover overpowered him ; he was put to an igno-
minious flight, and his brother Rudolf Augustus (with whom he ruled
conjointly) had to conclude an "accord" which allowed the Brunswick-

CM. XIV. 26 — 2

404 Bavaria's action. — The military situation. [l7oi-2

Wolfenbuttel troops to be taken into the Emperot's service. More
useful to Louis were the two Wittelsbach brothers, Electors Maximilian
Emanuel of Bavaria and Joseph Clement of Cologne. Maximilian,
hitherto one of the most consistent opponents of Louis, had been acting
as Governor of the Spanish Netherlands sitice 1695 ; but he had not
opposed the occupation' of that country by French troops, and, after
carrying on simultaneous negotiations with Louis aiid the Coalition,
decided, in March,' 1701, to throw in his lot with France, though he was
not to commit any overt act of hostility until a suitable opportunity.

In addition to his Wittelsbach followers, Louis could also reckon
among his allies two States whose adhesion to his cause was dictated by fear
rather than by enthusiasm. Duke Victor Amadeus II of Savoy, true to the
family policy of balancing dangerous neighbours against each other, had
been suspected of supplying information to Eugene as to the movements
of Gatinat's army with which the Savoyard troops were serving, while
Portugal had thrown in her lot with Louis, mainly to avert attack from
Spain. In that kingdom Philip V had been readily acknowledged, save
only in Catalonia, and the resources of Spain's Indian possessions were
thus placed at the disposal of Louis.

TTlus, at the outset of the War, the forces of the two sides seemed
by no means unequally matched. Against the superior numbers and
financial resources of the Coalition France could set the great ad-
vantages of unity of command and purpose, while her central position
gave her the strategic asset of operating on interior lines. Moreover,
certain special features of the strategical situation were greatly in her
favour. By securing without opposition military possession of the
Spanish Netherlands, she at once menaced the United Provinces with
invasion, and placed herself in a strong position on the lines of
communication between the Maritime Powers and Austria. At the
same time, the alliance with Bavaria secured to her armies an open door
iiitothe Danube valley, the easiest and most direct line of advance
against Vienna; and, though the alternative route, by the valley of the
Po and the head of the Adriatic, was disputed by Eugene's army, the
situation in northern Italy added to the tasks and difficultite of Austria.
Further, though the joint naval forces of England and Holland con-
siderably outnumbered those of France, the fact that the haxbours of
Spain and the two Sicilies were under French control, and that those
of Portugal were closed to the Maritime Powers through her alliance
with Prance, seemed to secure Louis against that advent of a superior
hostile fleet in the Mediterranean by which William HI had turned the
scale against France in the previous war. On land things were more
equal: " it was not till the later campaigns of the war that Louis XIV
ceased to oppose approximately equal numbers to the armies of the Grand
Alliance;- and, even when the Allies enjoyed a slight numerical superiority,
it was balanced by the advantages of homogeneity. Before 1702 the

1701-2] Marlbor(mgh. 406

prestige of the French armies had not yet been seriously challenged, and,
though Luxembourg was gone, France seemed to have successors worthy
of hijn in Villars, BoufiBers, Catinat, Vendome and Bei-wick. The real
weakness of France and the great asset of the Allies were only to be
revealed by war. The French administration, formerly, under Louyois, the
direct cause of the triumphs of Louis XIV, was no longer what it had been :
Chamillart, conceited, incapable, though personally honest, was a poor
substitute for the great organiser, and deficiencies in supplies and equip-
ment hampered the French throughout. The mantle of William fell on
worthier shoulders. Marlborough possessed all the resolution and en-
durance which had sustained William through so many disappointments ;
he had also a marvellous power of managing men, whether in the
council-chamber or in the field, which William had never possessed. As
a general too William had failed in execution, being without that capacity
for careful attention to details which is essential to the securing
of success. But it was precisely in this that, with all his brilliance,
Marlborough's greatness lay. Both as a strategist and as a tactician he was
to prove himself superior to all of his opponents; nor is there any soldier
of his time whom it is possible so much as to compare with him except
his colleague, Eugene. UnruflBed by the interference of Dutch deputies
and by the failure of half-hearted Princes of the Empire to fulfil their
promises, Marlborough was always resourceful, always ready for the
unexpected, quick to perceive and to utilise his enemy's errors, careful of
his men, but prepared to demand necessary sacrifices from them. He
had readiness, alertness and an originality which rose superior to the
conventional strategy of the day; while at the same time his soundness
of judgment and great common sense saved him from recklessness or
from rash attempts at the impossible. An adroit and accomplished
tactician, it was perhaps in the domain of strategy that his preeminence
was most marked ; here his broad grasp of the general situation, com-
bined with his great capacity for dealing with the details of administra-
tion, enabled him to frame great enterprises and to carry them to a
successful conclusion. And, almost alone among great generals, he showed
a singular insight into naval affairs, inspiring the strategy by which the
Allies obtained and utilised the control of the Mediterranean. In this,
as in other respects, he may have learnt from Williani; but his use of his
lessons was all his own.

The campaign of 1702 was opened in Italy. Here Eugene, ill
supported by the inefficient War Council at Vienna, found himself
outnumbered by Vendome and forced to choose between evacuating Italy
altogether and allowing the French to sever his communications with
Vienna. He chose the latter course ; and it was no small achievement
that he nevertheless succeeded in maintaining his position in the
Modenese throughout the campaign, even though severed from his base,
subsisting on the produce of the country, and inflicting a sharp check

4:06 Alsace and the Netherlands. [1702

at Luzzara (August 15) on the greatly superior forces of Vendome and
Philip of Spain, who had brought up a strong division from Naples.
One reason for the lack of assistance he experienced is to be found in the
fact that, when rather late in the year reinforcements were about to start
for Italy, they had to be diverted to southern Germany. There the
command of the Allies, a motley and not very efficient force provided
mainly by the Swabian and Upper-Rhenish Circles, with an Austrian con-
tingent, had been entrusted to Lewis of Baden-Baden, a veteran of the
Turkish wars. Fortunately for him, the diversion of the main efforts of
France to the Netherlands caused Catinafs army of Alsace to be in even
worse plight. Indeed, when in June the Allies crossed the Rhine and
laid siege to Landau, Catinat was too weak to relieve the fortress, which,
after a valiant defence, capitulated on September 11. Here the successes
of Lewis of Baden were rudely checked, for the Elector of Bavaria,
suddenly throwing off the mask of neutrality he had hitherto assumed,
had declared for France and attacked and captured Ulm. The Allies,
finding their communications with Vienna in grave peril, hastily recrossed
the Rhine ; and Villars, superseding Catinat, not only managed to gain
a passage at Hiiningen, but, advancing into the Black Forest, engaged
and defeated Lewis of Baden at Friedlingen (October 14). However, it
was too late in the year for the victors to effect a junction with thieir
Bavarian ally; and the Elector was prevented from attacking Upper
Austria by the troops which were to have joined Eugene and were
instead diverted to hold the line of the Inn.

Meanwhile Marlborough had taken the field in the Netherlands
(July), where the main body of the Allies, some 40,000 strong, was lying
in front of Nymegen to cover the siege of Kaiserswerth on the lower
Rhine, which 25,000 Dutch and Prussians were assailing, and to protect
the south-eastern frontier of Holland against 60,000 Frenchmen quartered
in the bishopric of Liege under Marshal Boufflers. Skilfully taking
advantage of the undue extension of the French lines, Marlborough
drew Boufflers back from Cleves to the left bank of the Meuse by
threatening to cut him off from Brabant ; and, though the intervention of
the Dutch deputies twice prevented a battle when Marlborough seemed
to have Boufflers at his mercy, the French had to withdraw behind the
Demer (August 23). Marlborough was thus able to successively besiege
and reduce Venloo (September 16), Ruremonde (October 7), and Liege
(October 23) ; Boufflers making an unavailing attempt to anticipate the
Allies at Liege, but retreating at once when he found the position he
had meant to take up occupied by Marlborough's covering army. These
successes gave the Allies control of the lower Meuse, wMle the capture
of Kaiserswerth (June 15) and Rheinberg did the same for the lower
Rhine, so that the work of securing liie communications between the
Maritime Powers and Vienna was well started. In the next summer,
Marlborough invaded the electorate of Cologne, overrunning it and

1703] Vienna threatened by Villars. 407

capturing Bonn (May 18, 1703). But, before he could gain com-
plete strategic freedom, it was necessary to remove further from
the neighbourhood of the Dutch frontier the menace of the French
occupation of the Spanish Netherlands. A well-conceived scheme for
an attack on Antwerp was spoilt by the disobedience of one Dutch
general and the rashness of another, resulting in the defeat of Obdam
at Eckeren (June 30); and Marlborough had to content himself with
securing the Meuse below Namur by the capture of Huy and other
minor fortresses ajid with forcing the French back behind the lines of
the Mehaigne, where they remained passive spectators of the fate of
these places. These achievements, though lesS than he might have
achieved if unimpeded, cleared the country between Meuse and Rhine
of the French and set him free to carry to Vienna the help so urgently
needed there.

With the spring of 1708, the French prepared to utilise the path
to Vienna thrown open to them by Bavaria's action. In March Villars
secured Kehl, and, pushing across the Black Forest by Villingen, joined
the Bavarian Elector near Ulm (May 9), unimpeded by Lewis of Baden,
who lay inactive in his celebrated lines of Stolhofen, watched by another
French corps under Marshal Tallard. The Elector would not have been
there for Villars to join, had but Styrum, who commanded the troops
of the Franconian Circle, cooperated with the 19^000 Austriaris under
Schlick on the Inn, Their failure to xmite had allowed the Elector to
capture Ratisbon, and to inflict on Schlick's isolated corps a sharp reverse
at Scharding (March 11).

Vienna was now in dire peril. Had Villars and the Bavarian Elector
pushed on down the Danube, it is difiicult to see how the city could
have been saved. Lewis of Baden was helpless, Marlborough fully
occupied in the distant Netherlands, Hungary actually in insurrection;
and not even Eugene could prevent the army of Italy from being pressed
back through Tyrol by Vendome's superior fordes. But, like his son
Charles Albert thirty-eight years later, Maximilian Emanuel missed
his chance. Intent on securing communication with much-coveted
Milan, he turned aside into Tyrol, leaving Villars, much to the French
commander's chagrin, to cover his operations against Lewis of Baden,
who had come up from Stolhofen with most of his corps and joined
Styrum (June). But the conquest of Tyrol did not prove so easy as the
Elector anticipated. Though opposed by the peasantry, he reached
Innsbruck (Jidy 2) and even pushed a detachment forward to the
Brenner Pass, only to find that Vend6me had not arrived. The
latter, indeed, never started for Trent till July 20 ; and, by the time he
reached it (September 2), the Bavarians, harassed by the Tyrolese
mountaineers, who cut off their detachments and' threatened their com-
munications, had given up hope of his coming and had beaten a costly
retreat to Bavaria (August), During this time Lewis of Baden and

408 Savoy Joins the Grand Alliance. [1703-4

Styrum had let slip the chance of combining their forces against Villars,
who, profiting by their separation, parried the Margrave's attack on
Augsburg by falling on Styrum's weaker force at Hochstadt (September SO)
and completely defeating him. This checked Lewis, who had to abandon
Augsburg and retire into winter-quarters, just north, of the Lake of
Constance. Even at this late point in the campaigning season Villars
was anxious to try a dash fit Vienna, now seriously menaced by the
Hungarian insurgents; but the Elector's refusal to contemplate the
project led to violent quarrels between him and Villars, and to the recall
of the latter before the next campaign*

Meanwhile, on the Rhine things had fared ill for the Allies. Thiingen,
whom Lewis, of Baden had left at Stolhofen, failed to prevent Tallard
from taking Breisach (September 8) and besieging Landau. Reinforced
by a corps from the Netherlands under the Hereditary Prince Frederick
of Jlesse-Cassel, he attempted the relief of Landau, only to suffer a disas-
trous defeat atSpeyerbach (November 13), on which Landau surrendered
(November SI). Thus, with 40,000 Fjrench wintering in Bavaria, their
communications with Alsace greatly improved by Tallard's successes and
the fprces of the Maritime Powers apparently committed to operations
in the Netherlands, the prospects for the Emperor looked bad indeed.
The only gleam of satisfaction was that the Duke of Savoy, always
distrustful of the sincerity of his French ally's promises, had been in
secret communication with the Emperor for some time, and now, urged
to the step by.Vendome's demand that he should hand over Turin and
Susa to the French and suffer the disarming of his troops, definitively
threw in his lot with the Allies and signed a treaty with the Emperor
(October 25). On this, Starhemberg, who had maintained Eugene's
old position on the lower Po during the summer, hastened with his
15,000 men across the Parmesan and joined Victor Amadeus on the
Tanaro (January, 1704)^a move which Vendome, who had evacuated
southern Tyrol after his fruitless advance to Trent (September),
completely failed to prevent,. Savoy's defection meant that Austria
was secure from attack on the side of Italy^ at any rate until the
French had secured their communications with France, which this change
of sides had menaced.

But, even so, Vienna's peril was great; and, when in April strong
reinforcements crossed the Black Forest by the Hollenthal and joined
the Elector of Bavaria near Dillingen (May 19), unhampered by Lewis
of Baden, it seenied futile to hope that even Eugene, who had replaced
Styrum, would be able to stem the advance of the Franco-Bavarians
down the Danube. Tallard, with over 30,000 men, took up a position
near Kehl to protect the French communications with Bavaria and to hold
Lewis of Baden in check; while Villeroi, with yet another army, was
expected to keep Marlborough occupied in the Netherlands. Luckily
for the Allied cause, Marlborough had realised the critical condition of

1704] MarlborougKs march to the Danube. 409

affairs ; and his great design of bringing, the British and their auxiliaries
to the Danube had been planned and discussed with Eugene i during the
winter. But to obtain the consent of the cautious Dutch to a scheme
so daring would have been impossible, and the first stages of the march
were accordingly carried out on the pretext that he intended to turn the
French position in the Netherlands by a move up the Moselle. Under the
colour of this pretence, the British and their auxiliarifes left their canton-
ments towards the end of April, and, pushing across the Meuse to Jiilich
and thence (May 19) to the Rhine, made their way up that river. It
was soon evident that something more than a campaign on the Moselle
was afoot. Marlborough's appearance at Mainz (May 29) brought Tallard
back to the left of the Rhine to cover Alsace; but the English
commander merely made a feint of being about- to cross at Mannheim
and pushed on south-eastward across the Main, up the Neckar by
Liadenburg (June ,3) and Mondelheim (June 10), on by the, Pass of
Geislingrai through the hills which divide the .Neckar from the Danube
until, on June 22, he joined the corps of Lewis of Baden at Ursprung,
a little north of Ulm. On the way, Eugene and Margrave Lewis had
joined Marlborough to discuss plans ; and the result of their delibera-
tions was that Eugene proceeded to Stolhofen to contain Tallard, while
the Margrave and Marlborough cooperated against the Elector and the
Erench imder Marsin, ViUars' successor. A week later (June 28) the
arrival of the British infantry with Marlborough's guns brought, up
the Allied force to 202 squadrons and 96 battalions, about 10,000 men
in all. The march had changed the situation : the dangerous weakness
of the Allied position was remedied; until Marlborough's army was
beaten, Vienna could not be attacked. But the strategic insight
which had determined Marlborough's course of action, and the daring
with which he planned what was practically a flank movement right
across the French front, are really less remarkable than the care with
which the details of the move had been calculated and the success
with which his object had been concealed from watchful foes and
timid friends alike.

The first task before the Allies was to secure a passage over the
Danube. To this end Marlborough moved upon Donauworth, and on
July 2 succeeded after a desperate struggle in storming the strong
entrenched camp of the Bavarians on the Schellenberg. The losses,
though heavy, were justifiable; for Tallard was reported to be coming up
from the Rhine, and it was important to capture the post before the
garrison could be reinforced. This success gave the Allies Donauworth
and its bridge, opening Bavaria to them, and forcing the Elector and
Marsin to abandon the line of the Danube and retire southward up the
Lech. Marlborough was thus enabled to place himself between the Franco-
Bavarians and Vienna, Bavaria being exposed to his raiding parties. How-
ever, reinforcements were on their way to join the Elector; for no sooner

410 Blenheim: [i704

had Villeroi found that Marlborough's feint at the Moselle was only the
cloak to greater designs than he had pushed across to Alsace and joined
Tallard. This allowed Tallard to cross the Rhine at Kehl (July 6)
and carry 40 battalions and 60 squadrons through the Bla,ck Forest to
Villingen (July 16), and, after wasting five days in a futile attempt on
that town, to join the Elector near Augsburg on August 6. This delay
was important. Eugene had been restrained from impeding Tallard's
march by the presence of Villeroi's superior numbers ; but, when he found
that Villeroi showed no signs of taking the offensive, he set oiF with
78 squadrons and 18 battalions, nearly 20,000 men (July 23), and by
forced marches reached Hochstadt on the Danube on the day Tallard
joined his colleagues. This reinforcement made it possible to detach
Margrave Lewis, whom Marlborough had found a somewhat uncongenial
colleague, with 22 battalions and 34 squadrons of Austrians, amounting
to some 16,000 men, to besiege Ingolst&dt, the one strong place on
the Danube below Donauworth still in the hands of the Bavarians,
and a fortress of great importance to the Allies because of its position
on their direct line of communication with Vienna. Immediately after
his departiu^e (August 9) the enemy, hoping to find Eugene isolated,
crossed to the north of the Danube at Dillingen and moved downstream.
But, though Marlborough had remained posted south of the Danube so
as to cover the siege of Ingolstadt, if necessary, he was not out of sup-
porting distance of Eugene. A forced march brought his army into line
with Eugene's on the Kessel (August 11); and, two days later, the' Allies,
anxious not to let slip the chance of a battle, attacked the Franco-
Bavarians behind the Nebel. The position was strong: the fortified
villages of Blenheim (Blindheim) and Lutzingen protected its flanks, that
of Oberglauheim covered its centre, and marshy banks made the Nebel a
formidable obstacle. ■ But Marlborough was quick to see that it had weak
spots : that Blenheim and Oberglauheim were too far apart for mutual
support; that, as the result of the two armies being posted sfeiparately, the
actual centre of the Franco-Bavarians was formed of cavalry; that the
cavalry who formed their centre were too far back from the Nebel to dis-
pute the passage; and that the massing of Tallard's infantry in the villages
left very few available to support his centre. Accordingly, Eugene's army
worked round to the right through the woods to attack Marsin and
the Elector, who were on TaUa;rd's left from Oberglauheim to Lutzingen ;
Marlbol-dugh, after delaying till past mid-day to give Eugene time
to get into place, drew Tallard's attention to the extremities of his line
by vigorous, if expensive, attacks on Blenheim and Oberglauheim, under
cover of which he pushed his cavalry forward to attack the hostile centre,
from which reinforcements had been drawn off to Blenheim. Covered
by the fire of the infantry and artillery which Marlborough brought up
to support them, the Allied cavalry crossed the marShy Nebel, repiilsed
with the aid of Lord Orkney's infantry a belated charge by thfe French

1701-4] The reMtlts of Blenheim. — The Mediterranean. 411

horse, and then, reinforced by their reserves, delivered a siriashing blow
against Tallard's centre. The French cavalry, not having enough
infantry to succour them, were routed and driven headlong, the few
battalions of their centre being cut to pieces. Thus Tallard's whole
army was shattered ; and, though up to this point Marsin's had held
Eugene at bay, the valiant efforts of the Imperial general's infantry
being ill-supported by his horse, Marlborough's blow was decisive.
Marsin, his right flank uncovered by the defeat of his colleague,
could not hold his ground ; Oberglauheim had already been Carried ; the
28 fine battalions in Blenheim were completely cut off and forced to
surrender ; and though Marsin withdrew his army in good order,
Tallard's had ceased to exist as an efficient fighting-fotce. At a cost
of 12,000 casualties the 52,000 Allies had routed a rather larger force
in a strong position, inflicting on them 14,000 casualties, capturing
over 100 guns and 11,000 prisonfers, and had by this crushing blow
shattered the great reputation of the French arms. The effect of this
great victory was seen in the precipitate retreat of the French behind the
Rhine, and in Villeroi's failure to interfere with the siege of Landau,
which the Allies, who crossed at Philippsburg on September 8, invested
a week later. On November 23 Landau fell ; and on the same day
Trarbach surrendered to Marlborough, who had pushed up the difficult
valley of the Queich to the Moselle and occupied Trier (October 26).

Thus in the year 1704 the situation was completely reversed in
Germany; Vienna was delivered; the French invaders were expelled;
the Elector of Bavaria was a fugitive, his dominions being placed under
Austrian control by the Convention of Ilbersheim (November 7) ; and
French prestige destroyed by a blow without a parallel since Cond^
had destroyed the Spanish reputation at Rocroi, Nor could Louis XIV
balance this disaster with any success elsewhere. In Italy, Victor Amadeus,
though sore beset and isolated, still maintained his ground in Piedmont;
in the Netherlands nothing had been done since Villeroi's departure ;
and in the new theatre of operations in the Pyrenean Peninsula ahd
the Mediterranean the advantage had remained with the Allies. ' '

In the negotiations as to the Partition Treaties the question of the
Mediterranean had been one of the most important issues; W^iUiam,
fresh from the experience of the last war, had seen that, were Spain tb
pass to a Bourbon, England would be excluded from the Mediterranean
unless she could secure a base within the Straits. He had fought
hard to obtain Minorca for England; and, but for the reluctance of
Rooke to venture out so late in the season, a squadron would probably
have been despatched to Cadiz in the autumn of 1701 to forestall the
French in occupying that aU -important position. William was pressing
on the preparations for such an expedition, when his death, which threw
all arrangements out of gear, caused a serious delay in its departure.
The instructions issued to Rooke leave no doubt that the expbdition was

412 Cadiz. — The Methuen Treaty. [1702-4

aimed at Cadiz, not as the commercial centre of ithe trade of Spanish
America, but as a strategic point capable of being made the base, from
which a British fleet might control the Mediterranean. But Rooke
never liked or apprecia,ted the scheme. In his eyes the intercepting
of the returning Plate fleet was of far greater importance; and, owing
partly to his lack of energy, but even more to Ormond's mismanage-
ment and the bad discipline of the troops, the attack on Cadiz (August 15
— 'September 15) proved a fiasco, which was only partly redeemed by
Rooke's exploit on the homeward voyage. ;He found the Plate fleet
sheltering in Vigo, and attacked and destroyed it with the Erencb squadron
which formed its escort (October 12). By this means he managed, to
return with one useful achievement to his credit, though the greater
scheme had miscarried, and for want of a Mediterranean base the naval
operations of the Allies in 1703 were of little eifect. Still, by forcing
the French to lie quiet all that summer in Toulon, Shovel! proved
to Portugal that England could cover her against France. This demoJi-
stration directly furthered the negotiation of the Treaty of May 16, 17G3,
by which Portugal was detached from the side of Louis and enrolled
among the adherents of the Grand Alliance ^

, One important result of Portugal's change of sides was that, when
the Emperor decided to transfer his rights over Spain to his second son,
Archduke Charles, and to despatch him to the Peninsula to prosecute
his claim, a good base was secured for the operations of the troops
which England and Holland sent out to assist him (February, 1704).
Philip V was, however, prepared for , the attack ; and by land little was
accomplished. It was at sea, not ashore, that took place the principal
operations of the Allies in southern Europe in 1704. Seeing clearly
that the capture of Toulon would be the most damaging blow that
could be inflicted on France,, Marlborough had planned that, after Robke
had escorted Archduke Charles to the Tagus, he should carry his fleet
to the Riviera and there gain touch with the Duke of Savoy, who was
to furnish the land forces needed to cooperate with the British navy
in this great enterprise. Unfortunately for the Allies, it was at this
time wholly out of the power of the Duke of Savoy to spare any troops
for w attack on Toulon. Accordingly, Rooke had .to. fall back on his
alternative task of assisting the operations of the Archduke, and returned
to the Straits. On the way home, he unluckily just failed to intercept the
French squadron from Brest, which the Count of Toulouse was bringing

' This Treaty, signed by Paul Methuen, must be distinguished from the famous
"Methuen Treaty" concluded by his father John (formerly Lord Chancellor, of
Ireland) on December 27, by which Portugal was commercially tied to England.
Greatly to the damage of the general commercial and industrial interests of
Poi-ttigal, her wines were admitted into Eiigland at a duty lower by one-third than
that levied upon French wines, while the importation of English woollens into
Portugal was permitted.

1704-5] Gibraltar and Malaga, — The Netherlands. 413

to the assistance of the Toulon squadron, sighting them without being
able to overtake them (May 27). At the Straits, Rooke found reinforce-
ments awaiting' him from the Channel Fleet, sent southward as soon
as the destination of Toulouse was known, which brought his fleet up to
over 60 sail of the line. Thus reinforced, he decided to carry out an
enterprise which English strategists had been contemplating for some
time papt. The capture of Gibraltar (August 4) was, like the destruc^
tion of the Plate fleet at Vigo, a useful rather than a brilliant
achievement, for both garrison and defences were weak ; but, if Rooke's
merits in this matter are sometimes overstated, he has not generally
received proper credit for the action which he fought three weeks
la,ter — ^the only encounter' of the main battle fleets during the War.
Believing that Rooke was going to attack Barcelona, Toulouse had put
to sea with about 50 sail of the line (July 29); and, on hearing of
the loss of Gibraltar, he hastened to the Straits to see if he could
do anything to ■retrieve the situation. Rooke was cruising to the east-
ward of Gibraltar, to cover his prize from any attempt to recover it; and
on August 24 he fell in with the French ofl' Velez Malaga. The odds
were approximately equal ; for, if the Allies had a slight superiority
in ships, they were very short-handed, and were also seriously handi-
capped by the great expenditure of ammunition in the capture of
Gibraltar. It was a hard-fought encounter — " the sharpest day's
service I ever saw," Rooke called it — of which tactically the Allies
had by no means the worst, preventing Toulouse's efforts to break
their line, and ultiinately forcing the French to draw off" so roughly
mauled that next day, when he had the wind, Toulouse made no
attempt to renew the action but withdrew to Toulon, leaving the
Allies in possession of the fortress they had fought for. Strategically,
there was no doubt about the victory; and during the rest of the War
the French made no serious effbrt to challenge the Allied control of
the Mediterranean, their fleet retiring into the shelter of Toulon
whenever the British appeared in any strength. Shortly afterwards,
it is true, when the lateness of the season had forced Rooke to depart
homeward with the bulk of his fleet, Gibraltar was vigorously assailed
by land by the Marquis of Villadarias with a large Franco-Spanish
army, supported by a small squadron under de Pointis; but the siege
proved ineiFectual, a,nd in March, 1705, Leake finally raised it by
destroying the blockading squadron ofl' Marbella Point (March 21).

For the campaign of 1705 Marlborough had planned an invasion of'
France by the line he had pretended to be about to use in 1704 — that of
the Moselk and Saar. His aim was to penetrate to Metz, thereby turning
the fortresses of the Netherlands and also cutting ofl' Alsace from the
interior. However, neither the States General, who had promised to fill
his magazines, nor the Rhenish Electors on whom he was relying for
transport, performed their obligations; and, when the death of the

414 Eugene in Italy. -^-^Marlborough! s great plan. [i706-e

Emperor (May 3) caused the recall home of the Austrian contingent, Marl-
borough, not relishing the prospect of a campaign with a colleague so un-
sympathetic to him as Lewis of Baden, decided to transfer himself and his
army to the Netherlands. Here Villeroi had already taken the oflRmsive by
capturing Huy (May24i); but Marlborough's return sent him back to his
lines, out of which the Duke, despite the constant interference of Dutch
deputies, proceeded to manoeuvre him by a series of adrditly planned
and: skilfully executed enterprises. .Feints against the extremities of the
lines diverted ViUeroi's attention and allowed the Duke to pierce their
cei^tre near TirlBi^ont (July 18); but tlie obstruction oif the Dutch spoilt
more than one fair chance of victory, and the campaign ended; with the
levelling of the lines: between the Mehaigne and the Deraer as the only
thing accomplished. This, however, caused a strong detachment to be
called up from Algace, so that Villars was reduced to the defensive
(August), just as he had taken Weissenburg and seemed likely to recover
the line of the Lauter. In Italy, rather more had been accomplished.
Eugene, taking the field in April, forced Vendome's brother, the Grand
Prior of France, to abandon the line of the Oglio and retire hastily
behind the A^da by appearing on his flank and rear at Brescia (June 23).
However, at Cassano (August 16) Vendome checked Eugene's advance
somewhat sharply ; and the Austrians had finally to retire towards Tyrol
for the winter. Still, Eugene's activity had greatly relieved the pressure
on Piedmont, enabled Turin to hold out, and kept the half-^hearbed Duke
of Savoy true to his new alliance.

The next campaign opened badly for the Imperialists in Italy. In
April, 1706, Vendome made a sudden attack on their cantonments round
Brescia, driving them back into Tyrol in confusion, just as Eugene
returned from his labours at Vienna, whither he had gone to obtain
reinforcements and a supply of money for the army in Italy.

Had the Allied commanders been able to have their own way, Eugene
would have been accompanied by Marlborough and a British contingent ;
for the Duke, ever looking towards Toulon, hoped in concert with Eugene
to sweep the French from northern Italy, and then, assisted by the British
fleet in the Mediterranean, to deal the blow hitherto forbidden by the
want of a land force at his disposal. It was a scheme more brilliant even
than the march to the Danube in 1704 and exhibiting to the full Marl-
borough's strategic insight and comprehensive grasp. However, just as
he seemed about to win the consent of the States General, the sudden
retreat of Lewis of Baden behind the Rhine (April) revived their appre-
hensions, and prevented the grea,t design from being carried out. But
an English subsidy of 6^260,000 furnished Eugene with 24,000 troops
from Hesse-Cassel, Brandenburg, Saxe-Gotha and the Palatinate; and, thus
reinforced, he moved down the left of the Adige (July 5), disregardin!g
Venetian neutrality as in 1701, outflanked Marsin, the new commander
of the French army of Italy, and crossed to the south of the Po

1706-7] 2\rin. — Convention of Milan. — Ramillies. 415

(July 18). Once on that bank, he pushed on at- great speed, outpacing
as well as outflanking the French, who moved parallel up the left bank.
Not even at Stradella was any resistance oflered ; and, on August 31, the
junction with the Duke of Savoy was effected at VillasteUona. It was
promptly followed up by an advance on Turin, and by the complete defeat
of the investing army aJfter a stubbornly-fought battle (September 7), in
which the superior numbers of the French were neutralised by Eugene's
skilful handling of his troops and prompt improvement of his -tactical
opportunities. So far as Italy was , concerned, the victory was decisive.
The French at once evacuated Piedmont, withdrawing to France by
Pinerolo and leaving to their own resources their garrisons at Mantua,
Alessandria, and in the Milanese. These resisted stoutly, but vainly; and
by the end of the year hardly a fortress still held out. The completeness
of the French defeat may be judged from the conclusion of the Conven-
tion of Milan (March, 1707), by which Louis abandoned northern Italy
and withdrew all his troops to France, thereby obtaining a reinforcement,
which was greatly needed elsewhere, for the French disasters of 1706 had
not been confined to Italy.

After having to abandon his scheme for helping Eugene in Italy
Marlborough had laid his plans for forcing the lines of the Dyle behind
which Villeroi was lying, as he hardly anticipated that the French
Marshal would take the offensive. However, Villeroi, hearing that the
Prussian and Hanoverian contingents had not yet joined Marlborough j
boldly left his lines on May 19 and pushed across tiie Great Gheete by
Tirlemont to Judoigne on his way towards Liege. A rapid concentration
at Bilsen and a forced march south-westward enabled Marlborough to
plant himself across Villeroi's path, with over 60,000 men, British, Dutch,
and Danes ; and, early in the morning of May 23, the two armies came
into contact on the high ground which serves as the watershed between
the Gheete and the Mehaigne. Villeroi, though surprised to find the
Allies on the move, promptly took up his position for battle, resting his
right, mainly composed of cavalry, on the Mehaigne at Tavieres, posting
his centre at Ramillies and Offuz and his left between Offuz and Autre
i^glise. Its front being covered by the marshes in which the Gheete rises.
The position was strong and the French army hardly, if at allj inferior
in numbers to the AUies. But the marshes also forbade a counter-attack
by the French left; and Marlborough, realising this, contained that wing
by a feint with the first line of his right, the rest of which was diverted
under cover of some hills to support the left and centre in their attack on
the French right. The move was a complete success. Tavieres, too far
from BamiUies for effectual support, was stormed; a great cavalry combat
on the slopes bet>veen the Mehaigne and Ramillies ended in the defeat
of the French ; and their effort to form a new line, with its left resting on
Ramillies, was frustrated by the capture of that village. Next, the Allied
cavalry, pushing on, outflanked the new French right in the direction of

416 Results of Ramillies.^— Peterborough in Spain, [ivos-e

the Tomb of Ottomond; some British battalions crossed the marshes and
assailed Autre Eglise ; and the whole French army gave way in complete
disorder, losing nearly all their guns and suffering treble the 5000
casualties of the Allies.

Iti some respects Marlborough's most brilliant victory, Ramillies was
remarkable for the relentless vigour of the pursuit, which did not allow
the French to rally behind the Scheldt, but forced them to retire hastily
up the Lys to Courtrayj to avoid being cut off from France. Within
a fortnight of the battle, all Brabant and most of Flanders was in
Marlborough's hands : Antwerp (May 26), Ghent, Brages, and Oudenarde
were among the towns which capitulated at the first summons, and the
capture of Ostend (July 6) gave him a more direct line of communi-
cations with England, which he subsequently secured by the successive
reduction of Menin (August S!2)i Dendermonde (September 5), and Ath
(October 2). Moreover, his victory paralysed the French in other
cjuarters. Villars lost his chance of following up the retreat of Lewis
of Baden from Alsace, because he had to detach 30,000 men to the
Netherlands and was reduced to the defensive : Eugene's task was made
ea;sier, when the recall of Vendome to replace Villeroi left him with only
Marsin to face.

In the Pyrenean Peninsula also things had gone well for the Allies.
After Leake's relief of Gibraltar (March, 1705), Galway advanced into
Estremadura from Portugal, taking Valenza and forcing Tesse to evacuate
Andalusia to save Badajoz. Meanwhile Shovell's squadron carried a
British force round to the east coast, where Peterborough' was thus
enabled to inaugurate his remarkable career by the escalade of Monjuich
(September 12) and the reduction of Barcelona (October 9j 1705). This
was followed by the adoption of the Habsburg cause by Catalonia and >
Valencia ; and, though in the following spring, in the absence from the
Mediterranean of the bulk of the English fleet, a French army under
Tesse invaded Catalonia and besiieged Barcelona (February), the return
of Leake's fleet in full strength sent the Toulon squadron which had been
coverring the operations flying back to harbour, and forced Tess^ to raise-
the siege (May 11) and beat a disastrous retreat to France. Valencia
was again cleared of the French; and, on June 26, Madrid passed into
the occupation of the Allies. Galway, with an Anglo-Portuguese force,
had taken Ciudad Rodirigo in May and advanced by Salamanca on
Madrid, Marshal Berwick retiring before him. But outside Catalonia
and Valencia hardly a Spaniard was for Charlies: Castile rallied to
Philip; Berwick returned with reinforcements; and Galway, after a
brief stay, found it necessary to evacuate Madrid : while, though joined
by Peterborough (August 6), he had finally to retire into Valencia,
on the borders of which province he '• took up his winter-quarters,
Peterborough having, shortly before that, left Spain for Italy. Still,
despite the failure to hold Madrid, 1706 was a great year for the Allies,

1706-7] The first negotiations. — Charles Xll. 417

and so early as the middle of August Louis made overtures for peace —
apparently the first serious overtures which have to be noted in a long
succession of efforts. These overtures, which indicated his willingness to
consent to the cession of Spain to Archduke Charles, if Philip's rule over
Milan, Naples and Sicily were recognised, were addressed through the
French diplomatists Chamillart, Torcy, and the veteran d'Avaux, to the
States General. They were offered (what to them was of paramount
importance) a good " Barrier " — i.e. the suiTcnder into Dutch keeping
of a cincture of Belgian fortresses; and ulterior suggestions were added as
to the annexation of the "loyal" Provinces as a whole, besides commercial
advantages at the expense of all-suffering Spain. On communicating the
substance of these proposals to Marlborough, Heinsius was quickly given
to understand that England was not prepared — as in truth neither the
Whigs, nor the Queen and public opinion, at the time were — to listen to
any mention of the partition of the Spanish monarchy ; while a significant
hint was conveyed to him and his Government, that the nature of the
ultimate Dutch " Barrier " would largely depend on the fidelity of the
United Provinces to the Alliance. Thus this first attempt at peace
negotiations, which had been repudiated by the Imperial as well as
by the English Government, broke down; although, in view of what
was to follow, it cannot be said to have been made wholly in vain.

One circumstance which had encouraged Louis to hold out for
better terms than the Allies would grant him also contributed largely
to hamper Marlborough's operations in 1707. The course of affairs in
north-eastern Europe had established the victorious army of Charles XII
of Sweden within the boundaries of the Empire at Altranstadt in
Saxony; and Louis hoped that the days of Turenne and Wrangel were
come again, and that the advance of the Swedish veterans into the
Austrian dominions might effect what the direct attack on Vienna
by the Danube had failed to do. There were reasons for this hope.
Joseph had infuriated Charles by assisting Augustus II, while the
Silesian Protestants were appealing to the Swedish King for protection
against Austrian oppression and persecution. Throughout central
Germany alarm and consternation prevailed; the Princes prepared to
retain for their own defence the troops they would otherwise have
hired out to the Maritime Powers; and so serious was the outlook
that Marlborough found it necessary to go in person to Altranstadt to
see whether his diplomatic skill could prevent Charles from intervening
in western Europe (April, 1707). However, he found his cause half
won , for Charles, though anxious to do something for the Silesian Pro-
testants, had preoccupations more pressing than that of embroiling himself
with the Maritime Powers in order to assist Louis XIV ; and Marlborough
was soon able to return to the Netherlands, secure in the knowledge that
Charles on breaking up from Altranstadt would not march on Vienna.
Nevertheless, his advance into the; Empire had certainly been of use to

C. M. H. V. CH. XIV. 27

418 The Flanders campaign ofl*Jd*I.-Fillars on the Rhine. [i707

France; for several of the north-German Princes, diresuimg this unwelcome
neighbour, had failed to produce the contingents that should have served
with Marlborough in the Netherlands ; so that his force fell short of what
was required, and the campaign of 1707 proved disappointingly* barren
of results. The strength of the French frontiers, all "covered by very
strong towns and well fortified," while those of the Allies were open,
made it essential that the Allies should outnumber the French by about
25,000 men, in order to provide a besieging force and escorts for convoys
and trains over and above the field-force needed to cover sieges. The
numerical superiority, however, was with the French, and Vendome,
adopting a most cautious defensive, would give no opportimity for a
battle. Moreover, when at last Eugene's invasion of Provence, described
below, caused the French to detach troops thither from Flanders, and so
transferred the superiority to Marlborough, the untimely intervention of
the Dutch deputies prevented him from bringing Vendome to action on
favourable terms, near Waterloo; and soon afterwards unusually wet
weather brought the campaign to an abortive close.

Elsewhere, the Allies had done even worse. The campaign of 1706
had been Lewis of Baden's twenty-sixth and last ; worn out by many years
of hard service, he died in January, 1707. Although his military talents
were not of the highest order and in the school of generals to which he
belonged precision and method were apt to degenerate into pedantry and
formalism, he had done good service in trying to reorganise the army of
the Empire, and had been unrivalled as a constructor of fortified lines.
Marlborough and Eugene had found him no very congenial or efficient
colleague. Yet his successor in command, Margrave Charles Ernest of
Brandenburg-Baireuth, was certainly his inferior. The campaign of 1707
on the Rhine illustrates admirably the utter inefficiency of the defensive
arrangements of the Empire. The " Unarmed Members " endeavoured
to shirk their obligations to provide funds ; while the " Armed Mem-
bers" preferred to hire out their troops to the Maritime Powers
rather than employ them at their own cost in the common cause.
Thus, when, in May, Villars unexpectedly took the offensive, cross-
ing the Rhine and assaulting the famous lines of Stolhofen (May 22),
he found them weakly held, and had little difficulty in capturing
them. This success allowed him to push forward into Swabia, re-
quisitioning and plundering freely in all directions. His raiding
parties spread terror throughout south-western Germany, levying
contributions on Wiirtemberg, Baden, the Palatinate, and the Swabian
Circle. However, in July, ten battalions and twelve squadrons had
to be dietached to Provence; and on the supersession of the incom-
petent Margrave of Baireuth by the Elector George Lewis of Hanovei",
who brought with him some 6000 men, the French retired across
the Rhine (September), having, in the words of an angry colonel in
Marlborough's army, "overrun the lazy and sleepy Empire and not

iyot] Almanza. — Eugene^ s attempt on Toulon. 419

only maintained and paid a great army in it all the year, but by vast
contributions sent money into France to help the King's other affairs."

But these reverses on the Rhine were trifling, compared with the
disastrous turn affairs had taken in Spain. Hoping that Galway's army
might be utilised to cooperate with Eugene in the attack on Toulon,
which now seemed at last practicable, Marlborough had despatched
reinforcements to the Peninsula. Unfortunately a disagreement between
Galway and Archduke Charles led to a separation ; and the Archduke's
departure for Catalonia left Galway with only 15,000 men, a bare
third of whom were British, while half were Portuguese and the
rest Dutch and Huguenots. Endeavouring, with this motley force, to
defeat Berwick before the Duke of Orleans could reinforce him, Galway
gave battle at Almanza (April 25, 1707), and, largely through the
misconduct of the Portuguese, suffered a complete defeat, which lost
Aragon, Murcia and Valencia to the Allies, and for the rest of the
year reduced them to a mere defensive in Catalonia. Worse than this, no
troops could be spared to assist Eugene's invasion of Provence, a task
which had to be undertaken with most inadequate forces, inasmuch as the
Emperor foolishly insisted on detaching some 13,000 men under Daun
on the quite subsidiary errand of the reduction of Naples, when success
at the critical spot, Toulon, would have been the surest road to the
ultimate acquisition of southern Italy. Daun easily achieved his task ;
the Neapolitan population was bitterly hostile to the Bourbons, whose
weak garrisons, cut off from all chance of succour by the English command
of the sea, merely offered a feeble resistance which came to an end
in September. But this success could not compensate for the failure
of Eugene's attack on Toulon. Moving by the Col di Tenda, Eugene
had crossed the Var on July 11, and, although hampered by the
negligence and inefficiency of the Duke of Savoy, had reached Frejus,
and was in touch with Shovell and the British fleet, by the 16th. But
the Duke's procrastination caused further delays, and gave time for the
troops which Berwick was sending home from Spain to reinforce Marshal
Tesse at Toulon before the arrival of the Allies (July 26). On
August 14, Tesse retook the all-important heights of Santa Catarina,
which the Allies had stormed a week earlier ; and Eugene, finding his
retreat menaced and little chance of taking Toulon, had to abandon
his attempt (August 22), and fall back across the Var, having lost
10,000 men in this ill-fated enterprise. Its only fruit was that, in order to
prevent their ships falling into the enemy's hands, the French had sunk
their whole squadron of more than 50 sail in the harbour, and thereby
put it quite out of their power to contest the English control of the
Mediterranean.

French diplomacy, whose superiority to its rivals in this period was
still as incontestable as till recently had been the military preeminence
of France, had not ceased from its efforts since their failure in the

OH. XIV. 27—2

420 Renewed peace negotiations.-Vend6me in Flanders, [i 707-8

autumn of 1706. Already in October and November of that year, an
attempt had been made to influence the Imperial Court in the direction
of peace through Pope Clement XI ; and, when the campaigns of 1707
had conspicuously demonstrated not only the weakness of the Empire
in itself, but also the dubiousness of Archduke Charles' prospects of
establishing himself on the Spanish throne, the labours of the French
agents recommenced with a better chisince of success. During the winter
of 1707-8 seductive suggestions of mercantile advantages were again
made at Amsterdam and Rotterdam by Nicolas Mesnager, deputy of
Rouen in the Conseil de Commerce at Paris and an expert in colonial
and general trade aifairs, who from this time onward plays an important
part in the negotiations for peace, and by the Belgian Count Bergeyek,
on behalf of Philip V. But Marlborough's star remained in the
ascendant ; and in December, 1707, by passing in the House of Lords
an amended resolution that no peace could be honourable or safe which
allowed the House of Bourbon to retain any part of the Spanish
monarchy, the Whig party blocked all peace proposals incompatible
with this declaration.

For the campaign of 1708 it had been proposed that Marlborough
should occupy Vendome and the main French army, over 80,000 strong,
in the Netherlands, while a joint advance was made by George Ijcwis of
Hanover upon Alsace, and by Eugene by the Saar and Moselle. But
George Lewis, through no fault of his own, could not carry out his share
of the design. The failure of many of the principal German Powers,
notably Saxony and Prussia, to provide their proper contingents made it
impossible for the army of the Empire, whose available force was under
20,000, to take the field; and Eugene had accordingly to fall back on
the alternative plan, which had all along been contemplated, of trans-
ferring to the Netherlands his 76 squadrons and 33 battalions, in all
some 35,000 men, mainly Austrians, Hessians and Palatines. Here
Vend6me had been beforehand with the Allies, taking the field at the
beginning of July, and by rapid movements securing the line of the
Scheldt, the gates of Bruges and Ghent being Opened to him by French
partisans within. Too late to save western Flanders, Marlborough took
up his position at Assche, to cover Brussels and await Vendome's next move
or Eugene's arrival. After the fall of the citadel of Ghent (July 8),
Vendome decided to besiege Oudenarde, the possession of which would
greatly improve the communications between Ghent and Bruges and
the French frontier; and, to cover this operation, he moved up the
Dender towards Lessines (July 9). This was Marlborough's opportunity.
Though Eugene's troops were not yet up, and his own army was more
than 10,000 weaker than Vendome's, he never hesitated. By a great forced
march, which carried his vanguard over the Dender at Lessines on the
evening of the 9th, he interposed between Vendome and the Fi-ench
frontier and caused the French commander to fall back to the north-

1708] Oudenarde and its results. 421

westward, so as to cover Bruges, making for Gaveren, where he proposed to
cross the Scheldt. But again Marlborough's mobility baflSed his adversary.
The Allied vanguard under Cadogan pushed forward again and, early
on July, 11, secured the passage at Eyne, just below Oudenarde and some
six miles above Vendome's proposed crossing-place. Finding the Allies
so near and their vanguard only across the Scheldt and in apparent
isolation, Vendome determined to fall on it and crush it, in defiance of the
opinion of his colleague, the Duke of Burgundy, who would have preferred
to take up a defensive position behind the Norken, a few miles to the
west. The battle began with an advance against the Allied position
near Eyne by Vendome's vanguard, which, being left unsupported by
Burgundy, ended with a disastrous repulse. Then, when the main body
of the Allies was rapidly arriving and prolonging Cadogan's original
position to left and right. Burgundy gave the order for a general
advance. The battle was stoutly contested, the French attempts to
outflank the Allied left being repulsed, though they in turn prevented
the Prussians 'from gaining ground in that quarter. Marlborough,
however, sustained the Prussians with Danish and Dutch troops ; and,
pushing forward the cavalry of his left under cover of a hiU, not only
outflanked the French right, but took it in the rear, just as the French
left, which was at last pushing forward, was driven back in disorder by the
British cavalry. Only nightfall saved the bulk of the French forces from
captiu-e, and it was a beaten and demoralised army which rallied behind
the Bruges canal near Ghent.

The victory of Oudenarde exhibits clearly Marlborough's wonderful
power for fighting an impromptu battle and his remarkable eye for
ground. The physical feat performed by his troops in fighting such
a battle, after covering nearly fifty miles between 2 a.m. on the 9th
and 2 p.m. on the 11th, is also noteworthy ; but what is most striking
in connexion with his victory of Oudenarde is the daring use to which
Marlborough would have put it, could he have obtained the consent of the
Dutch and of Eugene, who had himself arrived in time to share in the
victory, and whose army arrived a few days after the action. Marlborough
would have boldly pushed on into Prance, merely masking the great
fortress of Lille, and have thereby transferred the war to French territory ;
while the descent upon Normandy of a corps under General Erie would
have provided him with a new line of communications with England. He
counted on the invasion of France for bringing about automatically the
evacuation of western Flanders by the remnants of Vendome's army. The
scheme was, however, too unorthodox even for the enterprising Eugene ;
and it was decided that the Prince's army should proceed to besiege
Lille, Marlborough covering the operation against interference by
Berwick, who had come up from the Moselle with 20,000 men and
was endeavouring to join Vendome. About the middle of August the
siege was begun, and, despite the stout defence of the veteran Boufflers,

OH. xvr.

422 Siege of Lille. — Negotiations resumed. [1708-9

was steadily pressed. Vendome quitted Ghent, and on August 30 joined
Berwick near Tournay ; but, instead of venturing another general action
with Marlboroughj they took up a position between Lille and Brussels,
hoping to raise the siege by interrupting the Allied communications with
the Belgian capital. Ostend was, however, open; and a vast convoy
of ammunition and stores was conducted thence by Cadogan and
by Webb, whose brilliant success over de La Mothe at Wynendad
(September 28) contributed largely to its safe arrival. On October 22
the town fell, and on December 9 the citadel also surrendered. The siege
had cost the Allies over 15,000 casualties; but the prize was of great
value. Indeed, the straits to which the French had been reduced is
evident from their evacuation of Bruges and all western Flanders, and
their retreat within their own frontier, as well as from the terms of
peace which Louis now declared himself ready to accept.

As in 1706, so in the spring of 1709 Louis made his first overtures
to the Dutch; but Heinsius, who, so late as December, 1708, had declared
the adherence of the States General to the principle of the renunciation
of the entire Spanish monarchy by the House of Bourbon, would hear
nothing of any sepai-ate negotiation. Thus, before the pourparlers
between Rouille, who was soon joined by Torcy, and the Dutch delegates.
Buys and van der Dussen, which began on March 17, had proceeded
far, a clear understanding had been reached between Heinsius and
Marlborough. The concessions which the French envoys were empowered
to make might well have satisfied the Allies, if they had been prepared to
entertain any notion of a partition of the Spanish monarchy. Louis was
prepared to be satisfied with the retention by Philip of Naples and Sicily
only ; all the rest of the Spanish inheritance was to be given up ; and Mons,
Namur, and even Strassburg, were to be surrendered, Lille alone being re-
stored to France. After an interview at the Hague between Marlborough
and Torcy on May 17, at which the French envoy attempted to obtain
lower terms by bribery on a grand scale, he on the 19th informed
Heinsius that he was empowered to offer the cession of the entire Spanish
inheritance. Louis XIV had some weeks earlier consented to recognise
the Protestant Succession in England, and it was understood that no
objection would ultimately be made to the cession of Newfoundland to
England, on which Marlborough had in addition insisted, or to the
satisfaction of Savoy. The real difficulty lay in the question of the
guarantee which Louis could furnish for Philip's surrender of the
Spanish monarchy. The Dutch, with unerring instinct, propiosed that
the three French towns, Valenciennes, St Omer, and Cambray, should be
pledged to the States General ; and this solution was supported at the
Hague by the veteran authority of Portland (Bentinck). But, recog-
nising that it was England upon whom it would devolve to settle affairs in
Spain, the English Government, represented by Townshend at the Hague,
demurred; and the Emperor and Savoy now raised their demands.

1709] Preliminaries of the Hague rejected: 423

Thus, the Preliminaries presented on May 28 to Torcy on behalf of the
Allies as an ultimatum, provided for a return to the conditions of 1648,
including a greatly improved "Barrier" for the Dutch and the retro-
cession of Alsace and Franche Comte, the demolition of the works of
Dunkirk, the recognition of the Hanoverian Succession in England and
the expulsion of the Pretender from France, and added the demand
that Louis should, by August 1, obtain the surrender by Philip of the
Spanish monarchy, or, in case of this not being effected, take measures,
in conjimction with the Allies, for effecting it. The truce between the
belligerents was, in the event of the surrender of the Spanish monarchy
within the period fixed, to last till the conclusion and ratification of peace
— ^in other words, Louis might eventually find himself obliged, with
diminished possessions and reduced resources, to resume the war. Torcy
at once pointed out the necessity of the ratification of peace preceding
any efforts which Louis might make to bring about the cession of the
Spanish monarchy — ^for how, he asked, could the King use force towards
his grandson ? It was, in truth, a concession which not even Oudenarde and
Lille, following upon Turin, Ramillies and Blenheim, could wring from
Louis ; and, as Madame de Maintenon declared, France would not have
been France, had the nation failed to support the King in his refusal.
Torcy, though presei-ving perfect calmness, promptly took his departure
from the Hague on May 28, and on the same evening from Brussels
intimated to Prince Eugene that the King had rejected the Preliminaries.
On June 3 the news reached Villars' headquarters that the war was to
proceed ; nine days later Louis issued from Versailles his manifesto to his
people, denouncing the Allies as having dishonoured France by their
demand, and invoking the Divine protection for himself and his army.

It is now known that on July 10, 1709, writing most confidentially
to Heinsius, Marlborough, whose ambition has been held largely account-
able for the unreasonable demand made on Louis XIV by the Allies,
avowed that " were he in the place of the King of France, he should
venture the loss of his country much sooner than be obliged to join his
troops for the forcing his grandson." The accusation, commonly preferred
against Marlborough, of having prolonged the war for his own benefit, is
untenable ; but he had not at the right moment asserted his more rational
views against the obduracy of Townshend, the calculations of the Dutch,
and the self-centred obstinacy of the Emperor, who is probably to be
held largely responsible for the breakdown. It must, however, be
allowed that the cession of the Spanish monarchy — which was still
regarded as an indispensable condition of peace — was nugatory without
guarantees. While both in Holland and in England there was an outburst
of indignation against the defiant resolution of France, Marlborough and
Prince Eugene were, not perhaps very fairly, blaming Dutch statesmanship
for having found no better way of securing from Louis a satisfactory
guarantee of the Spanish cession; and Heinsius was exhibiting his

424 The first Barrier Treaty. — Villars' preparations. [i709

willingness to formulate next time less harsh demands. But, though
Marlborough inclined to the revived alternative of a barrier of French
fortresses, the Whig leaders held that the only pledge, of the sort to be
contemplated was a series.of foi:tified places in Spain itself !

Meanwhile, in the negotiations which still dragged their length along,
the question of a Dutch " Barrier " of Belgic fortresses remained as if it
were a fixed point. It will, perhaps, be most convenient to review the
whole question of this provision for the protection of the Dutch frontier
in connexion with the third and final Barrier Treaty of 1715. Here,
therefore, it will suffice to say that the first Treaty known by this name
with the States General was signed by Townshend on October 3,9, 1709.
It was, so to speak, an open secret. The United Provinces by it acquired
the right of garrisoning nine fortified places in the Spanish Netherlands,
together with ten others, should they be retaken from the French ;
and were thus constituted by England the ' guardians of southern
Belgium-^and, as it seemed to Prince Eugene, the eventual masters of
the whole of the Belgic provinces. The protests of the Emperor were
made in vain, ;for it was quite clear from this time onwards that, if the
Maritime Powers held out by each other, the House of Habsburg was
reduced to passivity as to this part of any ultimate settlement.

The exorbitant demands of the Allies had in the early summer of
1709 enabled Louis to make a stirring appeal to the dignity and
patriotism of his subjects. Summoned to save France from a Coalition
bent on her humiliation and ruin, all classes rallied round their aged
monarch with wonderful alacrity and enthusiasm. Recruits flocked
forward to replete the diminished ranks; nobles imitated the King
in sending their plate to the Mint; the incompetent Chamillart was
dismissed from the Ministry of War ; and, by dint of astounding efforts,
a tolerably well-equipped army of some 90,000 men was placed at the
disposal of Villars, the only French Marshal who had not yet suffered
defeat at the hands of the Allies. Moreover, the long delays over the
negotiations provided the French with a welcome respite, which Villars
utilised to reorganise and reanimate the troops and to construct fortified
lines from Douay to St Venant, covering Arras and ban-ing the line of
advance between the Lys and the Scarpe. Not till June did the rupture
of the negotiations allow the Allies to begin operations , and by that
time Villars had made his lines so strong that even Marlborough shiank
from a frontal attack, proposing to turn them by an advance into France
along the coast, in which he would have used the British fleet as his
movable base. But this daring design did not meet with Eugene's approval;
and in July the Allies set about the more orthodox task of besieging
Tournay, in order to secure the line of the Scheldt. Tournay was ably
defended and occupied the Allies until the beginning of September ; but
Villars, too weak to risk a battle, had to remain inactive in his lines until
reinforced by a strong division from the upper Rhine. There it had been

1V09] MalplaqueL 426

intended that the army of the Empire should invade Alsace, while
Dauphin^ was simultaneously attacked by Daun and Victor Amadeus, who
had in the previous year secured Piedmont by the capture of Feiiestrelles.
However, while the Duke of Savoy made no effort to fulfil his share of the
scheme, Daun and the Austrian contingent with the Piedmontese could
effect nothing unsupported, so that these troops, who might have done
good service elsewhere, spent this year in complete inactivity. The
usual difficulties delayed the assembly of the army of the Empire so
long that the French could safely send detachments to the Netherlands
(July), and when at last the Austrians under Mercy impatiently crossed
the Rhine near Basel without waiting for the Elector of Hanover, they
came to grief at Hiiningen (Augmt 26), after which both sides relapsed
into cautious inaction.

After the faU of Tournay (September 3) the Allied forces were im-
mediately set in motion towards Mons, the movement being covered by a
feint on Douay to distract Villars. But the Marshal was not to be deceived ;
and, though the Allies anticipated him in seizing the passage (September 7)
by Jemmappes through the great forest which lies westward of Mons,
he was able to seize the southern passage by Malplaquet, occupying
so threatening a position that the Allies found they must drive him
away before they could form the siege. Unfortunately, Marlborough's
proposal to attack immediately was not adopted ; Eugene seems to have
believed that Villars was merely demonstrating and would not fight, and
the Dutch deputies urged that the attack should be deferred until the
arrival of the last detachment of the besiegers of Toumay. Hence the
attack was not made till two days later (September 11), and Villars had
utilised the delay to the best purpose, erecting field-works of a most
formidable character to cover his naturally advantageous position. His
main body was posted on a ridge less than two miles long, flanked to the
right and the left by the woods of Lasnieres and Taisnieres, while the wood
of Sart projecting in front of his left flanked and enfiladed the direct
advance against his front. Seeing that this wood of Sart was the key
to the French position, Marlborough and Eugene resolved to make their
main attack in this quarter, merely demonstrating on their left against
the wood of Lasnieres. Unfortunately, a blunder of the Prince of
Orange converted this demonstration into a real attack, which resulted
in a disastrous repulse for his Dutchmen, who lost very heavily. This
allowed Villars to reinforce his hard-pressed left from his right, and
a counter-attack drove the Allies back until it in turji was checked
by a column imder W^ithers, which had worked round through the woods
and now fell upon the extreme left of the French. Boufilers, now
in command as Villars had been badly wounded, had therefore to
weaken his right centre in order to hold Withers in check ; and this gave
Marlborough his opportunity. Orkney's British and Hanoverian infantry
were pushed forward against the French entrenchments, carried them.

426 Minorca and the Peninsula. [i708-9

and so opened a way for the Allied squadrons. Then followed a great
cavalry combat, which fluctuated until the Allies put in the last word
in the shape of Eugene's Austrian horse, and the battle was won.
Boufflers, with his left turned and his centre pierced, did well in extricating
his army in good order, only 16 guns and 500 prisoners being left behind.
The most costly of the great battles of the war — for the Allies had nearly
20,000 casualties and the French 12,000 — Malplaquet was nevertheless
an important success for the Allies, even if the French could fairly claim
to have shared the honom^s. Villars' army, despite the prodigious
efforts which it represented, had been ousted from an extremely strong
position, and so roughly handled in the process that it could do nothing
more for Mons, which had to surrender on October 9; so that the
campaign closed with the complete reduction of the French to the
defensive, while the Allies were firmly established on the upper Scheldt
and their conquests in Brabant and Flanders well covered.

Meanwhile, the events of 1708 and 1709 had done little to shake
Philip's hold on Spain. Early in 1708 Gal way had returned from the east
coast to Portugal, as it had been resolved to employ in Catalonia in place
of the untrustworthy Portuguese German troops set free by the armistice
in Italy. However, before the Germans under Starhemberg could
arrive, the Franco-Spaniards had taken Tortosa (July 15, 1708) and cut
the communications between Catalonia and Valencia; and even when
the Germans did arrive they failed to prevent the reduction of Denia
(November, 1708) and of Alicante (April, 1709), the only places left to
Charles in Valencia. The one success gained by the Allies in this region
in 1708 was the capture of Minorca by Leake and Stanhope (September
14-30, 1708) — a well-conducted enterprise, which at a small cost secui-ed
for the English fleet the one thing of which it had hitherto stood in need,
a harbour in the Mediterranean where a squadron could winter and be
properly refitted. For Marlborough, seeing the ill-success of his designs
on Toulon, had fallen back on the less satisfactory expedient of main-
taining a squadron permanently in the ^Mediterranean, to mask the Toulon
fleet and so furnish the Allied generals with that secure naval support
for which they were always asking. The expedition had been under-
taken at his urgent request, and the equipment of Port Mahon with the
stores and appliances needed for a dockyard was at once set on foot.
However, little was done in 1709 to advance the Habsburg caiase in the
Peninsula : even after all the French troops had been recalled from Spain
to succour Louis in his great emergency (August) Starhemberg effected
nothing beyond the capture of Balaguer (September), which facilitated
the next year's advance ; while Galway, invading Spanish Estremadura,
suffered a sharp reverse on the Caya (May 17), through the rashness of
his Portuguese colleague, de Fronteira. Philip's hold on the Peninsula
was unshaken, and even the successes of the Allies in 1710 only served
to confirm it.

1709-10] Negotiations at Gertruydenherg. 427

Thus, in the course of the campaigns of 1709 there seemed to be a
balance of loss and gain between the adversaries such as might justify
renewed attempts at negotiating peace, Spain was practically out of the
control of the Allies ; and the Government of the United Provinces, with
its own future secured by the Barrier Treaty, was for peace ; though the
question of the ultimate definition of the Barrier made it less feasible
than ever for the States General to proceed to a settlement without their
Maritime Ally. Thus the overtures made by Torcy in November, 1709,
as to a resumption of negotiations on the basis of the May Preliminaries,
led to a meeting of Dutch and French plenipotentiaries at the Hague
(January 18, 1710) and to a declaration by Louis (February) that
he was prepared to assent to the proposed basis, subject to a fresh
consideration of the question as to the guarantees of the cession. On
March 10 conferences were actually opened in nominal secrecy at
Gertruydenherg (or rather on a yacht between that place and Mierdyk),
and they were continued at intervals till near the end of April. France
was represented by Marshal d'Huxelles and the Abbe (afterwards Cardinal)
de Polignac, who found more than their match in Buys and van der
Dussen. England and the Emperor at first held aloof; though the
former Power still controlled the action of her Maritime Ally. It is,
however, tolerably clear that from the outset Marlborough and
Townshend agreed with the Dutch statesmen in contemplating a partial
cession only on the part of Philip, and that even the Whig Government
at home was wavering. The Emperor's estrangement from the Maritime
Powers increased in proportion as England's attitude altered. Joseph,
very unreasonably, objected to a partition of the Spanish monarchy, and
the proposal to give Sicily to Philip was vehemently opposed by Savoy —
though Godolphin and Marlborough, as well as Heinsius, would have
agreed to this. Moreover, the wish, certainly cherished at this time by
Louis, that his grandson should yield, met with no response on the part
of Philip; and no result seeming attainable at Gertruydenherg, the
conferences were, on the proposal of the Dutch, interrupted for some
time. The campaigns of 1710 had already begun, when Louis went so
far as to oflFer the Allies a monthly subsidy of 150,000 Uvres, to be
eventually doubled, for their coercive operations in the Pyrenean
Peninsula. The proposal was rejected by the Dutch plenipotentiaries on
their return to Gertruydenherg. It was more clear than ever that the
result depended on the decision of England, whether in return for liberal
trade concessions by Spain and the transfer of Newfoundland by France,
she would assent to a partition of the Spanish monarchy which would
leave Spain alone to Philip. The Dutch would in the end be content
with a good Barrier ; and the Emperor would have to be content with
what he could get. Savoy, who vehemently opposed the cession of Sicily
to Philip, could not turn the balance.

But, though the decision lay with England, Marlborough was no

428 Saragossa and Villa Vidosa. [1710-1

longer likely to direct it. Already in 1709 the course of affairs was
undermining a position from which he might otherwise have looked for-
ward with the highest expectations to the campaign of 1710. He was
losing grbund at home ; Prince George of Denmark, his constant sup-
porter, had died in October, 1708 ; and now Anne was rapidly slipping
away from the influence of the Duchess of Marlborough, and signs were
not wanting that the country was beginning to tire of the Whig monopoly
of office and to grow weary of a War of which the end appeared as far
off as ever, in spite of the great efforts made and the great successes won
during its course. In the summer of 1710, Marlborough and Godolphin
were aware that their downfall was approaching, and showed no intention
of attempting, as they had directed the great War, to determine the
peace by which it should be concluded.

Thus, in July, 1710, the inflexible attitude of Buys and van der Dussen
rendered a continuation of the Gertruydenberg Conferences hopeless ; and
the French plenipotentiaries withdrew with an angry protest, to which the
States General replied by an elaborate argument representing the King
of France as alone responsible for the continuance of the struggle. But
a memorandum handed in by the French was not without its effect upon
the peace party in the United Provinces ; and both there and in England
the feeling grew that the real reason for the breakdown of the negotia-
tions had been the excessive demands of the Maritime Powers.

Even before the Conferences were over, in July, 1710, Starhemberg,
whose strength reinforcements from Italy had raised to a total of
25,000, took the offensive, invaded Aragon, beat Philip's army at
Almenara (July 27), and more decisively at Saragossa (August 19),
after which he pushed on to Madrid, which for the second time
in the war was occupied (September 23) by the Habsburg claimant.
But, as in 1706, Castile rallied to Philip; no help was forthcoming
from Portugal, for Vendome, sent by Louis to command his grandson's
armies, had moved into the Tagus valley by VaUadolid, Salamanca
(October 6) and Talavera (October 19), interposing between the Allies
in Madrid and their friends in Portugal. As in 1706, Madrid soon
proved untenable. During the retreat of the Allies to the coast one
of their divisions was defeated and forced to capitulate at Brihuega
(December 8), the other securing a safe withdrawal by the battle, tactically
indecisive, of Villa Viciosa (December 10). Thus once again the Habsburgs
were confined to Catalonia, and even this was hardly secui'e, for in January,
1711, Gerona surrendered to de Noailles.

Operations had begun in the Netherlands with a sudden con-
centration of the Allies at Tournay (April 19), followed by a dash
across the lines of La Bass^e, which caught the French unprepared and
allowed Marlborough to form the siege of Douay (May 5). The place
made a most gallant defence, but Villars could give it no help ; he could
not risk the last army of France in a pitched battle, and therefore set

ivio-i] The fall of the Whigs. — Death of Joseph I. 429

himself instead to build the famous fortified lines from the mouth of the
Canche to the Sambre, which he boasted would check even Marlborough.
Douay, left unaided, fell on June 26 ; and, before the end of the campaign,
Bethune (August 28), St Venant (September 29) and Aire (November 12)
had shared its fate ; the whole line of the Lys was in the possession of the
Allies ; and the chances of a successful invasion in the following year had
been greatly improved. These were not very brilliant results to show
for the 15,000 casualties which the capture of Vauban's fortresses had
cost ; but Marlborough had good reason to complain of the slackness of
his Allies. The contingents of the German Princes had been late or below
their due strength, and Archdeacon Hare wrote that though there were
"scarce 40,000 men in all the other armies of France. . .such are our
Allies that we hope for nothing from the Rhine or Savoy, though the
Empire make the greatest difficulties about peace, and Savoy be the
greatest gainer in the war." Moreover, Marlborough's tenure of his
command had become so insecure that he feared to run any risk, lest
his enemies should make the least mishap an excuse for recalling him.
For what he had feared had come about. The Whig Ministry, whose
position had been already undermined by Anne's change of favourites, had
fallen before the storm raised by the Sacheverell affair, and their places
had been taken by Tories, with Harley at their head. Feeling that, with
such a Government in power, he could no longer count on cordial support at
home, Marlborough contemplated resigning; but, at the urgent entreaties
of Eugene and Godolphin, who hoped that another campaign might prove
decisive and bring about a satisfactory peace, he decided to retain his post.

Before, however, the operations of 1711 could be opened, the best
chance of a decisive campaign had vanished with the sudden death
(April 17) of the Emperor Joseph. This event completely altered the
European situation, as it left Archduke Charles the head of the Habsburg
family and the obvious successor on the Imperial throne. It was
hardly possible that the Grand Alliance, which had been formed in order
to prevent a cadet of the Bourbon family from ascending the Spanish
throne, should continue the war to reunite the dominions of Charles V
under the head of the Austrian Habsburgs. Joseph's death thus provided
the Tory Ministry with an additional justification for their determination
to bring the war to an end, and to meet the growing feeling that an
annual expenditure which had steadily risen in the course of ten years
from nearly four to nearly seven millions sterling had become intolerable.
According to William Ill's settlement England had bound herself to
furnish two parts out of every five of the land forces required of the
war, and five parts out of every eight of the sea forces ; and yet it was
estimated that above these quotas, England from first to last expended
twenty millions sterling to cover the military and naval deficiencies of her
Allies.

Yet, though there could be no pretence that the war was any longer

430 The Tories and Peace. [i7io-i

carried on as against the preponderance of the power of Prance, and
though the burden of it had become imendurable, neither of these con-
siderations could justify the English Ministry in the methods which
they had from the first pursued in negotiating for peace. It was in
1710 that Torcy, who had never ceased in his labours towards this end,
found the requisite agent for his purpose in the Abbe Gaultier, who,
prescient of his future usefulness, had remained in London ever since he
had first been attached to Marshal Tallard's embassy to the Court of
William III in 1698. Through the Earl of Jersey, a member of the
Privy Council but a Jacobite at heart, Gaultier had been introduced to
Shrewsbury and Harley ; and in January, 1711, " M. de Lorme " arrived
in France on the first of his joimieys to the French Court, in the
interests — ultimately disentangled — of peace and the Pretender. Torcy
was apprised by him of the fact — which of course was no secret to the
French Minister — that the new English Government was desirous of
peace, while the Dutch sincerely regretted the breakdown of the
Gertruydenberg Conferences. Gaultier was informed that the King was
prepared to enter into negotiations with England, but not with the States
General, though it was subsequently understood that French proposals
might be communicated to them by the English Ministers. On this foot-
ing the business proceeded, being much expedited so soon as St John was
in a position to take a direct part in the proceedings. Early in June
Matthew Prior, who, in the spirit of his saying that " Swords conquer
some, but words subdue aU men," was most desirous of distinction in
diplomacy, secretly accompanied Gaultier to Paris, being chosen as a
servant of the State who might if necessary be disavowed ; and, three
months later, Mesnager, of whom and whose abilities mention has
already been made, appeared in London, still secretly, as agent of the
French Government, with elaborate instructions (dated August 3). They
show that a change had come over the spirit of French diplomacy and of
the sovereign whom it so admirably served, and who now, as his Ministers
stated with engaging frankness, looked for concessions in return for his
sacrifices. The English Ministers, for their part, in their eagerness for
peace, took little thought of the interests of their Allies, unless perhaps
of the House of Savoy. On October 9, St John, whose mind was quite
made up, introduced Mesnager at Windsor, by the backstairs, to the
presence of Queen Anne, who declared herself no lover of war, and ready
to do all in her power to end the present conflict. Thus England was
carried along by a variety of impulses — among which St John's hatred
of the House of Austria, and the old mercantile jealousy of the Dutch,
were alike to be reckoned — into a separate provisional agreement with
France. In the same month the preliminaries of peace were virtually
settled between the French and English Governments. They threw over
the principle of preserving the Spanish monarchy for the House of
Habsburg, giving only general assurances as to the demands of England's

I7n] Marlborough the "non plus ultra," 431

Allies, while assuring to England herself the substance of what she actually
secured in the Peace of Utrecht.

Apart from its influence upon the diplomatic situation, the death of
Joseph had seriously interfered with the Allied plan of campaign for
1711. Eugene and the greater part of his army were called off to the
Rhine, to cover the Imperial election at Frankfort from any possibility
of interruption on the part of the French troops in Alsace; and
Marlborough foimd himself at the head of a force nearly 24,000 weaker
than the 88,000 with whom Villars was about to defend his celebrated
lines. This masterpiece of military engineering ran almost from the
coast of Picardy to the Sambre and Meuse, the Canche, the Scarpe and
other minor rivers having been dammed in several places to protect
tracts of country with inundations. It really appeared as if Villars'
boast would be borne out and Marlborough had at last met his "non
plus ultra!" But Villars had yet to learn the full measure of his great
adversary's talent. All endeavours to lure Villars from his position into
another pitched battle having proved fruitless, Marlborough, after cap-
turing (July 6) a fort at Arleux which commanded a causeway over the
inundations of the Sanzee, moved westward on Arras, as though about
to tempt destruction by making a frontal attack on the very strongest
portion of the lines (August). Deceived by the feint, Villars, who had
just retaken and destroyed Arleux (July 21), hastened to send reinforce-
ments to his left. Marlborough's success was assured. Calling on his
men for one of those great efforts he never demanded imnecessarily or in
vain, he countermarched his troops from Arras to Arleux, covering forty
miles in eighteen hours, pushed across the causeway almost unopposed,
and thus pierced the lines on which Villars had so confidently relied
(August 5). In vain Villars tried to catch Marlborough at a dis-
advantage ; the Duke covered the bridging of the Scheldt by a
demonstration against Cambray, after which he crossed to the right of
the Scheldt and proceeded to invest Bouchain (August 8). As before,
Villars would not fight a battle for a beleaguered fortress, and Bouchain
fell on September 13 after what Archdeacon Hare characterised as " the
best conducted siege we have made this war." The capture of Bouchain
brought the Allies into an excellent position for an advance into France ;
but it was Marlborough's last exploit. The Tories had determined to
overthrow him ; and on December 31 he was summarily dismissed from
all his employments, in order that he might be put on his trial on a
charge of misappropriating public moneys which had actually been used
for secret service and intelligence work.

The death of Joseph I, though it had thus neither created the desire
for peace, nor been the starting-point of the negotiations to that end,
justified the indifference of England — and of Holland, if but her
" Barrier " were secured — to the continuance of the Grand Alliance.
Lord Raby (soon afterwards Earl of Strafl'ord), who had superseded

CH. XIV,

432 A Peace Cong)' ess summoned. [1711-2

Townshend as British envoy at the Hague, joined with Heinsius in
working for the transfer of the Spanish monarchy to Victor Amadeus II
of Savoy, whose eldest son, the Prince of Piedmont, should marry an
Austrian Archduchess. But the endeavours of Peterborough, who had
arrived at Vienna in February to allay the suspicions of the Imperial
Government, and now pressed this solution upon it, were only met by
Count Wratislaw, the confidential adviser of Leopold I, by the suggestion
of an EngUsh guarantee of the Habsburg tenure of Hungary. The
estrangement between the English and Imperial Governments continued
to increase. In July Count Gallas, the Imperial envoy at St James',
demanded official information on the subject of the negotiations with
France, and, when he was furnished with a copy of the preliminaries
agreed upon with Mesnager, treated them with incredulous contempt.
Meanwhile, Heinsius and his colleagues had early in May been informed
of the French proposals ; and an active correspondence soon ensued
between the English and the Dutch Government, which revealed the
fears of the latter for their " Barrier " ; while Lord Sti-afford took up a
high tone, and his Government kept in secret touch with the Dutch
peace party through John Drummond, an English merchant at Amster-
dam. Though Count Goess, who had in September arrived at the
Hague as Imperial envoy, made one more attempt to keep the Alliance
together, he could not prevent the acceptance by the Dutch on
November 21, 1711, of a Peace Congress to be held at Utrecht in
the following January, with the French proposals as its preliminaries.
Early in December the Emperor Charles VI crossed the German frontier
on his way from Barcelona, where he had left his young Empress
Elizabeth behind him as a pledge of his determination not to abandon
Spain; on his journey through northern Italy he had had an interview
with Victor Amadeus. At Innsbruck the Emperor, after deliberating
the situation with Prince Eugene and Counts Gallas, Wratislaw, and
Sinzendorf, resolved to adopt the suggestion of Marlborough that Prince
Eugene should be sent to England on a special mission, and that in the
meantime no plenipotentiary should be sent to the proposed Congress.

Yet its approaching meeting was announced in the Queen's Speech of
December 11, in terms implying the existence of the most perfect
harmony of purpose between the members of the Grand Alliance. It
has been seen elsewhere how the address of the House of Lords declaring
against any peace which should leave Spain and the Indies in the posses-
sion of the House of Bourbon was answered by the creation of twelve
new Peers (December 31). Prince Eugene landed in London January 16,
1712 ; but he soon began to doubt the probability of success, though he
continued his efforts to secure joint action on the part of the Emperor,
the States General, Hanover, and the Whigs, and presented memorandum
upon memorandum to the English Government. The last of these
demanded a change in the Preliminaries of th^ Cpngi-ess which — as 9,

1712] England and the Armistice. — Denain. 433

succession of contrary winds had prevented him from being informed —
had already assembled at Utrecht.

It was on January 1, 1712, that the open negotiations between the
Allies and France began at Utrecht. The efforts of Count Gallas, the
over-impetuous Austrian ambassador, had failed to shake the determin-
ation of the Tories and only produced his own recall ; and Eugene's
two months in London had been spent to no purpose. However, the
meeting of the Conferences was not accompanied by an aruiistice, and in
planning his operations for the summer Eugene still counted on the
assistance of the English and their auxiliaries, now under the Duke of
Ormond. His scheme was to turn the French lines at the head of the
Sambre, besiege Quesnoy and Landrecies, and so open up the way tp
Paris by the valley of the Oise. In May he proceeded to put this plap
into operation, and laid siege to Quesnoy, Ormond's corps covering the
siege. Quesnoy fell on July 4 ; but, just as Eugene was about to invest
Landrecies, he was informed by Ormond (July 16) that an armistice
had been concluded between Great Britain and France, and that in
conformity with its terms he was about to withdraw his troops to
Dunkirk, which was to be handed over to Great Britain as a pledge of
French good faith. But when Ormond gave orders to his corps to quit
the Allied camp only the contingents of Holstein, Liege and Saxe-
Coburg, little more than 3000 men, followed him; the rest of the
auxiliaries, some 118 squadrons and 44 battalions, of whom 6200 men
were Danes, 10,400 Hanoverians, 4000 Hessians, 8700 Prussians and 5900
Saxons, all refused to leave Eugene and remained with him to the end
of the campaign, although, on learning of their refusal to obey Ormond,
England at once ceased to pay the subsidies for their support. Thanks
to this action on the part of the German auxiliaries, Eugene, who had
about 150 squadrons and 80 battalions of Austrians and Dutch, felt
himself strong enough to continue his operations, and accordingly
invested Landrecies (July 18). It was a somewhat hazardous proceeding ;
for the departure of the English transferred the numerical superiority to
Villars, who was able to safely call up troops from other points thus
made secure; moreover, the refusal of the Dutch deputies to let the
principal depot of the Allies be moved from Marchiennes to Quesnoy
compelled Eugene to extend his lines beyond prudent limits. Still, to
have remained inactive would have certainly discouraged his men, and it
would have equally encouraged the French had he seemed disheartened.
Villars was not slow to see his opportunity, and, after drawing off
Eugene's attention by feinting at the main position of the Allies on the
Escaillon, he hurled strong forces against the Dutch, who were guarding
the bridge at Denain (July 24), and thereby covering the great magazine
at Marchiennes. Surprised and outnumbered, the Dutch made but a
feeble resistance to Villars' vigorous attack, and, loiig before Eugene
could bring up reinforcements, they had given way in disorder and were

0. M. H. V. OH. XIV. 28

434 Results of Denain. — The Peace of Utrecht signed. [1712-3

in full flight. The collapse of a bridge of boats over the Scheldt com-
pleted the disaster, and, at a cost to the victors of barely 500 men, the whole
Dutch division of 12,000 strong was annihilated and Eugene's position
forced. The first fruits of Villars' victory were the destruction of the
Allied lines between the Scheldt and the Scarpe (July 25 and 26),
the capture of the great magazine at Marchiennes (July 30), and the
investment of Douay (July 31). Eugene had to raise the siege of
Landrecies (July 29), to retire over the Scheldt at Toumay and to watch
in inactivity the reduction (September 8) of Douay. Before the close of
the campaign Quesnoy (October 8) and Bouchain (October 19) also
passed into the hands of the French, and the year 1T12 thus ended with the
successes of the Allies checked and the prestige of French arms some-
what restored. Eugene, if perhaps ill-advised in investing Landrecies,
was little to blame for the disastrous turn affairs had taken ; he had
been ill-served by his allies, for the Dutch made a poor resistance at
Denain, and the value of the English alliance was never more apparent
than in the hour when it was withdrawn.

The change of affairs in the field naturally affected the course of
the negotiations at Utrecht. The Dutch were already weary of the
war, and intent upon ending it if satisfied as to their " Barrier." The
conclusion of a peace was further advanced, when Louis induced his
grandson to abandon formally his claims on France, which had recently
acquired increased importance through the deaths of the Dauphin
(April, 1711) and of the Dukes of Burgundy (February, 1712) and
Britanny (March, 1712). With this renunciation Bolingbroke (St John)
also had to be content ; though he would probably have preferred to see
Victor Amadeus at Madrid. But Philip's hold on Spain was too secure
to be shaken; and, in August, 1712, a suspension of hostilities in the
Peninsula was arranged, though it was not till the following autumn
that Starhemberg and his men finally evacuated Catalonia. Long
before this the Peace of Utrecht had been signed. The patent
divisions in the Allied camp, the knowledge that the English Ministry
had made up their minds to conclude peace, and the improvement in his
position wrought by Villars' success, allowed Louis to assume a stifler
attitude and to reduce the concessions he had to make; and, though
the Emperor — Charles had been duly elected in October, 1711 — was
somewhat unreasonable in refusing to give up his claims on Spain and
to content himself with the ample possessions offered him in Italy, it
is easier to sympathise with his obstinacy than to condemn it. Finally,
on April 11, 1713, the Peace (which is analysed elsewhere) was signed
without the Emperor's assent.

On the conclusion of the Peace Eugene removed the Austrian forces,
67 squadrons of cavalry and 14 battalions of infantry, from the Nether-
lands to the upper Rhine to cooperate with the army of the Empire,
which he found very much below its proper strength. Almost the only

1713] Eugene and Villars on the Bhine. 435

contingents present were those of the "Associated Circles" — six in number
— for, now that the subsidies of the Maritime Powers had ceased,
the "Armed Members" were very backward. The great parade of zeal
made by Prussia and other States was hardly borne out by their actual
performances; instead of providing 9000 men over and above the
8000 promised by the " Crown Treaty," Prussia only sent 6000, who
refused to proceed beyond Cologne; and she also claimed that the
garrisons she had placed in Gelders and other newly acquired lands
should count as acquitting part of her obligation. Similarly Hesse-
Cassel and Mecklenburg would only allow their contingents to cover
Mainz, while other States professed themselves willing to send men
but imable to stir without funds. In vain Eugene pledged his personal
credit: the army of the Empire, on paper 120,000 men, had only reached
25,000 in May, and never exceeded 40,000. Nor was the Austrian
army in much better plight: Starhemberg's corps from Spain was
not yet available; Hungary and the Italian lands held by Austria
absorbed large garrisons ; and, though the German provinces contri-
buted readily enough, scarcely any financial assistance was forthcoming
from Hungai-y, so that the Emperor's treasury was in its usual condition
of vacuity. Thus it was that, with an army of only 115 squadrons
and 85 battalions, Eugene was powerless against the 300 squadrons
and 240 battalions of Villars.

In June French detachments pushed over the Rhine, occupying Speier
and Mannheim, and so covering the siege of Landau, which Villars
began on June 24. It proved a protracted affair ; for, despite Eugene's
inaction, the fortress held out till August 26 before surrendering.
Villars then crossed the river at Strassburg, stormed the lines constructed
to cover the Freiburg Pass over the Black Forest (September 20),
and, pressing hard on the heels of the fugitives, invested the town.
Again Eugene, too weak to risk a battle, had to be a passive spectator
of a gallant but unavailing defence. Freiburg resisted till well into
October ; the castle held out till November 17. To blame Eugene for
his inactivity would be absurd; like Wellington on the Portuguese
frontier in 1810, he could not risk a fight because for political reasons he
could not afford to be beaten ; and the slackness of the German Princes,
which left him in so hopeless a numerical inferiority, condemned him
without appeal to the defensive.

But it was not on Austria only that the strain of war was telling ;
France was equally in need of a rest, and it was actually from Louis XIV
that the next overtures for peace came. This time Eugene managed to
wring from Charles VI permission to negotiate; and, thanks to the
good oflices of the Elector Palatine, a conference was ultimately
opened at Rastatt on November 26 between Eugene and his old
opponent, Villars. The negotiations were long and complicated, the
chief obstacles to peace being the questions of the fortifications on the

TH. XIV. ^" 2

436 Rastatt and Baden. — Marlborough as a general, [ivu

Rhine, of the treatment of the Emperor's faithful Catalan partisans,
and of the reinstatement of the two Wittelsbach Electors, on which
Louis insisted, although Maximilian Emanuel of Bavaria seems to have
been not disinclined to accept the Spanish Netherlands in lieu of his
hereditary possessions. However, the Dutch would not hear of having an
adherent of France on their frontier, and in the end his restoration to
Bavaria was agreed upon, while Charles had reluctantly to: abandon
Catalonia to the tender mercies of Philip. On the Rhine, Louis kept
Landau and Strassburg, but gave up Alt-Breisach, Freiburg, and Kehl.
And so at last an agreement was reached, and on March 7, 1714,
the plenipotentiaries signed the Peace of Rastatt, the provisions of
which will be detailed below. One step yet remained before peace could
be completely restored, the ratification of its terms by the Diet of the
Empire — a more or less formal step which was finally taken at Baden
in October, 1714.

In the War which thus, after many vicissitudes, at last came to an end
there is one figure which certainly stands out preeminent. Marlborough
had been the bond which had held the Grand Alliance together; and, if
England can with some justice claim to have had the chief share in the
defeat of Louis, it is on her great general's account. His army had, as a
rule, contained but a modest contingent of Englishmen, averaging about
20,000 and at times rising to 25,000, though they had shown themselves
by no means the least efficient portion of his motley host, and had dis-
tinguished themselves repeatedly. But the personal part of Marlborough
in the long roll of successes had been a contribution of even greater value
towards the revival of the prestige of the British arms. Eugiene's repu-
tation, happily for his memory, is unstained by the faults which tarnish
Marlborough's glory ; but it is no disparagement to Eugene's admittedly
great merits to point out that Marlborough never suffered a Denain or a
Freiburg, and that both in the originality and width of his strategic
conceptions, as well as in tactical adroitness and resource, the English-
man surpassed even his accomplished and experienced colleague. His
handling of all three arms showed how well he had grasped their
possibilities, and seen how combination of all three would increase the
efficiency of each. His use of his artillery was masterly; at Malplaquet
in particular it was manoeuvred to support both infantry and cavalry
in a most daring manner, while the great successes which the British
cavalry achieved in so many decisive charges were due to his lu'gent
insistence on the importance of shock -tactics, whereas the French horse,
adhering to the vicious system of the seventeenth century, relied not on
momentum but on firing from the saddle. But, when the difficulties
under which Marlborough had to plan and carry out his campaigns are
remembered, the need for accommodating his plans to the interference
of ignorant and timid Dutch deputies, and to the selfishness and obstinacy
of petty German Princes, his strategic achievements appear even more

1713-4] The Peace of Utrecht. 437

meritorious. Again and again he showed his capacity for rising above
the limitations which fettered his contemporaries ; his plans were laid to
secure positive results, to gain victories, and not merely to avoid defeats.
Where a Lewis of Baden spent weeks and months in the construction
of the most elaborate fortified lines, looking upon them as the most
important thing in war, Marlborough never let such erections detain or
check him, and illustrated on many occasions the maxim that a vigorous
offensive is often the soundest defence. Had he been so fortunate as
to have secured a free hand from the beginning, the War might have been
brought to a conclusion years before the overthrow of the Whigs left
Marlborough at the mercy of his domestic enemies and prevented
him from carrying to a successful conclusion his marvellous series of
campaigns.

(2) THE PEACE OF UTRECHT AND THE SUPPLEMENTARY
PACIFICATIONS.

The Peace of Utrecht, as it is commonly called, consists of a series
of treaties signed at Utrecht on April 11, 1713, supplemented by others
which may conveniently be ranged under the same heading. The entire
body of these treaties constituted the bases of the peace of Europe for
more than a generation — till the outbreak, in 1746, of the War of the
Austrian Succession. For, apart from the last stages of the Northern
War, all the armed conflicts of importance in Europe, and the efforts
of diplomacy to avert or end them, during this period hinge upon
the Utrecht settlement, and — if the Peace of Vienna of 1738 be ex-
cepted— left its main provisions imtouched. These provisions, as was
pointed out in an earlier chapter, corresponded with a completeness rare
in diplomatic history to the intentions with which the War of the Spanish
Succession had been undertaken by England and the Powers associated
with her in her resistance to the dominance of France, and which had
been clearly formulated in the Treaty of the Hague of September, 1701.
Although the House of Bourbon retained Spain and the Spanish posses-
sions in the New World, it lost a larger share of the Spanish monarchy
than that which in the negotiations for the Grand Alliance William III
had thought it necessary to take away from that House. What had been
Spanish Italy became, through the pacifications which we are about to
review, part of the Austrian dominions — with the exception of Sicily, of
which Victor Amadeus II of Savoy became King, but which in 1720 he
exchanged for Sardinia. In northern Italy that astute Prince recovered
Savoy and Nice from France ; and a counterbalance was thus provided in
this part of Europe against the power of the House of Habsburg as well
as against that of the Bourbons. On the north-eastern frontier of France

438 The results of the pacifications. [i7i3-5

what had been the Spanish were henceforth the Austrian Netherlands;
and the Emperor had in the end to accept an accession of territory which
he had never been particularly desirous of acquiring — well aware as he
and his statesmen were that the possession of these Provinces entailed
the defence of them as the first line of resistance against any renewed
French aggression in this quarter. For the Empire itself the Emperor,
in the long course of the negotiations which began at Utrecht and ended
at Baden, failed to recover more than part of the spoils of a long period
of French aggression, and the whole of the left bank of the upper Rhine
remained in French hands. But what cooperation could there have been
between the dynastic ambition of the House of Habsburg and that
of the chief Princes of the Empire, who, like the Electors of Saxony,
Brandenburg, and Hanover, were intent upon the splendour or power of
the royal crowns which they had acquired or were expecting, or who,
like the Elector of Bavaria and the Catholic Elector Palatine, cherished
high hopes, all of which they were fated to see ignored?

The United Provinces gained a strong Barrier, firmly planted in
allied territory, against any renewal of the aggression of France. But
though they contrived to secure, in addition, some commercial advantages
from the Peace, their political position as a Great Power had gone from
them for ever, passing, without any real resistance on their part, to the
Power which had been their rival on the sea during many generations
in times of war and in times of peace ; and their mercantile supremacy
was likewise at an end. The territorial gains of Great Britain herself
consisted in Europe of a couple of Mediterranean ports ; and though
she extended and strengthened her power in the New World by her gains
from France, the significance of this expansion was imperfectly realised at
home, and the great European duel in the New World was still to come.
On the other hand, England established the security of her Protestant
throne ; she obtained commercial advantages of the greatest importance
by her treaties with France and Spain ; and to the proofs which the War
had given of her ascendancy in Europe, was added this last proof — that
the Peace which ended it had been largely the work of her statesmen,
and had, beyond all doubt, been made possible by her will alone.

In the following a brief summary of the provisions of the Peace
of Utrecht will be attempted, without any detailed statement as to the
course of the actual negotiations of which it was the result ; and a brief
account will be added of the pacifications by which it was supplemented.

It would be useless to discuss the instructions given to the Bishop of
Bristol (John Robinson), Keeper of the Privy Seal, and the Earl of
Straflbrd, English ambassador at the Hague, as English plenipotentiaries
at the Congress of Utrecht, inasmuch as these instructions quite fictitiously
assumed a close and consistent cooperation between England and her
Allies, and excluded any idea of a partition of the Spanish monarchy,

1711-3] Preliminaries -Plenipotentiaries.-Congress opened. 439

though it was on this very process that the English and French Govern-
ments had resolved. It was peace which they wanted — and wanted, above
all, for the sake of English trade, which revived with extraordinary rapidity
evenduringthe progress of the negotiations'. In truth, the EnglishMinisters
had no intention of insisting on any of the demands contained in these
instructions except those which concerned definite English advantages or
gains. For this very reason, however, they treated the preliminaries signed
by Mesnager on his visit to England (October 8, 1711) as open to change ;
whereas in the instructions given by Louis XIV to his plenipotentiaries
at Utrecht, Marshal d'Huxelles, the Abb^ de Polignac, and Mesnager
himself, these preliminaries were treated as immutable. They had,
after a long struggle, been accepted by the States General, under great
pressure on the part of Strafford, on November 21, 1711 ; but no
instructions to their plenipotentiaries at Utrecht are extant, perhaps
because they were in immediate contact with their Governments. They
were eight in number, two (Buys and van der Dussen) from Holland, and
one from each of the remaining Provinces. On the other hand, the
Emperor Charles VI instructed his ambassador at the Hague, Count von
Sinzendorf, to oppose the meeting of a peace congress on the basis
of the Anglo-French preliminaries, and if possible to revive the pre-
liminaries of 1709, while decisively resisting the Barrier Treaty. The
same instructions, which show how far the Imperial Government was
from realising the actual situation, were given to Prince Eugene, then,
as has been seen, on his way to England (December, 1711). Savoy was
represented at the Congress by Count Annibale Maffei.

The Congress, the opening of which had been fixed for January 12,
1712, was hot actually opened till the 29th. The Emperor had announced
at the Hague that he was not prepared to take part in the Congress,
until he had received an assurance that the Anglo-French preliminaries
would not be regarded as binding. Early in February the French
Government disavowed any such intention, and Sinzendorf duly presented
himself at the Congress, being followed later by the second Imperial
plenipotentiary, the Spaniard Count Corzana ; the third. Baron Caspar
Florenz von Cronsbruch, had appeared sooner ; his place was afterwards
taken by von Kirchner. Little progress was made in the first period of
the sittings of the Congress, which ended on April 6. From this time
forward the separate negotiations, carried on more especially in London
or at the French Court, advanced the work of peace far more materially
than such deliberations as continued to be held at Utrecht, where no
general conference again took place till February 2, 1713. These
negotiations were carried on by the British Government with fresh
energy, after the deaths in the French Royal family (February and

' In 1710 the number of vessels cleared from English ports is quoted as 3660;
in 1711 as 3769; in 1712 as 4267; in 1713 as 6807; in 1714 as 6614. The shipping
in London is stated to have increased in these five years from 806 to 1660,

CH. XIV,

440 Course of Tiegotiations at the Congress. [1712-3

March, 1712) had brought so much nearer the danger, still not removed,
of a union between the French and Spanish Crowns.

For the rest, it may be said that the Government of Philip V had
no voice at the Congress distinct from that of France, and that the
Bourbon King of Spain's personal action was of importance only at
the particular point of the negotiations when he made up his mind
to prefer the retention of a diminished Spanish to the expectancy of an
enlarged French monarchy (May, 1712). Portugal was absolutely tied
to England, and, instead of deriving any advantage from the entire
course of negotiations, had to console herself with the heavy subsidies
paid to her during the course of the War. Promises had been made and
prospects held out which gained Savoy over to the side of peace. The
States General had to concentrate their energies, as it had been all along
intended by the English Government that they should, upon the question
of their Barrier; on December 29, 1712, they finally agreed to accept
the Anglo-French preliminaries. Thus, in the progress of the negotia-
tions everything depended on the maintenance of the understanding
between France and England ; and for this purpose the conclusion of a
truce between them was of the utmost importance. The cession of
Dunkirk by the French before the conclusion of the peace enabled
Ormond to proclaim this truce on July 16,1712. An Anglo-French pacifica-
tion was henceforth a virtual certainty; Bolingbroke's journey to France
(August 7) and subsequent interviews with Torcy removed all remaining
doubts ; and. Savoy being more or less satisfied, the remainder of the
negotiations chiefly turned on the satisfaction of the Dutch and of the
Emperor. On February 2, 1713, the conferences were formally resumed.
The Dutch were, as will be seen, not really contented till the conclusion
of the Third Barrier Treaty, nearly eighteen months later ; nor was the
satisfaction of the Emperor at present accomplished. His demands
remained unsupported by England ; and, though on March 14, 1713,
Sinzendorf had signed a truce at Utrecht by which the Emperor under-
took to withdraw his troops from Catalonia and to concede the neutrality
of the whole of Italy, he could not obtain the terms on which he insisted.
A last attempt made on his behalf by Shrewsbury at Paris (March, 1713)
fell through ; and peace was signed at Utrecht without him (April 11).
When the middle of June had been reached, and no message of accept-
ance had arrived from Vienna, the last of the plenipotentiaries quitted
Utrecht; though the proceedings there were, as will be seen, not yet
at an end.

The earliest in date, then, as well as the most important of
the Treaties, which it is proposed now briefly to examine was the
Peace between France and Great Britain (April 11, 1713). William III
had bequeathed to Marlborough and Godolphin, the true inheritors of
his statesmanship, a foreign policy which meant Wj^r with France, so

1713] France and Great Britain. 441

long as France was resolved to unsettle the peace of Europe in general,
and the condition of things established in Great Britain in particular.
The English nation had deeply resented the arrogant interference of Louis
in the matter of the succession to its throne ; and but for this interference,
William would hardly have been able to screw to the sticking-point such
warlike feeling as then existed in England. Thus it was appropriate that
the first article of importance in the Anglo-French Treaty was concerned
with the English Succession question. Whatever may be thought of the
account given in the so-called Minutes of the Negotiations ofMesnager of
the intrigues for obtaining, with Queen Anne's consent, the insertion
in the Treaty of a secret clause relieving Louis from the obligation of
keeping his promise to recognise the Hanoverian Succession "beyond
the Queen's death," these intrigues, if they were actually carried on,
broke down; and Article IV of the Treaty may be regarded as both
sincere and conclusive. France in this Article recognised the order of
succession in England established by the Act of 1702 ; and King Louis
undertook, both for himself and for his descendants, never to acknowledge
as King or Queen of Great Britain anyone claiming to succeed unless in
the order thus settled ; while taking every care that the son of King
James II (the " Old Pretender") should not at any time or on any pre-
text return into the realm of France, from which he had departed —
" voluntarily," according to the Treaty ; in reality after many delays on
his own part, and after much hesitation on that of Louis XIV, whose
truly royal nature made it difficult for him to let his guest go.

Of superior, because of more pressing, importance was Article VI, which
settled the nodus pacis — the cardinal difficulty of the Peace — the question
which after passing through so many phases was now at last determined
by the agreement between France and Great Britain. This Article
recited the successive Acts of Renunciation precluding the possibility
of a personal union between the French and Spanish kingdoms : the
Act of Renunciation, performed by Philip V on November 5, 1712;
its confirmation by the Cortes of Castile in the same month ; and the
Renunciations, also in November, performed by Philip's younger brother,
Charles Duke of Berry (who died in May, 1714), and by Philip Duke
of Orleans (afterwards Regent of France). It further recited the Reser-
vation of the rights of Philip in the succession to the French Crown,
declared by Louis XIV in December, 1700, when on the eve of the War
of the Spanish Succession, and the Annulment of this Reservation — in
other words, the solemn assent of Louis XIV to Philip V's abandonment
of his claims to the French throne. These Renunciations were now
hedged in by every possible solemnity of obligation ; as it happened,
owing to the unexpected survival of Louis' younger great-grandson, the
future King Louis XV, there was never any question of contesting
their validity. By the same Article, the King of France undertook
never to accept in favour of his own subjects any advantage as to

P9, xiv.

442 Dunkirk. — North America. [i7i3

commerce or navigation in Spain or Spanish America, without its being
extended to the subjects of other Powers.

Article IX concerned Dunkirk, whose numerous vicissitudes had not
ended with its sale to France by Charles II in 1662, Louis had greatly
added to the strength of its fortifications, till it became beyond doubt a
very serious menace to Great Britain's maintenance of her power in the
Narrow Seas. It had now, as was seen, been evacuated by the French
during the peace negotiations ; and it was now stipulated that the King
of France should within six months raze the fortifications and fill up the
harbour, with an undertaking never to restore them. Louis XIV showed
a want of good faith very dishonourable to him, by digging another
harbour at Mardyk, a village near Dunkirk, which was intended to be
deeper than that which had been filled up, and which was connected
with a canal of considerable length. The complaints which at once
arose in England obliged him to suspend the operations at Mardyk, on
which not less than 12,000 workmen are said to have been employed ;
and under the Begency the works were demolished. The Dunkirk
clause, to the importance of which English public feeling had shown
itself so alive, made its reappearance in a succession of treaties before the
Peace of Versailles in 1783, when France at last obtained its abolition.

Articles X, XII and XIII dealt with cessions made by France to
Great Britain in the New World, which are justly regarded as the
real beginnings of the expansion of the British colonial empire. The
Hudson's Bay settlements, to which France had now finally to renounce
her pretensions, were of French origin, though the Bay itself had
been discovered by the English navigator whose name it bears; and
the profitable fur-trade through Canada still remained largely in French
hands. On the St Lawrence and in the wooded peninsula at the mouth
of the great river French colonial enterprise had continued to progress,
after in 1631 Richelieu had recovered both the earlier Canadian settle-
ments and Acadia for France ; and towards the end of the seventeenth
century she claimed the entire region from the north of the Mississippi
to the Great Lakes on the St Lawrence as her own — the title of New
France being habitually given to it in the French maps of the time. It
is therefore a notable event in the history of French and of English
colonisation, and of the mutual relations between them, when the
Utrecht Treaty once more assigned Acadia to England. At the same
time recognition was given to her sole possession of St Kitt's (St Chris-
topher's)— one of the Leeward Islands, forming part of the seventeenth
century " Plantations." When, in 1660, England and Prance agreed to
make a division between them of the West Indian Islands, St Kitt's,
from which the Spaniards had at one time driven out the settlers of both
nations, was retained by them in common ; under William III each of the
two nationalities had in turn worsted its rival, but the Peace of Ryswyk
had reestablished the system of joint occupation. To this confusion the

1713] Aviglo-French Treaty of Navigation and Commerce. 443

Peace of Utrecht at last put an end. Article XIII provided in addition
for the cession by France of Newfoundland and the adjacent islands ; but
Cape Breton Island and the other islands situate at the mouth of the
St Lawrence were left in the possession of the Fi'ench, who were to be
still allowed to ply their fishing-trade north of Cape Bonavista, and to
occupy the shore of Newfoundland for the purpose of curing their fish.
The French fishing-trade in these regions thus continued to flourish,
so that at the time of the Peace of Aachen in 1748 it very largely
exceeded the English ; nor was there up to the Peace of Paris in 1763 —
to say nothing of later times — any more constant source of irritation
between the two Powers than this sore, which so many generations of
diplomatists have exerted themselves to heal.

On the same day (April 11) was also signed a Treaty of Navigation
and Commerce between Great Britain and France which, besides placing
each of them, as towards the other, in the footing of the most favoured
nation, contained certain stipulations of considerable significance for the
progress of international law. The ordinance, issued by Louis XIV in
1681, when in his pride he already regarded himself as master of the
seas, declaring any vessel a fair prize which should contain goods belong-
ing to enemies of France, controverted the principle of " free ships, free
goods," which France herself had accepted in her Treaty with the Dutch
of 1646, and to which England had agreed in a succession of treaties.
A rude shock had thus been administered to a principle hitherto gene-
rally, though not universally, acknowledged; and during the ensuing
period (including that of the War of the Spanish Succession) the further
encroachment came into vogue, that all goods produced in an enemy's
land or by an enemy's industry remained enemy's goods, even if in
the possession of a neutral, and were thus liable to seizure at sea.
Finally, the interpretation was actually extended to the very ships of
neutrals loaded in an enemy's port and proceeding to a port not in
their own country; and such ships were actually seized. To these
interpretations or proceedings the Utrecht Treaty opposed the pro-
vision that, so far as British and French vessels were concerned, the flags
of the nation to which they belonged should respectively cover all goods
(except contraband of war), without distinction of ownership, even in
the case of vessels bound for a port belonging to an enemy of that nation.
Inasmuch as a treaty of the same purport was signed a few weeks later
between France and the States General, maritime commerce might seem
to have thus obtained an important boon at Utrecht. But, as a matter
of fact, the question was stiU very far removed from a settlement. The
pretensions of France had been negatived ; but Great Britain, whose
maritime ascendancy was now at last assured, paid very little attention
to the principles which she had at Utrecht been instrumental in asserting.
Though she could not ignore them altogether, she chose to treat them, not
as the assertion of a general international principle, but as an agreement

cH. xir.

444 Great Britain and Spain : Gibraltar and Minorca. [1713

with a particular Power which would expire with the particular treaty
in which it was included. Though France had agreed on the same
head with the States General, no analogous agreement was contained
in any of the other compacts concluded by Great Britain at Utrecht,
not even in her Commercial Treaty with Spain. The principle of the
Commercial Treaty between Great Britain and France thus awaited
its revival — ^half a century later — in circumstances very different alike
for Great Britain and for Europe at large.

The Peace between Great Britain and Spain may conveniently be
next considered, though it was not actually concluded till July 13, 1718.
Obviously, the plenipotentiaries of Philip V could not make their
appearance at Utrecht till the Treaties of Peace between France and
Great Britain and the other principal negotiating Powers had been
signed, and till Philip had been recognised by them as King of Spain.
It is pointed out in the work of Koch and Schoell, to which this summary
is throughout indebted, that this Treaty between Great Britain and
Spain is the first international instrument to make mention of what had
been the real question of the War — namely, the imminent danger which
had threatened the independence and welfare of Europe through so close
a union as that which had been brought about between the kingdoms of
France and Spain ; it was for this reason, as Article II recites, that both the
King of France and the King of Spain had consented to the requisite
precautions being taken, and that the latter had for himself and his heirs
and successors renounced for ever his claims to the French Crown, which
renunciation he now solemnly confirmed. In further Articles he expressly
approved the succession established in Great Britain by Act of Par-
liament ; and promised to prevent the transfer of any land or lordship in
America by Spain to France or to any other nation.

Among the remaining Articles, that which confirmed the cession by
Spain to Great Britain of the town, citadel, and port of Gibraltar is of
special interest. Spanish pride and a well-warranted national feeling had
to accept this sanction of an acquisition which, after having been made
almost gratuitously, had been held with so much pertinacity. It was,
however, accompanied by stipulations which guaranteed the free exercise
of the Catholic religion in Gibraltar, and prohibited Jews and Moors
from settling there, and by an engagement on the part of the British
Crown securing the refusal of Gibraltar to the Spanish — should the
British ever contemplate selling or otherwise alienating it.

By another Article (XI) the sovereignty of the island of Minorca,
captured by Stanhope and Leake in 1708, was likewise ceded to Great
Britain by Spain, The history of the acquisition of Minorca, with its
fortified harbour of Port Mahon, differed greatly from that of Gibraltar,
inasmuch as it underwent both recapture and recovery before it was finally
given up at the Peace of Amiens in 1802,together with Malta, the retention
of which has rendered the loss of it a matter of indifference to Great Britain.

ivis] The Asiento. — The Catalans. 445

In the same Treaty the King of Spain likewise agreed to a cession of
which he had sought to delay as long as possible the formal acknowledg-
ment. " Yielding to the request of his Britannic Majesty," he agreed
to abandon to the Duke of Savoy the kingdom of Sicily— his Britannic
Majesty promising to use his best endeavours for its restoration to the
Spanish Crown, in default of heirs male of the House of Savoy. It was not,
however, as will be seen elsewhere, a deficiency of this sort which a few years
later (in 1720) obliged Victor Amadeus II to exchange Sicily for Sardinia.

The Anglo-Spanish Treaty contained two other clauses of moment,
on which Englishmen cannot look back with the same sense of detach-
ment. By Article XII Spain accorded to Great Britain and the British
South Sea Company, whose history is summarised elsewhere, for a term
of thirty years the sole right of importing negroes into Spanish America.
England and her privileged Company were thus to enjoy the rights of
the Asiento (or legal compact) xmder the conditions which in 1701 had
been granted for the enjoyment of the same right for ten years by
Philip V to the French Guinea Company ; in other words, she undertook
to furnish an annual supply of 4800 negroes to the Spanish colonies in
America, paying certain dues, on each imported slave and a sum in
advance of 200,000 livres, to be repaid within the last ten years of the
duration of the Treaty. But during its first five and twenty years as
many negroes above the stipulated number of 4800 might be imported
as was thought expedient, only half the dues fixed for those within that
total being payable on account of those in excess of it. Certain other
provisions favourable to the trading Company were reintroduced, besides
the assignment of a share in the profits of the slave-trade to the sovereign;
and a new provision was added (which was to prove of great political im-
portance) granting British merchants the right of sending each year one
vessel of five hundred tons' burden to trade with the Spanish colonies in
America. The "ingenuity of British merchants" was thus enabled to
evade the narrow bounds within which they were confined, and to secure
for themselves (as the South Sea Company effectually did till the outbreak
of the War with Spain in 1740) the greater part of the general commerce
with these regions.

Finally, in Article XIII of this Treaty, the King of Spain declared that,
by reason of his respect for the Queen of Great Britain, he accorded to
the Catalans not only a complete amnesty, but also all the privileges at
present enjoyed by the Castilians, "of all the peoples of Spain that
which the King cherished most." The self-sacrificing loyalty of the
Castilians might have warranted this expression of preference; but it
must also be allowed that the Catalans, animated alike by an ardent
attachment to their ancient Jiceros and by their bitter hatred of the
Castilians, had done everything they could to intensify Philip's antipathy
to themselves. In Peterborough's days (1706) the Catalans had both
fought and sufiered heroically for the cause of Charles III, which

446 Abandonment of the Catalans. [i'7i3-4

Great Britain had made her own; it was among them that he had
sojourned even after he had become Emperor, and to their care that on
his departure he had confided his young wife. Yet at Utrecht they
were, under cover of the hypocritical verbiage cited above, left to the
mercy of Philip V, who barely took the trouble of concealing his —
very explicable — ^hatred of them. The privileges of which they were
"guaranteed" the enjoyment were those of the Castilians, not their
own ; and their " obstinacy," as Bolingbroke chose to call it, was requited
by their being left out in the cold. The cynical indifference with which
the rights of the Catalans were thus ignored was all the more impolitic
as contrasting with the consideration shown to them by France in the Peace
of the Pyrenees (1659). The result was that which had been foreseen,
and concludes the one shameful episode connected with the Peace of
Utrecht. In July, 171S, after the Catalans had refused unconditional
submission and set up a provisional Government of their own, Philip V's
troops invested Barcelona, whence after the departure of his consort the
Emperor had, in accordance with a separate agreement concluded by him
at Utrecht on March 14, 1713, in the same month withdrawn his troops
under Starhemberg. His proposal of an independent Catalan republic
was of covurse nugatory; and the real intentions of the British
Government were revealed in August, by the despatch into the
Mediterranean of an English squadron under the Tory Admiral Sir
James Wishart, with instructions to put an end, if necessary, to the
"confusion" existing at Barcelona. He was also instructed to reduce
the inhabitants of Majorca by force, should they refuse the terms offered
them ; and it is quite clear that the two designs were to be carried out
on parallel lines. So late as March, 1714, an address to the Queen was
proposed in the Lords by Cowper, and, notwithstanding Bolingbroke's
sarcastic comment that her Majesty could not be held to be bound by
her promises after Charles IH had relinquished the Spanish throne,
carried with an immaterial modification, urging the continuance of
English interposition on behalf of the Catalans. It had at least the
effect that Wishart was ordered not to appear off Barcelona for the
present. The city gallantly held out against the attacks of its besiegers,
who were reinforced by a French army under Berwick and a French
fleet. At last on the night of September 11 a general assault began,
and the fighting continued all next day in every street — ^it might almost
be said in every house — of Barcelona. The fall of Barcelona, which has
been aptly compared to that of Numantia, forms the tragic ending of
the story ; the survivors, sick and wounded, were sold into slavery ; and
the very standards of the Catalans were by special order of King Philip
burnt in the public market by the common hangman.

Among the remaining Treaties comprehended under the general
name of the Peace of Utrecht, which may here be dealt with quite
summarily, that between I'rance and the States Greneral, signed April 11,

1713] France and the Umted Provinces. 4:i7

1713, may be noticed first. It has been sufficiently shown above how on
the present occasion the hand of the Dutch had been forced by the
preliminary agreement between France and Great Britain, as to which
they had not been consulted, and which they were, as a matter of fact,
powerless to resist. In the Treaty with the States General, France
undertook to transfer to them so much of the " Spanish " Netherlands
as still remained in her hands, to be by the Dutch handed over to the
House of Austria, so soon as the Imperial Government should have
concluded a satisfactory arrangement with them concerning their
"Barrier." A portion of Gelderland, surrendered to Prussia by
Prance, was excepted from this arrangement; and a further exception
of a minute and curious kind was made in the case of a petty district to
be taken out of Luxemburg or Limburg, and settled on the Princiess
Orsini (des Ursins) and her heirs. This last provision, which had never
been carried out, was omitted in the Peace of Kastatt ; and an annual
allowance of 40,000 livres from the French Government was the
whole recompense ultimately receivedjby this extraordinary woman for
services which had materially contributed to bring about the Bourbon
succession in Spain, to popularise King Phihp and his Piedmontese
consort, Marie-Louise, in their new kingdom, and to create those
relations between the Spanish Bourbons and their people which long
outlasted the War of the Succession. She had afterwards aroused the
displeasure of Louis XIV, but had in the end gained both his goodwill
and that of Madame de Maintenon (1705), and had returned to Madrid,
with full powers, as it were, to sway the Spanish Court and monarchy
as the most faithful friend and supporter of the French Crown, Her
subsequent experiences belong to a later chapter of this work.

Article IX of this Treaty revoked Philip V's cession, ominous for the
diplomatic history of the eighteenth century, of the Spanish Netherlands
to Bavaria (made in pursuance of an agreement, concluded in 1702,
between Louis XIV and the Elector Maximilian Emanuel); France
undertaking to obtain from Bavaria a cession to the House of Austria
of her claims to the Belgic Provinces. In return for the surrender to the
States General for ultimate transfer to the House of Austria of certain places
in French Flanders (they in fact included some of those forming part of the
proposed Dutch " Barrier "), the States General undertook to obtain the
restoration to France of LiUe, on which she had during the negotiations
set the utmost store, and of certain other of her former possessions.

In a Treaty of Commerce concluded with the States General on
April 11, 1718, France granted the same important concession with
regard to the rights of neutrals as that which had been made by England
to the Dutch, who still held so much of the carrying-trade of the world.
France also undertook to obtain for the United Provinces from Spain
the rights which she had granted to them at Miinster in 1648, when she
first acknowledged their independence.

448 Savoy. — Portugal. — Prussia. [ivis

The Peace between France and Savoy, signed April 11, 1713, restored
to the latter Power Savoy and Nice, and in general any part of the
Duke's dominions taken from him by the French arms. By means of a
series of reciprocal cessions, the cha,in of the Alps became the boundary-
line between the French and the ducal territory, while the plateau of these
mountains was divided between the two Governments. The Duke of Savoy
was acknowledged as the legitimate King of Sicily, its possession being
guaranteed to him by the King of France, to whom this arrangement
had been specially repugnant; the stipulations as to the succession in
Spain of the male line of the House of Savoy, in default of posterity of
Philip, either male or female, may be passed by as never having come
into operation. On the same day was signed the Treaty between Spain
and Savoy, of which only those provisions possess a wider interest which
referred to the cession of Sicily by the King of Spain to the Duke of
Savoy, and to the confirmation of certain cessions made to the latter in
northern Italy by the Emperor Leopold I in the Peace of Turin (1703).

France and Portugal also concluded a Treaty on April 11, having,
five months earlier, agreed to a suspension of arms. The historical
importance of their agreement is colonial. The Portuguese settlements
on the banks of the Amazon were now recognised as wholly appertaining
to the State by which they had been established; while France renounced
any right on the part of her colony of Cayenne to trade in the mouth
of the river. As a matter of fact, however, the Brazilian trade had
since the middle of the seventeenth century more and more fallen into
English hands, the Portuguese acting for the most part as agents or
factors only ; so that these so-called Portuguese gains must be counted
among the provisions of the Peace most profitable to Great Britain. ,

Finally, France and Prussia agreed to a separate Peace on the
same date (April 11); though it is noticeable that as Elector of
Brandenburg, King Frederick William I still continued at war with
France. Through the diplomatic activity of France, Spain had in
this instance once more been obliged to compensate a member of the
Grand Alliance for his exertions against the Bourbon claimant to her
throne. The bulk of Upper, or Spanish, Gelderland was ceded to
France, in order by preconcerted arrangement to be made over by her
to Prussia, on condition that the Catholic religion should be maintained
there as it had been under the Spanish rule. Upper Gelders, the nucleus
of the entire duchy, had remained with Spain when Lower Gelders had
concurred in the Union of Utrecht (1579) ; but in the course of the
War of the Spanish Succession the King of Prussia had laid claim to it
as Duke of Cleves. This claim was to a large extent conceded in the
Peace of Utrecht, though lesser portions of Upper Gelders went to the
House of Austria, and to the Elector Palatine, as Duke of Jiilich and
Berg. A fresh division of Gelders — into four parts — was made in the
Barrier Treaty of 1715, to be mentioned below, but it will be seen later

1713] NeucMteL^-Orange. 449

that, before the century was out, they were alike swallowed up by
France, and that it was not till the Vienna Treaties of 1814-5 that
Upper Gelders was, in part at least, restored to Prussia.

At Utrecht the King of Prussia's sovCTeignty over Neuchatel and
Valengin was likewise acknowledged. Neuchdtel (Neuenburg) was an
ancient countship, whose chief civic community had been connected
with the Swiss Confederation by a series of treaties of alliance, and had
at times been under the actual control of the Confederation itself. By
right of inheritance the countship had been held by the ducal House of
Longueville (a branch of the Orleans line) till its extinction in 1707,
with the death of Marie de Longueville, Duchess of Nemours. Already
during her lifetime Louis XIV, whose annexation of Franche Comte
had made him the immediate neighbour of Neuchatel, had put forward
the claims of the Prince of Conti upon the inheritance. These claims
had been strenuously opposed by the Swiss cantons — Bern, Luzem,
Solothurn, and Freiburg — associated by written compact with Neuchatel,
where (whether or not with the intention of spiting France) a movement
arose, headed by the former Chancellor, George de MontmoUin, in support
of Frederick I of Prussia's claims as representing the House of Nassau-
Orange, which had formerly held sway at Neuchatel. Bern, the most
important of the members of the Swiss Confederation, and other cantons
strongly supported these claims, which in 1707 were approved by the
Estates of Neuchatel, and in 1713 declared valid at Utrecht. The
folly of the attempt to establish an intimate political connexion between
two places so remote from each other as Berlin and Neuchatel, especially
at a time when all claims to Orange were renounced, was to avenge itself
slowly, but surely. After undergoing the vicissitudes of the Napoleonic
wars, Neuchatel was not finally given up by Prussia to Switzerland, of
which it is an organic part, till the precipitous changes of 1848.

As already observed^ it was at this very time that an end was put to
the political existence of the principality of Orange, which had come to be
a mere archaic inconvenience. This principality, like the neighbouring
city of Avignon and county of Venaissin, was a remnant of the old
Burgundian kingdom. It passed successively under the sway of several
dynasties, notably under that of' the House of Nassau, Rene of Nassau
having in 1530 become Prince of Orange as the nephew of the last Prince
of the House of Chalons, and having, in 1544, been succeeded by his great
cotisin William. The little principality had then, in a series of wars, been
seized by a succession of French kings, but had with the same regularity of
sequence been restored to its owners at the pacifications ending these
several conflicts. WTien, after the death of King VSrilliam III, Frederick I
of Prussia had on the strength of his kinship with the House of Orange-
Nassau displayed some intention of putting himself in possession of the
principalityj Louis XIV had at once anticipated him. Now, at Utrecht,
Prussia gave up whatever claims she possessed, and in the Peace of Kastatt

0. M. H. V. CH. XIV. 29

460 The Emperor and the Peace of Utrecht. [1713

in 1714 France definitively absorbed Orange ; while the neighbouring papal
dominions were retained by the Holy See, till in 1791 they too were over-
taken by their destiny, and became part of the one and indivisible Republic.

It remains to note that, by a clause which, had Frederick I of Prussia
survived till the actual signature of the Franco-Prussian Treaty, would
in his eyes hav6 surpassed all the rest of it in importance, the King of
France, in his own name and in that of the King of Spain, promised to
acknowledge the royal dignity of his Prussian brother.

Viewing the. Peace of Utrecht as a whole (though it was actually com-
pleted by certain additional treaties signed in 1714 after the conclusion of
the Peace of Baden), we are of course confronted by the conspicuous gap
caused in its settlements by the missing consent and cooperation of the
Emperor^ on whose behalf the great struggle had for twelve eventful years
been carried on. Perhaps, had the campaign conducted by Prince Eugene in
1712, after his British allies had sheiathed their swords, ended more success-
fully,the Emperor Charles VI might have played an important part in peace
negotiations conducted on an altered basis; but by the autumn of the year
the hopes of such an issue had grown small; and though the interests
of the Emperor and the Empire were not altogether left out of sight at
Utrecht, they were more or less neglected, as opposed, in different ways,
to the interests both of France and of the United Provinces, and a matter
of indifference, if not of aversion, to Bolingbroke and his colleagues. On
the evening of the day on which the Anglo-French and some of the other
pacifications noted above had been signed, the British plenipotentiaries
handed to Count Sinzendorf the ultimatum of Louis XIV — consisting of
conditions very different not only from those which France would have
held herself fortunate in obtaining at various stages of the War, but
even from offers transmitted by Louis to the Emperor in the course of
the Utrecht negotiations themselves. France now declared herself pre-
pared to accept the settlement, not of the Peace of Westphalia, but of
the Peace of Ryswyk, based on a uti possidetis far more favourable to
France. The Rhine was to form the frontier between France and the Empire
— which of course involved the severance from the latter of Strassburg,
though hot of Kehl, of which, however, as in all cases of fortified places
included in the iarrangement, the works Were to be razed. The offer of Louis
XIV to recognise Charles VI as Emperor, and George Lewis of Hanover as
Elector, was very coolly, received by them. On the other hand, Louis XIV
demanded the full and entire restoration to their rights of his allies the
Electors of Bavaria and Cologne-^though the Upper Palatinate was to be
left in the possession of the Elfector Palatine. The Elector of Bavaria
was to be indemnified for his renunciation of the Spanish Netherlands by
the transfer to him of the island of Sardinia with the title of King;
whilCj until his restoration to all his hereditary dominions (except the
Upper Palatinate), he was to remain in absolute sovereign possession of
Luxemburg, Namur, and Charleroi. France consented to the assignment
to the Emperor of Naples, Milan, and the "Spanish" Netherlands,

1713] The Emperor's persistence. 451

demanding only that Italian territories not dependent on either Naples
or Milan (in other words, those of her allies the Dukes of Mantua and
Mirandola) should be restored to their lawful owners. These terms
Louis XIV declared himself ready to keep open till June 1 ; but, as he
refused to assent to a cessation of arms even up to that date, it is quite
clear that he looked to a further continuance of French successes in the
field for a modification of his proposals in his own favour. In April and
May, the first and second Imperial plenipotentiaries respectively quitted
Utrecht, the latter having for the present failed to gain over Bavaria by
the ofier of the hand of an Austrian archduchess for the young Electoral
Prince Charles Albert, who might thus become heir of the whole
Habsburg dominions. Bavaria, in the existing condition of things,
had to thank Austria " for nothing."

The Imperial Government — after the fashion of what not in England
alone was a preeminently pamphleteering age and, in the particular
instance of the Peace of Utrecht, a preeminently pamphleteering oc-
casion— issued a German pamphlet designed for popular consumption ;
together with a more temperately written apologia, elaborated, in accord-
ance with Sinzendorfs instructions, by the learned Jean Dumont, both
in Latin and French, under the title of A Letter to am, Englishman.
But even the French^born Imperialist historiographer ventured to re-
proach the British nation with its servile submissiveness to the authority
of the Crown, and to warn Queen Anne of the risk she ran of incurring
the fate of her father. Thus, though abandoned by his Allies, and
labouring under the lack of resources chronic to his dynasty,, the
Emperor Charles VI showed himself immovable in his resolution to
carry on the War. When he turned to the Diet at Ratisbon, he
obtained without much difiiculty a vote for the continuation of the
War on the part of the Empire and for a contribution of four million
dollars. But the money came in at a snail's pace ; the proclamation issued,
or rather caused to be issued at second-hand, by the Emperor, fell flat ;
and the prospects of a war carried on without British or Dutch subsidies
revealed themselves in all their nakedness. The Imperial Government
remained blind to the fact that Great Britain's commercial interests
would not suifer from a breach with the Empire, which must follow upon
a political rupture between the two Powers ; and that it would therefore
be practically ignored in the settlement which the British and French
Governments were at one in hastening to a conclusion.

The events of the campaign on the Rhine in 1713 showed that
no choice was left to Prince Eugene but the adoption of a purely
cunctatory, strategy ; while the Emperor was on all sides surrounded by
misfortune. The French had once more crossed the Rhine; Catalonia
was lost, or virtually so ; and at Vienna there was an outbreak of the
plague. As in the course of the War, when, after holding his entry into
"his capital," Charles had seen province after province slip from his

CH. XIV. 29 — 2

452 The Peace of Bastatt. [iTis^-i

grasp: so now, when his arms were carrying on the struggle alone and to
no purpose, nothing could disttirb the grandiose! self-control^ — or the im'
movable phlegm — of the Emperor. But gradually he began to recognise
the futility of the efforts which were bdng continued on his behalf;
and he allowed communications to be opened through British mediation
between Prince Eugene and Marshal Villars, Full powers were granted
to them by the Emperor and the King of France ; and formal peace
negotiations accordingly began between these two sovereigns on No-
vember 27, 1713, at Rastatt — a castle near the right bank of the Rhine,
belonging to the widow of Margrave Lewis William of Baden. Great
secrecy was observed in the negotiations, Prince Eugene conferring with
nobody but Villars in person. The King of France had, on the strength
of the successful campaign just ended, by no means lowered his con-
ditions, though he finally desisted from the demand that Philip V
should be included in the Treaty. Villars had asked that not only
should Landau be left in the possession of France, but that the costs
of the prolongation of the War should be made good by the Emperor —
a proposal logical in a sense, but in the circumstances quite unreasonable.
On the other hand he would not listen to the Imperia,! demand for the
restoration to the Catalans of all their privileges. In addition, there
was the perennial difficulty concerning the Elector' of Bavaria, whom
France desired to see restored to his rights as well as compensated for
his losses. The upshot was that Prince Eugene declared the French
propositions inadmissible, and early in February, 1714, quitted Rastatt for
Stuttgart, Villars taking his departure for Strassburg. Hereupon Louis
showed a more yielding disposition^ especially after the vote of the Diet
already mentioned ; and negotiations were resumed.

Aftef all, it was the safety of the Germanic Empire rather than,
except in an outlyiiig part of them, that of the hereditary dominions of
the House of Austi'ia, which was endangered by the French demands ;
and the sensitiveness of that House has not always been as keen for the
former as for the latter. TTie Peace as to which negotiations were in
progress could not in any case be actually concluded without the consent
of the Diet; although to wait for the actual participation of its repre-
sentatives might delay ad infinitum the pi:ospect Of reaching a settlement.
Both at Gertruydenberg and at Utrecht the Diet hstd intended to be
represented by a Deputation which should watch over the interests of
the Empire; but the necessary formalities, and the usual difficulty of
balancing the representation of the Catholic and the Protestant Estates
respectively, occupied a long time, and nothing was ultimately done.
Thus at Rastatt, where he concluded peace with France on March 7,
1714, the Emperor took upon himself to agree to a series «f pro-
visions in the name of the Empire without having been authorised to
do so by the Diet; the entire agreement being treated as if it only
fol-med preliminaries, although it actually constituted the Treaty itself
and was ratified by the Emperor "in the undoubted confidence, that the

1687-1714] The Byswyk Clause. 453

Electors, Princes, and other Estates would not hesitate " to follow suit.
He excused himself for these high-handed proceedings towards the
Empire by a " Decree of Commission," in which he sought to throw
the responsibility of his action upon iVillars, and offered the Diet
the choice between at last naming its Deputation, or empowering him
to conclude peace in the Empire's name. The Catholic Estaltes were
prepared to grant him these powers; but not so the Protestant — and for a
very significant reason, into which it is necessary to enter rather more fully.
The hesitation of the Protestant Estates at this point arose out of
an article in the Rastatt prehminaries, affirming that the Treaties of
Westphalia and of Ryswyk should form the bases of the intended Peace;
N(3W, Article IV of the Treaty concluded by France with the Emperor
and the Empire at Ryswyk had contained a clause, against which the
Protestants had persistently protested and which they regarded as having
been rendered invalid by the outbreak of the European War that had
put an end to the Treaty containing it. The Article itself had provided
for the restoration to the Empire of all the districts occupied by France
outside Alsace — a loose designation which, however, need iiot be further
criticised in the present connexion; for it is the clause added by France
to the Article which is in question, and which plays an unhappily
prominent part in the diplomatic history of the first quarter of the
eighteenth century. During the French occupation of the Palatinate in
the iniquitous "Orleans War", (1688-90) it had seemed good to the
French Government, the standard-bearer of intolerance at home, to
espouse the interests of the Catholics in those districts where no Catholic
worship had been established, by introducing there the exercise of it side
by side with that of the Protestants, forcing the latter either to share
the use of their churches with the Catholics or to give up to them the
chancels. These proceedings amounted to a palpable violation of the
settlement made in the Peace of Westphalia, according: to which the
established Church (representing any one of the three recognised Confes-
sions) in any given district was to be that which had been the established
Church there in the year 1624!. In the Peace of Ryswyk, however, France
sought to force her new provision upon the frontier-districts restored by
her to the Empire under Article IV, by means of the clause declaring
that in the territories so restored the Roman Catholic religion should
remain in the condition in which it was at the present time^ — in other
words, where a simultaneous Catholic worship had been established by
the French, it was to be maintained for ever. The insertion of this
clause in the Peace not having been opposed by the Imperial plenipo-
tentiary at Ryswyk, it: was accepted by the Catholic Estates of the
Empire, on the plea of the imperative necessity of concluding the Peace;
but of the Protestant Estates only a few attested their signatures to the
Treaty;; and soon afterwards the entire Corptts Evcmgeliconum entered
their solemn protest against the manifest violation of the Peace of

454 The Peace of Baden. [ivu

Westphalia. Finally, though to the resolution of the Diet approving of
the ratification of the Peace of Ryswyk (Novembar, 1697), there was added
a postscript intended to safeguard the Protestants against any application
of the clause to their disadvantage, this postscript was ignored by the
Emperor in accepting the resolution; and the result was a protracted
quarrel between the Protestant and Catholic Estates at the Diet which
led to a stagnation of all business in that assembly and recalls, in its
complications, the evil days of the Reservatum Ecdesiasticum. Nor can
it be said that in the later instance the whole dispute was a tenipest
about nothing; for the number of places whose i:eligious condition
was involved in it amounted to little short of 2000 (1932). When in
1714 the matter came up again at the Diet in connexion with the
Emperor's proposal that he should be empowered by it to conclude peace
in its name, the Protestants used all the forms at their disposal to obtain
the insertion in the decree of their demand that the obnoxious clause
should be held to have been abrogated for ever. Charles VI refused to
accept powers thus restricted; and the Protestant Estates had to content
themselves with a fresh protest, which when the terms of peace were
actually settled at Baden was, as will be seen, coolly passed over.

When, therefore, on June 10, 1714, a peace congress opened at Baden
(in Switzerland), there was really very little for it to accomplish. It was
attended by plenipotentiaries of the Emperor and of France, of Duke
Leopold Joseph Charles of Lorraine and of several Princes of the Empire
and of Italy, and of the Pope. No warmer friend of France, it may be
observed, has ever worn the tiara than Clement XI (1700-21) ; but he
had at an early date in his pontificate found it necessary to come to an
understanding with the Emperor' Joseph. Yet the Peace of Utrecht had
deprived him of certain portions of his temporal dominions ; and Clement,
who regarded this unprecedented act as a personal affront, was neither
able to obtain redress nor to suffer in dignified silence. The Peace between
France and the Empire was concluded at Baden on September 7, 1714.

No essential difference is accordingly to be noticed between the
Treaties of Rastatt and Baden, unless it be thiat the earlier of the two
was drawn up in French, and the later in Latin. The Treaty of
Ryswyk was, together with those of Westphalia and Nymegen, taken
as a basis of the Peace of Baden ; and the protestation mentioned above
was passed over after an unctuous French declaration as to the King's
devotion to the Catholic faith, which had been fortified by two hortatory
briefs from the Pope. The provisions of the Peace, which was si^ed on
September 7, were entirely concerned with the relations between the
Empire and France, and mainly with the regulation of their frontier.
Hencie the mediation offered by Great Britainj and the participation
in the negotiations desired by Spain, had been alike declined. Alt-
Breisach and Freiburg, with the fort of Kehl— all on the right bank
of the Rhine— were restored to the Empite ; while Landau, further to
the north on the left bank of the river, was, with its dependencies, ceded

ivu] : Peace between Spain and the United Provinces. 455

to France. Various petty Princes, temporal or spiritual,; of the Empire
recovered the possessions taken from them by France since the Peace
of Ryswyk ; on the other hand, her allies, the Electors of Bavaria and
Cologne, were replaced in the position in which they had stood at the
beginning of the War. " In the event " — so ran one of the Articles of
the Peace — "of the House of Bavaria finding some Exchange of its
States in conformity with its interests," France would raise no objection.
But the supposition is untenable that in this Article an exchange of the
whole of the Bavarian dominions was contemplated, as was seventy years
later contended by Joseph II when he sought to exchange for Bavaria
the Belgic Netherlands, which the Peace of Baden recognised as be-
longing to the House of Austria, together with the dominions left to
it in Italy by the Peace of Utrecht.

The Peace of Baden was, however, by no means a mere repetition of
the Peace of Utrecht ; for at Baden the Emperor did not acknowledge
the rule of Philip V in Spain, and Philip in his turn gave no consent
to the dismemberment of the Spanish monarchy in favour of the Austrian
Habsburgs. There are other points of difference — notably as to the
treatment of the Elector of Bavaria, who at Baden profited greatly
from the late successes of his French ally, and from the magnanimity
with which on this, as on other occasions, Louis XIV supported the
interests of his friends. The Peace of Baden was ratified by the Diet
of the Empire, but not till after many difficulties had been raised and
surmounted; for while the Protestant Estates recorded a protest
against the maintenance of the notorious clause of the Fourth Article
of the Peace of B.yswyk, other protests were recorded by several Italian
princes, and by the Pope himself, against other sections of the present
treaty.

As indicated above, two further treaties have yet to be noticed in
this survey, concluded respectively a little before and a little after the
Peace of Baden. The Peace between Spain and the United Provinces,
which was signed at Utrecht on June 26, 1714, had been delayed so
long on account of the persistent refusal of the Emperor to assent to the
Article in the Peace between France and the United Provinces in favour
of the Princess Orsini. Philip V was now at last persuaded to give way,
and in this same year the ascendancy of the Princess itself came to an
end after the death of Philip's Queen, Marie-Louise. Certain other
reasons had contributed to delay the conclusion of the Spanish-Dutch
treaty. Its most important provisions as a matter of course had
reference to trade, as to which Spain placed the United Provinces on
the footing of the most favomed nation, with the exception of trade
with the Spanish American colonies. This remained, closed to all
European nations except, in so far as the Asknto was concerned, to
Great Britain. The attempt of the Spaniards to secure the cession of
Maestricht and certain other districts, which in a critical moment of

466 Peace between Portugal and Spain. [1701-15

their fortunes (167S) the States General had promised to make over
to them so as to secure their aid against the invasion of Louis XIV,
inevitably broke down, since the Belgian Netherlands as a whole were
now to pass, not to Spain, but to the House of Austria.

Portugal and Spain likewise concluded peace at a date so late as
February 6, 1715. The lasting hatred between the two neighbour
peoples goes a long way to account for the delay; but it must also
be a;llowed that Portugal, who, as has been seen, had faithfully adhered
to the Grand Alliance since British diplomacy had induced her to join
it in 1703 — notwithstanding the dangers and damages to which her
colonial empire had been exposed in consequence — might justly have
expected a fuller consideration of her claims in the Peace than she
had succeeded in obtaining. She was left very much to make her own
terms with Spain ; and, though in the end she reduced her demands
to the single city of Badajoz and the abandonment of the Spanish claims
(upheld by the valour of Indians trained by Jesuits) in the colony of
St Sacrament in Uruguay, to whose strange history reference is made
elsewhere, the Government of Philip V was provided with further
counter-claims of its own. When, however, it became apparent that
the Emperor had resolved to conclude no peace with Spain at present,
the Spanish negotiations with Portugal were resumed ; and, under pres-
sure from her ungenerous British ally, Portugal was brought to sign
the Peace — both the contracting Powers making it very evident through
the behaviour of their plenipotentiaries, that they and their peoples
were affectionately disposed towards each other. On the whole, the
conditions of this treaty were necessarily favourable to Portugal. The
home frontier was regulated in accordance with the status quo ante
bellum; and Spain gave up the disputed colony of St Sacrament to
Portugal, unless she should within eighteen months have found and
accepted a suitable equivalent. The later changes in the history of the
colony were as numerous as the earlier, but cannot occupy us here.

This account may fitly be concluded by a few words concerning the
"Barrier Treaties," of which the third and last finishes the series of trans-
actions calling for notice here. Article IX of the Treaty of 1701, in which
the lines of the Grand Alliance were laid down, had contained an assurance
to the United Provinces of a barrier against France. The importance
of such a pi'otection to the Provinces was of course patent. Nature had
done little or nothing for the Low Countries in the way of barrier
or boundary ; and the repulse of the French invasion of 1672— one of
those great crises in the history of a nation which must end either in the
destruction or in the preservation of a nation's existence as such — ^had so
fa,r only proved that, but for an extraordinary effort of national patriotism
under a great national leader, the Dutch Republic might have sunk
under the waters, instead of emerging from them.

The question of the Dutch Barrier had accordingly become a theme

1701-9] The First Barrier Treaty^ 457

of protracted discussion between the States General and the Imperial
Government, which of course began with treating ; the Spanish Nether-
lands as part of the dominions of the Habsburg candidate for the Spanish
throne. Archduke Charles. In the course of these discussions the
States General advanced claims which the Imperial Government resisted ;
but, as during the progress of the War that Government became aware
of the danger (sufficiently illustrated in the previous section), that
Louis XIV might seek to tempt the Dutch by offering to conclude a
separate Peace with them. Count Sinzendorf was in 1708 sent to the
Hague by the Emperor Joseph to negotiate an arrangement on the
subject with the States General, through the mediation of Marlborough.
At that date there was no difficulty in settling that the States General
would listen to no peace propositions that should fail to ensure the
indivisibility of the Spstnish monarchy under the House of Habsburg;
but as to the question of the " Barrier " it was not so easy to arrive at
an agreement. The contention of the Imperial Government — reason^
able enough if alliances were designed to last for ever-^was that, if
the Austrian claimant to the Spanish monarchy were secured in the
possession of the Spanish Netherlands, there was no necessity for
any "Barrier" at all — for why should the Dutch have the right of
garrisoning a series of fortified places in a friendly territory ? The
Dutch, however, taking a less trustful view, actually designated the
fortified places of which they would like their Barrier to consist, and
which at first included not only Ostend, Nieuport, and Dendermonde,
but even Antwerp. This liberal selection, however^ in its turn naturally
excited on the part of Great Britain both jealousy and apprehension of
the results which might follow in the not absolutely impossible event of
a future Anglo-Dutch conflict.

When, however, as was seen in the earlier section of this chapter, the
peace negotiations of 1709-10 broke down, and the War had to be
resumed by the Allies, both Great Britain and the United Provinces
perceived that the vexed question of the Barrier ought to be got out of
the way, even though the Emperor, for the benefit of whose claimant
the Spanish Netherlands were being contested against France, might
take no immediate part in the transaction. The result was the, so-called
First Ban-ier Treaty, concluded on Octobei; 29, 1709. Ip this compact
the British Government undertook to secure to ^he States General the
right of garrisoning nine strong places which belonged or had belonged
to the Spanish Netherlands, nac^ely Nieuport, Furnes, Knoque, Ypres,
Menin, Lille, Toumay, Conde, and Valenciennes, in addition to ten
others (including Charleroi, Namur, and the citadel of Ghent) in case of
their being recaptured from the French, in whose hands they at the
present remained. A million of franca was to be annually paid to the
Dutch out of the revenues of the Spanish Netherlands for the maintenance
of the fortresses: and garrisons aforesaid.

CB. XIV.

468 The Second Barrier Treaty. [1709-13

This Barrier Treaty, which in fact amounted to a renewal, by way of
reassurance, of the defensive and offensive alliance between Great Britain
and the United Provinces, in terms favourable beyond precedent to thei
latter, was decried in' Parliament as unfavourable to England as well as
to France ; and this complaint was echoed in the country at large. A
strong popular feeling against the Dutch had survived from the ignoble!
factiousness of the reign of William III, and it was probably augmented'
by some genuine fears as to the consequences of strengthening the position
of England's chief mercantile rival. Thus, notwithstanding the Barrier
Treaty, or partly in consequence of it, considerable soreness ensued
between the two peoples and Governments; and, when, in December,
1711, Marlborough was dismissed from his public employments, the
States General made over the command of their troops, not to his
successor, the Duke of Ormond, but to the Imperial Commander, Prince
Eugene. Party feeling took advantage of these relations to undermine
the Grand Alliance by such semi-official manifestos as Swift's Remarlcs
on the Barrier Treaty (1712).

Thus, during the progress of the peace negotiations of 1711 and 1712
between the British and French Governments, the former were found
quite ready to meet the wishes of France as to a revision of the Barrier
Treaty, of which it is certainly not too much to say that it seriously
impaired the force of the compact. Several of the Barrier places on
which the Treaty had insisted being now promised to France, it became
necessary for Great Britain, if her present policy was to be carried out,
to conclude a Second Barrier Treaty with the States General, and this
was accomplished at Utrecht on January 30, 1713. In this Treaty; by
which the First was formally revoked, it was settled that the States
General should have the right of keeping garrisorls in Knoque, Ypres,
Menin, Tournay, Mons, Charleroi, Namur, and Ghent ; but Lille, Conde,
Valenciennes and Maubeuge, which were included as Barrier places in
the First Treaty, were not so included in the Second. Great Britain
was to furnish 10,000 and the States General 6000 men, and each of the
two Powers the same number of vessels, for the maintenance of the
Treaty. Upper Gielders, which the First Treaty had assured to the
United Provinces, was passed over in the Secdnd, it being, as has been
seen, intended to dispose of it otherwise (in favour of Prussia).

Now, though the Treaties of Utrecht, Rastatt, and Baden had alike
kept in view the transfer of the " Spanish " Netherlands to the House
of Austria, yet they had all provided that these Belgic Provinces should
remain in the occupation of the States General, until they should have
arrived at a satisfactory understanding with the Emperor on the subject
of their Barrier, With a view to such an understanding, a conference
was held at Antwerp between representatives of the Imperial Govern-
ment and of the States General, General Gadogan, who after Queen
Anne's death had been reinstated as Lieutenant-General and appointed

1715-8] The Third Barrier Treaty. 459

envoy at the Hague, acting as mediator. The Dutch, whose influence
among the Allies had as a matter of course been much depressed under
the Tory rule of the last four years of Queen Anne, had now regained
a much stronger position ; and it was improved by the exertions of
Cadogan, who was active in keeping up a good understanding between
the Whigs and the German States friendly to the Hanoverian Succession.
Thus the Third Barrier Treaty, concluded at Antwerp on November 16,
1715, was more favourable to the claims of the United Provinces than
might have seemed possible during the course of the Utrecht negotia-
tions. TTiey obtained the Barrier places desired by them, namely Namur,
Toumay, Menin, Fumes, Warneton, Ypres, and Knoque, toge1;her with
the right of joint garrison at Dendermonde. 35,000 men were to form
the garrisons of these places — three-fifths of the cost involved being
furnished by the Imperial Government, and two-fifths by that of the
States General, to whom certain of the revenues of the now Austrian
Netherlands were to be pledged as a security for the Austrian share
of the expense. Furthermore, in Upper Geldei:s Venloo was, together
with certain smaller places, ceded to the States General; and there
was also a small cession of territory in Flanders which would be Useful
to them in time of war, in the event of their desiring to place the
country between Meuse and Scheldt under water. Great Britain
guaranteed the whole of the Treaty, and, in the case of any attack
upon the Barrier places mentioned in it, undertook to furnish towards
their defence a force of 10,000 men and twenty ships of war ; and, should
these prove insufiicient, to apply all further requisite efforts, and if
necessary to declare war against the aggressor.

On the whole, therefore, the Dutch had by their tenacity, and by
taking advantage of the favourable opportunity which had at last come
to them, obtained a guaranteed agreement which not only effected their
main object, the establishment of a well-protected frontier as towards
France, but even (in the words of a Dutch historian) placed what
were now the Austrian Netherlands in a relation which was in some
degree a relation of dependence as towards the Free. For by the TTiird
Barrier Treaty the States General at once gave up to the Emperor all
those portions of the Netherlands which had been in the possession
of King Charles II of Spain ; but they retained under certain pretexts
those districts which France had restored to the House of Austria in the
Treaties of Utrecht, Rastatt, and Baden. These were likewise delivered
up to the Emperor by virtue of a supplementary convention signed at
the Hague on December 22, 1718. The unity of the monarchy of thS
Spanish Habsburgs, which the will of Charles II had sought to preserve,
had received its final blow; and under the guarantee of Great Britain
the head of the House of Austria had reentered into the possession of one
of the fairest of the jewels in the crown of his great namesake.

460

CHAPTER XV.

PARTY GOVERNMENT UNDER QUEEN ANNE.

The death of William placed on the throne an English princess, who
at once secured, by the mere fact of her birth, the popularity which all
the extraordinary abilities of the foreign ruler had never won for him.
Anne was a well-intentioned but not over-wise woman, who, while
holding high ideas of her own prerogative and thinking but meanly of
party government, was by the irony of fortune always at the mercy
either of court intrigue or of party faction. At her accession the former
force predominated, and Sarah, Countess of Marlborough, whose in-
fluence over Anne was almost boundless, was able to place her great
husband in supreme authority. The Earl of Marlborough, who was now
made Captain-General of her Majesty's forces, had been employed by
WiUjam in high military commands during the first years of his reign,
and in important diplomatic negotiations at its close. But, despite the
recognition which his great qualities had already won for him, it was
as much upon court intrigue as upon them that his power ultimately
depended. Anne's husband. Prince George of Denmark, was techni-!
cally generalissimo of the forces and Lord High Admiral; but the
supreme direction of military and foreign affairs really lay in the hands
of the man who was to show that he could out-match King Louis and
his agents in diplomacy, and rival Prince Eugene in war.

Marlborough declared that he would not command the army until he
saw Godolphin at the Treasury; and thus were associated the two men
who were to form and to control a Ministry whose record is one of the
most glorious in English history. Neither of them escaped condemnation
in his own day; but modern criticism has passed by the meanness of
Godolphin to assail the glory of Marlborough. Yet an application
of the same critical standards to both would place Marlborough on
a far higher plane. The most shameful transaction of Marlborough's
public life is admittedly that concerned with his giving information to
James about the despatch of an English expedition to Brest (1694).
But, inasmuch as a portion of the expedition started the day after the
date of his letter, Marlborough may plausibly be assumed to have astutely

1688-1708] Characters of Marlborough and Qodolphin. 461

communicated intelligence which he knew to be worthless. He may also
have been aware that the whole plan had already been disclosed by
Godolphin, and was known at Versailles at least three days before he
began to write his own letter. The perfidy of Godolphin is enhanced by
the fact that he was at this moment a Minister and favourite of William,
while Marlborough, having been dismissed from all his offices, and
imprisoned, had every reason for personal resentment. Hence in this
transaction, always reckoned the most questionable of his acts, the guilt
of Marlborough cannot be proved, while that of Godolphin is established
in all particulars. In other respects Godolphin has a worse than
doubtful record; before the Revolution he had been the Minister of
James and the correspondent of William ; after it he was the corre-
spondent of James and the Minister of William. He had tried so often
to balance between the two Kings and the two parties, that at length
very few, except Marlborough himself, thoroughly believed or trusted
him. Nevertheless, this insidious schemer was now to impair his private
fortime in the public service, and to show financial talents, not indeed
comparable to the bold genius and resource of Montagu, yet not
unequal to the problems created by a gigantic debt and a great financial
crisis.

Godolphin was a shrewd and plausible man of affairs ; Marlborough
possessed at once a finer character and a greater mind. Criticism has
ceased to question the domestic virtues and the religious sincerity of
Marlborough, but still assails his political character. Yet, under
William, his secret correspondence with St Germain cannot be treated
too seriously; imder Anne, it was chiefly addressed to his nephew Berwick
and is largely personal in character. When he does touch on politics, as
in a letter of July 17, 1708, he assures Berwick that he would serve the
King (the "Old Pretender") with all his heart, without prejudice to the
interest of the (English) nation ; " mats qtCilJimt toiyours s'opposer cL
taut ce qui est de VintB-it de la France!" That Power must in no way
benefit from a Stewart Restoration. Subsequently (August 24, 1708)
he airily explains that he will only be ready to act, " quwnd le Roi sera
appeU par h, nation."" It is obvious that Marlborough could, by
advancing one or other of these saving-clauses, discountenance almost
any Jacobite attempt. Hence he was, in all probability, merely deluding
Berwick with polite expressions of regret and hope, which would doubt-
less have served as evidence of his loyalty to the Jacobite cause, had the
"Pretender" ever obtained the throne. TTiese intrigues seem therefore
to be ignoble attempts to make the best of two political worlds,
rather than acts of real treason to the de facto sovereign. No one
desires to credit Marlborough with the political purity of a Chatham ;
but, by the standards of his own age, he must be held superior in political
virtue to Godolphin, the two Sunderlands, Bolingbroke, or Russell.

The supreme gifts which never failed Marlborough in leading an army

462 Party government under Anne. [1702-14

or in conducting a negotiation were not conspicuous in his management
of party. Nor can the excuses be advanced that absence, lack of time,
or the temper of his Duchess explain his failure; for the main principles
upon which he proceeded were fundamentally unsuited to the Parliament
of the day. The Survival of the idea that the Ministers were the
personal and individual servants of the sovereign, the lack of unity in
the Ministry, the absence of sympathy between leaders and followers,
made the art of government particularly difficult. But it had been
evident, on the whole, under William that Parliament was most easily
managed when party discipline was good, and when the Ministry was in
political sympathy with the majority of the Commons. These lessons
were now forgotten; the pursuit of a policy which was national and
not partisan Suited alike Anne's timid jealousy of her authority and
Marlborough's bold confidence in his own powers. Like William, Halifax
and Harley, they believed in a national party, to be formed by the
combination of moderate Whigs and Tories. Anne wished to avoid
being the servant of a faction, Marlborough to hold his course along
that central line which each party sometimes approached, but which
neither rigidly pm-sufed. Hence their policy was to balance between
extremes, in order that, as violent politicians fell out, the nation might
come by its own. But, however agreeable to Marlborough and to Anne,
this idea was difficult to carry into effect.

A consideration of the circumstances of the time seems to show that
two methods of government were possible — personal government by the
sovereign, and party government, depending in the main upon a Ministry
agreeable to a majority in the Commons, a type similar but not coinci-
dent with that in practice in England to-day. The sovereign possessed
immense indirect power, since at least one hundred members of the
Commons depended absolutely on the Crown for the enjoyment of places
and sinecures. Any member who held such office and proved recalcitrant
could be dismissed at once by the sovereign. If the two parties were
evenly balanced, or if the Commons were broken up into a number of
groups or small parties, the Crown held the balance and had the casting-
vote in all affairs of importance. It was by thus playing off one group
against another in a divided House of Commons that George III after-
wards broke the tyranny of parties, and became King in fact as well
as name. But Anne had not equal advantages; owing to her sex she
could not personally direct affairs, or administer patronage in minute
detail ; again, she had not to contend with a group-systemj but with
a system of two parties, divided from one another by great principles,
aiid tolerably homogeneous in their respective composition. It would
have been difficult, in her day, for even the most careful parliamentary
tactician to break loose from party ties, and to avoid strengthening one
party at the expense of the other. Though the experience of William's
reign was unfavourable to this system, it was none the less steadfastly

1702-4] Formation of GodolpMnSffMarlborougKs Ministry. 463

pursued, if not always realised, by both Marlborough and Godolphin.
William had already shown that a balancing policy was all but im-
possible; Marlborough, Godolphin, and Harley, illustrated the same
lesson at a later date and on a larger scale. Their comparative failure,
as contrasted with the temporary success of Bolingbroke and the long
ascendancy of Walpole, seems to point the moral. Bolingbroke and
Walpole introduced the system of unsparingly enforcing party dis-
cipline, and carried their principles so far as to deprive political
opponents of military commissions and commands. Their proceedings
were founded on the principle that lukewarm supporters or deserters
should receive no quarter The great soldier who governed Anne
confined his military discipline to the battlefield, only to discover that
his gentler parliamentary methods were unsuited to the temper of the
Commons, the violence of party spirit, and the general character of the
age. It was only the steadfast support of his sovereign, the disunion of
his opponents at home, and his dazzling triumphs abroad, that secured
Marlborough so long from the disastrous effects of a policy, which was
in its very nature one of tacks and shifts, of balances and adjustments,
of expediency and opportunism.

At first the political heavens were unclouded. A Tory majority had
voted for the war, a Whig majority had confirmed their decision. The
moment was therefore as favourable to the balancing policy as it ever
could be. Marlborough and Godolphin, though Tories in name, were
moderate in both principle and action. Marlborough had always aimed
at having no enemies ; Godolphin had for long been the only Tory
in a Whig Ministry under William, and, though a strong Churchman,
had befriended Dissenters. Hence, though the Ministry was at first
composed mainly of Tories, Marlborough and Godolphin refused to dis-
miss all {Whigs from the higher offices, or to purge the departments of
Whig clerks and tide-waiters, as the ultra-Tories suggested. The feelings
of patriotism stimulated by the accession of a Queen who declared her
heart to be entirely English, and by the successes of an English general,
rendered all opposition for a time ineffective. After the moderate
success of the campaign of 1702, Parliament passed a vote that "the
wonderful progress of your Majesty's arms, under the conduct of the
Earl of Marlborough, has signally retrieved the ancient honour and
glory of the English nation." Carried away by insular patriotism, the
majority of the Commons thus levelled an undeserved insult at the fame
of their late ruler. Marlborough almost immediately afterwards received
a dukedom and a pension of ^^5000 for life. Many people held him
to be very well paid for his services; but when this national investment
produced its dividends in Blenheim and Ramillies, the carping voices
were hushed. English pride swelled high when a hundred French flags
were borne through the streets of London to celebrate a victory as
renowned as that of Agincourt, For some years after Blenheim the

464 Nottingham and the "tack. [1702-4

War. was genuinely national and popular; and debates in Parliament
were m'aiiily concerned with maladministration in the army or navy,
with quarrels between the two Houses, or disputes about Occasional
Conformity. Only one solid measure aflFecting internal politics (save
the most important Act of Union elsewhere described) was passed.
Parliament repealed two futile clauses in the Act of Settlements-one
excluding all place-holders and pensioners imder the Crown from sitting
in the Commons, and the other forcing all Privy Councillors to sign the
measures they advised and approved. Had the first remained law, the
Commons would have become merely a house of critics; had the second
gone unrepealed, the development of the most subtle and illusive of
modern constitutional forms, the Cabinet, would have been indefinitely
retarded. Apart fi-om these wise measures, which attracted little at-
tention, the subjects of debate in the Commons were the prey of faction.
On but a single object, though that was the most important of all— rthe
prosecution of the war^-was there genuine national agreement between
1702 and 1708.

Such being the case, the chief internal interest centres in the obscure
ministerial negotiations and in the dark intrigues of palace and closet.
Here the first event of prime significance was the resignation of Notting-
ham. As a leader of the High Churchmen, less bitter and partisan than
Rochester, who had resigned in 1703, he commanded great respect, and
his fall was connected with : their cause. One of the measm'es, most
constantly urged by them, was the Occasional Conformity Bill, intended
to prevent Dissenters evading the Test Act and thus securing to them-
selves civil rights. In 1703 the measure, which had passed the Commons,
was thrown out by the Lords, Accordingly in 1704 Nottingham
instigated the Commons to "tack" it to the Land Tax BiU, in order
to force the Lords to pass it, A Commons majority Voted against the
"tack"; whereupon Marlborough announced that he wotild give no
quarter to the supporters of the tack. On May 18, 1704, therefore,
Nottingham and two other Tory Ministers were forced to resign. Their
places were filled by Robert Harley, at this moment Speaiker of the
Commons, who became Secretary of State, and Hairy St John, who was
made Secretary at War. The latter was a young man, supposed to be
a moderate Tory, whose parliamentary talents were alreaidy giving him
a personal influence in the Commons which no man had equalled since
the days of Pym. Harley was a veteran intriguer, of much the same
kind of placable temperament and political moderation as Godolphin.
Neither he nor Marlborough realised that the two politicians, whom
they now admitted to i the Ministry, were to be the chief instruments of
its downfall.

The Ministry, which had at first been almost whoUy Tory, was now
turning into a coalition between moderate Tories and moderate Whigs,
The Queen, whose natural inclinatiopj tempered by a desire for her own

1705-8] Intrigues of Harley. 465

independence, was for Toryism and the Church, began to scent danger.
When the Great Seal fell vacant in 1705, she wrote an "apprehensive"
letter to Godolphin, suggesting a moderate Tory for the post. " The
Whigs have had so many favours showed them of late, that I fear a very
fe-vy more will put me insensibly into their power. . .but I hope in God you
will never think that reasonable." Godolphin's reply to this appeal to
" keep me out of the pdwer of the merciless men of both parties " was to
give the Great Seal to Cowper, an excellent lawyer, but also an excellent
Whig. The drift was now unmistakable; and the general election of
1705 made the Whig majority moi-e pronounced. Then a more decisive
step was taken, to which even Marlborough's incomparable powers of
persuasion nearly failed to reconcile Anne. The third Earl of Sunder-
land, Marlborough's son-in-law, but a violent and bitter Whig, replaced
the Tory Sir Charles Hedges as Secretary of State (December 3, 1706).
To this step Anne most reluctantly consented, expressing her alarm lest
she should lay a lasting foundation for faction and become rather a slfiye
than a queen. No sooner had Simderland been installed than his influence
on Godolphin became apparent ; and the moderate Tpries in the Lower
Hcfuse were deprived of places or threatened with the loss of sinecures.

At the beginning of 1707 a counter-influence to that of Godolphin
and Sunderland began to be exercised by Harley. He was able to
enwrap his political convictions and even his actions jin a veil of
mystery which few ever penetrated, and behind it to carry on various
subterranean intrigues. , Through his relative Mrs IVfash^m, a Woman
of the Bedchamber, he contrived secret interviews with Anne, at
which no doubt the Queen lamented the growing unkindness of the
Sachess of Marlborough, the violence and ^ad manners of Sunderland,,
and the danger of falling into the power of the Whigs. The result
seems to have been that the Queen, in Imgue with Harley, , often
successfully opposed the measures of Godolphin. At flrst Harley
covered up his traces by professions of the deepiest humility and
loyalty to Godolphin. But he at length showed his liand by intriguing
against the Union with Scotland — that measure which Godolphin had
done so much to secure. After his return to England, during the winter
months of 1707 Marlborough induced Godolphin to take resolute
measures. At the la^t moment they were greatly aid^d by the discovery
that one Greg, Harley's clerk, had engaged in treasonable correspondence
with France, a fact which naturally, though it seems unjustly, Mtached
suspicion to Harley himself. On January 16, 1708, Greg was convicte:d
of high treason, and on February 11 Marlborough obtained the jdismissal
of Harley. St John also left the Ministry, the Whig Rpbeyt Walpole
took his place as Secretary at War, while Somers entered the Cabinet,
and was eventually • made Lord President of the Council. Thus the
Ministry, with the exception of Marlborough and Godolphin, was now
entirely Whig in character. The Whig party though now triumphant

C. 11. H. v. CH. XV. SO

466 The crisis of 1709. [i708-a

was not so well organised as when the famous "Junto" had directed its
affairs under . William, The electioneering campaigns of Wharton had
been to some extent curtailed by his elevation to: the peerage. The
Earl of Halifax (Montagu) was a melancholy and disappointed man,
who exercised but little influence on politics. Somers, who. had' managed
political combinations with the dexterity of an art and the precision of
a science^ was broken in health and prematurely old. His advice still
shaped the political strategy of the WhigSj but their tactics were
entrusted to other hands. Stanhope was soldier and diplomatist rather
than politician ; Sunderland damaged rather than aided the Whig cause
by the violence of his partisanship; But two younger men, Townshend
and Walpole, were beginning- to rise in influence. The sturdy honesty
of the one and the shrewd common sense of the other were soon to
make them the real leaders of the Whig party.

As if by an irony of fate, just when the Ministry, which had first
been formed mainly of Tories, and then been a mosaic of moderates, had
at last become pure Whig, it began to collapse. Events had forced the
balancers to govern on purely party lines, and when they at last pursued
the right plan, they found that it was too late. The Ministry was
weakened in various ways during 1709. Sunderland sometimes diverted
himself by praising repuljlicariism, for which he had an academic
enthusiasm, in the presence of the Queen; the conduct of Duchess
Sarah towards Anne passed from mere rudeness to open flouting.
Even Marlborougii made one of the feW diplomatic mistakes of his
life, and pressed Anne to make him Captain-General for life, a request
which she very properly refused. Though ambition contributed to the
making of this demand, it was probably also due to a reasonable desire
to be secured from party dissefasions in the management of the war
and in its final settleihent. But no proposal could have aroused more
suspicion, and the exaggerated terror then felt by' all Englishmen for
established militarism in any form made many cry out that Marl-
borough was Cromwell in disguise. This circumstance, together with
the slaughter at Malplaquet (unjustly regarded as a Pyrrhic victory),
the swelling expenses, and the tedious prolongation of the war, pro-
duced a growing dissatisfaction with the Whigs. A further cause was
weakening them. Harley — the mole of contemporary politics — had con-
tinued his burrowings, and was gradually underininihg the Ministers in
the favour of the Queen. Under his influence and that of Mrs Masham,
the Queen interfered, took her own line decisively both in politics and
in patronage, and assigned bishoprics, sinecures, regiments and com-
missions, oftei) without reference or in contravention of the wishes of
Marlborough or Godolphin. At this crisis royal disfavour and a growing
parliafaieiitafy opposition were suddenly and dramatically assisted by the
one other thing necessary to complete the downfall of the Whigs— an
overwhelming outburst of popular disapproval.

1704-14] Literature, the Press and politics. 467

To understand and gauge aright, the strength of the torrent which
was now to sweep the Whigs away in disaster, it is necessary to distin-
guish the currents composing it. , vSome we already know — vague unrest ;
popula;r dissatisfaction ; the censorious spirit, which carps, at great men
and great deeds without understanding the immediate difficulties of the
one or the ultimate benefits of the other, T^O other causes are however
apparent. One is the assistance derived froni the unparalleled, activity
of the Press and the perfect literary precision with which every grievance
was expressed by public writers. The other is a deeper and more real
motive — the dissatisfaction of the Church with the existing Ministry, and
the violence of religious, bigo^iry evoked by the trial of Sachevei;ell. The
freedom of the Press and of .public discussion was not indeed new; but
under the reign of Anne their influence and importance in public affairs
were developed to an astonishing degree. The first daUy paper appeared
under Anne; the weeklies quadrupled, in quantity; the pamphlets were
legion. Addison wrote (October 12, 1710) " there is scarce a single head
that does not teem with politics," and the number of distinguished
liteyary men who wrote about them at this time has never been surpassed
and probably never equalled. Literary success was a sure passport to
political advancement, as Locke, Somers, Prior, Steele, Swift and Addison
all showed in difierent ways. : The connexion of literature with politics
was never at any time so close. Somers was the friend apd patron of
Addison, Montagu of Steele, St John of Prior and Pope, Harley of
Swift and Defoe. Of the literary pamphleteers Defoe was the most
versatile, the most prolific and the most popular^ and as such was
employed by Harley on behalf of the Government so early as 1706. In
his Review (1704-13) and ilfercafor (1713) and in innumerable pamphlets
he gave a powerful, though in some measure independent, support to
each successive Ministry. The exquisite xu-banity of Addison supple-
mented the rugged vigour of Defoe: in, pamphlets of easy and graceful
advocacy, and, at the beginning of .1709, the literary honours still rested
with the Whigs. But all the impressions produced in their favour by
a score of brilliant pamphlets were destroyed at a blow by a single
sermon, and liter,ature in j;he persons of Addison and Defoe was
vanquished by religion in the shape of Dr Sacheverell. :

The age of Anne is frequently regarded as one in which little or no
religious feeling prevailed either within or without the Established Church.
The fierce enthusiasms associated with the names of Laud,; Cartwright, and
Knox, were indeed no more. But, while the religious, movements of the
new age were afiected by political movements and degraded by sectarian
intolerance, energy and enthusiasm of a nobler kind, were not wanting.
The reign witnessed a tightening of discipline among the parochial clergy,
an immense growth in charity schools and in church building in, London,
and an early though imperfect development of important, missionary
entei-prise. The clergy themselves were divided into Latitudinarians

ou. XV, 30 — 2

468 Beligious infiuehees': Sacheverell. [1709-17

and High Churchmen. The former, who were mainly Whigs, held most
of the bishoprics ; the latter, who were almost exclusively Tory, composed
the vast majority of the clergy as a whole. It is not surprising that,
under these circiimistances^ the two Houses of Convocation should have
wrangled even more fiercely than the two Houses of Parliament. So
embittered, indeed, did their disputes become that, in 1717, Convocation
was prorogued for a period of almost a century and a half. The attitude'
of the Whig Bishops was however less odious to their clergy than that
of the Whig political leaders, for the former were at least not so often
suspected of easy tolerance towards IXssent and cold indifiFerence to the
Establishment. The influence of the Established clergy at elections was
specially noticeable, for the sermon was at once a more popular, a more
important, and a more widely diffused vehicle of propaganda than any
pamphlet or news-sheet could be. When the High Church clergy
proceeded to inflame the minds of their parishioners against the Whigs,
tJieir influence penetrated to villages reached by no literature save the
monthly news-letter, and to men who could not read Defoe and would
not have imderstood Addison. All these elements of unrest were
focused into one by an explosive sermon delivered in St Paul's on the
appropriate date of November 5, 1709.

With coarse but powerful eloquencej Sacheverell railed violently at
the Ministry, sounded the war-cry of "the Church in danger," denounced
the toleration allowed by law as unreasonable, and appeared to assert
uncompromisingly the old Church and To!ry doctrines of non-resistance
and passive obedience. It is possible, though not certain, that the Whigs
would not have interfered but for the last assertion. Violence or scurrility
in the pulpit was one thing, but to deny the right of resistance was
quite another. By this means the whole Revolution Settlement could be
attacked and undermined, at a moment which was particularly dangerous;
The supporters of legitimacy had increased since the death of William;
and Anne, as herself a Stewart, was paradoxically though intelligibly
regarded by many Jacobites as the rightful heir of her father. But this
inconsistency did not in their eyes exclude her brother from the throne,
or prevent them from refusing to think of the Hanoverian Successor.
Sacheverell's denial of the right of Resistance appeared to support these
views, to assert the doctrines of heredity in their most rigid form, and
thus imperil the Protestant Succession. This was the real oflence that
induced the Whigs to proceed to an impeachment, which began early
in 1710. The Whigs had a difficult task before them, for they had to
admit that resistance to Government was lawful and that it had been
practised in 1688, and on the legal side their difficulties in proving
these propositions were naturally immense. Sacheverell's advocates wittily
requested their assailants to produce the Original Contract and to point
out their doctrines in Magna Carta. They knew as well as the Whigs
that, in point of fact, Locke had really i-ested his justificati^ for resistance

i7io] Fall of Godolphin and the Whigs. 469

on " the appeal to Heaven," and had made it exceptional and, in a
sense, ultra leges. They made one mistake in quoting the Revolution of
1688 as an example of "non-resistance"; on the plea that, as Parliament
had acquiesced in all William had done, the "supreme power" had not
been resisted. This was wretched sophistry, but it was only one logical
fallacy against several. , But the Whigs had superiority in force as well
as in fallacy; for the larger number of the Peers were of their party.
None the less, they were so shaken by the popular clamour that a nominal
sentence was only passed by a small majority. Sacheverell — who had
posed as the martyr of the Church — was released amid the wildest
acclamations. His portrait was seen in dozens of coffee-houses; scurrilous
lampoons in his favour and against the Ministry were sold by every
hawker in the street. Mobs marched about shouting and rejoicingj
even following Queen Anne in her chair to express a hope that she was
in favour of Dr Sacheverell.

Anne's conduct soon proved that she had determined to punish the
Whigs for daring to meddle with the Church, even when attacked in the
questionable shape of Sacheverell. In April, 1710, Shrewsbury, once a
Whig but now a moderate^ who had voted for Sacheverell's acquittal, was
made Lord Chamberlain. Then, to the consternation of all, Siuiderland
was dismissed (June 14, 1710). It was in vain that deputations of bankers
and merchants from the City waited on Anne to implore her not to
dismiss the Whigs, in vain that even the Electoral Prince of Hanover
remonstrated. On August 8, the Queen sent to Godolphin bidding him
yield up his Treasurer's staff. Cowper, Somers, Walpole and other leading
Whigs soon followed him into retirement. Harley, who had advised
these steps, became Chancelloi: of the Exchequer, and formed a Ministry
of Tories, in which St John was naturally included. Parliament was
dissolved on September 26j 1710, and at the general election a strong
Church and Tory majority was returned. So overwhelming was the
victory that even Harley was induced to act with unusual vigour and
severity. Before the assembling of the new Parliament (November 25,
1710) hardly a Whig retained even a minor post in the Administration ;
no change of Ministry had ever been so sudden or complete. But St John
— the right hand of Harley — ^was hot content with the superiority of
Tories in the Chiu:ch, Commons, or Cabinet. He turned to literature
as a fresh region to conquer. Defoe, the first of journalists, changed
opinions as the Queen changed Ministers, and St John started a weekly
paper, the Esvamimer, to uphold his own views. It was in vain that
Addison countered by some vigorous articles in the Whig Examiner ; it
ran only for five numbers (October). In November Swift began to
contribute to the Tory Excminer; his matchless ease and vigour soon
overpowered the grace of Addison, and to St John's delight the Tories
were able to assert and maintain their supremacy even in the realms of
literature.

470 Hurley's " Plan." — His character and aims. [1710-1

On October 30, 1710, Harley submitted to the Queen a " Plan for
conducting the Business of the Public." "In all places," he declared,
"'the Faction' (i.e. the Whigs); have been for many years possessed of
the J)oweri" Yet the "true strength and inclination of the people" was
obviously Tory^ and the High Church majority of the clergy had long
been coerced by a minority in high places. The Bench and the Bar
were also full of Whigs, and means must be taken to let them know the
power of the Crown. All difficulties with the majority of the Commons
would vanish, so soon as the wishes of the "Queen, who is the centre of
power and union," were known. In other words, places were to depend
on services to the Ministry in which the Queen placed complete confi-
dence. Lastly, with regard to the navy and army, the officers were to
be made "^dependent on the Crown.^" The Queen was recommended to
institute as a standing order that tenure of command for general officers,
"Flags," and captains was only to be annual, and to be arranged every
y6ar by the sovereign, who was not to allow anyone to "dispose
regiments but herself," Thus the spoils-system was to be introduced
nakedly and shamelessly into every department of State, under the
pretence of securing the authority of the Queen. Indeed, in the flush
of his election victory, Harley recommended measures drastic enough
to rejoice the heart of St John himself. But, at the very moment when
he was concocting this plan, he was secretly corresponding with Somers
and Halifax, requesting them to join the! Ministry, and assuring them
that "a Whig game was intended at bottom." To the last he balanced
and intrigued alike with Whigs, Low Churchmen, and Dissenters. His
ideal of government really resembled that of Marlborough, and aimed at
the moderation of extremes and the formation of a party of the centre.
But party passions ran too high for reconciliations even of moderate
men, and the time for mixed Ministries of this type had gone by. Had
Harley really adhered to his "plan" his party would very possibly have
avoided much of the disaster in which he was now to involve it.

In May, 1711, Harky assumed the office of Lord High Treasurer,
and received the title of Earl of Oxford. The qualities, which had
served him so well up tiU now, were not, however, sufficient to make
him a great Minister. His enigmatic manner, his tolerance and moder-
ation, the cautiousj balancing habit of his. mind would have in any case
caused him to incur the charge of duplicity ; but his policy and actions
show that the accusation was not always unjust. With him was
associated as Secretary of State St John, a man of brilliant genius,
who. swayed the Commons at his wiU by the dazzling eloquence and
passion of his oratory. Restlessly ambitious, ardent and resolute in
temperament, impatient of control, St John was a complete and para-
doxical contrast to his cdUeague. But for the present they were agreed
in their policy, and on the expediency of securing favourable terms of
peace as soon as possible. The first difficulty was Marlborough, who,

1711-2] Fall of Marlborough. 471

though not a Whig, had chosen and sapported the last Ministry. In
the field his services were regarded as indispensable; but it was soon
found that old party connexions still influenced him. In the spring
of 1711, Harley began secretly negotiating with the French without
informing Marlborough. When the Duke discovered this, he revenged
himself by negotiations with the Whigs, as to which he was equally
silent. The upshot was a most discreditable transaction by which he and
his Whig allies pm^chased the support of Nottingham and other bigoted
Tories. With the support of the Whigs; Nottingham amended the address
approving the Preliminaries of peace, by adding a clause that no peace
would be safe or honourable, which left Spain and the Indies in the
hands of the House of Bourbon (December 17, 1711). The Duke of
Marlborough, as he rose to support this amendment, bowed to the Queen
who was sitting in the Gallery, and his speech aimed as obviously at
convincing her as at influencing his brother-peers. The amendment,
which he had instigated, was carried. His move was in direct defiance
of the ministerial policy, as was proved by its rejection in the Commons
by a majority of over a hundred. Nottingham now claimed the price of
his support, which was the passing of the Occasional Conformity Bill by
the Whig Lords, who had repeatedly rejected it in the past. Though
the measure bore hardly on Nonconformists whom it deprived of civic
rights, and though the Whigs were famed for their tolerance, Notting-
ham held them to their promise and passed the Bill. Oxford had deeply
resented Marlborough's action with regard to the peace, and, being
tolerant towards Dissenters, was stiU more angry at his acquiescence
in this second shameless political job. Marlborough was not only
supporting the Whigs, but was inducing Tories to join in his defection
and trying to catch the ear of the Queen. Only resolute measures could
avert disaster. The first move was to hurry on the publication of a
report charging Marlborough with financial malversations. The second
was to dismiss the great Duke from all his offices (December SI, 1711).
The third was a coup d'itat, which intimidated the Lords into passing
the peace clauses, by the creation of twelve new peers in a single day
(January 1, 1712). This measure went very near to revolution, and it
eventually formed one of the counts on which Oxford was impeached.

That the charges of peculation against Marlborough were flimsy and
unjust and that he was ill-rewarded by the existing Ministry for his match-
less services is clear. It must also be remembered that Swift had attacked
Marlborough in his pamphlets, with the hardly disguised approval of
Oxford. None the less it appears certain that, on an immediate though
not on an ultimate issue, the Duke was opposing the peace. It is true
that, in supporting the amendment, he was only making good the promise
openly made by St John and Oxford to the Dutch, that the House of
Bourbon should not retain both Spain arid the Indies. But neither
Treasurer nor Secretary would consider it the duly of their colleague to

472 Character of St John (Bolingbroke). [xiu

remind them of their broken pledge. Hence Marlborough's dismissal,
though attended by discreditable circumstances, was by no means unjusti-
fiable. The field was now clear for the conclusion of that peace, over the
details of which divergence first appeared between Oxford and St John.
In tihese negotiations tihey have both been suspected of intrigues with
James Edward, the "Old Pretender,"' and each subsequently brought that
charge against the other. But the terms of his letters to them both upon
May 3, 17.14i, seem ,to show that no written communications could have
passed between him and either of them. About verbal communications
there will always be mystery, dispute, and perhaps genuine misunder-
standing. Oxford, 'Wjith his accustomed dissimulation, probably held out
hopes to the Pretender, with the object of inducing him to influence the
Jacobite Peers at hoime to accept the peace. But, while it was characteristic
of Oxford to be entangled in an intrigue without ever committing himself,
this, same cannot be said of St John. It is upon the conclusion which can
be formed as to hig, real designs, that the whole internal history of the
last years of the reign turns. If, at the beginning of 1714, Anne and
Bolingbroke were really intriguing for a Stewart Restoration, the quarrel
with Oxford and Bolingbroke's short-lived triumph are easily explained.
Oxford was not. the man to move without a, distinct parliamentary
majority in his favour; and the Parliament of 1714?, though divided,
appears to have been on the whole opposed to the Pretender, at least so
long as he remained Catholie. Bolingbroke was of a different mould;
he scorned to follow, aspired to lead, and knew well enough that a
vigorous minority, hallooed on by one who shows them game, can
educate a supine or wavering majority. Hence, while Oxford hung back,
Bolingbroke pushed on, induced Anne to dismiss his rival, and was
preparing a coup de; main on behalf of the Stewart, when Anne's death
intervened. On these assumptions, everything becomes clear; on any
ot^er, the historian ,is lost in the labyrinths of doubt.

The theory whi|Ch assumes that Bolingbroke was committed to the
cause of the Stewart is, however, confronted with two difficulties. In the
first place, d'Iberville, of the French embassy, who carried on most of
the Jacobite intrigues, wrqte to Torcy on May 19, 1714, that Bolingbroke
would not support the Pretender, unless he changed his religion to that
of the Church of England. Even so late as July 21, Bolingbroke was
still holding this language to Tories in England. As it was known that
these were terms which the Pretender would not consider, it seems to follow
that Bolingbroke was not absolutely committed. In the second place,
Bolingbroke certainly contemplated a Hanoverian succession as a possi-
bility, while at the same time he was strongly of opinion that England
would not long submit to be governed by a German. Thus he had not
found the real key to the situa,tion— the intense hatred of the Hanoverian^
party towards him; and the fact suggests that his policy in 1714 was not
a desperate attempt to bring in the Stewart. His stem proscription

1V12-4] Oxford and BoUnghroke. 473

of opponents, his feverish race for supremacy, may be explained on the
ground that he knew Anne's health to be failing, and that he desired to
be in supreme power before her death. Once in the seat of acknow-
ledged authority, Bolingbroke might be able to dictate terms to the
Hanoverian Prince who came to assume the Crown. Even so late as
August 16, 1714<, Bolingbroke still hoped to regain his power through
his influence with his party. It is thus possible that, though deep iii
Jacobite plots, he was not absolutely given over to them, and that his
immediate object in 1714 was not the grandiose scheme of restoring the
"Pretender," but the far humbler one of overthrowing Oxford.

It must, indeed, have been maddening to St John to find that his
official chief, though: approving of strict party-discipline in principle,
refused to practise it. With the insight of real genius, St John per-
ceived that the day of half-measures was over, and that the political
campaign must be waged on very different lines from the sort of
civil war comprehensible by Oxford. There can be little doubt that he
read the situation aright, and that the increase of party-discipline
was the only way of strengthening the Ministry. But, for the moment,
St John still went too fast. The High Church clergy disapproved of his
morals, and the Tory squires were suspicious of his orthodoxy. Few of
theni, indeed, understood Oxford, but still fewer tmsted St John ; and
they followed the one in hope till forced to resort to the other in necessity.
For a time, Anne's great affection for Oxford, and his personal popularityj
rendered vain all the efforts of his more brilliant rival to overthrow him.
But, gradually, St John's extraordinary talents, his ascendancy in the
Commons, the ingenuity, allied though it was to rashness and duplicity,
with which he negotiated, made him the foremost man in England.
In July, 1713, after piloting the most important parts of the treaty
through the Commons, he was created a peer — with the title of Viscount
Bolingbroke, The eagerness with which he seized on the distinction, is
an illustration of his impetuous character. Bolingbroke was soon to find,
like Chatham and Brougham in after days, that the oratory which had
been irresistible in the Commons was merely impressive in the Lords,
and that the parliamentary leader who takes to himself a coronet barters
power for dignity.

Immediately jafter receiving his peerage^ Bolingbroke proceeded in
person to France to conclude his negotiations. On his return (Sep-
tember) he was brought into closer relations with Anne, whom he seems
to have captivated by his personal charm. His position was still
insecure, the peace was in some respects impopular, and important com-
mercial clauses, which would have resulted in a freer trade with France,
were defeated in Parliament, possibly with the connivance of Oxford.
During the spring of 171S, Bolingbroke addressed to his colleague a series
of passionate appeals, bidding him in turn make a push 'for government ;
separate the chaff from the wheat; and get on the box and use the whip.

4T4 Parliament. The Schism Act. [1713-4

He had indeed good reason for remonstrance ; for, in 1713 and up to the
very moment of his fall in 1714, Oxford was proposing coalitions to
Halifex and Somers. The Tory Moderates now began to distrust the
mysterious Oxford, and to prefer the. resolute, even if unscrupulous,
Bolingbroke. Their opinions must have been confirmed by the general
election, which went disastrously for the Government, The Whigs came
back in a slight majority in England; Addison had gained some support
to the Whig cause by the stately declamations on liberty in his tragedy
of Cato, produced in April, 1713. Though the Government's supporters
in Scotland turned the scale against the Whigs, a large number of
them were Jacobites in name and fact. The danger was accordingly
extreme ; for, not only could the Ministry plausibly and popularly be
accused of trafficking with the Pretender abroad, but they might really
be forced into considerable concessions to the Jacobites at home. Now,
if ever, the safety of the party lay in Bolingbroke's policy of "Thoroughj"
in the rigid enforcement of party-discipline, and in the filling-up of
official posts — both civil and military- — ^with men absolutely devoted to
the Ministry.

The Whig leaders now entered into those closer and more secret
negotiations with the Elector of Hanover, of which more will be said in
a later volume. The irrevocable alliance between the Whigs and the
Hanoverians must from this point onwards be regarded as a most impor-
tant factor in the political situation. At the opening of Parliament, in
1714, the Whigs ra,ised the cry of Jacobitism with considerable effect.
On the Queen's birthday (February 6) the London mob burnt effigies of
the Pretender, the Devil, and the Pope. Steele was expelled from the
House of Commons for a pamphlet written in abuse of the Ministry;
but in the debate he and Walpole made speeches which were vastly
applauded. The Whigs were indeed gaining so much in popular opinion
that Bolingbroke was at last able to enforce the execution of Oxford's
"plan," though its author still shrank from drastic measures. Most of
the important military commands were taken from their holders and
given to stout Tories or to Jacobites. Other changes were effected else-
where, especially among supporters who were vacillating or lukewarm.
All these circumstances occasioned much bitterness, and the invective
and violence not only of the press, but even of Parliament, transcended
all bounds. Finally, a motion was brought forward demanding a writ
for the .Electoral Prince to come over and sit in the House of Peers as
Duke of Cambridge. This was passed^ thanks to Whig support, and led
to a heated correspondence betweeli Anne, the Electress and her grand-
son. Bolingbroke's counter-stroke to this attempt to embarrass Queeii
and Ministry was an attempt to harass Whigs and Dissenters. The
Schism Act (May 6, 1714) forbade anyone to keep a public or private
school unless he Were a member of the Church of England and licensed
by the Bishops. It was partly a ciuel and reactionary measure aimed at

1714] Dismissal of Oxford. — Illness of the Queen. 475

the Whigs, through the Dissenters, and partly a desperate bid for a
whole-hearted support from the High Churchmen. That Bolingbroke,
with his religious scepticism, should have proposed a statute at once so
bigoted and so intolerably harsh shows to what lengths of unscrupulous-
ness he could proceed.

One of the most dramatic scenes in English history was about to be
enacted. For two years, or thereabouts, Oxford arid Bolingbroke had
been counter-working each other, and their contention now came to a
sudden and startling climax. The heat of parties was so great, the
political atmosphere so electric, that the moderate balancing policy of
Oxford was -clfearly out of place. His failure was so obvious, his divergence
from his colleagues so hopeless, that, though Anne declined to accept his
resignation in June, all knew his fall to be only a question of time.
When at length the Queen sent to him for the White Staff, Bolingbroke
must for one brief moment have tasted the joys of realised ambition.
But never was triumph so shbrt, never was schemer so soon disillusioned.
On July 27, 1714, Oxford was dismissed, on the 29th the Queen fell ill.
All was at once in confusion, and Bolingbroke's schemes turned into
unsubstantial shadows. Bolingbroke afterwards boasted that, but for
the Queen's illness, his plans were so well laid, that within six weeks
everything would have been within his grasp. This is by no means clear;
for the inscrutable and enigmatic Shrewsbury was playing a crafty
game. He had been ambassador at Versailles (October, 1712), had
but just resigned the Lord-Lieutenancy in Ireland, and was still Lord
Chamberlain. He had since 1710 been deeply in the confidence of Anne,
and had acquired much influence in the Ministry by mediating between
Oxford and Bolingbroke, while his popularity was so great in the country
that he was called " the king of hearts." ' He had never been committed
to the Pretender so far as Bolingbroke, or even as Oxford. His recent
absence in Ireland made it clear that he could npt have designed the
Schism Act, to which he was believed to be strongly opposed. All this
tends to show that he had a party in the Ministry, and to suggest that,
even without the sudden catastrophe, Bolingbroke's aims might have
been defeated.

On July 27, immediately after Oxford's dismissal, a Council met at
Whitehall to discuss the formation of a commission for the Treasury.
They were unable to agree, and the meeting was adjourned. It appears
that Bolingbroke had designed Wyndham as First Lord of the Treasury,
and meant to fill up the other posts with his own nominees. His
projects were opposed by the Shrewsbury section of the Ministry, for the
Lord Chamberlain, who bad refused to be First Lord of the Treasury in
1710, now perhaps coveted that or even a higher office. It is significant
that disputes too serious for adjustment had already broken out in the
Council. On July 29, as was seen, Anne fell ill; on the 30th the
Duchess of Ormond sent alarming news to the Council. The Privy

470 Shrewsbury Lord Treasurer. — Death of Anne. [i7i4

Council, which was sitting at Whitehall, adjourned to Kensington to
discuss the situation. Upon this meeting the Dukes of Argyll and
Somerset are supposed to have broken, liiough unsumnioned. But
Argyll had attended Council as recently as May, 1714, and Somerset,
whose Duchess was at the bedside of Anne, may have received a summons
at her srfggestion. Whatever be the explanation, the Privy Council
Register shows that they did attend, though it does not show that their
presence caused the scale to turn against Bolingbroke. The opposition
to him had already been considerable, and he was now confronted by
the new and alarming danger arising from the Queen's illness. At the
decisive Council this bold schemer appears to have lost his nerve and
given way; at any rate the Shrewsbury faction triumphed. The story of
the meeting, which has been adorned with the most legendary incidents,
is best told in the brief entry in the Privy Council Register (July 30).
'^ Their Lordships met in the Council Chamber and, considering the
present exigency of affairs, were unanimously of an opinion to move the
Queen that she would constitute the Duke of Shrewsbury Lord Treasurer."
A deputation waited on the Queen to take her pleasure in the matter,
and returned with a command that the Duke should wait upon her.
Shrewsbury went to her bedside, and the dying Queen gave him the
White Staff, bidding him, with an unwonted flash of regal dignity, use it
for the good of her country. For the last time in English history, and
from the last Stewart sovereign a subject received the staff and office of
Lord High Treasurer. Probably with the view of marking her complete
confidence, Anne refused to accept the Duke's proffered resignation of
the Chamberlaincy ; and he returned to the Council with the Chamber-
lain's wand in one hand and the Treasurer's staff in the other. Shrews-
bury resumed his seat at the Board ; and the Council drew up schemes
for the defence of the kingdom and for the securing of the Successioii
under his guidance. On July' SI the Council was increased in
numbers from 25 to 88 by the arrival of Whig Lords. On the next
day Shrewsbuty informed five other Lords of the Council at Kensington
that "Her Majesty Queen Anne departed this Life at her Palace at
Kensington at half an hour after seven this Morning"; upon which
news they adjourned to iSt James'. There a Privy Council, to the
number of 43, assembled^ at which Bothiher, the Hanoverian Envoy, was
present, and where the Commission of Regency was read. On the steps
of Whitehall the heralds blew their trumpets announcing the accession
of His Gracious Majesty King George the First. On August 10, news
came to the Elector of Hanover sitting in his garden in the Orangerie,
at Herr^hausen, that he had inherited three Crowns.

477

CHAPTEK XVI.

RUSSIA.
(1462—1682.)

It is the purpose of this chapter to trace in brief outline the history
of the Muscovite State during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries,
to sketch the political and social circumstances of the Russia which Peter
the Great reshaped, and to indicate the preparatory conditions without
which his radical changes would not have been feasible. It is an error
to suppose that the history of contemporary Russia can be understood
by a survey which begins with Peter the Great. His reign marks the
opening of a new era. But the abiding features which have differentiated
Russia from the other States of Europe, some of the deeper tendencies of
her domestic government as well as of her external policy, the spirit of
her institutions as well as the direction of her expansion, were imposed
upon her at a much earlier iime.

The history of Russia may be divided into five periods. The first
begins with the foundation, in the ninth century, of Slavonic States at
Kieff and Novgorod organised by "Russian " adventurers from eastern
Scandinavia ; the second, with the reception of Christianity by Vladimir
of Kieff towards the end of the tenth century; the thitd, with the Tartar
conquest in the thirteenth ; the fourth, with the reign of Ivan the Great
in the latter half of the fifteenth ; the fifth, with Peter. This division
exhibits some of the determinant influences which guided the course of
Russian history. The Scandinavians supplied the first political organisa-
tion and unity to the eastern Slavs ; the conversion to Christianity, and
close ecclesiastical connexion with the Eastern Empire, introduced the
Byzantine features which marked Russian civilisation ; the significance of
the reign of Ivan the Great it will be our task to explain. But this scheme
of periods fails to show the event which is the key to the whole later develop-
ment, the settlement of Moscow in the middle of the twelfth century. When
George Dolgoruki in 1147 founded a military colony by the Moscova
in the middle of a Finnic population, he unconsciously turned the course
of East Slavonic history into a new channel. The significance of the
third period lies less in the fact of Tartar domination than in the growth
of the Muscovite power in relation to the other Russian principalities.

478 Moscow. — Ivan III.

Asiatic rule exercised a certain influence on Russian civilisation — an
influence which has sometimes been exaggerated — but its main import-
ance lies in the fact that it contributed indirectly and unintentionally to
the aggrandisement of the princes of Moscow. The aim of these princes
was to gather all the Russian territories under their rule and make
Moscow the capital, her prince the monarch, of Russia. In their
struggles for this end, steadily pursued and finally achieved, their success
at decisive moments was constantly due to their skill or fortune in
gaining the support of their Tartar suzerains.

This shifting of the centre of political gravity from Kieff far north-
eastward to Moscow, was to impose a new role upon Russia and give the
decisive direction to her history. It brought into play geographical
influences to which her fortune and her misfortunes may be imputed. If
the centre had remained at Kiefi', there would not have been the same
stringent necessity for the efforts of indefinite expansion; there need
have been no divorce or protracted alienation from the rest of Europe;
and there might have been no defeat of the growth of constitutional
freedom. But for a State centred at Moscow endless expansion, , ulti-
mately into northern Asia, was an unavoidable consequence of its
geographical situation in a land where there were no natural frontiers. U
Its great distance from the borders of the nearest western States was, as
much as the circumstance of Tartar supremacy, a cause of the long
isolation of Russia in regard to wesj;ern jEurope. And its origin as a
military colony, insulated amidst an alien population, determined from
the first the military character and spirit of its government. In other
Slavonic States there was no tendency to absolutism ; the spirit was
rather republican. But at Moscow circumstances imposed a military
organisation which fostered the power of the princes. And, as Moscow
extended its rule over other Russian principalities and towns, this
principle was ruthlessly applied. When PskoflF and Novgorod, and other
cities, in which there had been a constitutional civic development, were
brought under Muscovite sway, the civic element had to make way for a
military organisation. The geographical position of Moscow determined
the current of Russian history.

Ivan III (1462-1505), Great Prince of Moscow, deserves his title of
Great, if the appellation be interpreted in the sense that his reign marks
a new epoch. He brought to virtual completion, leaving to his suc-
cessors only the task of rounding off his work, the two chief enterprises
which had engaged the energies of his predecessors — rthe emancipation of
Russia from the slackening ydke of the Tartars, and the gathering of
Russian tei-ritory under the wing of Moscow. He helped to extend «■
Russian power over enormous tracts, inhabited by barbarous tribes, in
the north and north-east, and he laid the systematic foundations of
imperial autocracy. A typical Muscovite ruler, embodying all the
unattractive qualities which helped the upward progress of the sovez-eigns

1462-1554] Eocpansipn of the power of Moscow. 479

of Muscovy, a profound dissembler, unscrupulous in breaking his word,
trusting in tortuous and patient diplomacy, of which he was an accom-
plished master, rather than in arms, wanting in personal courage,
unfalteringly cruel, exempt from the influences of affection and passion,
he presents many points of resemblance with his contemporary Louis XI.

A military monarch would have seen in the condition of the Tartars
an opportunity for a decisive struggle. If the great Mongol conqueror
Timur postponed the fall of the Eastern Empire by the blow which he
dealt to the Ottoman Turks, it may be said that he hastened the rise of
Russia by his destruction of the empire of the Tartar khans. On the
ruins of that empire several smaller States arose, Kazan, Astrakhan, the
Crimea, all of them weak through mutual dissensions. The general policy
of Ivan was to foment the divisions, to refuse tribute, but occasionally to
send presents, and to remain on the defensive. Cultivating the friend-
ship of the Khans of Crimea he bided his time for attacking the Tsar of
Kazan, whose dominion corresponded to the old realm of Black Bulgaria.
In 1487 he captured Kazan and its ruler, but he refrained from annexing
it ; taking himself the title "Prince of Bulgaria," he gave the throne
to a nephew of the Khan of Crimea. The reign of Ivan marks the final
emancipation of Russia from Asiatic lordship; the Tartars were still
troublesome and dangerous neighbours, they were no Ibnger in any form
masters. The annexation of Kazan was effected by his grandson Ivan IV
(1652) ; that of Astrakhan followed (1554!) ; Crimea was to pass under
Ottoman sovereignty before it was finaUy won for Russia in the reign of
Catharine 11.

The predecessors of Ivan had made it their aim, as we have said, to
lay hands upon the neighbouring Russian principalities; but they had
largely strewn with the left hand what the right hand had gathei'ed, by
adojpting the policy of assigning appanages to their sons. Ivan discarded
this principle, and so consolidated the unity of the State, which he
almost doubled in territory by his new annexations. He reduced under
his direct sway Tver and Novgorod the Great in the north-west, Viatka
in the north-east, Chernigoff in the far south-west, as well as laroslavl
and Rostoff in the north. His son Vasili completed the extension by
winning Pskoff, Smolensk, Novgorod-Sieverski, and Riazan. Of these
events, each an important step in the advance of Moscow, a particular
interest is attached to the acquisitions of Novgorod the Great and Pskoff.
The suppression of these two republics (as well as of the remote and less
important republic of Viatka) removed the examples of popular freedoih
which still survived in the Russian world. The citizens of these States
managed their affairs in the veche, or popular assembly, to which they
were summoned by the bell in the market-place. They were the only
places in Russia which bore any resemblance, in spirit and in well-being,
to the prosperous towns of western Europe. Novgorod was a factory
of the Hanseatic league and a resort of German merchants. Ivan

OU. XVI.

480 Novgorod and Pskoff. — Ldthuania. [i386-i569

suppressed its veehe and removed the bell (1478). He transported large
masses of the citizens to distant places, and planted Muscovites in the
city which he appropriated ; his son pursued the same policy at PskofF.
It might be thought that the new ruler would have carefully fostered
the foreign trade which had made the fortune of Novgorod ; but with
curious improvidence he put an end to, it. He arrested the merchants
(1495), and enriched his treasury for the moment with the plunder of
their stores.

The occupations of Novgorod and Pskoff, beyond their importance as
steps in unification, have a high significance as marking the elimination
of a social element which might have modified the development of
autocracy. The absence of free cities, whidi played so beneficent a part
in the evolution of western countries, is a fact of fatal import in Russian
history.

The acquisitions of ChernigofF and Smolensk have a difiFerent signifi-
cance, involving the relations of Moscow to its western rival, the double
State of Lithuania and Poland. The national unity of the Lithuanian
tribes had been brought about in the thirteenth century, and in the
fourteenth heathen Lithuania became a great political power under the
able leadership of Gedimin, who not only maintained a successful s1a:uggle,
in the north against the German Knights of Livonia,, but created an
extensive State by conquering Russian territory. It extended far south-
ward, including even KiefF; and Vilna, Gedimin''s capital, was the
political peer of Moscow. Western Russia was ^grouped round Vilna,
eastern round Moscow, and the question was whether the separation would
be permanent or either would annex the other. The situation was com-
plicated by the hostility of Poland, which was endangered by the south-
ward expansion of Lithuania; and a new turn was given to the course of
events, when on the death of a king of Polaad without male children
(1386) the Poles terminated the strife by marrying his daughter to the
Lithuanian prince Ja,gello. This, was the origin of the Lithuanian
dynasty of Poland, the line of Jagpllo^ which was extinguished towards
the close of the sixteenth century. Jagpllo adopted Christianity in ,tbe
Roman form, and converted his he9,then fellow-countrymen by compul-
sion ; but he offended them by transferring his residence from Vilna to
the Polish capital Cracow. The uniopi was purely personal; it was very
soon interrupted ; and duriijg the following century the two States were
sometimes under the same rule, at others under different princes. Vvoxa
1501 they were united, but the union remained personal; the Grand
Principality of Lithuania was distinct from the kingdom of Poland.
^t last in 1569 they were more closely and permanently joined together
by the Union of Lublin, of which more will be said.

To recover the Russian principalities which Lithuania had conquered
was an important item in the Muscovite programme of gathering together
Russian territory. Nor was any part of that programme so popular in

1484-1603] Ivan III and Lithuania. 481

Muscovy; for it appealed to religious sentitnent; it meant the winning
back into the sphere of the Orthodox Church regions which had fallen
under the pernicious influence of a heretical State. Nowhere more con-
spicuously than in this field of his work did Ivan dispky his consummate,
unscrupulous dexterity. He defeated Lithuania all along the line, and
yet avoided all but a very brief war till the later years of his reign.
Here his friends, the Tartars of Crimea, did him good service. They
invaded Lithuania and held it in check, while Ivan was dealing with the
hostile Tartars in the east; and, when the Lithuanian war came, the
friendly khan kept the hostile khans in check. On the other hand, Ivan
pursued his end with eminent success by his intrigues with the vassal or
"serving" princes, who under the lordship of Lithuania governed the
lands which it was his object to acquire. The condition on which these
princes held their possessions was that they submitted to the Great
Prince in all matters of foreign policy, while in return he protected and
maintained them in their principalities. If the Lithuanian Prince failed
to observe his part of the obligation, the vassals considered themselves
free to attach themselves to another protector. Here was the place
where the diplomatist of Moscow could insert a lever. The princes were
always at feud among themselves ; and, by intervening at opportune
moments and promising support to one or to another, Ivan succeeded in
inducing prince after prince to accept his protection and in detaching
district after district from the sway of Lithuania. Two stages in his
westward advance may be marked. After a short war the river Desna
was fixed as the boxmdary (1484), and peace sealed by the marriage of
the Great Prince Alexander with Ivan's daughter. But the use of this
alliance was in Ivan's design to supply new handles against his rival, in
the shape of complaints that, contrary to express stipulation, attempts
were being made to tamper with his daughter's faith. A new war broke
out ; the most important of the vassals, including the Prince of Cher-
nigoff, deserted to Ivan ; and Lithuania was only rescued from hopeless
defeat by the aid of the Knights of Livonia. A precarious peace was
procured in 1503 which fixed the boundary at the river Sozh. The
struggle continued under Ivan's successor Vasili, whose principal achieve-
ment was the capture of Smolensk where the artillery which Ivan had
introduced in Russia played a decisive part. At Vasili's death the
Muscovite empire reached from ChemigofFto the White Sea, from the
borders of Livonia to the river Kama.

The transference of the centre of the Russian world to Moscow had,
along with the political dependence on Asia, brought about a separation
and alienation from the rest of Europe. From the thirteenth to the
fifteenth century, it may be said, she had her back turned to Europe,
her face to Asia, and was a terra incognita to western Europeans.
Hence the foreign travellers and merchants who visited Muscovy in the
sixteenth century describe it as a newly discovered land, and it is not

C, M. H, V. CH. XVI. d\

482 Marriage of .Ivan III. [i462-i505

untrue to say that one of the features of the history of Russia in, that
period was its rediscovery by the West. Here too Ivan's reign marks an
epoch. He entered into relation with some European Courts; embassies
were exchanged with Venice^, the Roman Cqria, Denmark, the Empire,
and Hungary. He was ready in certain ways to. learn something from
the West and move in the direction of its progress, as for instance in
the introduction of artillery. He invited Italians to his Court. The
brilliant engineer ahd architect, Flora vanti degli Alberti, (Aristotle of
Bologna), busied himself at Moscow in the Great Prince's service; Pietro
Antonio Solari of Milan built the palace of the Kremlin. These and a
few other swallows of the Renaissance did not make a spring ; their fine
intelligences produced no lasting, nor perhaps any fleeting, impression
on the Russian spirit; but, they belong to the signs which mark the
beginning of a new period of slow, hardly perceptible advance, which is
to prepare the way for Peter the Great. Foreign physicians were also
attracted to Moscow; but their calling was hazardous at an ignorant
and barbarous Court ; a Jewish doctor was beheaded for having failed to
cure Ivan's son.

The most memorable result of this monarch's relations with the
outside world was his marriage with a lady of the Imperial family of the
Palaiologoi. Zoe (called Sophia after her marriage) was a niece of
Constantine Palaiologos, the last Roman Emperor. Her father Thomas,
driven from Greece, had betaken himself to Rome where he died, and the
Popes acted as guardians of his children. The idea of uniting Sophia
to the Great Prince of Moscow seems to have been first suggested by
Cardinal Bessarion, one of the most zealous promoters of the transitory
union of the Greek and Latin Chm-ches at the Council of Florence.
It was gladly accepted by the Pope. Two objects of the papal policy,
then and for a long time to come, were the reunion of the Churches
and the expulsion of the Turks from Europe. The suggested marriage
seemed to offer the chance not only of compassing the desired re-
union of the Greek Church with Rome, through a princess who
at Rome had come under Latin influence, but also of stimiilating
the ruler of Moscow to join in a crusade against the Muslims,
Ivan accepted the proposal, though without the smallest intention
of gratifying the desire of Rome. For the present, an attack on
Turkey lay entirely outside the range of policy of a cautious Muscovite
sovereign. But a marriage with a princess of the Imperial House of
Constantinople seemed calculated to augment the Great Prince's prestige.
This, and this alone, was Ivan's motive; this, and this alone, was the
result of the alliance.

For the greater part of what is commonly alleged as to important
consequences, practical and theoretical, arising out of the marriage with
Sophia (1473) is based on misconceptions. It has been asserted that
her influence incited Ivan to renounce the yoke of the Tartars and

1462-1505] Moscow and Byzantium. 483

imbued him with a new ideal of Russian unity and Russian Imperial
dignity. There is no evidence for this belief; emancipation from the
Tartars and unification of Russia were aims which had been bequeathed
from Ivan's predecessors; and it is inconsistent with all that we know
of the ruler to suppose that his wife played the roU of a political
initiator. It has also been supposed that by virtue of this alliance Ivan
claimed to be the heir of the Caesars, and therefore assumed the title
of Tsar. It has been even held that his claim had a more formal
basis, Sophia's brother Andrew Palaiologos having actually trans-
ferred to him the rights to the Imperial succession — the same rights
which that prince made over to Charles VIII and bequeathed to
Ferdinand of Spain. TTie fact that the sovereigns of Moscow never
appealed to such a transference proves that no such act was ever
executed. The coronation ceremony of the Great Princes does not
show that they set up to be Augusti ; it shows the reverse. It is
distinct from the coronation ceremony, of the East Roman Augustus ;
it resembles the coronation ceremony of the East Roman Caesar. In
using the title of Tsar (Tsesar = Caesar) Ivan meant simply to declare
his independence ; it was not in his thoughts to usurp the title of Caesar
Augustus ; and, if he had contemplated such a claim, Tsar would have
failed to express the idea. For Caesar was a title which the Emperors
regularly conferred on barbarian princes whom they desired to honour
or conciliate ; and the Russians did not restrict Tsar to the designation
of the Emperor, they applied it more widely, as for instance to some
of the Tartar khans. And it is significant that Ivan adopted this style
only in his intercourse with some foreign Courts ; Tsaa- did not become
the formal and proper title of the Great Prince till the coronation
of his grandson Ivan IV.

Yet the union with Sophia may be said to have a symbolical
significance, in connexion with a theory which became current during
the reign of Ivan's son and successor. According to this theory,
formulated by Philothei, a monk of PskofF, Russia as the protectress
of Orthodoxy was the heiress of the Eastern Empire, Moscow the
successor of Constantinople. For through her iniquitous compromise
with the Latins at the Council of Florence, Byzantium had forfeited her
claim to the headship of the Greek Church ; Moscow must step into her
place as the third, and the last, Rome. The Church which had looked
to the Emperors to protect her against Gentiles and heretics must now
look to the Great Princes. This idea was illustrated and reinforced by
a legend which was officially adopted. When Vladimir the Saint was con-
verted to Christianity and married their sister Anna (989), the Emperors
Basil II and Constantine VIII sent him royal insignia, in accordance
with the Byzantine custom of bestowing insignia on client princes.
This fact is the , historical motif of the legend that Constantine IX
Monomakhos sent the emblems of sovereignty to Vladimir Monomakhos

CH. XVI. 31 — 2

484 Growth of Autocracy. [i 4 62-1 505

and icaused him to be crowned at Kieff. The story, mentioned in the
official coronation acts of Ivan IV and the subsequent Tsars, including
Peter the Great, involves a double confusion of two Vladimirs arid two
Constantines, evidently due to the idea of bringing into connexiori
the Russian and the Byzantine Monomakhos, in spite of the fact
that the later Vladimir was bom only three years before the later Con-
stantino died (1054«). Among the insignia of the Great Duke was a crown,
still preserved, known as the "hat" of Constantine Monomakhos;
but it cannot claim to be the original crown received by Vladimir
the Saint, for it is not Byzantine work or of such an early period.
Another legend, that a white tiara, given by Constantine the Great
to Pope Silvester, had been carried for safety's sake from Rome to New
Rome, and thence for the same reason to Novgorod, symbolised the
idea, which events justified, that the place which had been filled by the
Church-state of Byzantium, in the Orthodox world, was now to be filled
by Moscow. The foundation of the Moscow Patriarchate towards the
end of the sixteenth century was an expression of this idea.

The growth of autocracy was favoured by the Tartar sway, which
contributed to the decline of the veche or parliament. The election
of the prince was one of the chief functions of the »ec^, and when the
Tartar overlords took the appointments into their own hands its decline
began. It is significant that the States in which the veche survived^
Novgorod and Pskoff, were geographicisilly furthest removed from Tartar
control; But it was more important that the princes of the new States
in central Russia, like Moscow, were soon able to dispense with a
parliament, because they did not need the people for military service.
Territorial conquest enabled them to allot land in return for military
service, and thus they had a regular army at their disposal, without
calling upon the host of freemen to follow them. The Russian army
consisted of cavalry, but by the middle of the sixteenth century Moscow
had also a body of infantry, the strieltstj (arquebusiers). '

The authority of Ivan's predecessors was thus not limited by a
popular assembly, but it was checked by another institution, the Duma
of boiars or nobles. The name Duma connotes thinking; it was a
deliberative body, like the Greek BuU and the German Rath, which
have a similar meaning. This Council consisted of men who held high
posts in the administration and the army. The boiars formed tihe
highest order in that class of society which was designated as the
"men of service," a name characteristic of the growth of despotism.
In the law Code drawn up by Ivan (1497) the only class distinction
recognised is between the serving and the not-serving folk. But there
were conditions attached which gave the servant a real independence in
regard to his employer. When he accepted a post under a prince, it
was understood that he was free to leave his service whenever he chose,
and enter that of some other ruler; and a written contract was usually

1462-1505] The Duma and the Boiars. 435

drawn up, in which the conditions of service, binding on both parties,,
were stated. This system limited effectually the prince's power, and
checked the growth of despotic authority. But the territorial grow1;h
of Moscow, and the absorptio^i of the surrounding principalities, £|,lmost
completed in the reigo, pf Ivan, had the effect of counteracting this
check, since the men of service had no longer a multitude of other
States, into whicb they could easily migrate when the Prince of Moscow
displeased them. In the sixteenth century the only resort of the
discontented was to leave Russia altogether and find refuge in Poland
or Lithuania. Thus the unification of Russia, by doing away with the
migratory system, removed a palladium of freedqra, and permitted the
establishment of a strong monarchical government. . Ivan the Great
could act more independently of his Duma a,nd impress his will upon it
with more masterful authority But it remained a body which could
assert itself in certain conditions, as in the case of a wpak ruler or a
minority. But when the Tsar was strong he had everything in his
hands ; and we may say that as an institution the Council had little
restraining power. It met only when he chose, and no one had any
right to be summoned ; the master could call as many or as few of his
servants as he chose. He had to consult and take into account the
men who had to carry out his will; but that is simply a practical
limitation to which every monarch, however constitutionally unchecked,
is subject. The most unfettered autocrat is limited both by the
consideration of public opinion and by the instruments which he has
to employ. Like the Senate of Eastern Rome, the Duma can hardly be
viewed as a constitutional check ; it was a check because it consisted
of the Tsar's instruments.

On the other hand, the boiars — among whom the old princely
families which had been submitted to the power of Moscow occupied
the highest position — ^held that they had an indefeasible right to share
jin the administration and fill the highest posts; and this claim was
recognised in a form which amounted to a constitutional limitation
of the Great Prince's power. In the records of the sixteenth and
seventeenth centuries we constantly meet the question of Precedence
(miestnicJiestvo). We hear continually of disputes among the nobles,
and complaints concerning what may seem trifling points of etiquette ;
and the stress laid on such matters would strike the uninitiated reader
as characteristic of their narrow minds and their petty life. But more
was involved in the system of Precedence than might appear on the
surface. It was the palladium of the noble class, and constituted a check
on the autocrat. It asserted the right of each member of the nobility,
and of the men of service in general, to a place in the public service,
assigned according to two principles: that no man could be appointed
to a post inferior to that which his ancestors had held, and that no man
could be asked to accept a post of lower rank than that of a man who

OH. XVI.

486 The system of Precedence. [u62-i505

had a shorter ancestral line than himself. These principles were in
themselves ridiculous and injurious to society ; yet they were a privilege
which guaranteed to the higher classes their political position. The
system was worked and disputes decided by means of the Books of
Rank (razriadmyia knigi), preserved in a special bureau which dealt with
Precedence. It has been suggested that, in clinging tenaciously to this
privilege, for which they were ready to defy the severest punishment,
the motive of the nobles was perhaps less a conviction of its political
importance than a sentiment of piety to the memory of their ancestors,
a survival of days when the family wias everything. It still counted for
much, and this quasi -religious sentiment was a potent sanction of the
system, and enabled it to storvive. In time of war, Precedence was
especially pernicious; disputes among the commanders led to defeat.
Thiis we find the Tsars, on the eve of campaigns, decreeing that while
the army was in the field there must be a truce to such quarrels. It
was not till the last quarter of the seventeenth century, in the reign
of Theodore son of Alexis, that the system was finally abolished, and
the Books of Rank were burned. It is to be observed that Precedence,
in one way a check on the sovereign's power, in another way aided the
gi'owth of his autocracy ; for it maintained divisions among the boiars
and hindered the growth of a feeling of class unity solid enough to act
effectively against his despotism.

The services of Ivan the Great to his country are summed up in the
statement that he created a strong monarchy. He established lines
of development and political order which saved Russia from ever
becoming what her neighbour Poland became, where the liberty of the
nobles was to give Europe an illustration of legalised anarchy. The
misfortune of Russia was that no safeguards were imposed to prevent
the change of the strong monarchy into an absolute autocracy. It
would be absurd to impute the blame to the Tsars, who naturally sought
to augment their own power, which, as a matter of fact, was the only
organ of social order. The development of autocracy depended on the
circumstance that the other elements in the State, the nobles and the
peopje, had no organisation capable of legally resisting the monarch
and effecting a constitutional balance. In other countries, kings, in
establishing their own supremacy and reducing the independence of
feudal nobles, had favoured and promoted popular institutions that were
afterwards to become a check upon the royal power. But in Russia
the old popular institutions had been swept away. In other countries,
the nobles had a position independent of the monarch, and were capable
of combining together, if the monarch sought to encroach too far upon
their privileges. But in Russia they had no sufficiently strong sense
of common interest to ensure successful cooperation ; the only bond
of unity was the common service of the monarch himself. The very
rights of Precedence, which they prized so highly, only emphasised their

1462-1547] The Church. — Vasili III. 487

dependence on the mastet who allotted the posts which they disputed.
Thus they were not in a position to extort a charter of liberties. The
latter half of the sixteenth century is marked indeed, as we shall see, by
a struggle between the Tsar and the boiars ; but it was not a struggle
for constitutionallism. It may even be said that the only measures
which might have issued in a coiistitutionial government were initiated
by the monarch.

The one institution which might have seemed likely to exercise some
control on the monarchy was the Church. Its possessions arid privileges
had been left intact by the policy of the Tartar khans, and in the
days when Russia was a complex of numerous Separate States it was the
representative and mouthpiece of Russian unity, though it never sought
to incite resistance to the Tartar rule. Its independence was largely
secured by the fact that the Metropolitan owed ecclesiastical allegiance
to a power outside Russia, the Patriarch of Constantinople. It was an
important step in the upward rise of Moscow when, in the first half of
the fourteenth century, the Metropolitan established his residence there.
The Metropolitan always supported the unification of the land and the
abolition of the independent principalities. The breach of the Russian
with the Greek Church in the fifteenth century, in consequence of
the eiForts at reunion with Rome, reacted upon the position of the
Metropolitans, who had no longer a support in the Patriarch, and
led to the dependence of the Church on the secular power. The
line between Church and State affairs tended to become obliterated;
ecclesiastical matters were discussed at the Councils of the monarch ;
ecclesiastics were summoned to attend, and thus became enrolled in
the common " service " of the State ; the Church became part of the
machine, just as religion had been a State department in the Eastern
Empire.

The reign of Vasili III (1505-33) is an appendix to that of
his father, continuing his work, increasing Muscovite territory and
maintaining some relations with European Courts. Herberstein, as
ambassador of the Emperor Maximilian, visited Moscow in 1517 and
1523, and wrote his famous description of Russia, which created a
considerable sensation in the West. Vasili married Helen Glinskaia, a
Lithuanian refugee, who after his death maintained her position, as
regent for her infant son Ivan, amidst great difficulties, for five years.
She died in 1538 ; and Russia, without a head, was exposed during the
following years to the anarchical and tyrannous rule of the boiars. Two
princely families and their factions, the Shuiskis and the Bielskis,
disputed the power. Ivan IV was neglected, or encouraged in cruel
sports and debauchery. He asserted himself in 1543 by the murder
of Andrew Shuiski, and he always looked back with intense bitterness
on his treatment as a child. He was crowned in 1547, with the title

488 Ivan IV. Social and political crises. [1547-84

of Tsar, having already shown that he was determined to be master.
The details of his reign form a curious and repulsive chronicle; and
his eccentric character has been a fascinating psychological study for
Russian historians. His vices and atrocities are written large in the
annals of his government ; \>vA, his ability and originality are no less
undeniable, and no judgment would b^ wider of the mark, than, to
regard his reign as devoid of significance except as illustrating how
great enormities might be perpetrated by a tyrant in Moscovia. In the
West he will always be known as Ivan the Terrible ; but the epithet is
misleading ; for the Russian word which it translates jneans " to be
feared" in the sense in which yf& are bidden to fear God, as a stem
master, not as an ogre. In cjruelty he outdid his predecessors ; but it i^
hardly for western Europe, which had seen for instance the treatment
of Liege by Charles the Bold, and witnessed in Ivan's days the exploits
of Spanish rule in the Netherlands and the tortures of the Inquisition,
to exclaim at the spectacular massacre which he conducted at Novgorod
and at his other outrageous cruelties, as if they had set Russia bqyond the
pale of civilised humanity.

The significance of this wonderful reign lies much deeper. Two
fundamental discords in the structure of the State produced a complex
crisis in the middle of the sixteenth century, which caused not only
the eccentric policy of Ivan but the troubles in which the realm was
involved for a generation after his death. On the one hand, there was
the political contradiction between the autocratic power which in its
absolute claim required a complete democratic levelling of all its
subjects, and the necessity under which it lay of administering the State
by an aristocratic class which asserted hereditary rights to participation
in the government, while it admitted the autocratic principle. On
the other hand, there was the social anomaly that, for the sake of the
military needs of the Empire, since the wealth of Russia consisted
entirely in land, the interests of the productive agricultural classes had
been sacrificed to the interests of the class of service. Peasant owners
were dispossessed, lands were seized, to supply fiefs for this class. But
the constant wars laid weighty burdens on the men of service and the
proprietors of land, whether allods or fiefs, and they were forced to press
heavily upon their tenants; the consequence was that these tenants
gave up their farms and sought new lands elsewhere, especially on the
monastic estates, as the monasteries were the capitalists of the age and
were reputed to be easier masters. The lands of boiars and of the whole
class of service were thus left without a sufficiency of laboiu", while the
public burdens weighed no less heavily than before. The gravity of the
situation was reflected in curious pamphlets which appeared, urging on
one side the confiscation of ecclesiastical propeity-^an idea which had
already floated before the minds of the sovrans — and on the other the
abolition of the whole system of military fiefs. The second proposal was

i54'7-6o] Early policy of Ivan IV. 489

impossible in view of the necessities of the State. The first was discussed
at a Council which, in 1551, deliberated on ecclesiastical questions and
drew up its acts in a Hundred Chapters (the Stp-glav). The influence
of the Church, which was largely represented, hindered any radical
measure; but it was ordained that all allodial lands which the boiars
had made over to the Church without the sovereign's consent should
be restored, that all gifts to it made during Ivan's minority should be
cancelled, and that in future the monasteries should not acquire certain
kinds of estate without Imperial consent. Thus a limit was set to
the growth of ecclesiastical property.

The economic trouble was far more deeply seated and serious thai>
the political; but it was the political problem which absorbed Ivan's
attention, though his solution of it involved important consequences for
the other also.

At a Council held in 1550 the young Tsar gave open expression to
his hostile feelings towards the boiars, whose regime during his minority
had been injurious to himself and calamitous for the State. In the
same year he took the first step in a course of policy which was directed
towards breaking down the influence of the great nobles. A thousand
" boiar children " (this was the technical name for a class among the men
of service who did not belong to the boiars, but were of noble descent)
were brought from different parts of Russia to the central regions
around Moscow, where fiefs were provided for them, and, along with the
ancient aristocratic families of the province, they were constituted in
three grades as a nobility of service. The aim was to level down the
old nobility, by merging it in a new ; but Ivan did not venture to abolish
the principle of Precedence.

For some years Ivan allowed himself to be guided by the counsels
of two favourites, the monk Silvester and Alexis Adasheff', whom he
deemed independent of the influence of the boiars. But these advisers
lost his intimate confidence in 1553 ; he suspected that their sympathies
were with the boiars and adverse to his own political designs; and
the evidence of Prince Kurbski, who was a violent exponent of the
aristocratic opposition to the Tsar, shows that he was right. , Some
years later they were disgraced. Their influence may have postponed
the struggle which began after their fall ; but historians have ascribed
to them an exaggerated significance, and somewhat naively glorified
them as good geniuses of Ivan, whose natural wickedness burst out when
their salutary restraint was removed.

Apart from his own autocratic instincts, Ivan was convinced that the
rule of the boiars, coordinate with or limiting his authority, meant
political confusion, social anarchy, and civil war; and that autocracy
was the sole foundation of order. He began a struggle, which was to
issue in the destruction of the princely nobility, by comparatively mild
measures, disgracing those whom he suspected, and exacting an oath

490 The Oprichnina. [i564

from the rest to have no communications with the "traitors." When he
discovered that such communications were carried on he proceeded to
more drastic acts of persecution, which caused maiiy boiars to seek
refuge in Poland ; these flights evoked more tyrannical measures ; and a
rieign of terror eliSued. Notable among the princes who fled to Poland
was Kurbski, because he gave verbal expression to the grievances of his
order. His correspondence with the Emperor — for Ivan who was fond
of argument condescended to enter into controversy — does not fathom the
depth of the political situation, but portrays vividly the intensity of the
hostility between the Tsar and the class on whom the administration
of the State had depended.

Ivan at last invented a curious soliition of the political problem, aiid
proceeded to carry his design into execution in 1564. His solutioii was
the notorious Oprichnina. Few people of the time understood his idea ;
he carefully abstained from explaining it ; he invested it with such
mystery that it seemed incomprehensible; and he carried it out with
such a grotesque mise en scewe that history has till recently regarded
it as the wild caprice of an irresponsible madman on the throne. But,
whatever judgment may be passed on its wisdom, the Oprichnina must
be taken seriously, as a deliberate and Carefully thought-out means
of adapting the administration to the pretensions of autocracy.

The plan consisted in a division of the administration of the empire
into two parts, and the establishment of a new Court, distinct from the
old Court of Moscow. The new institution was called the Oprichnina
or "Separate Establishment," over which the Tsar presided, and those
who served in it were the OprichniM. At the beginning lai-ge tracts
of territory were set apart to maintain it, to the south-west, north-east,
and north of Moscow, and during the following six or seven years
new regions were continually being included iii its sphere, until it
embraced the greater part of the central provinces. The rest of the
empire remained under the old system, governed by the Council of
Boiars, and was distinguished as the Zenishchina. Grebgraphically
the lands reserved for the Oprichnina ran, like a wedge, from north to
south into the lands of the Zemshchina, which included all the frontier
provinces on the west, south, and east. In the central provinces, the
lands of the two spheres interlaced each other, and Moscow itself was
divided. Such a partitidn of territory between the sovereign and the
Council of Boiars reminds us of the partition of the Roman Empire into
Senatorial and Imperial provinces. But the purpose and principle were
wholly different. While Augustus assigned to the Senate the more
central and pacific lands, and appropriated to his own care all those
which were exposed to danger, Ivan did exactly the reverse. It is also
to be noted that all the chief toads of traffic from Moscow to the
frontiers, with the towns that lay on them, were included in the territory
of the Oprichnina, which thus commanded the tolls ; except the southern
roads, where the toll revenue was not great. But the appropriation

1564] The Oprichnina, 491

of the central regions was determined by the political aim which Ivan
had in view. Here were the estates of the old princely families and the
most powerftd boiars. Ivan seized the allodial lands and converted
them into feudal; and he assigned to the owners estates, subject to
strict conditions of service and taxation, in other parts of the Empire.
Whenever the Oprichnina seized lands, either allodial or feudal, the
proprietors were uprooted, unless they were themselves enrolled in the
Oprichnina. By this means the descendants of the appanaged princes,
who were the most formidable members of the opposition, were detached
from the places where they had power and influence, and removed to distant
regions as simple men of service ; while those who had hitherto " served "
these princes as their liege-men became the immediate servants of the
Tsar. The ancient local aristocracy thus received a crushing blow ; and
only a few who could convince the Tsar that they were harmless, such
as Prince Mstislavski, or who joined the Oprichnina like the Princes
Shuiski and Trubetskoi, maintained their positions. Such exceptions
did not modify the general result, that men of simple boiar descent now
succeeded to the influence of those who based their political claims on
their princely origin. Thus Ivan accomplished in a more sweeping way
the object which he had foreshadowed in the measure of 1550 — the
creation of a class of service completely dependent on himself and
lacking the traditional rights and position which had formed the
strength of the aristocratic resistance.

The execution of this policy, involving ubiquitous, rapid, and violent
changes of o^vnership, caused a general uptuiming of society, enormously
increasing the confusion and complication of the already complicated
and confused relations between proprietors and peasants. Estates with
their inhabitants flew from hand to hand, as has been said, "almost
with the velocity of bills in a modern exchange." The peasants replied
by flight to the hardships which were entailed upon them. The
massive confiscations, violent and sudden, were alone sufficient to create
consternation and alarm ; biit the administra,tion of the Oprichnina was
marked by such terrorism and savage criielty, and rendered so infamous
by the Tsar's debauches in his den of horrors at Alexandrofi', that
these accidental accompaniments disguised its deeper significance from
contemporaries and made it appear as a measure of police rather than as
an instrument of political reform.

The dualism between the Zemshchina, with the Duma, and the Oprich-
nina, with the Tsar, was not absolute, and it was no part of the Tsar's
intention that they should be antagonistic to each other. The Oprichnina
did not stand outside the State. The . two administrations were directed
to act in concert, and the cleft which ensued was not part of Ivan's
plan, but was due to the way in which it was realised. There was no
duplication of bureaux, but each bureau had ofiicials belonging to both
administrations. No official acts of the Oprichnina as such are preserved.

492 The Sobory of Ivan IV. [1550-75

The Duma always referred foreign questions to the Tsar, aijd we find
the boiars of both spheres consulting together and deciding unanimously
on ;a Lithuanian question. In 1572 the Oprichnina cetised to bear this
distinct name, and became simply the Court. , Nor can any significance
be. ascribed to the temporary elevation of Simeon Bekbulatoyich, a
member pf the princely House of the Tartars of Kazan, .whoi was
proclaimed Great Prince of Moscow and Tsar of all the Bussias in 1576,
Ivan's motive in exhibiting this cpmedy, which lasted for a few months,
is mysterious, if it was more than a caprice : Simeon was a mere puppet;
he had no real authority.

The temporary dual system may appear a roundabout and clumsy
way for accomplishing the Tsar's aims ; but it is intelligible as a com?
promise. It was his intention to "preserve to the I]|uma its administra^
tive functions, while he required a perfectly free hand to make and mar
without its advice or interference. His plan secured both these ends.
By severing himself from the Moscow Council and dividing the adminis-
tration territorially he was able without constant friction and fear of
treachery to carry put his revolutionary policy. When the political
power of the old noble families was annihilated and their estates in the
central provinces were converted into fiefs held on conditions of service,
the use of the double system was over.

It has been often pretended that Ivan's reign witnessed the introduc-
tion of parliamentary institutions in a rudimentary form. This viei^
can hardly be upheld. The Sobpr, or Assembly, which was convoked at
Moscow in 1650 to deliberate on remedies for the terrible condition to
which the oppression of the recent boiar riginie had reduced the realm,
was not of the nature pf a Parliament, but_rather a body of adminisfaa-
tive character. Its importance consisted in thefectthaOfwascomposed,
not merely of the higher officials and boiars who belonged to the Duma,
but also of representatives of the administrative class of aU grades
throughout the Empire. We do not know on what principle they were
chosen. The Sobor was in fact no more than an extension extraordinary
of the normal Duma. It had however political, though little constitu-
tional, significance; it showed that Ivan did not intend to rely exclu-
sively on the advice of the aristocracy of Moscow ; it was a presage of
the political tendency of his reign. This Assembly was preliminary to
the promulgation of Ivan's Code, which revived the law-book of his
grandfather, and introduced an important change in the civil adminis-
tration. Justice and police were in the hands of governors, called
hormlenchiki because they lived upon the land ; and nothing could have
been worse than their government. In some places the communes had
the nominal right of assisting in the administration of justice through
their heads or elders. The rural classes and the people of the provincial
towns were organised in communes, presided over by elders or mayors
whom they elected at their communal assemblies, and were collectively

1550-71] The Communes. — The Tartars. 493

responsible for the fiscal obligations of their members, the corivtax ar.d
the hearth-tax. These communes may have been originally baSed on the
oldSlaTonic mir; but although we find hei-e and there cases of joint
ownership of land which is characteristic of the mir, individual and not
common ownership is the rule in the communes of the fifteenth and
sixteenth centuries. The design of the new legislation was to do away
with the kormlenchiJci and substitute judicial authorities elected in the
districts; but the condition that the proffered charters of local autonomy
could be obtained only by purchase hindered many communes from
availing themselves of the reform. This step seemed, in the first
instance, to contradict the general policy of centralisation which had
guided Ivan III; but it was not long before the locally elected magistrates
became officers nominated by the central Government, and the growth of
serfdom effectually put an end to that of local autonomy which the
Code of Ivan IV appeared to have inaugurated.

Another Sobor was summoned in 1566 for the special purpose of
considering the relations of Russia with Poland. Besides boiars, func-
tionaries of various grades, and ecclesiastics, there attended a number of
merchants of Moscow and Smolensk, evidently invited on account of
their special knowledge relating to the commerce between the two coun-
tries. There was no popular representation, and this Sobor has not
more claim than the first to constitutional significance.

While Ivan was engaged in carrying out domestic ^ieforms and
terrorising his subjects, foreign affairs did not cease to importune him.
The^conquests of Kazan and Astrakhan have already been mentioned.
These successes, especially' the former, made a profound impression on
the nation, redounding to the Tsar's prestige. It remained for him, his
coimsellors thought, to complete the work by destroying the Tartar
power of Crimea, and so to reach the Euxine ; and these advisers might
have deemed their opinion justified when in 1571 the Crimean Khan
invaded Russia and burned Moscow, except the Kremlin, to the ground.
A second invasion in the following year was repulsed. Yet the subjuga-
tion of Crimea was a project which was perhaps premature; Ivan
preferred to turn the strength of his arms north-westward, and by
conquering Livonia to reach the Baltic. At this time Livonia had sunk
into the last stage of decay, misery, and corruption, vividly described by
Sebastian Miinster ; there was no national feeling or unity ; the popula-
tion was trodden down by the corrupt German colonists, the knightly
Order which governed it; and it was a question whether it was to
Poland, or Russia, or Sweden, or perchance to Denmark, that it would
pass. For Russia it had a special importance, not only as the street to
the Baltic, but also because, after the foolish policy of the Tsars in
destroying Novgorod as a commercial centre, trade had retired to Riga
and the Livonian towns. Ivan conquered the greater part of the country
(1557-60) ; and the last High Master of the Teutonic Order, Gottfried

494 Russia and Poland.- — Siberia. [i558-82

Kettler, having in vain sought active help from Poland and the Empire,
transferred to Poland the lights of his Order in Livonia and resigned
hin^self to the possession of the duchy of Courland for him and his heirs
(1561). But the Russian: occupation of Livonia was premature. For
the next twenty years there was almost unbroken war with Poland, and,
as Sweden and Denmark were interested, the course of events was com-
plicated by a succession of political combinations among the four Powers.
It was varied by the candidature of the Tsar for the Polish throne, first
on the death of Sigismund Augustus (1572), when Henry of Valois was
elected, and again, after his abdication, in 1575, when Stephen Bdthory,
the Voivod of Transylvania, sijpported with arms by the Sultan, won the
crown. It is said that Ivan was favoured by the lesser nobility, but he
threw away whatever chances he had by his want of deference towards
the Diet. In the Hungarian, Stephen Bdthory, Poland had gained an
ambitious master, Russia a formidable foe.; He created a powerful army
and undid all that Ivan had done. But Livonia was only a minor ques-
tion in the greater issue involving .the very existence of Poland^ whieh^ if
it was not to be crushed ultimately between German advance on the
west and the power of Moscow on the east, must extend over Russia
its sway, along with its civilisation and religion. The absence of geo-
graphical boundaries rendered the dilemma inexorable: either Russia or
Poland must disappear as an independent State. Internal: and external
circumstances combined to postpone the final solution; but Stephen
Bithory had grasped the triith and logically prepared to conquer
Muscovy. He besieged and failed to take Pskoff^ but he would not have
ceased from his enterprise if Rome had not intervened. The Tsar had
sought the mediation of Gregory XIII, and the treaty which was con-
cluded in 1582 through the negotiations of the Jesuit Possevino surren-
dered Livonia to Poland., The Russians had not yet the strength to
grasp either the Baltic or the Black Sea.

, Besides the expansion of the Muscovite power to the Caspian by the
capture of Astrakhan, which secured the command of the Volga from
source to mouth and established authority more or less effective over the
Cossacks of the Don, the reign of Ivan was also distinguished by a
conquest which founded the Asiatic power of Russia. The Tsar had
granted (1558) lands on the Kama to Gregory Stroganoff, member of an
enterprising family which had done great service as pioneers of civilisa-
tion in the deserts: north of Viatka. During the next twenty years
Stroganoff and his colonists extended the sphere of their operations
beyond the Ural and came into conflict with a Tartar kingdom recently
founded, of which the capital was named Sibir (near Tobolsk). This
State imperilled the enterprises of the Stroganoffs, and they had recourse
to the somewhat hazardous expedient of hiring a band of Cossack
brigands. With the Tsar's consent they engaged six hundred and forty
Cossacks, who had hitherto been accustomed: to waylay Russian traders.

1682-4] Ermak Timotheevich. — Theodore I. 495

Of their two chieftains one had been condemned to death; the other
was Ermak Timotheevich, who showed that he had the qualities of a
conquistador. He defeated the Khan, captured Sibir, and carried his
arms beyond the Tobol between the rivers Irtysh and Ob. If Ermak
had failed, no responsibility would have fallen upon Russia ; but Ivan
was not slow to reap the fruits of his success. He sent officers to take
formal possession of the new acquisitions and recognised the adventurer's
services by gifts. Ermak perished almost immediately after this (1584),
in a night surprise, it was said, and when trying to swim the Irtysh in a
coat of mail which was one of the Tsar's gifts. This Russian Cortes was
raised by the people and the Church to the rank of a hero and almost
of a saint. But 'though he helped effectively the eastern advance of
Russia at a critical moment, the real task of subjugating Siberia was
accomplished by the long and quiet toil of the peaceful colonists who
carried on the work of the Stroganoffs.

The death of Ivan the Terrible (1584) delivered Russia from a night-
mare of tyranny, but opened a period of unrest and civil strife which
lasted for thirty years. The social and political discords threatened the
realm with a struggle which could only be averted by a strong tyrant or
by an able statesman armed with all the authority, of legitimacy. But
Ivan left no successor like to or better than himself. He had two sons
by his first wife, Anastasia Romanova (from whose brother the present
dynasty is descended). The eldest son Ivan was slain by his father's
hand in a fit of fury (1582), a tragedy which produced a deep effect on
the popular imagination, echoed in the popular lays. The second son
Theodore was a weakling. By the latest of his other wives (he had no
fewer than seven, though some were not recognised by the Church),
Maria Nagaia, he had a son Dimitri who was an infant at the time of his
death. , The throne passed at once to Theodore, whose feeble intellect
was unable to cope with, or even realise, the difficult problems of govern-
ment and organisation which demanded the ruler's care, while his dehcate
constitution suggested disturbing imcertainties as to the continuation of
the dynasty. He proved in fact the last of his line ; but it may almost
be said that the dynastic crisis began at his accession. The peculiar
way in which the course of this important period of Russian history
shaped itself was due to the circumstance that the catastrophe of the
old dynasty coincided with a crisis of general social disorganisation.
The unrest (smuta) which ushered out the old dynasty and ushered in
the rule of the Romanoffs is marked by three stages, which have been
designated as dynastic, social, and national. The first is a struggle for
the throne among various claimants representing different interests ; the
second, a civil war between social classes complicated by the intervention
of foreign Powers ; the third, a national struggle with foreigners, issuing
in the organisation of a new national Govprnmeut.

Throughout the reign of Theodore, his brother-in-law, Boris Godunoff,

on. xvi.

496 Boris Godunoff. [i 585-97

one of the new boiars of the Oprichnind,was the real rukr. At first he
seems to have acted more or less in harmony with certain others who
were naturally marked out to form the inner council of advisers and
conduct the government of the famkant sovran^ — Prince Mstislavski,
Prince Shuiskij and Nikita Romanovich Jureff, the Tsar's uncle. All
these were alike responsible for sending the Empress-Mother and the
infant Tsarevich Dimitri to Uglich — a measure which was not due to
any actual conspiracy in the infant's favour, but intended as a pretaution
against possible intrigues on the ground that Theodore was incapable.
Till his death (1585) Nikita seems to have united this inner circle by the
ascendancy of his influence ; but after his death a struggle between Boris
and Mstislavski ended in the speedy disgrace of the latter, and two years
later an attempt of the Shuiskis to overthrow GodunofTs power was
followed by their exUe. Special titles which were bestowed on Godunoff
gave him a place apart in the Court ; he had precedence over all dignita-
ries, and was officially empowered to conduct negotiations with foreign
potentates. Foreign Courts recognised him as the actual ruler; the
English called him Lord Protector of Russia.

The talents of Boris were confessed by his foes. Personally amiable,
he was thoroughly honest and earnest in his piurpose to govern well.
Foreigners testify to a marked improvement during his r^gims; the country
breathed again after the wars and atrocities of the Terrible. But he
was faced by social problems, too complicated and radical to be solved
by the alleviations to which he resorted, and which only postponed the
civil struggle to which the profound antagonisms within the social
organism pointed as inevitable. He could not conciliate the conflicting
interests of the richer landed proprietors, the ecclesiastical owners, the
middle and small classes of fiefholders, the free peasant proprietors, the
vagrants who lived like Cossacks in the southern provinces. The general
note of his policy was to favour the middle class. He inherited and
continued Ivan's policy of depressing the old nobility and raising new
men like himself to power and influence. He consulted the interests of
the general mass of the men of service, and sacrificed to them the
interests of the peasants. What the men of service wanted was to have
not only a secure hold on their land, but also a guarantee that they
should have men to till it. Accordingly his regency was marked by the
formal introduction of serfdom (1597). To support ahd strengthen
the middle class — ^this was his policy as Regent and afterwards as
Tsar.

When Theodore's only child Theodosia died (1594), and it was
recognised that he had no hope of leaving issue, it was clear tha:t on his
death the reigning dynasty would terminate. For his step-brother,
Dimitri, had been found with his throat cut at Uglich in 1591. Mystery
encompassed the child's death ; a commission of inquest returned a
verdict that it was a case of epileptic suicide ; but there is little doubt

1591-1604] Dimitri Ivanovich murdered -The false Dimitri. 497

that he was murdered, and the opponents of Boris held him responsible
for the crime. In anticipation of the vacancy of the throne they were
not inactive; the idea of electing an Austrian Archduke was even
ventilated. The Romanoffs were at this juncture the most formidable
rivals of Boris, and it was said that the Tsar before his death (1598)
expressed the wish that his cousin Theodore Romanoff should be his
successor. There were other candidates, Bielski and Mstislavski; but
probably the real conflict lay between Romanoff and Godunoff. The
charge of having procured the murder of Dimitri was used as a weapon
by the adversaries of Boris ; but he succeeded in carrying through his
own unanimous election at the Sobor which assembled to choose a tsar in
1598. The disgust of the great boiars at this election may be measured
by the fact that they got up an agitation in favour of Simeon Bekbula-
tovich, the Tartar whom Ivan IV had decked with the brief semblance of
sovereignty. Boris took the precaution of forcing Theodore Romanoff to
become a monk, though no charge of conspiring seems to have been
brought against him. We shall meet him again under the name of
Philaret. His brother and the whole family were then disgraced and
banished on a charge of sorcery ; but other reasons must have lurked
behind.

The struggle in which Boris was the leading actor had hitherto been
purely dynastic ; it did not touch the nobles as a class, only particular
families were involved ; and it did not directly affect the rest of society.
With the rise of the famous Pretender, who impersonated the murdered
Tsarevich Dimitri, the question at issue was still dynastic, but the
interest in it spread to society at large, and soon created a movement
in which the succession to the throne became secondary. The deeper
rifts in the community widened into chasms, which threatened to
engulf the State.

The identity of the Pretender, who appeared in Poland in 1603 and
gave himself out as Dimitri, son of the Tsar Ivan, is held to be one of
the unsolved mysteries of history. But a strong case has been made out
for believing that the Tsar Boris was right in identifying him with
Grishka Otrepieff, an unfrocked monk, who had formerly been in the
service of the Romanoffs. He had carefully informed himself of the
circumstances connected with Dimitri's death, and he told an ingenious
story, which will not however sustain a critical examination, that a
devoted tutor, foreseeing the evil design of Boris, had rescued him by
substituting another child. The impostor gained the credence of in-
fluential persons in Little Russia, and became betrothed to Marina
Mniszech, daughter of a Polish noble who took an active part in propa-
gating Roman Catholicism. The influence of this atmosphere induced
him to change his faith, and at Cracow, where he presented himself in
March, 1604, he secretly joined the Roman Church. He had become
the proUg& of the Jesuits and wrote an ardent letter to the Pope.

C. M. H. V. CH. XVI. 32

498 Dimtri the Pretender. [ieo2-6

King Sigi'smund was disposed to espouse his cause. It is not prob-
able that the King was really convinced at any moment that the
Pretender was the Tsarevich, but if Russia could be brought to accept
him as such, the interests of Poland might be as well promoted as if he
were genuine. The forcible policy of Stephen BAthory had been aban-
doned under Sigismund, who sought to bring his eastern neighbours
under Polish influence by compassing a close union in commerce and
religion. He found Boris resolutely determined (as Ivan IV had been,
when similarly approached by Possevino) not to open any door to Latin
propaganda in Russia. The result of his effoi-ts was the conclusion of a
truce for twenty years (1602). In the face of this treaty it seemed difficult
to support in arms the rival of Boris. The two Great Chancellors of
Poland and Lithuania were opposed to the idea; the nation was dis-
inclined for a new war ; and the Diet rejected the proposal to assist the
Pretender. But the King succumbed to the temptation. He hoped to
recover some of the territories which had been wrested from Lithuania,
and to obtain Russian help for executing his cherished plan, the conquest
of Sweden, his father's kingdom. He entered into a secret engagement
with the Pretender, who readily promised what was asked ; and on his
part, although he could give no open or official help, he connived at
the recruiting of Polish volunteers. Both the King and the Roman
Church saw in Dimitri's enterprise a great chance for bringing about an
ecclesiastical union. The Jesuits and the papal Nuncio Rangoni threw
themselves enthusiastically into his cause, and played an important
part in these events.

The Pretender took the field with an insignificant miscellaneous
army of some 4000 men. The success which crowned his enterprise was
due not to Polish help (his Poles deserted him in the middle of the
campaign), but to the inhabitants of the southern and south-western
provinces, which were ready to welcome any pretender, and to the
enlistment in his cause of the Cossacks of the Don. The population of
the south, consisting largely of emigrants from the north, peasants who
had been raised to the rank of Imperial service, were thoroughly dis-
contented with the new conditions, finding their last state as evil as
their fii-st. While Dimitri advanced from the south-west, the Cossacks
moved simultaneously on the south. Without following the course of
the campaign (1604-5), we may note the mistake which the generals
of Boris made in fixing the base of their operations too far west, with
the idea that their enemy had all Poland behind him, and thus leaving
the way open for the rapid successes of his Cossack allies. The issue
might have been different but for the sudden death of Boris in April,
1605, which led to a new development. The evidence does not justify
the suspicion that the Pretender had originally been suborned or sup-
ported by boiar princes of Moscow ; it is significant that the Galitsins,
the Shuiskis, and Mstislavski were employed by Boris against him. But

ieo5-e] Fall of the Pretender. — Vasili IV. 499

on the Tsar's death these nobles saw that the prospect was favourable to
reaction. Instead of supporting the Tsarevich, Theodore Godunoff, they
declared for the Pretender, and through them the whole army took the
oath to Dimitri. But the boiars did not believe that he wais the son of
Ivan. They accepted him merely for the temporary purpose of nipping
the GodunofF dynasty in the bud. The Shuiskis showed their hand at once
by a premature conspiracy against him, which led to their banishment.

The Pretender's reign at Moscow endured for a year and displayed
his incapacity to control a most difficult situation. Surrounded by a
circle of foreigners, Poles and Jesuits, who claimed that he owed every-
thing to them, he soon alienated the sympathies of Moscow. He sought
to base his power on the support of those families of the nobility which
had been kept tmder by Boris. For instance he recalled the Romanoffs.
Feeling that by this policy he was rousing the dissatisfaction of the old
princely families, he recalled the Shuiskis, who as soon as they returned
began to contrive his overthrow, in conjunction with the Galitsins.
The Tsar was also suspected of heresy by the ecclesiastics, though he
concealed his conversion ; and when he celebrated his marriage with
Marina, and Moscow was filled with Polish visitors who permitted them-
selves every licence, the bigotry of the Moscow populace was thoroughly
aroused. The blow was struck a few days later; the Pretender was
done to death (May, 1606); and Vasili Shuiski, who had been prominent
in organising the plot, was elected Tsar. This reaction represents the
last short-lived triumph of that princely class against which the Oprich-
nina was directed ; the " aristocratic " principle was for a few years in
the ascendant ; and the new Tsar issued a manifesto which meant, not a
limitation of his own Imperial prerogative in favour of the boiars, but
his intention to return to the old administrative system of the days
before the Oprichnina.

Such a policy was impossible. Vasili had against him an important
circle in the nobility, to which the Romanoffs and Mstislavski belonged.
The Moscow populace had been accustomed by recent events to making
their voice heard in politics, and he foimd it impossible to quiet the
mob, which had helped him to the throne, and which was now ready to
believe that the late Tsar was really Dimitri. To meet this danger
Vasili had the bones of the murdered child brought to Moscow ; the son
of Iv£^ was canonised as a martyr ; an official declaration was promul-
gated in the name of the Tsar, the boiars, and Dimitri's mother ; and a
pamphlet, known as the "Izviet of JVarlaam," was issued under Shuiski's
inspiration, showing that the Pretender was Grishka Otrepieff. In those
days, however, publicistic literature was not effective in Russia. The
community was not ready to accept Shuiski's regime. Rebellion, begin-
ning in the south-west, spread to the east and north-east, and to the
west, assuming different characters in different regions. The same
people who had before been against Boris were now against Vasili. The

OH. XVI. i& — 2

500 Social revolution. — " The Robber," [ieo6-io

centre of the movement was at Putivl (which had been the headquarters
of the Pretender), and a leader arose in Ivan Bolotnikoff who impressed
it with the stamp of a social revolution, issuing flyleaves inciting to
attacks on property and the commercial classes. It was, in fact, avowedly
a programme of rapine, and this marks a new stage in the smuta. The
rebellion attracted ambitious members of the new families to whose
career the reaction of Shuiski closed the door. A heterogeneous army
recruited from the southern provinces, including Riazan, laid siege to
Moscow (October, 1606) ; but it was a political coalition of social adver-
saries, and a month's association in camp convinced the more conservative
elements, especially represented by the men of Riazan, that they could
not work in harmony with the radical followers of Bolotnikoff. The
siege was broken up, and there ensued a general rallying of the orderly
classes to the government of Vasili, who then collected an army; a
year later this revolutionary attempt was finally suppressed by the
capture of Tula, its last stronghold. The Tsar discerned that the
Pretender's success had been largely due to the support of the vagrant
peasants ; and it was this political motive which led him (1607) to renew
in a stricter form the laws of serfdom which had been passed in the
regency of Boris.

The reaction and the old order seemed thus to win the victory in the
first bout. But before Tula had fallen a new Pretender arose in the
Sieverski province. His name is unknown ; he was generally called "the
Robber." His position was entirely different from that of his predecessor.
The first " Dimitri " had guided a movement which was primarily in his
own personal interests ; the second " Dimitri " was a puppet serving the
interests of political and social revolution and foreign designs. Supported
by Polish adventurers, he gained such a strong following that in the
summer of 1608 he won a battle close to Moscow, fortified himseK at
Tushino, and blockaded the capital. The revolt spread to the whole
of the Moscow province, and north-westward to Pskoff. The north of
Russia— the Pom ore — ^had been almost imtouched by the troubles and
ferment which had begun with the Oprichnma. It was now faithful to
the Tsar; Prince Skopin Shuiski created at Vologda a military and
administrative centre, and, by the end of 1609, having succeeded in
uniting forces with the general Sheremetieff from the south-eastern
province, he cleared of the Robber's troops the regions north of Moscow.
But before this was achieved, the Muscovite Government was confronted
by a new enemy. King Sigismund had invaded Russian territory. The
success of Skopin and the invasion of Sigismund brought about the fall
of the two rival governments at Moscow and at Tushino in the course of
1610. The Robber fled from Tushino, and Sigismund entered into
negotiation with the Tushinites, in whose counsels Philaret (Theodore
Romanoff), their Patriarch, had a leading voice. A covenant of union
was concluded (February, 1610) by which the Tushinites accepted Prince

leio-i] Prince Wladislaw elected Tsar. 601

Wladislaw of Poland as Tsar, with the condition that, while there was
to be a close military union between the two countries, Russia was to be
autonomous and its orthodoxy inviolable. This agreement reflects the
policy and interests of those groups of the upper class which were opposed
to the reaction of the boiar princes. The Tushinite leader entered into
relations with the inhabitants of Moscow, proposing peace and the over-
throw of Vasili. The army of the north, which had lost its leader by
the death of Skopin, took no part in these events, and Shuiski and his
party were overthrown (July, 1610) by the Moscow populace.

With the fall of the reactionary government the last stage of the
domestic strife begins. It seemed as if the direction of affairs was now to
be under the conti'ol of a foreign Power. The next three years (1610-2)
are marked by attempts, both open and secret, finally successful, to restore
order and create a permanent government. The first experiment, after
a temporary administration by seven boiars, was the acceptance of Prince
Wladislaw, who was elected to the throne by a Sobor. under boiar
influence — " the last political act in the history of Moscow boiardom " ;
but when it became clear that his sovereignty was a mask for a military
dictatorship, exercised by his father, Moscow attempted to substitute a
national government. In the struggle with Sigismund which ensued,
the Patriarch Hermogenes played an important part. To him the
national and religious feelings of the Muscovite tinned as to a sort of
guardian. He stubbornly refused to recognise the foreign Tsar; he
circulated letters denouncing Sigismund; and, when some of them fell
into the hands of the Poles, he was kept under surveillance. But his
letters bore fruit, especially at Riazan and Nizhni-Novgorod. An anti-
Polish movement was organised by Prokopi Liapunoff"; a national host
was formed ; and a new alliance was cemented between the middle classes
and those who had been the adherents of the Robber. This unnatural
union with the "Robbers" and the Cossacks, intent on rapine, was a
policy doomed to failure. In the mixed army which besieged Moscow
in 1611 there was neither unity nor discipline ; the Cossacks plundered
the land at will ; and the attempt to organise an eflective government
was futile. The death of Liapunoff" was followed by open discord ; the
rest of the army left the Cossacks and "Robbers" alone in the camp
and went their ways. This ended the second attempt to create order;
and the prospect seemed gloomier than ever. The control had passed
to the Poles, on the one hand, threatening political servitude, and to
the Cossacks and rural proletariate, on the other, threatening a social
subversion. Sweden, too, alarmed by the election of Wladislaw, had
appeared on the scene and occupied Novgorod the Great, putting forward
on her side the candidature of a Swedish prince.

From this desperate situation Russia was rescued by the middle
classes, who rallied together against the foreign and the domestic
dangers. The brethren of the Troitsa monastery, who were active

502 National movement against the Poles. [1611-3

during this crisis, urged the country to make common cause with the
Cossack army against the Poles. But the Patriarch Hermogenes was
firmly opposed to any imion with the brigands, and his view prevailed in
the towns of the northern provinces from which the deliverance came.
The initiative was taken by Nizhni-Novgorod, where the leaders of the
movement were Kuzma Minin, elder of the commune, who represented
the bourgeois, and Savva EphimiefF, who represented the higher groups
of society. To organise and lead the national forces which were to
clear Moscow and her territory from the two foes, Prince Dimitri
Pozharski was chosen, a member of an old princely family which had come
down in the world. An adherent of the old traditions, he had, in the
reign of Vasili Shuiski, shown decided military talent. Kazan joined the
movement, and Pozharski anticipated the Cossacks in seizing laroslavl,
which then, as the richest town in the regions north of Moscow, became
the political centre of the national movement. A temporary Govern-
ment was formed, consisting of a Sdbor of the normal composition, while
a council of war acted as a Duma ; and, on April 7, 1612, a manifesto
was issued calling on the land to unite against the foreign invaders and
"the Russian robbers." Months were spent at laroslavl in organising,
and negotiations, meant only to gain time, were carried on with Nov-
gorod, which had acknowledged a Swedish prince. The Cossacks were
driven from the towns which they had occupied ; and, when the national
army at last moved on Moscow, the Cossack leader Zarutski marched off
with nearly half the host, and the rest submitted. Then Moscow was
taken and the Poles driven out (October).

A national Sobor met at Moscow in January, 1613, to elect a new
Tsar. The Shuiskis, Galitsins, and the princely Houses, even the de-
liverer Pozharski, had no influence at this election, and the choice fell on
Michael Romanoff, son of Philaret, the first Tsar of the dynasty which
reigns to-day.

The smuta was over. A durable settlement was achieved by the
active combination of those conservative classes which had held aloof
both from the revolutionary designs of the serfs and Cossacks, and from
the reactionary policy of the prince boiars. It was the triumph of the
men of service, who had neither been seduced into the den of "Robbers"
nor drawn into the nets of foreign conspiracies, and of the peasants and
bourgeois of the communes of the northern provinces, which had been
least affected by the Oprichnina. The issue of the civil war solved both
the political and the social problems, which had upset the fabric of the
State, in the interest of the middle classes. Politically, the smuta com-
pleted the work of the Oprichnina , the power of the boiars was under-
mined, and the groimd was cleared for the development of a bureaucracy
recruited without regard for birth. Socially, the rebellion of the lower
classes against the lot of serfdom was crushed ; they were sacrificed to
the middle class, and the policy of Boris was reinforced.

1613-53] The Middle Classes. — Michael Romanoff. 503

The political influence of the middle classes was felt throughout the
reign of the first Romanoff', and for a time under his successor. It was
expressed by frequent meetings of the consultative assemblies, which
had been introduced by Ivan IV and since his reign had fulfilled the
important duty of electing Tsars. The significance of these Sobors,
as we have already observed, is political rather than constitutional.
They hardly give the reign of Michael the claim of being a "parlia-
mentary epoch " ; but they served as a check on the acquisition of
excessive influence by the nobles. We find the Sohor giving assent to
taxation, nominating a Patriarch, deliberating on the question of going
to war with Poland. In 1642 it was summoned to consider whether
Azoff', which had been captured by the Cossacks, should be retained by
Russia. This Sobor consisted of the Council of nobles, the higher
clergy, and 195 representatives of other classes. Through it public
opinion influenced the Tsar's decision. The statements of the lesser
nobility, the merchants, and the delegates from the niral districts, as to
the widespread misery and exhaustion from which the country weis
suflering through taxation, military service, and the exactions of
governors, convinced the Tsar that a war with Turkey was impossible ;
and the Cossacks were bidden to abandon Azofl: In the reign of Alexis
a Sobor was summoned (IGl'S) for the preparation of a new law Code.
This Code {Ulozhenie) and the work of this Sobar represented another
success for those classes which had raised the Romanoff's to power. They
were dissatisfied with their economical conditions; wars, taxes, the
competition of foreign commerce pressed heavily upon them ; and so far
as the Ulozhenie was not mere codification, it attempted to satisfy their
needs, by shai-pening the laws on serfdom, by restricting the acquisition
of lands by the Church, and by enactments against foreign trade. Again
in 1653 a Sobor was consulted on the question of war with Poland.
This was the last, and it was seemingly due to the influence of the
Patriarch Nikon, of whom more will presently be said, that the
institution disappeared.

The weak character of Michael (1613-45), a man of no talent,
threatened Russia with evils similar to those which it had suffered in the
minority of Ivan IV. This calamity w£is averted by the return, in 1619,
of his able father, Philaret, from Poland, where he had been kept as
a hostage. Philaret wa^ created Patriarch and assisted the Tsar in the
cares of government. Until his death (1633) he was virtually the
colleague of his son ; his name appeared along with the Tsar's in public
Acts. The secure establishment of the new dynasty on the throne was
largely the result of his prudent guidance and firm control. The
Government had in the first place to deal with those foreign Powers
which had fished in the troubled waters. The cession of Ingria and
Carelia bought off' the claims of Sweden and procured the restoration of
Novgorod (Peace of Stolbova, 1617). Poland had made a formidable

OB. XVI,

504 Meign of Aleans. [16I8-51

effort to realise the design of Bdthory. For her it was a question of life
and death, and her failure may be said to have meant the loss of her
last chance. Wladislaw, indeed, did not , abandon his pretensions ; he
marched on Moscow (1618), and his repulse only led to a truce by
which Poland retained Smolensk, Chernigoff, and Sieverski. On the
death of Sigismund III in 1632 the war was renewed, this time by
Russia; and Wladislaw, now King of Poland, renounced his claims
to the throne for a sum of money, by the Treaty of Polianovka, 1634.

The reign of Alexis (1645-76) witnessed not only the recovery of
the recent acquisitions of Poland, but also the annexation of some of
the border-lands, which in race, language, sentiment, and religion were
Russian, but in consequence of the Lithuanian conquest had become
part of the composite Polish-Lithuanian State. This Russian Lithuania,
including White Russia in the north and Little Russia in the south, had
formed a State distinct from Poland itself until 1569, when the Act
of Lublin, to which reference has already been made, established a
common Diet and Senate with a common political capital, and made
Little Russia, as distinct from White Russia, part of Poland, though
Poland and Lithuania (with White Russia) retained their separate
laws, armies, chancellors, and other chief functionaries. The Orthodox
religion was safeguarded ; but the increase of Polish influence in the
Russian lands led to Roman propagandism actively carried on by
Jesuits, and to a long persecution of the Orthodox by those who aimed
at union. In the north this policy might ultimately have succeeded,
but it was disastrous in the southern steppes of the Ukraine, where
there was a military population, of free habits, impatient of authority,
and devoted to the Orthodox faith. These " Cossacks " of the towns,
distinguished from the Zaporogian Cossacks who lived in absolute
freedom beyond the Falls of the Dnieper, were organised in regiments
under the general supremacy of the Hetman of Little Russia, who was
appointed by the King. Smarting under the oppressive rule of the
Poles, who treated them as an inferior race, the Little Russians were
fully prepared for revolt, when a leader appeared in the person of
the Hetman Bogdan Chmielnicki, a man of ability, bravery, and some
education. The war which he commenced (1648) against the Poles was
marked by savage atrocities on the part of his followers, who displayed
particular fury against the Jesuits and the Jews ; and not less cruel
reprisals were practised by the Polish nobles. After the first slight
successes of his insurrection, Chmielnicki sent to Warsaw a formal list of
complaints of the ill-treatment and injustice suffered by the Cossacks
and people of Little Russia; At this juncture King Wladislaw died, and
his successor, John Casimir, was prepared to treat. But the struggle
continued, broken by negotiations and truces, until in 1651 Chmielnicki
experienced a crushing defeat. He had counted on the support of
the Khan of Crimea, but the Khan had proved » treachej'ous ally,

1652-80] Poland and the Cossacks. 505

Hopeless of carrying on the contest alone, he now turned to the Power
which seemed the natural protector of the Orthodox and sent an
embassy to the Tsar (1652). Alexis called a Sobor to discover whether
the realm was prepared to resume the strife with Poland ; the assembly
declared for war ; and a commission was sent to receive oaths of allegi-
ance from the Hetman and the Little Russians (1653). This war, in
which Moscow won the stake, was waged by the Tsar with a measure of
humanity and moderation which it was unusual for a Muscovite army to
practise, and was attended with a success which would almost certainly
have led to the annexation of White Russia, if another Power had
not intervened. Charles X of Sweden came down from the north,
seized Posen, Warsaw, and Cracow, and entered into relations with
Chmielnicki, whose real desire was not subjection to Russia, but
independent sovereignty. In the situation thus created Alexis saw that
his only course was to come to terms with Poland, and make common
cause against the Swede. In this enterprise he was successful; he
conquered a great part of Livonia, though only for a brief term. The
Peace of Kardis (1661) restored to Sweden the Livonian fortresses which
the Russians had occupied; but the danger of a Swedish Poland was
averted for the time. Tlie Poles, however, having driven out the
Swedes, refused to execute their treaty with Alexis, and war was
renewed. It lingered on till 1667, when the Treaty of Andnisovo
restored to the Tsar Smolensk and the other places which had been
ceded in 1634, and also gave him Little Russia up to the Dnieper,
along with the sacred city of Kieff.

This was a gain which at first caused to Moscow as much trouble as
it had caused to Warsaw. The Cossacks were not inclined to enter into
the strict conditions of the life of an organised State ; and during the
next years Ukraine was the scene of trouble and disturbance. At the
same time the Cossacks of the Don, hitherto at rest, rose under Stenka
Razin, who formed a huge army of brigands recruited by fugitive
adventurers from the Dnieper regions. His authority and his rapine
ranged to the shores of the Caspian, and he won an enormous reputation,
as a hero whom enchantments had rendered invulnerable, through south-
eastern Russia. The Government thought to paralyse the movement
by offering him a pardon ; he accepted it, but soon resumed his career of
rebellion, and his rule reached from Astrakhan to Nizhni-Novgorod.
At last he was captured and put to death, in 1671. The steppes of
southern Russia, inhabited by an unruly and shifting population, were
an impediment to the progress of civilisation ; and the same conditions
still prevailing produced a hundred years later the formidable insurrec-
tion of Pugacheff in the reign of Catharine II. It must be added that
the Little Russian lands on the right bank of the Dnieper were contested
with Poland by Turkey (1672-6) ; then the Hetman threw himself into
the arms of Russia, and a short Turkish war was followed by the Treaty of

cH. xv;.

606 Aleacis and Nikon. [1652-80

Bakchi-serai (1680) with the Sultan and the Crimean Khan, whereby
the Ukraine and Zaporogia were left to Russia.

The reign of Alexis was agitated by ecclesiastical dissensions, a
struggle between the Tsar and the head of the Church, and a struggle
within the Chiu-ch itself. The Patriarchate of Moscow had been founded
in 1689 with the consent of the Patriarchs of the East, and it had not
failed to add to the prestige of Russia, especially in those countries
which belonged to the Greek confession. We saw the part which
Hermogenes played at a critical juncture, but the dignity of the office
was considerably enhanced when Philaret filled it and helped his son
to govern the realm. But the Patriarchs were generally the creatures
of the Tsars. The history of the Patriarchate embraces little more
than a century, for it was abolished by Peter the Great ; and of the ten
who discharged its duties in that period only two were men of great
prominence and ability, Philaret and Nikon. The power and influence
which were associated with the office in the hands of Philaret en-
dangered the principle laid down by Ivan the Terrible, that it is the
business of monks to hold their tongues, inasmuch as Church and State
are separate spheres. The conflict of Alexis with Nikon showed that the
dyarchy of Michael and Philaret could not be repeated.

Nikon owed his appointment as Patriarch (1652) to the sincere
friendship of the Tsar, who genuinely admired his stronger will and
superior intellect; and it seemed that he might be to the son what
Philaret had been to the father. When Alexis left Moscow to take
part in the war for Little Russia, he made Nikon his vicegerent in
secular affairs. The nature of the Patriarch was hard and despotic, and
he made himself generally hated by his arrogance. He assumed the
title "Great Ruler," which had been borne by Philaret, not however
as Patriarch but on account of his relationship to the Tsar. Alexis
returned in 1656, but he was no longer the same man. Life in the
camp and experience of military operations seem to have developed his
character and made him more manly, independent, and self-confident.
The results of this development were not compatible with the con-
tinuation of Nikon's power. The temper of Alexis was mild, but Nikon
had no tact — he was spoiled by his extraordinary success, and, as a
Russian historian has said, "was not one of those who know where to
stop." The old friendly relations gradually cooled. A conflict was
inevitable, when Nikon began to brandish the same theory which had
been so often used by the Bishops of Rome, the immeasurable
superiority of ecclesiastical to secular autliority. Nikon's numerous
enemies, including the Tsaritsa (Maria Miloslavskaia), fanned the
mutual distrust; and in 1658 Alexis took a decisive step by requiring
him to explain how he came to designate himself " Great Ruler." This
was equivalent to a rupture ; Nikon withdrew to a monastery, probably
expecting to be recalled; but the Tsar, although, profoundly devoted

1503-1667] Bigotry of the Russian Church. — Nil SorsJd. 507

as he was to the Church, his victory must have cost him dear, remained
firm ; and Nikon by intrigues with the oriental Patriarchs laid himself
open to the charge of compromising the government in the eyes of
foreigners. It was considered that his aim was to establish a popedom
in Russia. He was tried at a Church Council (1667) and condemned
to deprivation and confinement in a monastery. To the suppression of
this exceptionally able ecclesiastical potentate it was due that the Church
was kept in her own sphere, and subordinate to the State, and Peter
averted the rise of another Nikon by abolishing the Patriarchate.

But, if Nikon failed in the attempt to usiup secular power, he was
successful in an enterprise of Church reform, which had momentous
consequences. The Russian Church, through its dead formalism, through
the ignorance of its clergy, through a bigotry seldom equalled and never
surpassed, was and still is one of the most effective obstacles to progress.
Its formalism may be imputed to its Byzantine parentage ; but, had it
profited more by the influence and example of Byzantium, it would at
least have appropriated some theological learning. The rule of the
Tartars does not explain the gross ignorance of the ecclesiastics; for,
through the astute policy of the tolerant khans the Church had been
the one favoured institution, and consequently had never attempted to
organise a national resistance to their yoke. If Greek had originally
been made the ecclesiastical language, theology would have been in a
different position; for the writings of the Fathers would have been
known in a country where the clergy were forced to learn Greek ; but
as the liturgy was in Old Slavonic (the language of the Macedonian
Slavs, which, though not identical with Russian, was easily learned),
practically no training was necessary for the peasants who became
priests (popes) or monks. Yet heresies, which are always a sign that
the life of a Church is not extinct, did not fail to arise. A man
occasionally appeared who, having come in contact with a wider world,
lit a dim candle in the darkness. In the reign of Ivan the Great, Nil,
a brother of the monastery of the White Lake (Bieh ozero), had
wandered as a pilgrim in the East, learned Greek, and sojourned on
Mount Athos. When he returned, he could not endure the spiritual
deadness of his old cloister, and he built himself a ceU, some twelve
miles away, on the banks of the Sora; whence he was known as Nil
Sorski. Some comrades joined him, and the anchoret's dwelling grew
into a little community of a primitive monastic type. Nil laid no
weight on external forms or outer works of piety, which may lead, he
said, to the worst of sins, pride ; the only thing that mattered in his
eyes was the state of the thoughts and the spirit. Better, he said, to
drink wine with reason than water unreasonably. At a Synod held in
1503, he proposed to disendow all Russian monasteries on the ground
that those who renounced the world had no business with worldly
property. Such views raised up hosts of enemies, who sought to destroy

608 Vassian and Maocim the Greek. [i503-i649

him by charges of heresy. They alleged that he criticised the texts
of the Slavonic Lives of Saints and stigmatised some passages as
interpolations. Russian churchmen regarded the Slavonic versions of
Scripture and ecclesiastical literature as sacrosanct, and an enlightened
man — rarissima avis — who suggested that being translated from Greek
they might contain mistranslations, was considered a dangerous blas-
phemer for questioning the authorised version. Vassian, a pupil of Nil,
applied similar criticism to the Slavonic version of the Byzantine
Nomoikcmon (collection of canon laws) ; and a long struggle ended in his
banishment (1531). In his critical labour Vassian was aided by a man
more famous than himself, Maxim the Greek. The "heretics" had
at all events convinced the Orthodox that it would not be amiss to
have on their side men of some learning, and also that it might be
desirable to augment the ecclesiastical literature by new translations
from the Greek. For this purpose the great Duke Vasili imported from
Mount Athos an Epirote Greek named Maximos. He had visited Italy
in his youth, had associated with Aldus the printer at Venice, and at
Florence he had heard sermons of Savonarola, whose spirit and ideals
made an abiding impression on him. But he was not at home in the
atmosphere of the Renaissance — pagan, he thought, and demoralising —
and had sought the solitude of the Holy Mount. He set out for Moscow,
resolved to imitate the high example of the Florentine monk, and
expose sin and error, regardless of consequences. Engaged at first in
translating Greek commentaries, with the help of two Russians who
knew Latin, he proceeded, when he had learned Russian, to examine the
service-books. He discovered false renderings, and thereby set his feet
on a perilous path. He was told that by such a suggestion he oiFended
the Russian saints who had used these books and now, on account of
their holiness, were enabled to perform miracles. The schismatic sects use
the same argument to this day. Maximos went on to criticise severely
the clergy and the monks. His career ended in incarceration in a
monastery (1531); he had learned too much about the secrets of
Muscovy to be allowed to return to Mount Athos.

The correction of the liturgy, which Maximos suggested to the great
scandal of the Orthodox, was again proposed by an archimandrite of the
Troitsa monastery in the reign of Michael; but it was reserved for Nikon,
with the approval of the Tsar Alexis, to carry it out. The attention
of Nikon was directed to various differences and innovations which had
crept into the Russian Church by Paisios, Patriarch of Jerusalem, who
visited Moscow in 1649. For instance, it was the custom in Russia
to make the sign of the Cross with two fingers, in Greece and the East
with three (symbolic of the Trinity). A commissioner was sent to the
East, whose report confirmed the criticisms of Paisios. In Little Russia,
where there was some theological learning, it was known that the
service-books were faulty. On his appointment as Patriarch, Nikon

1649-6';] Nikon's ecclesiastical reforms. — The Raskol. 509

at first hesitated, for he well realised the difficulties ; but further study
convinced him of the necessity of undertaking a reform, and he asked
the Tsar to summon a Synod, which met in the palace in 1654, and
resolved, though aU its members were not sincere and some refused to
sign the Act, that the books must be conformed to the Greek and
ancient Slavonic manuscripts. A second Synod (1655) revised the liturgy
and ordained that other ecclesiastical books should be sitailarly corrected ;
a third (1656) enacted that the sign of the Cross should be made with
three fingers. But there was a large discontented faction, who objected
to these changes, drew up a petition to the Tsar against "the great
disturber Nikon," and asserted that the Greek books had been corrupted
by the Latins. Discussion was futile, and Nikon obtained the degrada-
tion and banishment of the leaders of the opposition. The fall of Nikon
did not lead, as his enemies hoped, to the undoing of his reforms. But
it caused a renewal of the agitation, and Alexis, weary of the petitions
of monks and clergy, called a Synod in 1666 "against the schismatics
and troublers of the Church who have recently sprung up." Among
these the most prominent leader was Avvakum, protopope or rector of
a Moscow church, of whom we possess a remarkable autobiography.
This assembly generally approved the changes, and another (1667)
formally and finally anathematised those who did not accept the reforms
which it enumerated. The violence of the opposition in monastic circles
is illustrated by the obstinate refusal of the great Solovetski monastery
in the White Sea to accept the revised books ; the monks stood a siege
for several years; and, when the place was taken, many were put to
death for their defiance of the Tsar.

The changes introduced by Nikon were trivial ; but they led to
a consequence of far-reaching importance, the Raskol, or great schism.
The RasTcolniJci or schismatics are those who severed themselves from
the Church and would have nothing to do with the inessential alterations
made obligatory by the Synods of 1666 and 1667. The spirit of the
schism was a product of the ignorance of the people, caused by the
stagnation of secular culture, which produced a childish devotion to
trivial externalities. In this respect the official Church and the
schismatics were on one level, equally unable to distinguish the essential
from the inessential. Both parties believed that the soul's salvation
depended on the number of fingers with which the Cross was signed;
and if the student of the history of religion were not prepared for any
and every absui'dity, he would find it hard to believe that such a
question as the precise spelling of the name " Jesus'" in Russian should
cause as hot a conflict as if the order of the universe depended on the
presence or absence of a single letter. The RasJcol was not due to
degeneration in the Church ; there was no decline, for there had been
no better time ; the reiform merely called into active resistance a mass of
ignorance which would otherwise have continued its slumbers. It was in

610 The Raskol.

Great Russia, especially in the north and the Volga regions, that the
Raskol chiefly spread. The schismatics lived in the past, considering
the days before Nikon and before Peter as the ideal age of their country.
They have been compared by a Russian novelist to Lot's wife, who,
looking back, became an immovable pillar. "Yet," writes a German
historian, "in this protest against the established Church and State,
in the energy of the mystic apocalyptic symbolism with which the
Raskolmki defend their doctrines, and in the material means which are
at their disposal, lies a force which presents the greatest difficulties
to the State and the official clergy. Here, at all events, in this stubborn
opposition, the people show that it is not the indifferent herd of sheep
for which it is generally taken," The people of the old faith represent
the spirit of antagonism to progress and European culture. It is a
passive spirit, though stiflnecked, but it is the more effective, in proportion
as they are more industrious, thrifty, and sober than the Orthodox. The
movement was too widely spread, and had its roots too deep in the
national character and traditions, for the Church and State to check it.
The schismatics were simply maintaining the prejudices which the
Church had always displayed towards change, erudition, and the
influence of foreign ideas — "abominable German customs." In one
of the schismatic pamphlets which have been preserved it is stated
that God forbade the imitation of foreign dress, since all illicit stitched
garments are disgusting in His eyes. Tracts were published against
"tobacco, that devilish herb, cursed and abhorred of God." It was
believed that the Redeemer and His mother appeared to some Russian
women, and warned them that, as soon as Christians began to " drink "
tobacco, lightning and thunder, frost and ice would be their punishment.
Nikon's reforms were declared an attempt to replace Greek orthodoxy
by Latin heresy. One of his leading opponents asked despairingly, what
would happen if east and west should mix. The fanatics deemed it
a heinous crime that the children of the Tsar Alexis should be allowed
to gain some knowledge of astronomy, philosophy, and medicine. One
of them wrote an insulting open letter to the Tsar. " How dare you
keep at your Court men who have the hardihood to measure with a yard-
rule the tails of the stars ? You feed the foreigners too well, instead of
bidding your folk cling to the old customs." The schismatics offered
bitter resistance to the policy of Peter the Great ; they looked on him
as Antichrist, on Moscow as Babylon.

The extent of undeveloped territory in Russia, the immeasurable
waste reaches on its periphery, north, east, and south-east, facilitated
the expansion of the Raskol, The schismatics could flee from perse-
cution into the impenetrable forests and boundless steppes, and find
places beyond the supervision of the Government. In this way they
helped in the work of colonisation, founding villages and monasteries,
and reclaiming land. With a nomadic instinct they united the habits

Hatred of foreign customs. 511

of industry, and the camps of rebels were transformed into settlements,
where agriculture and trade throve. Here — and it was the case with
Russian monasteries in general, notably that of Solovetski — fanaticism
was joined with attention to material interests. In Nikon's time the
Raskolmki were counted by hundreds of thousands, at the present time
they perhaps exceed fifteen millions. But this does not mean merely
the people of the old faith. The name Raskol was extended to all
varieties of dissidents and sects who alike repudiated the State Church,
so that the men of the old faith are only one of numerous groups, which,
as dissent is always hydra-headed, soon sprang up within, as well as
beside, the communities of the original dissidents.

The Raskol expressed a protest against change in general, and thus
had a much deeper significance than might seem to be involved in
the religious questions which led to the schism. It uttered the
suspicions aroused in the people by the far from enthusiastic willingness
of the Tsar himself, and the more pronounced zeal of a few others,
to learn something from peoples beyond the borders of their land. In
tracing the influence of Western Europe upon Russia in the sixteenth
and seventeenth centuries there is danger of exaggeration. The
process does not resemble a development ; Russia under Alexis was,
as regards civilisation, the same at heart as under Ivan the Great.
In manners and modes of thought there had been no general alteration
among the higher classes. The description of Adam Olearius in the
seventeenth century presents the same picture as the reports of the
travellers of the sixteenth. Yet a Peter the Great and his reforms
would have been inconceivable a hundred years earlier. The West had
come to Russia ; it began to come in the sixteenth century, it was there
in the seventeenth. But the process was not an internal development,
but rather like the laying of a mine, which did not outwardly affect the
land till Peter had the courage to explode it. The decisive step had
been the admission of foreigners to reside at Moscow ; and thus Western
ideas, although they made no way except with a few isolated individuals,
were there, on the spot, in the foreign or " German " subiu:b of Moscow,
waiting to be assimilated. The increasing intercourse, both commercial
and political, of Russia with Western countries, and the grudging and
restricted hospitality extended to resident strangers, which marked the
period with which we are dealing, were tin indispensable condition of
Peter's work, of its conception as well as its execution.

The mental stagnation of Russia was due mainly to her isolation
from Europe in the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth centuries. We
have already observed that this isolation was due partly to the displace-
ment of the centre of power from Kieff to the forest of Suzdalia and the
tributaries of the Volga, and partly to the Tartar conquest. Another
cooperative event may be found in the dismemberment and decline of
the Eastern Empire (after 1204'), through constant intercourse with

ca, XVI,

612 Isolation of Russia. — Voyages of discovery. [1204-1553

which the Russian State had been kept in touch with a higher
civilisation. But how was it that in the sixteenth century Russia
should have been so completely beyond the horizon of Western Europe
that the books of Paolo Giovio and Herberstein created a sensation as if
a new land had been discovered, seeing the position which it occupied in
relation to Poland, Lithuania, and Livonia ? How was it that inform-
ation about the Muscovite realm did not filter through more finely?
The answer is that it was the deliberate policy of the intermediate
States, which were continually at war with Moscow and jeopardised by
her ambition, to keep the Russians at as low a level of civilisation
as possible, to hinder them from improving their army in accordance
with West European ideas, to prevent them from competing in indus-
tries ; and they did what they could to shut Russia away and check
intercourse with the West. This policy began to break down in the
sixteenth century, but it was still a maxim. In 1547 the young Tsar
Ivan made arrangements for the importation of engineers, mechanics,
artists, and physicians from Germany; but the scheme was frustrated
through the machinations of Livonia. Some years later, when com-
mercial relations were established between England and Moscow, the
King of Poland, deeply alarmed, wrote to Elizabeth urging that such
intercourse was dangerous, and protesting, "in the interests of
Christianity," against giving Russia, "the enemy of all free nations,"
the chance of obtaining munitions of war and of becoming initiated in
European politics.

The interest of the West in Russia, which began in the sixteenth
century, was not at first for its own sake, but in order to find an
overland route to the East and destroy the monopoly of the Indian
trade which the Portuguese enjoyed through their discovery of the ocean
route. This was the object of the visits of the Genoese Paolo Centurione,
in the reign of Vasili. They Ifed to no result except indirectly to the
publication of Giovio's book on Muscovy. In this book (1525) the
notion was entertained that China might be reached by way of the
ice sea. But it was not through the direct influence of Giovio or of
Herberstein's later work (1549) that in 1553 three ships sailed from
London, under the command of Sir Hugh Willoughby, to discover the
northern passage. After passing the North Cape the vessels were
separated by a storm. Willoughby's and another reached the coast
of Lapland, where the crews, inexperienced in the hardships of an arctic
winter, succumbed to cold and hunger. The Edward Bonaventure,
of which Richard Chancellor was captain, had better luck. Carried
to the White Sea, he sailed to the mouth of the Dvina and met a
friendly reception from the astonished inhabitants. The Englishmen
who set out to find China had alighted by chance on Russia. It was a
quite unexpected discovery to them that here was the Muscovite realm,
and that Ivan, son of Vasili, was its ruler. Provided with horses;, they

1553-1646] Foreign accounts of Russia. 613

travelled to Moscow and were received by the Tsar. Ivan proved
readier than might have been expected to favour commercial relations
with England, and sent Chancellor back with a letter to Edward VI
professing willingness to open negotiations. " If you send one of your
Majesty's counsel to treat with us, whereby your country's merchants
may with all kinds of wares make their market in our dominions, they
shall have a free mart." Thus an accident led to the' establishment of
the English "Muscovy Company,'' of which Sebastian Cabot was the
first Governor. English enterprise did something almost immediately
towards beginning the development (of the natural resources of Russia, by
establishing manufactories for boiling tar, burning potash, making ropes;
and the privileges- conceded by Ivan gave the Company an advantage
over other countries for some years, though in the following century
Dutch rivalry, which had already begun by 1583, was here as in other
fields successful.

The series of Western accounts of Russia was continued in the
seventeenth century. We have the book of a French officer, Margeret,
who took service in the Russian army ; the work of the Dutch merchant,
Isaac Massa, who lived at Moscow in the disturbed ;^ears 1601-10; the
great description of Adam Olearius, who was attached to an embassy sent
to Russia and Persia by Duke Frederick of Holstein-Gottorp, at whose
Court he was astronomer and librarian, in the reign of Michael; we have
the account of Dr Samuel Collins, physician to Alexis; we have the more
penetrating work of the Saxon, Laurence Rinhuber, who saw in Russia
not merely a field for trade or for scientific investigation, but for
a civilising mission. The Travels of Olearius (1646) present us with a
full picture of the surface of Russian society, illustrated to the eye
by views of towns and costumes, and even the inspection of these aflbrds
a vivid impression of the great gulf dividing the country from Western
Europe. The invincible ignorance and incredibly rude manners of the
higher classes and their cringing servility to the Tsar, the gross super-
stition and the shameless dnmkenness (largely due to the conditions of
the climate) which prevailed among all classes, the universal mendacity,
the detestation of new ideas, were features which impressed all travellers,
and their testimony is borne out by one of the exceptional Russians who
had come to see their own society as others saw it. Kotoshikhin, who in
the reign of Alexis fled to Sweden to escape from the hostility of
powerful ofiicials, embraced Protestantism and wrote a remarkable work
contrasting Russia with Europe. The Russians, he says, are arrogant
and incapable, because they get no education except in pride, shameless-
ness, and lying. They will not send their children abroad to learn,
fearing that if they came to know the mode of life and the religion
of other folks and the blessing of freedom, they would forget to return
home. It was indeed one of the arcana imperii of the Tsars to hinder
their subjects from travelling, lest they should behold the spectacle of

C. M. H. V. CH, XVI. 33

514 Biissia as described by foreigners. [i588-ie46

liberty elsewhere; but the law against leaving the countiy was one
which few desired to violate, since converse with heretics was held to be
unedifying, and there was the risk of dying in an ungodly land, which
seemed to an orthodox Muscovite a horrible fate. The Tsars themselves
were saturated with arrogant self-satisfaction and contempt for the rest
of the world. When they sent an embassy to a foreign Court, they
deemed that they were conferring a favour on the sovereign to whom
it was sent. Iliey had no idea what disgust and amusement the
appearance of the clownish boiars — destitute of rudimentary concep-
tions of decency but devoted to pedantic ceremonial, knowing no
language but their own, sometimes unable to pay their way — excited in
the Eiuropean capitals. On the Emperor Alexis it seems to have
dawned that his nobles were not heaven-sent diplomatists, and he often
employed foreigners as ambassadors — ^a transition from the rude
Muscovite envoys to the well-qualified native diplomatists of the
eighteenth century.

A word must be said of the tyrannical means, and disastrous for
national economy, to which rulers resorted for raising revenue. They
are described by Elizabeth's ambassador, Giles Fletcher. Messengers,
he says, are sent into the provinces where the special commodities of
the land grow. " There they forestall and engross sometimes one whole
commodity, sometimes two or more," taking them at low prices fixed by
themselves and selling at an excessive rate to their own or foreign
merchants. " If they refuse to buy them, then they force them unto it.
The like is done when any commodity, thus engrossed by the Emperor
and received into his treasury, happeneth to decay or mar by long lying,
or some other casualty. Which is forced upon the merchants to be
bought by them at the Emperor's price, whether they will or no. This
last year 1589 was engrossed all the wax of the country, so that none
might deal with that commodity but the Emperor only." The Tsars
augmented their revenue by acting as publicans and encouraging their
subjects in indulgence in strong liquor. " In every great town of his
realm," says Fletcher, "the Emperor hath a cabdk or drinking-house,
where is sold aquavitae, mead, beer, &c. Out of these he receiveth rent
that amounteth to a great sum of money. Some yield 800, some 1000,
some 2000 or 3000 roubles a year." It may be noted that the total
yearly revenue of the Tsar in the reign of ITieodore Ivanovich, arising
from indirect sources, custom duties and fines, as well as from the direct
imposts, the corn-tax and the hearth-tax, including the products of the
Imperial domains, amounted to 1,4130,000 roubles.

The fiscal expedient of monopolies was not peculiar to Russia, but
their excessive nature is remarkable. Similar excess marked the mone-
tary policy of Alexis when he depreciated the coinage as a last resort in
the financial difficulties in which the Polish war had involved him. No
civilised ruler stepped further on this disastrous path. All silver money

Byzantine influences on Russia. 515

was confiscated; the Government paid, but refused to accept, copper for
silver; sixty soldiers could now be maintained for what it had cost
before to maintain one. As a result, illicit mints were established all
over the country. Prices inevitably rose ; the Government forbade their
augmentation; but here the autbcrat was powerless. Hunger and
misery ensued, and in 1662 the people of Moscow rose in despair and
threatened the Tsar's life. Torturing and burning were the answer of
Alexis, and thousands perished.

The strict Oriental seclusion of women of the upper classes has often
been considered a consequence of Tartar rule, but it was rather due to
Byzantine influence. Byzantine too was the custom of the bride-show.
Tlie most beautiful maidens of the land were assembled at Moscow and
reviewed by the Tsar for the purpose of selecting his consort. In law
and justice we can also see the action of ideas derived from the Eastern
EmpirCi The early Code of laroslav reflects the primitive judicial
institutions of the Slavonic tribes. TTie Code of Ivan the Great reflects
a complete transformation. Homicide is punished by death, theft by
scourging; torture is applied; corporal chastisements are prominent.
This change was due not to Mongolia, but to Byzantium. After the
conversion of Russia the influence of Constantinople was immense,
exercised especially through the Church. Greek clergy went to Russia,
bringing literatiu-e and ideas. They introduced the Roman principles
of inheritance, by which a man's property went to his offspring, and
we can trace the conflict between this principle and the Slavonic
custom which devolved property not upon the son, but upon the eldest
of the family. In criminal law, the clergy threw all their energy into
abolishing the system of pecuniary composition and introducing penalties
of death, mutilation, and scourging. The primitive system gradually
gave way, but we find in Ivan's Code some survivals of old customs. It
may be noted that the punishment which the Code (Ulozhenie) of Alexis
ordained for taking snufi', amputation of the nose as the ofiending
member, is characteristically Byzantine in spirit. It is to be remembered
that the little literature which the Russians possessed came from Greek
sources, and Byzantine influence has even been traced in the curious
Domo-stroi, a book on household management partly written by Silvester,
the councillor of Ivan IV,

It cannot be proved that the machinery of central administration,
the system oiPrikazy, was due to influence from the same quarter.
These bureaux, of which there were more than forty in all, and which were
abolished by Peter, appear in the sixteenth century, but the date of their
introduction is unknown. Like some of the palatine offices of the later
Ronian Empire they have the character of domestic rather than of state
departments. The Prikaz for embassies dealt with foreign relations,
but was of minor importance before the reign of Michael, and it
was not till the reign of Alexis that, by the appointment of the able

CH. rw. 33 — 2

516 Rp^nnings. of Western, influence. [i6i9-76

statesman Ordin-Nashchokin, with a special title, to the headship of
this, bureau, Russia had a regular Minister for foreign aflFairs.

Some of the Tsars (Ivan IV and Boris) had shown themselves
personally less prejudiced against, things foreign than the mass of their,
subjects. The horizon of Philaret had been enlarged by his enforced
residence in Poland, and Michael is said to have been fond pf English-
men. Alexis broke some of the old traditions, and in his reign presages
of future change may be discerned. These slight signs were mainly the
consequence of the opening of Hussia to foreign merchants, and of the
German quarter in the capital; but this influence was augmented, by
the acquisition of Xieff, ^hich through its long connexion with Poland
was intellectually at a far higher level than Moscow. Two Kieff scholars
(Slavinetski and Satanovski) were called to Moscow in 1650 to translate,
the Greek Bible into Russian. It was a west-Russian monk whom
Alexis employed £is tutor pf his children, Simeon Sitianovich, known as
Polotski, who knew Latin and Polish, and has been described as a
walking encyclopaedia. He exposed the prevailing ignorance and
preached the necessity of educatipn. But more remarkable than he was
the learned Servian, luri Krizhanich, an enthusiastic exponent of the
idea of the solidarity pf the Slavpnic pepples, whp set himself the task
of furthering their progress by the improvement of their languages so as
to render them as adequate as other European tongues to express general
ideas, and sought to vindicate the Slavs against foreign calumny and
scpm. But the importance of this pipneer pf Panslavism lay not in his
Slavophil programme, but in what he did by exhibiting the backwardness
of Russia, making war upon its spirit pf contempt for foreigners, arid,
inculcating the need of enlightenment, in the book of Political Ideas
which he dedicated to Alexis.

The new ideas, preached by strangers, did not pass by two leading
men of the day who held the post of Foreign Minister. Ordin-Nashchokin
was alive to the importance of a fuller knowledge of Europe, of ac-
quiring books from abroad, and of develpping cpmmerce. Artemon
Matvieeff, who succeeded him as chief pf the foreign Prikaz, had married
a Scotchwoman, and assimilated Eiu-opean ideas. His wife was not
submitted to the seclusipn pf Russian ladies; peridental fashipns were
aflFected in his house and the conduct of his household. His adopted
daughter Natalia Naryshkina became the Tsar's second wife (1672), and
the mother of Peter the Great. She displayed the fruits of her bringing
up by appearing publicly in her litter with the curtains raised. Her
marriage led to the disgrace and exile of Matvieeff on the accession of
Theodore (1676), whose mother's relatives, the Milaslovskis, were his
enemies. It is characteristic that the charge alleged against him was
sorcery.

The Tsar Alexis was not a great statesman. Like Philip II of
Spain, and Jpseph II of Austria, he was diligent in attending to the

1645-82] Beginnings of Western influence. 617

details of public business. But he was susceptible of the influence of
minds more powerful than his own, and he knew how to value and to
choose Ministers of exceptional ability. During the first half of his
reign, his chief guide was his capable kinsman Boris Morozofl', while in
subsequent years he entrusted the helm, as we have seen, to the pro-
gressive statesmen Ordin-Nashchokin and Matvieeff, both of them new
men who had risen from obscurity His old-fashioned piety did not
hinder him from supporting the reasonable reforms of Nikon, and his
old-fashioned learning enabled him to sympathise with the efforts of
those who desired to improve education. Kindly and sociable in dis-
position, he was open in his later years to the superficial influence of
Western ideas; and their progress at his Court was particularly displayed
in the performance of dramas with dancing and music, in the presence
of himself and the Tsaritsa Natalia — spectacles which at the beginning
of his reign he would unreservedly have condemned.

Thus, during the reigns of the first three Romanoff's (Michael, Alexis,
and Theodore), access to Western ideas was within the reach of Russians,
and this explains the fact that a Peter the Great could arise. The
foreign merchants at Moscow, the foreign officers, Scotch and others,
in the army, the political negotiations with foreign Courts (especially
the French) interested in the Turkish and Polish questions, were
insensibly preparing the way for Russia to turn her face in a new
direction, though the country at large seemed still impregnably barri-
caded behind a Chinese wall of prejudice and conservatism. The
abolition of the miestnichestvo, already noticed, in Theodore's reign was
a not unimportant breach in the old order; and it was significant
that Orthodoxy, feeling itself endangered by the presence of heretics —
Romanists, Calvinists, Lutherans — in the foreign quarter of Moscow,
came to see that its best defence might be learning and education. It
was the Tsar Theodore, pupil of Polotski, who, desiring as he said to
imitate Solomon and the Greek Emperors in their love of learning,
foimded a Moscow Academy, at which Greek and Latin were to be
taught as well as Slavonic, in the interests of the Church.

Theodore died in 1682, and his step-brother Peter, destined to
regenerate Russia on lines which the later years of his father's reign
had to some extent, though only faintly, indicated, was proclaimed
Tsar.

CH. XVI,

518

CHAPTER XVII.

PETER THE GREAT AND HIS PUPILS.
(1689—1730.)

The reform period of Russian History began in the generation
immediately preceding Peter the Great. His amiable and inquisitive
father. Tsar Alexis, was peculiarly susceptible to new impressions. He
also possessed, in a high degree, the royal gift of discerning genius, and
the Patriarch Nikon, who renovated the Russian Church, and the en-
lightened boiars Athanasius Ordin-Nashchokin and Artemon Matvieeff,
who first turned the Russian nation westwards, were the beloved friends
and the directing counsellors of Alexis. Their great merit was to
prepare a suitable atmosphere in Russia for the new ideas which were
finding their way into the empire — :the reforms whichj under Theodore III,
Alexis' eldest son and immediate successor (1676-82), took root in
the soil and became substantial facts. By far the most important of
these reforms was the abolition, at the suggestion of another enlightened
boiar, Prince Vasili Vasilevich Galitsin, of the ancient and mischievous
abuse miestniehestvo, or " family precedence," described in the preceding
chapter. By a single stroke of his pen the hopeless invalid Theodore III
had, in 1681, removed an abuse which, for centuries, had appeared unas-
sailable. He was, indeed, as thorough and devoted a reformer as a man
who was obliged to issue his orders from his litter or his bedchamber could
possibly be. The mere fjict that, on his very deathbed, he couldso easily
remove so deep-lying and far-reaching an abuse, is a striking testimony
to the steady, if silent, advance of liberal ideas in Muscovite society, even
since the death of Alexis.

But a still more emphatic demonstration of the progress of the new
ideas was the appearance in public, siurounded by her aunts and sisters,
of the Tsarevna Sophia, acting as Regent for her little brothers, Ivan and
Peter, on July 6, 1682 (O. S.), on the occasion of the revolt of the Strielizy
and their allies the Old Believers. Sophia, seated on the throne, not
only confronted the schismatic rebels, but quelled their insolence and
refuted their arguments. For the first time in Russian history, the
women of Muscovy had boldly quitted the claustral seclusion of the

1682-9] Early years of Peter the Great. 519

terem (women's apartments), to preside over a public assembly. Sophia,
like her brother Theodore, had had a relatively superior education,
under the guidance of learned monks from Kieff, Even Theodore's great
foundation, the Academy of Sciences in the Zaikonnospasky monastery,
was intended to be as much a bulwark of Orthodoxy as a university.
Thus the chief difference between the Theodorian and the Petrine
reforms was that the former were primarily for the benefit of the Church,
the latter for the benefit of the State. The government of Sophia
(1682-9) began with a grievous blunder, the murder of Aa-temon
Matvieeff, the chief Muscovite representative of Western culture in its
practical form. Matvieeff had been banished from Moscow, in 1676,
for advocating the election to the Tsardom of the healthy and vigorous
Peter, then in his fourth year, instead of the sickly Theodore. Sum-
moned back from exile, on the death of Theodore, in May, 1682, he
found that Peter had been declared sole Tsar by his mother's family, but
that a dangerous rebellion already threatened the young sovereign. In
courageously attempting to quell this rebellion, Matvieeff was literally
hacked to pieces by the Strieltzy as he clutched desperately at the
sleeve of little Peter for protection.

This recollection never forsook Peter ; and there is a pretty general
agreement that the convulsions from which he suffered so mdch in later
years must be partly attributed to the effect of this violent shock on the
very impressionable child. From the day of his father's death to his
tenth year, when he was first raised to the throne, Peter shared the
miseries and the perils of the rest of his family. On the other hand, he
had peculiar advantages. From his very cradle he must have been made
acquainted with Western ideas, for his mother, the Tsaritsa Natalia, had
been the favourite pupil of Matvieeff, though she does not seem to have
been very intelligent. After the triumph of Sophia, Natalia was al-
together excluded from the conduct of affairs, and lived for nine months
out of the twelve at Preobrazhenskoe, on the outskirts of the capital.
During this period Peter was rarely to be seen at Moscow, except when
he and his semi-imbecile brother, Ivan V, had to undergo the ceremony
of receiving foreign ambassadors at the Kremlin. The boy soon felt
cramped and stiffed in the dim and close semi-religious atmosphere of
Natalia's terem, and escaped from it, as often as he could, into the dirty
streets of Moscow. There was no one near him of sufficient character
and authority to keep the passionate fiery nature within due bounds.

From his tenth to his seventeenth year, Peter amused himself in his
own way at Preobrazhenskoe with his " blackguards," as Sophia dubbed the
lads of the rougher lower classes whom he gathered around him. But it
was not all amusement. Instinct was already teaching him his business.
From the first, the lad took an extraordinary interest in the technical
and mechanical arts, especially in their application to military science.
From his twelfth year onwards he used to build wooden fortresses on

CH. XVII,

620 The apprenticeship of Peter. [1689-95

earth foundations, with walls, ditches and bastions. One-half of his
band of lads would then defend " Preshpur " (Pressburg) as he called it,
against the other half headed by Peter himself. About the same time,
he learnt the rudiments of geometry and fortification from the Dutch-
man Franz Timmerman. In his fourteenth year, Peter began to take an
absorbing: interest in boats and ships, the final result of which was to be
the creation of the Russian Navy. After preliminary experiments with
small craft, he practised sailing on a larger scale at the Lake of
Pereyaslavl, eighty miles from Preobrazhenskoe, where the German ship-
master Brandt built larger boats for the indefatigable young navigator.
To wean him from these dangerous pm-suits and accustom him to
domesticity, his mother, in January, 1689, compelled him to marry
Eudoxia Lopukhina. The match was most unfortunate. The tempers
of the spouses were quite incompatible. The bride, brought up in the
strict old school, though beautiful arid pious, had no attraction for the
young groom of seventeen. Three months after the wedding, Peter broke
away from her and returned to Pereyaslavl. The revolution of 1689,
which overthrew Sophia and placed the government of Muscovy in the
hands of Peter's kinsfolk, made no difierence in his mode of life. Most
probably at the beginning of 1690, he had found a new friend in the
Swiss adventurer Fran9ois Lefort, a reckless soldier of fortune, infinitely
good-natured and amusing. We are told that "thin^ impossible to
describe " went on in the large hall, added at Peter's expense, to Lefort's
house in the German settlement. But he was a shrewd as well as a
pleasant scoundrel. For his own sake, he felt bound to divert Peter from
mere amusement to serious enterprises which would place both the Tsar
and his ^'jolly companions" in a more favourable light. It was this
drunken, disreputable mentor who first persuaded Peter to undertake the
expedition against AzofF, and then to go abroad to complete his educa-
tion— ^in a word it was Lefort who put " Peter the bombardier " in the
way of becoming "Peter the Great."

By this time Peter had tired of the Lake of Pereyaslavl and even of
the White Sea, which he had alr^dy visited twiee, on the second
occasion launching the first vessel built by "skipper Peter" which he
christened St Paid (May, 1695). But the WTiite Sea, frozen nine
months. out of the twelve, had become too narrow for him, and he was
looking about him for more hospitable waters. All sorts of projects
were forming in his head. At first he thought of seeking a passage to
India or China by way of the Arctic Ocean. Next he turned his eyes in
the direction of the Baltic; but the Baltic was closed to Muscovy,
and the key to it was held by Sweden, still the strongest military
monarchy of the North. The Caspian remained ; and it had long been a
common saying with foreign merchants that this best way of tapping the
riches of the Orient was to secure possession of this vast inland lake.
But, so long as Turk, Tartar, and Cpssack pomads made the Volgan steprie

1695-6] The Azoff eocpeditions. 621

uninhabitable, the Caspian was a possession of very doubtful value. The
first step towards security was to build a fleet strong enough to over-
awe those parts, for the anarchy of which the presence of the hordes
of the Khan of Crimea was mainly responsible. But the Khan, to whom
Muscovy actually paid tribute, was himself the tributary of the Grand
Turk — it was therefore necessary for the Muscovite authorities to
attack the Turks direct. War against the Ottoman Porte was therefore
resolved upon ; and, the experience of Vasili Galitsin, in 1687 and
1689, having demonstrated the unpromising character of a Crimean
campaign, the Turkish fortress of AioflF, which could be approached by
water from Moscow, became the Russian objective. Early in 1695 the
army of the new order, and the Strieltzy, or arquebusiefs, 81,000 strong,
proceeded partly by land and partly by the rivers Moscova, Oka and
Volga, to the Cossack town of Panshino on Don, reaching AzoiF
by the beginning of July. The bombardier regiment was led by
"bombardier Peter." The Russian batteries were opened on July 19,
bombardier Peter directing the guns himself for the first fortnight ; but
no impression could be made on the fortress. In the beginning of
August, the Turks surprised the Muscovite camp during its mid-day
siesta, captured five guns and ruined the Russian siege artillery.
After two subsequent fruitless attempts to storm Azoff, the siege was
abandoned (September 27), and on November 22 the young Tsar reentered
Moscow.

Peter's first military expedition had ended in unniitigated disaster;
yet from this disaster is to be dated the reigri of "Peter the Great."
Fully accepting his failure, he determined to repair it by a second
campaign. On his return from Azoff we hear no more of revels
in the German settlement, or of sham fights at Preobrazhenskoe.
Immediately after his arrival, Peter sent to Austria and Prussia for as
many engineers, sappers, miners, and carpenters as money could procure.
He meant to build a fleet strong enough to prevent the Turkish fleet
from relieving Azoff. A model galley was ordered from Holland. All
the workmen procurable were driven together in bands to Voronezh and
other places among the forests of the Don, to fell timber. In the course
of the next few months, 26,000 labourers, working night and day, turned
out hundreds of barks and smaller vessek; Difficulties multiplied at
every step. Thousands of workmen deserted ; other thousands dawdled
on the road; many of them never appeared at all. Forest fires destroyed
the shipping sheds ; severe frosts at the end of March, heavy snowstorms
in the beginning of April, were fresh impediments. Yet, by dint of
working all through Lent and Holy Week, a fleet of two warships,
twenty-three galleys, four fire-ships, and numerous smaller craft, were
safely launched in the middle of April'. *' We have finished our task,
because, like our father Adam, we ate our bread in the sweat of our
brows," wrote Peter to his uhcki Peter Stryeshheff. His own portion of

pp. ?fVII.

622 Unpopularity of the novelties. [i696-7

this bread of labour had been eaten in a small two-roomed wooden hut at
Voronezh, where he lived among his workmen, himself the most strenuous
of them all.

On May 14, the " sea-caravan " sailed from Voronezh, Peter, now
captain, and commanding eight galleys of the flotilla from the galley
Principium, built by his own hand. Nor was all this labour in vain.
The new Russian fleet prevented the Turks from relieving Azoif by
water; and in the daily flghting, the advantage was always with the
besiegers. On July 29 the fortress surrendered. Its capture was one of
those trimnphs wMch strongly appeal to the popular imagination. It
was the first victory ever won by the Muscovites over the terrible Turks.
On October 11 the Muscovite army made its triumphal entry into the
capital. The procession was headed by Adhiiral Lefort and Generalissimo
Shein ; and behind their gilded sledges marched Captain Peter, with a
pike across his shoulder.

Peter now felt able to advance along the path of progress with a
quicker and a firmer step. At two councils held on October 31 and
November 15, 1696, it was resolved to consolidate the victory by con-
verting Azoff into a fortress, by establishing a new naval station at the
head of the Sea of AzofF, to which the name of Taganrog was given,
and by building a national fleet under the supervision of foreign ship-
builders at the national expense. But it was necessary to guarantee the
future as well as to provide for the present. It was therefore resolved to
send a grand embassy to the principal Western Powers, to solicit their
cooperation against the Turk. At the same council it was decided that
fifty young Muscovites of the best families should be sent to England,
Holland and Venice, to learn the arts and sciences of the West, especially
shipbuilding, fortification, and foreign languages, so as to make Russia
independent of foreigners in the future. The experiment had already
been tried, on a smaller scale, by Tsar Boris Godunoff (1698-1605). It
failed, because the young Muscovites refused to return from civilisation
to barbarism. Peter proposed to obviate this by being the pioneer as
well as the ruler of his people. He would, first of all, be a learner
himself, that he might be able to teach his people afterwards. , But
Peter's ideas, just because they were so much in advance of his age,
scandalised the respectable classes of Muscovy. Their sense of dignity
was shocked by the spectacle of the Gqmdar (^'Sovereign") walking bdiind
the sledge of a drunken Swiss adventiu:er ; and they disliked the notion
of sending their sons abroad to learn new-fangled practices tvoia foreign
heretics. Amongst the Strieltsa/ too, we notice the first symptoms of
discontent which, a year later, was to burst forth in open rebellion. All
these causes together led (March 16, 1697) to a secret conspiracy against
Peter's life. It was repressed with the ferocity of panic fear. Six of
the ringleaders were executed. Under torture they had confessed that
the Tsar's uncle, Ivan Milaslovski, had counselled Sophia to miuder

1697-8] The grand embassy to the west. 623

Peter. Ivan was beyond Peter's vengeance ; but his corpse was dug up,
dragged by swine to the foot of the block at Preobrazhenskoe, and
defiled by the warm blood of the decapitated traitors. This is the
earliest instance of the would-be regenerator's frequent relapses into
savagery, under the overpowering stress of terror or hatred.

. On March 21, 1697, the grand embassy, under the leadership of
Lefort and Golovin, set out on its travels. Peter attached himself
to it as a volunteer sailor, " Peter MikhailofF," so as to find greater
facilities for learning shipbuilding and other technical sciences. The
details of this adventure are so familiar, that there is no need to
recapitulate them here^ Though Peter completed his technical educa-
tion in the dockyards of Deptford and Saardam, and so far was the
gainer by his expedition, the embassy itself failed, as it was bound
to fail, in its main object of obtaining the help of the Western Powers
against the Turk. All Europe, divided into two hostile camps, was
anxiously awaiting the death of the childless Charles II of Spain ; and
neither France nor the Grand Alliance pitted against her by William III
was willing to plunge into the distant eastern War, with, an armed
conflict as to the Spanish Succession at their very doors. So far, indeed,
were the allies from intervening in the Turkish War, that it was their
earnest . desire to bring about a peace between the Emperor , and the
Porte, in order that the forces of the Empire might be exclusively
employed against France. For the same reason, the prospect of the
prolongation of the Russo-Turkish War was by no means disagreeable
to England and Holland, as thereby the Porte would be prevented from
giving assistance to Louis XIV.

Peter was about to go on to Venice to persuade the Seigniory to
cleave firmly to the fast dissolving Holy League, when he was suddenly
recalled to Russia by tidings of the revolt of the Strkltzy. Analysed
into its ultimate elements, the dissatisfaction of the Stridtzy with
Peter's administration was the protest of indolent, incapable, ultra-
orthodox, and excessively privileged troops against a new system which
demanded from them more work and greater efficiency. When then, on
June 6, 1698, a letter, supposed to have been written by the Tsarevna
Sophia, urging them to join her in force at the Dyevichesky monastery,
was read to them, the Stridtzy, 2200 strong, resolved to march forth-
with against Moscow, and to begin by destroying the German settlement
there as the source of the new heretical . ideas and prajects. The im-
portance of this rising has been much exaggerated. Three volleys from
Peter's foreign mercenaries under Shein and Patrick Gordon sufficed to
scatter the Strkltzy on the banks of the Iskra (June 17, 1698). In an
hour's time all the rebels were in the hands of the Tsar's troops, of whom
only one man was mortally wounded. It was ,only after the battle that
the carnage began. Peter had ordered the authorities to deal f seyerely"
with the rebels, as nothing but "severity" could extinguish this fire.

52i The abolition of the beards. [i698

In Muscovy "severity" meant cruel severity; "severe" capital punish-
ment pronounced against rebels meant breaking on the wheel, or impale-
ment. Peter himself arrived secretly at Moscow on August 26, andj after
spending a riotous evening at Lefort's house in the German settlement,
had slept in his little wooden hut at Preobrazhenskoe. That very night
he had determined to drown all contradictions in torrents of blood.
The new era of enlightenment was to be inaugm-ated by a xeign of
terror.

Peter was well aware that behind the Strieltzy stood the sympa-
thising masses of the Muscovite people, whom it was his mission to
reform against their will. His foreign tour had more than ever con-
vinced him of the inherent superiority of the foreigner; and, this
superiority once admitted, imitation of the foreigner was, to his mind,
inevitable. Any such imitation had, necessarily, to begin with externals ;
and Peter, with characteristic insight and thoroughness, at once fell
foul of the long beards and Oriental costumes which symbolised the
archconservatism of Old Russia. Other enlightened Princes, Boris,
Theodore III, and the first pseudo-Demetrius for instance, had, in some
respects, anticipated him. But all their more or less tentative efforts
had foundered against the tyranny of ancient custom, and the strong
opposition of the clergy; The famous protopope Avvakum had refused
to bless the son of the boiar Sheremetieff, because he presented himself
in indecent guise — in other words with a shorn head, after the Polish
fashion. Beardless officials had small chance of promotion. More than
one Patriarch had excommunicated members of their Blocks who shaved.
Against this powerful superstition Peter struck with all his might
on the day after his return. On August 27, 1698, the chief men of
the Tsardom were assembled round his wooden hut at Preobrazhenskoe ;
and Peter, emerging with a large pair of shears in his hand, deliberately
clipped off the beards and moustaches of his chief boiars. After thus
vindicating the claims of common-sense, he prudently condescended to
a compromise. He decreed that after September 1 (the Old Russian New
Year's Day), 1698, beards might still be worn, but a graduated tax was
imposed upon their wearers. Thus the beard ceased to be an object of
worship in Muscovy ; but the people were not provoked too far; and a
new source of revenue had been found for the Treasury.

And now, without giving the reactionaries time to recover from this
rude shock, the Tsar proceeded to horrify them by a strange and awful
series of bacchanalia. From the middle of September to the end of
October, 1698, banquets and orgies alternated with torturings and exe-
cutions, in which the Tsar and his favourites played the parts of inquisitors
and headsmen. During these six weeks, no fewer than a thousand of the
captive Strieltzy were done to death with every refinement of cruelty.
At the same time, Peter seized his opportunity of breaking definitely
with the past. The death of his half-brother Ivan V, in 1696, had left

1698-9] Thceaotirpation. of the Strieltzy. 526

him sole Tsar ; but Sophia in her monastery had been a possible source
of danger. He determined that she should be such no longer. An
intention on Peter's part to implicate her in the conspiracy is transparent:
from the first; but the utmost that the most excruciating torments
could wring from the wretched Strkltzy was the admission that Sophia
had sympathised with, the movement and would have Jielped it if she
could; The letter supposed to l^ave been sent by her turned out to have
been written by her elder sister Martha. Both the Tsarevnas were shorn
as nuns, and imprisoned for life under military surveillance. But Peter's
most cruel act of tyranny was his treatment of his unhappy wife.
Eudoxia was guilty of no offence. She had nothing to do with the
rebellion. But Peter, profiting by the general consternation and im-
becility of the reactionaries, gladly shook off an encumbrance whose
yery presence was a nuisance and a reproach. While still in London,
he .had attempted to persuade Eudoxia voluntarily to embrace the
religious life ; but, the gentle creature proving unexpectedly obstinate,
she was, on his return, shut up in the Pokrovsky monastery at Suzdal
(September 23, 1698). So convinced were the ecclesiastical authorities
of the uncanonicity of the whole proceeding that, for nine months, they
hesitated to shear the Tsaritsa. Then the Patriarch bowed before the
first gust of Peter's fiiry, and in June^ 1699, the Tsaritsa Eudoxia
disappeared &om the world beneath the hood of "Sister Elena."

Tlie terrible deeds of September and October, 1698, were not
without an injurious effect on Peter himself, and, more than once, his
nervous imtation exploded in tempests of frantic passion. Thus, at a
banquet at Lefort's, on September 14!, a dispute with General Shein over
some trivial matter caused the Tsar to lose aU control over himself. He
rose from the table, drew his sword, fell furiously upon the company, and
would have murdered them aU on the spot, but for the soothing influence
of his new friend, Alexander Danilovich Menshikoff. This extraordinary
man was of so obscure an origin that it is doubtful whether his father
was an ostler or a bargee. He first emerges into history as a vendor of
meat-pies in the streets of Moscow. Lefort took him up and introduced
him to Peter; and, on the death of Lefort, in 1699, Menshikoff suc-
ceeded him as prime favourite. Ignorant, brutal, grasping and corrupt,
Menshikoff, nevertheless, well deserved the confidence of his master.
After Peter, there was not a more alert, lucid, unprejudiced and versatile
intellect than Menshikoff 's in all Muscovy, while his energy was boundless
and inexhaustible. He could drill a regiment, build a frigate, administer
a province, and decapitate a rebel, with equal facility. During the Tsar's
first foreign tour, Menshikoff worked by his side in the dockyards of,
Amsterdam, visited all the Dutch workshops, and at the same time
acquired a thorough knowledge of colloquial Dutch and German.

Two days after the punishment of the Strieltzy Peter wrote to his
friend Andrei Vinius : " The shadow of a doubt crosses my mind- What

626 The first administrative reforms. '[ie99

if the fruit of my labours be delayed, like the fruit of the date-palm, the
sower whereof sees it not?" Evidently the disquieting suspicion that
the work of regeneration would remain undone, unless he did it himself,
spurred him on to fresh efforts. To save the people from the gross and
notorious exactions of the voivodui, or provincial governors, and, at the
same time to accustom them to self-government, burgomasters and
town-councils, on the Western model, were now introduced. But the
inherent corruption of Muscovite officialdom at once asserted itself.
The starostui, or elders, whose duty it was to see that "good and
worthy men" were chosen, systematically excluded from voting those
of the electors who refused to pay for the privilege. In order to
extirpate these corrupt practices by flogging and banishment, and to
prevent their recurrence, Peter appointed a new order of officials, the
Pribuilschchiki (Inspectors), who were to provide for the purity of
public life, and look after the interests of the Government. The
first of them was Alexis Kurbatoff, who had studied commercial and
financial questions abroad, and was an intelligent man of many
expedients. Shortly after his appointment he suggested to Peter as a
new source of revenue, the introduction of stamped paper into Muscovy.
Peter was so pleased with the idea that he straightway appointed
KurbatofF his confidential financial adviser. At the same time Peter
established trading companies in Muscovy, for the better protection of
the native merchants against foreign competition. The last year of the
seventeenth century saw another notable reform, which drew a sharp line
of demarcation between old and new. By the ukase of December 20,
1699, it was commanded that henceforth the new year should not be
reckoned from September 1, supposed to be the date of the Creation, as
heretofore, but from the first of January, Anno Domini.

Peter had brought home with him in 1698 the conviction that
he must conclude peace with the Porte. This conviction was accom-
panied by the melkncholy reflexion that such a peace would mean
the relinquishment of the Black Sea, and the hope of a Russian navy
along with it. But, if the Black Sea were abandoned, why should he
not compensate himself on the shores of the Baltic ? The Baltic was
nearer both to Russia and to Western Europe than the Euxine, and,
consequently, a much more desirable possession. On the other hand, if it
were impossible to continue the Turkish War without allies, they were
still more indispensable in a war with Sweden, the great Power from
which the Baltic littoral was to be wrested. With these ideas already
germinating in his mind, Peter, on his homeward journey in 1698,
encountered the lately elected King of Poland, Augustus II, at Rawa.
The inexperienced young Tsar was enchanted by the worldly wisdom
and the exuberant jollity of this facile and self-indulgent potentate.
The Baltic question seems to have been discussed over their wine-cups,
and Peter was delighted to find that Augustus was willing enough tti

1699-1700] Conckmon of peace with Turkey. 627

meet his ambitions half-way. Charles XI of Sweden, whose genius
had enabled Sweden to recover the rank of a great Power, had died
the year before; and the Swedish Government was now in the hands
of his son, an untried youth of sixteen. If the Baltic Provinces were
to be stolen at all, now was the time. But no definite agreement was
reached on this occasion. Augustus had not yet matured his plans,
and Peter could not embark on a new war till he had terminated the
old one.

On returning to Moscow, Peter at once set about concluding peace
with the Porte. It was his good fortune, at this period, to possess a
Minister of foreign affairs of the highest ability in Theodore Golovin,
who, like so many others of his countrymen in later times, had learnt
the business of a ruler in the Far East. On Lefort's death he succeeded
him as Admiral-General. The same year he was created the first
Russian Count, and from 1699 to his death in 1706 he was the premier
Minister of the Tsar. Golovin^s first diplomatic achievement was the
conclusion of peace with the Porte. The Turks, worsted by the
Imperial troops in Hungary and on the Danube, were themselves
anxious to come to terms with Muscovy. A preliminary truce for
two years had been concluded in 1698, and in 1699 two Muscovite
plenipotentiaries were sent to Stambul to convert the truce into a
definitive peace. Everything was done both to mollify and to impress
the Turk. The ambassadors were provided with 5000 roubles' worth
of precious furs and 10 poods (400 lbs.) of walrus ivory, for bribing
purposes; and they were not to go by land as heretofore, but by sea.
A man-of-war awaited them at the new arsenal of Taganrog, and
they were escorted out of the Sea of Azoff by a fleet of nine war-
ships and two galleys. On August 28 a Russian line-of-battle ship
sailed for the first time into the Golden Horn, fired a salute, and
cast anchor at the very gates of the Seraglio. The Russian pleni-
potentiaries demanded peace on a uti possidetis basis, and the Tm-ks
were willing at first to accept the terms offered; but unfortunately
Russia now found all the Western Powers arrayed against her. Great
Britain and Holland feared the commercial competition of Russia in the
Euxine and the Levant, while France dreaded her political rivalry.
Thus it came about that the Divan, secretly encouraged by the foreign
Ministers, grew more and more exacting and peremptory. Not till
July, 1700, was a truce for thirty years concluded between Russia and
the Porte. By the terms of the truce the AzoiF district and all the land
extending from thence to the Euban district were ceded to Muscovy, who
undertook on her part to demolish all the extra-Azovian forts. On
August 8, 1700, Peter heard from his chief plenipotentiary, Emelyan
Ukraintseff, that peace had been concluded with the Porte. On the
following day his army received orders to invade Livonia. The great
Northern War had begun.

528 Civilising effect of the great Northern War. [1700-3

Hitherto historians have regarded the great Northern War, of which
an account is given in a later chapter, too exclusively from a military
point of view; yet, from the Russian standpoint, it was not so much an
arena for the strife of heroes as, in the first place, a training-school for
a. backward young nation, and, in the second place, a means of multir:
plying the material resources of a nation as poor as she was backward.
Peter the Great entered into the war with Sweden, in order that Russia
might gain her proper place on the northern Mediterranean. The
possession of an icei-freie sea-board was essential to her national develop-
ment ; the creation of a fleet followed, inevitably* upon the acquisition
of such a sea-board ; and she could not hope to obtain her due share of
the trade and commerce of the world tiU she possessed both.

But, in the meantime, Russia had to be educated so far as possible
up to the European level, in order that she might be able to appreciate;
and utilise the hardly-won fruits of Western civilisation. And thus
it was that, during the whole coui-se of the great Northern War,
the process of internal reformation proceeded slowly but unceasingly.
The whole fabric of the State was gradually changing. Brand-new instir
tutions, formed on Western .models, were gradually growing up amidst
the cumbrous, antiquated, worn-out machinery of old Muscovy, and new
men, capable and audacious^ brimful of new ideas, were being trained,
under the eye of the great regenerator, to help him in his task, and to carry
it on when he himself should have vanished from the scene. At first,
indeed, the external forms of the administration remained much the
same as before. The old dignities disappeared of their own accord ; for
the new men, those nearest to Peter, did not require them. Between
1701 and . 1703, the naval, artillery, mining, and coining Directories
sprang into existence. The great drag on the wheels of the Government
-^a drag which grew more and more acute as the war proceeded — was
its penury. The expense of the fixed embassies at foreign Courts (one
of the earliest of the Petrine innovations) was a particularly severe
strain upon the depleted treasui-y. Every expedient to increase the
revenue was eagerly snatched at. , Taxation was made universal. The
sale of spirits became a government monopoly. A great impediment to
commerce was the deplorable state of the currency. The only coins in
circulation were the well-worn silver kopeks and ha]£-kopeks, most of
which were further deteriorated by bisection and trisection. In many
places, goods were paid for by leather and other tokens. The currency
was reformed by the coinage ukase of March, 1700, which established
mints for the stamping and testing of gold, silver, and copper coins by
qualified masters. Before 1700, only from 200,000 to 600,000 coins
had been annually struck in Russia. In 1700 the number rose to
1,992,000, in 1701 to 2,559,000, and in 1702 to 4,534,000.

Peter's two great objects at this period of his, reign were external
security and internal prosperity. The former he had obtained by the

1698-1704] Peter's toleration of the Dissenters. 529

creation of a new army on the European model ; the latter he hoped to
promote by a whole series of administrative measures. In April, 1702,
he issued the celebrated ukase for facilitating the immigration of foreign
specialists into Russia, on a scale never before contemplated. The invi-
tation was made as tempting as possible, all such visitors being allowed
free ingress and egress, full liberty of worship, and permission to be
tried by their own tribunals. To the better sort of Russian Dissenters,
also, Peter was very tolerant. Religious persecution, indeed, he
abominated; thus, when he could not prevent the Church from perse-
cuting heretics, he always endeavoured to give to the proceedings a
political motive. His attitude towards the Bezpopovshchma, or " priest-
less community," is characteristic of his general policy. The enter-
prise and organising genius of this wealthy body enabled it practically
to monopolise the rich fisheries and hunting-grounds of the White Sea^
while the abundant harvests, which filled its granaries to overflowing,
ultimately gave it the command of the corn-market of St Petersburg, which,
in the course of 1703, began to spring up among the thickly-wooded
marshes of the Neva. All danger from without was avoided by a com-
position with Peter, the community agreeing to pay double taxes and
work, at set times, for nothing, in the state mines and foundries at
Povyenets. In return for such services, the practical Tsar, in a ukase of
1703, permitted these lucrative nonconformists full liberty of worship
with the use of the ancient rites and the old service-books. The only
people to whom he denied toleration were the Jews, whom he regarded
with the liveliest hatred.

From the first, Peter did much to promote education, especially
education of a practical sort. Schools of mathematics and navigation
were established, about 1702, at Moscow, and in 1703 another school was
founded there, at which geography, ethics, politics, Latin rhetoric, the
Cartesian philosophy, dancing, and the elements of French and German
were taught. Great efforts were made to provide cheap books for the
new schools. The chief worker in this field was the Protestant Pole, Ilia
Kopienski, who set up a press at Amsterdam and, having the privilege
of printing all Russian books, issued a considerable number. In 1698,
by Peter's special command, he printed an abridgment of Leo the
Philosopher's Art of War, and in 1700 a version of JEsop, remarkable
as being the first Russian translation from an ancient classical author.
In 1703 the first Russian Gazette appeared, entitled News of military
and other events worthy of knowledge and remembrance.

Undeterred by repeated failures and the most discouraging relapses,
Peter, though himself a semi-barbarian, laboured hard to civilise those
who were even more barbarous than himself. In 1702, in order to reduce
the number of conflagrations, a ukase directed that all houses were to be
built of brick instead of wood, and fire-hose were introduced. In 1704
ukases were issued forbidding midwives to kill misshapen children, and

C. M. H. V. CH. XVU. 34

630 AboKtion of the Patriarchate. [i7oo-4

ordering the constmction of stone bridges at Moscow. Other ukases of
the same period endeavoured to raise the tone of public morality, and
inculcate self-respect. Thus the ukase of April, 1704, sternly prohibited
compulsory marriage, which had been one of the chief scandals and miseries
of old Muscovite life, released women from the captivity of the terem,
and compelled their husbands and fathers to admit them to all social
entertainments. The ukase of December 30, 1701, forbade falling on
the knees before the Tsar, or doffing the hat before the Imperial Palace.
" What difference is there between God and the Tsar, if equal honour
be shown to both ? " asked Peter on this occasion.

In 1700 died the Patriarch Adrian. His administration had, latterly,
been so negligent, that his enemies accused him of sleeping away his
time, and eating up his revenues. Adrian's dilapidations could be
repaired only by a very energetic successor, but where was a Patriarch
in sympathy with the reforming Tsar to be found ? An energetic but
unfriendly Patriarch would be the natural leader of a whole army of
malcontents ; he would be a most dangerous rival, a second Nikon. In
Januaryj 1701, therefore, the administration of the temporalities of the
patriarchate was entrusted to a layman, Count Ivan Musin-Pushkin.
His appointment was the first step towards a rigid inquisition into the
government and revenues of the Russian monasteries, which resulted
in the ukase of December, 1701, depriving the reli^bus houses of the
control of their estates, and making the monks the salaried officials
of the State. The care of the spiritualities was confided to a Little
Russian prelate, Stephen Yavoraky, with the title of Exarch of the
Most Holy Patriarchal See, whom Peter now promoted to the archi-
episcopal see of Riazan. The ignorant Great Russian clergy detested
this more enlightened Little Russian interloper, and such pressure was
brought to bear upon him that he hid himself in a monastery on the
day appointed for his consecration, declaring that he could not accept
his new dignity so long as his episcopal brethren accused him of simony,
heresy and wine-bibbing. But Peter, well aware that the same people
who repudiated Yavorsky called him (the Tsar) Antichrist, overruled
Yavorsky's objections, and insisted on the consecration of a man whom
he alxeady rightly regarded as a fellow-worker.

All this time, the popular disaffection against the Tsar was steadily
growing. As the War proceeded, as the burden of taxation became more
grievous, and the number of the recruits ever larger, the murmuring of
every class of the population grew louder and louder. " What manner
of Tsar is this.-"' they said, "who takes us all for soldiers, and gives us
no rest, and makes our wives and children widows and orphans? If
he lives much longer he will ruin the whole land. He is a mk-ot/ed, he
eats up the whole world." The people explained to their own ssitisfaction
Peter's fondness for the Germans. He was the supposititious child of
a stray German mother. He was the son of Lefort. The real Peter

1700-8] Unpopularity of the innovations. 531

had remained abroad. In fact, Antichrist now sat on the Muscovite
throne. On January 4, 1700, the Tsar still further irritated the re-
actionaries by issuing the ukase directing the general use of short Saxon
or Magyar jackets, and French or German hose. This was followed,
in 1701, by the ukase forbidding from henceforth, under heavy penalties,
the wearing of the cumbrous old Muscovite garments. The European
nations of the West had long since discarded the long, heavy, flowing
garments customary among Asiatics. Muscovy still clung to Oriental
costumes as well as to Oriental ideas; and, by substituting for these
Western dress, Peter emphasised in the most public and striking manner
his intention of completely Europeanising his still semi-Asiatic subjects.
This latest innovation was bitterly resented as both indecent and irre-
ligious. In Moscow itself open resistance was out of the question ; but
in July, 1705, a dangerous rebellion broke out at Astrakhan, under the
leadership of Cossack officers and ex.-StrieUzy. It was only suppressed
on March 18, 1706, when SheremetefF, with a regular army, took
Astrakhan by assault, and three hundred and sixty-five of the rebels
were sent to Moscow to be broken on the wheel and decapitated.

After 1703 the reform movement necessarily proceeded more slowly.
Peter, now constantly at war, had no time to give to domestic affairs.
Yet never for a moment was the great work of progress suspended. In
1705, a ukase ordered the paving of Moscow. In 1706, the first modem
hospital and medical training-school was built on the river Yanza,
close to the German settlement at Moscow. In February, 1706, sanitary
inspectors for Moscow were appointed, one for every ten houses. In 1707,
a commission was appointed to devise the best means of dealing with
the wholesale vagabondage and highway robbery which was the perennial
curse of Muscovy. Peter had already done much to promote education ;
in 1707, he proceeded a step further by introducing into Russia the
so-called " civil script." Hitherto, the old Cyrillic alphabet of forty-
eight letters (still used in liturgical books) served for all Russian books.
Peter deleted eight of the more cumbersome letters, simplified the re-
mainder, and sent to Holland to have the new alphabet cast into type.
It was brought back to Russia in 1707 by the typographer Anton
Demei, and, with some few later modifications, has been in use ever
since. This simplification of the old alphabet was the first step towards
the composition of the modem Russian written language, and therefore a
reform of capital importance for civilisation. The first three books printed
in the new script appeared at Moscow in 1708. Peter himself corrected
the proofs and supervised the translations of the earlier books, which
included a history of Russia down to his own times, issued by his express
command.

In 1708 Russia was divided into eight "governments" — Moscow,
St Peter:iburg, Kieff', Smolensk, Archangel, Kazan, Azoff^, and Siberia —
in order that the country might be ^administered " in a more orderly

ciH. xvu. 34 — 2

632 Administrative reforms. [TYio-20

and tranquil manner." The chief duty of the eight "Governors" was
to see that the taxes were duly collected and transmitted to Moscow.
On January 27, 1710, the first imperial budget was framed, when it
was discovered that the annual revenue amounted to 3,016,000 roubles',
or, taking a three years' average, 3,133,000 roubles, while the total
expenditure came to 3,824,000. Thus expenditure exceeded revenue;
but it is indubitable that the revenue would have been much larger but
for the wholesale peculation which diminished the amount in transit.
According to these estimates, the army cost 1,252,000, the navy 444,000,
the diplomatic service 148,000, ordiiance 84,000, and the garrisons
977,000 roubles.

Absorbed as he was at this period by the Swedish and Turkish wars,
which required his prolonged absence from Russia, Peter could not
properly attend to the details of the domestic administration; but,
as it could no longer be neglected, he instituted (by the ukase of
February 22, 1711) a supreme governing board to which he gave
the name of the "Administrative Senate." It was to take the place
of the Tsar during his absence, and to receive the implicit obedience due
to himself. In a word, it was responsible for the whole burden of the
administration. In order to facilitate the communications of the Senate
with the governors and the fiscal functionaries, the office of Revisor
General of Ukases was instituted in November, 1715. In 1717 Colleges
or Departments of State were introduced^ The idea of this adminis-
trative reform was first suggested to Peter by Leibniz. By the ukase
of April 18, 1718, the " Colleges " were to be, in all points, exactly on
the model of the Swedish "services'"; so that Peter may be said to
have learnt the science of government as well as the art of war from
his Scandinavian rivals. As finally constituted, these new public offices
were nine in number, and corresponded roughly with the Ministries
of Western Europe. The Presidents of the Colleges were the principal
Senators, all of whom were Russians. Most of the Vice-Presidents were
foreigners. Peter invariably acted on the patriotic principle, not always
followed by his immediate successors, that natives should always fill the
highest posts, and that no alien should occupy any place that a Russian
was equally capable of filling.

Efforts were also made to simplify local government as much as
possible by subdivision of labour. Thus the various governments were
split up into counties or districts (uezdui), each district having its own
president assisted by a council of assessors, called Landrdthe, elected
by the gentry. In 1720 nadvormue sudbui, or Courts of justice, were
established in every town, and zemskie Jcontorui, or land-offices, where
public accounts had to be regularly kept. In April, 1718, the old
uhzhenie, or Code of lawM, was remodelled according to the existing

' A rouble was at that time the equivalent of nearly six shilliugs English, '

1711-21] Local government reforms. 533

Swedish Code. By the ukase of June 15, 1718, insolvent debtors were
compelled to work off their debts in public institutions, at the rate
of a rouble a month, during which time they were to be fed at the
expense of the State like convicts, A new law of succession was also
introduced. The old practice of partitioning real estate was abolished,
and the custom of primogeniture introduced. Henceforth, however,
younger sons were to be allowed to buy landed estates after seven
years' civil or ten years' military service. By the ukase of January 16,
1721, all officers in the army, whatever their origin, and their children
after them, were declared to be noble, and entitled to patents of nobility.
But education had previously been declared to be the indispensable
qualification for advancement in every branch of the service. Thus
the famous ukase of January 20, 1714, ordered professors from the
mathematical schools to go the round of the provinces, and teach
the children of the gentry arithmetic. No gentleman was henceforth
to marry unless he had first been properly educated. The Guard
was to serve as a training-school for inferior officers, while the sons
of eminent persons were to be sent abroad to learn the science of war
from famous generals.

Now, as formerly, the poverty of the Government was its chief
impediment. There was no money to pay shipbuilders ; yet ships had
to be built, if the sea was to be held ; and the command of the sea was
necessary for the growth of commerce, the increase of which would,
eventually, recoup the Government its expenses. But, if trade is to be
promoted, traders mtist be encouraged and taken care of. Peter fully
realised this. In November, 1711, half a dozen mercantile experts were
transferred from Moscow to St Petersburg, to advise and assist the
Government in concluding a new commercial treaty with England and
Holland. A further effort to promote trade and industry is seen in
the institution of the gUvonuy magistrat, or chief magistracy (ukase
of January 26, 1721) — a supreme local government board, subordinated
to the Senate, consisting of the members of the St Petersburg civic
authorities, half of whom were foreigners, the Tsar himself nominating
the President. The " chief magistracy " was to appoint and superintend
the magistrates in all the Russian towns, which were now divided into
categories, according to wealth and population.

Great efforts were made by the regenerator to utilise Russia's latent
resources. All landed proprietors were xu-ged to search for and work
the minerals on their estates, or the Government was to do it for them.
In 1719 we find the silver mines of Nerchinsk, the iron mines of Tobolsk,
and the copper mines of Kungura in full working order. At Tula and
Kashirsk, about the same time, Alexis Naruishkin founded iron-works.
Still more lucrative were the Lipski iron-works, which were bound by
contract to turn out 15,000 small arms of all sorts, including 1000
pistols, i)er annum. The Olonets iron-works were important because

634 Development of the national resources. [1702-25

of their proximity to St Petersburg. No improvement was too small for
the attention of the Tsar. Thus in May, 1725, he ordered that corn
should, henceforth, be reaped with scythes instead of with sickles. The
cloth manufactory of Moscow had engaged Peter's attention since 1705,
and he at last committed it entirely to private firms, both to save
expense and to accustom the Russians to commercial enterprises. The
manufacture of sails was introduced into Russia in 1702, but languished
till taken in hand by Prince Odoevsky in 1716. The leather trade had
always been of the utmost importance. In 1716 alone 135,467 poods
were sent to Archangel for export. Peter did much for the leather
industry. Master-tanners were sent from Reval to Moscow to teach the
people there how to tan the leather properly; and, after two years of
such instruction, those of the Moscow tanners who persisted in the old
way were liable to imprisonment and confiscation of property.

The needs of the Government compelled it to use forced labour, and
recruit its artisans as well as its soldiers from the peasantry ; and the
period of reform was too close to the old Muscovite period of peasant
serfdom to admit of any amelioration in the general condition of the
serfs as regards the State. Yet the Government did what it could to
protect the serfs from "their worst enemies, those drunken and disorderly
masters who deteriorate their estates, laying all sorts of unbearable
burdens on their peasants, and beating and tormenting them so that
they run away from their grievous burdens, for which cause waste lands
multiply and the arrears of taxation increase." All such masters were to
be placed under restraint as lunatics; and their property was to be
administered by their nearest relatives, or by the State. Moreover, by
the ukase of April 21, 1721, proprietors were forbidden to sell their
serfs separately ; they were only to be sold in families.

But there was worse than poverty to contend with. Peter knew well
that the emptiness of the Treasury was very largely due to peculation,
that ancient and ineradicable vice of Russian society. The Russian
official had come to regard the public service mainly as a source of
personal income. Having no regular salary, he looked to his underlings
" for nourishment," as the phrase went, and he took from them according
to his needs, most liberally interpreted. Peter was not the man to leave
the improvement of public morals to the gradual operation of time; and,
as he always adopted the most energetic measures by preference, he was
speedily committed to a struggle with the robbers of the Treasury, almost
as bloody as his struggle with the rebellious Strteltzy. The vileness of
some of the expedients which he found it necessary to adopt is eloquent
of the extent and virulence of the evil with which he had to cope. By
the ukase of August, 1713, informers were invited to report all cases of
defalcation to the Tsar, and promised the rank and property of those
whom they denounced. The ukase of December 24, 1714, further
encouraged delatoi's to come forward, and not be afraid of reporting

1711-21] Peter's struggle against peculation. 635

against even their official superiors. The ukase , of January 23, 1721,
instituted an order of official public accusers, the so-called Imperial
" Upper-fiscals," whose principal duties were to protect the revenue and
supervise the administration of the Senate. The fiscals were to warn
the Senators thrice of any dereliction of duty and, if the third warning
was disregarded, they were to report the matter to the Tsar direct. In
consequence of a sermon preached by Stephen Yavorsky, Archbishop
of Riazan, on March 17, 1712, vigorously attacking the whole system
of official espionage and pointing out its consequences, the ukase of
March 17, 1714, was issued. This ukase imposed upon any fiscal or
delator convicted of a false accusation the penalty which would have been
imposed upon the alleged delinquent if he had been found guilty ; but
mistakes arising from carelessness were only lightly punished.

Villainous as the system was, it certainly brought much rascality
to light. One of the most active and courageous of these delators was
the Upper-fiscal Alexis NestoroflF, who, in 1711, reported to the Tsar
that the Governor of Siberia, Prince Gagarin, was plundering the
Treasury and had succeeded in monopolising the lucrative China trade.
Nestoroff sent a whole chestful of incriminating documents to the Senate
for investigation, and the Senate promptly destroyed them all. But the
indefatigable Upper-fiscal set about collecting fresh evidence, and in 1717
he presented a stiH stronger case against Gagarin and his abettors.
The case was ultimately transferred to a committee of the officers of
the Guard, when it was proved conclusively that Gagarin had not only
systematically corrupted all the Siberian officials to wink at his depre-
dations, but that many of the Senators and heads of Colleges were his
accomplices. Finally, Gagarin made a free and full confession of his
crimes, and petitioned for leave to pass the rest of his days in a
monastery. Peter sent him to the gaUows instead.

The recrudescence of highway robbery led to the policing of the
Russian towns, and civic guards were chosen from among the male
inhabitants. The police were also to see that no wares unfit for food
were exposed for sale, to examine and test all weights and measures, and
to act as firemen. Science was promoted by the ukase of February, 1710,
encouraging, by a system of rewards, the collection of natural objects.
Especial attention was paid to geography ; and in 1719 the geodesists
EvreimofF and Luzh were sent to survey Kamschatka, and decide the
question whether north-east Asia and America were united or not. By
this time St Petersburg was emerging from its scaffolding, and foreigners
were beginning to speak well of it. Already it could boast some fine
buildings. The imposing Nevsky Prospect, built entirely of stone by gangs
of Swedish prisoners, was especially admired.

Extraordinarily difficult during this period of transition and trans-
formation was the position of the Russian Church. As the sworn
guardian of Orthodoxy, she was bound, in many respects, to observe a

OB. XVII.

636 Ecclesiastical reforms. [i7i6-2i

conservative attitude ; yet patriotism equally obliged her not to oppose
the beneficent civilising efforts of a reforming Tsar. But the Church
herself was very much in need of discipline. The number of unworthy
priests had greatly increased in consequence of the influx into the
ministry of many members of the gentry who evaded military sei-vice by
becoming candidates for holy orders. This abuse was met by the ordin-
ance directing the Bishops not to ordain anyone under twenty-five a
deacon, and anyone under thirty a priest. Efforts were also made to
raise the religious tone of the community. The ukase of 1716 commanded
everybody, under heavy penalties, to go to confession at least once a year.
The ukase of 1718 went further still. It compelled all parishioners to
attend church every Sunday and holyday, and absentees were henceforth
to be ineligible for public offices. The real motive of this ordinance
was that the people might hear the ukases read after divine service, as,
in those days of general ignorance, comparatively few could read the
ukases posted up on the gates of the towns.

The patriarchate still remained unoccupied, and Archbishop Yavorsky
found some difficulty in filling up the vacant bishoprics, because he
could not always agree with the members of the Senate who were asso-
ciated with him in the election. Yavorsky's position at this time was
somewhat anomalous. He had alienated tiie Tsar by openly espousing
the cause of the unfortunate Tsarevich Alexis. He had frequently
alluded in his discourses to " the raging waves " beating continually
against "the solid shore"; and, after he had explained "the solid shore"
to mean " the law of God," his hearers readily guessed whom he meant
by "the raging waves." He was presently eclipsed by Theophan
Prokopovich, prefect of the Kieff Academy, who won Peter's favour by
his brilliant sermon on "the most glorious victory," i,e. Poltawa. At
last, the regenerator had found a priest after his own heart, a man of
vast learning, brilliant gifts, and great force of character, who fully
sympathised with the reform movement and was determined to promote
it. The " Light of Kieff" was consecrated Bishop of the opulent see of
Pleskow, despite an accusation of crypto-Calvinism brought against him
by the indignant Yavorsky. When Peter, for the better regulation
of church affairs, proposed the establishment of a " Spiritual Depart-
ment," Theophan alone was entrusted with the drafting of the project ;
so that he may be regarded as the creator of what was subsequently
known as "the Holy Synod." In January, 1721, an imperial manifesto
formally established the "Spiritual Department." The new College was
to spread enlightenment and the knowledge of God's law, and extirpate
superstition by composing and publishing books on the dogmas of the
faith, and the duties of every order of men, and collections of sermons from
the Fathers, explanatory of dogmas and duties generally. Henceforth,
iu filling up a vacant see, the Tsar was to elect one of two candidates
presented to him by the " Spiritual Department,"

1690-1704] The Tsarexnch Aleons. 537

The strong and terrible reforming Tsar had triumphed over every
obstacle — triumphed so thoroughly that any interruption of his work
during his lifetime was inconceivable. But, in the midst of his triumph,
the thought perpetually haunted him: "Will my work survive me?"
His health was uncertain, his half^taught pupils were few and divided,
the adversaries of his reforms were many and of one mind, and they
believed, and believed rightly, that in the heir to the throne, the
Tsarevich Alexis, they possessed a secret sympathiser who would, one
day, reverse the whole policy of the Tsar- Antichrist and restore the old
order of things.

Peter's sole surviving son, Alexis, born on February 19, 1690, was
utterly ignored by his father till he was nine years old. Peter's son,
who loved his mother, could have little affection for a father who had
ever been her worst persecutor. Only after the disappearance of Eudoxia
into a monastery did Peter take his son in hand. He confided the care
of his education to learned foreigners like Neugebauer and Huyssens,
who taught him French, history, geography, and mathematics. In 1703,
in order that he might practically apply his lessons, Alexis was ordered
to follow the army to the field as a private in a bombardier regiment ;
and in 1704 he was present at the capture of Narva. At this period,
Huyssens had the most favourable opinion of his pupil. He "reported
that the Tsarevich was of a precocious intelligence, and a singularly
amiable disposition. He had already read the Bible six times — five times
in Slavonic, and once in German ; he had mastered the works of the
Greek Fathers, read all the spiritual and profane books translated into
the Slavonic tongue, and could speak and write French and German with
facility. Of the ability of Alexis there could be no question; unfortu-
nately it was not the sort of ability of which his father could make use.
The Tsarevich was, essentially, a student, with strong leanings towards
ecclesiology. The quiet seclusion of a monastic library was the proper
place for this gentle, emotional dreamer, who clung so fondly to the
ancient traditions, and was so easily moved by the beauty of the
Orthodox Liturgy. To a prince of this temperament, the restless,
vehement energy, the racket and bustle of his abnormally active father,
were odious. Yet Peter, not unnaturally, demanded that his heir should
dedicate himself to the service of New Russia, and help to fashion his
future inheritance. He demanded from a youth with the nature of a
recluse, practical activity, unceasing labour, imremitting attention to
technical details, the concentration of all his energies on the business of
government, upon the herculean labour of maintaining the new State at
the high level of greatness to which it had already been raised. In con-
sequence of these stem paternal demands and his own invincible repug-
nance against carrying them out, Alexis, quite apart from the personal
antipathies already existing, could not but regard his father in the light
of a tormentor. Moreover, Yavorsky and the other arch-pastors of the

638 Antagonism between Peter and Aleacis. [1711--5

Russian Church openly expressed their disapprobation of the Tsar's new
and strange ways ; and, as a loyal son of the Church, the Tsarevich
gladly listened to those who had the power to bind and loose. He even
told his confessor, Yakoff IgnatefF, whom he had promised to obey as
"ah angel and apostle of God," that he had wished for his father's
death, and Ignateff encouraged him in such sentiments.

After the marriage of Alexis to the Princess Sophia Charlotte of
Brunswick-Wolfenbiittel (October 25, 1711), Peter made a determined
efiFort to tear his son away from what he conceived to be a life of
indolent ease. Three weeks after his wedding, Alexis was hurried away
by his father to Thorn to superintend the provisioning of the Russian
troops in Poland. For the next twelve months he was kept constantly
on the move. In April, 1712, a peremptory ukase ordered him off to the
army in Pomerania; and, in the autumn of the same year, he was forced
to accompany his father on a tour of inspection through Finland. On
his return to the capital, Peter, in order to see what progress his son had
made in mechanics, asked; him to produce for inspection his latest draw-
ings. His father's command threw Alexis into a state of panic ; and, to
escape the ordeal of such an examination, he resorted to the abject
expedient of disabling his right hand by a pistol shot. In no other
way could the Tsarevich have offended his father so deeply. He had
behaved like a cowardly recruit who mutilates himself to shirk military
service, and, for a time, Peter washed his hands of his son.

Alexis had the great advantage of knowing that, in any case, the
future belonged to him. Most of the magnates, all the higher clergy
with a single exception, and the mass of the Russian nation were on his
side. All he had to do was to sit still, keep out of his father's way as
much as possible, and await the natural course of events. But Peter
could not afford to leave anything to chance. All his life he had been
working incessantly with a single object — the regeneration of Russia —
in view. All that he now required from his successor was sym|)athy and
goodwill. But what if that successor refused to tread in his father's
footsteps, or, still worse, tried to destroy his father's work.'' By some such
process of reasoning as this, must the idea of changing the succession to the
throne, by setting aside Alexis, have first occurred to the mind of Peter.

The subject was first broached by the Tsar in his letter to Alexis
on October 22, 1716, the day of the funeral of the Princess Charlotte
who had died four days after giving birth to a son (the subsequent
Peter II). This letter was severe and menacing ; yet the Tsarevich was
asked to do no more than acquiesce in his father's plans. " It is not
work I want from you, but goodwill," wrote Peter ; " I have thought
well to address this last appeal to you, and wait a little longer, to see
if, perchance, you will turn from the error of your ways. If you do not,
be quite sure that I will deprive you of the succession ; I will cut you
off as though you were a gangrenous swelling.'^

1716-7] Aleacis renounces the succession.^ His flight. 539

Peter naturally expected that this final appeal would have led to a
personal explanation, followed by reconciliation and an effort at amend-
ment; but again Alexis acted abjectly. He wrote a pitiful reply to
his father, offering to renounce, on the grounds of sickness and general
incompetence, the succession in favour of his infant half-brother Peter,
bom on the day after the Princess Charlotte's funeral, but only to die
a few months later. Rage and mortification, and the effort to drown
them in a debauch, brought on a serious attack of Peter's old malady,
epilepsy. So ill was he that the Senators were hastily summoned and
slept all night at the Palace, and the last sacraments were administered
to the Tsar. Not imtil January 19, 1716, was he able to reply to his
son's letter ; and he now offered Alexis the choice between amending his
ways or becoming a monk. Alexis consulted his friends, who advised
him to submit to the tonsure and await better times in a monastery.
Hereupon Alexis wrote to his father for permission to become a monk,
signing the letter " your slave and useless son Alexis." Still Peter did
not despair. On the eve of his departure for the Pomeranian and
Mecklenburg campaign he visited Alexis, who was ill at the time, and
urged him to do nothing in a hurry. On August 26, 1716, he wrote to
him from abroad commanding him, if he desired to remain Tsarevich,
to join the army without delay.

Alexis at once saw a chance of escaping from his false position
altogether. Accompanied by his mistress Afrosina, a Finnish peasant-
girl, and four servants, he fled to Vienna and placed himself under
the protection of his brother-in-law, the Emperor, who sent him for
greater security to the fortress of St Elmo at Naples.

Peter's agitation was extreme. The flight of the Tsarevich to a
foreign potentate was a reproach and a scandal. He must be recovered
and brought back to Russia at all hazards. But the operation was one
of exceptional difiiculty, and it was therefore confided to the most subtle,
astute and unscrupulous of all the Muscovite diplomatists. Count Peter
Tolstoi, with Captain Alexander Rumyantseff as his assistant. On Sep-
tember 24, 1717, Tolstoi and Rumyantseff arrived at Naples. They
were to assure the Tsarevich that, if he returned home with them at once,
everything would be forgiven, and he would be restored to favour and
have perfect liberty; but, if he refused to return, his father, as his
sovereign, would publicly denounce him as a traitor, while the Church
would simultaneously excommunicate him as a disobedient son, in which
case he might be sure that he was doomed, both in this world and the
next. They found Alexis almost insane with terror. He declared,
outright, that he was afraid to face his father's wrath. Tolstoi reported
that only the most extreme compulsion could, as he brutally phrased
it, " melt the hard-frozen obstinacy of this beast of ours " — and we can
imagine what such words meant in the mouth of a man who had not
hesitated to remove an inconvenient secretaiy by poison at Stambul.

640 The return of Alexis. [ivn-s

The unfortunate Tsarevich knew, instinctively, that he was fighting for
his life. At first, however, relying on the Emperor's solemn promise of
protection, he stood firm and refused to depart. But the most villainous
expedients, renaorselessly employed, compelled him at last to surrender.
He promised to return to Russia with Tolstoi, but only on two condi-
tions: his father was to allow him to marry Afrosina and retire into
private life. To these terms Tolstoi agreed, and Peter himself solemnly
confirmed them in a letter to his son in which he swore, " before God
and His judgment seat," that, if Alexis came back, he should not be
punished in the least, but be cherished as a son.

On January 31, 1718, Alexis reached Moscow. On February 19
the names of his accomplices were extorted from him. His wretched
confederates, torn from their hiding-places and dragged to the torture-
chamber, supplied the prosecution with evidence which would not be
accepted in any modern Court of justice. On the conclusion of the
"Moscow Process," as it was called, the most salient feature of which was
the trial and condemnation of the ex-Tsaritsa Eudoxia for adultery, the
impalement of her alleged paramour, and the degradation of many of her
friends, including Dositheus, Bishop of Rostoflf", there was a lull in the
prosecution of the Tsarevich's afikir. Alexis, on the supposition that
something was now due to one who had unhesitatingly confessed every-
thing required of him, bent all his efforts to obtain the fulfilment of his
father's promise that he should marry Afrosina. The girl arrived at
St Petersburg in April, 1718; but, instead of being taken to the arms of
her lover, as she had expected, she was suddenly brought before the Tsar's
inquisitors. As the mistress and confidante of Alexis, she was the chosen
depository of his secrets; and those secrets the prosecution, which so far
had failed to establish a charge of conspiracy, was determined to get
hold of. The helpless woman's revelations did not amount to much, but
were sufficient to destroy Alexis. He had told her that, when he was
Tsar, he would order things very differently. He would live at Moscow
and let St Petersburg remain a mere provincial town. He would have
no ships, and keep the army solely for defensive purposes. He predicted
that, on the death of his father, a civil war would break out between
his own partisans and those of his little brother, in which he would
ultimately prevail, because the Russian people would not endure the
government of women.

Immediately after this " confession " had been obtained, Peter sent
for Alexis, confronted him with it, and reproached him for concealing
material facts and thereby forfeiting his pardon. To save the miserable
remnant of life which his tormentors might allow him to call his own,
Alexis now said "yes" to everything. He had wished for his father's
death; he had rejoiced when he heai-d plots against his father; he had
been ready to accept his father's throne from rebels and regicides. All
had now been said. The worst was known at last. True, there were no

1718] The trial and condemnation of A leans. 541

fsrcts to go upon. The Tsarevich had, so far, done nothing, whatever
he might have intended to do. Nevertheless, Peter henceforth regarded
his son as a self-convicted and most dangerous traitor. His life was for-
feited, the future welfare of Russia imperatively demanded his extinction.

But now a case for casuists arose; and Peter himself was casuist
enough to recognise that it was a case of unusual and peculiar difficulty.
Even if Alexis desei-ved a thousand deaths, his father had sworn
by the most solemn of oaths to pardon him and let him live in
peace, if he returned to Russia ; and it was only on these conditions
that Alexis (very foolishly, in the bpinion of his friends) had placed
himself once more in his father's hands. The question whether the
enormity of the Tsarevich's crime absolved the Tsar from the oath
which he had taken to spare the life of this prodigal son, was solemnly
submitted to a grand council of prelates, senators, ministers, generals
and other dignitaries, on June 13, 1718. Five days later, the clergy pre-
sented their memorial. It is a cautious, non-committal document, plainly
inspired by fear, but unmistakably inclining to mercy, and finally leaving
the matter entirely in the Tsar's hands. But the clergy entirely passed over
the strongest, the most irrefragable argument in favour of Alexis, namely,
the Tsar's solemn promise of forgiveness to his son, although Peter had
explicitly exhorted them to relieve his conscience on this very point.

He was now in a dilemma. There can be little doubt that he had
at last determined to rid himself of his detested son ; but he certainly
shfank from a public execution, the scandal of which would have been
enormous and its consequences incalculable. The temporal members
of the council helped him out of his difficulty by expressing a desire
to be quite convinced that Alexis had actually meditated rebellion
against his father. This seems to have been a pretext for bringing
the Tsarevich to the torture-chamber, where he might very easily expire,
as if by accident, under legal process. The most ordinary mode of ad-
ministering the question extraordinary was by the knout, and, there were
few instances of anyone surviving thirty strokes of this terrible punish-
ment as then administered. On June 19, Alexis, never very robust and
severely reduced by mental sufiering and prolonged anxiety, received
five-and-twenty strokes with the knout, and betrayed the confidences of
his confessor, Ignateff, who was also savagely tortured. On June £4,
Alexis received fifteen more strokes; but even the knout could now
extract nothing but feeble protests from the mangled wretch. The
same day the Senate condemned the Tsarevich to death for " imagining "
rebellion against his father, and for " hoping for " the cooperation of the
common people, and the ai-med intervention of his brother-in-law, the
Emperor. The solemn promise of the Tsar, which the clergy had
ignored, was sophistically explained away by the Senators. He had,
they said, promised his son forgiveness only if he returned willingly;
he had returned unwillingly, and had therefore forfeited the promise.

542 Death of Aleccis.' — Peter •proclaimed Emperor. ["i'7i8-24

This shameful document, the outcome of mingled terror and obsequions-
ness, was signed by all the Senators and Ministers, and by three hundred
persons of lesser degree. Two days later, June 26, 1718, the Tsarevich
died in the Trubetskoi guai'd-rhouse of the citadel of St Petersburg. The
precise manner of his death is still something of an enigma, most of the
existing documents relating to it being apocryphal ; but a careful exami-
nation and comparison of the only two extant contemporaneous and
genuine Russian documents, seems to waixant the following conclusion.
At eight o'clock in the morning of June 26, 1718, the Tsar, accompanied
by some of the chief dignitaries of the Empire, proceeded to the fortress ;
and Alexis was produced and placed before them within a zastyenok
(partition). His death-sentence was then, suddenly, read to him. The
shock, acting on an enfeebled frame, and crushing the last hope of life
with which the poor wretch had hugged himself in the midst of his
awful sufferings, brought on a swoon which lasted some hours. On his
recovery, he was carried into the close-adjoining Trubetskoi guard-room,
where he died. Abominable, unnatural as was Peter's conduct to his
unhappy son, there is no reason to suppose that he ever regretted it.
He argued that a single worthless life stood in the way of the regenera-
tion of Russia, and was therefore forfeit to the common weal.

But, however its foundations had been cemented, the Russian Empire
was now an established and imposing fact. Its official birthday dates
from October 22, 1721, when, after a solemn thanksgiving-service for the
Peace of Nystad, in the Troitsa cathedral at St Petersburg, the Tsar
proceeded to the Senate and was there acclaimed: "Father of the
Fatherland, Peter the Great, and Emperor of All Russia." Some would
have preferred to proclaim him Emperor of the East ; but Peter himself
adopted the more patriotic title.

Prussia, the new ally, and the United Provinces, the oldest friend
of the Tsar, were the earliest among the European States to recognise
Peter's imperial title; but in other quarters the novelty was received
with disfavour, especially at Vienna, where the emergence of a second
Empire which threatened to overshadow the Holy Roman Empire gave
great offence. Curiously enough, the friendship of Prussia, which might
have counterbalanced the hostility of the Emperor, was imperilled by
Peter's withdrawal from Berlin of the gigantic grenadiers whom he bad
previously lent, or given, to Frederick William I. Peter in consequence
contracted an offensive and defensive alliance, for twelve years, with his
ancient enemy Sweden, which, under the pacific administration of Count
Arvid Horn, was being gradually nursed into political convalescence. By
the Treaty of Stockholm (February 22, 1724) Russia contracted to assist
Sweden, in case of need, with 12,000 infantry, 4000 cavalry, nine ships
of the line, and three frigates ; while Sweden undertook to assist Russia,
in similar circumstances, with 8000 infantry, 2000 cavalry, six liners and
two frigates.

1722-4] Russia, France, and Great Britain. 543

The relations between France and Russia had also become much
vnore cordial than heretofore. It was a favourite ambition of the Tsar
to marry his second surviving daughter, the Tsesarevna Elizabeth, to the
young King of France, Louis XV. But Bourbon pride proved an insur-
mountable obstacle ; and equally abortive were the efforts of successive
French Ministers to bring about a better understanding between Great
Britain and Russia.

For some years after the termination of the War of the Spanish
Succession Great Britain was, indisputably, the dominant Power of
Europe. To prevent a renewal of the Anglo-Austrian alliance, and
to isolate the Emperor, were now the chief aims of the French Ministers,
especially in view of the break-up of the Austrian dominions in the
event of the death of the sonless Charles VI, who, by the Pragmatic
Sanction, had settled the succession on his daughter, Maria Theresa,
now a child of eight. France, moreover, was anxious to keep Russia
free from complications elsewhere ; so that her troops might be available
against Maria Theresa at the proper time, and a reconciliation between
Great Britain and Russia was considered at Versailles to be the best way
of steadying and restraining Peter. But such a reconciliation was ex-
tremely difficult. George I had an ancient grudge against the Russian
Emperor ; Peter's supposed friendship for the Jacobites was an additional
obstacle. But Fleury, still at the height of his authority in France,
believed himself capable of performing successfully the part of political
peace-maker. He assured Prince Kurakin that the best thing for Russia
at the present time was reconciliation with England; indeed he made
an Anglo-Russian reconciliation the condition precedent of a Franco-
Russian alliarice. Peter himself was anxious to come to terms with
England ; but, on the other hand, he did not want to quarrel with the
Tories; indeed, the extreme Tories, or Jacobites, now hailed him as their
prospective deliverer, and expected more from him than from any other
European potentate. In April, 1722, the Pretender's agent, Thomas
Gordon, informed the Tsar that the English nation was ready to rise for
its lawful King, if only they had 6000 men and arms for 20,000 more.
In June of the same year, the Old Pretender wrote to Peter expressing his
gratitude for the sympathy of his Imperial Majesty, and transmitting a
plan for the invasion of England. But, as Peter would not embark on
so vast an enterprise without the cooperation of France, and as France
desired to unite England and Russia instead of dividing them, the
Jacobite project never had the remotest chance of success, even if the
Persian campaigns of Peter had not, at this very time, engrossed his
attention. It should also not be forgotten that the Tsar had now
obtained all he wanted in Europe ; for, from first to last, he had aimed
solely at the conquest of the Baltic Provinces. During the last four
years of his reign, his policy was predominantly Oriental.

Well aware that Russia was the natural commercial intermediary

644 Russia and the Near East. [1716-22

between the East and the West, Peter never lost sight of the necessity
of establishing and extending his influence in Asia. In 1719 Captain
Lev Izmailoif of the Guards was sent to Pekin as the first Russian
envoy extraordinary ; but he was not allowed to establish an embassy or
consulates, nor could he even obtain a commercial treaty.

The first Russian expeditions into Central Asia were disastrous
failures owing to the ignorance or incapacity of their leaders. In 1716
Colonel Buchholtz was sent to build a fortress on Lake Yamuish, but
was driven back by 12,000 Calmucks. In the same year Prince Alexander
Cherkasky set out to explore the mouths of the Amu Daria and the
shores of the Sea of Aral, to win over the Khans of Khiva and
Bokhara to the Russian interest, and to attempt to open up a way to
India. In February, 1717, he returned to Astrakhan, after planting a
few forts in unsuitable places. This expedition excited a general rising
of Tartars, Bokharans, and Khivans, and, in attempting to suppress it, in
1717, Cherkasky was defeated and slain. In the vast plain lying between
the Euxine and the Caspian Russia, Turkey and Persia were equally
interested. The beginning of the Russian influence in these parts dates
from the appointment of the capable Artamon Voluinsky as Russian
Minister at Ispahan, in 1715. It is clear from his instructions, written
by Peter's own hand, that he was sent rather as a pioneer than as a
diplomatist. He was to find out which rivers fell into the Caspian
"and to which places on these rivers we can get by sea, and whether
there are any rivers flowing into this sea which rise in India." He was
also to take note of Gilyan and the other Caspian Provinces, and, if
possible, with the assistance of the Armenians, divert the raw-silk trade
from Turkey to Russia through Persia. Voluinsky quitted Ispahan in
September, 1717, after concluding a commercial treaty with the Shah
very advantageous to Russia. On his return journey he wintered at
Shemak, where he had excellent opportunity for still further spying out
the nakedness of the land. Voluinsky persistently urged Peter to invade
Persia, and events played into his hands. In September, 1721, two
Lesghian princes revolted against the Shah, seized Shemak and plundered
Russian merchandise in the bazaar to the value of 500,000 roubles. In
the beginning of 1722 the state of aflairs in Persia became still more
favourable for Russian intervention ; for the Afghans invaded the
devastated land, defeated the Persian troops in two pitched battles,
seized Ispahan, and dethroned the Shah in favour of his third son
Tokmash. Peter hesitated no longer. On May 3, the Guards left
Moscow. On July 18, Peter sailed from Astrakhan to Derbent with
an army of 22,000 infantry, 9000 cavaky, 20,000 Cossacks, 20,000
Calmucks, 30,000 Tartars and 5000 sailors. On September 3, the Governor
of Derbent delivered up the silver keys of the city to the Russian
Emperor. Owing, however, to difficulties of transport, and the per-
sistence of a fierce north wind which wrecked half the transports on the

1721-4] The Persian War. 546

sand-banks of the Caspian, the campaign proved abortive. In December^
1722, however, a Russian ai'my corps, under Colonel ShipoiF, seized the
great trading centre of Resdit; and, almost simultaneously, General
Matyushkin stormed Baku, which, as the key of the south-western
Caspian district, Peter had been very anxious to capture. On Sep-
tember 12, 1722, a Persian embassy, then at St Petersburg, was forced to
sign a treaty of peace, ceding Baku, Derbent, and the provinces of
Gilyan, Mazandevan and Astrabad. The Persian Government refused,
however, to ratify the treaty. Only by Peter''s threat of a league
of partition against her between Russia and Turkey was the Shah's
GoverAment finally brought to consent to the cession of these provinces.

These acquisitions and the subsequent intrigues of the Russian
Government with the Armenians, with whom Russia now came into
direct communication for the first time, seriously disturbed the Porte.
In August, 1722, the Grand Vezir told the Russian ambassador,
NepluyefF, that Russia had better declare war against the Porte at once,
and then they would know where they were. The whole of the Tsar's
reign, he added, had been one uninterrupted war, in which he gave no
rest to his neighbours. Subsequently Nepluyeff reported to his Court
that the Turks intended to conquer Persia and Georgia, and drive the
Russians out of Daghestan. He earnestly advised the Emperor to be
ready for war, as immense stores of ammunition were being constantly
sent to Erzerum and AzofF from Stambul. Fortuna,tely, Turkey was
not ready for war, and the acquisition of the Caspian Provinces by
Russia was a matter of comparative indifference to the Sultan. It was
the spread of Russian influence in the Caucasus that he really feared.
Still, throughout 1723, the. aspect of affairs was very threatening^ "
Peter regarded the Caspian provinces as indispensable ; and Nepluyeff
was instructed to inform the Porte that the Russian Emperor would allow
no other Power to approach the Caspian Sea, The English Govern-
ment used every expedient to induce the Porte to declare war, and even
held out the hope of simultaneous cooperation on the part of Great
Britain and Denmark. In the beginning of 1724 Nepluyeff demanded
his passports; but, on June 12, by the Treaty of Constantinople, a
compromise was arrived at : Sheraak was to belong to a vassal of the
Porte ; but the region extending from Shemak to the Caspian was to be
divided into three parts, two of which, adjacent to the Caspian, were to
belong to Russia, while the third, stretching southwards from Derbent,
was to be divided between Russia and Persia.

The reform of the internal administration engaged Peter's attention
immediately after the termination of the Swedish War (1721). He began
with the hi^est tribunal of all, the Administrative Senate. Experience"
had already shown that the Senators, following the old Muscovite laissez-
aUer principle, were apt to neglect business, disregard the laws, and quash
all complaints from inferior tribunals against themselves personally. To

C. M. H. V. CH. XVII. 36

646 Fresh admimstratii)e reforms. \\i^i-^

obviate this, Peter, at the beginning of 1722, instituted the office of the
Procurator General, whose duty it was to sit in the Senate and see thjit
the Senators performed their duties "in a faithful, zealous and orderly,
fashion, according to the direction of the standing rules and ukases."
The worst cases were to be reported direct to the sovereign, if the
admonition of the Procurator General was of no avail. " He is in fact
to be our eye," ran the ukase. It required no ordinary courage and
resoiu-ce to occupy an office which must necessarily embroil its holder
with all the highest dignitaries in the State ; but Peter found the man
he wanted in Paul Yagu^hinsky, the son of, the Lutheran . organist at
Moscow, whose geniality and capability had long endeared, him to Peter
and who was the only man in Russia who could stand before the Tsar,
when in his worst moods, without trembling.

To keep a Watchful eye upon defaulters and malingerers among the
gentry, the office of Herald-master was instituted,' ins 1721. : This
functionai!y had to keep lists of aU the landowners in the Empire,
showing jwho were in the service of the State and who were not, and
giving the fullest details as to their families and occupations. A thijpd
newly established functionary, the "Master of Petitions," had to examine
all the petitions presented to the various departments of State and s*
that they received proper attention. ,

But it. was of small avail to simphfy and specialise the administration,
and fence it about with safeguai:ds, so long as the new institutions were
infected by the fatal maladies of the old. The most inveterate of these
maladies was the Universal corruption for which Muscovy had always
been notorious; and Peter himself, though, he ;cauterised it freely, could
not wholly eradicate the evil. In the course of 1723 and 1724 he ma>die
terrible examples of two of his most confidential jand meritorious servants,
Vice-Chancellor Shafiroff and the Upper-fiscal Nestoroff.

Despite a constant if gradual increase in the revenue, the financial
needs of the Government, owing to the expenses of the long war, were
heavy, and led to all sorts of ingenious but oppressive fiscal experiments*
It was even found necessary, at last, to cut down, all official salaries by
one-half. The difficulty of housing the soldiers properly led to the in-
troduction of barracks into Russia. At the end of Peter's reign the army
numbered 210,000 men, besides 109,000 irregulars. The fleet consisted
of 48 ships of the line, with 787 galleys and smaller vessels, whose full
complement of crews was 27,939 men. There was also a considerable
increase in the mercantile marine, and native Russian merchants now
began to appear iti the principal non-Russian Baltic ports.

Much also was now done to develop and improve the local, ad-
ministration. In all the towns magistracies were formed, consisting of
a president, two burgomasters, and foiu: councillors, whose duty it was
to gather all the traders and artisans together and prevent J:hem from
drifting into the ranks of the untaxable by, flying to, thp, steppes,, The

i'722-4] The mccessia^ ordinance. 54^*J

whole body of citizeris was divided into three classes; the first guild,
consisting- of the chief merchants, doctors, apothecaries and cloth manu-
facturers ; the second guild j consisting of the petty traders and artisans ;
and, thirdly, the common people.

By the ukase of January 13, 1724, the foundations were laid of an
Academy of Sciences, which was to be a university, a gymnasium, and
an elementary school at the same time. The tolls levied on merchandise
in the towns of Narva;, Dorpat, Reval, and Arenberg were set apart for
its maintenance. The Academy also relieved the Synod of the duty of
translating and circulating books. After the death of its first President,
the Metropolitan Yavorsky, the office of President of the Synod was
abolished, but it received a civil assessor in the person of the " Upper
procurator of the Synod," May 22, 1722. Another official, the Proto-
inquisitor, or, " Chief-fiscal in spiritual matters," was to exercise the
same supervision over the Synod as "the Procurator General" already
exercised over the Senate.

Towards the end of the reign, the question of the succession to the
throne caused the Emperor some anxiety. The rightful heir in the
natural order of primogeniture was Grand Duke Peter, a child of six;
but Peter decided to pasis him over because, as the son of the Tsarevich
Alekis, any acknowledgment of his rights would, infallibly, have excited
the hopes of those people who had sympathised with his father, and
the fears of those who had had a hand in the murder of Alexis. Who,
then, was to succeed the reigning Emperor? His own daughters, Anne
and Elizabeth, were still mere children, and his nieces, the daughters
of his brother Ivan, had married foreign princes and were living abroad;
The Tsaritsa Catharine alone remained. About 1702 he had picked up
Martha Skovronskaya at Menshikoft''s house. She had been first his
mistress, then, after her conversion to Orthodoxy under the name of
Catharine Aleksyevnai his wife. He now resolved to secure the throne
for her also. That curious document, the liistaff, or Ordinance, of 1712,
heralded this unheard-of innovation. Time-honoured custom had
hitherto reckoned primogeniture in the male line as the best title to
the Russian Crown; in the ustaffoi. 1722 Peter denounced primogeniture
in geneM as a stupid, dangerous, and even unspiritual practice. He
concluded by declaring the succession to the Russian Empire to be, in
future, absolutely dependent on the will of the reigning sovereign.

The succession ustaff vras but a preliminary step to a still more
sensational novelty. In 1723 Peter resolved to crown his consort, the
Tsaritsa Catharine, Empress. The whole question as to what were the
proper titles of the Emperor's family had previously been submitted to
the consideration of the Senate and Synod, which decided that Catharine
should be called Imperatritsa, or its Slavonic equivalent Tsesareva, while
the princesses were to be no longer Tsarevnas (daughters of a Tsar) but
Tsesarevnas (daughters of an Emperor). On November 15, 1723, Peter

OH. xvu. 36—2

648 Death of Peter the Great. [1723-6

issued a second manifesto, in which he proceeded, at some length and
in very affectionate terms,- to cite the services rendered to him by his
Tsesareva in the past, especially during the Turkish War. "Where-
fore," proceeds the manifesto, " by the authority given unto us by God,
we have resolved to reward such great services of our consort by crowning
her with the Imperial crown." The whole nation listened aghast to the
manifesto. The only princess who. had ever enjoyed the same distinction
w£is Maria Minszka, the consort of the first pseudo-Dimitri, in the six-
teenthi centiiry, and, heretic as she was, she had at least been of noble
birth. The present Empress had come to Russia not merely as a stranger,
but as a captive; yet now, forsooth, she was to wear the Imperial
crown and sit on the Imperial throne ! On this point, however, Peter
was utterly regardless of the feelings and the prejudices of his people.
And, in truth, Catharine, coarse and ignorant as she was, had inalienable
claims upbn his gratitude and affection. An uncommonly shrewd and
sensible woman, endowed with an imperturbable good-humour, and an
absolute indifference to the hardships of a roving life, she was an ideal
wife for a rough and ready peripatetic Russian soldier. But, more than
this, die was, on the whole, the least unsuitable of Peter's potential suc-
cessors. Her frank bonhomie had won for her the devotion of the army,
every member of which regarded her as a comrade; while a vivid
consciousness of the peril of her position had made her deliberately
adopt, betimes, the role of an habitual protectress of all who incurred
the displeasure of the Emperor; so that most of the men of the new
system had already made up their minds to stand or fall with her. On
May 18, 1724!, the coronation of Catharine took place in the cathedral
of the Assumption at Moscow, with extraordinary pomp and splendour.

In the course of the same summer the state of Peter's health caused
grave anxiety. His labours and his excesses had already undermined his
splendid constitution ; and, though not yet fifty-three years of age, he
was already an old man. On October 3 he had another veiy violent
attack of his paroxysms. Yet in the same month, ignoring the advice of
his physicians, he undertook a long and fatiguing tour of inspection of
the latest of his great public works, the X^oga canals, proceeding
thence to inspect the iron- works at Olonets, where he dug out a piece of
iron ore, 120 lbs. in weight. In the beginning of November, at Lakhta,
perceiving a boat full of soldiers on a sand-bank, in imminent danger of
being drowned, he plunged into the water to render them assistance and
was immersed to his girdle for a considerable time. He reached St Peters-
burg too ill ever to rally again, though he showed himself in public so
late as January 16, 1725. After a long and most painful agony, he
died at six o'clock on the evening of the 27th. All that could be
deciphered of his last message, painfully scrawled with pen and ink on a
piece of paper, were the words "oidaite vse!^ (forgive everything!).

When Peter I expired, prematurely and somewhat suddenly, at the

1725-7] Accession of Catharine I. 649

beginning of 1725, it was the confident expectation of the politicians of
Europe 3iat his work would perish with him. During the last thirty
years, the terrorised Russian nation had been compelled to break with
the traditions of centuries and accept a whole series of social and political
reforms secretly loathed by it as so many abominations; but, now that
the master-mind was withdrawn, a recoil seemed inevitable and, to the
enemies of Russia, desirable. But for the promptitude of the half-
dozen capable men whom Peter, with singular felicity, had gradually
selected and trained up to assist him in his work, and carry it on after
his death, a lapse into "the quagmire of Byzantinism" must inevitably
have taken place. The stem and ever increasing severity of the late
Emperor's system of government had produced universal discontent — a
discontent the more bitter and intense because, hitherto, denied an
outlet. The vast majority of the clergy, at least half the Senate (though
that was a purely Petrine institution) and aU the old boiar nobility
without exception, were ripe for revolt, and they made no secret of their
intention of elevating to the throne the infant Grand Duke, Peter
Aleksyevich. The reactionaries included more than a half of the wealth
of Russia, and nearly all the influence that unofficial rank still retained
in that country; but their faction was much weakened by internal
dissensions and possessed no leader of sufficient force of character.
On the other hand, Peter's pupils, as we may call the opposite party,
led by Alexander Danilovich Menshikoff, Peter Andryevich Tolstoi
and Paul Ivanovich Yaguzhinsky, wei:e men of extraordinary energy,
sufficiently enlightened to understand perfectly the real needs of their
country, and well aware that a moment's hesitation on their part would
mean the subversion of Peter's system and their own ruin. These three
men detested each other as rivals ; but common interests and a common
danger now drew them together, and they were agreed that the only way
of preserving the new system was to raise to Peter's throne the widowed
Empress Catharine Aleksyevna. The energy and presence of mind
of her partisans overawed all opposition^ Only a few moments after
her consort had breathed his last in her arms, a deputation from
the Senate, army and nobility petitioned her to occupy the vacant
throne, and on February 22, 1725, Catharine I was solemnly proclaimed
autocrat of all Russia.

Her short reign (February, 1725 to May, 1727) was chiefly re-
markable for its humane and conciliatory measures at home, and its
cautious, pacific, but^ nevertheless, dignified, consistent and indepen-
dent policy abroad. Something was done to mitigate the suffisring
of the nation. The grinding poll-tax was reduced ; a large part of
the army was disbanded; many of the restrictions upon commerce imposed
during the last reign were removed; attempts were made to stimulate the
copper, iron and other industries. But at home the Government was
able to effect but little. Time alone could teach the nation at large

660 Hostility between Bussia and Great Britain. [1725-6

igradiially to assimilate so much of Western civilisaltioh as was necessary
for its development and welfare. From this time to the gileat awakening
which followed upon the disasters of the Crimean War, the history of
Russia is mainly the history of her diplomacy, and of the wars which
resulted from it. She had to assert herself in Europe, in order to
remain European. Thus Russia's foreign conquests, her aggressions and
her ' usilrpsitions, during the eighteenth century, were but the successive
phases of a determined struggle to carry out the programme of Peter the
Great in its entirety. The other great Powers would have confined this
semi- Asiatic interloper within her native steppes; she herself, as repre-
sented by her ablest rulers, saw in every, fresh advance, westwards and
southwards, an additional guarantee of her present stability and; her
future progress.

For, at least fifteen years after the conclusion of the great Northern
War, continental diplomacy was dominated by the influence of the
foreign Prince who sat upon the English throne. George I had succeeded
in rounding off his Hanoverian electorate by despoiling Sweden in her
direst extremity ; but his territorial acquisitions . had been so recent
and so extensive, that he was nervously apprehensive of losing them
again. The readiest allies of George I were those States which, like
himselfj had. snatched something from the general scramble for Sweden's
.continental possessions, such as Prussia and Denmark. France, exhausted
by ;th6 War of the Spanish Succession, was pacifically inclined. The
Empire and Sweden were doubtful Powers. Spain, on the other hand,
was hostile to England. The interests of Russia were regarded as
■inimical to the House of Hanover, and Peter's matrimonial alliances had
also fluttered the German Courts. One of his nieces, Catharine, : had
married Duke Charles Leopold of Mecklenburg-Schwerin ; her younger
sister, Duke Frederick William of Courland. Then, too, the new great
Northern Power Russia was an object of distrust and jealousy to England,
especially as the English Baltic trade had already suffered severely from
the arbitrary restrictions imposed upon it by Peter. Finally, Russia had
given an asylum to the exiled Duke Charles Frederick of Holstein-^
Gottorp, and had appeared to support his interests, especially after he
had become the Empress' son-in-law by his marriage with the Tsesarevna
Anne (June 1, 1725), George I feared above all things the reopening
of the Schleswig-Holst;ein question. He had purchased Bremen and
Verden from Denmark, on the secret understanding that Denmark should
be put into possession of Schleswig. If Denmark were forced to sur-
render part of the duchies, his own enlarged electorate might be
endangered. The effects of the " Hanoverian Alliance " (Treaty of
Herrenhausen, September 3, 1725, N.S.) between England and France,
to which Prussia immediately acceded, were first felt by Russia, In
,the spring of 1726, the British Government, startled by. unfounded
rumours that the Empress Catharine . was massing troops in Finland,

1726-7] "Hanoverian Alliance."-iSuprefne Privy Council. 561

and equipping her fleet to promote the interests of the Duke of Holstein,
sent into the Baltic a squadron, under Admiral Wager, which anchored
before Reval. Wager was the bearer of a letter from George I in
which his Britannic Majesty declared that the armaments of Russia,
in times of profound peace, could not but arouse the suspicions of Great
Britain and her allies. • "Our fleet," continued this despatch, "has been
sent to preserve the peace of the North and prevent your fleet from
putting to sea." The Einpress protested with energy and dignity, and
the British fleet was withdrawn ; but the able Westphalian Andrei
Ivanovich Osterman, who had entered Peter's service in 1717, and as
Vice-'Chancellor was to control the foreign policy of Russia for the next
sixteen years, instantly took the precaution of throwing himself into the
arms of England's enemies. On August 6, 1736, he advised' the Empress
Catharine to joiii the Austrb-Spanish League, each of the three contracting
parties engaging to guarantee each' other's possessions, while Austria and
Russia were to help each other, in case of need, with 30,000 men.

Thus the Hanoverian Alliance found itself confronted by an Austro-
Russo-Spanish League j and both began forthwith to compete for the
support of the rest of Europe. Denmark acceded to the Hanoverian
Alliance by the Treaty of Copenhagen (April 16, 1727), concluded for
four years, whereby both 'England and lYance promised to assist her
against Russia, and assure her the tranquil pctssession of Schleswig.
Sweden took the same course, despite all the efforts to. the contrary of
the Russian ambassadors Michael Bestuzheff and Vasily Dolgoruki,

The one great administtetive innovation of Catharine I was the forma-
tion of the Supreme Privy Council. The idea was Osterman's. • It was not,
as the French ambassaidor Campredon supposed, a move in the direction
of limited monarchy, by associating the leading magnates in the Govern-
mentj after the model of an English Cabinet Council, but rather an
atteinpt to strengthen the executive, by concentrating aflairs in the
hands of a few persons, instead of Iteaving them^ as heretofore, to the care
of a turbulent and distracted Senate. After much deliberation between
the Empress and her advisers, the ukase of March 9, 17S6, established
the Supreme Privy CouncO. It was to consist of not less than six, and
not more than nine members, under the presidency of the sovereign.
No ukases were in future to be issued, till they had received the appro-
bation of the Council. The control of the War Office, the Admiralty,
and the Foreign Office was transferred from the Senate to the Council;
and, subsequently, the Council received authority to reVise the work of
all the other departments of State; even the election of Senators waa
subject to its approval.

Towards the end of 1726 Catharine's health began to fail, and for a
time she was seriously ill. Early in January^ 1727, she recovered ; but
her partisans had received a severe shock j and thought it high time
to begin to look out for themselves. The position of Menshikoff iii

OB. XVII,

552 Death of Catharine I. — Accession pf Peter II. [1726-7

particular was highly critical. During the kst four months he had
ruled almost like an absolute sovereign, and some were even inclined to
believe that he aimed at the imperial crown for himself. On the other
hand, his enemies were "as numerous as the hairs of his head," and his
violence and tyranny had revolted, them to the last degree. He knew
that if he made a single; false step he was lost. At this juncture, he
was approached by ,the Austrian ambassador, Rabutin, with a project
for securing the succession to the Grand Duke Peter. Menshikoff
eagerly snatched at the project. He stipulated for himself, however, the
first vacant electorate in the Empire, and for his daughter Maria the
hand of the young Grand Duke. To these conditions Rabutin cheerfully
agreed. Osterman, who all along had represented the impossibility of
keeping the Grand Duke out of his rights, joined Rabutin and
Menshikoff, not so much from interest as from conviction, and it was
his secret but powerful influence which ultimately secured victory for the
Austrian f3,ctiQn. A desperate attempt of Peter Tolstoi (who had even
more reason to dread the accession of the Grand Duke than that of
Menshikoff himself) to counteract the plans of Menshikoff by elevating
the Tsesarevna Elizabeth to; the throne with a Council of Regency,
came too late. On January 21, 1727, Catharine caught a chill at the
ceremony of the benediction of the fltaters of the Neva. She rallied at
the beginning of April; but on the 21st the fever increased, and her
frequent fainting fits left but little hope of her recovery. Menshikoff at
once took his measures. He surrounded the dying Empress with his
creatures, so as to make it impossible for anyone else to approach her.
On April 26, she was seized by so violent a paroxysm that the end was
momentarily expected. On the same evening Jolstoi and his associates
were apprehended. When, contrary to all expectation, Catharine rallied
once more and lived eleven days longer, Menshikoff, acting nominally
under her orders, succeeded in crushing a conspiracy aimed against him-
self. A special ukase banished Tpjstpi and his associates to the shores
pf the White Sea, or to Siberia. This ukase was issued on the morning
of May 16 ; on the same evening Catharine I expired. ,

Early on May 17, the members of the Imperial Family, the Suprenie
Privy Council, the High Senate, the Holy Synod, and the chief officers
of the Guard, assembled at the Palace to hear the will of the late
Empress read. Although it was supposed to haye been signed by her^
it is doubtful whether she ever saw it ; but it so exactly expressed the
wishes of the nation that its authenticity was never questioned. It
declared the Grand Duke Peter Aleksyevich her successor. During his
minority, the Government was to be in the hands of a Regency composed
of the Siipreme Privy Council, the Duke and Duchess of Holstein, and
the Tsesarevna Elizabeth.

Peter II was still only eleven years old, but unusually tall and well
proportioned for his age. From his childhood he had been kept in the

1727] The domination of Menshikoff. 653

strictest seclusion. His grandfather, who hated him because he was his
father's son, had systematically igiiored' him ; bpt had not, as some have
supposed, allowed his education to be absolutely neglected. To do
Menshikoff justice, it was now his first care that the young Emperor
should be trained in a manner more befitting his exalted rank and
his sovereign responsibilities ; and to the learned and experienced Vice-
Chancellor Osterman the care of the education of Peter II was wisely
committed. He had, moreover, another more intimate and affectionate
mentor in his sister Natalia, who had been the sole companion of his
lonely infancy. Although only twelve months older than her brother,
Providence had endowed her with wisdom and prudence, and other choice
gifts of heart and mind.

During the first four months of the new reign, the Government was
entirely in the hands of Menshikoffj who, despite frequent acts of
tyranny, on the whole acquitted himself well of his enormous responsi-
bilities. It is true that old enemies or troublesome rivals were, with
small compunction, removed to a safe distancCi But, on the other hand,
Menshikoff tried to attach to himself all able officials who were not
over-ambitious and to win over such members of the old boiar families
as were not too exacting in their demands. Foreign affairs were left
entirely in the hands lof Osterman. The chair in the Supreme Privy
Council vacated by Tolstoi was given to Prince Vasily Lukich Dolgoruki;
and Menshikoff's old . colleagues were not a little disgusted to find
that his new friend. Prince Demetrius Galitsin, had as much to say
in the Council as themselves. AU the Dolgorukis and GaUtsins were
arch-c6nserv£ttives and deeply attached to the family of the new
Emperor. At the same time, the Emperor's grandmother, the Tsaritsa
Eudc^ia, was released from her prison at Schliisselburg. In the beginning
of August, the Duke and Duchess of Holstein were requested to quit
Russia, and the Tsesarevna Elizabeth was kept in the background.

Tyrannous as it was, there can be little doubt as to the vigour
and economical efiiciehcy of the administration of Menshikoff. The
humane and conciliatory policy of the last reign was continued. Peter I's
export duty of 37 per cent, on hemp and linen yam was reduced to 5 per
cent.; a commission for enquiring into the state of commerce was
appointed by Osterman ; the trade in Siberian furs was made absolutely
free. As a first step towards softening the barbarous customs of the day
the ukase of July 21, 1727, ordered the immediate removal and destruc-
tion of the stone columns and iron hooks on which the heads and Umbs
of executed criminals had hitherto been exposed in the great square of
St Petersburg.

But, salutary as the rule of Menshikoff was, it was still a usurpation.
The lyill of the late Empress had transferred all her authority to the
Supreme Privy Council, and the Council was now treated as if it did not
exist. Menshikoff ruled because he was so much stronger than anyone

654 The sv^eiiiacy of the DolgoruMs. [i'727-'8

else. One of his first acts had been to kidnap the young Emperor by
carrying him off to his palace in the Vasily Island. Shortly afterwards,
Osterman announced to the Council his Majesty's intention to wed
Menshikoff's eldest daughter, Maria. But he was never to become the
father-in-law of Peter II. The young Emperor, who had a willibf his
own, already began. to chafe against the constant and often petty inter-
ference of the dictator.. At this juncture, Menshikoff was siiddenly
prostrated by the pulmonary complaint from which he had long been
suffering. On his return to Court six weeks latfer, he found that the
young Emperor had flitted to Peterhof, taking: Osterman and the
DolgoEukis with him, Mienshikoff precipitated his fall by quarrelling
with Osterman, his only friend, of whom he was growing jealbiis, even
going the length of threatening to have him broken on the wheel for his
insolence^ On September 19, 1727, an ukasey issued in the name of the
Emperor, forbade obedience to any orders proceeding from Menshikoff;
on the 20th, the Supreme Privyi Council deprived him of all his charges
and emoluments on the charge of conspiracy against the Crown; arid on
the 21st he and his family were expelled from the capital and ultimately
banished to Berezoff in Siberia^ where he died in 1730.

The triumph of Menshikoff's enemies i was the triumph of the
reactionaiy old Russian nobility, as represented by the princely families
of the Gdlitsins and the.Dolgorukis. At the head' of the GaJitsins
stood Prince Demetrius Mikhailovich, a thoroughly honesty upright man,
whose many good qualities were ruined by an inflexible 'haughtiness arid
an insatiable ambition. He had always regarded the Petririe reforms with
hatred and suspicion. The most conspicuous of the Dolgorukis were
Prince Vasily Lukich, who had now a considerable reputation at
half the Courts of Em-ope for diplomatic adroitness, and Prince Vasily
Vladimirovich, the military celebrity of: the family, though as a gefler&l
he had been outshone by Prince Michael Galitsin. The domination of
these men might have proved highly injurious to Russia, but for the
counteracting influence of the Vice-Chancellor. To the Dolgorukis and
the Galitsins Osterman was detestable both as a foreigner' and as the
ablest pupil of Peter I. The Dolgorukis tiied at first to poison' the
mind of the young Emperor against him; but Peter II told: them
plainly that he would not abandon Osterman ; on the other hand, he
requested Osterman not to interfere with the Dolgorukis. ■ A sort of
■tacit truce thereupon ensued. The Dolgorukis carried Peter off to
Moscow^ where the young Emperor was crowned on March 4, 1728.
The lion's share of the coronation honours naturally fell to the dominant
old Russian party, especially to the Dolgorukis who were gradually
usurping an authority imattainable by Menshikoff in the plenitude of his
power. Peter II, who had learnt to regard the new capital as a prison,
was charmed by the superior natural attractions of the old capital, and
gave himself up entirely to hawking and hunting, forbidding those about

1728-30] AustrO'Bussian entente.'—Iieath of Peter II. 666

him even to mention the name of St Petersburg, The conduct of affairs
was left almost entirely to Osterman. Fortunately, the reforms of the last
two reigns were now beginning to bear good fruit. Trade was reviving,
money was beginning to flow steadily, if slowly, into the Treasury; the
people were happier, and the land was much more prosperous than it
had been for many years. Abroad, too, such political changes as had
taken place were, on the whole, favourable to Russia. On the death of
George I, the English Government had politely hinted (through Horace
Walpole at Paris to the Russian Minister there. Prince Kui-akin) that
the new King desired nothing so much as the reestablishment of friendly
relations ; and, shortly afterwards, an unofficial political agent, Claudius
Rondeau, came to Russia to find out how the land lay. The chief
political' event of this period was the attraction of Spain to the
Hanoverian Alliance by the Treaty of Seville (1729), whereby her Italian
possessions were guaranteed to her by England and France ; and England
received; some important Commercial concessions. But the only result
of this defection was to draw Austria and Russia still more closely
together; and their growing influence in the east of Europe counter-
poised the influence in the west of " the Allies of Seville," as the
Hanoverian Alliance now began to be called. The two Powers main-
tained the integrity of Polish territory against Prussia^ frustrated the
dynastic schemes of Augustus H, by dissipating the Diet of Grodno, and
succeeded in keeping Maurice of Saxony out of Courland. England was,
as usual, suspected at Moscow of intriguing at Stockholm to bring about
a war with Russia; but a violent quanrel between the Swedish King
Frederick land bis premier. Count Arvid Horn, told rather in favour
of Rus^ioj and was skilfully taken advantage of by her ambassador
Golovkin. ; )

The chief domestic event of the period was the death of the Grand
Duchess Natalia on December 7, 1728. ) The influence of the Dolgorukis
over Peter H was, henceforth, uncontested; and they now bent all their
efforts to bring aJbout Peter's marriage with Catharine, daughter of
Alexis Dolgoruki.; They were actually betrothedj with the greatest
solemnity, on December 11, 1729j and the wedding was fixed for
January 30, 1730, when the whole design was frustrated by the death
of Peter JI from small-pox on the morning of what was to have been
his weddingrday,, ;

From midnight on January 30 till five o'clock the next morning, the
members of the Supreme Privy Council had been in anxious consultation
behind closed doors. Death, or misadventure, had reduced their
number to five persons; and the most sagacious^ but also the least
courageous, of: lie five, Vice-Chancellor Osterman, was prostrated by an
attack ofjgoulj. Of the four remaining Councillors, the aged Grand
Cha.ncellor, Coui\t Golovkin, was practically a nonentity; while the two
Dolgorukis were too diffident of themselves and of each other, to propose

656 Demetriits GaUtsin. — Anne elected Empress. [i730

anything definite. All the more readily, therefore, did they listen to
the one man of character among them. Prince Demetrius Galitsin,
after patiently awaiting his opportunity for more than thirty years, was
now to rule Russia for something less than thirty days. ; His theoiy
was that all the ills of Russia were due to , that odious system of low
favouritism which had enabled stable-boys, flunkeys, pie-vendors, and
the dregs of the German settlement to monopolise all the offices and
dignities of the State, while the Russian aristocracy was kept at arm's
length. His remedy was the abolition of autocracy. Let the monarchy
be limited, and favouritism must disappear. Oilly thus could the national
nobility take its proper place round the throne. In the second daughter
of Ivan V, Anne, the widowed Duchess of Courlandj Galitsin fancied
that he had discovered the candidate he wanted for the throne. He
easily brought round his colleagues, as well as a general: assembly of the
Synodj the Senate, the Guard and the nobility, to his opinion ; where-
upon the election of Anne was announced to the troops and a deputation
was sent to Mittau (January 31) to offer the Crown to Anne, condition^
ally upon her subscribing ; in their presence nine articles which the
Supreme Privy Council had drawn up for her signature. By- these
articles she was solemnly to engage to govern solely through the Council;
not to marry, or appoint her successor, without its consent; to relinquish
the rights of declaring war and concluding peace, with that of conferring
any military appointment above the rank of a colonel, and that of
bestowing gifts of land or money ; to surrender the command of the
army and the guards to the Council ; not to degrade any member of
the nobility without legitimate cause ; not to impose fresh taxes, and
finally to agree to everything which should be for the good of her
subjects. In a word, she was to sign away her whole authority, ia
exchange for a high-sounding title. ! .

On February 21 the Council was relieved of much anxiety by the
arrival of a courier from Mittau, with the articles signed by the new
Empress, who had further added beneath her si^ature the words,
"I hereby promise to observe everything herein contained unreservedly."
Her obsequious alacrity on this occasion was due to the fact that she
had been warned by P&ul Yaguzhinsky of the secret machinations of
the Council, and had resolved to take back her word on the fibt oppor-
tunity. Meanwhile, Galitsin's public announcement of his audacious
political innovation had been received with chilling silence, and only by
the use of the most extreme measures were "the Republican gentlemen,"
as Rondeau called the Galitsin faction, able to keep the capital quiet
till the arrival of the Empress.

From February 26, when she made her public entry into Moscow, till
March 8, Anne was kept under the strictest surveillance by the Council.
But Osterman, whose keen political instincts told him that a limited
monarchy in eighteenth century Russia was impossible, was secretly

1730] " Articles of Mittau " cancelled by Anne. 66T

working against them; while Prince Alexis Cherkasky, the richest
nobleman in the empire, was entrusted with the practical management
of the impending coup d'itat, which was fixed for March 8. Early in the
morning of that day, 800 noblemen and 150 of the officers of the Guard
boldly ascended the staircase of the Palace in the Kremlin, and demanded
an audience of her Majesty, whom they found seated on her throne
surrounded by her Court. General USupofF of the Guards, on behalf
of the deputation, thereupon presented a petition to the Empress,
begging her to cancel the "Articles of Mittau"; and, after some
hesitation, and despite the respectful protests of the Council, she can-
celled the Articles accordingly. At four o'clock after noon, the nobility
returned with a fresh petition, imploring Anne to accept the absolute
authority as possessed, from time immemorial, by her ancestors of glorious
memory. On the same evening, the accession of the new autocrat,
aniidst thp roll of drums and the firing of salvos, was proclaimed ; a new
oath of allegiance was duly administered to everyone in the capital ; and
couriers were despatched to the provinces, to announce the glad tidings.
Nowhere was there the slightest sympitom of opposition.

GH. XVU.

6^8

CHAPTER XVIII.

THE SCANDINAVIAN KINGDOMS.

The struggle between Denmark and Sweden under Charles X left
abiding marks upon the national life of both adversaries. While in
Sweden, as has been shown in an earlier chapter, the Regents were
negotiating a general peace of the north, the Danish Estates assembled
at Copenhagen to repair the ruin wrought by war (September, 1660).
So terrible had been its disasters that a great part of Denmark lay waste,
and the Crown was compelled to repudiate part of its debt and to sell
one-half of its vast estates to pay the remainder. The clergy and
burghers, imiting in a new feeling of enthusiasm for the King
who had heroically defended his capital, were more bitter than ever
against the nobles, to whose selfishness they might well ascribe the
devastated and defenceless state of the country, the triumphant establish-
ment of the Duke of Holstein-Gottorp, and the loss of many provinces by
both Denmark and Norway beyond the Sound. That some five or six
hundred families should monopolise the chief places in Church and State,
own half the soil of Denmark, enjoy freedom from taxation, and evade
the burden of national defence, was a political situation which, after the
heroism of the King and of the capital, men could not but regard as
anomalous. It remained to be seen whether there existed in Denmark
any force capable of effecting a reform.

Frederick III had already manifested his consciousness of augmented
influence. He had ruled with the aid of secret advisers, kept great
offices vacant, left seats in the Council unfilled, departed from its recom-
mendations, and, in defiance of the nobles and of the Peace of RoeskUde,
laid hands upon his treacherous former Minister and favourite. Count
Korfits Ulfeld. Oligarchical rule, however, still appeared to flourish;
and in Denmark, as in Sweden, the Rigsraad, or permanent Council,
was an organ of the nobility. The monarchy and the people, alike
enfeebled by the long ascendancy of the nobles, had not learned to act
in concert. Of the lower Estates, moreover, some enjoyed privileges

i66o] The monar'ckical coup d'etat in Denmark. 669

of their own which formed a bar to common action. As to freedom from
taxation, the Bishops^ the capital, and Kristianshavn ranked as nobles.
It is therefore probable that, although the King's power had been
increased by the War, although he was ready to strike, and although
popular leaders were not wanting who would support him against the
nobles, some patriotic self-sacrifice on the part of the First Estate
might yet have averted revolution.

At the Diet, however, which had been summoned to sanction a com-
plete change in the national system of taxation, the members of this
Estate showed that they had learned nothing. In place of the old
direct taxes, the Government proposed a wide system of indirect taxes
on commodities in daily use, together with duties on certain movables
and contracts. The nobles at once claimed exemption for themselves
and their villeins ; and to the former demand they clung firmly during
heated negotiations between the several Estates, It therefore became
possible for the leaders of the clergy and burghers, Hans Svane, the
Bishop: of Zealand, and Hans Nansen, the Burgomaster of Copenhagen,
to strike a great blow for the monarchy and for the nation. By
inducing the Bishops and citizens to lay down their privileges, on
condition that the nobles and university did the same, they confronted
the Rigsraad and nobles as a solid Opposition, which advanced a far-
reaching claim of equality before the law. At the end of September the
oligarchical party capitulated. The struggle had, however, demonstrated
afresh both the selfishness and the weakness of the caste lampooned as
"hares and wasters of the realm." With an ambitious Queen by his
side, and Hans Svane and Hans Nansen as his allies, Frederick deter-
mined to follow up his .advantage with a coup d'itact,

A bloodless campaign of six days, October 8-18, 1660, sufficed to
give to the feeble monarchy the prospect of; becoming the most absolute
in Europe. On October 8, after much secret preparation, the clergy and
bui'ghers resolved to pfFer Denmark to Frederick III as a hereditary
kingdom, and called upon the nobles to concur in a joint resolution of
the Rigsraad. On the 10th, after some stormy scenes, the First Estate
refused and prepared to quit the Diet. Thereupon, the Opposition
turned to the King. Frederick was a student and an alchemist rather
than a leader of men, and at this crisis many conflicting influences were
at work upon his mind. At last, relying on the army and on the citizens
of Copenhagen, which was placed in a state of siege, he resolved to break
the resistance of the aristocracy by armed force. The threat sufficed •
and, on October 13, Denmark became in due form of law a monarchy
hereditary in both the male and the female line of the reigning House.

The establishment of hereditary monarchy was neither in letter nor
in spirit the establishment of absolutism. Both the instrument which
was signed by the priests and burghers and the formal letter in which,
the Rigsraad declared its unanimous agreement with them provided that:

CH. XVIII,

560 The Kongelov.-Autocracy inDenmark S^ Norway, [leeo-vo

the ]pi'ivileges of all men should be maintained. The invaluable alliance
of Copenhagen had in great part been inspired by ambition for civic
privilege. Neither the Rigsraad nor the Estates dreamed of putting a
period to their own existence. From the morrow of the King's triumph
until his death in 1670, however, the history of Denmark is that of her
transformation into an absolutist State. The Chai-ter, by the grant of which
according to custom Frederick had purchased the dwindling remnants of
royal power, was now surrendered to him in return for a mere promise to
rule as a Christian king to the satisfaction of every Estate. Within a
week, the existence of the Rigsraad as an independent power had come to
an end. Before the end of the year, the Estates had quitted Copenhagen,
with no security for their privileges save the royal word. In January,
1661, a document was drawn up for general signature, in which the
subscribers made an unconditional declaration that they had solemnly
committed to the royal line absolute rule over Denmark and Norway,
The pretensions of the King and the ostentation of the Queen grew un-
ceasingly. Five years after the revolution the quintessence of autocracy
was formulated in the Kongelov (King's Law), which remained a royal
secret until after Frederick's death.

Meanwhile, both in Denmark and in Norway, absolutism was taking
the customary means for presierving itself. Those who, like Ulfeld, might
imperil the dynasty were punished with a violence bom of panic. After
a generation of frequent and disastrous wars, foreign policy was directed
towards the preservation of peace. Frederick sought a good under-
standing with Gottorp and an alliance with France, which might give
him security agkinst both Gottorp and Sweden. A new administration
was built up, for which talent and royalism were neciessary qualifications,
and which was no longer the exclusive property of the nobles. Many
high offices, both civil and military, were filled by Germans. The
Rigsraad veceiveA. the name of Royal Council and became a CoUrt of
law. After the Swedish fashion, Colleges or Departments of State were
established, and the kingdoms of Denmark and Nbrway were divided
into districts each governed by a sheriff with a fixed salary. The central
Government showed itself active, but always paternal. Essaying no
social revolution, it left the nobles opulent and the commons depressed.
The former soon accepteid the autocracy, and the latter did not repliidi^te
their royal ally. Offices were now open without distinction of birth;
and Copenhagen, though baulked of its high ambitions, added to its
privileges and doubled its population. Norway, too, gained in inde-
pendence and privilege, though falling short of the height of her desires.

During the later years of Frederick III the Government wa^ proi
foundly itifllienced by one of the few brilliant statesmen to whom
Denmark has yet given birth. Peter Schumacher, a cosmopcilitan yoimg
citizen of Copenhagen, an eye-witness of the English Restoration and of
the dawning aiitocraCy of Louis XIV, entered Frederick's service in 1663.

1663-76] Administration of Griffenfeld. 661

His ability soon gave him great influence over his master and all others
with whom he came in contact. It was he who, in November, 1665,
expressed in the Kongelov the autocratic ideals of the King, and who
became the custodian of a document which might by its absolutism have
displeased the people, and which by its rules for the succession would
certainly have displeased the Queen. When, in Febi-uary, 1670,
Frederick III was succeeded by his son Christian V, Schumacher soon
displaced the German Minister Christopher Gabel and became the real
ruler of the State. A disciple of Hobbes, he inspired and facilitated the
wider development of autocratic power. The Kongelov was published,
and its author received a, grant of arms and the title of Count of Griffenfeld
— a name which Louis XIV declared to be that of one of the world's greatest
Ministers. Under GrifFenfeld's influence there was established a new
high nobility, in which he himself accepted a place, a new order of merit,
that of the Darmebrog, a new system of titles, and a new aristocracy of
service. At the same time, under the impetus given by Griffenfeld and
by his friend Ulrik Frederik Gyldenlove, a son of Frederick III, the
Government showed great activity at home. The finances were reformed,
provision made for trade and industry, immigration facilitated, and the
army reorganised so as to increase its Danish constituents and diminish
the foreign. The navy became one of the largest in Europe, and Kort
Adeler, the Norwegian naval hero who created it anew, found an apt
pupil in Niels Juel, who , was named Admiral at twenty-eight.. ' At
the same time, the administration both central and provincial was
systematised, and a new Privy Council of seven members was established
at its head. In Norway, under Gyldenlove, the action of Government
was equally vigorous. The seat, of power remained at Copenhagen ; but
in administration, defence and material well-being the land made progress
during the years of peace.

The prime object of Grififenfeld always was to secure power both for
himself and for his country by keeping the peace. In 1673 he became
Grand Chancellor and thenceforward devoted himself to the foreign
policy of the State. Here, for a few years, his adroitness in dealing with
the manifold difficulties of the time called forth universal admiration.
He restored the prestige of his country, gained subsidies without fighting,
and maintained peace with both Gottorp and Sweden, the apparently
irreconcilable foes of Denmark. .He was wise enough to see that the
secular enmity between the Scandinavian nations was injurious and
unnecessary^ In many respects, however, he played the part of Wqlsey to
his master. Christian V, who much resembled his grandfather Christian IV,
was a shallow and dissolute, but popular and vigorous, young soldier,
who was burning to win back the lost provinces with the sword. In
1675, as will presently be shown, he seized the opportunity of fulfilling
his engagements to the opponents of France and at the same time
assailing Sweden. The enterprise prospered ; and in the following year

0. M. H. V. CH. xviu. 36

662 Sweden in 1660. [leeo-i

Griffenfeld was sacrificed by the autocracy which he had helped to rear.
From 1675 to 1679 the so-called War of Scania raged between Denmark
and her Scandinavian neighbour, whose fortunes during fourteen years
of peace may now be traced.

II.

In 1661, when Sweden made peace at Kardis with Russia, the last
and most obstinate of her foes, it became clear how vast was the advance
which she had made in fifty years. When Gustavus Adolphus ascended
the throne, it had just been demonstrated by war that her power was less
than that of Denmark. Charles X, on the other hand, had treated
Denmark as insolently as Napoleon treated Spain. With the exception
of Norway, always separated from her neighbour by a broad belt of
desolation, the Swedes were masters of the vast Scandinavian peninsula.
Towards the south, in Pomerania and Bremen -Verden, they had secured
large outworks beyond the sea, and had thus become a formidable con-
stituent of the Empire, with the estuaries of two great German rivers in
their grasp. In the east, not only did they hold provinces enough to
prevent Russia from laimching a boat upon the Baltic without their
leave, but they had compelled Poland to renounce her claim to much
that she had regarded as rightly hers. By half a century of warfare
Sweden had thus acquired the unquestionable primacy of the north.

This imposing empire, however, was reared upon a foundation whose
fissures were open to every man's view. A political structure so hetero-
geneous bristled with problems, national and international. The inter-
national dangers of Sweden, indeed, began on her own side of the sea.
Norway, which successive Swedish warrior-kings strove in vain to conquer,
still menaced Sweden's flank. Yet more ominous, as events were soon to
prove, was the fact that the fertile lowlands of the south, which had
lately been wrested from Denmark, had not ceased to look across the
Sound for their overlord. In Norway and in Scsinia, therefore, Denmark
possessed two dangerous auxiliaries for the war of revenge which might
naturally follow upon a turn such as in 1660 had been given to a struggle
more ancient than the Vasa line. That she would watch her opportunity,
was, moreover, rendered yet more probable by the connexion — still repre-
sented in the person of Hedwig Eleonora, the consort of Charles X —
between Sweden and the House of Holstein-Gottorp, whose interests
seemed irreconcilable with those of the Danish dynasty. There were
other reasons which made Sweden suspect her neighbour. Her German
possessions, Bremen and Verden on the one hand, and western Pomerania
on the other, might well appear to Frederick III, as they had appeared
to Axel Oxenstiema, in the light of so many parallels advanced against
Denmark. The peace of Scandinavia, it was clear, had not been assiured
in 1660 ; yet for her discord meant weakness. So long as Sweden and
Denmark remained consistently hostile, foreign nations would never fail

1660-73] Sweden's dangers abroad and at home. 663

to play off the one against the other, and Sweden could never obtain that
naval supremacy which was the first essential of a Baltic empire.

In the wider sphere of Europe, Sweden occupied a position of greater
insecurity than in Scandinavia. Her outworks in Germany, for which
she had striven so long, afforded her some security, but at the cost of
some danger. With the city of Bremen she had already had one armed
conflict, and was soon (in 1666) to enter on another. Her lands
between Weser and Elbe were standing provocations to several
German Princes, while those to the west of the Oder challenged others,
of whom the Great Elector was the chief. The dominion of an alien
race in one part of Germany affronted the whole Germanic body, and by
binding the Swedes to the House of Habsburg aggravated the difficulties
of their international position. In an age of rivalry between France,
her old ally, and the Emperor, it was a serious matter for Sweden that
she had now become a German Power. So far as Poland was concerned,
it seemed as though the quarrel which had endiured for two generations
had been settled at Oliva. But the Baltic Provinces, inhabited inland
by a turbulent native nobility and a population of serfs, offered difficulties
of their own. Peace with the Tsar, moreover, could never be deemed
safe so long as the Swedish empire was flung right across the path
of Russian national aspiration ; and for some years it was anticipated
that the treaty which had cost so much labour at Kardis would be broken.
To hold the gates of Bussia was, moreover, to hazard conflict with the
Maritime Powers; while the Dutch were particularly sensitive to the
efforts of Sweden to transfer her commerce into the hands of her own
subjects.

The dangers of Sweden's international position, however, might weU
be deemed less formidable and less acute than those which menaced her
nearer home. Many of her potential enemies might be foiled by
diplomacy, or embroiled with each other, or even be forced at the end
of a successfjil war to make further sacrifices to Sweden. But the social
and economic diseases which were afflicting the body politic would yield
only to treatment which must be perilous and which might be fatal.
The Swedish State was young, and its constitution could not yet be
deemed mature. Though raised to greatness and in a measure ordered
and organised by Gustavus Adolphus and Oxenstiema, its basis was
changing before its structure had been firmly built. The Church still
asserted great independence of the State. The nobles still maintained
that no law could survive their veto. Charles XI, a sickly child, formed
the sole barrier against a disputed succession. The testament of his
father, Charles X, provided for a regency ; but, at the risk of civil war,
the will was so far set aside that Adolphus John, the brother of the
late King, was excluded from all share in the Government. For twelve
years, until the King's majority (December, 1672), Sweden had to endure
an administration which possessed iU-defined powers, was uncertain as to

CH. xviii. 36—2

664 Poverty of Sweden. — The JRegency,- [leeo-va

the division of power between the Regents and the Council (R&d), and
was compelled to submit to the uncertain interference of Estates which
were themselves engaged in an internecine struggle. The approach of
Queen Christina> who more than once showed a disposition to resume her
Crown, sufficed to throw both Church and State into a panic.

In its dissensions and uncertainty, moreover, the administration did
but reflect society in Sweden. Now, as under Christina, peace brought
out the national defects. War, it has often been asserted, was at this
time the most lucrative industry of Sweden. It is untrue, indeed, that
in any given year the State had drawn pecuniary profit from her
campaigns. Individual soldiers, such as the Wrangels, had grown rich ;
but the peasants and the Treasury looked to peace for financial salvation.
It is none the less true that the sole national enterprise in which Sweden
excelled was war, and that peace soon made it apparent that the moral
fibre of the nation had softened. Many of the nobles had become
luxurious, arrogant, and rapacious. Jealous of every vestige of wealth
and power in non-noble hands, they quarrelled among themselves about
precedence with a violence that made every festival a likely occasion for
strife. Industry and commerce, inchoate in almost everything except
furniture of war, but feebly adjusted themselves to the ohahged con-
ditions. There was hardly a section of the population without a long
list of grievances against every other section. Arid, when the levies
of Charles X were disbanded, the homesteads which should have supported
them in time of peace were found too often to have been alienated to
private persons by the Crown.

The decay of the political structure designed to sustain the army
formed but part of the formidable problem with which the Regency
was confronted. Despite her imposing empire and the pomp of a few
great nobles, Sweden remained one of the poorest and least populous
countries of Europe. Her exchequer was empty. Her bank was
tattering. Her civil service had long remained unpaid. To meet the
most pressing claims of the army, disbanded in 1660, the Councillors
were obliged to pledge their private credit, while the sum of 30,000
dollars for the English sailors was raised by pawning the cannon from the
fleet. The National Debt approached 10,500,000 dollars, at a time
when Crown lands to the annual value of some millions had passed into
the hands of the nobles.

The Regency of five great Officers of State under the nominal
presidency of the Queen Dowager, which took the reins after a sharp
conflict between the noble and the non-noble Estates, contained no states-
man of commanding genius. The youthful Queen Hedwig Eleonora
was a dilettante rather than a politician. But in the aged and unbending
aristocrat Per Brahe, who had sat in the Council since the days of
Gustavus Adolphus, the Regents possessed a Steward worthy alike of the
honoured name which he bore and of the almost regal patrimony which
had long prospered under his paternal hand. The Treasurer, the

1660-72] Magnus de La Gardie. — Bonde. 666

taciturn but efficient Gustaf Bonde, proved himself likewise a stubborn
patriot, and his budget of 1662 came to' be regarded as a pattern from
which it was almost treason to depart. Brahe and Bonde, with three
colleagues, formed the Regency which gave Sweden peace with all her
enemies, arrived at a settled plan of government, exerted itself for the
advancement of trade and justice, and met the Diet of 1664 with a
record of four years' active and equitable administration.

Although the administration of the Regency in its early years is entitled
to fair credit, yet signs were not wanting that the kingdoHi lacked
a king. The Regents owed at least a nominal responsibility to the
Council, and both Regents and Council were substantially delegates of
the nobles. The familiar weaknesses of party government therefore
made their appearance. Crown lands were bestowed upon the Regents
and their friends, while in three years more than forty families received
ennoblement. Worst of all, the Chancellor and the brother-in-law of
the Queen, Count Magnus Gabriel de La Gardie, attained to an influence
which only the weakest of kings would have allowed. Himself of French
ancestry, La Gardie shed over the rugged Swedish Court something
of the lustre of Versailles, Rich, handsome and urbane, he knew no
rival as an orator and as a man of feelingi AU his contemporaries pro-
nomice his talents and his person brilliant. He was the Maecenas to
whom Sweden owed many of the literary and artistic achievements which
mark the age. In forming and consolidating his political influence he
proved adroit, while on occasion he showed himself both penetrating and
energetic. But there was in him something too superficial for his station
and his times. A lover of dignified ease, he would abandon politics for
months together. During four months of the year 1672 he spent twelve
days at Stockholm. When stoutly opposed he yielded, and in the hour
of disaster he collapsed.

For nea,rly fifteen years, however. La Gardie was the cynosure of
Sweden. His power, it is true, depended on a majority in the Council ;
and this was by no means always at his command. But, on the whole,
his influence was predominant, and under it the national ruin was almost
consummated. At the beginning of the year 1661 the National Debt
amounted to some ten and a half million dollars — a sum which mocked
at mere retrenchment. Financial equilibrium could not be honestly
established in the near future except by special votes of supplies or by
substantial resumptions of the alienated Crown lands. But the former
was refused by the Diet, and the latter — the "Reduction" resolved on in
1655 — ^broke down. In vain Bonde struggled with the passive resistance
of Brahe and the active hostility of La Gardie, The common vice of
oligarchy proved too strong, ITie endowment of the State was now
firmly regarded as the inheritance of a caste. Those who had as yet
received none of the Crown lands demanded that they should not be left
out in the cold; and the annual protest of the Treasury fell on deaf ears.

666 Sweden in alliance with France. [i6e7-T2

In 1667 Bonde died. No longer opposed by this champion of Swedish
honesty and independence, La GarcQe held the Treasury at his mercy.
To the end of his career he never understood how facts could be too hard
for graceful words; and he now turned inevitably to financial jugglery,
in order to meet the heavy annual deficit. "Cease paying off debt," he
urged, "and borrow, anticipate, take foreign subsidies ; and not a doit
of deficit will remain."

Warning voices were heard in opposition to a policy so ruinous
in time of peace. Per Brahe, the quasi-monarch of mid-Sweden, urged
retrenchment, but in vain. Year by year, the finances grew more in-
volved, until at last their chaos spread to the department of foreign
affairs. Bonde had struggled hard to keep expenditure within the
limits of revenue and had even contrived to pay off a small part of the
debt. In 1667, however, a Commission reported a deficit of over three
million dollars — ^the result largely of the gifts, exemptions, and privileges
lavished by the Regency upon themselves and their supporters. It was
under the pressure of financial necessity, which Regency, Council, and Diet
would make no sacrifice to meet, that in 1672 La Gardie embarked
Sweden on the venture, equally dishonest and disastrous, of an alliance
with France.

For the next quarter of a century the efforts of France to make
Sweden her dependant created the chief problems of Swedish foreign
policy. A series of skilful diplomatists— Pomponne, Feuquieres, Bethune,
d'Avaux — formed and maintained at Stockholm the party of Louis XIV.
But the French connexion, in later years accepted or rejected by the
King after careful consideration of the national interest, was now accepted
by the Regency in the fatuous belief that France would pay liberally for
services which Sweden was unwilling, if not unable, to perform. " Let
us act like merchants," said one of their number, "so as to get money
enough and do naught else for it than sit still; but let us have our
troops ready for all emergencies." In this spirit they prepared to bargain
with the King of France. At this time Louis XIV wished to complete
the isolation of the Dutch by paralysing their German allies. He there-
fore offered to Sweden an annual subsidy of 400,000 crowns in time of
peace, and 600,000 in time of war, on condition of keeping 16,000 men
for eventual action in Germany. La Gardie, an optimistic amateur
in statecraft, hoped to line his own pockets and to avert the need for
retrenchment at the cost of a mere promise. Sweden had joined the
Triple Alliance of 1668 in the hope of receiving subsidies from the
enemies of France at a time when peace was imminent. Now, by a new
and equally censurable speculation, the Chancellor set in motion forces
destined to overwhelm himself and to bring his country to the verge of
destruction. On April 3, 1672, Sweden closed with France ; and on the
next day she concluded with England, the client of France, a treaty to the
prejudice of the Dutch. Yet the States General were immediately assured

1672-4] Charles XI ^ La Gardie.-The "Reduction" again. 667

that Sweden would not deviate one hair's-breadth from her previous com-
pact with them. Three days later, 200,000 Frenchmen crossed their
frontier.

The Treaty with France had still nearly ten years to run when, in
December, 1672, Charles XI became of age to govern. For a time, his
reign seemed to be merely a prolongation of the Regency. Though the
Estates were disposed to take a far less favourable view, the young King
received the report of the Regents with a grateful declaration that they
and their heirs were for ever freed from further indictment on account of
their actions.

The sovereignty, though in name no longer fettered, had passed
to a youth so untutored that later generations believed him still
unable to read or write, and so shy that a foreign ambassador declared
it cruelty to make him speak. His enthusiasm was for field-sports,
especially for mimic war. In all else. La Gardie, his uncle, seemed
to be his tutor. Under such auspices, Sweden advanced gaily along
the road to ruin. In the Swedish polity, however, it was impossible that
any change connected with the throne should remain void of constitutional
effect. Two grave consequences swiftly resulted from the majority
of the King. La Gardie, rejoicing to govern through a docile youth
instead of through a fickle assembly of forty members, began to with-
draw portions of public business from the consideration of the full
Council, and to transact them with the King and a few Councillors and
Secretaries. Thus the Chancellor's dislike of criticism and the King's of
ceremony caused a royal Cabinet to come into being. More immediately
apparent, however, was the influence of the King in the departments of
revenue and of war. A soldier cherishing a deep reverence for the royal
office, Charles found himself a King who could neither borrow money, nor
pay his servants — nor provide for the support of his army in time of peace.
Unhampered by that regard for persons which had hitherto rendered it
almost ineffective, he turned naturally to the "Reduction" (the origin of
which has been explained in an earlier volume) to banish such infamy.
Incited by the rough giant John Gyllenstierna, he pressed the claims of
the Crown with so much vigour that in 1674 nearly 3000 homesteads
were recovered. Many of these were assigned to the support of the army
and navy; but even more important than the immediate relief to the
services was the demonstration of the power of the Estates to decree,
and of the Crown to procure, relief for the penury of the State at the
expense of private persons.

Whither this might have led, how the King's character might have
developed while the need of the State and the clamour of the people
beat against the rampart of aristocratic power — these things can only
be surmised. The "fourteen years in which it had pleased the Most
High to vouchsafe that our dear fatherland should sit at peace" were
drawing to a dose. Early in 1674, Sweden found herself manoeuvred by

OB. ZTIU.

668 War with Brandenburg' and Denmark. [i674-5

France into a war which she desired to avoid, and which she was to prove
herself beyond all expectation incompetent to conduct. The young
King, who had been trained for war and not for peace, dreamed of
leading Swedish troops to fresh victories on German soil. La Gardie,
corrupted by French gold, still hoped to gain subsidies by a show of
arming. But the nation, heroically ready for sacrifice on behalf of its
religion or its independence, loathed the conflict into which it was now
betrayed. La Gardie raised an army which Sweden could not maintain
unassisted, in order to receive without fighting subsidies which Louis
soon refused to pay on these terms. In vain the duped Chancellor
struggled to break through the net in which he had enmeshed his country.
He tried to induce England to mediate for peace, Louis to change his
policy, Holland to purchase Swedish neutrality, and the Great Elector to
desist from war. As Feuquieres had foreseen, however, the army trans-
ported to Swedish Pomerania to menace the Emperor was soon compelled,
by lack of supplies, to cross the frontier of Brandenburg, so that in
December, 1674, Sweden found herself at war with the Great Elector,
the Emperor's ally. She sought in vain an alliance with Denmark ; and,
six months later, the Dutch joined the number of her foes.

The events of 1674 had shown the depths to which Swedish diplomacy
had sunk since the days of Axel Oxehstierna. The campaign of 1675
was to show that Swedish strategy had sunk as low since the days of
Charles X. The Council was for giving foreign Powers the least possible
offence, while Wrangel, though full of martial ardour, was no longer
capable of constructing a plan of operations. Midsummer was scarcely
past, when the slow uncertain movements of the Swedish forces were
rudely interrupted by the Great Elector's victory at Fehrbellm,
described elsewhere, which at one blow changed the position of Sweden
in Germany. For a quarter of a century to come, the military prestige
of Sweden was shattered. Wrangel's army sank to 7000 men; and, unless
a new host could cross the sea to his assistance, the whole of Pomerania
was lost. Christian V suddenly overwhelmed the Duke of Holstein-
Gottorp and declared war upon Charles XI. La Gardie fell into a
political stupor. The Estates, assembled at Upsala, plucked up courage
to call in question the policy of the Regents. Confronted by the
prospect of an investigation, the Council showed itself timorous and
divided. Per Brahe declared with tears that, though he had been at
forty Diets, he had never heard the like; but the King undertook to
comply with the wish of the Estates. At Michaelmas they dispersed,
haviiig placed a powerful weapon in the hands of the monarchyj and
haying voted men and money to the utmost of their ability.

In the hour of national disaster Charles XI began to play the
dictator. But the most fevered energy could not remedy in a moment
the military decay for which the Regency was to blame. In October,
stimulated by the King's threats, a Swedish fleet put to sea, but only

1676-6] The War of Scarda. 669

demonstrated its incompetence in navigation. Secure against invasion,
the Danes took Wismar, and made preparations, both in Zealand and in
Norway, to attack Sweden; while the Great Elector, the Brunswick-
Liineburg Dukes, and the Bishop of Miinster rapidly overran Bremen,
Verden, and Swedish Pomerania. The early months of 1676 merely
developed the situation reached in 1675. In Germany, Konigsmarck,
with some 6000 ill-found troops, concentrated his efforts on the defence
of Stralsund, Rugen and Stettin. Meanwhile a naval disaster off Oland
(June 1, 1676) confined the main force of Charles XI to the peninsula
and enabled the Danes, at the end of June, to launch a triple invasion
against their lost provinces.

During two eventful years the fate of Sweden hung upon the struggle
in Scania. Its earliest phase revealed the revolution in the comparative
strength of the combatants which sixteen years of autocracy on the one
side and aristocracy on the other had brought about. Instead of be-
sieging Copenhagen, the Swedes were compelled to despatch troops in all
haste to man their decaying fortresses, and to withdraw the remnant of
the army, less than 6000 strong, out of the invaders' reach. While one
force marched south from Norway under Gyldenlove and another lajided
at Ystad in southernmost Sweden, Duke John Adolphus of Holstein-
Plon crossed the Sound with 14,000 men. He soon proved his own
quality and that of his men by capturing Landskrona, an invaluable
base of operations, and by storming in two hours the fortress of
Kristianstad, which was reputed impregnable. These successes made
Scania once more a Danish province. The exulting peasants fell upon
the estates and other property of the Swedish nobles and officials, and
began a bitter guerilla warfare which Charles found it well-nigh im-
possible to extinguish.

The young King seemed for a time paralysed by events which belied
the experience of two generations, and for days together would speak to
no one. Feuquieres, who tried in vain to cajole him into returning to
Stockholm, reported that his crown was in peril. Then, suddenly, he
rushed to the rescue of Halland and West Gotland. He had formed a
fixed idea, which greatly embarrassed Helmfelt and his other generals,
that he must deliver Sweden by a pitched battle. At Fyllebro near
Halmstad he crushed a Danish detachment under Major-General Duncan,
and took up a position which had the effect of frustrating the invstsion
of Gyldenlove. He had now moreover become intimate with the patriot
John Gyllenstiema, whose harsh genius gave him fresh inspiration
against the national enemy and against the aristocracy which had
brought his country so low. With the aid of Gyllenstiema and Erik
Dahlberg, he assembled a national army more than 16,000 strong and
engaged in a winter campaign of manoeuvres. To regain Scania, how-
ever, proved a terribly difficult task. Operating in a hostile country,
the Swedes, mainly through disease, dwindled to some 8000 men. The

670 Swedish victories. — Losses in Germany. [i676-8

King, however, was determined not to quit Scania without a battle. At
last, on the night of December 3, the vigilance of the Danes relaxed and
they found themselves compelled to fight near Lund. A confused and
desperate struggle ensued. Helmfelt and Charles, who fought like a
hero of old, crushed the Danish left under King Christian, but rode so
far in pursuit that their weary comrades of the centre and left were
brought to the verge of desti:uction. Gyllenstiema and Feuquieres fled
from what seemed to be a lost battle, but the troops bravely stood their
ground until the King cut his way back to them and gained a complete
victory. Nearly half the combatants, 5000 Danes and 3000 Swedes, had
fallen, and Charles captured 2000 men with the Danish camp and artillery.

The victory of Lund rescued the Swedes from a well-nigh desperate
plight and led to the recovery of Helsingborg, Kristianopel, and Karl'-
sharan. Above all, it made Charles XI the hero of the army and of the
nation. Scania, however, was by no means regained. The Danes still held
Landskrona and Kristianstad. No severity could stamp out the guerilla
warfare. A victorious invasion by the Norwegians under Gyldenlove
assisted the Danes. In May, 1677, Christian took the field with 12,000
men, while the Swedes had less than half that number in the field. The
strategy of Charles was still to march straight at the enemy, sword in
hand ; and, but for a mysterious error on the part of his opponent, he
must have been crushed. When wiser counsels prevailed on both sides,
the Danes found themselves masters of central and southern Scania; and
in June and July the victories of Niels Juel off Femern and in the bay
of Kjoge confirmed their command of their sea. But Malmo remained
Swedish ; its assailants fell out among themselves ; a great assault failed ;
and at the end of June the Danes were compelled to abandon a siege
which had cost them some 4000 men. These losses contributed greatlyi
to give Charles the victory in a pitched battle near Landskrona (July 14),
when, after eight hours' fighting, he drove the Danes from a field where
3000 of their number had fallen. After this disaster. Christian was
content to stand on the defensive near Landskrona, and actually detached
some 5000 men to help the Great Elector in Pomerania and Riigen. In
spite of .the continual guerilla warfare and the dangerous incursions
which Gyldenlove and his Norwegians renewed in 1677 and 1678, the
mainland had been saved by the victories of the Swedish King.

The campaigns of 1677 and 1678, however, for the time, cost Sweden
the remnants of her dominions in Germany. The wonderful though
unavailing defence of Stettin, the triumph of Konigsmarck over the
Danes in Riigen, and the stoical retreat of Horn from the borders of
east Prussia to Riga, added lustre to the Swedish arms without checking
the advance of the Great Elector. But the victories of Louis XIV in
war and diplomacy atoned for the failure of his ally. Since the spring of
1677, negotiations for a general peace had been carried on at Nymegen.
There Bengt Oxenstiema displayed a futile readiness to join with any

1679-80] Treaties of Saint-Germain, Fontainebleau, Lund. 571

Power that could promise advantages to Sweden. While the ambassador
offered to betray France, his master most obstinately insisted that the
French should invade Germany in order to compel the restoration to
Sweden of every acre that she had lost. The issue deeply wounded
Charles XL In February, 1679, France and Sweden made up their
quarrel Avith the Emperor and the Empire, and Louis and Leopold
undertook to mediate between the northern Powers. The former, acting
as the self-constituted guardian of Sweden, at the same time made peace
at Celle between Charles XI and the three Brunswick-Liineburg Dukes.
The disgusted monarch, whose subsequent severe illness was attributed
to chagrin, was powerless to resist, and next month averted a similar
slight by coming to terms with the Bishop of Miinster. The greatest
boon, peace with the Great Elector, was however flung to Sweden by
Louis XIV. At the end of June, 1679, by the Peace of Saint-Germain,
she recovered all her possessions in Pomerania except a strip of territory
on the right bank of the Oder. '

Two months later, although Jens Juel and Gyllenstiema were nego-
tiating in the cathedral at Lund, Louis dealt with Christian V as he had
dealt with the Great Elector. By the Treaty of Fontainebleau, Denmark
restored her conquests to Sweden and received only an insignificant sum
of money in exchange. Finally, in October, the state of nominal war
between Sweden on the one hand and Spain and the Dutch on the other
was brought to an end.

The chances of war and politics had thus fixed the balance of power in
Scandinavia where the great Gustavus, Oxenstierna, and Charles X had
left it. For a moment indeed it seemed as though the ideal of abiding
Scandinavian concord, which Griffenfeld had conceived and Gyllenstiema
developed, might be realised. The formal Peace concluded between
Denmark and Sweden at Lund was accompanied by an intimate com-
mercial and military alliance. In the spring of 1680 a common coinage
for the three Scandinavian kingdoms was decreed, and the new unity
found expression in the marriage of Charles XI with Ulrica Eleonora,
the pious sister of Christian V. The untimely death of Gyllenstiema in
June, 1680, may therefore be regarded as a misfortune for Scandinavia
as a whole. Gyllenstiema died at the moment when his ideas for both
the international and the domestic policy of Sweden seemed likely to
prevail. Although there was none to take his place as the architect of
Scandinavian unity, the peace between the weary Danes and Swedes
remained for two decades unbroken. Within the Swedish realm, more-
over, men were groping their way towards a goal which his eyes had
clearly seen. To make the King an autocrat, to arraign the Regents, to
resume the alienated Crown lands, to restore order in the finances and to
establish a territorial army — these had been to him means as valuable as
the entente with Denmark towards the supreme purpose of making Sweden
strong and independent. During the War, especially at the Diet held at

672 Character of Charles XI. [1675-97

Halmstad early in 1678, demands for a new "Reductionr had been heard,
and the Estates had laid before the King a statement of the faults and
infirmities from which the constitution of the realm was suffering. At
the same time every possible rival to the monarchy had been swept away
by the War. La Gardie, the high nobility, and the Council were dis-
credited or paralysed. War had made Charles XI virtually a dictator ;
and the nation, save perhaps a few great nobles, looked expectantly towards
a King who might maintain the same ascendancy in times of peace.

No period illustrates better than the years 1675 to 1697 the truth
that the history of Sweden has been the history of her Kings. It was
Charles XI who transformed the Swedish Crown, created Charles XII
and bequeathed them to each other. Having rescued the State by force
of arms, he remoulded her by laws and administration. His heir he
endowed with many of his own qualities, trained in his own school,
and invested with the purple mantle of absolutism. Yet the personal
life of the King who raised monarchy so high was that of a peasant.
For months together he dwelt remote from his capital and inaccessible
to all save a few Ministers and servants. The French ambassador, who
more than once stalked the royal quarry to his lair, got little profit by
intruding upon a Prince who rivalled Louis XIV in kingly pride,
Charles delighted in feverish rides of from seventy to ninety miles in a day ;
and in his wide and sparsely peopled realm these could be performed
almost in solitude. On the parade ground, where few words save those
of command were needed, he gladly played his part, and was wont to
hew asunder faulty harness with his own sword. But the usages and
pleasures of society he detested ; he was married on an obscure manor,
and forbade all festivity at the birth of his first-born son. He preferred
a written petition to an audience, and a midnight drive into Stockholm
to torch-bearers and triumphal arches. Thus few of his contemporaries
enjoyed an opportunity of penetrating his mind or estimating his capa^
city. To some he seemed a stupid, gullible tyrant ; to others, the wise
and resolute father of his people — and neither view can be pronoimced
wholly wrong.

In seeking the master-key to the history of the reign which the
character of the King supplies, several facts seem clear. Unlike his
father, Charles XI had not reached maturity when called upon to save
the State. Before the War he was a backward youth whom de La Gardie
kept in leading-strings. The shock of 1675 made him a man; the storms
of 1676, a veteran. Thenceforward until 1693, when the death of his
Queen banished all peace from his mind, he appears, while gaining experi-
ence of affairs, to have suffered from the corrupting influence of absolute
power. Like all autocrats, he was liable to be imposed upon by flattery,
but a puppet he never was. During the War he overruled his generals.
From 1676 till 1680 he may have accepted Gyllenstiema as his tutor in
politics; but it is idle to maintain that through all the developments of

1675-97] Charles XI and Ms advisers. 673

the next seventeen years he had no fresh source of inspiration. He always
believed himself to be master in his own realm, and the attitude of his
later Ministers, Klas Fleming, Nils Bielke, and Bengt Oxenstiema,
suggests that his behef was well founded. Hating diplomacy, he readily
entrusted others with the conduct of foreign affairs, but only on condition
that certain guiding principles should be carried out to his own satisfac-
tion. Ignorant, of unattractive appearance, mediocre talent, and limited
outlook on life, his unexampled political success was to prove how a firm
will combined with simple honesty, com-age, and common sense may
constitute greatness in a king.

At the close of the War, Charles foimd the Council discredited,
Sweden half-ruined, and himself the hope of the nation. Under these
conditions he met the Estates at Stockholm in October, 1680. The
Diet of 1680, followed by that of 1682, was to effect nothing less than
the transformation of Sweden from a limited to an absolute monarchy.
This revolution appears to have been thought out beforehand, facilitated
by the appointment of formidable nobles to posts overseas, and accom-
plished by parliamentary strategy. Feuquieres observed that the Guards
were quartered in Stockholm, while five or six thousand men, chiefly under
Livonian or foreign officers, lay close at hand. The whole movement was
directed by a King whose nature impelled him, in debate, in negotiation,
and in war alike, to rush straight towards his unconcealed goal. Charles
was indeed not destitute of advisers. Gyllenstiema, with his plans for
an army of 80,000 men and an alliance with Denmark, had doubtless
sowed fruitful seeds in his mind. Louis XIV had counselled him to
remain in the background and merely to accept the profitable proposals
of the Estates. Klas Fleming, as strenuous as the King in the public
service and an able opponent of the high nobles, obeyed the royal
command to act as president {Landtmarskalk) of the First Estate, and
must have stood in relations of peculiar intimacy with his master.
Hans Wachtmeister, the most conspicuous of a group of old comrades
in war whom Charles always trusted, was regarded as expressing in his
many and passionate speeches ideas at least acceptable to the King. It
is difficult, however, to resist the conclusion that the victorious result
must be ascribed to Charles himself, and that its secret lay, not in craft
and astuteness, but in a will firm even to fanaticism, an unbounded sense
of duty, and the irresistible logic of the situation.

The forms of deliberation indeed contributed much to the triumph
of national need and popular resentment over wealth and privilege.
The four Estates (nobles, clergy, burghers and peasants) met separately
and corresponded with the King and with one another chiefly in writing
and through formal embassies. Thus, although the nobles were ready to
claim an authority not inferior to that of the three non-noble Estates
combined, and although the peasants sometimes declared themselves
incapable of forming any opinion on high politics, the Crown could

OH, ZTIII.

674 The Great Commission. [i675-8o

normally make use of the unanimous votes of three Estates to overcome
the reluctance of one. Even if this procedure were not practicable, a
royal proposition could be laid before the four Estates severally and
their answers severally received. From these four documents it was
Charles' wont to distil a single answer in the sense desired by him and
to return it to the Estates for signature, which no individual dared to
refuse. In dealing with the First Estate, moreover, the Crown possessed
the inestimable advantage of selecting its president. Not only did
Klas Fleming act as both official channel and mediator between King
and nobles, but it also lay in his power to prevent unacceptable motions
from being put to the vote, or to withhold the shelter of the ballot from
those who might have ventured to give a secret vote against the Crown.
Dissensions between the members of the Council and the remainder of
the high nobles, and others, far more acute and permanent, between the
greater and the lesser nobles, helped to complete the ascendancy of the
-King.

Thus aided, the Crown obtained its ends with unprecedented thorough-
ness and speed. The familiar torpor of the executive, indeed, afforded
no clue to the pace of the deliberative assembly of Sweden. The Council
had been wont to break off for months together, and when it was
nominally in session an attendance of two, or even of one, of the forty
members was not unknown. Feuquieres complained that to procure
the transaction by it of a piece of business was as hard as to make
two Popes and three Kings of Poland. Ten years after the death of
Gyllenstiema, the correct basis on which to calculate his salary as
ambassador was still in question. The Estates, on the other hand,
unhampered by complex forms of procedure, anxious to return to their
homes, confronted with simple questions to which their class interests
suggested the answer, and in a sense presided over by the Crown, were
ready to sanction the most weighty enactments in a few days. The King
first asked for means to establish the independence of the State, and
Hans Wachtmeister declared to his brother nobles that this could be
accomplished without a new grant, if only the Regents were brought to
book. A storm of conflicting passions was thus let loose; but within six
days Charles and the Estates had decreed that those persons or their
heirs who had been responsible for the government during the minority
should be tried by a Great Commission. This body, which was appointed
on October 26, 1680, and took the place of the Commission of enquiry
appointed in 1675, consisted of nine members from each of the four
Estates chosen by that Estate in concert with the Crown. The fortunes
of 118 great Houses depended on its deliberations.

Immediately after the appointment of the Great Commission, the
three non-noble Estates joined in petitioning the King for a new and
more comprehensive Reduction. The tempest which this demand aroused
would have cowed a monarch less resolute than Charles. The whole

1680-2] The " Beduction" of 16S0. 576

military staff clamoured for redress. The Council came in a body to
implore him to intervene. Civil war, if not revolution, seemed imminent.
But the King, courteously expressing his disbelief that any party could
desire other than the public good, declared his willingness to confirm the
measures on which the four Estates should agree. Neither the Council
nor the majority in the House of Nobles ventured to carry resistance to
greater lengths than noise and disorder. Before the end of November,
the nobles had consented to the resumption by the Crown of all counties
and baronies and all other of the alienated royal domains whose rent
exceeded 600 dollars. The carrying-out of this vast Reduction was
entrusted to a Commission, whose members, like those of the Great
Commission, received a written indemnity from the Estates. Though
the business of the Diet was now at an end, Charles kept it assembled, in
order to remove any impediments which the two Commissions might
encounter. Before the Estates finally dispersed, they gave proof that
their struggles had prepared the way for autocracy. By allowing the
attack on the nobles to come from their social inferiors, Charles had
commended the monarchy not only to the party who thus became
victorious, but also to their victims, who would rather trust to a king
than to a mob. When therefore he enquired of the Estates how far he
was bound by the Form of Government, and whether the Council was in
truth, as it had made some pretence of being, a separate Estate of the
Realm, they were unanimous for absolutism. The King, they declared
in December, 1680, was bound by no form of government, but only by
the law of Sweden. In ruling his hereditary realm, he need consult his
Council only when and how he pleased, and was responsible to God
alone. They further besought him to make provision for the government
in case of his own decease.

For several years after 1680, the two Commissions were busily trans-
ferring the wealth of the nobles to the coffers of the State. Charles had
the most pressing reasons for the eagerness with which he spurred on
the Commissions. His precise integrity could not but feel humiliated
when his ambassador, after emptying his own pockets in the public service,
vainly besought the jewellers of Copenhagen to supply trinkets for the
King of Sweden to present to his future Queen. The poverty and
consequent peril of the nation at a time when a European conflagration
was daily expected, and when Denmark and Brandenburg were leagued
with France, forms the best apology for the tyranny of the Commis-
sioners. The Councillors adjudged responsible for public acts during
the King's minority were condemned to make good the injury which
these acts were deemed to have inflicted on the State, together with
interest which in many cases was fixed at twelve per cent. The heirs of
Bonde, the patriotic apostle of retrenchment, were thus mulcted of neai-ly
a quarter of a million dollars. The R&d or Council, however, divided
and leaderless as it was, discredited by its futility the argument of the

OB. XVIII,

676 Benevolent despotism of Charles XI. [lesz-w

learned Kudbeck that Kidman and Rhadamanthus were the same.
Charles settled every disputed point at his pleasure and several times
altered the procedure. Before the end of May, 1682, the Great Commission
pronounced the last of its verdicts, and a commission of settlement was
at work upon details. By 1689 the main harvest had been garnered in.
Some 4,000,000 dollars passed from the great Houses to the Crown, and
this enormous sum sufficed to turn the balance of political power. The
birth of the Commission had proved that the Estates were superior to
the Council. Its work rendered the Crown superior both to the Council
and to the Estates.

While the grea,t Houses were thus enduring the blows of the Great
Commission, they were exposed to still heavier chastisement from the
Commission of Reduction, which the King likewise inspired and over
which the untiring Klas Fleming presided until his death in 1685. The
great surrender of 1680 had been made by the nobles in the full ex-
pfebtation that this would be the final sacrifice exacted from them by the
Crown. At the Diet which met at Stockholm in October, 1682, they
were undeceived. Many of the great Houses had now been laid low.
Their latifundia were reverting to the Crown. The Council of the
Realm had become, in composition and in name alike, a Royal Council.
But the hostility of the non-noble Estates remained unquenched, and
they clamoured for a further Reduction as the only means of paying the
debts of the State. As in 1680, therefore, both sides were brought to
commit all authority over the Reduction and much else into the willing
hands of the King, i From this Diet Charles emerged a full-fledged
autocrat. He claimed, with slender limitations, the right to make laws, to
order the succession, to abolish freedom of speech, to levy taxes, to direct
education,administration and the Chiu-ch, and under one or another branch
of the Reduction to repudiate most of the debts due from the Crown to
its subjects, while, appropriating most of their property at will. At the
same time, a standing army was in contemplation which, when complete,
would render the King wholly independent of the Estates. Sweden, it
seemed, in guarding against oligarchy, had abjured her ancient freedoin.

From 1682 to the King's death in 1697, the Swedish nation had
experience of benevolent despotism — the appropriate prelude to the
career of Charles XII, who was born in the former year. During this period
Sweden's political record is marked by few events of special significance.
For more than fourteen years, however, all was done that royal power and
energy could do to realise, both by foreign and domestic policy, the ideals
of Charles XI. For Sweden the indispensable condition of future
strength was rest, and the monarch who delighted in the life of a soldier
therefore made himself an unbending opponent of war. Diplomacy,
which he was said to regard as " an unnecessary scholastic," he delegated
to Bengt Ox,enstierna, and accepted the ideas of his Minister on
condition that Sweden kept clear of vassalage to France and of war.

1682-97] ReforTOS and advances under Charles XI. b*l*l

Under the guidance of Oxenstierna, he had, in September, 1681, joined
with the Dutch in the so^alled Hague Treaty of Guarantee, by which the
two Powers engaged to defend for twenty years the Treaties of Westphalia
and Nymegen, which were then being violated by Louis XIV. Despite
the efforts of the French party at Stockholm to overthrow the Minister,
his pohcy of diplomatic opposition to France as the disturber of Em'ope
continued to previdL Swedish troops played so limited a part in the War
of the Grand Alliance that Charles XI could act as mediator in the
n'egotiations for its close. '■ : ,.

In internal affairs, Sweden derived benefit from a foreign policy
which often appeared cowardly and insincere. In many braiiches of the
national life progress became possible. Although Church and State
were uniting to massacre witches, and although the King was ■ too
ignorant and too practical to play the patron, science, literature and
art flourished as never before in Sweden. The nation seemed to be
struggling to fit itself for the great position which it owed to the fortime
of war and politics. It strove to incorporate with itself the non-German
provinces which it had won, and at the same timetodncrease the strength
and culture which afforded the only basis of empire. In education, in
worship, and in law, Scania was made Swedish. The serfs of Livonia
were safeguarded against the nobles, at a time when the Reduction was
pressing upon that province with a severity which drove Patkul to
rebellion. A national army and a national fleet grew up; yet -the
revenue exceeded the yearly needs of the State. But all initiative came
from the Crown, and every class was taught to look to the King alone.
The Council had become a law-court, the Diet an echo, while the
governmental offices or Collegia, which were now regularly paid, fell into
the position of unambitious instruments of the royal will. The ascendancy
of the great nobles had vanished with their estates. Charles succeeded,
moreover, where the great Gustavus had failed, in bridling the Church.
In 1686 a new Ecclesiastical Law enforced the supremacy of the State^
and the King took care to make this supremacy real. A new Swedish
service-book, catechism, hymn-book, and Bible were the fruits of his zeal
for reform.

For industry and commerce Charles did all that benevolent despotism
could accomplish. By incessant journeys of inspection he gained insight
into the resources of the land and the needs of the people. He prer
served peace, improved the administration of justice, began a revision of
the law, and resorted to the well-known contrivances of the Mercantilists
for creating trade by legislation, and for preserving Sweden for the
Swedes. The industries which made the greatest advance were however
those of cloth, iron and shipbuilding, which supplied the needs of the
King's greatest creations — the army and the fleet.

Among the proudest achievements of Charles XI the Indehfiingsverk,
or establishment of a system of territorial tenures for a standing army of

C. M. II. V. CH. XVIII. 37

678 Military and naval changes. — Denmark. [ie82-97

some 38,000 men, ranks high, A principle which existed in the time of
Gustavus Vasa, and which had been developed by Charles IX and
Gustavus Adolphus, became in consequence of the King's triumph over
the nobles the basis of the national force. Its essence lay in the
assignment of Crown lands to the direct and permanent support of
soldiers. Some estates were granted to officers, others enjoyed. free of
dues on condition of supporting a cavalryman and his, horse. To escape
the conscription, by which, in time of war, every tenth peasant had to
become a soldier, most of the rural districts agi-eed to provide land on
which in time of peace an equivalent number of soldiers could subsist as
peasants. Thus Sweden gained security at home, while the spoils of the
nobles enabled her to garrison her conquered provinces by hiring some
S5,000 mercenaries. A similar territorial system provided for the
support of most of the men who were requii-ed to man the national fleet,
which was organised -by Hans Wachtmeister at the new naval station of
Karlskrona. Thirty rcight ships of the line, manned by some 11,000
men, had been built before Charles died.

The first years of autocracy were thus for Sweden years of activity,
order, and growth. Yet even under the sway of Charles XI many of the
familiar vices of absolutism made their appearance. Personally the most
unassuming of mankind^ Charles claimed and obtained for his office the
most subservient renunciation of popular freedom. He could pardon a
drunkard who gave battle to the royal suite, but he could not, pardon
criticism of his father's testament recorded a quarter of a century before.
Ruling with the aid of a few secretaries and friends, he became the un-
conscious centre of faction and of intrigue. The Reduction, which gave
rise to a regular government department and added some two and a half
million dollars to the annual revenue, developed into an offensive tyranny.
No land except such as could be proved to have never belonged to the
Crown was secure against confiscation, and small inquisitorial commissions
were despatched to determine whose inheritance should be taken and whose
left. As was almost inevitable, corruption spread. In a year and a half
(1701-2) the family of Konigsmarck expended a sum equivalent to nearly
.£6000 of our money in bribing the officials of the Reduction. Charles
had solved the problem of dealing with the great nobles ; but he be-
queathed to Sweden the still greater problem of settling the position and
powers of the Crown.

in.

Christian V survived his brother-in-law by little more than two years.
The fall of Griffenfeld, who was charged with treason and condemned to
life-long imprisonment in 1676, extinguished the glory of his reign. In
the War of Scania, as well as at home, Denmark became a, prey to faction
and intrigue. The despicable clique which had overthrown Griffenfeld
allied itself with the King's mistress, who was presented with some of the
late Minister's estates ; and public policy was thus made subservient to

1679-97] Domestic and foreign policy of Christian V. 679

private gain and spitej In the early stages of the War, while the Duke of
Plon was stiU dominant and successful, Christian V's hopes had been as
buoyant as those of his grandfather in 1625. He dreamed of recovering
the lost provinces, of crushing Gottorp, of acquiring Bremen, Liibeck,
Wismar and Riigen, of enjoying the Sound Dues unimpa,ired by the
Swedish exemption, and of controlling the commerce of the Elbe — in
short, of establishing a position on the Baltic which might transfer to
Denmark the commercial empire of the Dutch. The later campaigns,
however, brought not merely disappointment to the King, but also
exhaustion to the kingdom, which had supplied men and money for the
War, and which, in both war and peace, was burdened with a costly
imitation of the splendour of Louis XIV,

After the Peace of 1679, however, the need of the Treasury and the
ambition of the King prompted a reorganisation of the country. In area
and in social structure, Denmark had been rapidly transformed. The
financial basis of the army was now reconstructed, and the land imder-
went a survey which facilitated a revised scheme of taxation, the most
scientific in Europe^ Despite the opposition of the clergy. Huguenots
were brought in with the right to non-Lutheran worship. Trade and
industry were overwhelmed with government regulations. Most famous
of all, in 1683 there was published the "Danish Law of King Christian V" —
a codification compiled under Frederick III and revised under his successor
— and from this Code, which was common to all the provinces, both
autocracy and popular convenience gained much. These reforms were
in part the work of new men. The bureaucracy, composed largely of
German burghers, was gaining rank and influence. The punishment of
Olaf Rosenkrans for his Apoh^a nobilitatis Daniae (1681) bore witness
to the decline of the old nobility, while the influence exercised by the
incon'uptible aristocrat Jens Juel from the close of the War to 1697
proved that autocracy was not entirely dependent on its creatures.

The foreign policy of Denmark from the Peace of Lund to the death
of Charles XI (1679-97) led to little positive result at the moment, but
helped to bring on the great convulsion of the north tmder Charles XII.
Baffled on the side of Sweden, Christian and his advisers turned their
eyes southward, and would gladly have accepted intimacy with the
conquerors of Scania to seciu-e a free hand in Schleswig-Holstein.
Charles XI, however, adhered with honourable pertinacity to the Gottorp
cause ; and his steadfastness, together with the trend of European politics,
frustrated the designs of Christian V. In 1684, the Danes, acting in the
French fashion of the hour, seized the portion of Schleswig belonging to
the House of Gottoi-p, and hinted, not obscurely, that the recovery of
Scania was predicted by the stars. Five years later, however, after a
congress at Altona (1687-9), they were compelled to disgorge. In 1694,
on the accession of Duke Frederick IV, the Gottorp question once more
became acute. In place of a weary voluptuary, Denmark was confronted
CH. xvui, 37 — 2

580 The Gottorp question.— War •with Sweden^ [i697-i7oo

by an ambitious young soldier who threatened to cross the plans of
Christian by forestalling the Crown Prince Frederick in the competition
for a Swedish bride;

It was the Gottorp question which, as a matter of fact, determined
the policy of Denmark. Christian desired nothing better than a double
marriage between his children and those of Charles XI, provided that his
designs on Gottorp were thereby furthered. In default of an under-
standing with Sweden, however, he was ready to incite Tsar Peter against
het Baltic provinces, and to intrigue with her famine-stricken peasants!
and with the victims pf the Reduction. In 1697, when a Regency came
into power at Stockholm, he sent into the territory of the Duke an army
which demolished his new fortifications. The attitude of Sweden and of
the numerous enemies of France compelled him to recall the troops, and
next year Duke Frederick married Hedwig Sophia, the favourite sister of
Charles. XII. The issue of this marriage, male or female, would stand
dangerously near the Swedish thrpne. Frederick, moreover, became
Swedish generaMssimo in Germany, and proceeded to restore his forti-
fications with Swedish aid. Christian accordingly continued his negotia-
tions with the Tsar and lent an ear to the adventurous prof>osals of his
nephew, Augustus II of Poland. Patkul thus found abundant material
for a conflagration of the North.

The intimacy between Charles XII and Duke Frederick constituted a
standing menace to Denmark. In August, 1699, another active young
autocrat, Frederick IV, succeeded his father at Copenhagen. A defensive
treaty with the Tsar had been signed on the previous day, and, early in
November, Augustus, Peter and Frederick agreed to make a combined
attack upon the Swedish empire. In the spring of 1700 this design
ripened into the great Northern War, the course of which is related else-
where. The part played in it by Denmark may therefore be traced, here
very briefly ; while an account of the peaceful activities of; Frederick IV
is. reserved for a futiu-e chapter.

While Denmark and Sweden were deliberately preparing to fight,
neither could calculate exactly the extraneous support which the other
would receive when hostilities began. Frederick, trusting in his strong
fleet to command the Sound and in his eastern allies to distract Sweden,
despatched his main army against the Duke of Gottorp in April, 1700.
His allies proved less active, and his own success less rapid, than he had
hoped; and he was soon brought to a standstill by the walls of Tonning
and the troops of Brunswick-Liineburg under the Elector G«orge Lewis
of Hanover, the future King of England. The campaign, thus checked,
swiftly ended in failure. Frederick had left his navy under the command
of Ulrik Christian Gyldenlove, a royal bastard aged twenty-two years,
and a timid Board of War. They permitted the English and Dutch,,
impatient of a northern distraction which might favour Louis XIV, to
send ships to the Sound, where they were joined, after a daring piece of

1700-10] Peace of Traventhal. 581

navigation, by Charles XII and his fleet. Thus master of the sea, the
young King swooped down upon defenceless Zealand. To his disgust,
however, the Danish War was extinguished, and Copenhagen saved, by
the Peace of Traventhal (August, 1700).

The Peace of Traventhal marked another failure on the part of
Denmark to curb Gottorp and Sweden, but failed to cut the roots of
their hostility. With the House of Gottorp the King of Denmark
remained in a state of perpetual friction, and the alliance of that House
with Sweden and Brunswick-Liineburg survived the death of Duke
Frederick on the field of Klissow (July 19, 1702). By forming a militia,
by hiring out his mercenaries to fight against Louis XIV, by diplomatic
efforts and by care for the finances, the King prepared for a struggle
which seemed inevitable, while the prospect of it was rendered doubly
formidable by the triumphs of Charles XII.

In 1708, however, the Swedish army was entangled in Russia.
Frederick, a self-indulgent prince, who was more than once guilty of
bigamy, ventured to seek his pleasure in Italy for the winter. At this
time Peter was clamouring for Danish help and the coalition of 1700
seemed likely to be revived. On his way homeward Frederick visited
Saxo;ay and came to an agreement with Augustus II (June, 1709). The
twQ Kings boimd themselves, conditionally upon the cooperation of the
Tsar, to take up anns for the full restitution of their Polish and Scandi-
navian dominions. According to the published articles, Germany was to
reimain undisturbed ; but a secret agreement provided for the annexation
of part at least of Schleswig-Holstein and of Poland,

The confederates, however, failed to secure either an offensive alliance
with Frederick I of Prussia or money from the Tsar. It was, moreover,
hardly to be expected that the Maritime Powers would be more ready
than in the days of Frederick III to tolerate a Danish empire on both
shores of the Sound. Frederick's treasury was by no means full, nor
was his army strong enough to assure a victorious invasion of Sweden.
It might well happen, as so often in the history of the north, that the
Swedes would gain compensation from their neighbours for disasters
further afield. These arguments for peace were uTged upon Frederick
both in the Council Chamber and from the pulpit. A war party how-
ever existed, an autocrat was in power, and after Poltawa the verdict
was for war. In October, 1709, Frederick and the Tsar entered into an
alliance to confine Sweden within her rightful boundaries. Next month
15,000 men under Count Heventlow crossed the Sound, bearing upon
their ammunition waggons the motto "Aut nunc aut nunquam.'" This
improvised expedition met with well-deserved failure. The men were
ill-found and ill-paid; no simultaneous invasion from Norway came to
pass; Reventlow fell ill; and, in March, 1710, Magnus StenbOck and
his Swedes crushed the whole enterprise at Helsingborg.

Never since 1710 have the Danes crossed the Sound as foes of Sweden.

CH. XVIII,

682 Continuance of War with Sweden. [1711-5

Frederick, indeed, trusting in the traditional Danish superiority at sea,
planned to bring a Russian corps to Zealand and to renew the attack in
the autumn. In a series of naval movements, however, Hans Wacht-
meister proved that his own work and that of Charles XI had made the
Swedish fleet strong enough to frustrate the enterprise. Next year
(1711) the Plague, which carried off more than one-third of the in-
habitants of Copenhagen, paralysed the Northern War.

At this time, however, thanks to the imprudence of Charles XII,
the Danes received encouragement on all hands to attack the Swedish
possessions on their own side of the sea. The War therefore assumed
a new form. While Norway cooperated by descents upon southern
Sweden, and the Danish fleet strove to regain the command of the sea,
the Danes, Saxons, and Russians invaded the scattered Swedish provinces
in northern Germany.

In September, 1712, the Danes, with the help of the Saxon artillery,
captured Stade and seized the whole of Bremen and Verden. Meanwhile
Stralsund was attacked by all three allies, until in September Stenbock
arrived there with more than 16,000 men at his disposal. To destroy
this army must be the condition of further progress by the allies. It
fell to Frederick, assisted by the Saxon cavalry, to make the first attempt;
but Stenbock gained a great victory at Gadebusch (December, 1712).
Frederick thereupon threatened to make peace, if Peter would not join
him in Holstein, where the victor of Gadebusch threatened to repeat the
exploits of Charles X. The Tsar obeyed the summons ; and Stenbock,
who had found shelter in the Gottoi-p fortress of Tonning, was im-
prisoned there by the forces of the three allies. In May, 1713, he
capitulated to Frederick with some 11,000 men at Oldensworth. The
Danes did not fully carry out the terms of the capitulation, which, owing
to the anxiety of their allies to depart, were favourable to Sweden.
Stenbock and many of his troops were imprisoned until death or peace
set them free.

Despite the craft of Gortz, the movements of Stenbock had enabled
Frederick to fasten a quarrel upon Gottorp. After the capitulation,
therefore, the hope of making conquests where they were most desired by
his dynasty spurred him on to great military preparations and diplomatic
efforts. Favoured by the impracticable attitude of Charles XII, he
captured Tonning early in 1714, and began to negotiate with Frederick
William I and George I for the partition of the Swedish dominions in
Germany. In April, 1715, while Charles XII defended Stralsund, the
Danish fleet secured the command of the sea; and in the following month
the compacts were made which, as Frederick hoped, would enable him to
acquire the Gottorp portion of Schleswig and a sum of money for Bremen
and Verden. For these prizes the Danish fleet contended at Stralsund.
After the fall of the fortress at the close of 1716, Riigen and western
Pomerania as far as the Peene were placed in Frederick's hands.

1715-20] Treaty of Frederihsborg. 683

So long as Charles XII lived, however, a hard frost in the Sound
might expose Copenhagen to the vengeance which it now became his
fixed idea to wreak on his hereditary foes. Failing Denmark, he, in the
winter of 1715-6, turned against Norway, and occupied the town of
Christiania, but was driven from the fortress by the arrival of help from
Denmark. At Frederikshald, on the border, he again met with a stout
resistance; and in July a brilliant feat of the Norwegian naval hero
Tordenskiold, who captured or destroyed 44 Swedish ships, compelled
him to retreat.

Again, in the summer of 1716, Frederick contemplated invading
Scania with Russian help, and a combined army more than 50,000 strong
prepared to cross the Sound, In the autumn, however, the Tsar, perhaps
fearing both the might of Charles and the treachery of Frederick,
abandoned the enterprise ; nor could he be induced to resume it. His
defection alienated George I ; and, while Charles was preparing a mighty
army, Frederick could no longer reckon upon his allies for aggrandise-
ment or even for defence.

In 1717 he despatched Tordenskiold against Swedish harbours, but
without success ; and next year the storm broke upon the outnumbered
and ill-found Norwegians. The death of Charles in December, 1718,
rescued Norway from peril and made it possible once more to negotiate
with Sweden for peace.

The Swedes, however, were far from willing to purchase peace from
Denmark. In 1719, Frederick made yet another campaign, in which he
led a Norwegian invasion in person, while Tordenskiold with mingled
audacity and good fortune captured the port of Marstrand and its strong
fortress of Karlsten. Frederick, however, did not follow up this success.

The defection of George and Frederick William, and his own
strained relations with Peter the Great threatened to leave Frederick
alone face to face with Sweden. Thus his only hope of profit lay in a
speedy peace. To gain SchlesWig, he therefore accepted the mediation
of England and France. In July, 1720, by the Treaty of Frederiks-
borg, his old boundaries were confirmed, while Sweden recognised his
possession of Schleswig, which was guaranteed to him by Great Britain
and France. He further received from Sweden 600,000 dollars and a
renunciation of her exemption from the Sound Dues. Two great wars
had thus established in Scandinavia an even balance of power.

CH. XVIII.

684'

CHAPTER XIX.

CHARLES XII AND THE GREAT NORTHERN WAR.

Charles XI had carefully provided against the contingency of his
successor's minority; and the five Regents appointed by him entered
upon their functions immediately after his death (April IS, 1697). The
Regents, if not great statesmen, were, at least, practical politicians, who
had not in vain been trained in the austere School of Charles XI ; during
the seven months in which they held sway no blunder was made, and no
national interest was neglected. At home the Reduction was cautiously
pm^ued, while abroad the successful conclusion of the great peace congress
at Ryswyk was justly regarded as a signal triumph of Sweden's pacific
diplomacy. The young King, a lad of fifteen, was daily present in the
Council ; and his frequent utterances on every subject, except foreign
affairs, showed, we are told, a maturity of judgment far beyond his years.
He had been carefully educated by excellent tutors under the watchful
eyes of both his parents. His extraordinary courage and strength of
character had, from the first, profoundly impressed those around him,
though his dogged obstinacy occasionally tried them to the uttermost.
His wise and loving mother had been at great pains to develop his
better nature by encouraging those noble qualities — veracity, courtesy,
piety, and a strong sense of honour and fair play — which were to
distinguish him throughout life, while his precocious manliness was not
a little stimulated by the rude but bra^cing moral atmosphere to which
he was accustomed from infancy. Intellectually he was very highly
endowed. His natural parts were excellent, and a strong bias in the
direction of abstract thought, and of mathematics in .particular, was
noticeable at an early date. His memory was astonishing. He could
translate Latin into Swedish or German, or Swedish or German into
Latin at sight, and on his campaigns not infrequently dispensed with
a key while inditing or interpreting despatches in cipher.

Almost from infancy the lad had been initiated into all the minutiae
of the administration. When, in his later years, Charles XI went his
rounds, reviewing troops, inspecting studs, foundries, dockyards and
granaries, it was always "with my son Carl." For the science of war

1697] Charles XII assumes sovereignty. 585

the young Charles had a marked predilection, and always took an active
part in the " sham-fights " in which Charles , XI delighted. It is
very probable that the influence of Charles XI over his son was far
greater than is commonly supposed and may account for much that
is otherwise inexplicable in Charles XII's character, such, for instance,
as his precocious reserve and taciturnity, his dislike of everything French,
and his inordinate contempt for purely diplomatic methods. Yet, on the
whole, had the yoimg prince been allowed the opportunity of gradually
gaining experience, and developing his natwally great talents, for the
next few years, under the guidance of his guardians, as Charles XI had
intended, Sweden might still have remained a great PoAv:er. Unfortu-
nately, a noiseless domestic revolution and the menace of a league of
partition, defeated all the wise calculations of Charles XI-

On Saturday, November 6, 1697, the Swedish Riksdag assembled at
Stockholm ; and, on the following Monday, the Estate of Nobles, jealous
of the authority of the Regents, and; calculating upon the grateful
liberality of a young prince unexpectedly released from the bonds of
tutelage, sent a deputation to the King inviting him to take over the
government of the realm. Charles received the delegates graciously,
but suggested that on so important a matter the Senate should first be
consulted. The Senate and the Regents, weakly determining not to lag
behind the nobility in their devotion to the Crown, waited upon the King
forthvtdth; and Chancellor Bengt Oxenstiema, acting as spqkesman,begged
his Majesty to gladden the hearts of his subjects by graciously assuming
supreme power. Only whep Charles had expressed his willingness tq
concur with the desires of his faithful subjects were the three lower
Estates of the realm formally acquainted with the action of the nobility
and invited to cooperate. The lower Estates proved to be as obsequious
as the gentry, for a joint deputation from all four Estates thereupon
proceeded, to the palace; and, in answer to their earnest solicitations,
Charles declared that he could not resist their urgent appeal, but
would take over the government of the realm "in God's name."

A short period of suspense ensued, foUowed by bitter disappointment.
The Riksdag was dissolved after a three weeks' session, and a humble
petition of the nobility for a remission of their, burdens was curtly
rejected. The subsequent coronation w^ markgid by portentous innova-
tions, the most significant of which were the King's omitting to take the
usual Coronation oath and placing the crown upon his head with his own
hands. The Government assumed more and more of an autocratic
complexion. The French Minister, d'Avaux, describes Charles at this
penod as even more imperious in public than his father had been Anti
monarchical strictures, however respectful or indirect, were promntlv
and cruelly punished. Many people began to fear « a hard reim " Yet
the general opinion of the young King was favourable. His conduct
was evidently regulated by strict principle and not by mere caprice His

686 Johan Reinhold PatJcul. [legs

refusal to countenance tortvu-e as an instrument of judicial investigation,
on the ground that "confessions so extorted give no sure criteria for
forming a judgment," showed him to be more humane and more en-
lightened than the majority of his Council, which had defended the
contrary opinion. His intense application to affairs was specially noted
by the English Minister Robinson.

But, while Charles XII was thus serving bis political apprenticeship
at home with exemplary diligence, the political horizon abroad was
darkening in every diriBction; and a league, of apparently overwhelm-
ing strength, had already been formed for the partition of Sweden.
The person primarily responsible for the terrible conflagration known
as the great Northern War was Johan Reinhold Patkul, a Livonian
squire. A Swedish subject, he had entered the Swedish army at
an early age, and was already a captain when, in 1689, at the head
of a deputation of Livonian gentry, he came to Stockholm to protest
against the rigour with which the land-recovery project of Charles XI
was being carried out in his native province. But his representations
were disregarded, and the violent and offensive language with which,
in another petition, addressed to the King three years later, he
renewed his complaints, involved him in what is known as " the great
Livonian process." To save himself from the penalties of high treason,
Patkul left the country, and was condemned in contumaciam to lose his
right hand and his head. His estates were at the same time confis-
cated. For the next four years he led a vagabond life, but in 1698,
after vainly petitioning the new King, Charles XII, for parddn, he
entered the service of Augustus II of Poland.

There canlje no dbubt that Patkul was harshly treated by Charles XE
Moreover, he was an exile from Livonia so long as it belonged to Sweden.
But we must be very cautious in speaking about the patriotism of Patkul.
He acted exclusively from personal motives ; his point of view was that
of the Germsia jimker ; and he had no thought for the liberties of the
Livonian people, who to him were mere serfs. He did not care to
whom Livonia inight belpng, so long as it did not belong to Sweden.
The aristocratic Republic of Poland was, however, the most convenient
suzerain for Livonian noblemen ; and the present King of Poland, as
a German, was peculiarly acceptable to them. Accordingly, in 1698,
Patkul proceeded to Dresden, and overwhelmed Augustus with pro-
posals for the partition of Sweden. The first plan was a combination
against her of Saxony, Denmark, and Brandenburg; but, Brandenburg
failing him, he was obliged to admit Russia into the scheme instead.
This he did very unwillingly, shrewdly anticipating that the Tsar might
prove to be the predominant partner. Peter was to be content with
Ingria and Esthonia, while Augustus was to obtain Livonia, nominally as
a fief of Poland, really as an hereditary possession of the Saxon House.
Military operations against Sweden's Baltic provinces were to be begun

1699-1700] First league of partition against Sweden. 587

siraultaneously by the Saxons and the Russians. As to the latter,
Patkul insisted that "they were not to practise their usual barbarities" —
a stipulation significant of the opinion then entertained of the Muscovite
soldiery. Denmark, which had a real grievance against Sweden as the
zealous protector of the Dukes of Holstein-Gottorp, was to draw oflF the
Swedish forces to her western provinces, while Peter and Augustus simul-
taneously attacked her from the east. The allies succeeded in hood-
winking the unsuspicious Swedes completely. So early as August 24, 1699,
a convention between Denmark and Russia had forged the first link in the
chain of treaties which was to unite Sweden's three hostile neighbours
against her. This convention was, originally, a league for mutual
defence ; but one of the earliest measures of the new King of Denmark,
Frederick IV, was to conclude an oiFensive alliance with Augustus II
against Sweden (September 25, 1699). The action of the Danish King
had been accelerated by the marriage of Charles XIFs favourite elder
sister, Hedwig Sophia, to Frederick IV, Duke of Gottorp, for whom
Charles soon conceived a strong affection. This treaty was, however,
only to be binding if the Tsar acceded to it within three or four months.

Patkul, accompanied by the Saxon general Carlovitz, arrived at
Moscow in September, 1699. They found that they had been preceded by
a Swedish embassy sent by Charles XII to confirm the Peace of Kardis.
Peter, on this occasion, went far towards justifying the accusation of
inveterate duplicity so frequently brought against him afterwards. He
was sufficiently superstitious, indeed, to avoid kissing the cross on the re-
newal of the treaty. But the temptation to secure the Baltic sea-board,
with all its commercial and civilising possibilities, was too strong for his
easy morality. He solemnly assured the Swedish envoys that he would
faithfully observe all his treaty obligations ; yet, at a secret cOiiferenfce,
held at Preobrazhenskoe with the Saxon and Danish envoys, he had
already signed (November 22, 1699) the partition treaty. Everything
was done by Peter to allay the growing suspicions of this .Swedish
Minister, Kniperkrona. When questioned point-blank as to the designs
of Augustus, Peter professed incredulity and indignation. " If the King
of Poland dares to seize Riga," he said, " I shall take it away from him
myself."

During the remainder of 1699 both Sweden and Deninark vigorously
prepared for war. A Danish army, 17,800 strong, assembled in Holstein ;
while Charles XII equipped his father's fleet, and mobilised a Swedish
ai-my-corps which was to penetrate into Holstein from Pomerania and
Wismar. At this juncture, western Europe was startled by the tidings
that the Saxons had invaded Livonia. But, in May, 1700, the troops of
Augustus II, repulsed from Riga by the veteran Dahlberg, were defeated
at Jungfemhof, and driven over the Dwina; the Livonian gentry
showed no disposition to rise in arms at the appeal of Patkul; and
the discomfited Augustus, already in difficulties, mged the Tsar to

588 Tlie campaign of Narva. . [i699-i70O

fulfil his part of the compact by invading Ingria.; This Peter at once
proceeded to do. His objective was Narva, the key of the province, at
the mouth of the Narova. The Russian army, about 40,000 strong,
consisted, with the exception of the Guards, of three divisions of raw
troops, levied so late as November, 1699. Theodore Golovin, now a
Field-marshal as well as Prime Minister, commanded in chief, Peter
occupying, as usual, a subordinate position. Narva was reached by
October 4 ; but the siege arbillery, delayed by the bad roads, could not
open fire until the end of the month, and the commandant rejected every
summons to surrender. At the end of November, the Russian camp
was astounded by the intelligence that the young King of Sweden, who
was supposed to be fighting desperately in Denmark, was approaching
at the head of "an innumerable army." The incredible tidings were
true. The timidity of the Danish admiral Gyldenlove; the pressure
upon Denmark of a combined Anglo-Dutch squadron sent by WiUiam III
to the Baltic to localise the war ; and, above aU, the audacity of Charles,
who, despite the protests of the most experienced seamen, had insisted
on forcing the eastern channel of the Sound, the dangerous Flmterend,
hitherto reputed to be unnavigable, had placed Denmark at his mercy ;
but by the Treaty of Traventhal (August 18, 1700) he had, as is related
elsewhere, contented himself with bringing about a satisfactory settle-
ment with Holstein-Gottorp. This brilliant dihut enabled Charles to
give his undivided attention to the defence of his eastern borders ; and
he acted with that swiftness which was the secret of his greatest
successes. On October 6 he reached Pemau, with the intention of first
relieving Riga ; but, hearing that Narva was in great straits, he decided
to turn northwards against the Tsar, After a five weeks' sojourn at
Wemburg to collect his forces, he set out for Narva on November 13,
against the advice of aU his generals, who feared the effect on untried
troops of a week's march through a wasted land, along boggy roads
guarded by three formidable passes, which a little engineering skill
could easily have made impregnable. Fortunately, the first two passes
were unoccupied; and the third, Pyhajoggi, which Sheremetieff attempted
to defend with 6000 men, was captured by Charles in person. On
November 19, the little army reached Lagena, a village about nine miles,
from Narva, and early on the following morning it advanced in battle array.
Peter did not wait for his youthful antagonist. He knew that lus
wretched recruits could not be pitted, against veterans ; indeed, he would
never have brought them to Narva at all had he conceived the appearance
of Charles XII to be even a remote possibility. He could not help them
if he stayed with them, while any mishap to himself would, inevitably,
have brought about the collapse of the new Russia which he was so
painfully uprearing. , At all events, he fled away to Novgorod, taking
with him Golovin, whom he also could not afford to lose, and leaving his
demoralised army in the charge of a mysterious adventurer, presumably

1700] Battle of Narva. 589

of Magyar origin, calliug himself Prince Cari Eugen de Croy or de Croie,
who had had some military experience in the Austrian and Danish
services. The result was a foregone conclusion. On November 20,
Charles XII, with 8000 men, attacked the Russians behind their en-
trenphments in the midst of a snowstorm. In an hour the Muscovite
left wing was broken, while their cavalry, which might easily have tiuned
the Swedish flank, fled in panic ten-or. Only on the right did the
Guards defend themselves obstinately behind their waggons till the end
of the short winter's day. The unfortunate de Croy sun-endered to
escape being murdered by his own men, and most of the foreign officers
followed his example.

The very ease of his victory was injurious to Charles XII. His best
counsellors now urged him to turn all his forces against, the terrified
fugitives ; establish his winter-quarters in Muscovy ; live upon the
country till the spring, and then take advantage of the popular dis-
content against Peter to make him harmless for the future. But Charles
declared that he would postpone the settlement of the Russian quarrel
till he had summarily chastised Augustus. "There was no glory in
winning victories over the Muscovites," he said ; " they could be beaten
at any time." It is easy from the vantage-point of two centuries to
criticise Chaiies XII for neglecting the Muscovites to pursue the Saxons,
but, in the circumstances, his decision was, apparently, correct. Charles
had every reason to think the civilised and martial Saxons far more
formidable than the Muscovites; and he had good cause for hating
Augustus more than his other enemies. The hostihty of Denmark, on
account of Gottorp, was perfectly intelligible; and so was that of
Muscovy so long as Sweden held old territory formerly Muscovite and
barred Muscovy from the sea. There was no excuse at aU for the
Elector of Saxony. Yet he had been the prime mover in the league of
pailition. He had deceived Sweden to the very last moment with false
assm-ances of amity, and Charles could never trust him to remain quiet
even if they made peace with each other. From this point of view
Charles' policy of placing a nominee of his own on the Polish throne
in lieu of the incalculable Augustus, was a policy, not of overreaching
ambition, but of prudent self-defence.

Neviertheless, it saved Peter, who was immensely reUeved by the with-
drawal of his great rival. He had cut a sorry figiu-e enough at Narva ;
after the defeat his tenacity and resourcefulness once more extort
our admiration. Adversity always seemed to stimulate rather than
depress him. He at once formed the nucleus of a new army out of the
23,000 fugitives who had escaped from Narva, and they were speedily
reinforced by ten freshly recruited dragoon regiments of 1000 men each.
An ukase directed all the churches and monasteries in the Tsardom to
send him their bells to be cast into cannon to supply the place of the
artillery lost at Narva; and, in less than twelve months afterwards, they.

690 Renewed Russo- Saxon alliance.-Baltic campaigns. [1701-3

were converted into 300 gtms at a cost of lOiOOO roubles. But Peter's
chief anxiety was that Augustus should keep Charles occupied. At a
conference with Augustus at Birse, in Samogitia, at which Patkul also
was present, the two allies resolved that neither of them should make
a separate peace with Sweden.' Peter further undertook to supply
Augustus with 20,000 fresh troops, and 100,000 lb. of powder, and pay
him for three years 100,000 roubles annually, which he had to raise by
forced loans from the great monasteries and rich merchants like the
Stroganbffs.

The troops left by Charles XII to defend the Baltic provinces
amounted only to 15,000 men. In the most favourable circumstances
these could not seriously hope to defend^ against a tenfold odds, a
frontier extending from Lake Ladoga to Lake Pfeipus, from Lake
Peipus to the Dwina, and from the Dwina to the Gulf of Riga. And
the ■ circumstances were unusually unfavourable. Charles not only took
his best men and his best officers away with him to Poland, but forbade
the Senate, which ruled Sweden during his absence, to send any re-
inforcements to the Baltic provinces, so long as the more important
Polish war lasted. Peter, he arguedy could easily be kept in check by
a few raw corps till Augustus had been dealt with. It was a fatal
miscalculation.

With Pskoff as their starting-point, the Muscovites, during 1701 and
1702, made frequent incursions into Ingria and Livonia. On January 7,
1702, the Swedish general Schlippenbach was overwhelmed by Sheremetieff
at Errestfer, losing 3000 killed and wounded, and 350 prisoners. Peter
was in ecstasies. " Narva is avenged," he cried. Sheremetieff received
his marshal's baton. Urged on incessantly by Peter, the new Field-
marshal attacked Schlippenbach a second time, in July, 1702, at
Hummelshof, and with a force of 30,000 men inflicted a still more
terrible defeat upon him, the Swedes losing 5500 out of 8000 men.
To intimidate the enemy still further, and prevent him from drawing
Upon the country for supplies, Sheremetieff, by the express command
of Peter, proceeded, methodically, to devastate as much of Livonia as
he could reach with his Cossacks and Calmucks. Between Pemau and
Reval, and thence round by the sea to Riga, everything was obliterated.
In Septemiber, 1702, Peter himself a,ppeared at Ladoga, in order to
superintend the conquest of Ingria. The little fortress of Noteborg was
taken by assault after a heroic defence by its garrison of 410 men against
10,000. Peter renamed it Schliisselburg. On May 12, 1703, another
smaU fortress, Nyen, or Nyenskans (renamed Slottburg), at the mouth of
the Neva, was captured by Sheremetieff. Presently the woodman's axe
was busy among the virgin' forests in the mai-shes of the Neva, and a
little wooden village began to rise up on the northern shore of the river.
This little village was called St Petersburg. For the defence of the town
on the sea-side, the fort of Kronslot, subsequently called Kronstadt, was

1700-4] Campaign of 1704. — Position of Sweden. 691

built on the adjacent island of Retusaari, from plans drawn by Peter
himself. A harbour, large enough to enclose the rapidly increasing
Russian fleet, which Peter was already constructing on the river Suiva,
was also begun at Kronslot ; and all the feeble and ill-directed attempts
of the Swedes during the next few years to inteiTupt the work came
to nothing.

In the spring of 1704 the Muscovites, after reducing all the open
towns of Ingria to ashes, sat down before the two great fortresses of
Dorpat and Narva. SheremetiefF, with 20,000 men, began the siege of
the former place in the beginning of Jume, and it surrendered on July 24.
Narva was besieged. by the Scotch general Ogilvie, whom Patkul had
picked up at Vienna and enlisted in Peter's service for three years. On
August 20 the fortress was taken by assault, and a frightful massacre
ensued, in which not even the women and children were spared. Petar
arrived two hours after the place had fallen, and stopped the carnage
by cutting down a dozen of the plunderers with his own hand.

Peter would now have made peace with Sweden, had he been allowed
to retain St Petersburg. He was in possession, of all he waiited^ for, as
yet, he had no intention of conquering Livonia for himself (hence his
barbarous treatment of it), inasmuch as he still regarded it as Augustus'
share of the spoiL But he required time to consolidate his position in
the Baltic provinces ; and for this purpose it was necessary to keep
Charles "sticking in the Polish bog" a little longer, by actively assisting
Augustus, who was again in serious difficulties. Meanwhile, Charles XII,
after the campaign at Narva, had gone into winter-quarters romid Dorpat,
fixing his head-quarters at Lois Castle, midway between Dorpat and
Lake Peipus, so as to be able to commence hostilities in the early spring.

Meanwhile, an event occurred which completely changed the face
of European politics. In November, 1700, died Charles II of Spain,
bequeathing the Spanish monarchy to Philip of Anjou, the grandson of
Louis XIV, who thereupon openly repudiated the partition compact
which he had made with the Maritime Powers. A war between France
and the Maritime Powers was now inevitable, and both sides looked to
Sweden for assistance. The competing French and Imperial ambassadors
appeared in the Swedish camp, while the English and Dutch were
equally busy at Stockholm. Oxenstiema saw in this universal bidding
for the favour of Sweden a golden opportunity of ending " this present
lean war, and making his Majesty the arbiter of Europe." But Charles
met all the representations of his Ministers with a disconcerting silence.
At last the urgent appeal of Baron Lillieroth, the able Swedish repre-
sentative at the Hague, who stated that both William III and Heinsius
were uneasy at the unnecessary prolongation of the Northern W^ar and
desirous of knowing the real sentiments of Charles, drew from him the
reluctant reply :. " It would put our glory to shame, if we lent om-selves
to the slightest treaty accommodation with one who has so vilely

ca. XIX.

592 The Swedes overrun Poland. [1V01-3

prostituted his honour." This obvious reference to Augustus convinced
the western diplomatists that nothing was to be expected from the King
of Sweden till he had chastised the Elector of Saxony.

On July 8, 1701, Charles transported his army across the Dwina,
in the face of 30,000 Russians and Saxons strongly entrenched on the
opposite shore at Dunamiinde, routed them in a two hours' engagement,
and followed up his victory by occupying Courland, then a Poli^ fief,
which he at once converted into a Swedish; go vernor-generalate. Then,
after recapturing all the Swedish forts on the Dwina, and purging' the
land of Saxons and Russians, he established his j winter-quarters round
Wiirgeh in wtestem Courland (September to December, 1701).

Charles' proximity to the Polish border had greatly disturbed
Augustus ; and the Polish primatej Cardinal Eadziejowski, had written
to Charles 'reminding him that Poland was at peace with Sweden,
forbidding him^; in the name of the Republic, to cross the border ; and
offering to mediate between the two monarchs. Charles' reply excluded
every hope oi negotiation. He bluntly demanded the deposition of
Augustus, threatening, ■ in case of non-compliance, himself to punish
the common foe. After this it is not surprising that a reaction in
favour df Augustus began in Poland itself; and Patkul, who, in 1702,
exchanged the Saxon for the Russian service, did all in his power to
induce the Republic to join the anti-Swedish league. The Tsar also
now concluded an offensive and defensive alliance with Poland, and it
became clear that, with the exception of the powerful Lithuanian family
of Sapieha, most of the Polish nobles were still on the side of the King
in possession. .

In January, 1702, Charles established himself at Bielowice in
Lithuania, and, after issuing a proclamation declaring that " the Elector
of Saxony" had forfeited the Polish throne, set out for Warsaw, which
he reached on May 14. The Cardinal-Primate was then sent for and
ordered to summon an extraordinary Diet for the purpose of deposing
Augustus. A fortnight later Charles quitted Warsaw to seek his enemy,
and on July 2, with only 10,000 men, routed the combined Poles and
Saxons at Klissow, on which occasion his brother-in-law, the Duke of
Holstein-Gottopp, was shot dead by his side. Three weeks later, Charles,
with; only a cane in his hand, stood before the citadel of Cracow, and
captured it by an act of almost fabulous audacity. Thus, within four
months of the opening of the campaign, the Polish capital and the
coronation city were both in the possession of the Swedes.

During the next two months Charles remained inactive at Cracow,
awaiting reinforcements, and regarding impassively the chaotic condition
of the unhappy Polish Republic. After Klissow, Augustus made'every
effort to put an end to the war, but his offers were not even considered.
The campaign of 1703 was remarkable for Charles' victory over the
Saxons at Pultusk (April 21), and for the long siege of Thorn, which

1704-5] Stanislaus LeszczynsM elected King. 593

occupied the Swedish King for eight months, but cost him no more than
fifty men, after which he went into winter-quarters roimd Heilsberg,
in the diocese of Ermeland. Meanwhile, his Polish partisans had suc-
ceeded in forming a confederation, under the protection of the Swedish
general Rehnskjbld, which assembled at Warsaw in January, 1704, and
was energetically manipulated by Count Arvid Horn, Charles' special
envoy, who persuaded it to depose Augustus. But months of fruitless
negotiations ensued before Augustus' successor could be fixed upon,
Augustus complicating matters by seizing the Sobieskis, the most accept-
able candidates, in Imperial territory, and locking them up in the
fortress of Pleissenberg. Charles finally cut the knot himself by
selecting the Palatine of Posen, Stanislaus Leszczynski, a young man
of blameless antecedents, respectable talents, and ancient family, but
without sufficient force of character or political influence to sustain
himself on such an unstable throne. Nevertheless, with the assistance of
a bribing fund and an army-corps. Count Horn succeeded in procuring
the election of Stanislaus (July 6, 1704), by a hastily gathered assembly
of half-a-dozen castellans and a few score of the lesser nobility.

The insecurity of the new King was demonstrated when Augustus,
taking advantage of a sudden southward raid of Charles', recaptured
Waisaw (August 26). But his triumph was of short duration. In
October, Charles routed the Saxons at Punitz, and, after chasing them
as far as Glogau, returned to Poland, and pitched his camp at Rawitz,
completely cutting Augustus oiF from Poland. There he remained for
eight months, using every effort firmly to establish Stanislaus. A
coronation Diet was summoned to Warsaw in July, 1705 ; an attempt
to disperse it by an army of 10,000 Saxons was frustrated by the
gallantry of the Swedish general, Nieroth, with 2000 men; the difficulty
about the regalia, which had been carried ofi' to Saxony, was surmounted
by Charles himself providing his nominee with a new crown and sceptre;
and, finally, Stanislaus was crowned King, with great splendour, on
October 4, 1705. The first act of the new King was to conclude an
alliance between Sweden and the Polish Republic, on the basis of the
Peace of Oliva, whereby Poland agreed to assist Sweden against the Tsar.

Early in 1705, Peter, encouraged by favourable reports from his
Minister, Peter Tolstoi, at Stambul, resolved to help Augustus by
transferring the war to Poland. He had previously (August 30, 1704)
put some heart into his ally, by making a fresh treaty of alliance with
him in which the Republic was also included. By this treaty Peter
undertook to provide Augustus with 12,000 Muscovite auxiliaries ; to
pay for the maintenance of an additional Polish army-corps of 26,000
infantry and 21,000 cavalry, and to furnish subsidies amounting to 200,000
roubles a year till the war was over. An attempt of the indefatigable
Patkul to bring the King of Prussia into the anti-Swedish league failed
because of Frederick I's fear of Charles and his jealousy of Peter's

c. ju. H. V. OS. XIX. 38

594 The campaign of 1706. [1705-6

progress on the Baltic shore. In June, 1705, Peter appeared at Polock,
where 60,000 Russians were concentrated under Ogilvie and Sheremetieff.
Sheremetieff was detached to. reconquer Courland, but was so badly beaten
at Gemaurhof (June 16) by the Swedish general, Adam Lewenhaupt,
whose genius had, during 1704, saved Riga from the combined Russians,
Poles, and Saxons^ that Peter was obliged to hasten to his Field-
marshal's assistance. Lewenhaupt thereupon fell back again upon Riga;
and the Russians, after capturing Mittau and occupying Courland, went
into winter-quarters round Grodno. '

During the winter, Patkul made fresh efforts to gain the King of
Prussia by holding out the bait of " Royal " or Polish Prussia ; but the
negotiations' failed, because Russia had yet to show^ by conquering the
unconquerable King of Sweden^ that she was able to fulfil her promises.
From Berlin Patkul proceeded to Dresden to conclude an agreement with
the Imperial commissioners for the transfer of the Russian contingent of
troops from the Saxon to the Austrian service. The Saxon Ministers,
after protesting in vain against the new arrangement, arrested Patkul,
and shut him up in the fortress of Sonnenstein (December 19), altogether
disregarding the remonstrances of Peter against such a gross violation
of international law.

But the fate of Patkul was speedily forgotten in the rush of events
which made the year 1706 so memorable. In January, Charles XII
suddenly appeared in eastern Poland to clear the country of the
partisans of Augustus, and attack the Russian army, under Ogilvie,
entrenched at Grodno. But Ogilvie could not be tempted out of his
entrenchments, and all that Charles could do was to cut off his com-
munications with Russia and ruin his sources of supply. Augustus,
meanwhile, had hastened from Grodno to Warsaw, and united his
Russian and Polish troops with the Saxon forces under Schulenburg,
for the purpose of crushing the little Swedish army stationed uiider
General Rehnskjold, in the province of Posen, intending afterwards to
return and fall upon Charles at Grodno, while Ogilvie attacked him in
front. This plan was frustrated by RehnskjoldV brilliant victory at
Fraustadt (February 3) over the combined forces of the allies whom he
almost annihilated, only 5000 out of 20,000 succeeding in escaping.
Fearing for his own army at Grodno, Peter thereupon ordered Ogilvie
to retreat into the heart of Russia, biirying his heavy guns in ice-holes,
and breaking up his army into numerous detachments, so that at least
some of it might escape. Ogilvie protesting, he was superseded by
Menshikoff; and the Russian army, favoured by the spring-floods of the
Niemen, which obstructed the pursuing Swedes, retreated so rapidly
upon Kieff, that Charles was unable to overtake it, and abandoned the
pursuit among the trackless morasses of Pinsk. Leaving his exhausted
troops to rest for a few weeks in Volhynia, he hastened off to Saxony to
finish with Augustus, to the intense relief of Peter in his "paradise,"

1,706^ y] Eooeaition of Patkul. 595

»

as he called St Petersburg. In the autumn of the same year, the com-
bined forces of Augustus and Menshikoff defeated the Swedish general
Marderfeld at Kalisch (October 29); but the victory came too late
to repair the shattered fortunes of the Elector. On September 24,
his Ministers at Dresden had concluded with Charles the Peace of
Altranstadt, which was ratified by Augustus at Petrikow in Poland
(October 20). By this treaty, Augustus recognised Stanislaus as King
of Poland ; renounced aU his anti-Swedish alliances, especially the
alliance with Russia; and undertook to support the Swedish army,
during the winter, in Saxony, and to deliver up Patkul. To the last he
was insincere. Thus, while imploring Charles to keep secret the Peace of
Altranstadt, as otherwise he would fear for his personal security, he
privately assured the Tsar of his unalterable devotion, and negotiated
at Berlin and Copenhagen for a fresh anti-Swedish league. Charles rent
asunder this web of falsehood by publishing the treaty and compelling
Augustus to ratify it afresh (January 19, 1707) and carry out all its
stipulations, not one of which was of the slightest political advantage
to Sweden. Patkul was now removed from his Saxon dungeon and
handed over to Charles. He was broken on the wheel and then de-
capitated (October 10), Charles having rejected an appeal for mercy from
his own sister, the Princess Ulrica Leonora, on the ground that one who
had forfeited his life as a traitor could, for example's sake, not be
pardoned. Charles' conduct on this occasion was legitimate if harsh,
but that of Augustus was wholly infamous. He had deliberately handed
over to a horrible death a man who, after serving him to the utmost of
his ability, had trusted in his honour.

It was now that Peter seriously attempted to come to terms with
his terrible opponent. This he could only do by soliciting the mediation
of the Powers, as Charles steadily refused to have any direct com-
munication with him. He began in London. At the end of 1706,
Andrei Matvieeff was sent there from Holland to promise Peter's
adhesion to the Grand Alliance, if Great Britain would bring about a
peace between him and Sweden. If necessary, Matvieeff was to bribe
Harley, Godolphin, Marlborough, and the other Ministers. "I know not
whether Marlborough would be inclined thereto, as he is already im-
mensely rich," wrote Peter privately, "but you ftiay promise him d&lOOO."
After a long procrastination, Harley informed Matvieeff that the
Queen could not at present afford to quarrel with the King of Sweden,
especially as he had engaged not to attack the Emperor. On the Con-
tinent, Peter's Dutch agent, Huyssens, negotiated with Marlborough
direct. The Duke promised to meet the Tsar's wishes if a principality
in Russia were granted to him. Peter at once gave him the choice
between Kieff, Vladimir, and Siberia, besides promising him, in case a
peace with Sweden was concluded by his efforts, 50,000 thalers a year,
" a rock ruby such as no European potentate possesses," and the order

OB. zix, 38 — 2

696 Peter and the Powers. — Mazepa. [1V07

of St Andrew in brilliants. But nothing came of it, although Peter
now declared his willin^ess to surrender all his Baltic possessions except
St Petersburg. In the spring of 1707 Peter negotiated for the mediation
of France, through Desalliers, the ■ French Minister at the Court of
Francis II RAkdczy, Prince of Transylvania, whom Peter, for a moment,
had thought of setting up in Poland as a rival to Stanislaus. Charles
was approached on the subject of peace ; butj recognising that the line of
the Neva was really vital to the existence of Sweden's Baltic empire, he
refused to cede St Petersburg, and insisted on Peter's restitution of all his
conquests and the payment of a war indemnity. Meanwhile the Swedish
Ministers at Vienna, the Hague, and elsewhere, insisted perpetually that,
if Russia were allowed to increase, all Europe would be exposed to the
peril of a second Scythian invasion; and all Europe was inclined to
believe them. Prince Eugene, to whom Peter now offered the thi'one
of Poland, refused the dangerous gift; and the Emperor hastened to
recognise Stanislaus for fear of offending Charles. At Berlin, even the
offer of 100,000 thalers could not tempt the Prussian Ministers to
undertake the ungrateful task of mediation. Peter was evidently given
up for lost.

All diplomatic expedients for pacifying Charles having failed, Peter
prepared to bear the brunt of a war a outrance with the invincible
Swede. At a Council of War, held at the village of Mereczko, in
Lithuaniaj in 1707, he decided not to oppose the Swedes in the open
field, but to retire before them, drawing them further and further from
their base, devastating the country before them and harassing them as
much as possible, especially at the passage of the principal rivers. He
had previously commanded that all the country-folks should be warned
beforehand of the approach of the enemy that they might have time to
hide their stores of corn in pits, or in the forests, and drive their cattle
into the trackless swamps. The Cossack Hetman, Ivan Mazepa, was
entrusted with the defence of Little Russia and the Ukraine. Kieff, with
its congeries of fortress-monasteries, was additionally fortified and well
supplied with ai-tillery. All the light troops, including the Cossacks,
were to fall back behind the Dnieper.

Charles' departure from Saxony had been delayed for twelve months
by a quarrel with the Emperor, against whom he had many just causes
of complaint. The religious question presented the most difficulty. The
Court of Vienna had treated the Silesian Protestants with tyrannical
severity, in direct contravention of the Treaty of Osnabriick, of which
Sweden was one of the gdarantors ; and Charles demanded summary
and complete restitution in so dictatorial a fashion that the Emperor
prepared for war. But political considerations prevailed. The sudden
apparition of the King of Sweden and his " blue boys " in the heeirt of
the Empire fluttered all the western diplomatists ; and the allies at once
suspected that Louis XIV had bought the Swedes, Marlborough was

1707-9] Charles XII at Altranstddt. 597

forthwith sent from the Hague to the castle of Altranstadt, near
Leipzig, where Charles had fixed his head-quarters, "to endeavour to
penetrate the designs of the King of Sweden." He soon convinced
himself that western Europe had nothing to fear from Charles, and
that no brihes were necessary in order to turn the Swedish arms from
Germany to Muscovy. Nevertheless Charles' presence in central Europe
seriously hampered the movements of the allies.; and the fear lest he
might be tempted to assist France, the traditional ally of Sweden, finally
induced the Emperor to satisfy all his demands, the Maritime Powers
agreeing to guarantee the provisions of the Treaty of Altranstadt.

Delayed during the autumn months in Poland by the tardy arrival
of reinforcements from Pomerania, Charles XH was not able to take the
field till November, 1707, when he had under him an army of 24,000
horse and 20,000 foot, two-thirds of whom were veterans. The respite
wfis of incalculable importance to the Tsar, who, at this very time
had suddenly to cope with a dangerous Bashkir rising on the Volga,
followed by a rebellion of the Don Cossacks under Kondraty Bulavin,
against "the innovations." So hardly pressed was he as to be forced
to employ barbarians against barbarians, Calmucks against Bashkirs,
for want of regulars. On Christmas Day, 1707, Charles reached
the Vistula, which he crossed on New Year's Day, 1708, although the
ice was in a dangerous condition. On January 26 he entered Grodno,
only two hours after Peter's departure. " For God's sake," wrote Peter
to Menshikofi^ on this occasion, "entrust the command of the rear-
guard to faithful men of our own people and not to foreign fools." The
sneer is illuminating. It shows that even in the service of war the
Muscovites were beginning to dispense with leading-strings.

On February 12, Charles encamped at Smorgonie on the Velya, one
of the tributaries of the Niemen. Two courses lay open to him. Either
he might recover the lost Baltic provinces before attacking the Tsar,
or he might pursue Peter into the heart of his Tsardom, and dictate
peace to him after destroying his army. His ablest officers strongly
advised him to adopt the first course as being both "cheap and reason-
able"; but the alternative appealed irresistibly to the young hero's love
of adventure, and tempted him by presenting difficulties which would
have been unconquerable by anyone but himself. And, unfortunately
for Sweden, he adopted it. This plan was, apparently (for even now it
is largely guess-work) first, after crossing the Dnieper, to unite with the
army-corps of Lewenhaupt, which was advancing from Riga to join him,
and then to winter in the fruitful and untouched Ukraine, whose fortresses
were to be held at his disposal by the Cossack Hetman Mazepa. Simul-
taneously, the Finnish army imder Lybecker, with the help of the fleet,
was to take St Petersburg and recapture Ingria, while Stanislaus, aided by
a third Swedish army imder Krassow, was to quell all disaffection in
Poland. In the summer of 1709, the three Swedish armies, reinforced

698 Victory ofMolo'wczyn.-Swedish march southwards; [I'zos

by the Poles, the Cossacks, and the Crimean Tartars, were to attack
Muscovy from the north, south and east simultaneously and crush Peter
between them. The realisation of such a scheme, which absolutely dis-
regarded difficulties, and was built upon nothing but the most fantastic
hypotheses, lay far beyond the bounds of possibility.

After a brief rest at Smorgonie, Charles XII resumed his march
eastwards. The superior strategy of the Swedes enabled them to cross
the first two considerable rivers, the Berezina and the Drucz, without
difficulty, but on reaching the Wabis, Charles found the enemy posted
on the other side, near the little town of Holowczyn, in an apparently
impregnable position and evidently bent upon barring his passage. But
his experienced eye instantly detected the one vulnerable point in the six
mile long Russian line ; on July 4, 1708, he hurled all his forces against
it; and, after a fierce engagement, from daybreak to sundown, the
Russians fell back with a loss of 3000 men.

The victory of Holowczyn, memorable besides as the last pitched
battle won by Charles XII, opened up the way to the Dnieper ; and four
days later Charles reached Mohileff, where he stayed till August 6 waiting
for Lewenhaupt. The Swedes now began to suffer severely, bread and
fodder running short, and the soldiers subsisting almost entirely on
captured bullocks. The Russians, under Sheremetieff and Menshikoff,
would not risk another general engagement, but slowly retired before
the invaders, destroying everything in their path, till at last the Swedes
had nothing but a charred wilderness beneath their feet and a horizon of
burning villages before their eyes. Moreover, the Muscovites now began
to display an unusual boldness, attacking more and more frequently,
with ever-increasing numbers, as, for instance, at Chernaya Napa
(September 9), where they fell upon an isolated Swedish division which
lost 3000 men and was only saved from annihilation by the arrival of
Charles himself. By the time the frontier of eighteenth century Russia
was reached at Michahowich (October 1) it was plain to Charles that he
could go no further eastwards through the devastated land, and at
Tatarsk he held his first council of war. Rehnskjold prudently advised
the King to wait for Lewenhaupt, whose reinforcements and caravan of
provisions were becoming indispensable, and then to retire to Livonia, so
that he might winter in his own lands. But Charles, partly from a
horror of retreating, partly because of an urgent summons from Mazepa,
resolved to pi-oceed southwards instead of northwards, and to this resolu-
tion everything else was sacrificed.

And now began that last march of the devoted Swedish army through
the forests and morasses of Severia and the endless steppes of Ukraine which
was to be a long-drawn-out agony, punctuated by a constant succession
of disasters. The first blow fell in the beginning of October, when the
unhappy Lewenhaupt joined Charles with the debris of the army he had
saved from the not iugloiiuus rout of Lyesna,, where tlie Rusaiansj with

1707-8] Causes of Mazepa's treason. 599

vastly superior forces, had interrupted and overwhelmed him after a two
days' battle (September 29-30), in which the Swedes lost 8000 killed
and wounded, 16 guns, 42 standards, and 2000 waggons of provisions,
and the Russians 4000 killed and wounded. And Lewenhaupt was
sacrificed in vain, for when, on November 8, Mazepa at last joined Charles,
at the little Severian town of Horki, he came not as the powerful Ihix
militum Zaporowiensium, but as a ruined man with little more than his
horsetail standard and 1300 personal adherents.

The unlooked-for collapse of Mazepa was a terrible blow to
Charles XII. He had built his hopes of ultimate victory on his
alliance with the Cossack Hetman; and, in justice to Charles, it must be
admitted that this alliance, so far from being a mere mirage luring him
on to destruction, as which Swedish historians generally have regarded it,
was really the one solid and substantial element in his fantastic combina-
tions. The fact has been quite overlooked that, in those days, the
Hetman of the Zaporogian Cossacks was often the determining factor
of Oriental politics. Chmielnicki had held the balance even between
Poland and Muscovy for years. Doroszenko, as the ally of the Sultan,
had, for a time, been more powerful than Tsar and King combined.
Mazepa himself was not so much the subject as the semi-independent
tributary of the Muscovite Crown. He ruled on the Dnieper with more
than princely power. 100,000 Cossack horsemen were at his disposal.
The whole Ukraine obeyed his lightest nod. The Khan of the Crimea
addressed him as " my brother." If Charles X of Sweden, one of the
astutest statesmen as Well as the greatest warrior of his age, in the
pl^itude of his power considered it not beneath his dignity to seek the
alliance of the Hetman Chmielnicki against Poland, why should not his
grandson, Charles XII, have sought the alliance of the Hetman Mazepa
against Muscovy, now that Poland also was on his side ? The power and
influence of Mazepa were fully recognised by Peter the Great himself.
No other Cossack Hetman had ever been treated with such deference
at Moscow. He ranked with the highest dignitaries in the State, sat
at the Tsar's own table, and flouted the Tsar's kinsfolk with impunity.

Mazepa would doubtless have remained loyal, had not Charles XII
crossed his path. At the very beginning of the great Northern War,
the crafty old Hetman began to have his doubts how this life-and-death
struggle, going on before his very eyes, would end. As Charles continued
to advance, and Peter to retreat, Mazepa made up his mind that Charles
was going to win and that it was high time he looked after his own
interests. Moreover, he had his personal grievances against Peter.
The Tsar was going so fast, that the arch-conservative old Cossack
could not follow him ; and he was jealous of the omnipotent favourite
Menshikoff. More than once, some of his Cossack squadrons had been
taken away from him to be converted into dragoons, and he deeply
resented it. But he proceeded very cautiously. Not till September 27,

600 The great frost of 17 08-Q. [1707-9

1707, when King Stanislaus wrote to him direct, practically offering
him his own terms if he would take the anti-Muscovite side, did he
determine to do so. The crisis came when Peter ordered him actively
to cooperate with the Russian forces in the Ukraine. Mazepa hereupon
took to his bed, and sent word to the Tsar that he was on the point of
death. The same day he communicated with Qiarles' First Minister,
Count Piper, and agreed to harbour the Swedes in the Ukraine, and
close it against the Russians (October, 1708). But Peter was too
quick for him. He at once sent Menshikoff to see "the dying Hetman."
Mazepa at once took horse, and "sped away like a whirlwind," for
three days and three nights, to the nearest Swedish outposts. Peter
instantly commanded Menshikoff to have a new Hetman elected, and to
raze Baturin, Mazepa's chief stronghold in the Ukraine, to the ground.
In the race to Baturin which now followed between Charles and
Menshikoff, the Muscovites outmarched the exhausted Swedes; and
when Charles, a week later, passed by the Cossack capital, all that
remained of it was "a heap of smouldering mills and ruined houses,
with burnt, half-burnt and bloody corpses " scattered all around.

At the end of 1708, the Swedes had to encounter a new and terrible
enemy in the great frost, the severest that Europe had known for a
century. So early as the beginning of October the cold was intense ; by
November 1, firewood would not burn in the open air and the soldiers
warmed themselves over big bonfires of straw. But it was not till the
vast open steppes of the Ukraine were reached that the vmhappy Swedes
experienced the full rigour of the icy Scythian blast. By the time the
army arrived at the little Ukrainian fortress of Hadjach, which they
took by assault (January, 1709), wine and spirits froze into solid blocks
of ice; birds on the wing fell dead; saliva congealed in its passage from
the mouth to the ground. The sufferings of the soldiers were hideous.
"You could see," says an eye-witness, "some without hands, some
without feet, some without ears and noses, many creeping along after
the manner of quadrupeds.'" "Nevertheless," says another eye-witness,
" though earth, sky, and air were against us, the King's orders had to be
obeyed, and the daily march made." Never had Charles XII seemed so
superhuman as during those awful days. It is not too much to say that
his imperturbable equanimity, his serene bonhomie, kept together the
perishing, but still unconquered, host. His mihtary exploits were pro-
digious. At Cerkova he drove back 7000 Russians with 400, and at
Opressa, 5000 Russians with 300 men.

The frost broke at the end of February, 1709, and then the spring
floods put an end to all active operations for some months. The Tsar
set off for Voronezh to inspect his Black Sea fleet; while Charles
encamped at Rudiszcze, between the Orel and the Worskla, two tribu-
taries of the Don. By this time the Swedish army had dwindled from
41,000 to 20,000 able-bodied men, mostly cavalry. Supplies, furnished

1709] Charles besieges Poltawa. 601

for a time by Mazepa, were again running short. All communications
with Europe had long since been cut off. Charles weis still full of con-
fidence. He hoped in the ensuing campaign, with the help of the
Tartars, the Zaporogians and the Hospodar of Wallachia, to hold his
own till Stanislaus, with Krassow's army-corps, had joined him by way
of Volhynia. On May 11 he began the siege of Poltawa, a small fortress
on the western bank of the Worskla, and the staple of the Ukraine trade,
so as to strengthen his position till the arrival of Krassow. But the
ordinary difficulties of a siege were materially increased by the lack of
artillery and ammunition', and by the proximity of the Russian main
army, which arrived a few days later, and entrenched itself on the opposite
bank of the Worskla, Peter himself was delayed by the resistance
offered by the Zaporogian Cossacks at the instigation of Mazepa, in
their syech, or great water-fortress, among the islands of the Dnieper;
but on June 8, "this root of all the evil and the main hope of the
enemy," as Peter called it, was stormed by the dragoons of Volkovsky
and Galaghan. A week later the Tsar set out for Poltawa, arriving
there on June 15.

At last Peter had resolved to make a firm stand. "With God's
help I hope this month to have a final bout with the enemy," he wrote
to Admiral Apraksin. Yet even now, though the Swedes were a
famished, exhausted, dispirited host, surrounded by fourfold numbers,
Peter decided at a council of war, held soon after his arrival, that a
general attack was too hazardous. Charles XII had never yet been
defeated in a pitched battle, and Peter was determined to take no risks.
Only when the garrison of Poltawa contrived to let him know that their
powder had run out, and the enemy's sappers were buiTowing beneath
their palisades, did he order his army to advance. On that very day
a crowning calamity overtook the Swedes. While reconnoitring the
Russian camp, Charles received a wound in the foot from the bullet of a
Cossack patrol, which placed him hors de combat. On hearing of this
mishap, Peter resolved not to refuse battle, if it were offered him.
Charles was equally ready to fight, and at a council of war held on
June 26, Marshal Rehnskjold, whom he had appointed commander-in-
chief in his stead, was ordered to attack the Russians in their entrench-
ments on the following day. The Swedes joyfully accepting the chances
of battle in lieu of miseries of all sorts and slow starvation, advanced with
irresistible ilan, and were at first successful on both wings. After this, one
or two tactical blunders having been committed, the Tsar, taking courage,
drew all his troops from their trenches, and enveloped the little band of
Swedish infantry in a vast semi-circle, bristling with guns of the most
modern make, the invention of a French engineer, Le Metre, which fired

1 Nearly all the powder had been spoilt by the weather during 1708-9, and it is
said that the report of the Swedish guns was no loader than the clapping of gloved
hands.

602 Battle of Poltawa—Second league against Sweden. [1709

five times to the Swedes' once, and literally swept q,way the Guards, the
heart and soul of the army, before they could grasp their swords. After
a desperate straggle, the Swedish infantry was annihilated, while the
14,000 cavalry, exhausted and dernoralised, surrendered, two days later,
at Perevolchna on the Dnieper, which they had no means of crossing.
Charles XII, half delirious with pain, in his litter, escorted by Mazepa
and 1500 horsemen, took refuge in Turkish territory, "The enemy's
army," wrote Peter to his friend Romodonoysky next morning, "has
had the fate of Phaethon. As for the King, we know not whether he
be with us or with our fathers." To Apraksin he wrote: "Now, by
God's help, are the foundations of Petersburg securely laid for all time."
At the end of the year, on his return to " the Holy Land," he laid the
foimdation-stone of a church dedicated to St Sampson, to commemorate
the victory of the strong and patient man who had at last vanquished
his masters in the art of war.

The immediate result of the battle of Poltawa was the revival
of the hostile league against Sweden. On hearing of Peter's victoryj
Augustus sent his chamberlain. Count Vizthum, to arrange for a con-
ference ; and the two monarchs met on a bridge of boats in the Vistula,
a mile from Thorn, where, on October 17, 1709, a treaty cancelling all
former compacts was signed. , Peter undertook to assist Augustus to
regain the throne of Poland ; and, by a secret article, it was agreed that
Livonia should form part of tlie victor's hereditaiy domains. Previously
to this (June 28), an alliance had been concluded at Dresden between
Augustus and Frederick IV of Denmark, "to restore the equilibrium of
the north, and keep Sweden within her proper limits." Nevertheless,
for fear of the Western Powers, which were amicably disposed towards
Sweden, and by no means inclined to part with the Danish and Saxon
mercenaries in their service, so long as the War of the Spanish Succession
continued, the two Princes agreed to exempt Sweden's German possessions
from attack unless their own possessions in the Empire were attacked
by Sweden. The confederates then proceeded to Berlin, to persuade
Frederick I of Prussia to accede to the new alliance ; but the Prussian
Minister, llgen, restrained his royal master from taking any decisive
step. Consequently, " the league of the three Fredericks " was of so
general a character that it did little more than engage the King of
Prussia to prevent the passage through his territories of any Swedish
troops bent on invading the territories of Denmark or Saxony.

And now Frederick IV, despite the angry remonstrances of the
Maritime Powers, resolved to attack Sweden at the very time that the
Tsar was harrying the remnant of her Baltic provinces. But Sweden
was now to show the world that a military State, whose strong ceutriil
organisation enabled her to mobilise troops more quickly than her
neighbours, is not to be overthrown by a single disaster, however
serious. She could still oppose 16,000 well-disciplined troops to the

1709-10] Danish and Russian invasions. — The Porte. 603

Danish invader, and these troops were commanded by Count Magnus
Stenbock, the last, but not the least, of the three great Caroline
captains — the other two of whom, Rehnskjold and Lewenhaupt, were
now captives in Russia. Her fleet, too, was still a little stronger than
the Danish fleet, and, besides her garrisons in Stralsund, Wismar, Bremen,
Verden, and other places, she had Krassow's army-corps of 9000 strong
in Poland. Then came the tidings of Poltawa, and, in an instant, the
authority of King Stanislaus vanished. The vast majority of the Poles
hastened to repudiate him and make their peace with Augustus, and
Leszczynski, henceforth a mere pensioner of Charles XII, accompanied
Krassow's army-corps in its retreat to Swedish Pomerania. On Novem-
ber 12, 1709, 15,000 Danes landed in Scania, but, after gaining some
slight advantage, were routed by Stenbock at Helsingborg (March 10,
1710), and compelled to evacuate Sweden. Yet, failure though it was,
the short Scanian campaign had been of material assistance to the Tsar.
It had prevented the Swedish Government from sending help to the
hardly pressed eastern provinces, and had thus given Peter a free hand
there. On July 15, 1710, Riga, into which Peter personally had the
satisfaction of hurling the first bomb, was starved into surrender.
During the next two months Pemau and Reval fell. Finland had already
been invaded ; and in June the fortress of Viborg was captured.

But, suddenly, alarming news from the south interrupted the
Tsar's career of conquest in the north. Immediately after Poltawa,
Peter Tolstoi, the Russian ambassador at the Porte, demanded the
extradition of Charles and Mazepa. This was a diplomatic blunder, as
it irritated the already alarmed Turks. Tolstoi next reported " great
military preparations made in great haste." In August he ofifered the
Grand Mufti 10,000 ducats and 1000 sables, if he would hand over the
fi^itives; but the Mufti gravely replied that such a breach of hospitality
would be contrary to the religion of Islam. Evidently the Turks wished
to prolong the Russo-Swedish War till they were ready to take the
field themselves. Nor was Charles himself idle. For the first time in
his life, he was obliged to have recouise to diplomacy ; and his pen now
proved almost as formidable as his sword. First he sent his agent,
Neugebauer, to Stambul with a memorial in which the Porte was warned
that, if Peter were given time, he would attack Turkey as suddenly and
unexpectedly as he had attacked Sweden in 1700. The fortification of
Azoff and the building of a fleet in the Black Sea clearly indicated his
designs, and a Suedo-Turkish alliance was the only remedy against so
pressing a danger. " Reinforce me with your valiant cavalry," concluded
Charles, " and I will return to Poland, reestablish my affairs, and again
attack the heart of Muscovy." These arguments, very skilfully presented,
had a great effect upon the Porte; and, when Neugebauer was reinforced
by Stanislaus Poniatowski, Chaiies' ablest diplomatist, the crisis became
acute. At first, indeed, the Muscovite prevailed. In November, 1709,

604 The campaign of the Pruth. [i7io-i

the Russo-Turkish peax;e was renewed, on the understanding that Charles
should be escorted to the Polish frontier by Turkish, and from Poland
to the Swedish frontier by Russian, troops. But in January, 1710,
Poniatowski succeeded in delivering to the Sultan personally a second
memorial by Charles, convicting the Grand Vezir, Ali Pasha, of corrup-
tion and treason ; and in June he was superseded by Neuman-Kiuprili,
whose first act was to lend Charles 400,000 thalers free of interest.
Kiuprili also would have avoided war, if possible ; but the patriotic zeal
of the semi-mutinous Janissaries was too strong for him, and he had to
give way to the still more anti-Russian Grand Vezir, Baltiaji Mehemet.
Peter, encouraged by his Baltic triumphs, now thought fit to take a
higher tone with the Porte, and in October, 1710, categorically enquired
whether the Sultan desired peace or war, and threatened an invasion
unless he received satisfactory assurances forthwith. The Porte, un-
accustomed to such language from Muscovy, at once threw Tolstoi into
the Seven Towers ; while the Grand Vezir was sent to the frontier at the
head of 200,000 men.

On March 19, 1711, war was solemnly proclaimed, in the Tsar's
presence, against " the enemies of the Cross of Christ," in the Uspensky
Cathedral ; and Peter immediately set out for the front. At laroslavl,
on June 12, he concluded a fresh alliance with Augustus, confirmatory
of the Treaty of Thom. The petitions and promises of the Orthodox
Christians in Turkey now induced the Tsar to accelerate his pace, and
he concluded on his way a secret treaty of alliance with Demetrius
Cantemir, Hospodar of Moldavia. Peter had expected that a general
insun-ection of the Serbs and Bulgais would have compelled the Grand
Vezir to recross the Danube; but unexpected difficulties suddenly
accumulated. On June 27, Sheremetieff, the Russian commander-in-chief,
reported that the whole land had already been sucked dry by the Turks
and he knew not where to look for provisions and provender. At a
council of war, held at the end of June, Peter decided to advance still
further, in order to support Sheremetiefi^ and unite with the Orthodox
Christians. On July 16 he reached Jassy, by which time the question of
supplies had become so pressing, that all other considerations had to be
subordinated to it. On the rumour reaching him that an immense quantity
of provisions had been hidden by the Turks in the marshes of Fulchi, near
Braila, Peter crossed the Pruth, and searched for these phantom supplies
in the forests on the banks of the Sereth. On August 8 the advance-
guard reported the approach of the Grand Vezir ; and the whole army
hurried back to the Pruth, fighting rear-guard actions all the way. On
August 11 the Muscovites, now reduced to 38,000 men, entrenched them-
selves ; and the same evening 190,000 Turks and Tartars, with 300 guns,
beleaguered them on both sides of the Pruth. An attack upon the
Russian camp on the same day was repulsed; but the position of the
Russians, with provisions for only a couple of days, and no hope of

1711 j The Peace of the Pruth. 605

succour, was desperate. Had Baltaji only remained stationary for a
week, he could have starved the Muscovites into surrender without
losing a man or wasting a shot. Learning, however, from a Turkish
prisoner that the Grand Vezir was pacifically inclined, Vice-Chancellor
ShafiroiF persuaded Sheremetieff to send a trumpeter to the Turkish camp
with an oflFer of peace. It was the merest forlorn hope, and SheremetieiF
himself remarked that the Grand Vezir would be the craziest person in
the world to take half when, by waiting a little longer, he could have
the whole. Nevertheless, after a second and more urgent summons, the
Grand Vezir professed his readiness to negotiate ; and on the same day,
Shafiroff, with three interpreters and two couriers, departed upon what
everyone regarded as a fool's errand. His instructions strikingly reflect
the extreme depression of the Tsar. Peter was now ready to surrender
virtually all his Baltic conquests, except St Petersburg; to recognise
Stanislaus Leszczynski as King of Poland ; and to give complete
satisfaction to the Sultan. He also authorised Shafiroff to promise the
Grand Vezir and his chief officers 230,000 roubles, if the Muscovite army
were permitted to return home unmolested. Shafiroff acquitted himself
of his difficult task with consummate ability. The terms of the Peace
which he brought back with him on August 12 were, in the circumstances,
amazingly favoiu:able. The Russian army was allowed to retire, in return
for a solemn engagement to retrocede Azoff, to dismantle Taganrog and
the other fortresses on the Sea of Azoff, to interfere no more in Polish
affairs, and to grant the King of Sweden a free passage to his domains.

The only person who took no part in the general rejoicing was the
Tsar. After loudly declaring his intention of delivering the Christian
population of Turkey from the Mohammadan yoke and driving the
Turks out of Europe, he had signed a peace by which he abandoned
the Sea of Azoff, and imdertook to destroy the choicest works of his own
hands, his fortresses, and his costly new-built fleet ! Peter's despondency
is clearly reflected in the letter which he addressed to the newly
instituted Senate, while the negotiations with the Porte were still
proceeding. In this letter he informs his Ministers that he is surrounded
by a countless Turkish army, and, without a special manifestation of God's
grace, sees nothing before him but a hopeless pitched battle or Turkish
captivity " In the latter case," he continues, " regard me no longer as
your Gosudar, and obey no orders from me, though they may be under
my hand and seal, till I appear among you. And in case of my death,
elect the worthiest as my successor."

Two days before the Russian army departed from the Pruth, Charles
XII, who had provided the Grand Vezir with a plan of campaign before-
hand, arrived on the scene of action. Only then did he receive the
unwelcome news that peace had been concluded. Well might he
denounce the conduct of Baltaji as a treason to the Sultan as well as
to himself. "He seems to have more regard," wrote Charles, "for the

606 Peter and the Porte. — Charles at Bender, [yiii-z

conservation of the enemy's army than for the advantage of the Ottoman
Porte." Even now, however, Charles did not abandon the struggle.
He was materially assisted by Peter's tergiversations. Skilfully taking
advantage of them, Charles, at last, procured the dismissal of Baltaji ;
and his own friend, Jussuf, Aga of the Janissaries, became Grand Vezir
in Baltaji's stead. War was hereupon once more declared agdinst
Russia; and the Sultan announced that, in the spring, he would in
person lead his army against the Tsar. Then Peter so far gave way as
to abandon Azoff and raze Taganrog, without waiting for the dismissal
of Charles XII. But the danger was not yet over. Early in 1712, the
influential French ambassador at Stambul began urging the Sultan to
declare war against Russia for the third time. Peter, he argued, fairly
enough, was not to be trusted, and, if only the Sultan sent Charles home
with an escort of 30,000 Turks and 15,000 Tartars, all Poland would
hail his advent. The persistent hope of obtaining such escort was the
real cause of Charles' long sojourn in Turkey. But the British and Dutch
Ministers now came to the assistance of ShafjrofF whom Peter had been
obliged to leave as a hostage in the hands of the Turks. They persuaded
the Grand Vezir to accept a treaty, drafted by themselves, for a twienty-
five years' truce between Russia and the Porte. Peter undertaking to
evacuate Poland, and acknowledge the sovereignty of the Porte over the
Cossacks (April, 1712). This treaty cost ShafirofF 84,900 Venetian
ducats, of which the friendly Ministers received 6000 apiece. But
the continuance of the Russian troops in Poland, long denied, could not
be concealed for ever. Poniatowski presented a third memorial from
Charles to the Sultan, emphasising and commenting on this flagrant
breach of the April treaty; on November 1, a Turkish courier returned
from Poland with confirmation of the fact ; on December 21 the Sultan
set out for Adrianople; and war was declared against Russia for the
third time. Shafiroff reported that this change of front was entirely
the Sultan's doing. He had never liked the Peace of the Pruth, and,
egged on by the French ambassador, was resolved to reinstate Charles, to
whom he had sent a present of 600,000 francs. In the beginning of
1713, however, more favourable reports arrived from Shafiroff. It now
appeared that the Sultan had declared war for the purpose of extorting
a cession of territory from the Poles ; but, as they remained firm, and
showed no disposition to reject Augustus since his last reinstalment,
he had concluded that the Tsar was stronger in Poland than his rival,
and that the French and Swedish Ministers had reported falsely. He also
feared that, in the present temper of the Janissaries, disaster might mean
his own deposition. He therefore requested Charles to depart from
Turkey. Charles refused to budge and on February 1, 1718, was
attacked at Bender. For eight hours Charles with only 40 men defended
his unfortified house against 12,000 Turks with 12 guns. Two hundred
Turks fell, ten by the King's own hand. It took a dozen Janissaries to

1710-3] Peace of Adrianople. — The War in Germany. 607

overwhelm him single-handed in his attempt to escape from the burning
house. The negotiations with Russia were then resumed. But the
eyes of the Turks had now, for the first time, been opened to the
fact that the Polish and the Eastern questions were inseparable, and
to its inevitable corollary that Russia's predominance i in Poland was a
direct menace to the Porte. The new Grand Vezir, Ali Pasha, now
demanded tribute from Russia, with the obvious intention of provoking
a rupture (June, 1713); and Shafiroff only averted a declaration of war by
bribing the Grand Mufti. Finally, however, (July 16, 1713) the Pea,ce
of Adrianople, mediated by the Maritime Powers, adjusted all the
outstanding differences between Russia and the Porte.

On retiring from the Pruth, Peter, after a brief visit to Carlsbad^
proceeded to Krossen (November 13, 1711) to concert measures with his
allies for the vigorous prosecution of the Swedish wary which was now
transferred to Germany, where the long struggle for the dominion of the
North was to be fought out.

By this time Sweden's position had distinctly deteriorated. In March j
1710, the Swedish Senate had concluded a neutrality compact ivith the
Emperor, Prussia, Hanover, Great Britain and Holland, whereby Charles'
possessions in northern Germany were guaranteed against attack, on
condition that Krassow's army in Pomerania abstained from hostilities,
within the German Empire and was not employed either in Poland or
Jutland. This guarantee treaty was, in the circumstances, a prudent act
of statesmanship ; but Charles incontinently rejected it, as interfering
with his plans, thereby greatly irritating the Maritime Powers, already
by no means so well disposed towards Sweden as heretofore in con-
sequence of the depredations of the Swedish privateers in the Baltic.
In 1712, the unwisdom of Charles' summary renunciation of a compact
intended for his special protection became apparent. Not only did the
Tsar and Augustus II determine to proceed against the Swedish posses^
sions in Germany, but they persuaded Frederick IV of Denmark to join
them. The plan of the allies was for the Danes to invade the Bremen
and Verden territory, where Stade was the chief fortress, while the I^ussians
and Saxons simultaneously attacked Stralsund. Stade capitulated (Sep-
tember 7) to the Danes, who thereupon occupied Bremen and Verden ;
but the allies failed to make any impression on Stralsund, and the
abortive siege led to a violent quarrel between the Kings of Poland and
Denmark which the Russian Ministers barely succeeded in comppsing.

But now a fresh danger suddenly threatened Peter and his allies.
From the first the Maritime Powers had been far more amicably dispose4
towards Sweden than towards Muscovy. This anti-Russian bias was
strongest in England, where the interference of semi-barbarous Muscovy
in European affairs was felt to be far more offensive than the haughty
aloofiiess of the Swede. Before Poltawa, Sweden was generally regarded
as the natural counterpoise to Russia and entitled, so far as she

608 The Maritime Powers.-Stenhock in Pomerania. [1709-12

discharged that useful political function, to the support of the Maritime
Powers. Hence, Great Britain recognised Stanislaus as King of Poland ;
and in London the Russian ambassador Matvieeif was treated with con-
temptuous indifference. His arrest (January 21, 1709), on a warrant
obtained against him by two shopkeepers and a lace-merchant for a debt
of £50, was the last straw. Though the much-ruffled ambassador was
speedily released and promised every satisfaction, his arrest was reported
by him from the Hague to Peter as the crowning outrage of "the
Christ-hating English nation"; but the Tsar was in such straits at the
time that he had to condone the offence. Even after Poltawa, the tone
of the British Cabinet was persistently unfriendly. The British and
Dutch Ministers at Copenhagen had done their utmost to prevent
Denmark from acceding to the second coalition against Sweden; and
Bolingbi'oke told van der Lit, the new Russian ambassador in London,
that Great Britain never could put up with Russia's obvious intention
of extruding the King of Sweden from German soil. In the course of
1712, the Maritime Powers offered their mediation in the Northern War
in so threatening a manner that Peter declared this to be, not mediation,
but intimidation. Nevertheless, he expressed himself willing to make
peace on the vague stipulation that all the ancient Russian lands
which he had reconquered should be retroceded to him. As, however,
Charles XII refused to make any surrender, "whatever the conjunctures
may be," all idea of mediation was finally abandoned.

This obstinacy was to cost Charles dear. At Bender he had elaborated
a fresh plan of campaign too heroic to be practicable. Magnus Stenhock
was to form a new army-corps in Sweden, convey it to Pomerania, andj
invading Poland from the north, reinstate Stanislaus on the throne, and
drive out Peter and Augustus, while Charles and the Turks cooperated
from the south. On September 24, 1712, Stenbock succeeded in trans-
porting an army of 9400 men, a park of artillery, and a quantity of
tiransports laden with stores, to Riigen, despite the disturbing presence
of a large Danish fleet which subsequently destroyed the greater part of
the transports. After reinforcing himself from the garrison of Stralsund,
he had at his disposal an efffective army of 17,000 men. He rightly refused
to accept the responsibility of plunging blindly into Poland^ leaving
Sweden's German possessions to their fate, especially as Prussia also now
began to adopt a threatening tone; but, since it was equally impossible
for him to remain at Stralsund, from lack of provisions, he marched west-
wards into Mecklenburg, reached Wismar in safety, and proceeded to live
on the land. But, even here, he could not long remain in safety. The
Danes were advancing against him from the south-west, the Russians and
Saxons from the south-east ; and, to prevent their junction, he resolved
to attack the weaker foe, the Danes, whose army was little superior to
his own. By forced marches he overtook the Danes near Gadebusch,
before the Saxons could join thera or overtake him, and won a victory

1712-^1] Conquest of Finland- The "Stettin Sequestration" 609

(December 20, 1712), which well deserved the congratulations bestowed
upon the victor by Marlborough, but was of very little service to Sweden.
Hoping to crush Denmark, as Torstensson had done in 1643, by occupy-
ing Jutland, Stenbock crossed the Holstein frontier on New Year's Day,
1713 ; and after, with wanton barbarity, destroying the defenceless city
of Altona he marched northwards through Holstein, hotly pursued by
the combined armies of the three Powers under the Tsar's command.
Cut off from Jutland and surrounded on every side by enemies,
Stenbock finally (February 14, 1713) took refuge in Tonning, the chief
fortress of Holstein-Gottorp, Sweden's one ally. Three months later,
after an unsuccessful attempt to break through the beleaguering force,
Stenbock, with the assistance of the Holstein Minister von Gortz,
capitulated at Oldenburg (May 6, 1713), obtaining honourable terms of
sturender for his army, now reduced to 11,000 men, though he himself
remained in Danish captivity till his death (1717).

No sooner was Stenbock safely shut up in Tonning, than Peter went
in search of fresh allies. But neither the Elector of Hanover nor the
King of Prussia, to whom he successively applied, would listen to him.
Peter hereupon determined to conquer Finland in order "to break the stiff
necks of the Swedes," and have something definite to surrender, when the
time for negotiation should have arrived. The necessary preparations
were made immediately after his return to St Petersburg in March, 1713;
and on May 21 the Russian fleet sailed. The defence of Finland had
been entrusted to the incapable Lybecker, who heaped blunder upon
blimder; and his gallant successor, Karl Gustaf Armfelt, with hopelessly
inadequate forces, could do little but retreat skilfully northwards. His
own and Finland's fate were finally decided on March 13, 1714, at the
bloody battle of the Storkyroi when the Swedish general stood at bay
with his raw levies against threefold odds and was annihilated. By the
end of 1714 the whole grand-duchy was in the enemy's possession.

In Germany, during the summer of 1713, the Swedish fortress of
Stettin had been besieged by the Russians and Saxons. It capitulated
in September and was occupied by neutral Prussian and Holstein troops
on the understanding that it was to be restored to Sweden at the
conclusion of a general peace. " The Stettin Sequestration," as it was
called, was primarily the work of the Holstein Ministers von Gortz and
Bassewitz. Their object was to tempt Prussia over to Charles ; and the
Court of Berlin actually agreed to drive the Danes out of Holstein and
guarantee the neutrality of Charles' German possessions in the hope of
subsequent compensation. But the diplomatists had reckoned without
Charles XII, who at once denounced "the Stettin Sequestration,"
naturally refusing to recognise the right of Prussia, a neutral Power, to
occupy one of his fortresses under any conditions.

DuriHg the summer of 1714, owing to the incurable jealousy between
Denmark and Saxony, the war languished; and fresh efforts were made

C. H. H. V. OH. XIX. 89

610 Hanoverian projed. — Charles at Stralsund. [1714-6

to bring about a general pacificaticfn at the Congress of Brunswick.
Peter was willing to make peace with Sweden if all the territory ceded
to her by Russia at the Peace of Stolbova were now retroceded. In
case of emergency, he was even willing to restore Livonia provided that
all its fortresses were previously demolished. But his principal object
was to bind Denmark more closely to him. Now that the tide of victory
had carried the Russian arms in triumph up to the head of the
Gulf of Bothnia, while the Swedes were driven back to their native
peninsula, any future operations against them would largely d^end
upon the possession of sea-power. But the Russian navy consisted, for
the most part, of galleys, and consequently in any attack upon the great
arsenal of Karlskrona, where the military and naval forces of Sweden were
now concentrated, the cooperation of the Danish navy was indispensable.
Peter therefore offered Denmark 150,000 roubles a year in subsidies and
an auxiliary army of 15,000 men, maintained at his own expense, for a
descent upon Scania, which Denmark now hoped to regain. But the
Danes considered the proffered assistance inadequate, and they also
imposed as a precedent condition the active cooperation of Prussia, who
was to guarantee them the possession of Bremen and Verden, in return
for a Danish guarantee of Stettin to Prussia.

In April, 1714, the Elector of Hanover came forward with a fresh
scheme of partition. According to this project, Prussia was to have
Stettin, while Bremen and Verden were to be assigned to Hanover, and
Schleswig-Holstein to Denmark, who with Prussia should undertake to
capture Stralsund, Hanover occupying Wismar, which was to be trans-
ferred to Mecklenburg. Peter warmly approved of the Hanoverian
scheme; but it foundered on the hostility of Denmark, who naturally
refused to part with her own conquests, Bremen and Verden. A simul-
taneous attempt by the Marquis de Chateauneuf, the French Minister at
the Hague, to bring about an understanding between Peter and Charles
failed because of the Tsar's profound distrust of France. At this juncture,
an event occurred which profoundly affected northern politics — ^the death
of Queen Anne (August 1, 1714). The Suedophil Tory Ministry
disappeared ; and the most unscrupulous of Charles XH's despoilers
ascended the English throne as George I. Three months later, Charles XII
reappeared upon the scene. On September 20 he had quitted Turkey,
and, after traversing Austria, and making a long ditour by Niimberg and
Cassel, to avoid the domains of the Saxon Elector, arrived unexpectedly,
at midnight, November 11 (0. S.), at Stralsund, which, besides Wismar,
was aU that now remained to him on German soil.

The year 1715 was memorable for the conclusion of the so-called
"English affair," which resulted in the formation of a third coalition
against Charles XII. The author of this league of spoliation was
the new King of England; and the preliminaries were arranged in
February at Copenhagen. Prussia had all along been playing a waiting

1715-6] The third coalition against Sweden. 611

game. Her final accession to the league was extorted by the categorical
question of George I's Minister at Berlin, whether she was going to join
the league, or not. In England the Whig Ministry felt obliged to
support the monarch of its choice ; and a British fleet was sent to the
Baltic to cooperate, to a limited extent, with the Danes and Russians
against Sweden. The treaties signed on May 2 and June 7, 1715,
between Hanover and Denmark, and on May 17, at Copenhagen,
between Denmark and Prussia, arranged all the details of the projected
partitions. Wolgast and Stettin were to fall to the share of Prussia ;
Rugen and Pomerania north of the Peene to Denmark, which was
also to have the absolute control of Holstein-Gottorp ; and the
duchies of Bremen and Verden to Hanover, which was to purchase
them from Denmark for 600,000 rix-doUars. Charles formally protested
against this traffic in property of which he was the real owner, and refused
to have any dealings with his plunderers; and ultimately Hanover
declared war against him (October, 1715). Thus, at the end of 171^,
Sweden, now fast approaching the last stage of exhaustion, was at open
war with Great Britain (Hanover), Russia, Prussia, Saxony and Denmark.
For twelve months Charles XII defended Stralsund with almost super-
human heroism. Again and again, at the head of his " blue boys," he
drove the allies from the isle of Usedom, and when, at length, it was
captured at a heavy cost, the delight of the Kings of Denmark and
Prussia at their hard-won triumph knew no bounds. But the hostile
forces proved overwhelming, and on December 23, 1715, Stralsund, now
little more than a rubbish-heap, surrendered, Charles having. effected his
escape to Sweden, after evading the Danish cruisers, two days before.

It had become evident to all the members of the anti-Swedish league
that, till Charles had been attacked in the heart of his own realm, the
war might drag on indefinitely. , But when it came to the execution of
the plan of invasion, insuperable obstacles presented themselves. Saxony
and Hanover were jealous of Denmark ; and all three were incurably
suspicious of the Tsar ; yet, without Peter's active cooperation, Charles
was practically unassailable. At the beginning of 1716, Peter justified
their suspicions by his high-handed interference in German affairs. At
the end of January, he punished the independent city of Danzig for
trading with Sweden, even going the length of seizing all the Swedish
vessels in the harbour, and compelling the Danzigers to build him
privateers for nothing; but when, on May 11, by the Treaty of Danzig,
he guaranteed Wismar and Wamemiinde to Duke Charles Leopold of
Mecklenburg-Schwerin, on his marriage with Peter's niece, the Tsarevna
Catharine Ivanovna, the prospect of seeing Mecklenburg a Russian out-
post infuriated George I and Frederick IV.

There can be no doubt that the Mecklenburg compact was a blunder.
The most capable and experienced of Peter's own diplomatists. Prince
Boris Kurakin, now at the Hague, had strongly dissuaded him from it.

cB. SIX. ■ 39 — z

612 Collapse of the prqjected Scanian expedition. [ivie

The Duke was of notoriously bad character; and he was not even
divorced from his first wife. Kurakin counselled his master at least
not to imperil the profitable British alliance by aggrandising Charles
Leopold at the expense of Peter's own allies. The Tsar disregarded
this advice; and complications immediately ensued. Prince Repnin,
sent by Peter with an army-corps to help Hanover and Denmark to
reduce Wismar, was informed that his services were not required;
and when the fortress capitulated (April 15) the Russian contingent
was refused admittance. Peter was deeply oflfended. But his ne-
cessities compelled him to dissemble his wrath; and, at a meeting
between the Tsar and Frederick of Denmark, at Altona, on June 14,
the invasion of Scania, where Charles XH had established himself in
an entrenched camp defended by 20,000 men, was definitely arranged.
On July 28, Peter arrived at Copenhagen with his squadron; and
30,000 Russians and 23,000 Danes began to assemble in Zealand, in
order to make the descent imder cover of the English, Danish, and
Russian fleets. But July passed by, and still the Danes held back. In
mid- August, Peter cruised off the Scanian coast to examine the lie of
the land, and discovered that the Swedes were very strongly entrenched.
Peter was naturally cautious ; and his caution had been intensified by the
terrible punishment with which his one act of temerity had so severely
been visited, five years before, on the banks of the Pruth. Charles XII,
he argued, always formidable, would be doubly so at bay in the midst of
his own people. Moreover Peter was growing more and more suspicious
of his allies; and their prolonged delay in striking at the common foe,
seemed to point to negotiations, or, at least, some understanding with
Sweden. He submitted his doubts to two councils of Russian Ministers
and generals on September 23 and 27 (0. S.); and they unanimously
advised him to postpone the descent to the following year. Such was
the real cause of the sudden and mysterious abandonment of the Scanian
expedition.

Peter's resolution was duly communicated to the Danish and Hano-
verian Governments, and produced a storm of indignation which nearly
blew the league of spoliation to pieces. In October the Russian troops
quitted Denmark, and went into winter-quarters at Mecklenburg. The
same month Peter concluded a fresh defensive alliance with Frederick
William of Prussia at Havelberg, whence he proceeded to Amsterdam,
where he was joined by his six most eminent diplomatists, including
Shafiroff, Tolstoi, and Kurakin, and where he received tidings from
London of the arrest of the Swedish Minister, Count Carl Gyllenborg,
for alleged participation in a Jacobite conspiracy engineered by
Charles XII, who was said to have sent, or to be sending, a fleet with
an army of 17,000 men to Scotland. Such an escapade seemed to Peter
just the sort of thing to which Charles XII was likely to put his hand.
He anticipated a war between Sweden and England at the very least.

1717-8] The Peace Negotiations of Baron Gortz. 613

" Am I not right in always drinking to the health of this enterprising
hero ? " he wrote to Apraksin ; " Why, he gives us for nothing what we
never could buy at any price!" But the Tsar was wrong. The whole
scheme originated in the fertile brain of Baron von Gortz, who in 1715
had passed out of the Holstein-Gottorp into the Swedish service ; but it
was sternly discountenanced by Charles. Indeed Peter's relations with
George I now became worse instead of better, for George refused to have
any dealings with Peter personally till Mecklenburg had been evacuated
by the Muscovites.

Unable to obtain anything from England, Peter now turned to
France, since the death of Louis XIV less hostile to Russia. The
political outcome of Peter's visit there (May 7 — June 20, 1717) was the
Treaty of Amsterdam (August 15), between France, Russia, and the
United Provinces, guaranteeing each other's possessions. But this treaty
meant very little so long as Sweden continued to show a bold front
against the divided league of partition ; and after a fresh coldness had
arisen between Peter and George, owing to the curt refusal of the latter
to place fifteen British line-of-battle ships at the former's disposal " to
bring the King of Sweden to reason," Peter resolved, at last, to treat
directly with Sweden. The chief intermediary was Gortz, who, gifted
with uncommon astuteness and audacity, seems to have been fascinated
by the heroic element in Charles' nature. He owed his extraordinary
influence over the King to the fact that he was the only one of Charles'
advisers who believed, or pretended to believe, that the strength of
Sweden was still far from being exhausted, or, at any rate, that she had
a sufficient reserve of force to give impetus to a high-spirited diplomacy.
This was Charles' own opinion. Charles was now willing to relinquish a
portion of the duchies of Bremen and Verden, in exchange for a com-
mensurate part of Norway, due regard being had to differences of soil
and climate. Thus, his invasions of Norway in 1716 and 1718, so far
from being mere adventirrous escapades, were mainly due to political
speculation. It was obvious that, with large districts of Norway actually
in his hands, he could make better terms with the provisional : holders
of his ultramarine domains. But the exchange of a small portion of
Bremen and Verden for something much larger elsewhere was the utmost
concession he would make ; and this was an altogether inadequate basis
for negotiation. Anyone but Gortz would have retired from the affair
altogether. But he trusted in his ability to persuade Charles into
treating, and thus bring him over gradually to his own plans.

Gortz first felt the pulse of the English Ministry, who rejected the
Swedish terms as excessive; whereupon he turned to Russia. Formal
negotiations were opened at Lofo, one of the Aland Islands (May 23,
1718), Gortz being the principal Swedish, and Osterman, Peter's most
astute diplomatist, since the disgrace of Shafiroff, the principal Russian,
commissioner.

614 Death of Charles XII. [1718-9

In view of the increasing instability of the league of partition, Peter
sincerely desired peace with Sweden ; but he was resolved to retain the
bulk of his conquests. Finland he would retrocede, but Ingria, Livonia,
Esthonia, and Carelia, with Viborg, must be surrendered by Sweden.
If Charles consented, Peter undertook to compensate him in whatever
direction he might choose. It was not only peace, but an alliance with
the King of Sweden, that the Tsar wanted. " When all ancient grudges
and sorenesses are over between us," wrote Peter privately^ "we two
between us will preserve the balance of Em-ope." Gortz was promised
a gratuity of 100,000 roubles if peace were concluded.

Two things were soon plain to the keen-witted Osterman — ^that
Gortz was hiding the Russian conditions from Charles, and that the
Swedish feeling was altogether opposed to the Russian negotiations,
rightly judging that nothing obtained elsewhere could compensate
for the loss of the Baltic provinces. Twice the negotiations were
interrupted in order that Gortz and Osterman might consult their
principals. In October, Osterman, in a private report to the Tsar,
accurately summed up the whole situation. The negotiations, he said,
were entirely Gortz' work. Charles seemed to care little for his own
interests, so long as he could fight. In the circumstances, it might
fairly be argued that he was not quite sane. Sweden's power of
resistance was nearly at breaking-point. Every artisan and one out of
every two peasants had already been taken for soldiers. He strongly
advised that additional pressure should be brought to bear by a devas-
tating raid on Swedish territory. There was, however, a chance that
Charles might break his neck, or be shot in one of his adventures ; " and
such an ending, if it happened after peace had been signed, would relieve
us from all our obligations."

Osterman's anticipations were realised in an extraordinary way.
On December 12, 1718, Charles XII was shot dead in his trenches
while on the point of capturing the Norwegian fortress of Fredrikssten.
The irresolution of the young Duke Charles Frederick of Holstein-
Gottorp,the legitimate heir to the throne, sealed the fate of a party
already detested in Sweden because of its identification with Gortz,
who was arrested the day after Charles' death and executed for alleged
high-treason in February, 1719. In March, Charles' one siurviving sister,
Ulrica Leonora, was elected Queen of Sweden, and the negotiations at
Lofo were resumed. But the Swedish plenipotentiaries now declared
that they would rather resume the war than surrender the Baltic pro-
vinces; and, in July, a Russian fleet proceeded to the Swedish coast
and landed a raiding force which destroyed property to the value of
13 millions of roubles. The Swedish Government, far from being
intimidated, hereupon broke off all negotiations with Russia (Sep-
tember 17); and pacific overtures were made instead to Hanover,
Prussia, and Denmark. By the Treaties of Stockholm, November 20,

1719-21] The Peace of Nystad. 615

1719, and February 1, 1720, Hanover obtained the "bishoprics" of
Bremen and Verden for herself, and Stettin and district for her con-
federate Prussia. The prospect of coercing Russia by means of the
English fleet had alone induced Sweden to consent to such sacrifices; but
when the last demands of Hanover and its allies had been complied
with, she was left to come to terms as best she could with the Tsar.
The efforts which Great Britain made at Vienna, Berlin, and Warsaw in
the course of 1720-1, to obtain, by diplomatic means, some mitigation
in favour of Sweden of Russia's demands proved fruitless, chiefly owing
to the stubborn neutrality of Prussia ; and though an English fleet was
despatched to the Baltic to protect Sweden's coasts, it abstained from
intervention, when, in the course of 1720, the Russian forces again de-
scended upon the hapless land and destroyed four towns, 41 villages, and
1026 ffirms. In her isolation and abandonment Sweden had no choice
but to reopen negotiations with Russia, at Nystad, in May, 1720. She
still pleaded hard for at least Viborg; but a third Russian raid accelerated
the pace of the negotiations, and, on August 30, 1721, by the Peace of
Nystad, Sweden ceded to Russia, Livonia, Esthonia, Ingria, the province
of Eeksholm, and the fortress of Viborg. Finland west of Viborg and
north of Eeksholm was retroceded to her, and she was also granted an
indemnity of two miUions of thalers and free trade in the Baltic.

On September 14, a courier, with a sealed packet, containing the
Treaty of Nystad, overtook Peter on his way to Viborg. On opening
the packet the Tsar declared, with perfect justice, that this was the most
profitable peace Russia had ever concluded. "Most apprentices," he
jocularly observed, " generally serve for seven years ; but in our school
the term of apprenticeship has been thrice as long. Yet, God be
praised, things could not have turned out better for us than they have
dbnci" And, indeed, the gain to Russia by the Peace of Nystad, which
terminated a war of twenty-one years, was much more than territorial.
In surrendering her choicest Baltic provinces, Sweden had also lost the
hegemony of the North, and all her pretensions to be considered a Great
Power.

OH. Tax,

616

CHAPTEE XX.

THE ORIGINS OF THE KINGDOM OF PRUSSIA.

ALTHOUGH the complexity of the phenomena of modem history is
such as to baffle any attempt to render them subservient to preconceived
conclusions, yet it must be allowed that the theory of so-called historic
missions has been very plausibly exemplified from the growth of the
Brandenburg-Prussian polity. Not many European dynasties have
furthered the interests of their dominions so steadily as the Hohen-
zoUems, both before and since they declared themselves the servants of
the State; and few populations with whose history we can claim to be
fairly well acquainted have been found more consistently ready to catry
out the designs of their rulers than the inhabitants of the lands out of
which has grown the most powerful monarchy of the present age. The
subjects of the Electors of Brandenburg were, in the words of Lord
Acton, " conscious that Nature had not favoured them excessively, and
that they could prosper only by the action of their Government"; and,
he might have added, the discipline to which they submitted with so ex-
ceptional a readiness was rendered easier to them after they had become
possessed of a trained intelligence which at times enabled them to anti-
cipate the action of their rulers. Yet it would be futile to ascribe to the
insight or to the energy of either the Hohenzollerns or their subjects a
controlling share in the shaping of their historic achievements. Rare as
are the instances of States or dynasties that have accomplished more for
themselves than Prussia and the Hohenzollerns, they have been con-
spicuously, and to all intents and purposes avowedly, the heirs of time
and the beneficiaries of circumstance. But time and circumstance only
rarely found the Brandenburg-Prussian State, as they had not often found
either of its chief component parts, unprepared for the action demanded
by them. In earlier days the necessity of expansion had been almost
identical with that of self-preservation ; in later times the traditions had
definitely formed themselves, in accordance with which the ship of State,
as if obeying laws that had become part of her being, continued her
onward course.

The history of the Prussian monarchy cannot be surveyed as that of
any particular tribe which in the end consolidated itself, together with

500-973] The Northern Mark. 61 7

its accretions and acquisitions, into a State. Indeed, as a whole it lacks
most of the elements which go to the making of a nation — unity of race,
unity of creed, and the consciousness of a common history extending
over the course of centuries. On the contrary, fresh affluents differing
in origin or in some important feature from the main stream were
constantly finding admittance into it by a continuous process, which was
only interrupted in exceptional periods of depression. Nor again, can
this history be written as the annals of a dynasty which systematically
and without any serious break identified itself with aspirations that with
its subjects had almost grown into a second nature. Apart from the fact
that other dynasties preceded the Hohenzollems in almost every part of
their ultimate monarchy, we remember how, once more to quote Lord
Acton, it was not till the accession of the Great Elector that the
Brandenburg-Prussian dynasty " entered into the spirit of the problem "
confronting the State; and the proportion of the Electors and Kings who
since that date have "struggled intensely for the increase of their power,"
has been, to put it bluntly, little more than one-half of the whole
number.

A very few pages must suffice, at a point so advanced as that which
the course of this History has reached, to recall the most noteworthy
stages in the growth and development of the two chief factors of the
Brandenburg-Prussian State, before the time of their union in the first
quarter of the seventeenth century. The Mark Brandenburg was the
foundation of the great Saxon Duke who, as King Henry I, was the first
to give to Germany so much of cohesion as could result from the general
recognition of a vigorously asserted royal supremacy. But his more
notable service to the German " name " was his actual assertion of his
power from the Elbe towards the Oder. This implied, in the first
instance, the subjugation of the WendSj who, seated in these regions
from perhaps so early a date as the beginning of the sixth century,
absorbed the remnants of the Germanic populations which held the
country at the beginning of the Christian era. By the end of the ninth
century — the birth-time of the national kingdoms of Western Europe —
all the land to the east of the Elbe, besides not a little of it to the west,
had come to be inhabited by Slavs ; and it was as a bulwark against
the great Slav inundation, which he had striven to drive back from the
borders of his realm, that King Henry established (or reestablished
on the lines of Charles the Great) the Northern Mark of the Saxons.
Henry's son, Otto the Great, developed the margravate system in his
habitual grand style; and, while the Saxon Dukes themselves guarded
the lower Elbe, the Counts of the Northern Mark steadily extended
their authority eastwards from Brandenburg (Brennibor), a fastness
which already Henry I had wrested from the Wends, over the marsh

618 The Mark Brandenburg. [949-1140

and sand of the Havel and Spree country as far as the Oder. Thus
the future Brandenburg-Prussian State was in its beginnings indisputably
an offshoot of the Saxon duchy ; but the seventeenfii century was hardly
historical enough in its susceptibilities to make much account of this
fact in the perennial jealousies between the Houses of Saxony and
Brandenburg.

Notwithstanding the episcopal sees set up by Otto I in the half-
subdued Wendic lands (Havelberg in 946 ; Brandenburg in 949 ; Lebus
cannot be traced with certainty further back than the early part of the
twelfth century), and in spite of the advance of the Christianised
kingdom of Poland, the struggle was maintained by the Wends and
Paganism for the better part of two centuries. In accordance with
the physical features of the country, the contest had little of grandeiu:
about it, and no great missionary efforts imparted to it a heroic character.
After the great insurrection of 983, the conquered lands between Elbe
and Oder long remained lost to Germany and Christendom, while the
fortress of Brandenburg repeatedly changed its masters. Thus things
went on, till, in 1133, the Emperor Lothar conferred the vacant count-
ship of the Saxon North Mark upon the man who was to become the real
founder of the power of Brandenburg. Albert the Bear, of the House
of Ballenstadt, which called itself the Ascanian, &om the old castle
(Aschersleben) where he set up his judicial tribunal, and which was after-
wards known as the House of Anhalt, failed in his attempt to oust the
Guelf Henry the Proud (the father of Henry the Lion) from the Saxon
duchy. But in the end he succeeded in recovering his Northern Mark,
now first called the margravate of Brandenburg from the definitive
seizure of that fortress, and extending eastward several miles beyond the
site of Berlin. Thus Albert the Bear illustrated the value of the ancient
adage that the half is often greater than the whole ; for the founda-
tions of dominion laid by him proved more solid and enduring than
the vast structure raised by Henry the Lion. Now that the Mark
Brandenburg protected the Empire against both Scandinavian pressure
in the north and Polish in the north-east, its guardianship of the frontier
and furtherance of the Christian mission on each side of it had been
changed into a settled territorial dominion. The changes of nomen-
clature which accompanied its growth need not detain us here'. Unlike

• The original distinction between "Old" and "New Mark" as the territories on
the left and on the right bank of the Elbe reBpectively was in course of time abandoned,
as the acquisition of fresh lands continued ; the New Mark then became the Middle
Mark and the name "New Mark" was given to the lands north and south of the
VTarthe (first called "land beyond the Oder") and earlier districts south of the
Oder. The Kurmark (which name of course came into use with the acquisition of
the electoral dignity) comprised the whole complex of dominions with the exception
of the New Mark— viz. the Old Mark, the Middle Mark, the Voi-mark (Priegnitz)
and the Ukermark (the northern land of the Slavonic Ukri, of which the possession
was long disputed between the Brandenburg Margraves and the Mecklenburg and

Germamsation and Christianisation. 619

so many German dynastic creations, especially in the northern and
central parts of the Empire, Albert the Bear's, although it received
many augmentations and passed through various minor changes — the
first of the innumerable partitions of Albert's inheritance took place on
his death — was in substance permanent.

In the work of Germanisation the Margraves were greatly aided by
the efforts of the Christian Church, and in particular of the Praemon-
stratensian and still more of the Cistercian Orders. The Wends were
not annihilated ; they were pushed aside into their villages, or absorbed
by their conquerors, without being able to impregnate the language,
manners, religion, or legends and traditions of the latter with any dis-
tinctive elements of their own. While the mass of the Wendic popula-
tion, without being admitted by intermarriage into the communities of
the towns, had thus to choose between serfdom and expatriation, all
rebellion being rigorously repressed, the Slav nobles in the Mark were
accorded an equality of rights with their German neighbours, on whom
a large proportion of the land had as a matter of course been bestowed.
Free intermarriage ensued ; an accord of sentiment and opinion (there
being no longer any religious barrier in the way) was gradually produced;
and thus the upper or ruling classes peacefully amalgamated, some
Slavonic family names being preserved among the landed gentry, while
no analogous process was so much as attempted in the case of the lower
orders. In this social sphere immigration, to which probably no ancient
or modem State has been more largely indebted than the Brandenburg-
Prussian in the successive stages of its progress, was welcomed by a
country broken up by invasion and depopulated by revolt ; but in these
early times, as afterwards, it took place in small numbers or bodies, so
that the authority of the Government was not impaired but strengthened
by it. The Flemish, Dutch, Westphalian, and Franconian settlers, de-
pendent as they were upon the hand of authority for the protection of
their holdings, and for the security of the franchises granted to them in
an environment of serfs, were steadily loyal to the Margraves. These
considerations account on the one hand for the early growth of an
arrogant and self-reliant Junhertvm, a squirearchy rather than an aristo-
cracy— for the subdivision of the Mark prevented the growing up of
States General, or any other kind of comprehensive representative body
capable of much beyond petty interference with expenditure — which
only a strong hand could force into submission to the authority of the
State, And, on the other hand, they explain how there grew up, as the
best support of that authority, an industrious burgher class, whose intel-
ligence was quickened by the perpetual struggle with the difliculties

Pomeranian Dukes). Curiously enough, the original Old Mark, having in 1807
been incorporated in the Napoleonic kingdom of Westphalia, was in 1816, instead
of forming part of the Prussian province of Brandenburg, included in that of
Saxony.

620 Extensions of the Mark- Waldemar the Great. [1186-1373

surrounding it. The Brandenburg towns were necessarily small and poor
in comparison with those of the south-west and of the Low Countries ;
and there was no communal cohesion to disturb the monarchical system
of government, which it is futile to regard as established for military
piurposes only.

The comparative remoteness of the dominions which had grown out
of the Northern Mark allowed its rulers to pursue their own dynastic
interests without seeking to take part in the European conflicts of the
Hohenstaufen age. Nevertheless, the outlook of the Brandenburgers was
always wide. The investment, at so early a date as 1186, of Margrave
Otto II by the Emperor Frederick II with Pomerania created claims
leading to an endless series of feuds, raids and disputes which, as has
been seen in a previous volume, were not ended even by the Succession
Treaty of 1529 ; and the complete union of Pomerania and Brandenburg
was only established by the Vienna Treaties of 1815. Although, when
in 1196 Margrave Otto II and his brother Albert II for ulterior purposes
of their own commended all their possessions to the Archbishop of
Magdeburg, this did not imply any diminution of their political power,
their successors came to judge differently of the relation of dependence
thus established, and it was ended in 14)49 by the HohenzoUem Elector
Frederick II.

Early in the thirteenth century the collapse of the Danish King
Waldemar the Victorious at Bomhoved (1226) had led to the acquisition
by the Margraves of the Spree district, in which the foundations of
Berlin seem about this time to have been laid, and of the Ukermark,
Their older possessions were about the same time multiplying their
centres of civil and ecclesiastical life ; it is from this period that, among
other foundations, dates that of Lehnin, whose prominent position in the
history of the Mark afterwards gave rise to a celebrated forged prophecy
(the VaUcinium LeJmmense) as to the interdependence of their destinies.

Conformably to the uncontrollable practice of German dynasties,
immediate or mediate, partitions went on without ceasing in the House
of Brandenburg, but with the prevailing characteristic that they were
usually amicable, and always treated as revocable in the common interest
of a clear-sighted dynasty. Early in the fourteenth century the power
of the House had, in the person of its all but single male representative,
Waldemar the Great, reached an unprecedented height, and, largely by
means of a good understanding with the Church, extended firom Danzig
to Dresden.

But the death of the great Waldemar (1319) was followed by a period
of trouble, in which the neighbours of Brandenburg feU upon the land
to seize what they could of it. The victorious Emperor Lewis the
Bavarian invested his son Lewis, a child eight years of age, with Branden-
burg, together with Lusatia and other dependencies. For nearly half a
century (1324-73) the Mark was nominally subject to the House of

1324-1402] Bavarian and Bohemian rule. 621

Wittelsbach ; and it almost seemed as if the centre of gravity of the
territorial possessions of that House might come to lie in those northern
lands whose future relations to the Empire were so wholly unforeseen.
But the Wittelsbach rule had never struck root in the Mark; under
Lewis it had been devastated by a Polish invasion, blessed by the Pope
(John XXII) ; and after the death of the Emperor Lewis (1347) his
three sons had to contend not only against the statecraft of Charles IV
of Bohemia, now generally acknowledged as Roman King, but against a
popular current of mysterious force. The story of the False Waldemar
(1848-55), in whose favour almost the entire margravate (except
Treuenbrietzen) renounced its Bavarian ruler, attests a tenacious loyalty
of which Brandenburg-Prussian history was to furnish many later
examples, but none more remarkable than this. The Bavarian sway over
Brandenburg survived this shock ; but it continued to be exposed to the
hostility of the Imperial House and to the feebler efforts of the spiritual
power of Rome. Finally, after a terrible devastation of the margravate
by the Emperor's Bohemian soldiery (1S71), the Elector Otto resigned
his authority; and at Tangemiinde (1374) the perpetual union of the
Mark Brandenburg with the Bohemian Crown was proclaimed. Branden-
burg had probably been thus preserved from disruption, but with the
prospect of becoming, like Silesia, a mere element in the dynastic power
of Bohemia, whose furthest advance in political importance, in economic
prosperity, and in intellectual activity, is marked by the reign of
Charles IV.

For more than a generation Brandenburg was subject to a Govern-
ment which had been imposed upon it by methods as unscrupulous as
those of Ferdinand of Aragon or of Louis XIV, but which gave to the
province a fair share in the order and prosperity prevailing in the
kingdom of Bohemia. The neighbours were pacified ; and at home the
insolence of some of the nobles was curbed, while at the same time the
privileges of their order and of the towns were extended. Unfortunately,
after the death of Charles IV (1378) the excellent intentions of his second
son Sigismund, who succeeded in Brandenburg, were frustrated by his
ambition ; and, though in 1382 he ascended the Hungarian throne, he
aimed at the succession both in Bohemia and to the Imperial Crown.
In Brandenburg, under his lieutenants, the old dangers revived on the
north-western frontier, and the old turbulence within. Being always in
want of money, he in 1385 mortgaged the Old Mark to his kinsmen.
Margraves Jodocus and Procopius of Moravia, in spite of the opposition
of the Estates of the land, both spiritual and temporal ; and three years
later he threw into the mortgage his electoral dignity and the entire
margravate with the exception of the New Mark, which, having been
bequeathed to his younger brother John by their father, could not be
alienated till John's death in 1402, when it was mortgaged to the
German Order. Margrave Jodocus, although in time he became legal

OB. zx.

622 The Quitzows -The first Hohenzollern Elector. [1402-20

owner of the greater part of Brandenburg, only appeared within its
borders for the purpose of extorting money. The close of the four-
teenth and the early years of the fifteenth century were evil times for
Brandenburg — more especially by reason of the irrepressible turbulence
of the native nobility, typified by the Old Mark family of the Quitzows,
whose name has sometimes been given to the whole period in question.
They took the lead in systematising — if the expression may be used — an
anarchy by which the authority of State and Church, and the last
remnants of prosperity in the towns, were threatened with utter collapse.
In turn champions of native independence against the encroachments
of neighbouring potentates, and leaders of a combination of native
and foreign opposition to the authority of the Margraves, which at
times they actually usurped', these protagonists of the Junkertum were
not deposed from their ascendancy till after the advent of the Hohen-
zoUems.

With the investment of Frederick of Hohenzollern, Burgrave of
Niimberg, with the margravate of Brandenburg (he was appointed vicar
and captain-general of it in 1411, made his first appearance there in
1412, practically settled matters with the Quitzows in 1416, and was
finally invested in April, 1417), a new chapter begins in the history of
the land.

Burgrave Frederick VI of Niirnberg, now Elector Frederick I of
Brandenburg, was a descendant of the Alemannic Counts of ZoUem, who
are mentioned as early as the tenth century, and who soon afterwards
had reached a prominent position among the magnates of Swabia. Early
in the thirteenth century (1210), Coimt Frederick of Hohenzollern is
proved by documentary evidence to have been Burgrave of Niimberg ;
from his second son and namesake sprang the Swabian HohenzoUerns,
whose rights as territorial Princes were resigned by them into the hands
of their Prussian kinsmen more than six centuries afterwards (1849);
to his eldest son Conrad II passed the newly acquired Franconian
dominions. These latter would by partitions and donations to the
Church have been reduced to almost nothing, but for the marriage of
Burgrave Frederick III to the heiress of Meran, whose possessions
included Baireuth and probably Culmbach. He was the right hand of
Rudolf of Habsburg ; and it should be added that the burgravate itself,
as involving the guardianship of a large body of Imperial domains, was
an important trust, by their loyal fulfilment of which the Franconian
HohenzoUerns endeared themselves to the Habsburg Emperors, and
no doubt greatly contributed to their own advancement. In 1420
Baireuth and Ansbach were once more united in the hands of Burgrave
Frederick VI, the founder of the power of the House of Brandenburg;

> Biitzow on the Havel, afterwards renamed Oranienburg in honour of the good
Electresa Louisa Henrietta, daughter of Frederick Henry of Orange, was a castle of
the Margraves held by the Quitzows for nearly a decade.

1412-71 J The Electors Frederick I and Frederick II. 623

Frederick I, a soldier and a scholar, and gifted, as it would seem,
with the supreme political faculty of distinguishing between things
essential and non-essential, tmd suiting his action to this perception,
knew how to bide his time. The services which he had rendered to
Sigismund both in the field and in finally securing his election as Roman
King sufficiently account for his being in fiagramti Caesaris gratia, and
for the transfer to him of the Electoral Mark Brandenburg on easy
and practically (though perhaps not technically) permanent terms.
Frederick's undertaking to renounce the fief,, should he ever attain to the
dignity of Roman King, at all events proves Sigismund's estimate of the
importance of his friend in the affairs of the Empire.

But although Frederick, with the cooperation of the Archbishop
of Magdeburg, with the aid of his own new artillery, and by judicious
concessions to the main body of the Brandenburg nobles, pacified the
Mark, his services to Emperor and Empire failed to secure a continuance
of confidence between them. Frederick, although Brandenburg had
suffered terribly from the Hussites, supported the policy of making
terms with them ; on the other hand, his design of becoming possessed
of the Saxon in addition to the Brandenburg electorate, could not
commend itself to the House of Austria. Still, the old feeling of
loyalty, united no doubt to the sense of inadequate power, ranged him
on the side of those who, after acquiescing in the election of Albert II
as Roman King, agreed to that of Frederick III, whose long and
impotent reign lasted for more than half a century (1440-93). Thus
the founder of the new House of Brandenburg cannot be said to have
either effectively promoted or vigorously resisted the beginning of an
occupation of the Imperial throne by the House of Austria, which was
to continue till 1740, just three centuries after his death.

The founder of the greatness of the Hohenzollems necessarily moved
within the limits of his own political horizon ; and the testamentary
disposition which he made of his dominions, although partly explained
by personal considerations, fails to indicate that he was intent on
securing a great future to his electorate, or even on preserving its
territorial integrity. While his eldest son (John "the Alchemist")
succeeded in Baireuth, it was to the second, Frederick II, that he left
the inheritance of Brandenburg. The new Elector had, like his con-
temporary, Louis XI, to wage a hard struggle with a still disaffected
nobility ; but he also had to hold his own agslinst the towns, sufficiently
awake to their own interests to confederate themselves with the great
Hanseatic League whose system was extended over northern Germany.
Finally, he had to meet the claims of a Church naturally inclined
Romewards ; but, while he put a decisive stop on the feudal dependence
of part of his dominions on the archbishopric of Magdeburg, he
contrived to secure, in the spirit of his own age and in good time for the
opportimities which that of the Reformation was to bring, the right

624 The Dispositio Achillea. [i454-i598

of nomination to episcopal sees within his electorate. Amidst all these
internal difficulties Frederick II did not lose sight of the duty, present
to so many of his line, of augmenting his dominions. In 1454 the New
Mark, which had been pledged to the German Order, was repledged by
it to the Elector, and conditions were soon added which in 1517 resulted
in the renunciation of all rights to these territories hitherto reserved by
the Order. He withstood, however, the temptation towards more remote
gains (West Prussia and Bohemia); and his claim on the inheritance
of the last Duke (Otto III) of Pomerania-Stettin, and the hope of thus
extending the dominions of his House to the shores of the Baltic, were
frustrated by King Casimir IV of Poland. Thus his prudent and on the
whole prosperous reign ended in disappointment ; and a year before his
death he transferred the government to his brother Albert Achilles, who
already ruled the Franconian principalities of the House.

Albert Achilles (1470-86) — his cognomen, like those of some of his
successors, is redolent of the Renaissance sympathies of the age — was
in certain other respects a Prince on the pattern of Maximilian I, who
owed to the hereditary attachment of the Brandenburger his own election
as Roman King. At home Albert Achilles conducted the government
of his electorate with vigour, while he enlarged his dominions by the
acquisition of parts of Silesia, and was definitely invested with Pome-
rania-Stettin, though he obtained no immediate possession of the duchy.
The steady support which he gave to the decadent Empire was important,
inasmuch as he was probably, at the time, its most powerful Prince. But,
though, following in his father's footsteps, he contrived to assert his
authority as supreme in Brandenburg, his heart was in his Franconian
possessions ; and the task of consolidating his inheritance weighed heavily
on him, as it did on so many German Princes of his times. Thus his
famous testamentary disposition — known hereafter as the Dispositio
Achillea — was at once a compromise and an enduring fiat. It laid down
in perpetuum the principle that, while his whole inheritance should at no
future time be divided into more than three parts, the margravate of
Brandenburg should henceforth never be subjected to partition. Thus
Albert Achilles, in different circumstances, corroborated the critical
action of Albert the Bear.

A prolonged tranquillity along their frontiers enabled the successors
of Albert Achilles to give security to their territorial authority, which
neither Poland nor Hungary, alike preoccupied by conflicts with the
Turks, was disposed to menace. But the Elector John Cicero (1486-
99) and his successors Joachim I and II and John George, whose reigns
covered the ensuing century (1499-1598), were strong rulers as well as
intelligent patrons of learning. (The foundation of the University of
Frankfort-on-the-Oder, 1505, was almost contemporary with that of the
University of Wittenberg, whose importance overshadowed that of her
younger foster-sister.) Jpbn Cicero had to suppress a revolt of the

1501-35] Joachim I and Jdgerndorf. 626

towns of the Old Mark ; his successor strung up in a single batch forty
members of the recalcitrant nobility — of that Kockeritz and Liideritz,
Kracht and Itzenplitz, sort, from which the litany of the peasants prayed
the Lord to deliver them. The introduction of Roman law, coinciding
with the establishment at Berlin of the Electoral Cameral Tribunal, was
of much advantage to these processes of the executive. And at the
same time the traditional policy of maintaining a close connexion with
the central authority of the Empire was steadily maintained ; and when,
in 1514, Joachim Ts younger brother Albert, Archbishop of Magdeburg
and Administrator of Halberstadt, had been elected Archbishop of
Mainz, the Brandenburg dynasty was in possession of two electoral votes.
Never before had the House of Brandenburg loomed so large in the eyes
of Europe ; but it will suffice for our purpose to mention the election,
in 1512, as High Master of the German Knights of the Franconian
Margrave Albert, a grandson of the Elector Albert Achilles.

At a critical stage in the celebrated Imperial election of 1519 the
Elector Joachim I, though by no means anti-Habsburg in sentiment, was
gained over by the profuseness of the French promises to give his support
to the candidature of Francis I. It was an age of bargains, but this
particular move proved futile ; and the accession of the new Emperor's
brother Ferdinand to the kingship of Hungary and Bohemia (1526) for
the first time brought the vastly augmented dominions of the Habsburgs
into contiguity with those of the HohenzoUerns. A special germ of
future complications lay in the fact that in the borderland of
Silesia, now a dependency of the Bohemian Crown under Habsburg
supremacy, a Hohenzollem Prince, Margrave George of Ansbach, had
during the reign of King Lewis II of Bohemia (and Hungary) been
invested with the principality of Jagemdorf (1523) and had acquired a
reversionary interest in that of Oppeln (1528), thus materially advancing
the long-continued efforts of the Brandenburg dynasty to establish a
firm footing in Silesia. But, although Jagemdorf remained in Branden-
burg hands for an entire century (to 1623), Joachim I failed to foresee
the ultimate effect of these Silesian possessions and claims upon the
relations of his dynasty with the continuously growing power of the
House of Austria.

Equally little was it in his mind, as it afterwards came to be in the
minds of his descendants, to identify the interests of his dynasty
with the cause of the Reformation. It should be premised that the
Margraves of Brandenburg had from the first stood in a quite peculiar
relation to the Church, so that the ecclesiastical supremacy of the
Electors in their dominions was not a work of the Reformation. The
episcopal authority never reached the same development in the territories
beyond the Elbe as that to which it attained in the older regions of the
Empire; and, after its complete collapse and reestablishment through
them, they continuously stood to it in a relation of protectorship. The

0. u. a. V. OH. XX. 40

626 TTie Heformation in Brandenburg. [i5i'7-48

Brandenburg Bishops were nominated by the Margraves, and merely
confirmed by the vote of their Chapters ; and they were in all temporal
matters subject to the territorial authority, sitting in the Landtage and
not in the Imperial Diet. Indeed, if the relations of the Margrave-
Electors to the monastic Orders within their dominions be taken into
account, their authoi'ity may be said to have resembled that of the
contemporary great monarchical Powers.

The reception of the Reformation in Brandenburg was, notwith-
standing, one of those instances in which, contrary to a common assump'
tion, the mind of the population of the electorate moved more rapidly
than did that of its ruling House. All the neighbouring parts of
Germany had passed, or were passing, over to the Protestant side, and
no attempt at resistance to the current could be permanently successful.
Although therefore Joachim I, without remaining insensible to the influ-
ence of the Renaissance, held out to the best of his power against the
Reformation, joining the League of Halle (1533) and actually ofleriugto
renounce his claims on Pomerania if its Dukes would remain orthodox,
he could not even imite his own House in the support of his religious
policy. The Franconian HohenzoUems were early adherents of the
Reformation — among them Margrave George " the Pious " of Ansbach,
to whose Silesian acquisitions reference has been made above, and his
younger brother Margrave Albert, of whom, as the first Duke of Prussia,
more will immediately have to be said.

On the death of Joachim I (1535) his son Joachim II Hector, to
whom his father had left two-thirds of the margravate with the electoral
dignity, did not, like his younger brother John, to whom passed most of
the New Mark, at once declare himself a Lutheran ; but he allowed the
Reformation movement to progress freely in his electorate, while himself
aiming at something of an Erasmian middle course. Thus, while the
Brandenburg reformation received the Imperial sanction in 1541, Joachim
II remained on friendly terms with the Imperial House, and commanded
against the Turks in Hungary. So long, moreover, as that eminent
plurahst, Joachim IPs uncle. Cardinal Albert, Archbishop and Elector
of Mainz, Archbishop of Magdeburg, and Bishop of Halberstadt,
survived, Joachim's liberal conservatism was sure of a very potent
support. His own attitude in matters of religion was probably in
the first instance due to conscientious motives ; but it is difficult to
palliate his having entered, in the course of the Schmalkaldic War
(1547), into an understanding with the future Emperor Ferdinand I, by
which he actually undertook to send a small auxiliary force to the
Imperial side, in return for the promise to one of his sons of the sees
of Magdeburg and Halberstadt, between which and the electorate a
connexion was thus preserved by him. Yet, though he agreed to the
Interim, the xmwillingness of his subjects to accept it, or some other
cause, soon afterwards brought him to see the situation more clearly and

1548-1608] Lutheranism. — The first Council of State. 627

began to estrange him from the Emperor Charles V, He became a sup-
porter of the bold policy of his neighbour, the Elector Maurice of
Saxony; and as he continued to go hand in hand with Maurice's
sagacious successor, Augustus, the conjunction between Saxony, Bran-
denburg, and Hesse, materially helped to bring about the Religious Peace
of Augsburg (1555). The Brandenburg reformation was now carried
through; but though the three episcopal sees within the electorate
were secularised, and the administration of them was conferred upon
princes of the dynasty, as few changes as possible were made in forms of
worship, and the doctrinal teaching of the Swiss and other more advanced
reformers was kept at a distance. Politically, the great achievement of
Joachim H's reign was his success in securing the administration of the
see of Magdeburg to his grandson, Joachim Frederick (1566), as the
centre of gravity of the dominions of his dynasty was thus definitively
fixed between the middle Elbe and Oder.

The conscientious and frugal John George (1571-^98), though he
over-governed his subjects, proved how well he meant by them by
securing to them the peace in which alone they could prosper. In
matters of religion he was, in accordance with the sterile inspirations
of this age, a narrow Lutheran — as is shown by his waiving the claims
of his dynasty on the inheritance of Jiilich, Cleves, and Berg, if the
prosecution of them was to involve joint action with the Calvinistic
Netherlanders.

His son, Joachim Frederick (1598-1608), who as Administrator of
Magdeburg had completely carried out the reformation of the see, had
been strongly impressed by the divisions among the Protestants which
prevented them from making head at the Diet against their Catholic
opponents, who refused to allow him to take his seat there on the
Spiritual Bench, He thus came to accept the rigidly Lutheran formvla
concordiae as binding upon the whole of his electorate; but the necessity
of this submission, and still more the persistent intervention of his
Estates in the administration of the State, led him to cease convening
them unless on quite exceptional occasions, and to appoint a Council of
State (whose original members, nine in number, were the earliest of
many generations of Geheimrdthe) charged with the initiation of all
except Church and judicial business. This Council may be regarded
as the germ of the Prussian bureaucracy — if so slovenly a designation
must be adopted for so strenuous a thing — assuredly one of the most
important of all the factors in the political development of the Branden-
burg-Prussian State. Joachim Frederick's successor, John Sigismund,
quite early in his reign formally approved the pi-inciple already estab-
lished in practice under his father : that the Elector would take no step
m the affairs of his House or dominions without having previously sought
the advice of his Privy Council. In other words, by about the second
decade of the century the heads of the administration in Brandenburg

628 The Bhenish d/uchies.-John Sigismund a Calvirdst. [1605-18

had already done what a generation later Strafford and his helpers
vainly attempted to do in England — they had taken the real control
of the government out of the hands of the parliamentary representation.

In his foreign policy, Joachim Frederick was not destined to see the
results of his efforts in connexion with the affairs of the lower Rhine.
The great issue, on the other hand, of the union between Branden,burg
and Prussia he advanced by obtaining (1605) the administratorship of
the latter duchy on behalf of its demented Duke Albert Frederick and
by marrying one of his yoimger daughters (Eleanor), the eldest (Anne)
having been married several years before to the Electoral Prince. But
he made little way with the Prussian nobles ; and in this direction also
left the fruits of his steadfast endeavours to be gathered in by his son
and successor.

John Sigismund (1608-19), though really a less remarkable man
than his father, had the good fortune to advance signally the importance
and power of his dynasty. Among the claimants of the disputed Jiilich-
Cleves-Berg inheritance, John Sigismund of Brandenburg was, as has been
narrated in an earlier passage of this History, the first in the field ; and
his interests and those of the promptest among his competitors (the
Palatinate-Neuburg Duke), when they obtained, first joint and then
several, possession of the coveted territories, really coincided with the
interests of European peace. Thus the House of Brandenburg virtually
secured an important extension of its dominions, although not one
which was throughout of unmistakable advantage to it. In the person
of John Sigismund was also accomplished, on the death of Duke
Albert Frederick in August, 1618, the all-important union between the
Brandenburg electorate and the duchy of liussia; so that, when his
weary life came to a close, the eastern and the western limits of the
future kingdom of Prussia in its earliest stage had already been reached
by the dominions of the Brandenburg HohenzoUerns.

John Sigismund's reign had, however, left a distinctly personal mark
upon the history of the State of which he had become one of the
founders. Though first brought up as a strict Lutheran, he had been
subjected to Calvinistic influences during his University life at Strassburg
and Heidelberg, and at the latter place to that of the Electress Palatine,
Louisa Juliana, the daughter of William of Orange, with whose House
his own was later to become so closely connected. Thus, in 1613, at
a most critical time for the future of his line (upon which the Jiilich-
Cleves succession difficulty might at one time have possibly brought
down the ban of the Empire), he declared himself a Calvinist. Rarely
in Hohenzollem annals has a head of his House found himself face to
face with a resistance so irreconcilable as that provoked by this step
both in Brandenbiu:g, where its censors were encouraged by the neigh-
bouring Lutheran rulers of Saxony and Pomerania, and in Prussia,
where it provoked a resistance as bitter as it was unanimous. And

997-1222] Early history oj Prussia. 629

yet it led the Princes, and with them the population, of the State
to accept and assimilate principles of toleration which, besides having
signally augmented its economic resoxirces, have come to be its priceless
moral and intellectual inheritance. Thus, by the great designs which it
was his lot to carry out, and by the consequences of an act of pure
conscientiousness, John Sigismund's reign marks an epoch in the history
of his land.

II.

No account, complete even in outline, can here be attempted of the
history of the duchy of Prussia before its union with the electorate
of Brandenburg. The Prussians who inhabited the region between
Vistula and Pregel were more nearly akin to their Lithuanian neigh-
bours on the north-east than to the Pomeranians, Poles and Russians
on the south and the south-east ; and it was Lithuanian support on
which they had to depend in their struggle against Germanic invaders.
For a long time, protected seawards by the sand-banks of the HafFs,
and landwards by impenetrable marshes and, forests, the seats of these
old Prussians, in an isolation which still impresses itself on thd
traveller, remained impervious alike to the hostile attacks of their
powerful neighbours and to the peaceable inroads of Christian mis--
sionaries. Neither the martyrdoms of St Adalbert (997), whose shrine
at Gnesen afterwards became a kind of rallying-point against the
German advance, and (rather more than a decade later) of St Brun, nor
the sword of either Pole or Dane, could bend or break the resistance of
this pagan people. By the middle of the twelfth century the sum total
of the struggle seems to have been the reduction to dependence upon
Poland of a small southern comer of Prussia, the Ctdrrdand. The
efforts which resulted in the actual Christianisation and subsequent
Germanisation of Prussia date from the following (thirteenth) century,
and are associated with the name of Christian, a monk of the Cistercian
convent of Oliva near Danzig, and afterwards the first Prussian bishop.
The consequent insurrection of the Prussians led to the proclamation by
Pope Honorius III of a crusade against them (1218). Various restric-
tions were imposed upon the participation in this crusade, and upon the
application to be made of its results ; in short, the intention appears to
have been to make Prussia, when coiiquered, a kind of ecclesiastical
province apart, under conditions revealing a singular loftiness as well as
self-consciousness of purpose. But political considerations of all kinds,
with which after the manner of the age religions were closely intermixed,
obscured the prospect and delayed the accomplishment of the conversion
of Prussia; and no real change was effected in its condition by the
(virtually) Polish and Pomeranian crusade of 1222.

This failure had lost Poland a fair chance of definitively mastering the

630 The German Order. [1190-1255

destinies of Prussia. While Emperor and Pope eacli declared that the
country owed allegiance to him alone, the power to which it actually
became subject was that of the German Order of Knights. The youngest
of the great Orders which owed their origin to the enthusiasm of the
Crusades, had, like the others, taken its origin from small beginnings;
in this case from the charitable efforts of German crusading knights
cooperating with those of Liibeck and Hamburg merchants to provide
for their afflicted countrymen in the course of the long siege of Acre
(1190). Here the Order was afterwards duly established under its
actual founder, Duke Frederick of Swabia, the second son of the great
Barbarossa. Favoured by both Popes and Emperors, it had within a
single generation distanced both the Templars and the Knights of
St John, and was regarded as the most powerful association of Knights
in the Western world. Its outlying settlements (Balleien) spread over
both Italy and Germany ; and its great days began with the election to
the High Mastership of the Thuringian, Hermann von Salza (1210),
whom his great patron, Emperor Frederick II, created a Prince of the
Empire, the Imperial eagle thus finding his way into the Black Cross of
the Order. He was not only a most able politician who in times of
bitter hostility between Pope and Emperor was the friend of both, but
also a great statesman who perceived that the task of the German
Knights was no longer specifically in the East, but wherever they could
render real service to the cause of Christianity and civilisation. In
Transylvania they began in small the experiment which on a larger
scale they were to repeat in Prussia. What Hermann von Salza could
not know was that his Order was after all only an aftergrowth of the
crusading spirit; and that chivalry, even if fired with religious enthu-
siasm, could no longer do more than supplement and aid in its expansive
action the conquering impulse of commercial enterprise.

Starting from the Culm lands, made over to Hermann and his
Knights in 1226 by the Duke of Masovia, a vassal of the Polish Crown,
as its base of action, the German Order was to invade Prussia and
conquer it to the honour and glory of God. But the High Master took
care at the outset to obtain for himself and his successors investment
with all the rights of a Prince of the Empire over all the Prussian lands
of which the Order might possess itself. Its advance was promoted,
while its design of controlling the eastern coast of the Baltic was
indicated, by the union effected by him between his Order and that of
the Sword, which had subdued Livonia (1237). Still, the conquest of
Prussia, a process carried on by a small and compact body of assailants
against a population which can hardly have reached a quarter of a
million, occupied rather more than half a century. Neither the advance
to the north-eastern comer, where to this day Memel is the north-
eastern boundary-point of the German Empire, nor the subsequent
construction (1255) in Samland of the fortress called Konigsberg in

1254-1313] The Order conquers Prussia. 631

honour of the aid given to the advance of the Order by Ottokar II, King
of Bohemia, contradicts the fact that the process was gradual, and its
result achieved by an adherence to the principle of "pegging away."

This advance continued during the greater part of the thirteenth
century. At every stage in its course — from Danzig to Narva on the
Gulf of Finland — it was seconded by the mercantile instinct, which in-
sisted on the foundation and organisation of centres of civic life. The
terrific outbreak of the repressed Prussian spirit of nationality, which
began in 1261 and rapidly spread through the whole Lettic group of
populations, placed the Order on the defensive, and is rightly held to
have given rise to its heroic period. A season of rigorous, and even
cruel, repression and reorganisation ensued, which left its mark on the
history of Prussia. The old nobility of the land virtually ceased to exist ;
while, with certain privileged exceptions, the entire population capable of
bearing arms was obliged to take part, not only in defensive war, but in
the reydngs or excursions beyond the frontier which were an integral
part of the regular work of the Order. In a word, its dominions were
organised strictly on the footing of a military State, without any
sustained attempt to raise the civilisation of the lower classes of the
population, whose use of their own language lasted into the sixteenth
century. Inasmuch, however, as the primary purpose of this State was
the Christian propaganda, it rapidly arrived at a clear and definite
understanding with the Church; so that the Prussian clergy (more
especially as no archbishopric had been established within the borders of
Prussia) submitted to the authority of the Order even after it had come
into conflict with Rome. This authority was further strengthened by
the fact that the German colonists who found their way to Prussia came
from every part of the Empire — in the patient German fashion —
seeking, rather than bringing with them, the elements of cohesion.

Scarcely had the conquest of Prussia been accomplished, when the
Order cast an eager eye upon the territory of Pomerelia on the western
bank of the Vistula. Pomerelia was under the rule of Dukes who were
the vassals of Poland ; but the Order was strong enough to assert its
power in this direction without asking any cooperation from either the
Dukes of Pomerania-Wolgast or the Brandenburg Margraves. In 1311
the Order established its authority over Danzig which was to become the
wealthiest of the cities of the Baltic — its inglorious Venice ; and for a
generation the Knights were the masters of Pomerelia. This great
advance of the power of the Order thus coincided with the widest
expansion of the early power of Brandenburg under W^aldemar the
Great.

It was in this very period that the German Knights had once more
to face the problem of their corporate future; for the Order of the
Templars was abolished by the Council of Vienne (1313), and the younger
Order did not escape the papal thunderbolts. Very wisely, it determined.

OH, XX^

632 The Orders greatness and decline. [i3i3-48

to meet its destiny as a consolidated rather than as a dissipated Power,
and to this end permanently fixed its seat in the centre of Prussia,
between the Vistula and the sea — at Marienburg on the Nogent, Here,
in the acropolis whence their Virgin patroness gazed forth upon the subject
plains around, the German Knights seemed immovable and unassailable ;
and, when they sent forth their representatives to Avignon or other
Courts, it was as a Power with which other Powers had to reckon.

Yet, already in the earlier half of the fourteenth century, the revival
of the national spirit of the Poles under Casimir III the Great, the last
in the male line of their national Kings, the Piasts, and the design of a
union of Poland and Lithuania, threatened the overthrow of the German
Order. But, after a protracted struggle, the Peace of Kalisch (1343)
assured to the Order a dominion even wider than that to which it had
laid claim. Now began its golden days, during which it was not only
esteemed the high school of Christian chivalry, practising on the vast
mass of Lithuanian heathendom, but also asserted itself — and this is the
great age of the Hansa — as a notable commercial and maritime Power.

The land of " Spruce " was now something of a promised land, and
the sprusado the militant darling of the age. The ulterior political
designs of the Order were fully commensurate with its actual achieve-
ments ; and if the partition of Poland which it negotiated was not
actually carried out, it obtained possession, as has been seen, of the New
Mark of Brandenburg in pledge from the still-vext Sigismund. At
home it maintained the freedom of its government from all alien inter-
ference. No Peter's Pence were levied in Prussia ; the Bishops, though
their dioceses were of papal foundation, and the great convents of Oliva
and Peplin, were subject to the territorial authority of the High Master.
On the other hand, a large measure of liberty was left to the towns,
of which in the fourteenth century a vast network, together with a
multitude of German villages, overspread the land; the Culmische
Handfeste became a kind of model charter of municipal rights.

The reason for the decline of so strenuous and prosperous a polity as
that of the German Order cannot be examined here. The loyalty of the
Knights began to give way, so soon as the religious basis of the Order
became mere formalism ; the allegiance of the towns, tired of being
mastered by a garrison of monks, and jealous of their mercantile com-
petition, had never rested on any foundation beyond the traditions of
force ; the military system of Europe was passing through a change to
which the heirs of the crusaders could not accommodate themselves ; and
the real raison d''etre of their actual position — the carrying on of
warfare against the heathen — was at least not so self-evident as of old.
Meanwhile Poland, the hereditary foe of the Order, was preparing for a
resumption of the struggle.

The memorable attempt to extend once more the range of power and
influence covered by the Slavonic nationality connects itself with the

1364-1411] Political weakness of the Order.-HenryofPlauen. 633

dynastic ambition of the Emperor Charles IV, already noted in its bearing
on the history of Brandenburg. The religious movement of which John
Hus was the centre (though its dogmatic origin has to be sought in the
speculations of Wiclif) accentuated the antagonism between German and
Slav, till in the Hussite Wars its record was written in letters of blood
on the face of the Empire. As a matter of course, this conflict declared
itself in those northern borderlands, where German and Slavonic enter-
prise and ambition had been perennial rivals. Under the Jagello dynasty
(1386-1572) Poland reached an unprecedented height of territorial
power, though the seeds of her decay were sown when the control of the
government was acquired by a nobility responsible to neither King nor
people.

The German Order's real occupation had gone after, towards the
close of the fourteenth century, it had completed the official Christianisa-
tion of Lithuania — a process bearing a most shadowy resemblance to a
crusade, and rather resembling annual manoeuvres, to which foreign
visitors of distinction and adventurers " reysing in Littowe " were largely
attracted. About the same period, the power of the Hanseatic League,
the natural and all but indispensable ally of the Order, had, in face of
the union between the Scandinavian States, visibly begun to decline.
We pass by the successive attempts at resistance to the authority of the
Order, the losses to which it was subjected by the decline of its maritime
power and by the fickleness of the native Prussian nobility (the Knights
of the Lizard) under the influence of unscrupulous Polish intrigue. The
collision was only a question of time ; and, as the Order was true to its
chivalrous traditions in refusing to avoid the decision of arms, the
contest might seem to have been at an end with the crushing victory of
the Polish host at Tannenberg (1410). But the siege of IVIarienburg
broke down, and, thanks to the resolution and sagacity of the new High
Master, Henry of Plauen (from whose House are descended the Princes
of Reuss), the whole of the territories held by the Order at the outbreak
of the war, with the exception of Samogitia, were preserved to it in the
First Peace of Thorn (1411),

Henry of Plauen endeavoured to strengthen the administrative
system of the Knights by establishing a Landrath — a Council of Estates
consisting of deputies of nobility and towns ; but all his eflbrts were in
vain, and his deposition, half -treason, and miserable end signified that
the last shadow of its former greatness had departed from the Order.
While its dominions had to sufler a series of inroads, which it sought
rather to avert than to resist, the Slav peoples, excited beyond bounds
by the Hussite successes, drew closer and closer together. The Order
had, in a word, lived too long. As has been well said, being nothing
but a corporation, it had not in itself the power of self-renewal which is
inherent in a nation. It was no longer German in its composition ; the
Knights made no pretence of observing their vows of poverty or chastity.

634 Decay of the Order. — Polish suzerainty. [1454-93

or the High Masters of setting an example which no one would have
cared to follow. To its subjects the Order was no longer a defence,
only a danger; and, being unable to assimilate to its system either
learned or lay, it had sunk into a thing of the past before it had actually
come to an end. The so-called Prussian League or Alliance, of which
the motive spring was to be found in the Danzig Patriciate, had thus
become a State within the State ; and in 1454 its members in town and
country renounced their allegiance to the Order. When the fortress of
Thorn and nearly threescore other castles had fallen into the hands
of this League, it threw off the mask, and offered the dominion of
Prussia to King Casimir IV of Poland. After his arrival in Prussia
Danzig finally declared for the Polish Crown, which was thus placed in
possession of the sinews of war.

It was in its dire distress and supreme need of funds for paying its
mercenaries that the Order, as has been seen, sold the New Mark of
Brandenburg to the Hohenzollem Elector, Frederick II ; but the sum
received proved quite insufficient for the purpose. The turbulent
mercenaries (among whom there were many Bohemian Hussites) drove
the High Master forth from the Marienburg (1457), which they incon-
tinently sold to the King of Poland, though it was some time before he
could succeed in taking the town. In the end both sides were exhausted,
and the second or so-called Perpetual Peace of Thorn put an end to the
thirteen years' war (1466). It divided Prussia into two parts. West
Prussia, i.e. the country to the west of the Vistula and the Nogent,
including Danzig, together with the land of Culm, Marienburg, the sea-
port of Elbing, and the bishopric of Warmia (Ermeland), became an
integral part of the Polish kingdom, and was as such called Royal
Prussia. East or, as it afterwards came to be called, Ducal Prussia, was
restored to the Order as a Polish fief. Thus the humiliation of the
Order, of which the League had refused to countenance the recon-
struction on a new basis that would have placed it under German
control, was shared with the Order itself by the Empire, then weak and
shrinking, and under an Emperor (Frederick III) who had nothing to
contribute to the situation but brave words.

The decay of the German Order was as sorry as its greatness had
been deserving of admiration. Neither the Hansa, unable to stay the
progress of Scandinavians or of Muscovites on the Baltic shores, nor the
provinces and dependencies of the Order itself, were able to raise an arm
on its behalf; and the inner constitution of its ruling oligarchy was a
mere nest of jobbeiy. At length the obvious counsels of worldly
wisdom found acceptance, and the Knights began to follow the practice
of electing as their High Master a member of some important princely
House, whose support in the struggle for existence might thus be
conciliated. At Konigsberg, whither the seat of the Order had now
been transferred, Duke Frederick of Saxony from 1498 carried on the

1511-25] Margrave Albert invested with duchy of Prussia. 636

government on the lines of an ordinary temporal principality ; and on
his death in 1511 Margrave Albert of Brandenburg- Ansbach, whose
mother, the Margravine Sophia, was sister to King Sigismund I of
Poland, and whose elder brother George held the principality of
Jagemdorf in Silesia, was elected to the High Mastership.

Margrave Albert, through whose action the ultimate expansion of
the dynastic power of the HohenzoUerns may be said to have been first
rendered possible, was by his own confession inadequately trained for
playing a part in times such as those in which his lot fell^ ; and towards
the close of his career he showed much moral weakness. But he was
from the first animated by a determination to put an end to his relation
of vassalage as High Master towards the Polish Crown. In this all-
important design he was encouraged by the Emperor Maximilian I —
whose actions, however, were not always on the level of his aspirations,
and in this instance contradicted them. Albert's attempt to throw off
his vassalage by his own strength, supported by such volunteer aid as he
could obtain, failed ; and, after making his peace with the Poles as best
he could (1519), he fell back on another line of action, less heroic, but
destined to prove more productive of results. This was the secularisation
of the dominions over which he presided as head of the German Order.
He had been more than once admonished from Rome, when the spirit of
reform ruled in the person of Pope Adrian VI, to bring new life into the
decayed and degenerate company of Knights-; and at Niimberg, whrare
he had sought the countenance of the Diet, he had become subject to
the influence of the rigorous Lutheran theologian Osiander, whom he
afterwards designated as his "spiritual father." Thus, at a loss how
to obey the papal injunction, Albert betook himself to Luther, whose
advice to him and to his Order was administered in no spirit of
restraint (1523). Luther opined that the High Master should cast aside
the foolish rule of his Order, marry, and turn its dominions into a
. secular State ; and this counsel was without much loss of time carried
into execution by Albert.

In 1525, Albert was invested by Sigismimd I of Poland with the
secularised duchy of Prussia ; the Black Cross vanished from his coat of
arms, but the Black Eagle remained, with the suzerain's initials on his
breast. In the same year Albert married Dorothea, daughter of
Frederick I of Denmark. The recalcitrance shown by some of the
Knights cannot occupy us here, nor the later vicissitudes of the German
Order as an interesting relic of an irrecoverable past. West Prussia
remained untouched by the results of Albert's action. Its feudal
subjection to Poland continued, and the life of its population — the
very names of its towns, Marienburg itself becoming Malborg — were

* His Renaissance sympathies were sliowu by the setting-up of a printing-press
at Konigsberg in 1524.

636 Progress towards union. [1525-16I8

Polonised so far as might be, and the very existence of the Order was
forgotten. Danzig — perhaps alone — derived great material advantage
from this close connexion with Poland, of whose trade the city enjoyed
an uncontested monopoly.

Duke Albert did his best to reorganise the administration of East
Prussia; but unfortunately he gave deep offence to his subjects by
identifying himself with a school of Lutheran theology (Osiander and the
Osiandrists) to whose teaching the bulk of them were opposed with a
fury of dogmatic partisanship such as would have been hardly explicable
in any particular age, and with a less stubborn race. Thus the period
of his rule ended in cruel differences and bitter disappointment (1568).
The question of the succession had for some time been beset with a
series of intrigues and demonstrations ; and when on his death his son
Albert Frederick (1568-1618) was invested by Sigismund II of Poland
with the duchy of Prussia, the Brandenburg Elector, Joachim ll,
succeeded in obtaining simultaneous investiture for himself and his son
John George. The Brandenburg tradition of making prospective
acquisitions was never more signally justified. The unhappy orphan
boy who had succeeded to Albert's troubled inheritance, distracted by
political and religious discords, and by fears not wholly illusory of
attenipts on his life, lapsed into melancholy and before long became
insane. In the very year (1573) in which he was married to Maria
Eleonora, the heiress of Duke William of Jiilich, Cleves, and Berg, he
had to be placed under continuous personal control, and his cousin.
Margrave George Frederick of Ansbach and Jagerndorf, was appointed
administrator of his duchy with the title of Duke. Though his rule
failed to conciliate the goodwill of the Prussian Estates, they seem on
the whole to have favoured the ultimate union with Brandenburg,
partly no doubt because the event seemed still remote.

The prospect of the union advanced with George Frederick's death in
1603, when the Elector Joachim Frederick of Brandenburg with much
difficulty succeeded in being named Administrator of the duchy of
Prussia, neither of Albert Frederick's sons having survived beyond
infancy. He could not, however, obtain his investiture as eventual
successor to the duchy from King Sigismund III of Poland; and it
was only with great difficulty and under hard and humiliating conditions
that after his death (1608) his son and successor, John Sigismund, after
obtaining from the Polish King the guardianship and administration,
at last, in 1611, secured the desired investitiu-e for himself, his three
brothers, and his heirs male. His rule was accepted most reluctantly
by the Prussian nobility ; and his adoption of the Reformed (Calvinist)
faith stank in the nostrils of the orthodox Lutheran population. With
the assistance of the Polish Crown, an organised Lutheran revolt against
his government and a systematic persecution of his fellow-Calvinists
were set on foot. So paradoxically irreconcilable were the relations

1618-38] Brandenburg-Prussia in the Thirty Years' War. 637

between ruler and ruled in Ducal Prussia, when in 1618 — the year of the
outbreak of the Thirty Years' War — the unhappy Albert Frederick
died, and Ducal Prussia was unwillingly but, as it was to prove, in-
separably united with Brandenburg.

John Sigismund, who had in circumstances so untoward united the
long-coveted Prussian duchy with his electorate, and who had likewise
established a hold upon the disputed duchies on the lower Rhine that
was to bring first part and ultimately the whole of them into the
possession of his House, died at the close of 1619, with his spirit
broken. He had shown himself tolerant to Catholicism, and had taken
up no decisive attitude towards the issues involved in the outbreak of
the Great War, by whose course, as has been seen in a previous volume,
no State was to be more continuously and more momentously affected
than Brandenburg. But, as has been also shown, his son and successor
George William (1619-40) was utterly incapable of making his aug-
mented dynastic power felt in times so difficult and dangerous. As it
seems necessary to repeat (for the plain fact is often lost sight of in
judging the princes and magnates of this age), the failure of his career
and of others such as his was due less to his inconsistencies, than to his
consistencies — in other words, in his addiction to the diversions of the
chase and the pleasures of the table. In justice to him, it should be
remembered that his long-enduring and obstinate self-subjection to the
ascendancy of his Minister Count Adam von Schwarzenberg was largely
due to his own traditional regard for the Imperial House.

It is unnecessary to go back here to the difficulties in which the
government of George William was involved, and the troubles brought
upon his electorate, by the course of the war and the political changes
consequent upon it, more especially after the landing in Pomerania of
his brother-in-law, Gustavus Adolphus. The adherence of the Elector
of Brandenburg to the Peace of Prague (1634) warranted the Dutch
in occupying the Rhenish duchies, whence they and the Spaniards had
been more or less excluded since the provisional compact of Xanten in
1614; and it had the more important consequence of a declaration
of war by Brandenburg against Sweden (January, 1636). When, in
the following year, the long-expected vacancy in Pomerania at last
occurred by the death of Duke Bogislav XIV, the inheritor of the
entire duchy, and the Estates were in favour of the union with
Brandenburg, the Swedes were accordingly found in possession, and
such attempts as were made to dislodge them proved futile. In 1638
George William finally abandoned any attempt to guide the fortunes
of his electorate, and, abandoning the control of its affairs to
Schwarzenberg, withdrew for the remainder of his days into Prussia.

Here, as fortune would have it, his rule benefited from the inevitable
reaction against the uncompromising resistance offered by the nobility
to his predecessor, and from the struggle of the "Protesters" (who

638 Brandenburg-Prmda towards the end of the War. [ie26-40

acquiesced in the concessions obtained under the ducal Government)
against the pro-Polish designs of the " Querulants." Moreover, Prussian
sentiment approved the line of policy ultimately taken up by him
with regard to the war reopened between Sweden and Poland in 1626,
which had led to the truce of 1629 and its subsequent renewal (at
Stuhmsdorf, in 1635) for twenty-five years. Thus Prussia, instead of
being exhausted by the visitations of the Thirty Years' War, had
gained strength during its progi'ess, and many fugitives from various
parts of Europe had found a home in this peaceful comer. In rein-
vesting George William with the duchy of Prussia, King Wladislaw IV
of Poland (who succeeded in 1632) had refrained from exacting any
humiliating conditions. The proposal of a Spanish-Imperial-Polish
combination, which Brandenburg was to join, for the control of the
Swedish power in the Baltic, was manifestly premature, and broke
down accordingly. It was primarily due to the maintenance by Sweden
of the high tolls exacted by her at Pillau, Memel, and Elbing; but
it also indicated the desire of Poland, which was indeed vital to her
political future, to become a maritime Power, and the resumption by the
Habsburg politicians of the ideas of Wallenstein as to the control of the
Baltic. Under George William the policy of Brandenburg (as is shown
by the Kopenick compact of August, 1638) readily accommodated itself
to the designs, at this time largely concordant, of the Polish and the
Imperial Government. But, partly in consequence of this tendency, the
maritime trade of Ducal Prussia passed for the most part into the hands
of Danzig. Thus, in this part also of his dominions George William's
government had incurred much censure, when he died in 1640, after
a reign of twenty-one years, full of misfortunes and of humiliations.

639

CHAPTER XXI.

THE GREAT ELECTOR AND THE FIRST
PRUSSIAN KING.

Frederick William, on whom his contemporaries bestowed the
designation of the Great Elector, was bom at Berlin on February 16,
1620 — the year in which the star of the Palatine House, whose
ambition it had been to stand at the head of Protestant Germany,
seemed to be quenched for ever. If his father's weakness of character
had been in a great measure accountable for his failure to make good
the position achieved by the union of Brandenburg and Prussia in
the reign of George William's predecessor, Frederick William himself
rose, with a vigour and an elasticity alike rarely paralleled, above
the conditions in which his own reign, in its turn, began. Even a
historian so little given to dithyrambics as Ranke cannot without
emotion attempt to summarise the achievements of this high-minded
precursor of the Prussian Kings — who like Henry, the father of Otto
the Great, toiled so incessantly and with so little thought of self, in
order to lay sure the foundations on which his successor was to erect an
imposing superstructure.

Fortunately for Frederick William, much of his boyhood was spent at
a distance from his father's luxurious and self-indulgent Court, and out of
contact with the shifts and changes of an unstable policy. At Ciistrin
in the New Mark he was trained in manly habits and imbued with the
deep religious convictions from which through life he never swerved.
In 1631 he moved to Wolgast in Pomerania, where his aunt Queen Maria
Eleonora of Sweden resided during her consort's German campaign, and
where the young Prince was regarded as the future ruler of the duchy.
Gustavus Adolphus was said to have taken an interest in the boy, and to
have intended to bestow on him the hand of his daughter Christina ; but
the project, to which the Calvinism professed by the House of Brandenburg
was an obstacle in the eyes of the Lutheran Swedes, remained in abeyance,
though it was not relinquished by Frederick William till some years
after his accession to his electorate. He completed his education at
Leyden, whence he visited the Court at Rhenen of the exiled Queen of

640 Youth and accession of Frederick William. [i63i-4i

Bohemia, of whose eldest daughter, the incomparable Elizabeth, he
became a true friend through life ; and then passed on to the Court and
camp of his illustrious kinsman, Prince Frederick Henry of Orange.
This sojourn was probably as important for his political as it was for his
military training, and tended to alienate him completely from the House
of Habsburg, by adhering to which, in accordance with the traditions of
his own House, his father had gained so little. Instead of being, as he may
have hoped to be, placed at the head of the Government of Cleves, he
was in 1638 summoned to his father's Court at Konigsberg, and during
the remainder of George William's reign was excluded from all share in
public affairs. Gradually he came to nurse the belief that the omni-
potent Minister Schwarzenberg was plotting destruction to himself,
the Electoral Prince, and treason in the event of his father's decease.
When George William died in December, 1640, the new Elector
Frederick William was, according to his own account, left friendless and
without resources against his adversaries ; while Prussiia was secure and
fairly prosperous, the electorate had been devastated; and even the
allegiance of the troops that garrisoned its fortresses was doubtful, for
George William had allowed them to swear fidelity to the Emperor as
well as to himself.

The age was still an age of plots ; and Schwarzenberg was suspected
of maturing a great design for introducing Imperial troops into the
Brandenburg fortresses, on whose commanders he was supposed to be able
to rely. How far he had proceeded with his schemes is micertain ; but
the young Elector, who had from the first made up his mind to break
with the regime and the policy of Schwarzenberg, acted with both
caution and firmness. While he temporised with the troops, he at once
broke off a negotiation into which the Minister had entered with the
Emperor for ceding part of Pomerania to Sweden, in return for a com-
pensation elsewhere. The death of Schwarzenberg (March 14, 1641)
saved Frederick William from having to institute proceedings against
him. The Imperialist policy, which had been espoused by the Estates
of the electorate as well as by the Elector George William, suddenly
became a thing of the past ; and to the next generation it had already
become so unintelligible that Schwarzenberg's political career typified
to it an unpatriotic ambition which shrank from no crime in order to
compass its ends. But, whatever may be thought of his policy, his
administrative influence had been altogether deleterious. His personal
greed for money kept pace with his ambition, and infected the whole
system of government with the spirit of financial corruption ; while at
the same time there was a competition in expenditure among the chief
officers of State.

In foreign policy, Frederick William — instead of following in the
wake of the diplomatic overtures of the Emperor — speedily took a line
of hi& own towards a Power whose hostility was of greater importance to

1641-53] Relations with Sweden and Poland. — Pomerania. 641

his State than to any other in the Empire. He concluded with Sweden
(July 14, 1641) the Truce of Stockholm, which, though at first extending
to only two years, was prolonged to the end of the War, Although the
Swedish occupation of Brandenburg was by no means wholly at an end,
while that of Pomerania continued, he had thus withdrawn from the
number of Sweden's open enemies; and this step may have helped to
induce the King of Poland to accord him investiture with Ducal
Prussia in the same year, without exacting any fresh concession. The
right which by the T^ty of Eopenick, concluded with George William
in 1638, Poland had acquired of appropriating a share of the income
from the dues levied in the Prussian ports (Memel, Pillau, Elbing) was
not yet given up. But the members of the Spiring family, who managed
these dues and whom George William had taken over into his service, were
dismissed by the new Elector; and in 1646 he put an end to the agree-
ment on the subject with Poland, and to the last traces of her once
formidable design of becoming a maritime Power. So far as Sweden
was concerned, neither Frederick William nor the oligarchy that now
ruled the kingdom had any wish for an entente cordiale, with or without
a marriage between Queen and Elector. Indeed, he was both personally
and politically drawn in a different direction. The House of Orange had
greatly facilitated the settlement of the Brandenburg rule in Cleves ; and
the seal was set on the friendly relations between the two dynasties by
Frederick William's marriage, in December, 1646, with Louisa Henrietta,
the daughter of Prince Frederick Henry of Orange. Her influence, like
that of other women of her House, proved signally enduring ; and her
spirit of practical piety found expression both in the Oranienburg palace,
which in this reign and in the next became a seat of liberal culture in
the midst of a prosperous district largely inhabited by immigrants and
their progeny, and in wider spheres.

The results obtained in the Peace of Westphalia (1648) by the
Brandenburg-Prussian State, and the course of its foreign relations in the
period immediately ensuing, have been briefly indicated in a previous
volume. The most important matter for the future of the State was the
condition in which the Peace left the Pomeranian question. After the
death (in 1637) of Duke Bogislav XIV, nothing stood in the way of the
succession of the House of Brandenburg, whose claim was clear, except
the certainty that here and nowhere else would the Swedish Crown seek
its " satisfaction " for its long and deliberately protracted exertions in
the Great War. The Emperor having ceased for some time to pretend
to any objection against the payment of this part of the price of peace
by Brandenbm-g, its Elector had to content himself with securing part
of the eastern half of Pomerania (Hinterpommern), where Kolberg is
the only port of any significance ; nor was it till five years later (1653)
that even this tenitory was actually evacuated by the Swedes. In
addition, Brandenburg had at Osnabriick finally gained the bishoprics

0. M. B. y, CB. XXI. 41

642 Early years of Frederick Williams reign. [i64i-58

of Halberstadt and Minden, together with the reversion (which in 1680
actually fell in) of the archbishopric of Magdeburg as a secular duchy.

In Brandenburg-Prussia, as in other parts of the Empire, the years
which followed on the Peace were a period of more or less sturdy
attempts at self-recovery. To the sense of the difficulty of the task
which awaited Frederick William at home was added that of political
isolation. His relations with the Emperor Ferdinand III were cold;
and his close connexion with the Government of the United Provinces
had come to an unexpected end with the death, in 1650, of William II
of Orange, and with the transfer of power, for a term of twenty-two years,
to an oligarchy little interested in supporting the interests, or espousing
the quarrels, of Brandenburg in the Rhenish duchies.

Thus, at this early stage, Frederick William arrived at a clear
conception of what was indispensable, if from the basis of his augmented
but ill-cohering dominions he was to play an effective part in European
politics. He must find allies in whom he could confide; but of this
confidence it was a preliminary condition that they, in their timi,
should trust him as the ruler of a loyal and prosperous State. To reach
this end, it was necessary to reorganise the home government. The control
of this his father had abandoned to Schwarzenberg ; from Schwarzenberg
it had descended to Conrad von Burgsdorf, who, though much valued and
trusted by the Elector, and in the period of his ascendancy (1641-51)
very nearly approaching the position of a Prime Minister, was very
specially intent upon making his service profitable to himself. And after
it had during a few eventful years been in the hands of Count George
Frederick of Waldeck, it was in 1658 finally committed to the trustiest
and most far-sighted of the Great Elector's Ministers — in a sense his
master's alter ego — Otto von Schwerin, who was created Chancellor
of the Electoral Mark, and Director of the Privy Council, and who
effectively carried on the work of these combined offices for twoscore
years. The reforms in the administration had begun about 165S, and
were carried out with the aid of a reorganised Privy Council and a
special Commission. They were directed to a more complete separation
of the civil from the military administration, and of both from the
Court, and to the subordination of the requirements of the latter to
those of the State. The financial system in particular was put in better
order ; but, though steps were taken to ensure an early preparation of
the budget {etat) in each of the " provinces " (as they were already
called), the determination of the provincial Estates to assert their
powers of self-control had still to be very seriously taken into account.

Above all, a beginning was made (except in so far as it may be held
to have been anticipated by George William in 1637) with the establish-
ment of a standing military force — ^the future right arm of Prussia in the
struggle which was to end in her becoming a Great Power, as her civil
administrative system was to be the left. When Frederick William's

1648-60] Brandenburg. — Prttssia. 643

original difficulties with his troops, which he had solved by dismissing
those levied in the Mark, are remembered, together with the unwilling-
ness of an exhausted population to make fresh sacrifices for the purpose
of setting on foot a new military establishment, he must be credited
with extraordinary energy for having by 1651, when he had thought
of trying conclusions on the battle-field, managed to muster an army
of about 16,000 men — a total which, by 1656, had been increased by
about 10,000 more. From this date onward, the Prussian standing
army may be said to have had a continuous existence.

In his political action within and without the boundaries of the
Empire it behoved the Elector, even after he had secured to himself a
free hand, to proceed with the utmost circumspection. In the Peace of
Westphalia he had made the best bargain he could for himself, without
yielding to the seduction of a proffered French alliance. It has been
seen in a previous volume how, in the transactions which intervened
between that Peace and the Peace of Oliva he had striven gradually to
assert the political influence of his State. He had failed in his attempt
in 1651 to wrest Jiilich and Berg by force from the Catholic Duke of
Neuburg ; but during the remainder of the reign of Ferdinand III he lost
no opportunity of upholding at the Diet, or furthering by negotiation, the
autonomy of the Princes of the Empire. Indeed, the very remarkable
" plan of Union " elaborated by his far-sighted and high-spirited Minister
Waldeck in December, 1653, though originally confined to Protestant
Princes, really aimed at a general league of non-Austrian States very
much on the lines of the Furstenbund, set on foot a century and a
quarter later by Frederick the Great.

But the chief political action of the Elector during these eleven or
twelve years (1648-60) lay in a different direction. In this it was exerted
with a most remarkable combination of energy and statecraft, which re-
sulted, not only in preserving Ducal Prussia from falling into the grasp of
either Poland or Sweden, but also, in accordance with the policy suggested
by Waldeck, secured the diichy as an independent sovereign possession
to the House of Hohenzollem. (It is no disproof of Waldeck's sincerity
of purpose — only an illustration of the strangely shifting conditions of
the political life of his age, that he should afterwards have himself passed
into the Swedish service.) This acquisition, although its magnitude
cannot palliate the diplomatic manoeuvres — almost unparalleled in the
brusqueness of their sequence and in the efirontery of their incon-
sistencies— was the chief gain which the Peace of Oliva brought to
Frederick William. For he came forth from the two Wars (the Polish
and the Danish) provoked by the ambition of Charles X of Sweden,
without having gained the friendship of any one of the contending
Powers, and with a sense of insecurity as against future encroachments
on their part. And he had been obliged to relinquish the places in
western Pomerania into which he had thrown garrisons, regarding the

en. XXI. 41—2

644 Adviinistrative changes. — Magdeburg. [i658-80

process as merely an assertion of his rights to his own. But at least he
was now master of the whole of the territories under his rule. It was
an alien Power, France — who at the time of the negotiations for the Peace
of Westphalia had dangled Silesia before his eyes as the price of his
support — that had prevented him from driving out another alien Power,
Sweden, from its foothold in Germany. But to this circumstance he
was probably not unduly sensitive ; though it is worth noting that in
1658 he had caused a pamphlet to be put forth, addressed to " honest
Germans," and striking a singularly modem national note as to the
capture of the great north-German waterways by foreign nations. This
appeal adpopvlum was widely read and reproduced in a series of editions.

For what Frederick William had achieved, or for aid in his endeavours
to retain what he had been obliged to renounce, he owed no thanlis to
the House of Habsburg. Yet to his action had been principally due the
election of 1658, when Leopold I was chosen Emperor in his father's
stead — on condition, to be sure, that he would henceforth renounce
all support of Spain in the Franco-Spanish conflicts in Italy and the
Netherlands. On the other hand, Frederick William was so far from
any present intention of joining the Rheinbimd, that, vexed by its
friendliness to Sweden, he denounced it as subjecting weak German
Princes to strong foreign Powers.

With the year 1660 a new period opens in the reign of the Great
Elector — a time of sorely needed rest and recuperation for his
dominions. During the ensuing twelve years the army, to which
(though the Estates had insisted on a reduction of its numbers) the
Elector continued to devote special attention, was but once employed
on active service. This was in 1663, when Brandenburg troops aided
the Imperial Government in one of its numerous conflicts with the
Turkish Power. But there was much to do at home. The Prussian
Estates, who disliked the sway of the Brandenburg Elector, if only
because he was a professed Calvinist, resented the changes introduced
by him into the administration of the duchy; and it was only by a
strong display of military force and punitive energy at Kdnigsberg
that he induced the Estates to do homage to him as their hereditary
Duke (October, 1663). The settlement effected on this occasion was
not again undone; though it was some time before the spirit of
resistance, stimulated by the Polish environment of Ducal Prussia,
came to an end there. It cannot be said that in his dealings with
the Prussian Estates the Elector had shown any very scrupulous
respect for the forms of law. Another remarkable example of the
vigour of his transforming processes is that of the archbishopric of
Magdeburg, which was not actually incorporated in his dominions
till the death, in 1680, of the last Administrator, Duke Augustus of
Saxony, but whose Estates he forced to do homage to him so early as
1666, and in whose chief city an electoral garrison had lain since 1650.

1660-88] Cultivation and immigration. 645

In his western dominions, also, Frederick William had to maintain
a strenuous struggle on behalf of the state unity towards which he
was intent upon steadily advancing. After, in 1660 and 1661, he
had obliged the Estates of Cleves and Mark to accept de facto his
full sovereignty, it was formally acknowledged, together with that
over Ravensberg, by the Treaty of Cleves (1666), concluded by him
with Duke Philip William of Neuburg. In this they agreed to a
permanent division between them of the long-contested Rhenish
duchies; and Frederick William, according to his custom, at once
set about a thorough reorganisation of the administrative system of
his western possessions.

But, while he was thus establishing the authority of his dynasty
and securing its continuance in both the eastern and the western
portions of his dominions, he was naturally not less anxious to pro-
mote the prosperity of his electorate, and to reinvigorate it by the
infusion of new elements of population. The awful scourge of the
Thirty Years' War had left the naturally sterile soil of the Mark
Brandenburg desolate, with a population sunk to 210,000 souls —
something between one-third and one-half of the earlier number of
its inhabitants. Bei'lin was little better than the centre of a desert,
through whose sands a traveller might plod by the hour without
meeting either man or beast. The industry and trade of many parts
at least of the country were practically extinct. Frederick William
perceived that the primary and paramount need of the Mark was
human life and labour; and, following alike the historical traditions
of the territory, the lessons of his Dutch experience, and the in-
spiration of his deep-seated principles of religious tolerance, he engaged
in a system of home colonisation which, as carried on by himself and
his successors — ^the first three Prussian Kings — is almost without a
parallel in modern history. It has been calculated that, at the close
of a single century of immigration (1670-1770), not less than 600,000
persons — or one-sixth of what had then come to be the total popu-
lation of the Prussian monarchy — were immigrants or the descendants
of immigrants. Under the Great Elector, at all events, the foreign
nationalities which contributed most largely to the formation of the
"true-bom Prussian" of later days — a type probably all the more
vigorous and alert because of this intermixture — were the Dutch and
the French. The Dutch, of whose aptitude for colonisation Frederick
William had learnt something both in his juvenile experiences and
from the tastes of his first consort, taught the impoverished and
disheartened inhabitants of the Mark how to drain their lands, to
manage dairy-farms (Holldndereien) and to cultivate potato-fields;
and their example stimulated the Brandenburg Government to dig
canals for the difPusion of trade and industry — in particular, the
Frederick William Canal, which with the aid of Spree and Havel

OB. XXI,

646 Industrial activity. — Colonial policy. [1647-68

connects Oder and Elbe. Of equal importance, as advancing the material
prosperity of the Brandenburgers, and of incomparable significance for
the future intellectual life of the nation, were the French newcomers;
though the full tide of their immigration sets in at a date in the
reign later than the interval of peace after Oliva. Some French
families had, however, so early as 1660, laid the foundations of the
long-lived French colony at Berlin, where from 1672 onwards it cele-
brated divine service in its own church and in its own tongue. But
the great influx came, after, in the " Edict of Potsdam " (November 8,
1685), "a sure and free refuge in all the lands and provinces of our
dominions" had been offered to all persecuted French Protestants.
Every facility was afforded to make good the ample promise of this
both generous and politic summons; and by 1687 the number of
French immigrants in the Elector's dominions was reckoned at 20,000.
To this response and its sequel the future Prussian monarchy owed
many benefits : it gave a stimulus, both direct and indirect, to many of
the skilled industries (of which the woollen manufacture was only one)
in the Mark ; it encoiuraged horticulture ; it led to the quick rise into
prominence of Berlin, among whose inhabitants (nearly tripled in
numbers during the reign) were numbered many French religious
ministers, doctors, and lawyers whose names were to survive in those of
descendants celebrated in science and art; finally, it brought about a
very notable infusion of soldiers and officers into the electoral army, five
infantry regiments of which were largely composed of French refugees,
while these were specially numerous in the artillery, and the corps of
the Gardes Mousquetairea was entirely composed of gentlemen of French
descent.

The general industrial and commercial activity of Brandenburg-
Prussia under Frederick William's rule did not reach its height till
his later years, to which also belong the attempts made by him to
carry out a colonial policy. Before his accession the foreign trade
of his electorate and duchy were in the hands of other States, chiefly
in those of Hamburg, to which so large a share of the mercantile
enterprise of the Hansa had descended. Frederick William, who from
the first had turned his attention to the opportunities of maritime
trade, had already in 1647 taken up the question of the establishment
of a Brandenburg East India Company; and, three years later, he
entered into negotiations with Denmark as to the purchase of a site
for a Brandenburg colony on the coast of Coromandel But the
essential was wanting — namely, capital; nor was it till 1675, when
(as will be seen) Sweden had declared war against Brandenburg, that
the Elector began naval operations, by approving the equipment of
privateers under the Brandenburg flag, who soon brought in many prizes.
The venture was undertaken by Benjamin Raule, a Middelburg merchant,
whose reckless spirit of enterprise had involved him in difficulties nearer

1675-1726] The Brandenburg African Company. 647

home and who had in consequence become a refugee at Berlin. In the
following year Baule was nominated "Director-General of the Navy,"
and ordered to make ready for sea a flotiUa which was to sail under
the Brandenburg flag, and to be commanded by his brother Jacob.
The Peace of St Germain (1679) put no stop on the speculative
ambition of Raule; for (in spite of personal drawbacks against which
he had to contend through nearly the whole of his life) he was in
the following year placed at the head of an "Electoral Board of
• Trside and Admiralty," established at Konigsberg ; and his privateers
did excellent execution against the Spaniards, gaining on October 10
the "victory of Saint Vincent" over a supposed silver fleet. In the
same year two merchantmen sailed for Upper Guinea and Angola;
and in 1682 the Brandenburg African Trading Company was in due
course established at Konigsberg. (Fillau in East Prussia had been
originally intended to be the base of its operations ; and when Bran-
denburg seemed likely to take permanent possession of the coveted
coastland of East Frisia, there seemed a prospect of transferring the
seat of the Company to Emden.) Under the protection of a fort
erected on the Guinea coast, and named Grossfriedrichsburg, a not
inconsiderable trade appears to have been set on foot. The collapse
of the undertaking cannot be investigated here. It was due partly
to the jealousy of the Dutch East African Company, partly to suspicions,
which proved unfounded, as to the proceedings of Raule ; and, above
all, to the fact that, after the death of the Great Elector in 1688, no
support of any kind was to be expected from Berlin. The successor of
Frederick William had other ambitions to gratify, and other expenses
to meet; although, so long as Danckelmann was at the head of
affairs, Raule and his schemes were not entirely dropped. In West
Africa, the garrison of Grossfriedrichsburg had died out, and very
little was left of the settlement of which it was the centre, when the
accession of Frederick William I, who had neither thought nor money
to bestow on such secondary ends, sounded the knell of his grandsire's
interesting colonial scheme. In 1717 the isolated fortress that remained
as a token of it was sold to the Dutch ; and eight years later the negro
chief to whom it had been made over in trust by the last Prussian
commander withdrew inland. The Brandenburg African Company, which
had been taken up by the Great Elector, survived him for a very
brief time. As for the Brandenburg-Prussian navy, organised by the
ingenious and much misunderstood Raule, though, like the English
privateers of Elizabeth's reign, it had served the purpose of irritating
Spain, it came to an early end.

The attitude of Frederick William towards questions of religion
possesses a significance beyond its connexion with his economic policy.
The wide range of his intellectual and spiritual interests forms one of his
most valid claims to the epithet of " Great." In him breadth of mind was

OH. XJU,

648 Toleration. [1660-88

coupled with a strong personal religiosity, and to both was united
a constant reasonableness in action. His conception of the true relations
between State and Church, and of the right of the individual to liberty
of conscience, was the same as that which found so notable an expression
in the treatise De habitu christianae religionis ad vitam civilem, dedicated
to him in 1687 by Samuel Pufendorf, who was afterwards to com-
memorate the achievements of the Great Elector in a work acknowledged
to be one of the classics of earlier German historiography Nothing in
the public life of Frederick William — no catch resulting from all his»
" fishing in troubled waters," as it was called by Lisola, one of the most
capable of contemporary diplomatists — redounded so much to Frederick
William's enduring honour as his consistent adherence to the principle
of religious toleration. With him this principle was by no means a
deduction from the easy-going philosophy of indifference that had found
a home at Heidelberg under Charles Lewis, and afterwards made its
way from Hanover to Berlin. For this Frederick William still stood
too near to the confessional conflicts of earlier generations. In 1662-3,
he had actually arranged a religious disputation between Lutherans
and Calvinists, which had proved as futile as many of its predecessors.
Calixtus, whose wise teaching had probably inspired Frederick William's
earlier efforts for a religious reconciliation, had striven in vain, as Leibniz
was to labour at a later date; and Frederick William himself was to
discover, what his successor and namesake ignored half a century after-
wards, that a population has to be educated into reason. Its sympathy
is usually on the side of the resisters ; and the Great Elector is popularly
remembered rather for his "expulsion," in 1666, of the bigoted Paul
Gerhardt — Germany's greatest hymn-writer since Luther — than for
having cherished ideals to which that worthy was not, either before or
after his return to Berlin, capable of rising In Prussia, too, Frederick
William's appointment of " syncretist " incumbents actually brought
down upon him the threat of an appeal to his suzerain at Warsaw.

It would, at the same time, be an error to suppose that Frederick
William's religious tolerance rendered him well-disposed towards Rome.
On one occasion, Louis XIV enquired whether it was the Elector's
intention to pose as the Protector of the Protestants before the eyes
of Europe; and, almost with his dying breath, Frederick William
enjoined upon one of the Princesses of his House the duty of remaining
true to the Protestant religion in which she had been nurtured. But
he had never been a fanatic either abroad or at home. In his
earlier days, the Elector had turned a deaf ear to Oliver Cromwell's
invitation, suggesting that he should place himself at the head of a kind
of Protestant crusade. In his own dominions, he tolerated Arians,
Socinians and Mennonites, and readmitted the Jews to Brandenburg,
whence they had been excluded for more than a century. He frankly
carried out the principle of a preference for Protestantism, but tolerated

leeo-Ta] Years of peace and preparation. 649

Catholics, allowing them where necessary (as in Cleves) equality of
rights, and even here and there opportunity for a little persecution.
Brandenburg and Prussia were, as in his will of 1667 he "thanked God"
that they remained, wholly free from popish abuses ; so that it was not
till the end of his reign that Jesuit influence in schools was directly
prohibited. Still, speaking broadly, even Catholicism was in the main
treated throughout his dominions on the basis of liberty of conscience,
and of the admissibility to public offices of adherents of all creeds.
It may thus be asserted that Brandenburg-Prussia was, during the
period of the Great Elector's reign, the only country in Europe which
upheld the principle of religious toleration — except the United Provinces,
where it was honoured in name rather than in fact.

Diudng the twelve years of peace (1660-72), so sorely needed for
the advancement of prosperity in his own dominions, Frederick William
vigilantly observed the course of events outside. In other words, he
followed every turn in the aggressive policy of France, the Power which
dominated contemporary European politics, and shaped his own conduct
accordingly. In 1665 he mustered in his Rhenish lands a force of
18,000 men; on the strength of which, besides asserting, in the following
year, the recognition of the permanence of his authority there, he
induced the enterprising Bishop of Munster to desist from an armed
inroad into the United Provinces, which would have given Louis XIV
an opportunity of intervention on their behalf The warlike prelate
accepted the mediation proffered by the Elector ; and any French
interference in the dispute was thus rendered superfluous.

With England in particular, Frederick's relations were throughout
friendly ; and, in truth, the interests of the two Powers were continually
making for a cooperation between them. Though the English Government
had declined to guarantee the Peace of Oliva, it concluded, so early as July,
1661 , a defensive alliance with Brandenburg, accompanied by a commercial
treaty, which opened a long and varied series of political combina-
tions between the two Powers. But, although there was so much to
bring and keep them together, each had to deal, according to its own
immediate point of view, with the situations successively created by
the dominant action of Louis XIV. The records of the personal
experience of Coimt Otto von Schwerin "the younger," who held the post
of plenipotentiary at the Court of St James' from 1674 to 1678, illustrate
this relation in a period of only less critical importance than that which
had preceded it for the affairs of Europe at large.

In the War of Devolution (1667-8), which laid bare the ulterior
as well as the immediate purposes of the policy of France, Frederick
William remained neutral — actuated perhaps chiefly by jealousy of
Sweden, with whom he declined to associate himself in forming what
would thus have become a " Quadruple " instead of a " Triple Alliance "
with England and the United Provinces, but probably also moved

CB. XXI,

660 Brandenburg and the Dutch Republic. [i667-'74

by a desire to induce the French Court to abandon its support of
the Prince of Conde's candidature for the Polish throne. He can
hardly have remained neutral from any real fear of isolation, though
neither of the two Habsburg dynasties at first showed any tendency
to energetic cooperation with each other; and he certainly con-
cluded (December 16, 1667) an agreement with the French Minister
at his Court, by which, in return for the undertaking of the French
Government to prevent the succession on the Polish throne of any
French Prince, he promised to remain neutral in the Belgian war. So
striking was the success of French diplomacy in keeping him out of the
combination against France, that unfounded rumours spread as far
as the willing ears of Charles II that Frederick William aspired to
the hand of the Grande Mademoiselle (Louis XIV's cousin, the Duchess
of Montpensier).

Although, as has been seen elsewhere, France was in the Peace
of Aachen (1668) disappointed as to the fulfilment of her larger
expectations, she continued to pursue them with the consistency which
has always been proper to her diplomacy. Her policy owed an unavowed
but extraordinary strength to the secret agreement as to the Spanish
Succession concluded between Leopold I and Louis XIV in January,
1668, and confirmed by them in 1671. Both England and Sweden
were, by arguments specious in both the one and the other case, gained
over to cooperation in the projected French campaign against the
United Provinces. Thus the amicable relations which had existed
between England and Brandenburg since the conclusion of a defensive
alliance and commercial treaty between them in July, 1661, proved of
no avail. When, in 1672, that momentous campaign actually began,
the Dutch Republic could look for no other ally besides the Elector of
Brandenburg; and it was no doubt for this reason that the Emperor
sent troops to support any action that might be taken by the Elector.
No sooner, however, had French forces begun to occupy the Cleves
territory, than Frederick William's resolution gave way, even though the
Emperor did not withdraw his troops ; and in June, 1673, the Hector
executed one of the least creditable of his rearward manceuvres by con-
cluding with France the separate Peace of Vossem, in which, by way of
return for the evacuation of the duchy of Cleves, he promised to abstain
fi:om any future act of hostility against France, except in the event of
a declaration of war against her by the Empire. But, in the very
next year, such a declaration was actually issued ; whereupon Frederick
William duly took part in the demonstration intended to meet the
extraordinary display of force by which Louis XIV sought to overwhelm
the United Provinces ; and the mission to England of Otto von Schwerin
the younger, mentioned above, seemed to promise to draw the Pro-
testant Powers together once more. But, though Frederick William
put an ai-my of 20,000 men in the field, the campaign of the German

1675] Fehrhellin. 651

auxiliary force proved a failure, owing both to the genius of Tureime
and to the mutual distrust between the Imperial and the Branden-
burg commanders. The Elector suspected treachery on the part of
the former. Count Boumonville ; but of the secret instructions which
are supposed to have reached him from Vienna there is no actual
proof. In January, 1675, after an unsuccessful fight at Tiirkheim,
the German troops recrossed the Rhine and took up their winter-
quarters. A few months earlier the Elector had lost his eldest son,
Charles Emil, a virtuous and promising youth, whose death from
fever at Strassburg (November 27, 1674) the father attributed to a
French poisoner. His life was full of such morbid suspicions, and we are
reminded how near we still are to the dark and ruthless age of the
Thirty Years' War.

In the same month as that which witnessed the withdrawal of the
German forces from the left bank of the Rhine, Sweden, instigated by
France with a view to bringing about this result, invaded Brandenburg,
and once more spread desolation through the land. The situation was
full of peril for the dominions of Frederick William. The ambitious
John Sobieski now sat on the Polish throne ; and Louis XIV was seeking
to engage him to take part in an attack upon his Prussian neighbour.
On the other side of tiie Mark, the Brunswick-Liineburg Duke John
Frederick, the Catholic convert who held sway at Hanover, was eager to
give proof of his sovereign independence by running contrary to the line
of policy followed by the other Princes of his House, who loyally
adhered to the Emperor in his conflict with France. Thus Frederick
William was environed by foes actual or prospective, when in June, 1675,
he set forth on the most celebrated campaign of his life, and the first
great campaign in the annals of what may by anticipation be called the
Prussian army.

On June 25 the Swedes were driven out of Rathenow on the Havel by
the Brandenburgers ; and on the 28th the Brandenbvu-g vanguard, number-
ing barely 6000 men, chiefly cavalry, routed nearly double the number of
Swedes on the famous field of Fehrbellin. The glory that has continued
to surround the name of this battle is mainly due to the fact that it was
a purely German victory over a wholly alien adversary ; but there was
much that was striking in the fight itself, and in the rapid march — an
exploit like that of Cincinnatus of old — ^by which it had been preceded.
From the day of FehrbeUin onward Frederick William was known to his
people as the " Great Elector." The Ratisbon Diet was encoiu-aged to
issue a declaration of war against Sweden ; and Frederick William
openly avowed his intention of driving the Swedes out of Pomerania. His
isolation was at an end ; and his troops were joined by an Imperial force,
including the contingents of the Brunswick-Liineburg Dukes and of the
Bishop of Miinster. Denmark, too, always ready to " bite the heel " of
Sweden, became a member of the alliance against her. In the course of

OB. XXI,

652 Nymegen and St Germain. [i676-9

the autumn the war extended into western Pomerania, and operations
were earned on round the two Haffs in 1676, when the Brunswick and
Miinster troops expelled the Swedes from the duchies of Bremen and
Verden. But Stettin still held out ; nor was it till after a siege lasting
from the end of August to December, 1677, that the fortress, the most
important position held by the Swedes on German soil, capitulated. In
the following year the island of Biigeii, Stralsund, and Greifswald were
taken, and the expulsion of the Swedes from Germany was for the time
accomplished. Their attempt to retaliate by an invasion of Prussia,
proceeding in November, 1678, from Livonia, where they still main-
tained a footing, proved a failure; for in January, 1679, Frederick
William with resistless energy led an expedition into his remote duchy,
and drove out the foe.

But, unfortunately for the Great Elector, whose sword seemed at
last to have secured the acquisition which he and his House had so long
had at heart, his success had been achieved just when the allies whom
he had abandoned at Vossem were making up their minds for peace;
and Sweden's defeat by Brandenburg greatly helped to incline Louis XIV
in the same direction. At the Peace Congress which assembled in 1676
at Nymegen, where England played the recognised part of the mediating
Power, Brandenburg found herself once more in an isolated position.
The failure of Frederick William to furnish effective aid to the United
Provinces in return for the subsidies received from them now revenged
itself upon him ; and France would of course do nothing against Sweden,
whom she had urged into a war which had proved so disastrous. Thus,
when in 1678-9 the Peace of Nymegen was actually concluded, all the
German territories assigned to Sweden in the Peace of Westphalia were
once more restored to her. Frederick William, with whom Denmark
alone held out against these conditions, hesitated long before accepting
them ; but at last he submitted to the inevitable, and, in June, 1679,
concluded the Treaty of St Germain, by which western Pomerania with
Stettin was given back to the Swedes. For the second time, and after
a more complete and far more glorious conquest than that of nineteen
years earlier, the prize had eluded his grasp.

The disappointment was severe; and its bitterness turned against
the .aUies who this time had left him in the lurch — as he had before left
them. The United Provinces were to be regretted not only as friends,
but also as paymasters ; England was of no value in either capacity, and
might be left to carry on her game of balancing and trimming; the fulness
of the Great Elector's indignation seems to have been directed against
the Emperor. Leopold had given further offence by taking advantage
of the extinction in 1675 of the Liegnitz line of the Lower Silesian
Dukes (by the death of Duke George William) to confiscate the princi-
palities of Liegnitz, Brieg, and Wohlau, held by that House as the last
survivors of the native dynasty, descended from the Piasts of Poland.

1679-85] The Great Elector's alliance with France. 653

The relations between the Hofburg and the young Protestant Power,
which had quickly lost their traditional cordiality, were enduringly
embittered by the complications that arose between them with regard
to this Piast inheritance, and to another Silesian principality, that of
Jagemdorf, which, though purchased by the House of Brandenburg, had
escheated to the Emperor when in 1620 Margrave John George had
been placed under the ban.

It was therefore in a spirit of something like spite as well as with
his usual design of turning the actual situation to the best possible
account that, in August, 1679, Frederick William concluded an alliance,
which, with certain modifications, was renewed in the years ensuing.
Thus began a period in the history of his policy upon which it is
diificult to look with admiration from the national point of view
by no means, as has been seen, ignored by Frederick William, He
now entered into a system of entire cooperation with France. Not
only did he grant to her armies the right of free transit through
his dominions, including even resort to the protection of his fortresses,
but he promised to support the Dauphin as a candidate for the succes-
sion to the Imperial throne. In connexion with these transactions,
no excessive importance should be attached to the mere fact of his
acceptance of an annual French pension of 100,000 livres; for the
payment for services rendered, or about to be rendered, or about to be
withheld, is an element never absent from any turn in the politics of
this age, when the state-machine refused to move without constant
greasing of the wheels. The subsidy which Frederick William had
previously drawn from the United Provinces is to be regarded in much
the same way.

In general, however, it cannot be denied that in the steadily
advancing encroachments of France Frederick William had a very
distinct share of responsibility, and that it is impossible to disconnect
sJtogether from his course of action the " temporary " loss of Strassburg
and the "reunited" places and districts, of which France was left in
possession by the Truce concluded with her by the Empire at Ratisbon
in 1684. Curiously enough, his policy had thus become alienated from
that of England, who, although he had, in March, 1681, concluded a
political and commercial alliance with her, was now disposed to turn
away from France. With the Emperor himself Frederick William's
relations became so strained that, in 168S, his offer of an auxiliary force
of 12,000 troops, when Vienna seemed in danger from the Turks, was
declined as dangerous. He employed it in occupying the disputed
Silesian principalities.

But the nadir of his political course had now been reached. It was
inconceivable that Frederick William's amicable relations with France,
themselves the result of a reaction, should endure beyond a limited
period of time ; and happily their close announced itself before that of his

OB, XXI,

654 The Grreat Elector and William of Orange. [ie85-6

career. The final change in his policy, which during the last three years
of his reign (1685-8) gave him an important place among the European
Princes and statesmen who were preparing the great struggle against
the enduring predominance of France, may without hesitation be
attributed to the very noblest among the principles that actuated his
public and private life. His hatred of religious intolerance and oppres-
sion was, as has already been seen, roused, together with his Protestant
sympathies, by the persecutions that preceded the Revocation of the
Edict of Nantes, and reached their height when that measure of blind:
bigotry was actually proclaimed. The Great Elector's treaty of alliance
with the United Provinces, which marks a complete revulsion in his
system of foreign policy, was concluded in August, 1685; his direct
response to the actual Revocation has been already noted. The difficult
diplomacy necessitated by the Elector's action was skilfully conducted
by his ambassador at Paris, Ezechiel Spanheim (who was thoroughly
imbued with the liberal Calvinism representative of the progressive
spirit of the age) ; but the French subsidies were stopped for a time.
Frederick William now actually came to be regarded as holding a position
towards Protestantism somewhat resembling that held by Oliver Cromwell
a generation before ; and the remote Protestant cantons of Switzerland,
apprehensive lest their turn might come next, sought his alliance.

But, with his extraordinary insight into the demands of the moment,
he concentrated his attention upon his relations with the Maritime
Powers. His kinsman William of Orange was rapidly assuming the
character in which alone his memory remains immortal — that of the
head and front of the European resistance to the aggressions of France.
So far as England was concerned, Frederick William had quickly realised
the prospects of the political situation which was developing there.
During his exile after the death of Charles II, Monmouth had met with
considerable sympathy in Protestant Germany ; and his formal expulsion
from Brandenburg was far from representing the view actually taken by
the Electoral Government of his pretensions.

Meanwhile, with his usual impetuousness — a feature in his character
which should not be overlooked in accounting for the mutability of his
political action — Frederick William, in March, 1686, concluded a secret
treaty of alliance with the Emperor, which once more bound closely to-
gether the interests of Hohenzollerns and Habsburgs. Effective aid was
promised by the Elector to the Emperor against the Turks ; and, while
Frederick William, in order to leave no doubt as to his loyalty, renounced
the claims of his House upon any other portion of Silesia, he received
in return, or believed that he received in return, the cession of the
Schwiebus Circle, which formed part of the principality of Glogau, and
of which more anon. Hereupon, he drew up the strategical plan for the
expected war with France, and became a party to the League of Augs-
burg, concluded for purposes of defence in June, 1686, by the Emperor

1686-8] The Great Elector's second marriage. 655

and several German Princes, and including, in that capacity, the Kings
of Spain and Sweden. Negotiations were carried on, under the deepest
secifecy, with William of Orange on the subject of his intended descent
upon England. The correctness of the view that it was Frederick William
who, having taken the project into consideration already in 1684, gradu-
ally convinced his kinsman of the necessity of this enterprise, depends
on the evidence concerning the interviews between them at Cleves in
August, 1686, in which Pufendorf erroneously states Marshal Schom-
berg to have taken part on behalf of the English malcontent lords. As
the negotiations proceeded, the plan clearly evolved itself that Branden-
burg and certain lesser German States were to protect the United
Provinces during the English expedition. In these negotiations Count
Waldeck, who was now at the height of his political activity, took a
prominent part, and William's confidential friend Bentinck (afterwards
Earl of Portland) visited Berlin ; but the Brandenburg statesman on
whom the chief responsibility of their conduct fell was Paul von Fuchs,
who should not be forgotten among those who chiefly contributed to
the success of the great political venture of 1688. It may be worth
mentioning that at the time of Frederick William's death the whole
House of Brunswick-Liineburg was perilously near an alliance with France
— probably in a great measure because of the neglect of the English
Government to keep up a continuous diplomatic intercourse with these
Courts, of which the importance was already becoming manifest.

Frederick William was not to live to witness the success of the pro-
ject with which he had been so closely connected. He died on May 9,
1688. To the last, he was actively engaged in the work of government
and in the prosecution of his political schemes, although the bodily
sufferings undergone by him during many years had culminated in
dropsy, and although the last period of his life was disturbed by domestic
troubles. After the death of his cherished first consort, Louisa Henrietta
of Orange, the ancestress of the royal House of Prussia, a wide-hearted
and energetic woman, and a pious soul whom her husband's Minister
Schwerin comforted with prayers and hymns in seasons of war, he had,
in 1668, married Dorothea of Holstein-GlUcksburg, the widow of Duke
Christian William, the eldest of the Brunswick-Liineburg brotherhood.
This vinion, although in itself happy, led to quarrels between the new
Electress and the children of the Elector's first marriage, and more
especially the Electoral Prince Frederick, which had very serious con-
sequences. The Electoral Prince, almost unavoidably, fell into intriguing
hands; and, before his father entered into the agreement of March,
1686, mentioned above, of which the cession of the Schwiebus Circle to
Brandenburg was supposed to form an integral part, had been induced to
promise to return the town and district to the House of Austria on his
own accession as Elector. The Court of Berlin once more began to be full
of dark and distrwting rumours. When, in 1687, one of the Great Elector's

656 The Great Elector's wills. — His death. [ie64-88

younger sons. Margrave Lewis, died, there were rumours of poisoning;
when, soon afterwards, the Electoral Prince Frederick William fell ill,
his malady was ascribed to the quantity of antidotes swallowed by him.
The story, which long obtained credit, that the Electress Dorothea
induced her consort in his later years to stultify the policy to which his
efforts and those of his House had been so long directed, and to run
counter to one of its fundamental laws, the Disposith Achillea, needs
correction. In the will made by him in 1680, of which he named the
King of France executor, he was held to have broken up the cohesion of
the dominions of his dynasty in order to benefit the four sons of his second
marriage at the expense of the Electoral Prince, Frederick William.
But, to begin with, the first change made by him (so far back as 1664) in
his previous testamentary dispositions was due to the wishes of his first
wife, Louisa Henrietta, in favour of her own younger surviving son;
and Dorothea, though like her husband she changed sides, and like
his Ministers accepted gratuities, was devoted to his interests, and much
maligned. But, as a matter of fact, Frederick William was throughout
faithfully seeking to maintain the succession in his own line, which ran
a serious risk of falling short of male heirs, should the younger Princes
fail to marry. He wished the dominions added by him to his own
inheritance to descend to his younger sons ; but in each case he made a
reservation of the full rights of sovereignty to the head of the House.
Such seems to be the substance of his much discussed and much derided
wills of the years 1680 and 1686 — of which, for the rest, the interest is,
in a sense, " academical " only, inasmuch as Frederick William's last will
was declared invalid by his successor.

Thus the career of the Great Elector came to an end, amidst troubles
such as a Prince the beginnings of whose reign fall within the period of
the Thirty Years' War could not have expected to escape, but which he
met with a clearness of purpose that no mutability of action on his part
should be allowed to obscure. His steadfastness, even more than his
flexibility, led on his monarchy towards a future of which he recognised
at least some of the essential conditions. The methods pursued by him
were and must remain open to comment and even to censure; but
there rarely has been a great ruler and statesman in whom strength and
breadth of mind were more closely united with depth of feeling. He was,
moreover, far-sighted and even boldly speculative in fields far removed
from the domain of politics ; and, while actively interested in higher
education as he found it (he founded the University of Duisburg for his
western dominions, and was jealous of his sovereign rights in connexion
with appointments of professors), could conceive of a University teaching
all things knowable, without troubling itself as to the relation of its
instruction to particular forms of faith'.

* The charter of the VniversUas Brandeburgica gentium, scientiarum, et artium,
suggested by the Swede Benedict Skytte, MT^ Av^'^n up in 1667; but the existing
resources proved inadequate.

1641-88] Sigiiificdnce of his reign. 657

At home, the Great Elector made an important advance towards the
unity of his State by establishing throughout his dominions a body of
officials chosen by himself, without undue regard for provincial privileges,
out of the entire area of his territories, or from among the subjects of
other German States and Protestant foreigners. He took away the
political power of his nobility, while increasing the advantages enjoyed
by them as landlords; he imposed a graduated income-tax upon all
classes of his subjects ; and he placed all their contributions for the
support of his army under the control of what was to aU intents and
purposes his Minister of Wax.

StUl, the chief significance of his career as a ruler was, after all, that
he first taught the Northern and North-eastern Powers who impeded the
growth of his State, and the Great European Powers to boot, that
nothing save the interests of that State itsdf, as they might from time
to time present themselves to its rulers, would in the future decide the
coiu-se of its political action. And thus it came to pass that in the eyes
of the German nation at large (which, even after the Thirty Years'
War had paralysed its powers, was far from having shut its eyes com-
pletely to the remembrances of a better past or even to the possibilities
of a greater future) his rule over Brandenburg-Prussia came to represent
the principle of opposition to the occupation of German lands by the
foreigner. Whether the foreigner were Protestant or CathoUc, Swede
or Frenchman, he woiJd have in the end to reckon with the Great
Elector and his army.' Thus, although the course of his life cannot,
speaking humanly, be called fortunate, and though he was not able
to master all the difficulties by which it was beset, at least, none
of his successors nor the people to which the traditioiis, of: his reign
descended in successive: generations, could remain blind either to what
he had done or to what he consciously left for them to do after him. A
firm support of the Imperial policy, but not with regard ,tp such purely
dynastic objects as his father had aided the Habsburgs in pursuing;
the, steady maintenance of Prussian independence as towards Poland; &
constant readiness to oust Sweden from the comer of Germany (no un-
important corner) which she still occupied ; an intimate alliance against
France with the House of Orange, the kinsmen of the Hohenzollems,
and with England, so soon as a change in her Government should have
made her once more one of the Protestant Powers — these were the
cardinal po;ints of the political "system" bequeathed; by him. For
carrying out such a policy a vigorous army and a fairly prosperous state
of things at home were indispensable, The former requisite he h£|.d
provided; the prosperity of his electorate and of the kingdom into
which it was about to grow was due to no other cause so much as to the
spirit of tolerance which was the noblest element in his strong, and at
the same time deeply religious, character.

C. M. B. V. OB. XXI, 42

658 The Elector Frederick III. [less-iros

The Great Elector's son, the Elector Frederick III (afterwards, as
the first King in Prussia, known as Frederick I) was of an altogether
different mould from that in which his great predecessor was cast. The
son, too, was in a sense not devoid of the imaginative power which is so
strong an impulse to action ; but his aspirations long moved on the
most clearly defined lines towards a single consummation. With the
help, no doubt, of favourable circumstances, he accomplished the one end
which he had in view during the earlier part of his reign. The main
political purpose of his later years he was unable to achieve ; for at
Utrecht he had to accept the Upper Quarter of Gelders in lieu of the
principality of Orange.

Born in 1657 at Konigsberg (the scene of the fulfilment of the chief
design of his life), he was of weakly bodily health and a passionate dis-
position. The training which imparted strength to his physical, and
steadiness to his moral, nature he owed to Eberhard Danckelmann, a
native of Lingen, which with other Orange territories was inherited by
Frederick in 1702. The return of Danckelmann (who, after saving his
pupil's life in the course of a serious illness, had gradually acquired a
commanding influence over him) into the Brandenburg service seemed in
itself ominous of future acquisitions; and his position at Frederick's
Court and in the government of the State in the end became that of an
omnipotent Prime Minister — a familiar type in this age of autocracy.
On the whole, he seems to have served his master well, both before and
after his accession as Elector, and not to have been personally open to
corruption, though besides himself six brothers (hence "the Danckelmann
Pleiad") found their way into the Electoral service. Generally, he
followed the political traditions of the Great Elector ; and there seems
no foundation for the suggestion that he inclined to France. It may be
added that he had remained in' ignorance as to the worse than dubious
transactions with the Electoral Prince concerning Schwiebus before the
Great Elector's death.

Immediately on his accession Frederick III began to take measures
for upsetting his father's will. The assent of the Dowager Electress
and her sons to this procedure was only obtained after four years' nego-
tiation; but it was obtained, and in return for various compensations they
renounced the territorial inheritances destined for them. The settlement
of the Schwiebus question between the Imperial and the Brandenburg
Government, on the other hand, occupied seven years, resulting in the
restoration of the Circle to the House of Austria. The complications of
this transaction, which from beginning to end illustrates a very degenerate
phase of diplomacy, are not easy to unravel ; but it is clear that the
Elector's desire for a royal Crown, and consequent wish to conciliate the
Imperial Government, counted for something in the solution.

But there was yet another side to the question. In return for the
cession to him of the Schwiebus Circle, the Great Elector had, as has

1686-99] The quest of royal Crowns. 659

been seen, in 1686 renounced the claims of his House upon the Silesian
principalities of Liegnitz, Brieg, and Wohlau, and upon that of Jagem-
dorf. It was now contended that, with the restoration of Schwiebus,
these claims necessarily revived ; and they were actually asserted by
Frederick III in a clause in the act of retradition. This view, however,
was not accepted by the Imperial Government; and, though in 1695 the
Schwiebus Circle was actually handed over to Austrian commissioners,
the counter-claim was for the present left open, with what momentous
consequences will be told at a later stage of this History.

Enough has been said to indicate how Frederick Ill's earlier policy
was affected by the design upon which during these years his attention
was concentrated. It can hardly be necessary to enter into an elaborate
analysis of the Elector's motives in seeking a royal Crown ; but some
reference should be made to the high-strung princely ambitions which
are generally characteristic of this age. The rapid changes in the
territorial system of Europe, and of the Empire in particular, conse-
quent upon the artificial settlements of the Peace of Westphalia and
the ensuing series of pacifications, had fired the ambition, personal or
dynastic, of many German Princes of the time. The resplendent exemplar
of Louis XIV pointed the way to extremely expeditious methods of
securing an appropriate extension of territorial power. His Court like-
wise became the model of lesser Courts^not perhaps so much in actual
manners and ways of life (as to which the process of refinement through
which Versailles itself passed was gradual) as in the determination of
those perennial questions of etiquette; and more especially of precedence,
which in the diplomatic negotiations of the age frequently, seem to
assume a paramount importance. A mere Duke of Brunswick-Liineburg,
of ancient descent but mediocre power, who had as yet not even com-
pletely united in his hands his line's moiety of the dominion of a
bipartite House, had after long efforts obtained the Imperial sanction
for his assumption of the electoral dignity (1692), and was known to
be looking forward to the parliamentary sanction, actually accorded to
them nine, years later, of the claims of his consort and their descendants
to the English throne. On that throne a Count of Nassau had seated
himself a few years earlier (1688). Charles XII, when crowned King of
Sweden in; 1697, was only fifteen years of age ; but speculations must
have speedily arisen as to the diances of the Swedish throne, passing, in
the event of the death of this martial youth, to a son of his elder sister
(for I whose firstborn a very different, fate was reserved), or (ai actually
happened) to a son of his younger sister and her future husband, who
could hardly fail to be a German Protestant Prince. The Electoral
Prince of Bavaria was, a few months before his premature death (1699),
recognised by the King of Spain as the sole heir of his monarchy. Thus
it seemed to be time for the Electors of ancient date, whose dynasties
hadilong cherished, the conviction that they were raised far above the level

cB, XXI. 42—2

660 Aspirations of Frederick III. [1688-97

of the Prinzes of , the Empire at large, to see that they did not fall
behind, in the general competition. The Elector of Saxpnyf (Frederick
Augustus II), as has been narrated elsewhere, was in this connexion the
earliest to achieve success, and, by renouncing the Lutheran confession,
with which the House of Wettin had been identified in both good and evil
times, to secure the Polish throne for himself (1697), with the probability
of its descent to his successors in the electorate. More fantastic schemes
illustrated the spread of these aspirations. It appears that the Elector
Palatine (John William of Neuburg) towards the close of the century
negotiated , with a view to becoming King of a Christian Armenia.

The House of Brtodenburg had rather longer to wait than the
Albertine branch of the House of Wettin for its elevation to royal rank;
though there is evidence to show that the Great Elector himself had at
one time thought of assuming the title of King of the Wends, but had
abandoned the project at the time of the Peace of St Germain, when it
seemed impolitic to oifend Poland. The Crown which the Elector of
Brandenburg ultimately secured was purchased by no such sacrifice as
that by which Frederick Augustus II forfeited the last remnants of
Saxony's Protestant hegemony, in the Empire, and completed the transfer
of that hegemony to Brandenburg. , Moreovef, the Prussian Crown only
symbolised the tenmre of a dominion which the House of Brandenbm-g
and its subjects had secured by a consistent policy and were pre-
jiared to maintain by the force of arms. The basis of the Elector of
Brandenburg's claim to rank among the Kings of Europe was, in other
words, the jduchy of Prussia, for which he had done homage to no man,
and the army which had virtually been created, by his predecessor, and
which had enabled the Great Elector to assert his State as a factor in
great questions of European politics. The display which Frederick III
made a point of keeping up at his Court, while it: may .have well
suited both his persohality and his times, was deliberately intended tb
show that the means were at his disposal for maintaining the external
grandeur that befits a king.

The European situation at the time of the accession of Frederick III,
and the part taken by lus father in urging on the great design of which
the execution was imminent, were alike propitious to the aspirations of
the new Elector. This would of itself suffice to explain why he steadily
carried on the policy of his predecessor towards the impendiiig English
Revolution of 1688. William of Orange, it is not too much to say^
was enabled to invade England by Frederick III, who, in August, 1688,
in accordance with a compact concluded at CeUe, sent several of his
best regiments — 5800 foot and 660 horse— into the United Provinces,
to protect them against aiiy French inroads These troops were com-
manded by Marshal , Schomberg, who, after long and diistinguished
service in Prance had, by the religious policy of Lotiis XIV^ and by
personal experiences in the same direction in Portugal^ been driven into

1689-95] Br andenhurg'tr oops cLgainsi France and Turks. 661

the service of the Great Elector and at once appointed by him to
the teiritorial command-in-chief. Notwithstanding the jealbusy of the
Brandenburg officers, Schomberg had gained the same confidence on the
part of the Elector Frederick III as that which had been bestowed
on him by the Great Elector. The last two years of the Marshal's
career belong to English history; but he represents some of the
most characteristic traditions of German niilitaty prowessi,' with their
frequent accompaniment of an miswerving loyalty to religious con-
victions. ' •

The endeavours of the Emperor Leopold I in the War declared
against France by the Empire in 1689 were actively supported by
Frederick' III, beyond the treaty engagements of his father; In this
year 20,000 Brandenburg troops cooperated on the Rhine with Imperial
forces of twice that number; and, in October, Frederick IIIj with the
aid of Duke Charles of Lorraine (whom Brandenbiorg troops had assisted
in the capture of Mainz), brought the arduous siege of Bonn to a
successful issue. In 1690, after the defeat of Waldeck and the Dutch at
Fleurus (Jidy 1)^ the advent of the Brandenburgers under their Elector,
and of other auxiliaries, in a measure restored the balance of forces;
but it was not till 1695 that the electoral troops once more took part
in an important action of the war-^the recapture of Namur, which
compensated William III for many failures in the Low Countries.
Frederick III was at this time anxious td draw closer the bonds of
alliance between himself and his kinsman by securing the hand of the
widowed King for his daughter by his first wife, Louisa Dorothea
Sophia. Another body of Brandenburg troops was in the same period
aiding the Emperor in his perennial struggle against the Turks in
Hungary.

But as yet the financial resources of Brandenbrn-g-Prussia were so
restricted that these efibrts could not be made without the payment
of subsidies by England and the United Provinces; and this fact' to
some extent explains the disappointing experiences of the Elector
Frederick III at Ryswyk. Moreover, since the Emperor Leopold was
entirely opposed to the conclusion of this Peace, while the paramount
desire of Fredeiifick III was to remain on the best possible ternis with
the Emperor, this could not fail to affect injuriously his relations with
the other allied Powers. At one time he could not even obtain the
subsidies promised to him, and bitterly complained of his wrongs. But,
in the end, prudence gained the day, and, on September 21, his ambassadori
Privy Councillor von Schmettau, notwithstanding the warlike language
previously held by him, attached his name to the Treaty of Peace
with Prance, signed at Ryswyk by the Dutch, English and Spanish
plenipotentiaries. Neither the joint guarantee of the royal Crown on
which the ambition of Frederick III was fixed, nor the fulfilment
of William Ill's promise to secure to the Brandenburg dynasty the

662 The fall of Danckelmann. [1684-97

inheritance of the House of Orange, had b'eefi obtained ; and for once
the HohenzoUern statesmen had ploughed the sands. The failure of
the electoral Government to gain any compensation for the sacrifices
entailed upon it in the war seemed complete, and has been thought to
have helped to bring about the fall of Danckelmann, for nine yeairs the
Elector's almost omnipotent Minister, who so late as 1695 had become
President-in-chief of, all the ministerial colleges or boards now to all
intents and purposes dividing among them the business of the State.
Ranke has, however, on the evidence chiefly of the despatches of the
active diplomatist George, Stepney, whom William III had sent on a
special mission to Berlin, shown that the cruel treatment meted out to
Danckelmann was mainly, due to the influence of the Elector's second
wife, Sophia Charlotte, the daughter of the Elector Ernest Augustus
of Hanover and the Electress Sophia. The influence of Sophia Charlotte
upon the intellectual life of her husband's Coiirt and people will be
noticed below ; her action, in the matter of. Danckelmann was entirely
governed by her anxiety to serve the interests of hfer father's House.
The relatiofis between that House and her consort's' were duiingi a
long series of years marked by a vigilant jealousy,: to which neither
the intermarriages between them, and more especially her own (1684)j
nor the occasional periods of political coopeuation between the two
future joint directors of the Corpus Evwngelicorum (from 1720), were
able to put an end. The House of Brunswick-Liineburg, though until
the achievement of the English succession much less powerful than the
HohenzoUems, deemed itself unquestionably their superibr in descent and
ancestral greatness ; and the Emperor had been delighted to accept the
services of the Hanoverian Elector, his son, and his brothers, against the
French and against the Turks, as balancing the less cordially welcomed
aid of Brandenbm'g. Duke Maximilian Williain, one of the surviving four
sons of the Elector Ernest Augustus, had, after the death of his elder
brother Frederick Augustus in the Turkish Wars (1691), followed his
example in protesting against the principle of primogeiniture which his
father had proclaimed in a will confirmed by the Emperor^ and, in pushing
this protest had, among others, applied with success to Danckelmann.
The Brandenburg-Prussian Minister had: thus shown himself to be in
opposition to the dynastic ambition of the House of Hanover, at the root
of which lay the determination to maintain the unity of all its dominions.
It was for this, reason that Queen Sophia brought about the over-
throw of Danckelmann (1697). His property was confiscated,/ and
he was placed under close arrest at Peitz. The rigour of his confine-
ment was not abated for five years; nor was it till after another five
years that a partial amnesty was extended to him. He died in 1722,
after receiving many signs of respect and confidence from the new King,
Frederick William I. It had been largely his doing that, at the cost
of many sacrifices and much disappointment, the Brandenburg-Prussian

1693-8] Negotiations as to a royal Crown. > 663

Government had adhered to the House of Orange and the European
alliance against Prance. There is no ground for the notion that,
towards the close of his ministerial career, an inclination towards that
Power becomes perceptible; and after his death foreign affairs were
for a time at least conducted on the same lines as his own, mainly
by Paul von Fuchs, one of the principal promoters of the English
alliance.

Within a very few years after Danckelmann's fall, Frederick III
was enabled to accomplish the object which to him was of paramount
importance. The rapidity with which the transactions concerning the
assumption of a royal Crown were at last brought to a successful con-
clusion, contrasts with their tentative and purely personal beginnings.
Before 1693, when the negotiations on the subject between Frederick
William and the Emperor began, there is no indication of the Elector
having discussed it with his Ministers ; and then the scheme found little
favom- with those whom he consulted — Danckelmann, Fuchs, and Privy
Councillor Franz von Meinders — or with the Imperial ambassador
Fridag. Too much has probably been made of the characteristic excess
of zeal displayed in the matter by certain papal agents. It is certain,
however, that at an early date the Curia offered its assistance through
the skilful Italian Jesuit and convert-maker. Father Charles Maurice
Vota. He was opposed to the French interest, having given up that of
the Stewarts as a lost cause, and he commended himself in more ways
than one to the Electress Sophia Charlotte, who, having been brought
up simultaneously in three "religions," could afford to be impartial.
The earliest document in the Prussian archives concerning the quest of a
royal Crown is an artistic argument by Vota on the royal dignity and
the best means of reaching it — to wit, " reunion," not, of course, conver-
sion. Another Jesuit, also of considerable reputation at the time, Father
Wolff (Baron Friedrich von Liidinghausen), was brought into this more
or less ingenious plot ; and Bishop Zaluski would have gladly been mixed
up in it, with a view perhaps to anointing the King at his coronation.
Father Vota afterwards opined that too many negotiators spoiled the
design ; as a matter of fact, Frederick was as sound a Protestant at
heart as his father had been before him.

In 1694 the great project had become known at Vienna, and the
Emperor Leopold's first comirient upon it was a very plain-spoken non
posmmus. Though, as has been seen, much trouble had been taken to
modify this view, a fresh estrangement between the two Courts occurred
in 1697, on the occasion of the death without heirs of Duke Gustavus
Adolphus of Mecklenbufg-Giistrow and the disputes as to the succes-
sion. The Lower Saxon Circle, represented by Brandenburg, Sweden
and Brunswick-Liineburg, offered a determined resistance to the attempt
to sequestrate the Duke's inheritance; and the Brandenburg Minister
(Nicolas von Danckelmann) was recalled from Vienna. In 1698, however,

CH. XXI.

664 The Emperor yields. — The Krontractat. [i698-i70o

his place was filled again by Friedrich Christian von Bartholdi, a skilful
diplomatist, whose excellent advice to the Elector — to assume the Crown
and then negotiate with the Emperor — was, however, not followed. The
feeling of the older Brandenburg statesmen was against sacrificing the
advantages of a " real policy " for a mere bauble ; but it may be doubted

.whether in this case the instincts of the Elector did not guide him
aright. They were seconded by his new chief Minister, Johann Casimir

^i[olbe, afterwards Count von Wartenberg, an indolent but servile cour-
tier, under whom the real conduct of business was in the capable hands
of the Secretary of State, Heinrich Riidiger von Ilgen.

Religious-, considerations could not in this transaction be paramount
with.the Emperor Leopold, although he was too much under propagandist
influences not to be desirous of drawing advantage out of it for ithte
Church of Rome. But on this head the Elector Frederick adhered to
his rights and duties as a Protestant Prince ; and, while he made a trivial
concession as to allowing the Catholic services at the Imperial Embassy
in Berlin to be continued even dinging the ambassador's absence, the
final "Crown Treaty," as it was called, contained no reference, to the
religious question except an engagement on the part of the Elector not
to tftke advantage of religious controversies in the Palatinate, (where
there was in these years much grievous' persecution of the Calvinists
under the Neuburg Elector John William) for reprisals on his own

, Catholic subjects. ,

But what finally determined the head of the Austrian Habsburgs
to yield to the Elector Frederick's suit, was a motive of very; direct
political interest and profit, -As has been shown in an earlier chapter,
the Emperor I^eopold I, whose assent to the secret agreement of 1668
for partitioning the Spanish monarchy had crippled the vigour of the
foreign policy of Austria for a whole generation, had no share in the so-
called First Partition Treaty of October, 1698. The death, in February,
1699, of the Electoral Prince Joseph Ferdinand of Bavaria, whose claims
that Treaty had recognised, placed the Emperor in so much more
favourable a position that he was unwilling to agree to the Second
Partition Treaty, concluded by France, England and the United Provinces
in March, 1700, although it offered much more than the Krst had con-
ceded to the Austrian claims. But it was no secret to the Emperor that
if he stood out for the whole of the Spanish monarchy, he would haye to
make, good this claim by the sword. ;

Charles II of Spain did not die till November 1, 1700 ; and before
his death negotiation? had been carried on between the Emperor and
the Elector pf Brandenburg for the "Crown Treaty" {Krontractat),
settling the conditions of the Imperial assent to the assumption by the
Elector of the royal Crown. This compact, into which both sides had
entered with a very clear idea as to the nature of the situation, was signed
on November 16, before as a matter of fact the news of the death of the

i70i] Coronation of King Frederick I. 665

.last Spanish Habsburg reached , Vienna. The negotiations had ' been
interrupted by ministerial changes at the Imperial Court, and their
resumption was due to general- political reasons, not to the intervention
of Father WoliF, the importance of which has been much exaggerated.
The Crown Treaty assured to the Elector Frederick the Imperial recog-
nition of his title and status as King in Prussia, in return for his
entering into certain engagements. First, he promised to furnish in
the expected war with France troops to the number of 8000 men. This
figure appears to have been taken from the secret treaty concluded between
the Emperor Leopold and the Great Elector in 1686; but in that case
^the Emperor promised subsidies in return. In both cases the number
was of course in excess of the scanty contingent of 1200 men required
(according to the estimate of 1688, the year of the " Magdebin-g Con-
cert") from an Estate of the Empire whose fighting power was loosely
reckoned at 50,000. Secondly, the Elector of Brandenburg was in all
fiitine Imperial elections to give the preference to princes of the House
of Austria , and, thirdly, he was, in all important questions arising at
the Diet, to vote on the side of that House, in so far as the interests of
his own permitted. When the Imperial Elective Capitulations of the
sixteenth and seventeenth centuries are remembered,' it seems preposterous
to stigmatise this "Crown Treaty" as "humiliating" to the aspirarifc,
who actually gained what he desired and what was in truth an
indispensable condition for the future progress of his State.

PVederick now had the wish j«jf his heart ; and at Konigsberg, on
January 18, 1701, he placed on his head the royal crown, and then a
second on the head of his consort, Sophia Charlotte^ who would not have
been herself or her mother's daughter, had she been so greatly impressed
as he was by the solemnity of the occasion. Afber the King had assumed
the crown, the ceremony of unction was performed by two clerics, a
Lutheran and a Calvinist, who, as if to exemplify , the : maxim " No
bishop, no king," had been " episcopated " for the purpose. In
point oi fact, Frederick I, as he was henceforth called, assumed and
wore his Crown in absolute independence of any ecclesiastical authority
on earth; and it has been justly observed that, unless it were the
self-coronation of the excommunicated Emperor Frederick II at Jeru-
salem in the year 1229, history has to teU of > few coronations so
frankly " unspiritual " as that of his Prussian namesake. , For ' the
rest, it is on record that thirty- thousand horses had dragged to
Konigsberg what was thought, requisite in the way of material for the
display. The obsequious Count Kolbe von Wartenberg was, jmmediately-
after the royal princes, decorated by the King with the new Order of
the Black , Eagle. The virtually defunct German Order, the badge of
whose High Master had undergone this last adaptation, was galvanised
into giving its solitary support to the action of Pope Clement XI, who
issued a brief admonishing the Catholic Powers from recognising the

OB. ZXI.

Frederick I and the Grand Alliance. [1699-1704

new monarchy. The papal brief might, in other circumstances, have had
some effect in the Rhinelands, wherej however (at Cologne), a retort was
published against it by the Halle Professor von Ludewig, under a title
which Luther himself might have inspired^

Frederick I had well chosen the time for his coronation, more
especially as the festivities accompanying it were prolonged fctr months
instead of weeks. In May, 1702, the Empire together with the other
members of the now consummated Grand Alliance, declaried war against
France; and the new "King in Prussia" put into the field a force
of 14,000 men. This still left him free to use the larger part of
his military resources as he thought best in influencing the course
of the Northern War, in which the interests of his monarchy were
even more closely concerned than in that of the Spanish Succession.
Whatever side the Great Elector might have espoused in a conflict
between Sweden on one side, and Poland and Denmark on the other,
it is a tolerably safe assertion that he would not have left the
occasion of such a conflict unutilised. At the opening of the Northern
War in 1699, the Elector Frederick' III had rendered to Sweden the
great serviefe of refusing to allow transit through his territory to 8000
Saxon troops, intended to hold Hanover and Celle in check; and in
1700 the Maritime Powers continued their efforts to keep Brandenburg
out of the war. The Suedo-Danish conflict having been brought to a
conclusion, the question was whether Frederick would, consistently with
his previous refusal to Poland, prohibit the march through his dominions
of the Swedish army moving upon Saxony. To keep Frederick William
firm, Augustus II had, at an interview with him in Oranienbaum
(January, 1700), promised not only to recognise the royal dignity which
he had in view, but also to aid him towards the " better support of that
dignity" by the acquisition of Swedish Pomerania. Frederick IV oif
Denmark having agreed to these undertakings, a Priissian force actually
advanced to Leuzen, in the north-western comer of the Mark, in his
support. The outbreak of the war with Russia (September, 1700) gave
a new turn to the struggle. After the rout of the Russians at Narva
(November), Frederick III would have played the part of mediator
between Sweden and Poland, had this suited the plans and the temper
of Charles XII, who declined to recognise the royal dignity soon after-
wards assumed by the Elector, till he should have given convincing
proofs of his friendly intentions. The Prussian efforts at mediation were
renewed after the Swedish occupation of Courland in 1701; but the
Swedish occupation of Poland continued through 1702, and the War
continued to run its course without his ofiicial intervention.

In 1704, on the failure of the attempt, made with the aid of
Marlborough (who visited Berlin in November), to induce Charles to

* Pdpatlicher TJnfug wider die Krone Preussen.

1705-13] Inaction of Prussia. 667

conclude peace, IjVederick, as Droysen puts it, tried " another way."
He offered Sweden an alliance "for the common security of the two
Crowns, and a suitable advantage for each of them"-^the security
consisting in, the restriction of the limits of Poland by a partition of
some of her territories^— the King in Prussia to be, in addition, brought
forward as successor to the Polish Crown. The proposal was Ilgen's,
who thought that the motto "Nunc aut nwiquam " had never been more
in season.

This partition project was once more urged upon Charles XII in the
critical summer of 1705 ; and the death of Queen Sophja Charlotte on
February 1 of that year, which led to a complete estrangement between
Prussia,n and Hanoverian policy, helped to incline Prussia towards Sweden.
In Deceniber Marlborough paid a second visit to Berlin, in order to keep
Prussia neutral in the Northern War; but the effect of the further successes
of the Swedish arms was irresistible, and in August, 1707, a " Perpetual
Alliance" concluded between Sweden and Prussia guaranteed an armed
aid of 6000 men on either side in the case of an attack on the other.
Earlier in the year, Prussia had recognised Stanislaus as Bang of Poland
in return for the Swedish acknowledgment of the Prussian ownership of
Elbing — ^which however wtis not evacuated by the Swedish garrison. A
weaker compact than this^— except in instances of dire necessity — it
would be difHcult to find in the course of Prussian history.

With " Poltawa's day " (July 8, 1709), however, the entire situation
changed. A fresh partition seemed now at hand, in which Prussia, with
a force of 50,000 men in readiness, might secure "Royal" (Polish) Prussia,
with Warmia and a protectorate over Courland. But a meeting of the
" thi'ee Fredericks," held at Potsdam before the month of July was out,
was very far from leading to definite results ; and even on the Tsar Peter,
with whom he had an interview at Marienwerder (October), Frederick I
could not prevail to accept his plan for a Polish partition (between
Prussia, Russia, and Poland), which had thus early become a cardinal
principle of the eastern policy of Prussia. Nor was the scheme given
up on the temporary adoption (Mai'ch, 1710) of Ilgen's plan of neutralising
the Swedish dominions within the Empire, until the Tsar decisively
rejected this expedient for secir^jng to Prussja some of the fruits of the
conflict without obliging her to take up a distinct side in it. In
August, 1711, the Russian and Polish-Saxon troops (some 24,000 in all)
gave proof of the resentment which the attitude of Prussia had called
forth in their Governments by marching through the Mark to unite with
the Danish troops in; Mecklenburg, and Prussia was no nearer a;choice
of sides than ever. At no time had a more obvious duty lain upon her
than in 1712 of insisting upon the termination of a War which was
making the German north-east the cockpit of the combatants ; yet she
stood hesitating and facing both ways amidst the conflict of Danish,
Polish, Russian and Hanoverian ambitions excited by the imminent

OB. XXI.

668 The foreigwp'^i^ cf^ Frederick I. [iess-ma

collapse of the Swedish Power, In the midst of this conflict, the reign
of Frederick! icame to an end (February 25, 1713).

Thus the Kih^ who'by his royal title professed to place the centre of
gravity of his power in Prussia had failed' to hold his own in this part of
his monarchy, or on its north-eastern borders. On the other hand, his
military resources played a prominent part in the great contest in western
and central Europe, which it *feaxed all the dipfematic resources of the
age to keep at all events in substance apart from the complications of
the NoAHerft War. In the War of' the- Spanisli Succession, narrated in
an earlier chslpter, Prussian troops were engaged' in large numbers, the
contingent furnished by Frederick 1 rising to the very considerable
height of 40,000 men ; and they gained' distinction at Bfenheim, Turin,
Ramillies, Oudenarde, aiid Malplaquet— at which last battle the Crown
Prince Frederick William was present. Yet the Peace of Utrecht,
which Frederick I did not live to see concludedi 'brought with It only a
very imperfect compensation for the sacrifices which the new kingdom
had made on one side tif Europe, while undergoing humiliations on the
other.' Nor is it certain that even such gains as accrued to Prussia would
have been secured in the settlement, had not a more energetic monarch
ihan Frederick I occupied his throne.

At least, however, the fdreigil' policy of Frederick I had in northern
affairs avoided any action whifch might have led to the disruption of his
composite monarchy; and in the great coritempbraneous conflict in central
and western Europe it had piroved true to the best traditions of his
House and to those of the last period of his father's rule. Nor had he
forgone any opportunity of rounding ofl', or otherwise supplementing, the
straggling body of territories of which the Prussian State was composed.
After the prolonged negotiations on the matter of the Orange in-
heritance, he cannot biit have been deeply disappointed, on the death of
William III (March 8, 1702, O.S.), to find that the last Prince of Orange
of the old line had named as his heir John William Frisoj Prince of
Nassau-Dietz and Hereditary Stadholder of Friesland. The youthful heir's
grandmother, Albertina Agnes,- was the second svu^viving daughter of
Prince Frederick Hem'y' of Orange (the grandfather of WiUiam III),
whereas Louisa Henrietta, the mother of Frederick of Pmssia, was his
eldest' daughter. All that the King gained by his renunciation of the
inheritance in its entirety was the possession of the countships of Lingen
and Mors, which were contiguous to the duchy of Cleves, and to which
he, in 1707, added by purchase the cOuntship of Tecklenburg. A
more important series of purchases was made by him from his prodigal
Saxon neighbour, at a total cost of 370,000 dollars — including, among
other acquisitions immediate or on reversion, the hereditary bailiffship
(Erbvogtei) over the abbey of Quedlinburg, of which Augustus' discarded
mistress, the celebrated Aurora von Ednigsmarck, was thus prevented
from becoming Abbess, though she ultimately attained to the dignity of

ieaa-1713]; Military i^ecdnamic progress under Frederick I. 6Q9

Provost, of the foundation. On the frontier of Duca,! Prussia the pro-
gressive system of extension could not be carried further by Frederick;
on the other hand, he in 1707 acquired the principality of Neuchatel,
with the countship bf Vakngin, by his inherit9.nce of, the; feudal rights
of the House of Chltlons. , Itihas been suggested that, the Prussian
acquisition of Neuchatel was designed as a step towards the annexation
of Franche Comte. But, though in.l709 the allies did invade Fpnche
Gomt4 it would be difficult to show that this operation was. conducted
with: a view to the a;ggtandisement bf the Prussian monarchy. Although
the first iPrussian King^had thus not very largely, :augment,ed' hi?
territories, he had undeniably contributed to the power of his, State
and the jprosperity of its populatidn in ways more direct than thg,t
of the acquisition of a I'oyal Grown* It has been seen how he steadily
followed his father in fostering: the growth of a gtaiidingcarnjy,
which he gradually ' raised : from a total of 30,000y or thereabout?,
to one , of nearly 50,000 men. Of even suJ)erior significance for the
future — though dropped by his successor, and not revived within the
next two reigns — was the attempt of Frederick. I to form a militia, or
reserve for purely defensive purposes, which he intended to consist of
about 10,000 men. In any case, it is specially -noticeable that the
organisation of its army gave the first practical, expression to the idea p.f
a Prussian monarchy. Formally, of course, no such monarchy as yet
^xist^d ; it was only in one section, of 'his possessions, and with reference
to that section (which did not form part of the Germa'nic Empire), tha,t
the Elector of Brandenburg bore the, appellation of King. But, from
1701 onwards, his entire army was termed, the, royal, Prussian army;
and, furthermore, the several parts of the Brandenburgf-Prugisian State
from which the (levies for this i army were drawn were 'called, Pijussian
provinces^-^ term of great historic import, but for a lojig time :\fithout
l^al foundation.

Hand in hand with the advance towards political • independence
marked by the assumption of a royal Crown and the creation of a
royal army went, the emancipation from Imperial controlof the jurisr
diction obtaining in any part of the Brandenburg-Prussian territories.
In 1701, the privilegium de rum appeUcDndo, in accordance with which
no appeals in. the Brandenburg eleictofate went beyond the electoral
Gourts^i was extended to the : whole of the .King-Elector's dominions.;
in the ensuing year, a Supreme Court, of Appeal was established at
Berlin. Thus the only, remnant of the Imperial authority which
remained in Brahdenburg-Prussia consisted of the relatively insig-
nificant military obligations to which the Empire could still lay
daim. ,. ,..•'■■' , ;.,

' Connected alike with the needs of an enlarged territorial military
system and with the increase in the general expenditure of his Govemr
ment were Frederick Fa sustained endeavours for. the furtherance

CB. XXI,

6T0 Progress of learning and research. [i68fr-i7i3

of economic progress. They proceeded for several years (1700-10) on
the lines suggested by Luben von Wulffen for the creation of hereditary
peasant tenures^ till official interests interfered with the continuation
of the system — providing for the cultivation of waste lands, en-
couraging continuous immigration, and' preparing the abolition of
serfdom. It would be an error to regard the reign of Erederick I
as a period of retrogression or stagnation in respect of important
questions of home administration ; his Government, like himself, well
knew that their endeavours were being sympathetically watched by
Leibniz, and chronicled for the edification of posterity by Pufendorf.

Undoubtedly, the aspect under which the reign of Frederick I
of Prussia is most readily remembered is the splendour with which
he surrounded his newly established royal throne. He was not a
ruler of genius, or even of inborn grandeur, like Louis XIV — he was,
in truth, too sensitive about his personal dignity to be capable of
merging it in that of his royal office; and there was, moreover,
something so frankly self-centred in his love of show that Queen
Sophia Charlotte on her death-bed could take comfort in the thought
of the satisfaction which he would find in the arrangements for her
funeral. But his reign was marked by the foundation of institutions of
lasting importance for the advancement of learning and research. Such
were the University of Halle, founded in 1694, and destined, after
passing through a first period of florescence and being twice closed
by Napoleon, to be revived, and to absorb the University of Witten-
berg; the Academy of Arts (1696); and the Academy of Sciences,
founded in 1700, on the initiative of Sophia Charlotte and her
great philosopher and friend, Leibniz, whose political activity often
went hand in hand with his scientific interests. He delighted in his
role of intermediary between the Hanoveiian and Prussian Courts, and
was at least as much valued at Berlin and Liitzenburg by Queen Sophia
Charlotte as he was at Herrenhausen by her moth^, the more light-
hearted and perhaps less strong-willed old Electress Sophia. It is
noteworthy, that the objects of the Beriin Academy induded the pre-
servation of the purity of the German tongue. Yet the language of
the Prussian Court was French ; and, as has been hinted in an earlier
chapter, it was perhaps well for the future of the national literature
that the German tongue should have been taught something of freedom
and ease of movement ])y the very influence against which the instincts
of the nation were alreaidy banning to revolt.

Manifestly, the taste for things French at the Court and in tiie
Brandenburg capital was materially advanced by the continued influx
of French refugees into the Mark. By the close of the seventeenth
century their numbers there had reached a total of 20,000; and this
important addition to the most useful classes of the poptdation had
exercised a beneficial effiect in vaiious ways besides refining the life

1688-1713] Sophia Charlottc-Beligioiis views of Frederick I. 671

of the Court and intensifying the Calvinistic dogmatism. of certain of
the strata of society. The French refugees of this period consisted
of nobles (frequently military officers), merchants, manufacturers of
high standing, and skilled workmen of proved efficiency. Frederick I
consistently upheld his father's principle of allowing as much liberty
of conscience as possible; and the fact that the royal family were
Calvinists, while the great body of the population in both Bran-
denburg and Prussia remained Lutherans, could not but tell in favour
of toleration. Nor should it be forgotten that among the select
spirits of the age the hope was growing that the day was not .far
distant when a Reunion might be accomplished between the several
varieties of Protestantism, perhaps even between Protestantism and
Catholicism. Here, too, the influence of Leibniz was actively exerted,
and it found a reflexion in the elevated piety of Sophia Charlotte, for which
her son Frederick William had so little understanding that he called her
" a bad Christian," Apart from the training of her son, whose thoughts
and tastes could not fall in with TeUmaque, Queen Sophia Charlotte
had some troubled experiences at Berlin — more especially at the time
of the ascendancy of Christian Cochius, a court-preacher of a perennial
type. His opposition to the Queen's mundane influence typified by
her patronage of the opera, was unworthily fomented by the Minister,
Kolbe von Wartenberg, whose wife enjoyed the particular favour of
the King. There can at the same time be little doubt that Sophia
Charlotte^ whose mind had many features in common with that of
the greatest of her descendants, Frederick II, was unable to sympathise
with some of the qualities most deserving of admiration in the character
of her husband. Frederick I had inherited deep and ardent religious
convictions from the Great Elector, whom he also resembled in his
broad application of these principles to his system of government.
Like his father, he favoured Calvinism ceteris paribus, and hated
popery ; but both were equally averse from all persecution and forcing
of consciences ; and Frederick I desired that even Catholics should
retain the rights which, more especially in his western dominions,
they possessed. In this he was of course influenced by his wish to
remain on good terms with the Emperor; but even in remote
Neuchatel the Protestant character of his government was unmis-
takably emphasised, and Father Wolfi^'s proposal to marry the Crown
Prince to an Archduchess never had a chance.

But, though a sturdy Protestant at heart and one who preferred
the Bible to all other books, and though ready to counteract the
intrigues of the Saxon Lutherans by appointing Pietists to the
Lutheran parsonages of the Mark, Frederick I was himself no Pietist ;
and Spener gained no real influence over his Com-t. The King's own
desire was for a union of the two Protestant confessions in his dominions;
and, with the aid of Bishop Daniel Ernst Jablonsky, he moved on more

CB< XXIi

672 Results of the reign. [less-ivia

rapidly in this direction than seemed judicious to Leibniz, whose fears>
were justified by the event.

Thus, on the whole, the reign; of the first Prussian King not
unfitly continues the long period of progress through which his State
had passed before his assumption of a royal Crown. The population
of his dominions, notwithstanding many obstacles, was steadily in-
creasing; the public revenue had all but doubled; the resources of
the territory were being developed ; there was every reason for looking
forward hopefiilly to the future. At a time when Spain was in
collapse, though still capable of periodical ptitriotic efFdrt — ^when
France was brought to the verge of ruin by the sacrifices imposed
upon her by the ambition of her master-rrwhen among the German
electorates Saxony all but exhausted her resources in order to meet
the exactions of the selfish voluptiiary through whose person she was
tied to Poland, and the Palatinate, after having been once more
brought to the verge of material ruin, was terrorised by reli^ous
persecution-^Brandenburg-Prussia, in spite of adverse circumstances^
of defects of administration, and of vast unprofitable expenditure upon
the gewgaws of the Court, steadily processed. There was nothing of
greatness in King Frederick I, or, except in a few leading principles,
in either the home or the foreign policy of his Government. But the
history of his reign illustrates at least one valuable truth : that an
advance in civilisation and refinement is not incompatible with progress
in material prosperity and with the consolidation of those foundations
on which is built up the real strength of a State. Still, these foundations
needed to be yet more firmly laid before a political structure could be
erected upon them that might take its place among the Great Powers
of Europe. The accomplishment of tiiis last preliminary task was
reserved for the reign of Frederick Fs successor.

673

CHAPTER XXII.
THE COLONIES AND INDIA.

(1) THE COLONIES.

Before the middle of the seventeenth century a new stage had been
reached in the spread of European activity into the continents and islands
of the West. The younger maritime Powers had made good their claim
to share in the opportunities which this vast colonial field disclosed.
Breaking in upon the prized monopoly which Spain and Portugal had
won by their earlier enterprise and happy fortune, Dutch, English, and
French had opened the door to a new series of experiments in colony-
planting and colony-government. As they secured their footholds in the
New World and began to mark out the spheres of their ambition, they
created new arenas of contest and developed new rivalries ; so that their
common hostility to Spain gradually lost its former importance, and
ceased to provide the central thread of interest in their doings. The
years that elapsed between the Treaties of Westphalia and Utrecht were
years of the greatest activity, in colonisation ; but they were years of
transition, when old issues and conditions were giving place to new,
and when the field was being prepared for the long struggle between
England and France which the eighteenth century was to witness. None
the less they form a period of a very definite character, and with a
conspicuous place in the history of the New World. For they saw the
foundation and growth of colonies possessing a vitality and strength of
their own — offshoots for the most part of the northern nations of Europe,
springing up in the vacant spaces of the continent, and on the islands
abandoned or lost by Spain. Over the centuries the race was to be
to the settler rather than to the soldier or even to the trader. The com-
petition of colonising genius was to continue the transference of colonial
power which the competition of maritime strength had begun. Hence,
not the least momentous question to which the events of these years gave
an answer was whether the methods of Englishj French, and Dutch — in
founding dependent communities, in fostering commerce, in the exploita-
tion of forest, mine, and field, in the treatment of abdriginal peoples, and
in strengthening the mother country with the resources of new lands-^

0. M. B. V. CH. XXII. 43

674 The progress of Brazil. [isoo-ieso

would be more or less successful than those of their predecessors had
been, or under the stimulus of competition might yet be. In the East,
supremacy was destined to pass to the Power that most surely increased
its prestige amongst the races of Hindustan, and at the same time
secured for itself the masteiy of the sea ; but in the West, to the peoples
who knew best how to turn the resources of a young country to the
service of civilised man, and so to build new societies possessing unity,
and the powers of self-help and growth.

It was for this reason that the Portugu'esej in spite of the decline of
their maritime strength, maintained a high rank as a colonising nation.
In the growing wealth and commercial activity of their settlements in
Brazil they found some compensation for the disasters which had befallen
them in the Eastern Seas. , From unpromising beginnings Brazil was
mounting to a position of considerable importance. The cultivation of
the sugar-cane, introduced by Jewish immigrants, had been attended with
great success, and had become the staple industry of the country. The
dense vegetation and the difficulties in the navigation of nearly all the
streams prevented the colonist from penetrating far inland; but along
the Atlantic shore, within a belt of land some twenty or thirty leagues
wide, a number of settlements had been established, a few towns had been
founded, and the mansions of the planters had steadily multiplied. The
mother country could not supply the emigrants needed to people even
this coast-belt, apart from the vast interior of the continent which she
claimed ; and, what was more, sugarTplanting, though it offered a fairly
extensive field for the employment of capital, made but a small demand
for European labour. Nevertheless, the progress of the colony had been
continuous ; and, at a time when the colonial empire of the Portuguese
seemed likely to succumb beneath the weight of a defective administra-
tion and before the relentless rivalry of the Dutch, it became evident
that in South America the race had planted firm roots. The story of
Brazil shows how a young society, if allowed sufficient free play, may
maintain itself in spite of the enfeeblement of the mother country, and
even replenish the veins of her energy with its own life.

Nothing could have been more gratifying to King John IV than the
part which his Brazilian subjects played in freeing themselves from the
dominion of the Dutch West India Company. Their uprising had
followed closely upon the return of the Dutch Governor, Count Maurice
of Nassau, to Holland in 1644, and soon assumed a formidable character.
Though some of the insurgents were mere desperadoes, they were led by
men of undoubted ability and patriotism, and enjoyed the sympathy of
every section of the community — so strong was the hatred which the
Dutch, as conquerors and as Protestants, had inspired. With the
mulatto, Femandes Vieira, who was the soul of the movement, were
associated the Indian Camarao, Vidal de Negreiros, a white, and the
courageous negi'o Henrique Dias. Had it been possible for King John

1647-61] The expulsion of the Dutch. 675

to have intervened openly on their behalf, the success of the revolt might
have been earlier assured, and years of devastating war spared the country.
But Portugal, too weak to contend with a strong maritime Power for the
recovery of her colonies while waging a war of independence with the
Spanish monarchy, was boimd to wait upon events. Meantime, in the
Treaty of Miinster, in 1648, the United Provinces asserted their colonial
interests with no small success; aiid, among other concessions from Spain,
received permission to f egain, if they could, the ground which they were
losing in Brazil. To Philip IV, intent on the subjugation of Portugal, it
seemed good policy to; let loose the Dutch on her possessions in America
and elsewhere, provided that no injury was inflicted thereby on the
commerce of Spain. But the course of events was slowly demonstrating
that, in the suppression of the Portuguese rising, the Dutch Company was
committed to a larger enterprise than it was capable of carrying through.
From the time when, in 1647, Vieira decoyed a Dutch force into a narrow
pass through the Guararapes hills, and inflicted upon it a severe defeat,
circumstances began to combine irresistibly against the Dutch. In
1649, the Portuguese Crown so far departed from its traditional policy
as to permit the establishment of a Brazil Company on the lines of the
great commercial companies of the day, which enlisted private enterprise
in the struggle for national possessions. When, three years later, the
Dutch were involved in war with the English, the end was near. Vieira
concentrated his efforts on the capture of Reciff — through which the
enemy received reinforcements and supplies — afld, with the assistance of
the new Brazil Company's fleet, reduced it in 1654, thus expelling the
Dutch from their last foothold in Brazil, Yet not until 1661 did the
Dutch resign themselves to their loss. Brazil, with its excellent situation
for the commerce of the world, its convenient havens for recruiting ships
and equipping privateering expeditions, its sugars, the best then produced,
its rare woods, was too dear to the merchant's heart to be surrendered so
long as the least hope of its recovery could be cherished. But, when both
Charles II and Louis XIV, having resolved that the Dutch should not
recover Pemambuco, threatened to intervene if the war were continued,
the States made peace, and recognised the restoration of Portuguese rule
in northern Brazil, in return for a payment of four million cruzados in
money or commodities.

"Hie Dutch had failed, primarily, because they had not mastered the
difficult art of conquest. Factories and forts, and small islands with their
few i^abitants, might easily be passed from nation to nation; but the
problem of subjecting a European community to a foreign rule was of
another character. It needed the imagination, tact, and statesmanship
of Count Maurice of Nassau for its solution. So long as he remained
Governor of the conquered provinces, all seems to have gone well. His
liberal dealing with the Portuguese planters enabled them to turn their
attention to the cultivation of their estates, instead of plotting rebellion.

CH. zxii. 43 — 2

676 The expulsion of the Dutch.- — The Indians, [leso-ins

His noble palace in the midst of spacious gardens "stored with all
kinds of trees, fruits, flowers and greens which either Europe, Africa or
both the Indies could afford " suggested the splendour of a new era of
prosperity dawning on the colony with the advent of Dutch energy.
While he sought to win the loyalty of the Portuguese, and warned the
Company of the instability of a dominion based on force alone, he did
not forget the importance of introducing a Dutch population into the
country. But, on his departiirej the Company returned to their original
idea of the conquest as "a mere commercial speculation." In their
desire for immediate profit they sacrificed their permanent interests.
They weakened their military strength by frugal administration, and at
the same time embittered their subjects by a harsh and oppressive policy.
The result has been already told. Thus was terminated "the most
striking and brilliant chapter in the annals of seventeenth century
colonial enterprise." What was more, with the expulsion of the Dutch
from Brazil, there perished the fairest opportunity that has ever existed
for the planting of a Teutonic community in a continent where the Latin
races have held continuous sway, for bringing Teutonic persistence and
endurance, in close cooperation with Latin versatility, to exploit the
great resources of South America.

From this time for thirty years the growth of the colony proceeded
quietly enough. Such difficulties as the colonists encountered' were
chiefly of internal origin. The prosperity of the northern provinces had
been seriously affected by the long and devastating struggle with the
Dutch, and Bahia began to take tlje lead in agriculture and commerce.
Sugar remained the staple product. Both climate and soil favoured its
cultivation. The many small streams that intersected the coast rendered
important service to the planters, driving their mills and making it easy
to convey the pi"oduce to the sea. Negro labour was obtainable through
the Guinea trade and was in great demand. At each sugar^producing
engeriho, or mill, from fifty to a hundred slaves were required. At first
Indians had been employed, but they were unwilling workers, and before the
middle of the seventeenth century their numbers in thp older captaincies
had been exhausted. Slave-driving expeditions into the interior were
frequently made, especially by the inhabitants of San Paulo, to stock the
slave-markets of the coast ; but the planters were obliged to rely more and
more upon negroes brought from Africa. In defence of the Indians against
their conquerors the Jesuits fought a hard battle. They desired to see the
various tribes settled in orderly communities under ecclesiastical and not
civil control, and to free them from slavery and from indefinite exactions of
work, tantamount to slavery, on the Portuguese plantations. In this
design they had the sympathy of the Crown; but they were contending
against the relentless nature of the Portuguese planter and the hard facts
of the economic situation. It is difficult to say how far the position of
the Indian was imptoved by the continual legislation on his behalf. The

1650-1717] Negroes. — Commerce. — Social conditions. 677

authority of the mother country was not often at this time very strongly
asserted in Brazil, and repeated enactments of laws argue repeated
breaches of them. But the introduction of negroes in increasing numbers
must have relieved the Indians, and in the course of the eighteenth century
their freedom became a reality. Negro labour was not without its
problems. In the cities, and later at the mines, the negroes seem to have
enjoyed much liberty; but that their life on the plantations was not
an easy one may be concluded from the numbers that escaped into the
interior. For more than half a century runaway slaves were permitted to
collect in strength at positions on the San Francisco River, called from
the groves which surrounded, them the Palmairas. Here they organised
a formidable community, which, when it was broken up in 1695, was said
to contain a population of eighty thousand.

Concentration on sugar production naturally affected other industries
and other branches^ of; agriculture. Tobacco-growing proved less profit-
able. The interesting experiments in the culture of spice-plants brought
from the East Indies yielded little result, though for this the distraction
from agricultural pursuits that followed the later gold discoveries was
perhaps largely responsible. The wonderful facilities for horse- and cattle-
rearing which parts of the country possessed were not much developed,
though Nieuhoff spoke of this resource, together with " the great plenty
of fish," as " the two main pillars of the State of Brazil." Large quan-
tities of provisions had always to be imported from Portugal, the Azores,
and the Canary Islands, and the cost of living was in consequence very
high. But under thp liberal commercial policy of the mother country
the trade of the colony continued to flourish. No privileged Company
at this time monopolised and limited it. Vessels sailed from Portugal in
regular squadrons as from Spain ; but they came in larger numbers, and
called not at one or two but at several ports. Wines, some foodstuffs,
and most kinds, of apparel and utensils — for in Brazil there was little
industry save shipbuilding at Bahia — were imported from Europe, and
exchanged against the produce of the plantations, forests, fisheries, and
mines of Brazil, A smaller class of ship traded with Guinea, " making
very good returns." The mercantile spirit affected the whole population.
Neither the clergy nor officials could be restrained from trading ; and the
latter, owing partly to their insufficient salaries, connived freely at the
contraband with foreigo vessels calling at the ports.

..Though most of the noble houses of Portugal were represented in
Brazil, there was no division into classes or castes such as existed in the
Spanish colonies. Custom established firmly the idea of social equality.
" Every barber, shoemaker and tailor struts , with his sword and dagger,
and looks upon himself as equal to any officer in the colony because his
face is of the same complexion." So writes a French traveller in 1717.
Printing was not permitted, and education was under the control of the
Jesuits, whose college at Bahia was said to be "the largest, fairest and

CH. XXII.

678 Political disturbances. — Discovery of gold. [i684-i720

most finished building in the city." The Church was rich and well
organised ; the clergy were exceedingly numerous ; and there were many
convents of the great religious Orders. The administration of justice was
notoriously corrupt, and the authority of the Crown weak and often set
aside. But, though order and security were at times wanting, the freedom
from oppressive regulation which the colony enjoyed had been one of its
principal attractions and had contributed to its progress in varibus ways.

It was partly in consequence of these political conditions that the
peace of the provinces was occasionally broken. The Portuguese system
of colonial government lent itself to oppression and corruption; and the
colonists, possessing no representative institutions, expressed their sense
of grievances in an uprising against the colonial authorities. It was
seldom that they exhibited any disloyalty to the mother country. In
1684 a most serious outbreak — not the first— occurred in Maranhao, a
young border settlement which lived a troubled life. The insurgents
complained of a commercial monopoly in Maranhao and Para which had
been granted to some Lisbon merchants, and of the influence of the
Jesuits, who were endeavouring to protect the Indian population. In this
case the difficulties of the home Government were complicated by the
possibilities of French interference from Cayenne. In Gomes Fre3T:ej
however, whom they despatched to the province, they foiuid an officer of
tact and strength equal to the occasion. He restored the authority of the
Crown, but recommended the abolition of the monopoly and the intro-
duction of negroes to meet the scarcity of labour from which the planta-
tions were sufifering. More injurious to Brazil was the civil War which
distracted Pemambuco in 1710-1, originating in a long-standing rivalry
between Olinda and RecifF. The latter, after several unsuccessful applica-
tions, had at last been promoted to the dignity of a town. Many of
the Pemambucans resented the aggrandisement of Reciff, with its popu-
lation of commercial immigrants, and ruined themselves in an unsuccessful
struggle against the will of the mother country.

In the last years of the seventeenth century the long-hoped-for gold
discoveries were made in San Paulo. It had been perhaps no disad-
vantage to Brazil that for two centuries the inhabitants had remained
undisturbed by mining enterprises, and had concentrated their attention
on the resources offered by its fSrtile soil, thus laying sure the founda-
tions of an agricultural colony. A large influx of population into
San Paulo resulted. Settlers, allured by the gold, pushed theii* way
up to the source of the San Francisco. Mining camps became villages,
and before 1715 several towns were created. In 1710 San Paulo was
organised as a province ; and, in 1720, Minas Geraes, the mining region,
was detached from San Paulo and declared a captaincy. As was to be
expected, a period of great disorder at the mines followed the discoveries.
The mining population was divided into two parties. On the one side, the
Paulistaa, or natives of the province, a strenuous independent race, sprung

1640-1715] Period of the War of the SpanisJi Succession. 679

from Portuguese convicts transported to Brazil, who had intermarried
with the Indians, and whose numbers had been recruited by adventuiers
from all parts of South America ; on the other side, the strangers who had
flocked to the place, and who were collectively known as Forasteiros.
Constant disputes between individuals of the two parties ended at last in
a civil war, 1708-10, and in the improvisation of a Government by the
leader of the Forasteiros, Manoel Nunes Viana. Finally, the Governor of
the Rio, Antonio de Albuquerque, restored order ; and the authority of
the Crown was for the first time enforced in San Paulo,

The gold discoveries, though they did not prove of very great
importance, affected the whole life of the colony. Planters found it
difficult to procure labour for their plantations, and more profitable to
employ their slaves at the mines. The cultivation of sugar, tobacco, and
other agricultural crops sufiered in consequence, and the exports of agri-
cultural produce soon showed a serious falling off. This was of course
much to the advantage of the West India Sugar Islands, whose great age
began now to dawn. To the concern of the Portuguese, the gold which
was conveyed to Europe passed on from Lisbon through the ordinary
channels of commerce to the English and Dutch, who provided the
larger part of the commodities which the colony imported. Moreover,
when treasure fleets began to sail from Rio de Janeiro, pirates began to
infest the coasts continuously. The Portuguese suffered especially during
the War of the Spanish Succession. In 1710 a French expedition
under Du Clerc made an attempt upon Rio. It failed disastrously, but
in the following year a second expedition under the command of Du Guay
Trouin, fitted out as a speculation by a syndicate of private persons,
proved more successful. In the presence of a considerable Portuguese
force the town was pillaged and held to ransom for 600,000 cruzados.
This discreditable incident advertised the weakness of the colony, and it
is not surprising that in 1714 the French prepared to repeat their venture.
But Du CasSard, who commanded the third fleet, was content to molest
some of the smaller sugar islands.

If the. whole period be considered, Brazil was fortunate in its com-
parative immunity from attack, and in the expansion and definition of
its boundaries. In the north, settlement was extended in Maranhao and
Para, and the conquest of Piauhi was undertaken. The apprehen-
sions awakened by the French in this neighbourhood were removed;
for , by the Peace of Utrecht they resigned all claim to the country
between the Amazon and the Wiapoc, and acknowledged the sovereignty
of Portugal over both banks of the great river. Exploring expeditions
in search of trade or slaves penetrated far into the interior, and disturbed
and repelled the Jesuit missions to the Indians, which were advancing in-
land from Quito, and civilising the tribes on the Maranon, the Huallaga,
and the Ucayali. The design which the Spaniards had entertained in 1640
of occupying the valley of the Amazon, and using this great stream as

080 Character of Spanish cohnisatioti. [ie50-i7i5

the means of outlet for the treasure of Peru, instead of the pirate-
infested Caribbean Sea, had never been pursued, and was now completely
frustrated. In the south the Portuguese wished the Rio Plata and the
Rio Uruguay to form their western frontier, and in 1680 they established
Nova Colonia to prevent the Spanish from colonising in the vicinity of
the Uruguay. This post, however, was seized by the Spanish during their
war with the Allies; and, though it was restored to Brazil in 1715, no
settlement of the boundary question could then be reached.

That the colonial power of Spain continued throughout the seven-
teenth century to decline relatively to that of every other great colonis-
ing nation, there can be little doubt — whether the comparison be made
on the basis of the prosperity and strength of the colonial communities
which were being built up; or whether Spain be judged by her own ends,
and the advantages which the colonies yielded to the mother coimtry in
tribute and trading profits, and as a field of employment for a needy
aristocracy, be chiefly considered. The former standard Spain always
and deliberately set aside. To plant active and self-dependent societies
in the lands which she had conquered was an ambition alien to her
genius and her history. In some respects her conception of colonisation
was narrower than that of any other people of her time. All sought to
utilise the resources of the new lands for the upbuilding of their own
strength; but Spain continued to concentrate her attention on, and measure
her success by, the volume of treasure transported to her from the New
World. Learning little and forgetting little, though the art of colonisa-
tion was being rapidly transformed, she pursued throughout these years
her historic course, adding new territory by the sword, exploiting princi-
pally its mineral resources, and seeking to administer it in such a
manner that it would yield an ample revenue to the Crown. Her
maritime power suffered a woeful decline, but she still retained her grip
upon her vast dominions. The buccaneers raided exposed ports and
preyed upon the routes of commerce ; English, French, and Dutch seized
outlying islands in the West Indies, and sometimes spread panic along
the coasts ; but no nation ever gained upon the mainland such a foothold
as the Dutch acquired in northern Brazil. Cromwell conceived a joint
attack by England and Holland on the colonies of Spain and Portugal ;
but his great scheme was never realised, and bore no fruit beyond the
capture of Jamaica in 1655. Fertile fields for the energies of the
younger maritime Powers were opening elsewhere. Colonisation and not
conquest occupied their attention. Hence they ceased to covet the
possession of Spain's immense territory, and, though they still disputed
with her for a shai'e in its commerce, desiring especially the precious
metals of which it enjoyed so bountiful a store, they left her mistress of
the great continental empire she had founded and of the large islands
which lay unpeopled and undeveloped in the Caribbean Sea.

The domestic history of the Spanish colonies in the Viceregal period

1650-1715] Character of Spanish colonisation. 681

was not eventful. Their political and administrative organisation had
been completed in the sixteenth century, and is described elsewhere in
this work. At Lima and Mexico the Viceroys ruled in state, endowed
with absolute authority, though unable always to exercise it in the
remoter parts of their vast dominions. Complaints of their actions
might be presented to the Crown by the audiencias, the supreme judicial
and administrative bodies ; and, as was the case with all other colonial
officials, their conduct was subjected to an enquiry on the conclusion of
their term of office. The powers possessed by the cabildos, or town
councils, and the consulados, or commercial chambers, of Mexico and
Lima, were too slight to enable these bodies to modify the character and
spirit of so carefully organised a system of absolute government. The
life of the country was quiet, even stagnant; it moved in fixed channels,
and lacked the elasticity of development that often marks the first
stages of a young society's progress. The uprisings that distiurbed
the peace of Brazil, the. murmur of political liberty heard in the
EngUsh colonies were unknown in Peru and Mexico; though there
was at times much turbulence in the mining districts, where an idle
population assembled, and where speculators disputed for the possession
of valuable claims. In 1667 the lawlessness of Potosi became a scandal,
and the Count of Lemos, Viceroy at the time, was compelled to repair to
the district, where he restored order with an unusual fierceness. It was
difficult also, owing to the weakness of Spain at sea, to protect the coasts
from the raids of enemies and to prevent contraband trading. But, as
the Spanish population was comparatively small, and the greater part
lived in towns, which were generally well garrisoned, the authority of the
Viceroys over their subjects was maintained unquestioned. Equally
unquestioned was the submission of the colony to the mother coimtry.
This was partly a result of Spanish methods of colonisation and of the
attention lavished on the problem of governing dependencies. W^ithout
faith in her own oiFspring, Spain was more concerned to weaken than to
strengthen her colonies, and precautions were redoubled to ensure their
attachment to the empire. The authority of the Crown, the Church,
and the nobility, the three principal agents in Spanish colonisation,
followed swiftly in the footsteps of the conquering generals; and the
political conditions of the mother country were speedily reproduced in
the colony. A despotic Government, so organised that its different parts
should act as a check upon each other, suspected by the Crown and
suspicious of the Creole, laboured to raise a large revenue for trans-
mission home. A wealthy Church, with numerous clergy and monastic
establishments and magnificent buildings, pressed upon the productive
resources of the country. The tribunal of the Inquisition, enjoying
great power, sat in the capital cities, supervised conduct, and repressed
heresy. A needy nobility shared out large portions of the land in huge
estates. Amongst the people in general, law and custom combined

682 Economic conditions.-The Creoles.-The Indians. [i650-i7i5

to stereotjrpe a caste division, which fixed the social position of a
man and his legal rights according to the shade of colour which his
skin exhibited. The mother country encouraged the antagonism which
thus separated the various classes of her subjects, and felt her authority
the more secure on this account. But it was impossible to build a strong
and progressive community by setting the home-bom white against the
native white, the white against the half-breed, the coloured man against
the white man, the negro against the Indian.

In exploiting their transatlantic possessions the Spanish instinctively
diverted much of their energy to the search for the precious metals. There
were silver mines in Peru,.at Potosi, Gruro, Corocoro , and Castro Vireyna, and
quicksilver mines at Guancavelica. The mineral deposits of Mexico were
richer still and more easily worked. The large mining population offered a
considerable demand for foodstuffs, chiefly wine, flour, and maize, which
were often transported over a great distance, as well as for utensils and
clothing, which were manufactured, to some extent by the Indians, at Lima
and other towns. But from various causes the general resources of the
colonies were ill developed. The huge estates granted out to the nobility
and the Church were an obstacle to the free disposition of land; and this,
together with the abseiice of agricultural immigrants, the distaste fot
agriculture exhibited by the Creole, and the possibility of compelling
the Indians and the numerous slaves to undertake all necessary cultiva-
tion, forbade the extension and prosperity of agricultural settlement.
Moreover difficulties of transport and an unwise commercial policy
limited the market for produce both at home and abroad. From the
generations bom in a country more is usually to be expected than from
the immigrant. But the Spanish Creole was allowed no sufficient scope
for his ability. Civil, military, and high ecclesiastical offices, the best
professional positions, the leading branches of trade and manufactures,
the high posts at the mines, the large plantations, were all monopolised
by the home-bom Spaniard. Partly because of this the Creole became
apathetic. He scorned agriculture and aspired to belong to the lettered
professions, the Law and the Church, to live idly, and to obtain some
title commanding social rank. Hence it came about that so large a
part of a small Spanish population was located in the towns, and
consisted of clergy, officials, soldiers, lawyers, and merchants.

The government of the Indians offered a most difficult problem,
to which a summary in a later volume will recur. Their labour was
of great importance in the economic life of America. Indians were
drafted; into its mines, its industries, and its pearl-fisheries. They
were the principal cultivators of the ' soil, carried out works of
necessity such as road-making and bridge-building, and paid a tribute to
the Crown which formed a considerable item in its income. Ever since
the writings and appeals of Las Casa:s had thrown a lurid light on the
fate of these unfortimate people, the Spanish Government had been

leso-iYis] The Indians. — Commerce. 683

engaged in a long struggle on their behalf against the opinion, interests,
and practices of its other colonial subjects. The Indians at this time
generally lived in villages of their own, were governed by the descendants
of their old lords,, and for their better protection were maintained in a
state of " perpetual minority." But the forced services which they had
to render laid them open to the grossest maltreatment. The report of
the licentiate Padilla in 1657 revealed terrible abuses still existing in
the mining districts of Peru, and led to new ordinances being promul-
gated which the Count of Lemos laboured to enforce. The presence of
Jesuit missionaries, the absence of inines^ the introduction of negroes,
were all circumstances that in diflFerent places contributed to improve
the lot of the Indian, and to enable the will of the Government concern-
ing him to take effect. But wherever economic needs provided the
excuse, the heaviest burdens of all kinds were inflicted upon this most
helpless section of the community. With the tribes in the neighbour-
hood of the Parana, the Jesuits during the seventeenth century carried
out an interesting experiment in the treatment of weaker races and
in state-building. Gathering them in villages and excluding all
Europeans, they organised a socialist community under ecclesiastical
maaagement. They were not less active on the upper waters of the
Amazon, where their explorations added much, and might have added
very much more, to the boundaries of Peru.

The profits which Spain drew from her colonies suffered considerable
diminution during these years. Wars with the Araucanians in Chili,
and with the Indian peoples on the northern boundaries of Mexico, led
to new additions of territory; but, together with the losses from the
raids of the buccaneers and outlays for improving the defences of the
ports and equipping cruisers to protect commerce and prevent smuggling,
they often swallowed up much of the surplus revenue. Even under
normal conditions, some parts of the empire scarcely repaid the cost of
their government. In 1718 a third vice-royalty,- New Granada, was
carved out of northern Peru, in the hope that better administration
would extract a larger income from this part of the continent. But
what was really more unfortunate for Spain was the dwindling away of
her colonial trade. In its broadest features her commercial policy had
not been illiberal towards her colonies. No systematic effort had been
made to shackle their industrial and agricultural progress in favoin: of
producers at home. Skilled artisans were permitted to migrate to
America, and the -province of Quito numbered an industrial element in
its population. If the Spanish colonies were economically backward, it
was their social organisation and the character of their people that
placed the greatest restraints on their productive powers. None the
lessj the manner in which the mother country conducted her commerce
with her dependencies was most injurious both to herself and to them.
The Casa de Contratacion, which administered the economic affairs of

684 Commerce-French colonisation in North America. [1603-1720

America, pushed its regulations into the minutest details. Never
perhaps has a Government lavished so much care only to repress the
energies of its subjects and to ruin their commeree. Moreover, between
1508 and 1720 the trade of the Indies was a monopoly of the merchants
of Seville, and, on the other side of the Atlantic, was controlled by a
few business-houses in Mexico and Lima; both groups of merchants
forming in fact, though not in name, a privileged Company, and con-
sulting their own interests by limiting the exchange of goods in order to
maintain high prices.

For the sake of security all goods were carried across the Atlantic by
annual fleets sailing in two great divisions — the^to, to Vera Cruz, to
supply the wants of New Spain; ih& galleons, to Cartagena and Portobelloj
where was transacted the business of Peru. No large commerce could be
developed under these conditions. The tonnage of the two fleets, never
exceeding 27,500, steadily decreased, and their voyages became more and
more irregular. At the same time, an inviting opportunity was extended
to traders of other nations, which, as Spain lost her power upon the sea, and
Dutch, English, and French strengthened their positions in the West
Indies, was eagerly grasped. Cura9oa, Jamaica, and St Domingo became
centres of a contraband trade which gradually assumed large proportions
and a regular organisation. Hence it came about that, under the pres-
sure of circumstances, Spain was compelled to surrender parts of her
cherished monopoly. During the War of the Succession she opened her
American ports to the French, and by the Treaty of Utrecht she granted
important privileges to the English-^securing to them on the one hand,
the Asiento, or monopoly for thirty years of the slave-trade between her
colonies and Africa, which, since 1696, had been held first by a Portuguese
and then by a French Company ; and, on the other, the right to send one
small vessel to the annual fair at Cartagena. In the struggle to retain
her commerce against the superior activity of the younger maritime Powers
she had failed more decisively than in the struggle to retain her territoryi.

But nothing contributed so much during these years to transform the
aspect of the colonial world, as the great work of colonisation which
the English and French had begun in the northern continent and the
West Indian Islands. On the St Lawrence, the French after a hard
struggle had overcome the initial difficulties of agricultural settlement.
Their progress had at first been halting and slow, and, in 1660, the
colony founded by Champlain at Quebec in 1608 stiU ran risks of starvation
or of extinction at the hands of the Indians. But Louis XIV and Colbert,
by systematic and unremitting attention, rescued the settlers from their
precarious conditions, and to a few fur-trading posts and Jesuit mission
stations added a small community of seigneurs and peasantry. Strange
contrasts presented themselves in the life of the New France which they
created. Constructed on the model of Old France, ruled absolutely and
in petty details by a paternal government) under the control of a not less

leso-ms] English colonisation in North America. 685

exacting ecclesiastical discipline, it remained the nursling of the parent
State ; and yet it included a most lawless element in the coureurs de bois,
who explored, traded, and carried French sovereignty far into the lakes and
streams of the interior, as well as formed a nucleus from which French
ambition and power began to expand across the continent. The mother
country gave freely of her talent to the colony, which seldom wanted for
pioneers, soldiers, or visionaries. Indeed, if imperial thinking would
have sufficed to win an empire, the French in 1715 were on their way to
success in America. But New France suffered from its inability to
attract settlers. The decision to exclude the Huguenots destroyed the
best chance of remedying this radical defect, and thus left it doubtful
whether the French on the St Lawrence possessed or could obtain the
necessary material basis for the realisation of their ambitious dreams —
the great mass of rank and file, peasants, artisans, traders, mechanics, on
whose efforts all solid dominion must ultimately rest.

Along the Atlantic shore, where groups of English settlements were
clustered, the record of progress had been of a different character.
The activity in colonisation which marked the reign of Charles II had
resulted in the foundation of the Carolinas and of Pennsylvania, and in
the conquest, in 1664, of the Dutch colony on the Hudson River. This
last acquisition was of no small importance, as it secured to the English
an uninterrupted control of the coast which they had chosen as the
principal field of their enterprise. The barrier of the Alleghanies
prevented the colonists from penetrating far inland, and narrowed the
space upon which they worked out the origins of their history. Hence,
perhaps, their lack of the imperial imagination of the French leaders at
Quebec, and the concentration of their energies upon internal develop-
ment, social, political, and economic. Located on the margin' of 'the
sea, they were becoming a maritime and commercial people, quick-witted
and practical. Close settlement, the growth of towns and townships,
fostered intercommunication and a progressive civilisation, besides en-
couraging an independent political spirit. Many circumstances con-
tributed to their prosperity. They enjoyed a climate congenial and
familiar, with a reliable rainfall; they possessed abundance of fertile land
with satisfactory land laws ; the resources of their country were very great and
wanted only the strenuous labourer; dense forests provided the matCTials
of a lumbering industry; there were rich fisheries in the adjoining seas;
there were wide opportunities for commerce with each other, the mother
country, and her West Indian dependencies. In addition, the religious
troubles of Charles II's reign, conducing to a flow of emigration from
England, furnished them with many excellent colonists. Hence, though
they suffered, as almost every colony at an early stage of development
suffers, from an inadequate supply of kbour and capital, their progress
was sure and continuous, and proceeded from a secure basis.

The ideas of colony-building which animated the Governments of

686 English colonial policy. [i650-i7i5

France and Spain found little counterpart in English policy. With the
purely internal affairs of her colonies the mother country seldom inter-
fered. She grew more and more determined during this period so to
regulate their commerce and industry as to increase to the greatest
extent possible her own strength and that of her dominions as a whole ;
but, save for this, she made few attempts to fashion their life in a particular
mould. In the matter of colonial government she was not less original;
Instead of following the example of Spain, England embarked on un-
traveUed seas of political experiment; In America and the West Indies
the colonists were permitted to develop their own institutions, and their
political ties With the mother country were exceedingly slight. Hence
the colonists formed townships and town -meetings, instituted juries,
justices of the peace and popular assemblies, enjoyed a free Press, the
Habeas Corpus, and the right of self-taxation ; and they resisted the
interference of Proprietors, Companies and Parliaments, confidently
believing that they: bore with them in their persons to the colonies
the rights and liberties won by their ancestors in many historic
struggles. By the commencement of the Hanoverian period the con-
stitutional development of most of the colonies Was complete. On the
whole they had gravitated to a common type. The normal constitution
consisted of a Governor appointed by the Crown, with an advisory
council and an elective assembly; and the genetal tendency, since the
British Government did little to give its representatives a position of
dignity and strength in their respective colonies, was for the executive to
be weak and the popularly elected body to be strong. The organisation
of government was usually dmple and free, and yet sufficiently complete
to ensure order and security. Political conditions were thus eminently
favourable to economic growth. ■ ■■

On the whole, then, the colonial methods of England were in advance
of those of other nations. She sought treasure by mercantilist rather
than bullionist methods. The strong side of her policy showed itself in
the liberty of action which her colonists enjoyed ; and, if we except those
regulations which closed up for them the avenues of commerce, and which
they could not evade, it was a policy well calculated to ensure their
progress. Its weak side — as seen in. the light of later events — was the
neglect of the problem of attaching the colony to the mother cbuhtry.
A feeling of self-dependence was fostered in the daughter coHimunities,
while their relations to the mother country in some important respects
were left without being exactly determined. At the same time, under
the directing influence of a "national scheme of commercial and in-
dustrial policy," a commercial pact, arranged by the mother coimtry
and frequently producing much irritation in her dependencies, was
gradually elaborated, to form the chief bond between the component
parts of the empire. No doubt, the strength of England in her struggle
with France was by this means increased. No doubt, also, that the

1650-1716] The West Indies. 687

loyalty of the Americiins remained unshaken while they lacked much
sense of unity, and lived in constant need of protection from the
designs of their neighbours, the French. But it seems equally true that
the English exhibited more genius for establishing colonies than for
founding an empire. None the less it was the settlement of this great
coast-belt of North America, more than anything else, which during
these years raised England so high in the rank of colonising nations,
enlarged her commerce, and built up her sea-power.

If, on the mainland, the French, in spite of their wider ambitions,
secured less solid results than the English, they shared the honours more
equally in thei West Indies. Here, tooj the Dutch, in the capacity of
traders rather than of colonists, played a conspicuous part ; and both
Danes and Swedes, attracted by the profits of commerce and piracy,
obtained a foothold. Since most of the small islands had been abandoned
by Spain, and were seldom found to be occupied by hostile tribes of
Indians, while the success of sugar and tobacco cultivation had demon-
strated their great commercial value^ the competition for their possession
between the incoming nations, particularly between the French and
English, was very keen, and the story of its progress is of great importance.
In 1650 the Spaniards still held the inner and greater islands, Cuba, Hispa-
niola, Porto Rico, and Jamaica ; though in Hispaniola French buccaneers
were laying the foundations of the prosperous French colony of St Domingo.
English, French, and Dutch divided amongst themselves the group of
islands afterwards known as the Leeward Islands. The French occupied
Guadeloupe and Santa Cruz, claimed Dominica, and shared St Kitts with
the English and St Martin with the Dutch. The Dutch owned Saba and
Eustatia. Antigua, Nevis, Montserrat^ Anguilla had all been colonised
by the English from St Kitts. To the Windward Islands the French had
already paid considerable attention. They possessed Martinique, claimed
St Vincent, and had attempted to settle Grenada and St Lucia. Near by
was Barbados, the most flourishing of the English colonies, but not, like
St Kitts, the mother of many new settlements. Further to the south
Trinidad was stiU occupied by a few hundred Spanish, and Tobago,
abandoned by the English, was in the hands of the Dutch, Such was the
case also with Cura^oa, Oruba, and Buen Ayre, which lay some distance
to the west, close to the Spanish Main,

The great European Wars waged during the next seventy years were
one and all attended by conflicts in the West Indies ; and yet on the
whole they did not very seriopsly change the positions of the diflferent
Powers in these regions. In 1655 the English captured Jamaica,
and entered the inner ring of the Spanish possessions, whence they
were soon after enabled to secure a foothold on the Belize River and
Campeachy Bay, two districts on either side of the peninsula of Yucatan
famous for log-cutting and contraband trading. The Dutch War of
1664-7 was full of incident in the West Indies, as in many parts of the

oa. xxn.

088 The West Indies and the European Wars. [leso-ivis

world. ! By the Treaty with which it closed the English agreed, amongst
other things, to hand over to the Dutch the colony on the Surinam River,
on which Lord Willoughby, Governor of Barbados,had lavished his private
fortune, and whence he afterwards transferred many of the settlers to
Jamaica. The War, terminated by the Peace of Nymegen, brought
seasons of great anxiety to the English islands. In 1677 Comte
d'Estrees appeared in the Caribbean Sea with twenty splendid vessels,
but after taking Tobago he was lured by the Dutch into a dangerous
channel, where part of his fine squadron perished miserably. A few
years of comparative peace followed. English and French disputed over
the sovereignty of the Windward Islands, and at times talked of arrang-
ing a treaty of neutrality to apply to the West Indies. In 1689 a
powerful French fleet again appeared and inflicted severe losses on both
English and Dutch. During this first war of William Ill's, the English
planned several great expeditions to America, hoping by a successful
offensive stroke to destroy the French sugar-trade and to drive the
French from Martinique, Hispaniola, and Canada. Yet all failed, owing
to quarrels between the services and the gross mismanagement of the
departments at home. In the Peace of Ryswyk Spain recognised the
French occupation of the west of Hispaniola, as, in 1670, she had recog-
nised the English conquest of Jamaica ; and at the Peace of Utrecht the
French surrendered to the English their part of St Kitts. The net
result of these struggles may be summed up thus : the English consoli-
dated their position in the Leeward Islands and almost expelled the
French ; neither English nor French made much progress in the Wind-
ward Islands ; both made one serious inroad into the Spanish possessions;
save that they had abandoned Tobago, which became for a time "a kind
of No Man's-land," the Dutch remained much as they had been in 1650 ;
Spain was induced to recognise some of the losses she had suffered at the
hands of other Powers.

A noble record of progress in colonisation and of commercial develop-
ment supplements this story of military vicissitudes. Neither the Spanish
nor the Dutch concerned themselves much with the settlement of the
islands under their control. The attention of the Spanish was too
deeply engrossed by the mineral resources of Mexico and Peru. As
for the Dutch, they seem never to have intended to colonise the
West Indies — their aim was to establish factories; they therefore
occupied only small islands conveniently situated for purposes of
trade, whence they plied an active business with Caracas and Cumana,
with the great Spanish islands, with English and French in the Lesser
Antilles, in short wherever sure profits were to be made. Similarly
the Danes, who had taken St Thomas in 1671, sought for the most part
only a share in the carrying-trade to and from the plantations. It was
the English and French who planted colonies. In some respects the
French were the more successful, partly because they were more dexterous

1650-1715] Progress of settlement. 689

in conciliating the natives where they were warlike and in handling the
negro, and partly because — so Adam Smith believed — they were less ham-
pered by the commercial regulations of the mother country. But both
nations made considerable progress. Before the end of the century the
French islands began to display signs of their later greatness and wealth.
Their story is told elsewhere in this History and neied not here occupy us
further. Meanwhile, in the English islands the planters were forming
communities which, though they diiFered somewhat in social structure
from those that flourished on the mainland, on account of the important
place which the negro filled in their economic life, nevertheless resembled
them in their self-reliant spirit, their sense of local interests, and their
strong political vitality. They drove a big trade with the mother
country which was much valued by her, as it furnished produce that she
would otherwise have purchased from foreigners. But they complained
continually of the commercial regulations to which they were subjected —
for they desired to trade freely with all nations — of the monopoly granted
to the Royal African Company, of the duty on sugars imported into
England, and very loildly when apprehensive of its increase; and they
declared frequently, and not without truth, that their interests were
subordinated to those of merchants at home.

However real these grievances were, perhaps the worst evils from
which the islands suffered may be attributed to the general insecurity of
their life. From a military point of view many of them were almost
defenceless. In Ihe West Indies, whoever commanded the sea might soon
command the land also ; for in few places could large enough garrisons
be maintained to resist a strong invading force. In addition, there was
a natural insecurity in the liability to devastating hurricanes and earth-
quakes, which might sweep away in a few hours the results of years of
toil. Economic conditions also were in some ways precarious and
unsound. The supply of negroes, on which the prosperity of the planta-
tions came to depend, might be interrupted by war or limited by the
action of a privileged company ; and as the black population everywhere
largely outnumbered the white, few of the colonies lived quite at peace
while haunted by the hideous fear of a slave rebellion. A life full of the
chances of gain or loss, made men restless and in a hurry to get rich ;
but so fertile was the soil of the islands, so genial their climate, so
profitable the opportunities of the sugar-trade, that its xmcertainties did
not seriously affect the' progress of settlement. In the early years of
Charles H's reign the spirit of enterprise amongst the English was still
strong, and they made rapid headway. Amongst their possessions
Barbados, "that rare pearl in the King's Crown," stood out conspicuously;
and already Jamaica was described as "one of the most hopeful of all
the Plantations in the West Indies." The prosperity of Barbados soon
suffered decline; but Jamaica more than fulfilled expectations. Enriched
at first by piracy and contraband trade, it prospered not less when the

0. u. H. V. cii. XXII. 44

690 Government. [i650-i7i5

pirates were suppressed and its inhabitants turned their attention to
agriculture. It resisted with determination and success the attempt
made by the mother country in 1678 to destroy the power of the
Assembly, by applying to the government of the island the principles of
Poynings' law. In 1692 it was visited by earthquake and pestilence and
reduced to " a very mean condition," and in 1694 it was exposed to an
attack by the French from Hispaniola. But, weathering these difficulties,
it continued to make progress, and in 1715 was the most valuable of the
English colonies in the West Indies.

For purposes of administration, Jamaica formed a separate Govern-
ment ; and in 1671 the other islands were divided into two groups, the
Leeward and the Windward Islands, each with a Governor of its own.
In the officers whom the mother country sent out during these years
was exhibited one of the best features of her control. The second Lord
Willoughby in Barbados, Colonel Stapleton, and after him Christopher
Codrington, in the Leeward Islands, are perhaps best remembered
amongst those who, against great odds and with little support from
home, laboured for the defence and upbuilding of a Greater Britain in
these distant seas. The relations of the Governors with the colonial
administrators at home were not always of the best. The man on the
spot wanted his own way and took it iU if his advice were disregarded.
Governor Atkins of Barbados made himself the voice of so many
grievances in the system of colonial government that he was at last
recalled in 1680. The story of his supersession is " only that of the first
of many contests between the local legislature and the English merchants
for supremacy in the administration, wherein the victory, in consequence
of the defection of a part of the Assembly, lay with the merchants." As
a matter of fact, the management of colonial business in England was at
times far from efficient. Before the reign of Charles II information
concerning colonial matters had been collected by special commissions
appointed for the purpose. Charles II established a permanent Council
of Trade and Plantations. It was not a success and was dissolved by
Order in Council of 1675, its place being taken by a Committee of the
Privy Council. For a few years the Committee displayed considerable
activity, but towards the end of the reign its administration was marked
by great procrastination and negligence. That this was due in part to
the indolence of the King may be concluded from the renewed energy
exhibited when James II, who understood colonial affairs, came to the
throne. But there were other and more important causes in the
inadequacy of the organisation for its work and the serious difficulties
which had to be confronted. Of these the problem of imperial defence
was perhaps the most acute. As the number of dependent whites in
the West Indies declined, it became impossible to rely on the mihtia
which they had formed for the defence of the islands ; and hence the
whole burden was gradually being transferred to the mother country.

1650-97] The pirates ofihe Caribbean Sea. — West Africa. 691

Beneath the strain of the greiat War with which the century closed the
Stewart system , of colonial , administration collapsed, and William III
ci'eated a permanent Board of Trade,

Mention has already been made of the pirates whose exploits in the
Caribbiean Sea fill a large space in the early annals of West Indian
history. They contributed in no small degree to break the maritime
power of Spain and to open the doors of the New World to other
nations. But they were the enemies of ordered government and exercised
an injurious influence on the progress of settlement and commerce, for
they seduced rich and poor alike from steady and honest enterprises to
their hazardous and profitable adventures. Between 1660 and 1675 they
were exceedingly active. Jamaica, La Tortue, and the Bahamas were
their headquarters; and English and French Governors gave them letters
of marque against the Spaniard. Though some of their great leaders were
Frenchmen-j-such as Grammont, who took Maracaibo in 1679, Hamelin
who cruised in the Trompeuse between 1681 and 1685, and Ducasse who
sacked Cartagena in 1697 — they were really an international confederacy,
apd numbered many English, Dutch, and Danes in their ranks. (Morgan,
who led them to the attack on Panama in 1671, was a Welshman.) In
time, general interests, demanded their extirpation and the civilised
nations combined against them. The age of the Buccaneers came to an
end with the Peace of Ryswyk.

Closely connected with the West Indies through the slave-trade was
the west coast of Africa. Here the French had occupied the mouth of
the Senegal, the English the mouth of the Gambia, and both English
and Dutch had planted themselves on the Guinea Coast. As the
American plantations developed, the volume of the slave-trade increased,
and to it on the Gambia and the Slave Coast everything else was sub-
ordinated. Other nations also, Swedes, Danes, and Germans, visited
these parts. Before 1670 the Danes had established two stations,
Christiansborg and Frederiksborg, on the Slave Coast ; and late in the
reign of the Great Elector, the Brandenburgers erected a fort, Gross-
friedrichshurg, at Cape Three Points on the Gold Coast ; but, though
they experimented elsewhere and built other forts (one, it is said, as far
noriih as Cape Blanco) neither they nor the Danes played a very great
part in West African commercial history. Here as elsewhere the Dutch,
English, and French were the chief disputants. The Dutch, who had
ousted the Portuguese, claimed the whole trade " as their propriety " by
right of conquest. They were strong, because their forces were con-
centrated in a single Company, the Dutch West India Company, and in
this respect the English were compelled to, follow their example. In
1662 the Company of Royal Adventurers trading to Africa, the third
Guinea Company, was incorporated. Its life was short and painful.
After bearing the brunt of the struggle with the Dutch which prevented
the Guinea trade from falling wholly into their hands, it collapsed, and

cii. xxii, 44 — 2

692 West Africa. — The Slatie-trade. [i650-i7i5

in 1672 handed over its stations to the Royal African Company, which
was financially a stronger association. It was conducted like the East
India Company on a joint stock, and, unlike that Conipany, was regarded
favourably in England, because it carried out English' manufactures and
assisted the plantations. Its sphere of operations extended from near
Tangier to the Cape of Good Hope, but it found its principal
business in the slave-trade, of which it received a monopoly. After the
Revolution its exclusive privileges, which had never received parliamentary
sanction, were disregarded, and it became involveid in a continual
struggle with interlopers, agairist whom it at last appealed to Parliament
for relief. The result was that, in 1698, Parliament threw open the
African trade to all British subjects, though, at the same time, ordering
all merchants who engaged in it to contribute ten per cent, of the value
of their cargoes towai-ds the expenses of the Company's establishments
in Guinea. This assistance proved to be insufficient, and the position
of the Company, once flourishing, began to deteriorate. It could not
face the severe competition as well as bear the burden of maintaining
forts and stations, and in 1712 it was compelled to ask for legislative
aid in effecting an agreement with its creditors.

Like the Dutch, the French appreciated the connexion between the
West Indies and West Africa. In 1664, Colbert handed over the African
trade to the reconstituted West India Coimpariy ; but, when, ten years
later, this body was dissolved, various small companies (engaged in the
trade, while the islands passed under the control of the Crown. West
Africa was one of the few spheres of their colonisation where the French
developed no vast schemes, but persisted steadily in what they had
xmdertaken. Leaving the Guinea Coast to the English and Dutch, they
consolidated their influence on the Senegal. In 1678 Goree, which had
been captured in the previous year, was ceded to them by the Dutch.
During the long wars with which this period closes they made several
attempts to dislodge the English who had been making themselves
masters of the Gambia; but, though Fort James was several times
taken, the Peace of Utrecht left the two nations still side by side.

There is not much in the history of the early relations of the European
peoples with the weaker races whom they found in new lands which
commends itself to the conscience of the modern world. The years
immediately under consideration witnessed the missionary efforts of the
Jesuits and other religious bodies in America and Afi-ica, the measures
of the Spanish Government to protect the indigenous population of
its colonies, and the inspiring example of William Penn. Against
these must be set in all their darkness the annals of Indian slavery in
Peru and Mexico, and the traffic in African negroes. This latter was
introduced into Europe and the New World by the Portuguese ; but it
was the English and Dutch who were responsible for its great develop-
ment. The Dutch, who excelled as carriers upon the seas, quickly

1650-1715] South Africa. — Changes in the colonial world. 693

picked up the evil tradition as they displaced the Portuguese in Africa.
The English began to compete with the Dutch, when they saw the con-
nexion of the trade with the progress of their plantations. Use blunted
the finer instincts which had once been expressed in an abhorrence of
such a business. Negro slavery appeared to provide an easy solution of a
great difficulty, and promised a strong stimulus to the industries of the
West Indies. It created the gravest problems for the colonies into
which it was introduced ; but the planters of the time thought more of
profit than of society building, and concerned themselves very little with
the moral and social troubles they were bequeathing to posterity. In the
last quarter of the seventeenth century the extension of the trade became
a prominent object of British commercial policy. Its volume was very
much increased when the monopoly of the Royal African Company was
taken away ; and with the privileges which the English received under
the Treaty of Utrecht of suppljdng negroes to Spanish America it
entered upon a period of great expansion.

An interesting contrast to the stations on the Guinea Coast, where the
nature of the country and the nature of the trade prevented colonisation,
was provided in the settlement which the Dutch East India Company
was planting at the Cape of Good Hope. Here a mere watering-place
for ships, a fort with its cabbage-garden, was silently growing into a
colony. The years which saw the expulsion of the Dutch from Brazil
and the conquest of the New Netherlands, also witnessed the beginnings
of their occupation of South Africa, where alone they have left a lasting
monument of their national genius for colonisation. In 1652 the Company
decided to establish a port of call at the Cape of Good Hope for vessels
eqgaged in the Eastern trade. Level-headed as ever, they nursed no
extravagant schemes. But, after a time, some of the settlers were per-
mitted to raise cattle and to penetrate a little way inland, in order to find
sheltered spots where grains and vines could be cultivated. In 1682 the
colony numbered 682 Europeans, chiefly "strong, gallant and industrious
bachelors." In 1688-9 its strength was recruited by some French
Huguenot families who sought refuge in South Africa. A healthy
climate, fertile soil, good leadership, and freedom from distracting wars
and rivalries— all favoiu:ed its growth; and at the beginning of the
eighteenth century the farmers, who chafed under the autocratic rule
of the Company, had begun to cross the neighbouring mountains, and
lipes of scattered settlements branched out into the interior.

Such in its brief outline is the story of colonial progress in the West
during these years. New colonies had been planted; new parts of North
and South America explored; new territory had been added by conquest
to the dominions of almost every gi'eat Power. The course of events in
Europe, where the fortunes and ambitions of nations rose and fell, had
reacted upon their position in other continents. Most important of aU
had been the interna^ development of some of the young transatlantic

OH. XZJI,

694 Enghnd's maritime and commercial ascendancy. [i650-i7i5

societies; and it is in their life and progress that we must seek the
principal causes of the transformation which the colonial world had
undergonie since 1650. In North America the activity of French and
English had paved the way for a greiat work of colonisation. South
America remained the preserve of the older maritime Powers, save that
the French and Dutch had planted themselves on the "Wild Coast"
between the Orinoco and the Amazon. The West Indies had passed
through their experimental stage as a field of settlement. They were
no longer merely the vulnerable outworks of the Spanish empire — they
had become a great centre of useful enterprise, where the spirit of the
colonist had triumphed over that of the lawless adventurer. West Africa
had been the scene of many keen contests; yet its history during this
period is but the history of its commerce. To a great extent it had been
sacrificed to America, since there could be no development of the resources
of regions devastated by the slave-hunter. South and east Africa re-
flected the changes in the East rather than in the West. The Portuguese
were losing their hold on east Africa as they gave ground in the East ;
and the Dutch, waxing powerful in the East, had included the Cape
of Good Hope among their acquisitions. Some of the old contentions
had been decided, some of the old rivalries were ended; and, as the scene
shifted, the grouping of the Powers had changed. The combination,
informal but real, of the rest of Europe against the Spanish House
of Habsburg, which was still discernible in 1650, hiad slowly been dissolved
as circumstances changed, and, in the struggle to determine the Spanish
Succession, it liad been replaced by the alliance of France and Spain
against the other maritime peoples, and — particularly in North America,
the West Indies, and the East — by the bitter rivalry between England
and France. In the competition between the English and the Dutch,
so keen in 1650, the English had distanced their opponents. The United
Provinces did not emerge at Utrecht from their struggle with France as
they emerged at Miinster from their struggle with Spain. A heavy
price had been paid for the safety of their frontiers. England, on the
contrary, through all these years had gone steadily ahead. She had
joined in the War of the Spanish Succession because Louis XIV had
become a menace to Europe, and also because she coiild not alloW a
great colonial empire to pass from the weakened hands of Spain into
those of a strong and militant nation like the French. That War lifted
her on to a new plane as a maritime and commercial Power, both by
its exhaustion of her rivals and by the concessions of trading rights
and territory which she secured. The close alliance with Portugal
and its accompanying advantages, the acquisition of stations in the
Mediterranean, the special commercial privileges in South America, the
cessions of territory round Hudson's Bay, the mouth of the St Lawrence,
and in the West Indies, were all a part of her harvest from this pro-
tracted struggle. What was more, she gained thereby the victory in the

166&-72] The Portuguese and the Dutch in India. 695

first stage of her contest with France in America, and with the ruin of
the French navy and the waning fortunes of the Dutch she was left
"the sea Power without any second."

(2) INDIA.

A chapter in a former volume dealt with the history of the
Portuguese, Dutch, and English in India during the earlier half of the
seventeenth century. From the point then reached the narrative is now
resumed. After the severe defeats inflicted upon them by the Dutch in
Ceylon and on the coast of Malabar, in 1650-63, the Portuguese could
no longer be looked upon as serious claimants for the Indian trade. The
first western nation to appear in Hindustan, their incursion represents
the final phase of the medieval struggle between Christendom and Islam
rather than the new age of commerce and discovery. The stately national
epic of the Lttsiad has cast a somewhat misleading glamour over the
crude facts of their eastern history. As the crusading spirit died down,
corruption and incompetency everywhere made their appearance; and
from 1650 their annals form a dreary record of degeneration. The
conquerors were absorbed and degraded by the conquered, for the
Portuguese more than other European nations intermarried with native
races. By the beginning of the eighteenth century, petty disputes
between the Viceroy at Goa and the English Governor of Bombay are
almost the only visible records of the empire founded by Almeida and
Albuquerque.

The rivals of the Portuguese, the Dutch, during the same period not
only consolidated their position in the Spice Archipelago, but for a time,
at any rate, obtained the preponderance on the mainland. Dutch fleets
cruising in the Indian Ocean at this early stage were far larger in point of
numbers than those despatched by England and France during the War
of the Austrian Succession. Ryklof van Goens in his operations against
Portugal in 1661-3 commanded a squadron of twenty-four vessels,
besides a formidable land force. The Portuguese stations in Ceylon
were finally conquered in 1658. The occupation of the Cape of Good
Hope must have seemed likely to turn the line of Dutch expansion still
more sharply inward towards the nearer east. Colonised under Jan van
Riebeck in 1652, it was garrisoned thirteen years later; and by 1672 the
Dutch had come to look upon it as the " frontier fortress of India." In
1664 the roU of their factories on the mainland included nineteen names.
They had established posts in Bengal, Gujerat, Malabar, and on the
coast of Coromandel, To contemporary observers it appeared probable

CB. XXII,

696 The Dutch in India. [i654-i'729

that Holland would combine dominion in the Malayan Archipelago
with supremacy in Hindustan, and so become paramount in the East,
from the Cape of Good Hope to the distant shores of the China Sea.
In 1672 Leibniz, in his curious treatise, the Consilium Aegyptiacum,
anticipating a scheme of Napoleon, urged Louis XIV to win an eastern
empire by occupying Egypt. He assumes as an incontrovertible fact
that no European nation can hope to oust the Dutch by ordinary means;
and the burden of the whole pamphlet is, "HoUandia in Aegypto debel-
lahitur."" But within the next twentjr years the power of the Dutch
had begun sensibly to decline. To this effect many causes contributed,
which have been traced in an earlier chapter. International complications
weakened them at a critical time in their colonial history, and India
has always in a certain sense been lost and won on European battlefields.
They were fighting England in 1652-4, 1665-7, and 1672-4. After that
date they were precluded from following their old aggressive policy on
the Indian seas by the curious fate which made them for reasons of state
policy allies in Europe of their most formidable rivals in the East. The
Dutch were at war with France except for short intervals from 1672 till
171S, and, though they were allied with England during part of that
time, the bulk of the fighting in India fell to their share. They drove
the French admiral, de La Haye, frora Trincomali in 1673, and captured
St Thome by storm two years later. In 1693 they captured Pondicherry
after a twelve days' siege. But the drain on their resources from the
long wars in Europe was tremendous, and signs of exhaustion made their
appearance. It has been proved from records at the Cape that for many
years after 1672 the number of ships sent to the Indies fell off con-
siderably, hardly any sailing with their full complement of men. Much
blood and treasure had been expended in seizing positions which, as the
future proved, were not strategically of the first importance. It had
cost them dearly to wrest Malabar from the Portuguese. As the spice
merchants of the world the Dutch reckoned the pepper-trade of that
district the greatest prize of Indian commerce. But the coimtry was
ruined by the break-up of the Moghul empire and by Maratha misrule;
and before the middle of the eighteenth century almost every European
settlement on the south-eastern coast had fallen into decay. The policy
which was perhaps inevitable for the Dutch as an insular Power militated
against their prospects of success on the broader arena of the mainland.
In the Spice Archipelago they were engaged in constant wars and
expeditions. The exigencies of their position obliged them to crush
all opposition with a heavy hand. Too, often they succeeded to Portu-
guese methods as well as to Portuguese territory. Such terrible reprisals
as were practised after the Chinese rising at Formosa in 1652, the revolt
in the Moluccas in 1672, and Governor Yuyst's attempt to make himself
absolute in Ceylon in 1729, cast a malignant light on Dutch colonial
policy. Of the four western nations that successively appeared in India,

1686-1759] TTie Dutch in India. 697

it is noticeable that the final struggle lay between the two which used
the more humane and sympathetic methods in their dealings with eastern
peoples.

The petty militarism of the Dutch settlements was a weapon of
doubtful efficacy in the hands of a trading body. The English
Company in 1686 averred that the Dutch possessed 170 fortified places
in the East, and could drive the English out of all India in one year ;
but they added that most of the forts were poorly manned and that, if
it came to a preda,tory war, "they are a broader mark to hit than
we are." The tradition of Dutch supremacy lingered long into the
eighteenth century. In 1718 the English Company declared that the
strength of the Dutch was greatly superior to their own and that of all
other European nations joined together, "and nothing but the Powers
in Europe make them afraid to prove it against any or all of their
competitors in the trade of India." But this was to misread strangely
the signs of the times. By stress of circumstances the two nations had
been compelled to respect each other's sphere of influence. The hold of
the Dutch upon the coast of India was gradually weakened ; £uid they
drew away more and more to the south-east where, after the fall of the
English factory at Bantam in 1683, their supremacy was unchallenged.
On the Coromandel coast the desolating war waged between Aurangzeb
and the King of Golconda, in 1687, proved ruinous to their settlements,
whereas the English were comparatively immune behind the walls of
Fort St George. From Surat they were temporarily driven in the early
years of the eighteenth century. In Bengal they suffered fat more than
their rivals from the welter of anarchy that ensued on the interregnum
at Delhi in 1712-3. Though the death-blow to their hopes in India
was not given till the capitulation of Chinsura to Clive in 1759, the very
fact of their taking no part in the dynastic struggles which after 1748
threw southern India open to Europeans was a proof, if any had been
needed, that the time of their great opportunity had gone by for ever.

We must now return to the position of the English Company in
1650. Involved at home in the cataclysm of the Civil War and harassed
in India by interloping associations, they had almost given up the
struggle in despair. But with the return to settled government there
came an improvement in their prospects. They shared in the benefits
of Cromwell's foreign policy and obtained from him a new charter,
which a few years later they were eager to shuffle out of sight.
The Protector extorted from Portugal a formal acknowledgment of
England's right to trade in the East, and obliged Holland to pay a
belated indemnity for the "massacre of Amboina." But the real pros-
perity of the Company dates from the Restoration. They became the
willing creditors of the King and enjoyed his high favour, for Charles
found in the Indian interest the only , whole-hearted support for his
championship of the French cause against the Dutch, His charter of

CB. XXII.

698 The English in India. [1633-90

1661 granted the Company the right of coining money, commanding
garrisons in the East, and exercising jurisdiction over the poptdations,
native or British, gathered within the walls of their settlements. The
foundation of Fort St George has been mentioned in a former volume.
Bombay, which formed part of the dowry that Catharine of Braganza
brought to the King in 1662, was made over to the Company in 1668,
and their position on the west coast of India was greatly streilgthened,
for Surat was destined to lose its commercial and strategic importance.
The first Ucense for trade in Bengal had been received in 1633 ; and in
1651 a factory was established at Hooghley. Thereafter the factories in
Bengal, though as yet subordinate to the Presidency of Fort St George,
drove a thriving and increasing trade. A succession of able men, Gerald
Aimgier, Sir George Oxenden, and Sir Streynsham Master, presided over
the growing settlements. Under these favourable circumstances the
Company prospered greatly; and the value of their stock rose to an
unprecedented height, being sold in 1683 at a profit of from .£'360 to
.£•500 per cent. From that date, however, the Company's path was
beset with difficulties. Keigwin's insurrection at Bombay, and the mutiny
at St Helena in the following year, brought discredit upon them in
England and serious loss in India. A still more sinister symptom was
the appearance of disruptive tendencies in the outlying provinces of
Aurangzeb's vast empire. The Marathas had long freed themselves from
the control of the Moghul. Sivaji was with great difficulty repulsed
from Surat in 1664 ; and ten years later, by their first treaty with
the Maratha Confederacy, the English were driven to recognise' the
belligerent rights of a Power nominally in rebellion against the supreme
Government. After 1683 Bombay was continually exposed to predatory
raids ; Madras was menaced by the desultory fighting in southern India,
where the Emperor was waging war with the kingdoms of Golconda and
Bijapur ; but the worst effects were felt in Bengal, where the defenceless
English factories were oppressed by a semi-independent viceroy.

At this crisis in the Company's history a masterful personality
dominated their counsels. Sir Josia Child was for many years almost
supreme in Leadenhall Street; and his brother Sir John, Governor of
Bombay from 1682 to 1690, ably represented him in India.^ The
policy of the Court of Committees had hitherto been founded on
the dictum of Sir Thomas Roe, " it is an error to affect garrisons and
land wars in India." Their instinct was to confine their energies to
commerce, avoiding so far as possible political entanglements and terri-
torial responsibilities. Inevitably they sometimes failed to see where a
policy, prudent in itself, required modification. All the capitals of
British India were founded in opposition to their will. The name of
Francis Day was entered in the Company's Black Book for building
Fort St George. Bombay was reluctantly taken over from the King's
control; and expenditiu:e on its fortifications formed the subject of bitter

1685-90] War with the Moghul Empire. 699

animadversions from home. Even after the change of policy, the estab-
lishment of Calcutta was only sanctioned " because we cannot now help
it." In 1685, by stress of circumstances, and under the leadership of
the Childs, the Company were driven for a time from their traditional
attitude. They began to covet revenues and rents as well as trade
profits, and to express a new-bom admiration for the policy of the
"wise " Dutch. In 1686 they steeled themselves to the point of declaring
open war on the Moghul empire, and in words that seem almost to bear
the stamp of prophecy they proclaimed their intention of laying the
foundations of a " large, well-grounded, sure English dominion in India
for all time to come." A fleet of ten sail with troops on board was
despatched from England ; but the expedition hopelessly miscarried. It
was badly officered and hampered by instructions framed in grotesque
ignorance of the political and geographical situation in India. The
only results were the ruin of Job Charnock's early attempts to settle
at Calcutta, the complete defeat of the English in Bengal, and their
panic-stricken flight by sea to Madras. On the whole, however, the
consequences were less serious than might have been expectied. Harassed
by his endless campaign in the Deccan, and anxious that the pilgrim route
to Mecca should not be disturbed by the English fleet (for the sea-board
was the vulnerable part of the Moghul empire), Aurangzeb chose to
regard the war as a mere local disturbance in an outlying province of
his dominions. When the Company's servants tendered their submission
he granted them peace on humiliating terms, which stipulated for the
payment of a fine and the expulsion of Sir John Child. The latter con-
dition proved unnecessary; for the Governor of Bombay, worn out with
his troubles, died a few days before the Imperial Order was issued. The
English were granted leave to return to Bengal ; and in 1690 Chamock
permanently established at Calcutta the factory which was destined to
grow into the capital of British India.

But the discreditable Peace was too good a handle against the
Company to escape the notice of their numerous enemies at home.
The period of prosperity after 1660 had raised up bitter rivals to their
pretensions. Interlopers had for some time been active in India; and
the drastic policy pursued by the Childs against all who invaded their
employers' privileges ai'oused a fierce resentment. The most famous of
the unauthorised traders was Thomas Pitt, the grandfather of Chatham,
who having amassed an immense fortune by openly defying the Company,
purchased on his return to England a great landed estate together with
the pocket-borough of Old Sarum. A strong popular feeling was
growing up that more Englishmen should be admitted to a share in the
profits of the Indian trade — a feeling which took the form of an attack
on the joint-stock principle and a demand for a company on a "regulated"
basis in which subscribers would have the right to trade on their own
capital. In deference to the prevailing sentiment, an attempt had even

700 The New East India Company. [lesi-os

been made by Thomas Papillon in 1681 to widen the scope of the
Company from within; but his efforts came to nothing through the
strenuous opposition of Sir JTosia Child, The result was the formation
of an antagonistic body, meeting at Skinners' Hall in Dowgate Street,
which allied itsdf closely with the growing Whig party of William's
reign, and looked to Parliament rather than the Crown for support. In
1693, by corruption organised on a gigantic scale. Sir Josia Child pro-
cured a new royal charter; but he failed to restrain the Commons
from accepting the doctrine of the Company's enenaies and carrying a
resolution that only by Act of Parliament could any English subject
be debarred from the trade with India. This was not only a rebuff to
Child, but by implication an attack on the royal prerogative from which
the Company derived all its privileges. A parliamentary enquiry in
1695 into the recent bribery and corruption further discredited their
cause ; though the chief agent in the transaction had been far too astute
to commit himself personally and evaded all penalties.

The Dowgate association won their first victory owing to the needs
of Charles Montagu, Chancellor of the Exchequer. On providing him
with a loan oi £%OQOJdOQ, ^ey were in 1698 , constituted by Act of
Parliament a General Society with exclusive rights td the trade with
India, saving the privileges of the Old Company, which were to expire
after the three years' notice stipulated for in their charter. Lip-service
having been done to the JRegulated theory by the constitution of the
"General" Society, the great majority of the subscribers at once formed
themselves into a joint-stock under the title of the "English," as
distinct from the Old or "London," Company. By the clever diplomatic
move of subscribing largely in the name of thdr Treas\u:6r to the funds
of the General Society its members acquired the right to trade even after
the three years to the amount of their subscription. Then ensued a
desperate struggle between the two associations, which extended from the
floor of the House of Commons, the polling-booth and the hustings, to
the distant arena of the Indian littoral. In the Presidencies of Bengal,
Bombay and Madras a threefold duel was fought out with bitter animosity,
to the scandal of the English name. The victory, which was at best a
Pyrrhic one, lay on the whole with the party already in possession ; for,
though at Bombay Sir Nicholas Waite ruined Sir John Gayer, the Old
Company's Governor, by embroiling him with the native Powera, he did
little thereby to further his own cause; and in the other Presidencies the
issue went against the new-comers. Sir Edward Littleton in Bengal was
worsted by John Beard, while Thomas Pitt, the converted Interloper,
who had made his peace with the Old Company and was now their re-
presentative at Fort St George, made short work of his rival and relative
John Pitt. To the vigorous; initiative of the masterful President of
Madras and his shrewd conduct of affairs the failure of the New Company
was largely due. Their representatives were decked with baronetcies and

1702-1 7] Union of New and Old Companies. 701

knighthobds and entrusted with powers grandiloquently described, by
one of those who possessed them, as "Consular and Ministerial dignity
and authority, constituted by His Majesty upon a Parliamentary and
National establishment." Pretentious titles of this kind were but
meaningless sounds in the ears of Moghul officials and aroused a con-
temptuous resentment amongst the Old Company's servants. The attempt
to maintain a resident ambassador at the Imperial Court proved a dismal
failure. Sir William Norris, a former member of Parlianient, was sent
out from England, and after many difficulties and hindrances succeeded
in reaching the camp of Aurangzeb. His mission was ruined by the
precipitate action of Sir Nicholas Waite, who had without authority
pledged the Company to undertake the defence of the whole Moghiil
empire by sea — a task that was utterly beyond their power. Embittered
by failure, the unfortunate ambassador returned to carry on an undignified
squabble with Waite and to die on the voyage home.

The comparative success of the Old Company in India was however
neutralised in England, where the issue had for the most part gone
against them. Warned by significant hints from the King, they con-
cluded a temporary Union in 1702, which was made absolute by
Parliament in 1708, with the proviso that all matters still in dispute
should be settled by the arbitration of the Earl of Godolphin. The
privileges of the reconstituted Company were prolonged to March 25,
1726, after which date they could be terminated at three years' notice.
The Company provided the Exchequer with a further sum of =&1 ,200,000,
the total of their loan to the State now amounting to j&3,200,000. In
the settlement both associations were called upon to make concessions ;
for, if the Old had to submit to a widening of the basis of the monopoly,
the New saw the last vestiges of the General or Regulated Society swept
away in the charter of the United Company.

After 1708 the English in India entered upon a period of steady
and quiet prosperity. The great chartered Company — that unique
instrument by which national resources and national energy were
focused upon a continent thousands of miles over sea — had, after many
experiments, foimd its appropriate niche in the fabric of British polity.
An attempt had been ma:de by the New Company, as we have seen, to
emphasise the political aspect of their position in the East; but the
Directors of the United Company wisely retinmed to the older tradition.
They sent out plain men of business to preside over their settlements,
and they made the increase of their trade their first concern, though, as
the words of their opening despatch testify, they were not without pre-
monitions of a higher destiny. " It is a duty incumbent upon us," they
wrote, " to England and our posterity to propagate the future interest
of our nation in India." Indeed the factory period was now finally
closed. The Firman which was secured by the embassy to Delhi led by
Silrman in 1716-7 conferred upon the Company not only trade rights

702 The, French in India, [i607-64.

but certain definite territorial concessions. It was the most complete
and formal recognition yet made by the supreme Power in India of the
status of a western invader. As Burke said, the East India Company
then became an integral part of the Moghul empire. Unfortunately, the
recognition came just before that empire subsided into impotence; and
experience was to prove that grants of this nature often meant no more
than permission for the Company to wrest the ceded territory, if they
could, from the hands of the Emperor's enemies.

Of the European nations that were serious competitors for supremacy
in India, France was the last to enter the arena of conflict. Henry lY,
about the time when the English and Dutch were making their first
voyages, tried to foster companies for eastern exploration ; but France
was too exhausted by the long agony of the Wars of Religion to
respond with any eifect to his appeals. The records of diplomacy,
preserve the tradition of one curious attempt on his part to attain his
end by political means. In 1607 negotiations for a peace were pending
between Spain and the United Netherlands. Henry, though traditionally
the ally of Holland, instructed his envoy Jeannin not only to support
the Spanish demand that the Dutch should renounce the Indiaji trade,
but even to carry on a secret intrigue with Isaac Le Maire, a merchant of
Amsterdam. He hoped to transplant the great Dutch East India
Company to his own kingdom " sous le nom et accueil de la banni^re de
France." But his disingenuous attempt to fish in troubled waters was
defeated by the diplomatic skill of Oldenbameveldt. Cardinal Richelieu
did much to encourage schemes of colonial exploration; but the necessity
of consolidating his position against internal enemies left him time
before his death only to found the company which, under the leadership
of Pronis and Flacourt, colonised Mad.agascar. The first French Company
that traded with India proper was not founded till 1664. The circum-
stances of its inception contrast curiously with those that attended the
birth of the English Company. While in England the merchants wrested
their privileges step by step from the Crown, in France the monarch
spurred on an unwilling people. The Company was started under the
direct superintendence of Colbert, and received all that was possible in
the way of royal patronage and state support. The King, the Court
and the noblesse provided by far the greater part of the capital of
15,000,000 lityres. Louis commended the interests of the Company to
the mayors and provosts of provincial towns by 119 lettres de cachet.
The elaborate organisation pf the Directorate of the Company, which
involved a sort of commercial federation of the provincial towns with
Paris at their head, shows the determination of the King to make the
trade a great national undertaking, and testifies to a certain breadth of
conception which, in spite of his limitations, was characteristic of all the
actions of the Roi Soleil. But official patronage of this kind, however
enhghtened, is a serious incubus on a trading corporation. The ti-ail of

1665-1706] French settlements in India. 703

royal interference is over all the Company's early history. It is typified
in their pledge of faith and homage to the King, their engagement to
present a crown and sceptre at the beginning of each new reign, and the
royal command that the Company should strive, not only for the ad-
vancement of commerce, but also for the grandeur of the French name
and the propagation of the Christian faith. The fatal flaw, inherent
from the first, was that the Company was suspect in the eyes of the
mercantile community. In spite of royal pressure, their contributions
were but a fraction of those provided by the bureaucracy and the
noblesse. Merchants were not forthcoming to serve on the boards of
direction ; and in a very few years the Crown found it necessary to
nominate the Directors ; and the Company became almost a subordinate
department of State. While the English factories only gradually and
against the will of the Company grew into settlements, the IVench
consciously aimed at colonisation. All the first fleets that left the ports
of Prance carried out emigrants. The English pioneers as a rule were
rough sea-captains and traders. The French sent put men of gentle
birth. Souchu de Rennefort, de Beausse and de Montauban, who sailed
for Madagascar in 1665, were men of rank. Mondevergue, who went out
in 1666, was a Marquis ; de La Haye who commanded the fleet of 1670
had been a distinguished officer in the French army.

The first expeditions of the Company were frittered away in the
attempt to revive the colonising projects of Richelieu in Madagascar^
an island that has always possessed a peculiar fascination for the French.
In 1668 Cai-on, a renegade Dutchman, founded a factory in Surat ; and
another was established at Masulipatam in 1669. But in 1672 Louis
allied himself with England against Holland, and thus gave the French in
India a formidable enemy and only a very lukewarm ally. The defeats
inflicted upon them by the Dutch in 1672 have been already chronicled.
Though the French Company thus received a severe check at the outset
of its career, Fran9ois Martin laid the foundations of Pondicherry in
1674; and two years later a factory was established at Chanderna-
gore in Bengal, Captured by the Dutch in 1693, Pondicherry was
restored to France with greatly strengthened fortifications in 1697 by
the Peace of Ryswyk, and under the fostering care of its founder who
lived tiiri706 rapidly grew into a floiuishing town. Martin however
appears to have received little support from home ; all the resources of
iVance were being exhausted in the War of the Spanish Succession ; and
India was forgotten at Versailles. The royal patronage having been
withdrawn, the Company languished, for there was no vigorous com-
mercial interest in reserve to take up the burden that slipped from the
wearied shoulders of the King.

Before summing up the position of European nations in India in the
early years of the eighteenth century, it may be well for the sake of
completeness to refer to the episode of the Ostend Company, though it

TOi The Ostend Company. [i7i4r-3i

partly falls outside our present period. This association had a strongly
marked cosmopolitan aspect. It was the resultant of three forces.
There was first the earnest desire of the Austrian Netherlands^ now
recovering from the War of the Spanish Sucdession, to regain their old
participation in the Indian trade, which dated back to a time prior to
the discovery of the Cape route. To this must be added the Emperor
Charles VI's dream of an Imperial sea-power, based not only on the ports
of the Low Countries but on those of the Adriatic, to counterbalance the
maritime supremacy of the Protestant nations. In the third place the
Association, being worked mainly by the aid of reli'egade English and
Dutch factors, represented to some extent the old opposition to the sole-
market theory of the Indian trade, which, having been defeated at home
both in England and Holland^ transferred itself over the frontier to
organise one more assault on the great monopolist' ' companies. The
association was not formally chartered till 172S, though commissions for
single voyagiss were granted so early as 1714; The letters of the English
Coiatipany for many years breathe stern denunciations against all who
should enter into relations with the "Interlopers." The existence of the
Ostend Company gave rise to the thorniest of diplomatic qiiestions ; and
England and Holland united in strong representations against its con-
tinuance. In the end the Emperor sacrificed the Company to his desire
to see the Pragmatic Sanction ratified. It was suspended in 1727 and
suppressed in 1731, after which date its two factories in Bengal and
Madras fell into decay.

'. Save for this interlude, it was by 1720 already predetermined that
the future struggle for preeminence in India lay between the English and
the French, France, in Charles Davenant's striking words, had long stood
by, "subtle, insinuating and liberal, ready either to court or to force a
favour " ; but as yet she was no match for her great rival, whose history
in the East had been altogether longer and more continuous. With all
its vicissitudes the English Company had never since 1657 sunk to the
position of the French in 17,00-20. It had at least paid its way and
been self-righting even in the disastrous days of internecine strife; it had
enjoyed long epochs of undoubted prosperity. On the other hand the
French Company had to make many fresh starts ; its cycles of disaster
were dismally long, its periods of good fortune, spasmodic, fitful and
brief. Over and over again in its annals, we find the curt announcement
that for such and such a year no vessels returned from India. In truth the
Company since its foundation had never stood on a sound financial basis.
Subscriptions to the original capital were not fully paid up, in spite of
royal proclamations and upbraidings. In the reign of Charles II, when
the English were enjoying unprecedented success and driving roots into
the soil that were destined to endure, the French had not emerged from
the day of small things. Again, after 1708, when their rivals were
striding forward under the impetus of the new unity at home, the

1719-44] Angh-French rivalry in India. 705

French Company eked out a precarious existence by subletting its
privileges to some merchants of St Malo. In 1719-20 they were en-
tangled in the grandiose schemes of the financier Law ; the Company
was reconstituted ; and it was not till some years after that date that
an improvement in their fortunes took place. Prom 1657, on the other
hand, there had been no breach in the continuity of the English trade.
Every year a great fleet of fifteen or twenty East Indiamen made their
way to Indian ports. Far from being dependent on state subsidies,
the Company had taken the Exchequer heavily into its debt. There is,
in fact, at this period no comparison between the two Companies; the
one gives an impression of solidarity, prosperity and power, the other of
debility, bankruptcy, and decay.

The importance of the longer English tradition in the East has often
been unduly underrated. Historians are perhaps too prone to concen-
trate attention on the acquisition of territory in Hindustan, too apt to
look upon the Indian Empire as the work of highly gifted men, hampered
and shackled by a carping body of unimaginative traders. That con-
ception embodies a phase of the truth; but it can easily be over-
stated. The real base of operations was in England. Especially is this
true of the time prior to our acquisition of the Gangetic province of
Bengal. The strength or weakness of the Company is not solely to be
measured by the roU of the garrisons in the Indian settlements or the
thickness of the curtains and bastions that encircled their forts. It
depends rather on the latent resources and political influence of the great
corporation of Leadenhall Street, the volume of its steadily increasing
trade, and the unbroken means of communication between East and West
formed by the fleets that annually sailed from British ports. The causes
that determined the issue of the conflict between England and France
will be dealt with in a later volume. But an adequate appreciation of
the difierehce between the resources of the two Companies during the
seventeenth century, while it sets in high relief the brilliance of the
French attack upon the British position after 1744, will also go some
way to explain why that efibrt was not more prolonged and more success-
ful. Burke declared that the constitution of the Company began in
commerce and ended in Empire ; and the aphorism rightly understood
involves a propter as well as a post hoc. The more closely the history
of the English East India Company is investigated, the more certain
becomes the conviction that only because it was built up upon a broad
basis of mercantile integrity, did it attain even higher powers, grow till
it compelled the State to take it into partnership, and, in spite of many
shortcomings and some deep stains, fulfil a unique and splendid function
in British history.

C. M. H. V. CH. XXII, 45

roe

CHAPTER XXIII.

EtTROPEAN SCIENCE IN THE SEVENTEENTH AND
EARLIER YEARS OF THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURIES.

(1) MATHEMATICAL AND PHYSICAL SCIENCE.

The seventeenth century is notable in the history of science for the
development of those ideas which distinguish its modem treatment from
that customary in the ancient and medieval world, and for the recognition
of the principle that scientific theories must rest on the result of observa-
tions and experiments.

The influence of the Renaissance was felt in arts and letters a
generation or more before it affected men of science ; but towards the
end of the sixteenth century mathematicians began to open up hew
fields of study, and a few years later the ideas current in Mechanics and
Physics were subjected to the test of experiment. These researches
were undertaken independently in different parts of western Europe;
and the printing-press, the general use of one language (Latin), and
increasing facilities for travel, rendered the dissemination of new ideas
comparatively easy . For the first time in the history of science, British
writers took a prominent part in its development.

In the early years of the seventeenth centm-y the views of astronomers
were recast ; the principles of Dynamics were laid down ; a science of
Physics was initiated; and, lastly, new branches of Mathematics were
created and applied to these and other subjects. Before the close of the
period treated in this volume the language of Mathematics had been
settled ; the use of Analytical Geometry and the Infinitesimal Calculus
had become familiar; the theory of Mechanics had been elaborated,
and it had been shown that the planetary motions could be explained
by the same laws as those affecting terrestrial bodies ; a large part of
the theory of fluids had been established ; the geometrical and physical
theories of Light had been worked out in considerable detail; something
had been done towards creating a theory of Acoustics ; and the Amda-
mental problems of vibratory motion were being attacked.

Science in the sixteenth century. 70T'

We shall best be able to estimate the progress of mathematical arid
physical science during the seventeenth century, if we begin by noting
the extent of the knowledge ciurent about 1575 or 1580.

Turning first to the subject of Pure Mathematics, we may say that in
Greometry the results attained by Euclid were then generally accessible,
and the more elementaiy properties of Conic Sections were known; but
the standard of knowledge was considerably below that of . the Greeks.
In Arithmetic the fundamental processes and the use of the Arabic
symbols were well established, though the . methods employed were
cumbrous. Algebra was syncopated; — that is, abbreviations were used for
those operations and quantities which constantly recur, but such abbre-
viations were subject to the rules of grammatical construction. Lastly^
the more elementary propositions in Trigonometry were known. This,
knowledge would seem to be but a scanty equipment for the attack of
new problems; but in questions of Pure Mathematics it was .used with
more effect than could have been anticipated or than was supposed a few
years ago. As to applied science, however, an astonishing ignorance
still prevailed.

Of the several branches of applied science, the mechanics of rigid
bodies is the oldest. The science of Statics, so far as it related to
parallel forces, had been placed on a satisfactory basis by Archimedes,
who rested it on the axiom that two equal weights suspended from a
rigid weightless bar at equal distances from a fulcrum on which the bar
rested would be, in equilibrium. But the q;Uestion of the resultant of
forces, acting on a particle, had not been included in his discussions^ and
was still an unknown branch of the subject, with the exception of the
result of the parallelogram theory for the particular case of two forces,
at right angles to each other acting on a particle. Dynamics as a
science did not exist. It was indeed asserted on the authority of Aristotle,
that the rate at which bodies fell varied directly as their weightsr— a,
statement which could have been easily disproved, had it been subjected
to the test of experience ; but no theory of the subject had been pro-
pounded even on this false, premiss.

In Astronomy, the authority of Ptolemy was, about 1580, almost as
well established as that of Aristotle in science, though here, at any rate,
observations of the stars were available, due partly to the general interest
in Astrology. According to the Ptolemaic theory the Earth was at the
centre of the universe, and around it revolved in successive order the
Moon, Mercury, Venus, the Sun, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, and the fixed
stars. These bodies were supposed to move uniformly along the circum-
ferences of circles (epicycles) whose centres revolved uniformly along the
circumferences of other circles — the centres of the last-mentioned circles
(eccentrics) being at points near, but not coinciding with, the centre of
the earth.

As time went on, and more accurate obseirvations were accessible,

OH. xxm. ^^ — 2

708 Science in the sixteenth century.

additional epicycles had to be introduced to bring the theory into
accordance with the facts, and it became increasingly complicated. In
so far as Ptolemy and his followers supposed it necessary to resolve every
celestial motion into a series of uniform fcircular motions, they erred
greatly ; but, if their hypothesis be regarded as a convenient way of
eixpressing known facts, it was not only legitimate but convenient. The
geocentric theory was generally aiccepted, but never received universal
assent. The merit of finally overthrowing it must be largely attributed
to Copernicus (1473-1543). He showed that the observed phenomena
could be explained more simply on the hypothesis that the sun was at
the centre of the universe, and that the earth and other planets moved
round it ; but he offered no proof that these views were correct, and his
explanations suffered from the fact that he supposed the heavenly bodies
to move uniformly in circles. It was not until Kepler and Galileo took
up the subject that the majority of scientific men abandoned the Ptolemaic
theory.

The only other subjects to which Mathematics had been applied and
which need be here mentioned are Optics and Hydrostatics. In Optics
the law of reflexion was known, and solutions of some of the more
elementary geometrical problems connected with rays reflected at spherical
surfaces were familiar through the writings of the Greeks and Arabs. In
Hydrostatics the theory of floating bodies had been given by Archimedes,
and probably his results were accessible to students. Of other branches
of Physics, such as Sound and Electricity, we may say that the little that
was known is not worth describing ; in these subjects the authority of
Aristotle was unquestioned. Lastly, such knowledge of Chemistry as
existed was mixed up with Alchemy, and was practically worthless.

This rapid summary wiU bring out more clearly than any general
statement the fact th^t the origin of physical science and modem
Mathematics cannot be assigned to a date earlier than the close of the
sixteenth century. Into a world whose knowledge was so slight and
limited a ferment of new ideas was then introduced, and within a few
years the position of the subjects was revolutionised, and the number of
thinkers interested in them was greatly increased.

It wiU be most convenient to review the subjects considered in the
present section science by science— and, first, to trace their development
very briefly to the middle of the seventeenth century, and, then, to take
up again tiie history of each science to the end of the first quarter of the
eighteenth centuty, which marks the close itf the period treated in this
volume. We begin as before with the subjects of Pure Mathematics.

The power of Arithmetic in dealing with numerical calculations
involving multiplication or division was gi-eatly increased by the in-
vention of logarithms. Their discovery was due to Napier of Merchistoun
(1650-1617), who published his results in 1614, tho'ugh he had privately

Introduction of logarithms and decimals. 709

communicated a summary of them to Tycho Brahe so early as 1594.
The principle depends on the construction of tables of the powers of
some number (the base), such as will enable us to determine from the
result the power to which the base was raised. Using such a table and
the law of indices, we can by addition obtain the result of the multiplica-
tion of two or more numbers ; similarly, division and extraction of roots
are reduced to easy steps. Tables of thes powers of the base corresponding
to the sines and tangents of all angles in the first quadrant for differences
of a minute were given by Napier. In numerical calculations the best
base is 10 : this was suggested by Henry Briggs (1661-1631) in 1616,
and its advantage was recognised by Napier. Tables of the logarithms
of natural numbers to the base 10 were issued by Briggs in 1617, and
of sines and tangentg of angles by Edmund Gunter of London in 1620,
both then Gresham Lecturers in London. Fuller tables were issued later,
and by 1630 a knowledge of logarithms was common. It is possible,
with the aid of a table of logarithms, to construct a macl^ine known as a
"slide-rule," by which the results of logarithmic calculations can be read
off at once without calculation. Slide-rules, were invented by Gunter in
1624, and are now in general, use in laboratories and workshops.

The decimal notation for fractions was introduced about the same
time as logarithms, and it was certainly used as an operative form by
Briggs in 1617. A somewhat similar notation had been employed a few
years earlier by Stevinus, Rudolff, Biirgi, and Napier, though probably
only as a concise way of stating results. Up to that time fractions had.
been commonly written in the sexagesimal notation.

The introduction of these discoveries brought Arithmetic into its
modem form, and subsequent improvements have been largely matters
of detail.

At the close of the sixteenth century the art of Algebra began to
assume its modem or symbolic form. In this it has a language of its
own and a system of notation which has no obvious connexion with the
things represented, while the operations are performed according to rules
distinct from those of grammar. The credit of introducing this was
mainly due to Francis Vieta of Paris (1540-1608). lii his principal work,
published in 1591, he used letters for both known and unknown positive
quantities. In it he also introduced for the powers of quantities a
notation which was a marked advance on that previously prevalent by
which new symbols had been introduced to represent the square, cube, etc.,
of quantities which had already occurred in the equations. In a post-
humous work published in 1615 Vieta dealt with the elements of the
theory of equations, and in particular explained how the coefficients
in an' algebraical equation involving one unknown quantity could be
expressed as functions of the roots. Similar results are found in the
Algebra by Thomas Harriot of London (1560-1621), which was first
printed in 1631. It is more analytical than any Algebra that preceded

710 Development of Algebra.

it, and marks an advance both in symbolism and notation. It is not
certain whether he made use of Vieta's results or discovered the results
independently ; but the former supposition seems the more probable.

Vieta's results were extended by Albert Girard (1595-1632), a Dutch
mathematician. In 1629 Girard published a work which contains the
earliest use of brackets, a geometrical interpretation of the negative
sign, the statement that the number of roots of an algebraical equation
is equal to its degree, and the distinct recognition of imaginary roots.
Probably it also implies a knowledge that the first member of an
algebraical equation can be resolved into linear factors. Girard's in-
vestigations were unknown to most of his contemporaries, and exercised
but slight influence on the development of Mathematics.

A far more influential writer was Descartes (1596-1650). To his
famous Discours on universal science, published at Leyden in 1637, were
added three appendices on Optics, Meteors, and Geometry. The last
of these, to which we shalL refer again when dealiiig with Analytical
Geometry, fcqiitaihs a section on Algebra. It has afiected the language
of the subject byfiiing the custom of employing the letters at the
beginning of the alphabeit to denote known quantities, and those at
the end of the aljphabet to denote unknown quantities. Descartes here
introduced the system of indices now in use, though he considered only
positive integral indices : probably this was original oh his part, but
the suggestion had been made by previous writers, such as Bombelli,
Stevinus, Vieta, Harriot, and Herigonus, though it had not been
generally adopted. The meaning of negative arid fractionial indices
was first given by John Wallis of Oxford (1616-1703), in his celebrated
Ariihmetica Infinitorum, ' 1656. It is doubtful whether Descartes re-
cognised, that his letters might represent any quantities, positive or
negative, and that it was sufiicient to prove a proposition for one general
case. He realised the meaning of negative quantities and used them
freely. Further, he made use of the rule for finding a limit to the
number of positive and of negative roots of an algebraical equation,
which is still known by his name, and introduced the method of in-
determinate coefficients for the solution of equations.

Elementary Trigonometry was also worked out with tolerable com-
pleteness, partly by Vieta, and partly by Girard, while the name of
Napier is associated with some of the fundamental properties of spherical
triaiigles.

In Geometry new methods of considerable power were introduced at
this time. One of these was due to Gerard Desargues (1593-1662) who
in 1639 published a work containing the fundamental theorems on in-
volution, homology, poles and polars, and perspective. Desargues gave
lectiures. in Paris from 1626 for a few years, and it is believed exercised
great influence on Descartes, Pascal, and other French mathematicians
of the time. But his system of Projective Geometry fell into comparative

Development of Geometry. 711

oblivion mainly owing to the fact that the system of Analytical Geometry
introduced by Descartes was far more powerful as a method of research.

The Cartesian system of Analytical Geometry was expounded by
Descartes in the tract on Geometry appended to his Discours. In effect,
Descartes asserted that the position of a point in a plane could be
completely determined if its distances, say x and y, from two fixed lines
drawn at right angles in the plane were given, with the convention
familiar to us as to the interpretation of positive and negative values ;
and that, though an equation y (a?, y) = 0 was indeterminate and could
be satisfied by an infinite number of values of a? and y, yet these values
of a? and y determined the coordinates of a number of points which form
a curve, of which the equation y(a?, j^) = 0 expressed some geometrical
property — that is, a property true of the curve at every point on it.
Descartes asserted that a point in space could be similarly determined
by three coordinates ; but he confined his attention to plane curves.

It was at once seen that, in order to investigate the properties of a
cm've, it was sufiicient to select, as a definition, any characteristic
geometrical property, and to express it by means of an equation between
the (current) coordinates of any point on the curve — that is, to translate
the definition into the language of Analytical Geometry. The equation
so obtained contains implicitly every property of the curve, and any
particular property can be deduced from it by ordinary Algebra without
troubling about the Geometry of the figure. This may have been dimly
recognised or foreshadowed by earlier writers ; but Descartes went further
and pointed out the very important facts, that two or more curves can
be referred to one and the same system of coordinates, and that the
points in which two curves intersect can be determined by finding the
roots common to their two equations.

We need not describe the details of Descartes' work. His great
reputation ensured appreciation of his investigations, and an edition of
this tract with notes by Beaune and a commentary by van Schooten,
issued in 1659, became a standard text-book ; henceforth the subject was
familiar to mathematicians. It should perhaps be added that it is
probable that the principles of Analytical Geometry had been worked out
independently by Pierre de Fermat of Toulouse (1601-65) at least as
early as by Descartes ; but, as they were not then published, we need
not discuss this point further.

More than one writer at this time concerned himself with the division
of quantities, such as areas and volumes, into infinitesimals, and with the
summation of such infinitesimals, thus escaping the long and tedious
method of exhaustions used by the Greeks. In this connexion we should
in particular mention the names of Kepler, Cavalieri, and somewhat later
that of Fermat. The most important exposition of the subject was that
given by WaUis in 1656, in which he applied it to determine the
quadrature of a curve whose equation could be expressed in the form

OH. XXIII.

712 Development of Mechanics.

3/=2air". These investigations foreshadowed the introduction of the
infinitesimal calculus by Newton and Leibniz towards the end of the
seventeenth century.

Before leaving the subject of Pure Mathematics, we must in passing
mention the theory of numbers and that of probabilities. The former,
under the stimulus of the writings of one of the greatest mathematicians,
Fermat, attracted considerable attention. The latter was created by
Pascal (1623-62) and Fermat.

Pure Mathematics are a useful if not necessary instrument of research;
but the general reader takes more interest in the history of their appli-
cation than in their own — rin results rather than in methods. We turn
now to consider the development of applied science during this period.

As before, we begin ivith Mechanics. Simon Stevinus of Bruges
(1548-1620), who died at the Hague, used, though he did not explicitly
enunciate, the triangle of forces, which he treated as the fundamental
theorem of Statics (1586). A similar position was taken up by Galileo
(1564-1642). A year or two later the last-mentioned mathematician
laid the foundations of the science of Dynamics. In 1589, when professor
at Pisa, he made experiments from the leaning tower there on the rate
at which bodies of different weights would fall. It was at once apparent
that the generally accepted assertion of Aristotle was incorrect, and
that, save for the resistance of the air, all bodies fell at the same rate,
and through distances proportional to the square of the time which had
elapsed from the instant when they were allowed to drop. Of this Galileo
gave a public demonstration; but, though his Aristotelian colleagues
could not explain the result, many of them preferred to assert that there
must be some mistake rather than admit the possibility that Aristotle
was wrong. The ridicule cast by Galileo on this argument caused friction,
and in 1591 he was obliged to resign his chair. His writings at this
time show that he had already formed correct ideas of momentum and
centrifugal force. He had proved that the path of a projectile was a
parabola, and was aware that the pendulum was isochronous. The last
fact; he discovered by noticing that the great bronze lamp hanging from
the roof of the cathedral at Pisa performed its oscillations, whether large
or small, in equal times. He nowhere stated the laws of motion in
a definite form ; but probably he was acquainted generally with the
principles of the first two laws as enunciated by Newton. His astro-
nomical work was accomplished shortly after he left Pisa, and to this
reference is made below. Towards the end of his life he again took
up the subject of Mechanics, and a book by him, published in 1638, has
been described as a masterpiece of popular exposition of its principles.
In it he describes his pendulum experiments, and the theory of impact.
A year or two later he invented a pendulum clock, though the fact was
not generally known at the time. Mechanics were discussed by Descartes
in 1644 ; but he did not substantially advance the theory. The correct

Development of Astronomy. 713

theory of impact was' given by Wren and Wallis. The next marked
development of the subject took place under the influence of Huygens
and Newton and is referred to later.

The most striking achievement of this period in the eyes of an
ordinary citizen of the time was the establishment of the Copernican
system of Astronomy. We have already alluded to the publication by
Copernicus of his hypothesis. The next stage in its development was
due to Kepler (1571-1630). He served under Tycho Brahe, one of the
most skilful observers of his time, and making use of Brahe's observa-
tions succeeded, after many and laborious efforts, in reducing the
planetary motions to three comparatively simple laws. The first two
were published in 1609, and stated that the planets describe ellipses
round the sun, the sun being in a focus ; and that the line joining the
sun to any planet sweeps over equal areas in equal times. The third
was published in 1619, and stated that the squares of the periodic times
of the planets are proportional to the cubes of the major axes of their
orbits. The laws were deduced from observations on the motions of
Mars and the earth, and were extended by analogy to the other planets.
These laws pointed to the fact that the sun and not the earth should be
regarded as the centre of the solar system. We may add that Kepler
attempted to explain why these motions took place by a hypothesis
which is somewhat like Descartes' theory of vortices described below.
He also suggested that the tides were due to the attraction of the
moon.

The invention of the telescope at the beginning of the seventeenth
century facilitated observations of the nearer planets. The earliest
discoveries with its aid were made by Galileo. In the spring of 1609
he heard that an optician of Middelburg had made a tube containing
lenses which served to magnify objects seen through it. This gave him
the clue, and he constructed a telescope of the kind which still bears his
name, and of which an ordinary opera-glass is an example. The instru-
ment magnified three diameters — ^that is, made objects appear as though
only at one-third of their real distance. Encouraged by this success, he
constructed a larger instrument of thirty-two diameters' power which
magnified an object more than a thousand times. Intense interest was
excited by these discoveries. He placed one of his instruments on a
church tower at Venice, and, to the amazement of the merchants, showed
them their ships approaching the harbour hours before any details could
be detected by the eye. Turning his instrument to the heavens, he saw
the limar mountains, Jupiter's satellites, the phases of Venus, Saturn's
ring, and the solar spots ; from the motion of the latter he concluded
that the sun rotates on its axis. In 1611, he exhibited in the garden of
the Quirinal the wonders of the new worlds revealed by the telescope.

At first honours were showered upon him; but theological opposition
arose so soon as it was realised that the observations tended to confirm

714 Galileo's astronomical work.

the Copemican theory. If that theory were true, some of the state-
ments in the Bible could not be literally exact. Accordingly it was
argued that, while the telescope might be a trustworthy instrument for
terrestrial objects, it was not fitted to explore the heavens. In February,
1616, the Inquisition settled the matter, and declared that to suppose
the Sim the centre of the solar system was false, and contrary
to Holy Scripture; and they embodied this assertion in an edict of
March 6, 1616, which has never been repealed. For the time, Galileo
bowed to the storm. In 1682, however, he published some dialogues on
the system of the world, in which he clearly expounded the Copemican
theory, and showed that mechanical principles would account for the
fact that a stone thrown straight up into the air would fall again to the
place from which it was thrown^-a fact which preiviously had been one of
the chief difficulties in accepting the view that the earth was in motion.
The book was approved by the papal censor before publication; but
none the less Galileo was summoned to Rome, forced to recant and do
penance, and released only on promise of obedience to the edict of 1616.

The dramatic persecution of Galileo has concentrated public atten-
tion on his work. But it should be noted that other mathematicians
were also using the telescope to good advantage. In England Harriot
had a large telescope through which he observed the satellites of Jupiter
in 1610. Kepler also made various observations, and suggested that the
eye-glass should be a convex lens. The transit of Venus was observed
by Jeremiah Horrocks in Lancashire in 1639.

The acceptance of the Copernican system brought into prominence
the problem of explaining the cause of the planetary motions. Descartes
suggested in his Principia that space was filled with ether moving in
whirlpools of varying sizes and under varying physical conditions. He
supposed that the sun was the centre of a vortex in which the planets
are swept round. Each planet was again the centre of another vortex
in which its moons are swept round. He explained gravity by the
action of these vortices, and suggested that smaller vortices round the
molecules of bodies would account for cohesion. This suggestion was
widely accepted, and is interesting as a genuine attempt to explain the
phenomena of the universe by mechanical laws. But Descartes' assump-
tions were arbitrary, and unsupported by investigation. It is not
difficult to prove that on his hypothesis the sun would be in the centre
of these ellipses and not at a focus (as Kepler had shown was the case),
and that the weight of a body at every place on the surface of the earth
except the equator would act in a direction which was not vertical. It
will be sufficient here to say that Newton considered the theory in
detail, and showed that its consequences are not only inconsistent with
each of Kepler's laws and with the fundamental laws of Mechanics, but
also at variance with the laws of nature assumed by Descartes.

The invention of the telescope and the almost simultaneous invention

Development of Physics. 715

of the microscope naturally attracted attention to the subject of Optics,
and especially to the law of refraction. Kepler asserted in 1611 that for
small aiigles of incidence the angle of incidence was proportional to the
angle of refraction, and, applying this, he was able to give in general
outline the theory of the telescope. The correct law of refraction was
discovered by Willebrod Snell (1591-1626), professor of Mechanics at
Leyden. It was stated a,gain, and perhaps discovered independently, by
Descartes in 1637. The la,tter gave a theoretical proof resting on in-
accurate assumptions ; but Fermat deduced the laws both of reflexion
and refraction from the assumption that light travels from a point in
one medium to a point in another in the least time, and that the velocity
of light decreases as the density of the medium increases.

The view that the velocity of light was finite, so boldly assumed
by Fermat, had originated in the seventeenth century. Galileo made
experiments on the subject, but was unable to arrive at a definite
result, though he and the leading physicists seem to have supposed
that the view was correct. It was not until 1676 that it was proved.
This was done by Olaus Romer (1644-1710), a young Dane then living
in Paris, by observations of the eclipses of Jupiter's moons. The
theories of physical optics current at this time will be considered later.

Hydrostatics also received considerable attention during the earlier
years of the seventeenth century. Here too the earliest experiments
seem to have been made by Galileo, who showed that the air has weight,
estimated its pressure by the height of the water column it could sustain,
and definitely refuted the Aristotelian view that a vacuum could not
exist. He also described his experiments on various physical subjects,
notably on fluids. These investigations fairly entitle him to be termed
the founder of modem Physics.

Galileo's work was carried on by his pupil Eyangplista Torricelli of
Florence (1608-47) who constructed a barometer. The description given
of it was vague, but it suggested ideas to Pascal which led not only to
his barometric experiments, but to proofs of the more elementary pro-
positions relating to the pressm-e exerted by fluids. Later investigations
were facilitated by the invention of the air-pump by Otto von Guericke
of Magdeburg (1602-86). In England the subject was taken up by
Robert Boyle (1627-91). His name is associated with the law which
he discovered that the pressure exercised by a given quantity of a gas is
proportional to its density. The law was re^discovered independently
fourteen years later by Edme Mariotte (1620-81) in France, who did
a great deal to popularise physical investigations in France, and
was one of the founders of the French AcadSmie dea Sciences. The
beginnings of experimental investigations on Heat were also indebted
to the labours of Galileo, who invented a thermometer, though of an
imperfect type; but it was nearly a century later before the subject
was taken up systematically.

^16 Development of Phydcs.

Another branch of Physics originated at this time was that connected
with Electricity and Magnetism. Although there had been a few previous
observations on the subject by Cardan, Mercator, and Porta, it may be
said to have commenced with the work of William Gilbert (1540-1603),
physician in ordinary to Queen Elizabeth, His experiments were pub-
lished in 1600.

The necessity of an experimental foundation for science was in the
course of this period advocated with considerable effect by Francis Bacon
(1561-1626) in his Novum Orgamim, published in 1620. Here he laid
down the principles which should guide those making experiments in
any branch of Physics, and gave rules by which the results of induction
could be tested. Bacon's book appealed to men of education, and helped
to seciu-e recognition for the proposition that experiment and observa-
tion are necessary preludes to the formation of scientific theories. Por
practical purposes, however, it was of but little use. Bacon thought
that investigations could be made by rule, and did not realise that the
creation of scientific hypotheses was impossible without imagination.
The book had more influence among philosophers and men of letters
than among scientific students.

Towards the middle of the seventeenth century the progress of
scientific learning received a great stimulus, especially in England and
France, from the foundation of academies or societies, created for the
purpose of encouraging scientific investigations and providing a common
meeting-place where those engaged in it could interchange ideas. Some
account of these associations and of the part which they played in the
histoiy of science will be found in another section of this chapter.

Great as was the advance in knowledge made during the first half of
the seventeenth century, that from 1660 to 1730 was even more marked.

In the branches of Pure Mathematics previously mentioned it will
suffice to say that Algebra and Trigonometry became more analytical,
and that Newton's discovery of the binomial theorem and his work on
the theory of equations were especially notable. Towards the end of
the period the extension of Trigonometry to imaginary quantities was
made by Abraham Demoivre of London (1667-1754) whose name is
associated with the fundamental theorem on the subject. No new
developments of Pure Geometry took place during this period ; but the
classical methods were apphed to various problems with extraordinary
ingenuity by Newton in the first book of the Prmcijpia. The methods
of Analytical Geometry were also developed and it became a familiar
tool in the hands of mathematicians.

A novel and potent instrument of research was developed in the
infinitesimal calculus. This method of analysis, expressed in the
notation of fluxions and fluents, was used by Newton (1642-1727) in or
before 1666 ; but no account of it was published until 1692, though its

Invention of the Infinitesimal Calculus. 717

general outline was known by his friends and pupils long anterior to
that year. The notation of the fluxional calculus is for most purposes
less convenient than that of the differential calculus. The latter
notation was invented by Leibniz (1646-1716), probably in 1675, and
was published in 1684.

The idea of a fluxion or differential coefficient, as treated in this period,
is simple. When two quantities — for instance, the radius of a sphere
and its volume — are so related that a change in one causes a change in
the other, the one is said to be a function of the other. The ratio of
the rates at which they change is termed the differential coefficient or
fluxion of the one with regard to the other, and the process by which
this ratio is determined is known as differentiation. Knowing the
differential coefficient and one set of corresponding values of the two
quantities, we are able by summation to determine the relation between
them ; but often the process is difficult. If however we can reverse the
process of differentiation, we can obtain this result directly. This process
of reversal is termed integration, and was first employed by Newton
and Leibniz. It was at once seen that problems connected with the
quadrature of curves, and the determination of volumes (which were
soluble by summation, as had been shown by the employment of in-
divisibles) were reducible to integration. In Mechanics alsoj by integra-
tion, velocities could be deduced from known accelerations, and distances
traversed from known velocities. In short, wherever things change
according to known laws, here was a possible method of finding the
relation between them. It is true that, when we try to express observed
phenomena in the language of the calculus, we usually obtain an equation
involving the variables, and their differential coefficieiits — and possibly
the solution may be beyond our powers. Even so, the method is often
fruitful and its use marked a real advance in thought and power.

With the various applications — important though they were — of the
calculus to Geometry and Mechanics we need not concern ourselves, but
one application is sufficiently important to demand a word in passing.
This was the discovery in 1712 by Brook Taylor (1685-1731) of the
well-known theorem by which a function of a single variable can be
expanded in powers of it. It was published in 1715, though no satis-
factory proof was given at the time.

The ideas of the infinitesimal calculus can be expressed either in the
notation of fluxions or in that of differentials. There is no doubt that
the differential notation is due to Leibniz; but an acute controversy
arose as to whether the general idea of the calculus was taken by him
from a manuscript by Newton, to which it was supposed he had had
access, or whether it was discovered independently. During the eighteenth
centm-y the prevalent opinion was against Leibniz; but to-day the majority
of judges think it more likely that the inventions were independent.
The controversy was complicated by bitter personalities. It was naturalj

CH, XXUl,

718 Newton and Ldbfdz.

though unfortunate, that British mathematicians were thus kd to confine
themselves to the methods used by Newton. The consequence was that,
shortly after Newton's deaith, the British school fell out of touch with
the great continental mathematicians of the eighteenth century, and it
was not until about 1820, when the value of analytical methods was
recognised,' that Newton's countrymen again took any considerable share
in the development of Mathematics.

Leibniz was a man of extraordinary versatility; and, in addition to
his diplomatic activity, played a prominent part in the literary and
philosophical history of hiS: time^ Mathematics were not his main
interest, and he produced very little mathemajtical work of importance
besides his papers on the caltulus ; his reputation in this subject rests
largely on the attention which he, drew to it. In 1686 and 1694 he
wrote papers on the principles of the new calculus. In these, his
statements qf the objects and methods of the infinitesimal calculus, are
somewhat Obscure, and his attempt to place, the subject on a meta-
physical basis did not tend to clearness ; but the fact that aU the results
of modem Mathematics are expressed in the language invented by him
has proved the best monument of his work.

, Newton elaborated the calculus more completely than Leibniz, but
his methods were buried in note-books inaccessible to ail save a few
friends ; and the general adoption of Leibniz' notation was largely due
to the fact that, through a text-book published in 1696 by the Marquis
de L'Hospital of Paris, it was at once made known to all interested in
the subject. It was also regularly used by Peter Varignon (1654-1722),
the most eminent French mathematician of the time, and by the brothers
James Bernoulli (1654-1705) and John Bernoulli (1667-1748)-^men of
remarkable ability who applied the new calculus to solve numerous
problems. The Bernoullis were the most prominent continental teachers
of this period and their influence was exceptionally potent. The accounts
at first given of Newton's method of fluxions were less complete; and
more than a generation passed after the produptignof L'Hospital's work,
before Colson in 1736j and Madaurin in 1742, published systematic
expositions of the fluxional method,

We turn next to the subject of Mechanics, which was placed on a
scientific basis through the researches of Newton. The investigations
by Galileo on the. fall of heavy bodies, and the theory of pendulums,
were completed by Huygens (1629-95) in his Horologium OscUlatorium,
published at Paris in 1678. ; In this work he determined the centrifugal
force on a body moving in a circle with uniform velocity; he also
considered the motion of bodies of finite size and not merely of particles.
Newton's investigations on Mechanic are included in his Prmcipia. It
will suffice here to say that he based the subject on three laws of motion,
and he, applied the principles to the stfl,tics and dynamics of rigid bodies
and fluids ; probably he carried the investigations as far as was possible

Newton's theory of gravitation. 719

with the analysis at his command. He distinguished between mass and
weight, and this was an important point. He also created the theory
of attractions, which will be more natm-ally noted in connexion with his
theory of gravitation.

liie fundamental principles of Newton's theory of gravitation seem
to have occurred to him shortly after he had taken his degree at
Cambridge. His reasoning at this time, 1666, appears to have been as
follows. He knew that gravity extended to the tops of the highest
hills; and he conjectured that it might extend as far as the moon,
and be the force which retained it in its orbit about the earth. This
hypothesis he verified by the foHowirig argument. If a stone is allowed
to fall near the surface of the earth, the attraction of the earth causes
it to move through sixteen feet in one second. Now Newton, as also
other mathematicians, had suspected from Kepler's law that the attrac-
tion of the earth on a body would be found to decrease as the body was
removed further away from the earth, inversely as the square of the
distance from the centre of the earth. He knew the radius of the earth
and the distance of the moon, and therefore on this hypothesis could
find the magnitude of the earth's attraction at the distance of the moon.
Further, assuming that the moon moved in a circle, he could calculate
the force that was necessary to retain it in its orbit. In 1666, his
estimate of the radius of the earth was inaccurate, and, when he made
the calculation, he found that this force was rather greater than the
earth's attraction on the moon. This discrepancy did not shake his faith
in the belief that gravity extended to the moon and varied inversely as
the square of the distance ; but he conjectured that some other force —
such, for example, as Descartes' vortices — acted on the moon as well as
gravity.

In 1679 Newton repeated his calculations on the lunar orbit; and,
using a correct value of the radius of the earth, he found the verification
of his former hypothesis was complete. He then proceeded to the general
theory of the motion of a particle under a centripetal force^that is,
one directed to a fixed point — and showed that the vector to the particle
would sweep over equal areas in equal times. He also proved, that, if a
particle describes an ellipse under a centripetal force to a focus, the law
must be that of the inverse square of the distance from the focus; and,
conversely, that the orbit of a particle projected under the influence of
such a force would be a conic. In 1684 Halley asked Newton what the
orbit of a planet would be,, if the law of attraction were that of the in-
verse square, as was commonly suspected to be approximately the case.
Newton asserted that it was an ellipse, and sent the demonstration which
he had discovered in 1679. Halley, at once recognising the importance
of the communication, induced Newton to imdertake the investigation
of the whole problem of gravitation^ and to publish his results.

It would seem that Newton had long believed that every particle of

CB. XXUI,

720 Newtoris Principia.

matter attracts every other particle, and suspected that the attraction
varied as the product of their masses, and inversely as the square of
the distance between them ; but it is certain that he did not then know
what the attraction of a spherical mass on any external point would be,
and did not think it likely that a particle would be attracted by the
earth as if the latter were concentrated into a single particle at its
centre. Hence he must have thought that his discoveries of 1679
were only approximately true *hen applied to the solar system. His
mathematical analysis, however, now showed that the sun and planets,
regarded as spheres, exerted their attractions as if their masses were
collected at their centres ; and thus his former results were absolutely
true of the solar system, save only for a correction caused by the slight
deviation of the sun, earth, and planets, from a perfectly spherical form.

The first book of the Principia is given up to the consideration of
the motion of particles or bodies in free space either in known orbits, or
under the action of known forces, or under their mutual attraction. It
is prefaced by an introduction on the science of Dynamics ; it also con-
tains geometrical investigations of various properties of conic sections.
The second book treats of motion in a resisting medium. The theory of
Hydrodynamics was here created, and it was applied to the phenomena of
waves, tides, and acoustics. In the third book, the theorems of the first
are applied to the chief phenomena of the solar system; and the masses
and distances of the planets and (when sufficient data exist) of their
satellites are determined. In particular, the motion of the moon, with
its various inequalities, and the theory of the tides, are worked out in
detail, and as fully as was then possible. Newton also investigated the
theory of comets, showed that they belonged to the solar system, and
illustrated his results by considering certain special comets. The com-
plete work was published in 1687. A second edition was brought out in
1713 by Roger Cotes of Cambridge (1682-1716) under Newton's direc-
tion. The demonstrations throughout are geometrical, but are rendered
unnecessarily difficult by their conciseness, and by the absence of any
clue to the method by which they were obtained. The reason why the
arguments were presented in a geometrical form appears to have been
that the infinitesimal calculus was then unknown ; and, had Newton used
it to demonstrate results which were in themselves opposed to the
prevalent philosophy of the time, the controversy as to the truth of his
results would have been hampered by a dispute concerning the validity
of the methods used in proving them.

The publication of the Principia is one of the landmarks in the
history of Mathematics. In it the phenomena of the solar system were
shown to be deducible from laws which experience proved to be true
on the earth, and thus it brought new worlds within the scope of
man's investigations. The conclusions were generally accepted by the
leading thinkers of the time ; but a generation or so bad to pass before

Physical Optics. 721

their validity was universally admitted; henceforth, few doubted that
the reign of law extended throughout the universe of non-organic
matter. Newton further considered the question whether it was possible
to explain gravitation as the result of other laws. He could not frame
a satisfactory hypothesis, and the problem is still unsolved.

It should be noted that Newton's conclusions could not have been
reached, had not observational Astronomy also developed. This was
largely due to the excellent work done at Greenwich under Flamsteed
(1646-1719), Halley (1656-1742), and Bradley (1692-1762), who succes-
sively occupied the position of Astronomer Royal. The last-named
explained the aberration of light (1727), and thus obtained an inde-
pendent determination of the velocity of light.

The achievements of the seventeenth century in Astronomy and
Mechanics were so great that they have thrown some of the other work
of the time into comparative obscurity. The investigations in Physical
Optics were, however, of singular interest. Here again Newton played
the leading part. When, in 1669, he was appointed to a professorship at
Cambridge, he at first chose Optics for the subject of his lectures and
researches ; and before the end of that year he had worked out the details
of his discovery of the decomposition of a ray of white light into rays of
different colours by means of a prism, from which the explanation of the
phenomenon of the rainbow followed. In consequence of a chapter of
accidents he failed to correct the chromatic aberration of two colours by
means of a couple of prisms ; hence he abandoned the hope of making
a refracting telescope which should be achromatic, and, instead, designed
a reflecting telescope, which is of a somewhat different design from those
suggested by James Gregory and N. Cassegrain,

We have already explained how Newton deduced the motions of the
solar system from the one assumption of universal gravitation. The
similar problem in Optics was the possibility of making a single
hypothesis from which all the known optical phenomena could be
deduced. Two plausible theories of this kind had been already sug-
gested. In one, known as the " corpuscular " or " emission " theory, it is
assumed that a luminous object emits corpuscles which hit or affect the
eye. In the other, known as the wave or imdulatory theory, it is
assumed that light is caused by a series of waves in an ether which fills
space, the waves being set in motion by pulsations of the luminous body.
It would seem that at one time Newton deemed the latter the more
probable hypothesis ; but, though he could thus account for the
phenomena of reflexion, refraction, and colours, it failed (as then
propovmded) to explain the rectilinear propagation of light ; and this he
considered fatal to its claims. He accordingly turned to the corpuscular
theory, and from it deduced the phenomena of reflexion, refraction,
colours, and diffraction. To do this, however, he was obliged to add a
somewhat artificial rider, that the corpuscles had alternating fits of easy

0. M. H. V. CH. xxni. 46

722 Development of Physics.

reflexion and easy refraction, communicateci to them by an ether which
filled space. His various researches on the subject were embodied in his
Optics published in 1704.

The wave theory had been roughly outlined in 1665 by Robert
Hooke. It was elaborated in a paper by Huygens in 1678, and ex-
pounded at greater length in his Traiii de la Liimiere, published in 1690.
From it Huygens deduced the laws of reflexion, refraction, and double
refraction. He was acquainted with the phenomena of polarisation; but
he was unable to explain them since he assumed the vibrations in the
ether to be longitudinal. It was not imtil the nineteenth century, when
Fresnel worked out the theory on the hypothesis that the vibrations
were transverse, that it was put on a satisfactory basis. Huygens
was among the most illustrious mathematicians of his age, and the
wave theory may be fairly deemed to be due to him. The immense
reputation of Newton induced a general acceptance at the time of the
corpuscular theory as enunciated by him — an unfortunate result of his
extraordinary achievemfents, and the more curious because his writings
show that on some grounds he deemed the wave theory the more
probable. In science, as in other subjects, too much reliance should not
be placed on individual authority.

The theory of Hydrodynamics, including therein Sound and vibrations
of fluids, may be said to have been created by Newton in the second
book of his Principia. He determined experimentally the velocity of
sound in air and other riiedia. The difficulties of mathematical analysis
involved are great, and he was not able to carry the theory very far. In
connexion with the theory of Sound, may also be mentioned the names
of Brook Taylor, who gave the theory of the transverse vibrations of
strings, Joseph Sauveur (1653-1715), and Francis Hauksbee (1650-1713).

As to other physical subjects, we may say that in all of them, at
this time, there was intelligent observation and experiment. In particular
the Subject of Heat was attacked on the right lines by Boyle, Hooke,
Newton and others, though the experimental data available were but
slight. So, too, as to the work of the time in Electricity, which attracted
the attention of Boyle, Halley, Newton, Picard, and Hauksbee.

The death of Newton and the separation of the British school of
mathematicians from their continental contemporaries may be taken as
marking the close of an epoch. At the beginning of the seventeenth
century Mathematics were only just breaking free from their medieval
trammels, and Physics in the modern sense were non-existent. In but
little more than a century Mathematics had been developed into an
instrument of great power; the value of the calculus had been recognised,
and the foundations of modern analysis laid ; the theories of Mechanics
and gravitation had been established; and the problems of Physical
Optics had been subjected to mathematical processes. In this extra-
ordinary extension of knowledge all the leading nations of Europe had

Development of the Natural Sciences. — HuTnan Anatomy. 723

taken part. Galileo, Descartes, Fermat, Huygens, Leibniz, and above allj
Newton, form a group of workers which will be ever memorable in the
history of science; and the fabric of modern Mathematics and Physics
is but the superstructure erected on the foundations which they laid.

(2) OTHER BRANCHES OF SCIENCE.

The seventeenth eentiu-y may, in a broad way, be spoken of as the
period during which the Natural Sciences — according to our modem
classification of them — Botany, Zoology, Anatomy, Physiology, Geology,
and, we may add Chemistry, took definite shape, and began to be built
up, each in its own way, as an independent branch of knowledge. The
labours of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries were, in their turn,
largely directed towards carrying forward what had then been begun.
But the impulse which led to this great development is to be found in
the preceding century, or even earlier: in the revolt against the scholastic
spirit which formed so large a part of the Renaissance.

The sciences in question, though having their birth partly in mere
natural curiosity, sprang largely from the Art of Medicine. The treat-
ment of disease led to enquiry into the structure and action of the body
of man, and this in turn to the study of animals. The use of herbs as
remedies moved men to observe the features and qualities of plants;
and the science of Chemistry, though it began as Alchemy in the search
for the transmutation of metals, and continued to be supported by the
needs of industrial life, was in the main developed by the desire to find
substances which should cure diseases. In the sixteenth century, and
long afterwards, the men who were building up the several natural
sciences were to be found among the teachers of the medical schools.

Hence it is not wonderful that the first great triumph of the
revolt against the scholastic spirit,, though it was won in a limited and
strictly medical branch of knowledge, namely Human Anatomy, served
as a bright example to nearly all the branches of natural knowledge,
and exerted a powerful influence upon them.

In Human Anatomy the scholastic spirit remained supreme up to the
middle of the sixteenth century. The far-reaching, almost inspired
labours of Galen had in quite early times produced a system of doctrines
touching the structure and functions of the body of man so complete and
consistent that it seemed to supply all that was needed to be known ; the
study of these things came to mean the study of Galen, the written page
was the authority, and enquiry was narrowed to interpretation. In 1548
Andreas Vesalius (1514-64), a young professor at Padua, published a
book on the structure of the human body, based, not on what Galen
taught, but on what Vesalius had himself seen, and what anybody might

CH. xxiii. 46 — 2

724 Bacon and the new method.

see who looked with adequate care. This was a, powerful exemplar of the
new method of appealing to natm-e — to things as they are, instead of
to authority. Others in modem times had dissected human bodies and
appealed to these dissections as tests of truth-^notably Mundinus, Carpi
and Leonardo da Vinci — but none of them had produced a work so
complete and so convincing as that of Vesalius. So convincing, indeed,
was it that it may truly be said to have almost at one blow freed Human
Anatomy from the old scholastic bonds and set it up as a striking model
of the new system. The success of the work was largely due to the
nature of the study. To prove his statements, to show that in this or that
Galen was wrong, Vesalius had no need to use elaborate arguments or to
appeal to carefully devised experiments ; he had only to lay bare the
structure with his scalpel, and to ask his pupils to use their eyes. The
path opened up by Vesalius was followed by his pupils Fallopius,
Fabricius and others ; by the end of the century, the student of Human
Anatomy in every medical school had ceased to ask what Galen had
written, and only cared to know what his own eyes could teach him.
The brilliant success thus gained by the new method applied to
Human Anatomy could not fail to have an influence on other branches of
learning, supportedas that influence soon was by the striking results of
the same new method in Mechanics and Physics. How completely this
new method had laid hold of men's minds is shown by the brilliant
exposition of it given by Francis Bacon (1560-1626). Though his
published works belong to the seventeenth century, the Prqflcience and
Advancement of Learning' appearing in 1605 and the Novum Organum
in 1620, Bacon's main ideas had come to him in the closing years of the
preceding century. In the two works just mentioned, and in others, some
published in his lifetime, and others at various times ' after his death,
he elaborated in a formal exposition the principles of the method of
investigating nature— the new method which, as we have just said, was
being adopted by enquirers everywhere in all branches of natural know-
ledge. He went further : he drew up the outlines, and laboured to the
time of his death to fill in the details, of a plan for the scientific work
of the future, a programme of' the steps to be taken in all branches of
science in order to gather in with the least waste of time and labour, and
in the most eifective manner, the fruits of scientific einquiry. He made
no notable Contribution of his own to the advancement of natural
knowledge; there is no evidence that the men who in his own time
and in the times immediately following were actively arid effectively
engaged in advancing natural knowledge were in any special way in-
fluenced by his writings ; indeed one of the greatest of these enquirers
spoke slightingly of them. « He philosophises," said Harvey, " like a
Lord Chancellor." And not only was no effort made by subsequent
ienquirers to carry out Bacon's programme, but the history of scientific
discovery has shown that his foreca;st of how scientific work ought to be

Physiology. 725

carried on was in many respects wrong — as, for instance, his idea that the
collection of facts should be allotted to one set of men, and the drawing
conclusions from the facts to another. In the great majority of cases,
the discoverer of a new law of nature has to find his facts for himself.
Nevertheless, Bacon's works gave a great impulse to the new method;
Even those who had made discoveries without knowing anything of what
Bacon had written were gratified and encouraged by learning from his
works that they had, without distinct consciousness of it, been treading
in the path of true philosophy ; while all scientific workers were helped
by being able to quote in support of their methods of enquiry his incisive
and illuminating words.

In spite of its success in the case of Anatomy, the new method was
slow in laying hold of Physiology. More than half a century passed
before it did so ; but, when in 1628 William Harvey (1578-1657), by
the publication of his Exercitatio de Motu Cordis, shattered the Galenic
Physiology as completely as Vesalius had put an end to the Galenic
Anatomy, the effects were profound and far-reaching.

According to Galen, the crude venous blood, enriched in the liver
by the food brought from the a:limentary canal and endowed with the
nutritive qualities spoken of as the "natural spirits," flows from the
heart to all parts of the body along the veiiis^ and returns back to the
heart along the same channels. Some of this blood, passing from the
right side of the heart to the left by minute pores in the septum of the
ventricles, invisible to the eye of man, mixes there with air sticked in
through the lungs by the action of the heart. This mixture is by the
innate heat of the heart " concocted " into arterial blood, endowed with
" vital spirits " which flows from the heart along the arteries to all parts
of the body, returning by the same channels. When it reaches the
ventricles of the brain, the arterial blood, by the help of air drawn in
through the pores of the ethmoid, or sieve-like, bone, gives rise to
" animal spirits^" and, flowing as a pure spirit along the nerves, carries
out sensation and movement.

Long before Harvey, Michael Servetus (1511-53), in his Restitutio
Christianismi, published in 1553, but written long before, used words
showing that he rejected wholly the supposed psissage of some blood
through the septum, as to which Vesalius had siniply hinted his doubts,
and, further, that he had grasped the true features of the pulmonary
circulation, the passage of all the blood from the right side of the
heart through the lungs to the left side. The same truth was taught
by Colombus (1516-59), Vesalius' pupil and successor at Padua; but
there are some reasons for thinking that he had read Servetus' book.
Andreas Caesalpinus (1519-1603), botanist, physician, and polemic
philosopher, more than anatomist or physiologist, also enunciated views
which, at all events, show that he grasped the truths both of the systemic
and pulmonary circulations, the flow to the tissues along the arteries.

726 Harvey.

the return from the tissues to the heart by the veins, and the passage of
blood through the lungs from the right to the left side of the heart.

Thus the doctrines of Galen had been attacked before Harvey's
time ; but how little effect had been produced by these attacks is shown
by the teachings of Fabricius of Aquapendente (1537-1619), who, at
the close of the sixteenth century, in the chair at Padua once held by
Vesalius, was, by the fame of his learning, drawing students from all
parts of the world, among them William Harvey. Although Fabricius
did more than anyone after Vesalius to advance Anatomy, tp the end
of his days he taught almost pure Galenic doctrines of the circulation,
ignoring what Servetus and Caesalpinus had written, and refusing
to see the real meaning of his own great discovery of the valves in
the veins. It was a mixed teaching, then, of new Anatomy and old
Physiology which Harvey got from Fabricius at Padua, while he studied
there from 1597 to 1602. But he probably learnt much outside the
anatomical theatre ; for during those years Galileo Galilei was working
at and teaching the new Mechanics and Physics in Padua. It was
perhaps partly at least through Galileo's influence that Harvey was led
to apply the experimental method to Physiology, and to "give his
mind to vivisections."

His first observations, as happens in many a progress, led him into
a slough of despond ; he began to think that " the motion of the heart
was only to be comprehended by God." But the patient study of that
motion in the hearts of many living animals convinced him that Galen
was wrong in regarding the heart as mainly an organ of suction, and
that it was, on the contrary, essentially an organ of propulsion, inasmuch
as its work consisted, not in sucking air from the lungs, but in driving
blood by its contractile power through the body. This new view — dimly,
but only dimly, seen by Caesalpinus-r-led Harvey at once to a true con-
ception of the work of the auricles and ventricles with their respective
valves, and thus to the wholly new idea that all, and not some only, of
the contents of the right ventricle were discharged into the limgs and so
found their way to the left side of the heart. This step led to another.
Making observations to determine the quantity of blood discharged at
each beat from the left ventricle, and noting the frequency of the beats,
he saw that the blood driven along the arteries must find its way somehow
into the veins and so return to the right side of the heart. Thus, by
experiments and quantitative observations, working not after the manner
of Fabricius but after that of Galileo, he reached a new view of the circula-
tion of the blood, "of a motion as it were in a circle." And all his further
observations confirmed this view, which, once fairly grasped, rendered
intelligible various phenomena of the heart and blood vessels, as indeed
of the body at large, hitherto obscure, and made plain the uses of those
valves of the veins over which Fabricius had stumbled. It is worthy of
notice that Harvey says nothing about the "spirits," so prominent in the

Harvey's successors. 727

old Galenic doctrines. In an early passage he incidentally refers to
them and dismisses them as irrelevant ; and, indeed, though the names
were used long afterwards, his teaching was their death-blow. The
new conception of the same blood flowing continuously through the whole
body, undergoing changes all along the circle, did away with any need
for them, and at the same time rendered possible true ideas of the
nutrition of the body.

Freed, as it were, by the work of Harvey from the bonds of the
Galenic doctrines. Physiology expanded rapidly in the succeeding years,
developing in several more or less independent directions. Its progress
was greatly helped by three things : by the rapid advance of mechanical
and physical learning, by the invention of the compoimd microscope,
and, somewhat later, by the growth of a serious, no longer fantastical.
Chemistry. Harvey himself, though as we have seen he seems to have
been guided by the methods of the Italian physicists, made little direct
use of their results. He had no microscope to help him, and his
unassisted eye failed to learn how the blood passed from the small
visible arteries to the small visible veins in the lungs and in the rest of
the body; he could only say, it passed "somehow." There is in his
books hardly a word of Chemistry, and, in his much later treatise on
generation, such Chemistry as he makes use of is of the ancient kind.
" He did not care for chemists," says Aubrey, " and was wont to speak
against them with an undervalue."

His successors, however, fruitfully availed themselves of these aids.
The compound microscope and the new Mechanics were soon made use
of. In 1661, in a letter to BoreUi on the structxu-e of the lungs studied
with the help of the compound microscope, Marcello Malpighi (1628-94)
announced his discovery of minute channels, the capillaries, joining the
ends of the pulmonary arteries to the beginnings of the pulmonary veins.
These were more clearly seen by John Swammerdam (1637-80), and,
even still more clearly, in the tail of the tadpole by Antony Leeuwenhoek
(1632-1723); and, in a short time, this closed mode of junction of
arteries and veins was found to obtain all over the body. Swammerdam,
moreover, in 1658, and Leeuwenhoek in 1668, had discovered the red
blood corpuscles, observed also, but at first not understood, by Malpighi.

Richard Lower (1631-91) and Giovanni Alfonso BoreUi (1608-97)
appUed to the physical problems of the circulation— such as the work
done by the heart, the velocity of the flow in the blood vessels, and the
pressure exerted on the vascular walls — the new exact mechanical and
physical learning in so complete a manner as to bring the knowledge of
the subject very much to the condition in which it was when, nearly two
centuries later, Poisseuille and Weber took up the same problems again.
And Jean Pecquet's (1624-74) discovery, in 1651, of the thoracic duct
discharging its contents into the veins of the neck, and his proof that
the lacteals, discovered in 1622 by Gaspar Aselli, passed, not — as Aselli

728 Boyle. — Hooke.-^-Mayoto.

thought and as suited Galenic doctrines — to the liver, but to the recepta-
cuhim chyli, and so to the thoracic duct and the venous system, together
with the descriptions by Olaus Rudbeck in 1653, and by others, of the
vasa serosa or aquom, that is of the general lymphatic system of the
body, seemed to make the story of the flow of nutritive fluids in the
body for the time complete.

In the Galenic doctrines, the use of the air in breathing was to
temper the great innate heat of the heart and to provide for the escape
of the " fuliginous vapours " generated during the formation of the vital
spirits. Fabricius, who making use of the new mechanical learning was
able to give a fairly good and correct account of the mechanics of
breathing, stiU held to the old Galenic idea as to the use of the inspired
air. The acceptance of the Harveian teaching entailed some change
in this old idea, but Harvey himself was silent about it. The first step
towards the truth was taken by Robert Boyle (1627-91), who, unlike
Harvey, had attached himself with zeal to the rising chemical learning.
In his New Experiments Physico-Mechcmiced touthimg the Air (1660), he
showed that in air rarefied by the air-pump flame was extinguished and
at the same time life (the life of a mouse) came to an end; thus proving
that the action of the air in breathing, so far from being. a tempering of
heat, was on the contrary to be compared to a favouring of combustion
as the source of heat. Then Robert Hooke (1635-1702) in 1667, in an
experiment made before the Royal Society, showed that an animal, a
dog, could be kept alive, in the absence of aU movements of the chest
or indeed of the lungs, by artificial respiration. He thus proved the
essential feature of breathing to be the exposure of the venous blood
brought by the pulmonary artery to fresh air, and that the movements
of the chest were merely the means of providing repeated supplies of
fresh air. This important conclusion was followed up by Lower, who
in 1669 showed that the difference between venous and arterial blood,
as indicated by the difference in colour, was not profound, as the Galenic
doctrine supposed, but transitory, and due to the mere exposure of the
venous blood to the fresh air, and to the taking-up by the blood of
some of the air during the exposure ; thus he was able, by giving air,
to turn the purple venous blood into bright red aa-terial blood, and, by
keeping air away, to effect the converse change.

Neither Lower nor Borelli, who had treated very fully of breathing
and had also come to the conclusion that air is taken up by the blood
in the lungs, nor, again, Hooke, refers to the possibility of a part of the
air only being taken up. John Mayow (1643-79), who busied himself
much with chemical matters, had in 1688 come to the conclusion that
the air consists in part "of a certain vital, fiery, and in the highest degree
fermentative spirit " which he called spiriius nitro-aereus or igTwo-aeretcs.
It is clear that in his spiritiis nitro-aereus Mayow had formed a conception
of what more than a hundred years afterwards came to be called oxygen.

Malpighi 729

And in a tract on respiration, besides giving an admirable account of the
mechanics of respiration, he showed that the air which is taken up by
the venous blood in the lungs during its change into arterial blood is
not the whole air, but the nitro-aerial part of it, that is the oxygen.
Thus building on the foundation laid by their countryman Harvey, a
small knot of Englishmen constructed almost the whole edifice of the
theory of breathing.

One effect of Harvey's new teaching was a demand for more exact
knowledge of the finer structure and nature of the parts through which
the blood was continually flowing ; for the views of the older anatomists
on this matter were very vague : what was not visible fibre and blood
vessels they were content to call parenchyma, and any small soft part
they spoke of as a gland. This demand Malpighi was, with the help of
the microscope, one of the first and one of the most successful to supply.
By a series of remarkable researches on the viscera, he laid the foundation
of that knowledge of the tissues which forms so large a part of modem
physiology. Making use of the discoveries of the ducts of pancreatic
and salivary glands by Wirsung, Wharton and Stensen, and the works
of Sylvius on the features of glands, he studied the kidney, the liver
and the spleen. He expounded the structure of the kidney, going
far beyond the initial discovery by Bellini of the uriniferous tubules.
He showed that the substance of the liver was not, as Glisson had taught,
a imiform parenchyma disposed irregularly between the blood vessels,
but was arranged in minute masses, which he called adni, after the
fashion of the salivary and other glands ; that the liver was, in fact, a
huge secreting gland, secreting bile through the gall duct. And he
proved that the spleen was not a gland at all but a contractile vascular
organ. Thus incidentally, at one stroke, he demolished the old idea
of the liver concocting two kinds of bile, the lighter yellow, and the
heavier black bile, the scum aadifaex as it were of fermentation, the
former being discharged into the intestine and the latter going to
the spleen. He turned his microscope also to other parts of the body, to
the skin, the tongue, the uterus, the brain, horns, hairs, bones, and the
scattered lymphatic glands; he showed that each part had a definite
texture or structure, special to itself; and, though the idea of "the
tissues " did not come into use until long afterwards, he was on its track.
He complained that the acmi of the liver were so minute that their finer
"structure" could not be laid bare by the very best microscope. One
cannot help fancying that, with a more powerful instrument at his
command, he might have been led to a knowledge of the hepatic cell
and so to the cellular constitution of the organs which he studied.
Other observers also, notably Leeuwenhoek, applied the microscope to
the study of the structure of parts of the body; but none went so far
as Malpighi.

The progress of Physiology in another direction is so closely inter-

730 Chemistry: Boyle. — Van Helmont. — Sylvius.

woven with the progress of Chemistry that it will be better to consider
the two together. During the latter part of the sixteenth and earlier
part of the seventeenth century, though the day of alchemy was past,
there was great activity in the preparation of new chemical substances ;
this was due partly to natural curiosity, partly to the demand for new
remedies and for new industrial materials. And these preparations were
conducted to a very large extent by the method of exact measurement
which in Physics was proving so fruitful. But there was no corresponding
progress in chemical theory; "chemists," said Boyle, "have been much
more happy in finding experiments than the causes of them, or in assigning
the principles by which they may best be explained." Chemists continued
to accept the three "elements" or "principles" of Paracelsus, or rather
of Valentine, namely, sulphur, mercury, and salt — ^that is to say, the
classification of substances into those which were combustible and were
lost by combustion, those which were volatile and recovered after com-
bustion, and those which remained after combustion. Nicolas Lefevre
(d. 1674) and others, it is true, speaking of " oil " instead of sulphur, of
"spirit" instead of mercury, added to the three active two passive principles
— "water" or "phlegm" and "earth"; but this implied no great change.

Later in the seventeenth century, Boyle laid the foundations of
modem Chemistry by severely criticising in his Sceptical Chemist
(1661) those "principles" or "elements," and propounding the pregnant
idea, th^t all matter was made up of minute "corpuscles" capable of
arranging themselves in groups, small and simple, or large and complex;
that each such group constituted a chemical substance; and that chemical
change was a rearrangement of groups, a chemical compound being a
union of the constituents and capable of differing in qualities from either
of them ; and he attained to far-seeing views as to the part played
by heat in determining the arrangement of the corpuscles. But his
conceptions were slow in making way.

Two other men had a much more immediate effect on the chemical
learning of the century. Jean-Baptiste van Helmont (1577-1644), in
whom the exact quantitative observer and experimentalist was strangely
joined to the visionary, besides discovering many new chemical substances,
laid hold of some important truths. He introduced the idea of "gas" as
something distinct from either air or vapour, and recognised as gas
sylvestre what we now know as carbonic acid gas. He developed in
detail a doctrine of fermentations, and applied it to Physiology. His
description of the chemical processes of the living body as a series of six
"fermentative concoctions," by which the dead food is converted into
blood, first venous, then arterial, and subsequently into the living active
tissues — though marred by his spiritualistic ideas and his ignoring all
that Harvey had done — contains much that is interesting.

A very different man was Francis Sylvius (de La Bo^) (1614-72),
a zealous exponent of Harvey's teaching, and of all the new views in

The iatro-chemical and iatrO'physical schools. 731

Physiology and in Physics, who, while vigorously endeavouring to extend
purely chemical knowledge (he was the first to have a Laboratorium),
strove also to apply it to the problems of living beings and so became
at the same time the great teacher of the day in both Chemistry and
Medicine. Taking up the work of Johann Rudolf Glauber (1603-68),
who in discovering his sai mirabile, sodium sulphate, since and even still
known as "Glauber's salt," had considered it to be a compound of an
acid with an alkali; and, assisted by the labours of his pupil Otto
Tachenius (d. 1670 c), who even more clearly recognised that all salts
were similarly compounds of acids and bases, and who thus gained a general
conception of chemical aifinity, Sylvius drew the distinction between
cuAdwm and lixivmm or alkcdirmm — the basis of a classification of chemical
substances ; he strove, indeed, to explain many if not all chemical
phenomena, both in the living body and elsewhere, as the results of the
actions of acids and alkalis. The bubbles rising up in the fermenting
vat were according to him brought about in the same way as the bubbles
which came when oil of vitriol was thrown upon chalk ; fermentation was
to him the same thing as effervescence. He used the two terms indiffer-
ently and strove to explain, not only digestion in which the discoveries of
Stensen, Wharton, and his own pupil Regnier de Graaf (1641-73), led
him to attach great importance to saliva and pancreatic juice, the one in
his view being alkaline, the other acid, but most of the changes in the
body as a series of "effervescences," aided by "precipitations." Nowhere
did he find need to appeal to any spiritualistic forces ; chemical action
was adequate to explain all the phenomena of the living body ; and the
chemical actions met with there he regarded as identical with the chemical
actions seen in the beakers and retorts of the laboratory. Thus he became
the chief exponent of what was called the "iatro-chemical" school.

Meanwhile, Borelli was in like manner explaining everything from a
medianical-physical standpoint, teaching, for instance, that digestion, in
the stomach was a mere mechanical crushing of the food by muscular
action into minutest fragments, and that secretion was a sifting through
the sieve of the secreting organ of particles whose size and shape allowed
them to pass through adaptive minute pores. Thus he in turn became
the founder of the "iatro-physical " school.

Both schools did much, and the English school previously mentioned
perhaps even more, to advance knowledge ; but the close of the century
witnessed a remarkable development of chemical conceptions, which
turned biological doctrines aside from the line which they had seemed
to be taking. The exact part played by heat or fire in chemical actions
had from quite early times been the subject of great discussion, Boyle
(as we have seen) having had much to say about it; and now a wholly new
notion was started. Johann Joachim Becher (1635-82) in attempting
to revive Valentine's old "elements" in the form that all things consisted
of three earths, "terra la^ndea, improperly called salt, terra Jluida,

732 The phlogiston theory.

improperly called mercury, and terra pingmsi improperly called sulphur,"
maintained that, when a substance was burnt, the terra pinguis previously
contained in it escaped ; indeed thalt this escape of terra pinguis was
the essential feature of combustion. Taking up this ideaj George Ernest
Stahl (1660-1*734) developed it more fully into what became known as
the phlogiston theory. By phlogiston Stahl meant, not fire itself, but
"the material and principle of fire"; and this he regarded as a material
substance working in the following way. Everything which can burn
does so by virtue of its ho\6ang phlogiston, and the act of burning is the
giving out or loss of it. That which holds no phlogistim cannot of itself
bum; but it may support combustion by, taking in the phlogiston given
out by the buitiing body. Thus, air which is to a large extent free from
phlogiston is a great supporter of combustion ; and many other things
also free from it can bring about combustion.

The phlogiston theory was so powerfully advocated and proved so
attractive that — though it argued burning to be a loss, and though it
was thus in direct contradiction to the teaching of Boyle and Mayow —
who showed that certain things, metals for instance, increased in weight
by bm-ning — the theory not only gained immediate and general accept-
ance, but also remained dominant during the whole of the centiuy.

Stahl by h\s phlogistmi theory not only profovmdly influenced Chemistry
and thus indirectly Physiology, but also exercised a most powerful effect
on all biological enquiry by his earnest advocacy of spiritualistic concep-
tions. He put forward and brilliantly maintained the conception that
aU the chemical events of the living body, even though they might
superficially resemble them, were at the bottom wholly different from the
chemical changes taking place in the laboratory, since in the living body
all chemical changes were directly governed by the sensitive soul {a/nima
serlsitivd) yihich pervaded all parts and presided over aU events. The
pendulum swung beick from the somewhat crude materialism of Sylvius ;
in the views of the eighteenth century Stahl's "sensitive soul" was
dominant, and imder the weaker title of " vital force " is powerful even
at the present day.

In the seventeenth century some at least of the modem doctrines of
the nervous system began also to take shape. In the Galenic teaching
the " animal spirits " were concocted in the ventricles of the brain by a
mingling of the vital spirits, brought by the arterial blood, with air drawn
in directly from without through the pores of the ethmoid bone. Within
the several ventricles these animal spirits carried out the various fvmc-
tions of the soul, which they supplied with sensations by flowing upwards
along the nerves. Flowing downward along the nerves, they entered the
fibres, the tendinous part of a muscle, and, by swelling these up, brought
about enlargement or contraction of the muscle, the fleshy part of which
played a wholly passive part, and so gave rise to movement.

Nicolaus Stensen was the first to show, in 1664, that the fleshy part of

Nervous Physiology. 73-3

the muscle — ^the fleshy fibres, and not the tendinous part — was the active
contracting part, the contraction of the whole muscle being the result
of the contraction of the individual fibres; and he came very near
to quite recent views of the essential nature of muscular contraction.
Borelli, profiting by Stensen's discoveries and applying to the subject his
exact Mechanics and Physics, brought, at one stride as it were, the know-
ledge of muscular mechanics almost up to the knowledge of to-day. On
one point he failed to free himself from the old Galenic views ; he main-
tained that contraction was essentially an inflation, an increase in bulk.
The nerves in his view were occupied not by animal spirits, but by a fluid,
the succus nerveus, a "highly subtle and spirituous," yet still a strictly
physical, fluid, incapable of acting at a distance. Sensation and move-
ment were, according to him, brought about not by this succus flowing to
and fro, but by means of "concussions" passing along it. He admitted
that the mere advent of a concussion to the substance of a muscle could
not of itself cause an inflation and contraction; he supposed that it
excited in the muscle some change possibly of a "fermentative," that is to
say, of a chemical, nature.

An important advance was made by Francis Glisson (1597-1677),
who on the one hand introduced the idea and the word " irritability,"
as applied to muscular and other tissues, to denote the faculty of being
irritated^a conception destined to play so important a part in physi-
ology and pathology, and on the other hand made and described the
experiment which still remains as a classic lecture experiment, that a
muscle in contracting does not displace water, showing that contraction
is a change of form only, not of bulk. In this experiment the old
Galenic teaching received its last and fatal blow.

While this remarkable progress was taking place in the so to speak
lower regions of Nervous Physiology, there was no corresponding advance
in the higher regions. Solid additions to our knowledge of the anatomy
of the brain were, it is true, furnished by Thomas Willis (1621-66), the
chief merit of whose work rumours of the time however attributed to
Richard Lower, who assisted him in it; but, when we turn to the functions
of the brain, we find nothing much beyond fanciful speculations. Des-
cartes, ignoring Harvey's work and making use of the old Galenic
doctrines, expounded the body of man, including the nervous system, as
a machine capable of being explained by the new mechanical-physical
learning with the help of various assumptions, as, for instance, that
the nerves were tubes along which the flow of animal spirits was regulated
by valves; this body however, though capable of doing much by itself,
especially by what we now call reflex actions, was governed by the
" rational soul " hovering around the pineal gland. Van Helmont taught
the existence of an anima sensitiva motwaque, which, though residing in
the pylorus of the stomach, carried out by means of the brain and nervous
system the psychical work as well as the sensations and movements of

OH, XXIU,

734 Higher Nervous Physiology. — Botany.

the body; this soul however was mortal, though it contained within
itself, after the fashion of a kernel, the "immortal mind." Stahl, as we
have seen, carried on van Helmont's idea of anima sensitiva, though
stripped of its fanciful wrappings. And Willis, though his experience
as a physician led him to associate the corpora striata with movement
and sensation, and the optic thalami with vision, both however acting as
instruments of the higher cortex, revelled in conceptions at least as
fanciful as those just mentioned. He likened the vital spirits in the
blood to flame, and the animal spirits in the nervous system to light ;
and, while he explained all the actions of the nervous system as the
functions of a corporeal and mortal soul present in brutes no less than
in man, he claimed for man the possession also of a rational immortal
soul, which performed all the higher psychical functions.

About all these higher functions of the nervous system and the nature
of the soul the exact observers Malpighi, BoreUi, Lower, Sylvius and the
rest were silent. Only one of these spoke on the subject, and then
with a few words, mostly negative. In a lecture delivered at Paris on
the anatomy of the brain (1669), Stensen, after criticising severely the
views of Descartes and of Willis, on the ground that it is impossible to
explain the movements of a machinfe, so long as we remain ignorant of
the structure of its parts, and after expMning the great difficulties met
with in studying the structure of the brain, anticipated modem dis-
coveries by the suggestion that its fibres were arranged "according to
some definite pattern, on which doubtless depends the diversity of
sensations and movements."

Partly owing to the use of herbs as remedies, partly to natural
curiosity and the love of beautiful flowers, the sixteenth century was
very active in the recognition and description of plants. From the
middle of the century onwards Botanic Gardens were established at
Padua, Pisa, Bologna, Leyden, and elsewhere; and during the latter half
of the sixteenth and beginning of the seventeenth century a number of
elaborate, sometimes highly illustrated descriptions of plants, often
known as " herbals," were published by men, many of whose names are
in common use as names of plants, such as Fuchs, Gesner, Dodoens,
de L'Ecluse (Clusius), de L'Obel (Lobelius), and Bauhin. These descrip-
tions naturally implied a study of the organs of plants, and various
methods of naming them, as well as attempts at classification. The
most important, perhaps, and one of the earliest of such classifications
was that by Caesalpinus (1583), drawn up however more from an a priori
philosophical than from a direct natural history point of view. A classi-
fication introduced later by Joachim Jung (1587-1657) published after
his death in 1678, as well as one by Robert Morison (1620-83), appear
to have been used. John Ray (1628-1705), who in his Historia
Plantarum, published between 1686 and 1704, proposed an arrangement

Structural Botany and Vegetable Physiology. 735

which, though continuing the fundamentally false distinction between
trees and herbs laid down by Caesalpinus, separated monocotyledons
from dicotyledons, and may be regarded as the most notable approach
to the natural system.

These various descriptive works contained of course many references
to, and discussions on, the structure and uses of the parts of plants ; but
they were for the most part fragmentary, and in some cases erroneous.
In the latter part of the seventeenth century a remarkable advance was
marked by the almost simultaneous production, in 1671, of preliminary
accounts of the structure of plants by Malpighi and Nehemiah Grew,
followed by the fuller work of Malpighi in 1674, and of Grew in 1682.
These works cover very much the same ground and in many cases
announce the same discoveries arrived at independently, though Grew in
his later work had the advantage of knowing what Malpighi had written.
The two, at one bound, brought up the knowledge of the anatomy, and
especially the finer anatomy, of plants, from a mere collection of scattered
and more or less dubious observations to a solid and compact body of
exact doctrine. They showed — Malpighi writing with the greater
lucidity and pointedness, and Grew with more copious details — that the
elements of the structure of a plant were woody fibres, spiral vessels, and
the cells of the parenchymatous parts with the addition of the less generdl
lactiferous vessels. They further showed how these elements were built
up in the stem, with its bark, wood and pith and medullary rays, in the
roots, leaves, flowers, fruits and seeds ; and how the elements, forming the
roots, were first gathered up into the stem and then separated again into
the branches, thus establishing the continuity of all parts. They thus
laid the foundation of the Histology of Plants, to which Robert Hooke
and Leeuwenhoek made some slight additions, but which otherwise
remained untouched for more than a hundred years.

In describing structure, both Malpighi and Grew in their works
introduced considerations of function, the former more happily than the
latter. Looking upon the woody fibres as organs for conducting fluid
or sap, the spiral vessels or tracheae, as he called them, as air passages,
and the lactiferous vessels as channels for special juices, Malpighi
was led by the study of the young cotyledons of germinating seeds
(which he recognised as leaves) to the important view, that the crude
sap carried upwards from the roots w£is in the leaves, imder the influence
of the sun's rays, elaborated into more perfect sap; and that this,
descending again, was carried to growing parts or stored up in various
places. And Ray, who treats of Vegetable Physiology incidentally only,
had independently arrived at the same conclusion. As in his researches
on the animal body, so in his study of plants, Malpighi does not
attack the chemical side of the problem of nutrition; and Grew, who did
attempt it, was not very successful. Except for this want of chemical
truth, Malpighi and Grew may be said to have laid some of the

OH. xxin.

736 Sexuality in plants. — Zoology^

foundations of Vegetable Physiology as well as those of Vegetable
Histology.

One other important advance was made in the seventeenth century.
Although from quite early times botanists had recognised that some
plants might be spoken of as fruit-bearing and female and others as not
fruit-bearing and male, and Theophrastus had called attention to the
fact that the female date-palm only produces fruit when the dust of the
male is shaken over it, the view that the influence of a male element was
necessary for the full development of a female organ into fruit was rarely
expressed, and then in most cases obscurely. Some botanists, for instance
Caesalpinus, held that no such influence was necessary ; and Malpighi in
his very careful account of the development of seed and of the earlier
stages of the growth of the embryo refers nowhere to any influence of the
poUen, which he otherwise carefully described; he seems to have regarded
the seed as merely a kind of bud. Grew ascribed some subtle influence
to the anthers, but his account is most obscure ; and even Ray, who seems
after some hesitation to have finally accepted the doctrine of sexuality,
never attempted to obtain proof of the matter by experiment. In 1691,
however, and more fully in 1694, Rudolf Jacob Camerarius (1665-1721)
gave the direct experimental proof — namely, by removing them — ^that
the anthers were essential to fertilisation, and showed by his careful
account that he had fully grasped the importance of his discovery.

The study of animals made marked progress in the seventeenth
century in two directions, affording in this respect a parallel to the study
of plants. In the preceding century and even earlier the spirit of the new
method of research had led men to be no longer content with the study
of Aristotle's writings and the fabulous stories of travellers, but to observe
for themselves, to describe the features and habits of such animals as came
within their notice, and even to attempt a classification. As the zeal for
travel, which was one of the marks of the age, brought back to Europe
not only accounts but actual specimens of creatures hitherto unknown,
and collections began to be made in the form of museums, both private
and public, as well as of zoological gardens (the date of the earliest of
these it seems difficult to fix), a body of exact zoological knowledge
gradually grew up, expounded in such works. as those of Conrad Gesner
(1516-65) and of Aldrovandus (1527-1605).

This study of the Natural History of Animals, pursued, mainly out
of natural curiosity, and not for its use in Medicine or otherwise, con-
tinuing to make great progress in the seventeenth century, found a
brilliant expositor in the man of science who was doing a like service for
Botany — namely, John Ray. Francis Willughby (1635-72), first the
pupil, and then the intimate friend of Ray, had studied animals while
Ray was chiefly studying plants, the two carrying out their studies in
close concert ; but he died early without having published any important

Systematic Zoology and Comparative Anatomy. 737

part of the abundant material, especially on fishes and birds, which he had
gathered together. This work of Willughby, Ray, who had himself a
large share in it, brought out after the former's death. He himself pro-
duced a large work on quadrupeds and reptiles ; and a like work of his
on insects, was published after his death. Thus Ray, making use of
Willughby's labours, gave a full accoimt of the greater part of the
animal kingdom ; and the classification which he adopted was not only
accepted at the time, but has remained, with changes and extensions,
the basis of the classification in use to the present day. Ray in fact
may be regarded as the founder of Systematic Zoology.

The systematic zoologists paid more attiention to external features
than to internal structure; but it was only natural that the enquirers who
found the actual dissection of the human body so fruitful of new truths
and new ideas should turn to the dissection of the bodies of animals ;
and, indeed, many of the anatomists, notably Fabricius, following the
example of Galen, did, in a more or less desultory fashion, examine £uid
describe the structure of various animals. In the middle of the seven-
teenth century, however, two men took up this work in a more thorough
fashion, being therein greatly assisted by the introduction of the micro-
scope. Malpighi's accoimt of the anatomy of the silk-worm (1669) was
the pioneer of exact Comparative Anatomy and Histology in respect
to animals, doing for them what his Anatome Plantarum did for
plants. About the same time, Swammerdam was applying the same
methods, in a still more thorough and extensive way, not only to
various kinds of insects in their several stages of metamorphosis, but
to other animals as well, such as the snaU and the frog. A few only
of Swammerdam's results were published in his lifetime; the greater
part did not see the light until long after his death, when in 1737
Boerhaave published under the title of Biblia Naturae the writings which
he had left behind. These two men, Malpighi and Swammerdam, may
be said to have created the science of Comparative Anatomy. The same
century saw, however, other important works. Leeuwenhoek, applying
the microscope in all directions, discovered spermatozoa, made known
infusoria and rotifera, and studied hydra and aphthis. Malpighi, carrying
the study of the formation of the chick in the egg far beyond the rough
attempts of Fabricius, laid the foundations of Embryology Francesco
Redi (1670), in proving that maggots were not bred out of mere
corruption, since they did not appear in rotting flesh if the access
of flies was prevented, not only dealt a heavy blow at the widely
accepted theory of spontaneous generation, but introduced a new and
fruitful method of Experimental Biology. Of less, perhaps, but still
great value, were Redi's works (1684) on the structure and economy of
parasitic animals, and (1664) on vipers, in which he gave an admirable
account of the poison mechanism, and incidentally showed that the
poison was not absorbed by the alimentary canal. He also wrote on the

0. M. IT. V. cn. XX 1 11. 47

738 Mineralogy.

torpedo. Stensen carefully described the anatomy of the ray ; and
Frederik Ruysch (1638-1731), by the singular skill with which he
developed the art of injecting blood vessels and other channels with
coloured materials, assisted largely the progress not only of human but
also of comparative anatomy^

In the sixteenth century, and even earliei", the new spirit of observa-
tion and enquiry did not fail to turn men's minds to the phenomena of the
earth, especially as disclosed by mining operations. It led George Bauer
(Georgius Agricola, 1494^1656), who lived near the mines of the Erzge-
birge, to a very extensive study of metals and other minerals, and he may
be said to have laid the foundations of Mineralogy. Among the objects
of which he spoke as Jbssilia he included the remains of extinct
animals ; but he did not recognise these as sUch ; he made no distinction
between them and minerals possessing definite forms, and thought that
they all arose in the same way — that all were the products of natural
forces.

While minerals were thus being studied from the mining point of
view, it was natural that the men who had been led to study animals
and plants, and especially those who gathered collections of these and
formed museums, should also turn their attention to minerals, precious
stones and fossils. Thus Caesalpinus, Conrad Gesner, Aldrovandus
and others treated of these as well as of plants and animals. But they,
or at least the majority of them, failed to distinguish between ordinary
minerals and the mineralised remains of extinct animals ; they spoke of
the latter as " sculptured minerals," lapidesfigurati, and regarded them
as hisus naturae, as the products of a mysterious visplastica or lapidifica.
This view, however, was not accepted by all. Even in the fifteenth
and, later, in the sixteenth century both those remarkable men, Leo-
nardo da Vinci and Bernard Palissy, "the Potter," (1499-1589), had
argued forcibly that these fossils must be the remains of animals and
plants which were once living. Yet it held its ground in a remarkable
manner far on into the seventeenth century, and did not wholly dis-
appear until the end of that century or even the beginning of the next.
Hence, though many collections of fossil plants and animals were made,
and many specimens carefully described, little use was made of them to
interpret the history of the eai-th.

In the seventeenth century the labours of John Woodward (1665-
1772), who made large collections of fossils and minerals and most care-
fully studied and described them, were perhaps the most effective in
establishing the truth that fossils were really the remains of plants and
animals which were once alive ; and in this he was vigorously supported
later by Jean- Jacques Scheuchzer (1672-1733) and others. But Woodward
and the rest were content with the explanation that the distribution of
these fossils at different places and at different depths from the surface was

Anticipation of Geology. — Early Academies. 739

simply a result of the Mosaic deluge. And indeed, though Athanasius
Kircher (1602-80) studied and carefully described volcanoes, and though
a posthumous work by Robert Hooke on earthqiiakes shows that he had
grasped the idea that fossils might be used as helps to tell the tale of
the earth, most of the attempts of the century to explain how the earth
had gained its present features were either fantastic developments of
the biblical history or speculative cosmogonies like those of Descartes
and Leibniz.

One man only followed in the path begun by Da Vinci, who had not
only contended that fossils were the remains of once living plants and
animals, but had also suggested how their presence in various places and
at various depths could be explained by the action of water. That
singular man, Nicolaus Stensen, in a little tract, De solido intra solidum,
published in 1669, a brief preliminary statement (intended to be followed
by a larger and fuller work which, however, never saw the light), after
showing that fossils were really the remains of plants and animals, went
on to infer from the features of the soil in which they were embedded,
and from the other circumstances of their occurrence, the changes which'
had taken place leading to their deposition. The little work was in fact
a remarkable anticipation of modem geological doctrines ; but it pro-
duced no lasting effect and was soon forgotten. The seventeenth century
passed away without any advance on the beginning thus made.

The story of the progress of science in the seventeenth century
would not be complete without a reference to the scientific societies
which were tokens of the scientific activity of the time,- and powerfully
promoted the advance of scientific knowledge.

During the fifteenth century the fiiends of the new studies began
to form, in various cities of Italy, clubs or societies, the members of
which, meeting together under the protection and very frequently at the
house of some great or wealthy personage, used to discuss and take
measures to promote the new ideas which were stirring them. A society
of this kind, founded at Florence by Cosimo de' Medici, which devoted
itself to the study of the writings of Plato, thought to emphasise its
platonic character by calling itself an Accademia ; and the name after a
while came to be adopted by similar societies. During the sixteenth and
seventeenth centuries these societies, or Academies, multiplied rapidly;
they became the fashion, so that nearly every largfe city in Italy had at
least one, and the chief cities several. Most of the Academies busied
themselves with letters or with art ; they assumed fantastic names ; they
were in many cases short-lived, some of them being put down by the
Church, or remaining insignificant.

Towards the middle of the seventeenth centiuy the progress of
scientific learning in its various branches received a great stimulus, in
several European countries, from the foundation of Academies or

CH. xxiu. 47 — 2

740 Scientific Societies and Academies.

Societies created for the purpose of encouraging scientific investigation,
and providing a common meeting-place for the interchange of ideas.

The first society for the prosepution of physical science was established
at Naples in 1560, under the name of Academia Secretorum Naturae, and
under the presidency of Baptista Porta. In the course of the seventeenth
century two of the Italian Academies which devoted themselves to science
became famous. At Florence, a society, begun informally in 1651, under
the patronage of Ferdinand II, was formally established in 1657, imder
the name of the Accademia del Cimento, by Prince Leopold, at whose
palace it met, and who gave it unstinted help. It devoted itself mainly
to mathematical and physical science ; many, if not most, of the greater
scientific men of the time were among its members ; it discussed, devised
and carried out experimental researches, and in 1667 published an account
of its labours under the title of Saggi di naturali esperienze Jhtte neW
Accademia del Cimento, In 1667, however, Leopold^s energies being with-
drawn from it on his being created a Cardinal, and several of its active
members, such as Borelli, having left Florence, the Academy came to
an end.

At Rome, at even an earlier date, in 1603, a similar society was
founded by Prince Federigo Cesi under the name of the Accademia del
Lincei, which devoted itself mainly to the natural sciences. like its sister
at Florence, it authorised publications, and like its sister it had a short
life only, coming to an end in 1630, upon the early death of its founder.
Long afterwards — ^in 1784 — the name was revived in the present Reale
Accademia dei Lincei. An Accademia Jisico-matematica was founded at
Rome by Giovanni Giustino Ciampini in 1677. The scientific Academy
at Naples had been suppressed by Philip II, and was succeeded by another
Academy of Sciences in 1695.

In England a society, similar to the Italian Academies, was established
in 1645 at London, meeting at Gresham College or elsewhere, under the
private name of the "Invisible College." In 1648 the society was
divided, some members continuing to meet, fitfully owing to the troubles
of the time, in London, but most of them at Oxford. In 1660 the
meetings in London were revived with success, and on July 15, 1662, the
society was formally incorporated by charter as the " Royal Society of
London," a second charter being granted in 1663. It is known how
keen and useful an interest was taken by John Evelyn in the early
progress of the Royal Society; his project of a Mathematical College,
like his friend Abraham Cowley's Philosophical College, remained,
however, unaccomplished. William Molyneux is regarded as the
founder of the Dublin Philosophical Society (1684). In France, at
Paris, a similar society, about the middle of the seventeenth centuiy,
met at the house of Melchisedec Thevenot, a man distinguished by
his travels and his interest in science ; it was before this society that
Stensen gave his remarkable lecture on the brain, attacking the teadiing

Scientific Academies. 741

of Descartes and others. And there seem to have been other like
societies or Academies at Paris. In 1666 (the Acadimie Frcmfaise
having been founded earlier, in 1635), the place of these informal
Academies was taken by the Acadimie des Sciences, established by
Louis XIV, on the advice of Colbert. In 1699 it was reorganised
and began to issue publications. In Germany, a society similar to
the Italian Academies was established by Johann Lorenz Bausch,
a physician of Schweinfurt, in 1662; it was familiarly known as "the
Argonauts" but more formally as the Academia naturae curiosorum.
Under this latter name it was, in 1687, definitely established under
statutes, at Vienna, with privileges granted by the Emperor Leopold.
Leibniz, who was a member of the Royal Society (from 1673) and of
Ciampini's Roman Physical and Mathematical Academy, induced the
Elector Frederick III (soon to become King Frederick I of Prussia)
through the influence of his consort the Hanoverian Sophia Charlotte
to establish a Society of Sciences, of which Leibniz himself was made the
first president, and which in 1711 became the "Academy of Sciences."
His efforts, however, to bring about the establishment of a general
Academy of Sciences at Vienna were unsuccessful. At one time they
had nearly approached realisation ; and he put forth in both Latin and
German schemes for the proposed Societas ImperiaUs Germamica, and
drafted statutes for it. But the project was in the end defeated (about
1714) by Jesuit opposition and by lack of funds. In Russia, as has been
seen in a previous chapter, an Academy of Sciences was founded at
Moscow by the Tsar Theodore III so early as 1681. But this institution,
into the foimdation of which rehgious purposes largely entered, was
superseded by the Academy of Sciences founded by Peter the Great
at St Petersburg in 1724, designed as a general centre of education
and learning.

The Academies belonging to other Eiuropean countries were founded
at later dates.

OB. xxril.

742

CHAPTER XXIV,

LATITUDINARIANISM AND PIETISM.

Two tendencies impeded the peaceful and progressive development
of the Reformation in the latter half of the seventeenth century — ^the
spirit of growing insubordination, or excessive use of the right of free
enquiry, and the lapse, on the other hand, into a hardened dogmatism,
limiting the area of free debate in utter contradiction of this principle,
the right of private judgment, which is the raison cTStre of Protestantism.
The dialectical process involved, in these antagonistic tendencies became
a disintegrating force, threatening internal dissolution. In England, the
strife of political parties, closely connected with the conflict between
the sacerdotal theory of ecclesiasticism and the Puritanical theory of
doctrinal exclusiveness, intensified religious passions. In Germany, the
prostration which followed the Thirty Years' War together with the
stifling effects of governmental repression — a strict application of the
jus rejhrmdndi of the territorial sovereign (Landesherr) — often in league
with clerical domination, retarded the progress of intellectual and spiritual
religion. Two movements, both talcing their rise in Holland, then the
home of a virile and tolerant Protestantism, came into existence to
counteract these two tendencies — Latitudinarianism in England, and
Pietism in Germany.

The former was an attempt to bring about agreement in essentials,
while dealing gently with, or passing over, minor differences. The
latter sought to rouse the religious world from lethargy and the torpor
of formalism. Previous attempts of Roman Catholic and Protestant
divines to define doctrine with a view to putting an end to controversy,
at the Council of Trent and at the Synod of Dort, in the Formula
Concordiae, and in the Thirty-nine Articles, conceived as "articles of
peace," and in the Westminster and Helvetic Confessions of Faith, had
failed in their object. It was then that a small number of divines
and laymen, wearied and saddened by the deadening effects of the new
scholasticism, tried to introduce " sweet reasonableness " into theological
discussion; while others thought they had found a more excellent way in
the intuitive religion of the heart, and in the simplest and most primitive

Attempts at Reunion. — Intolerance. 743

forms of faith, more or less independent of external ordinances and a
"form of words." These, an inconsiderable body as to numbers, but
conscious of the support of many inarticulate sympathisers, tried to
lessen the virulence of the rabies theohgorum — Lutherans and Reformers,
Jansenists and Jesuits, Calvinists and Arrainians, Puritans and Anglicans —
all fiercely contending with one another. At the same time efforts were
made by authority, as for example in the "Charitable Conference" at
Thorn (1645), convened by Wladislaw, King of Poland, in the Synod
of Charenton (1631), suggested by Louis XIV, and through the "Peace of
the Church," brought about by Clement IX in order to put an end to the
Jansenist trouble. Other, but equally futile, attempts at reunion were also
made by eminent churchmen and statesmen such as Richelieu and Bossuet,
or initiated by Princes such as Landgrave William VI of Hesse, who arranged
for a friendly discussion between Lutherans and Reformers at Cassel
(1661) ; or, earlier still, by James I, who attempted, through the instru-
mentality of Peter du Moulin, a divine renowned among the French
Reformers, and at the Hampton Court Conference (1604), to bring about a
compromise between Puritans and Episcopalians. The same fate attended
the efforts of the broad-minded Elector John Sigisinund of Brandenburg,
who granted full liberty of conscience to his subjects, and later by the
Great Elector, who also tried to put an end to the mutual recriminations
of Lutherans and Calvinists.

Religious equality and the toleration of minorities were not fully
secured by the Peace of Westphalia; and the rights acquired by the
Protestants were often abridged by the arbitrary acts of Catholic
Princes, who aided and abetted the efforts of the Jesuits to bring
about conversions, often by methods of persuasion, which differed little
from persecution. In the Palatinate, where a Catholic dynasty had
succeeded, the persecution of the Protestants was only averted by threats
of reprisals on the part of Prussia. In Electoral Saxony, where Frederick
Augustus became a convert to Rome with a view to obtaining the Crown
of Poland, it would have led to similar results, but for the determination
of his Lutheran subjects. In Salzburg the Archbishop, Count Firmian,
in 1729, attempted a forced reconversion of the body of loyal " Evangelical
Catholics." Thereupon a hundred of their elders, at dawn one Sunday
morning in a defile of the Schwarzach, took an oath on the Host and on '
consecrated salt, vowing in the name of the Holy Trinity that they
would stand by each other in sorrow and misfortune and remain true
to the Evangelical faith. In defiance of the Corpus Evamgelicorum (the
body of Protestant representatives at the permanent Diet of Ratisbon who
were responsible for the upholding of Protectant rights and privileges)
might often prevailed over right ; and in this particular case the sufferers
only escaped by a patent of emigration. In Hungary few of the magnates
were able to resist the temptation of retaining their court and state
appointments aa the price of returning to the dominant religion, and

CH. IXIV,

744 Jesuits and their converts. — Calixtus.

the ordinary Protestant citizens were exposed to innumerable vexations ;
while in other parts of the Habsburg dominions the persecuted Protestants
found it necessary to seek an asylum from persecution in Transylvania.

Throughout the German Empire, moreover, many nobles and men
of superior culture began to be captivated by the zeal and by the con-
troversial skill of the Roman emissaries, to whom the progress of historical
and patristic studies had given a temporary advantage. Some potentates,
like Henry IV in France^ would not lose a crown for a mass and became
Catholics from wise policy, or cunning statecraft. Others again, like
the accomplished Queen Christina of Sweden, the daughter of Gustavus
Adolphus, the patron and disciple of Descartes, the correspondent of
Pascal and Spinoza, turned away from the narrow-minded bigotry of her
Protestant court-preachers to seek refuge in the Roman communion, as
the more flexible, if not the more liberal^ system of religion. John
Frederick of Hanover, intellectually the most distinguished of the Bruns-
wick-Liineburg Dukes, and the first among them to patronise Leibniz, was
converted to Romanism through the enthusiasm of Count Rantzau, him-
self a distinguished convert. The conversion of his kinsman, Antony
Ulric of Brunswick- Wolfenbiittel, belongs to a later date (1710)j and
followed on that of his niece, who became the consort of the future
Emperor Charles VI. Not a few Princes were drawn towards Rome by the
natural affinity between state absolutism and ecclesiastical concentration,
agreeing with the Jesuits that obedience is the only remedy against dis-
sidency and insubordination to authority in Church and State. The
main cause of the defection of the mass of the people in Protestant countries
was the moral decadence and mental decrepitude of the clergy, together
with the repellent effect of their dry disquisitions in the pulpit, accom-
panied by frigid forms of worship. The primary object of the Pietists,
therefore, was to infuse a fresh spirit of religious fervour, and to bring
into use forms of faith and worship better calculated to satisfy the
craving for Innerlichheit (depth of soul) in devotion and the desire to
face the profounder questions which gather round religion. Thus it was
that mystic Pietism found its way from the Netherlands into Germany,
its carriers being the German students frequenting the then famous
Dutch Universities, while the University of Helmstedt, the solitary oasis
of intellectual freedom in Germany at this time, produced in Calixtus
(who died in 1656), the noble-minded precursor of a new era, whose
effort, however, to liberalise theology only produced fierce opposition,
though it paved the way for the work of later reformers.

In England, also, the liberalising influence of the Dutch Remonstrants
had its effect on the Latitudinarians. John Hales had heard with admira-
tion the defence of Episcopius at the Synod of Dort. But the movement
in England formed part of the general progress of thought, and was
accompanied by a determined national resistance to the advances of

Latitudinarian aims. — Falkland. 746

resurgent Romanism and the general dislike of hierarchical pretensions
in the Anglican Church. Here much need existed for the moderating
influence of a middle party like that of the Latitudinarians, who, though
they with the i-est regarded theology as the " empress of the sciences,"
were under the influence of the philosophical speculations of the time,
and formed their own opinions on a broader basis, able to stand aside
and view with impartial calm the storm of religious disputation, then
at its full height. They tried to find a middle way between extreme
Anglicanism and intolerant Puritanism, between the advocates of re-
pressive tyranny and revolutionary fanaticism, between the retrograde
advocates of authority and the clamorous partisans of independence, each
side appealing to Scripture and antiquity, and neither willing to grant
to others the right they claimed for themselves. The Latitudinarians
addressed themselves to the task of pacification by lifting up the still,
small voice of reason to quell the storm of religious passions. Bound
together by similar views and sentiments, but working independently of
each other, they took their stand on the ground of rational theology.
They dwelt on the claims of Christian morality rather than on the im-
portance of purity of doctrine ; they preferred the evidence of righteous
conduct to the test of correct convictions, asserting the supremacy of
reason, yet without impugning the claims of revelation. Their principal
aim was a larger comprehension in the charitable spirit of enlightened,
though cautious, moderation.

Their first leader was Lord Falkland, the honoured friend of Clarendon,
the associate of Ben Jonson, Cowley, D'Avenant, Carew and Suckling.
He was also the presiding genius of the "Convivium theologicum'" ; and
some of its members, meeting under his hospitable roof, at a subsequent
period became the leaders of the Latitudinarian school of divines. Bom
of a mother who had been under Jesuit influence, but educated at Trinity
College, Dublin, then under the provostship of Ussher, he owed his Pro-
testant views to the spirit of ecclesiastical liberalism prevailing there
at this time. After a short stay in Holland, where he met Grotius, and
a somewhat chequered career, he returned and settled down in his own
country seat at Great Tew, to give himself up to learned leisure and his
favourite Uterary pursuits. It was here that Chillingworth wrote his
chief work, in consultation with his friends, and, it has been even surmised,
in cooperation with Falkland himself. When the war between the King
and Parliament broke out, Falkland, from a romantic sense of loyalty,
took side with his royal master, and joined the army as a volunteer with
the Earl of Essex. We are told by Clarendon, that "from the entrance into
this unnatural war his natural cheerfulness and vivacity grew clouded,
and a kind of sadness and dejection of spirit stole over him which he
had never been used to." Equally distasteful to his mind were the
contentions in Parliament, where he was equally opposed to the "root
and branch" party, who tried to exclude the Bishops from the House

746 ChilUngworth's Eeligion of Protestants.

of Lords or abolish the Order altogether, and to the exaggerated view of
its sacredness entertained by its extreme defenders. Throughout his
parliamentary career his plea was for justice tempered by mercy, with
reverence for the law and unwillingness to permit any breach of it
for reasons of State. He hazarded his life in a war which he abhorred,
and fell in battle when he was only thirty-four years old. Thus this
" little man " with a great soul passed away prematurely, " the martyr
of lucidity of mind and largeness of temper," leaving behind him as
a legacy the example of a true Catholicity avoiding the falsehood of
extremes, firmly holding on to faith without abjuring reason, and thus
opening a new era in religious thought.

The " immortal " Chillingworth had, like his friend Falkland, been
under Jesuit influence ; he had, moreover, been brought into personal
contact with members of the Order, and had succumbed to their
superior skill of fence. Himself considered " the readiest and nimblest
disputant" at the University, he met his match in one John Fisher
(whose real name was Perse or Percey), one of the seminary priests, who
worked with much zeal among Oxford undergraduates at this time,
and was by him induced to enter the Chxu-ch of Rome. But, on being
sent for further instruction to the college at Douay, he there became
a "doubting papist," and, partly through the persuasion of Laud, his
godfather, returned to the English Church. Chillingworth reentered
the University to complete a work on free enquiry into religion, and
later resorted to the library at Tew, rich in patristic and controversial
divinityj. to collect materials. Thus equipped, he wrote his well-known
treatise entitled The ReUgion of Protestants a Safe Way to Salvation;
or an Answer to a Book entitled "Mercy and Truth, or Charity
maintained by Catholics.'" It met with the full approval of the King
and Laud, but with little favour from the Puritans. For, though a
defender of Protestantism, Chillingworth had little in common with
them, as, by natural disposition or by training, he was entirely opposed to
their intolerant conception^ of religion. He was one of the earliest
objectors to the "damnatory clauses" of the Athanasian Creed, and
considered subscription to the Articles of Religion "an imposition on
men's conscience," though ultimately he accepted them as "articles of
peace." Attached to the royal cause, he joined the King's forces and
was present at the siege of Gloucester, where he invented some
engines for storming the place. He followed Lord Hopton into
Sussex, where he was shut up with the garrison in Arundel Castle.
Here, out of health and spirits, he was taken prisoner and conveyed
to Chichester, partly through the kind intervention of Francis
Cheynell, a former Fellow of Merton, and a "rigid, zealous, Pres-
byterian," who, in his eagerness to convert Chillingworth, embittered
his last moments by his importunate visits. At Chichester, Chilling-
worth died, and was buried in the cloisters of the cathedral by men of

John Hales a typical LatitucUnarian. *l4tl

his awa persuasion; for it was only just "that malignants should carry
malignants to their graves," to use the words of Cheynell, who met
them " with Master Chillingworth's book in my hand," and cast it into
the grave, with a commendatory prayer, of which it will suffice to quote
part : " Get thee gone, thou cursed book, which hast seduced so many
precious souls ! Get thee gone, thou corrupt rotten book ! Earth to
Earth, and dust to dust ! "

But his work has survived by the elevated dignity of its style, as the
outcome of a singularly bright and massive intellect possessed of a firm
grasp of the subject and a forceful firmness in conducting the argument
from beginning to end. Chillingworth is fair, even magnanimous, towards
his opponents, and in the statement of his own case lucid, though, by
reason of his eager impetuosity, his sentences are at times involved. A
manly naturalness irradiating its pages raises the book far above the
average of similar controversial writings of that day. Briefly stated, the
argument rests on the infallibility of the Bible as against the infallibility
of the Church, and on the right of each individual reader to interpret it
independently of ecclesiastical authority, the book being in the end its
own interpreter. Thus, amid the clatter of controversies and the tumult
raised by the "warrior with confused noise and garments rolled in
blood," a voice is here raised, calm and clear in its declaration that
" Protestants are inexcusable if they did offer violence to other men's
consciences."

"The ever memorable John Hales of Eton" d,iffered from his two
younger friends by not taking a prominent part in public affairs. He
was a retiring scholar, a, student of Shakespejire, taking an honoured
place in Suckling's "session of poets," renowned as a " subtle disputer"
and eloquent preacher, and, as such, selected to pronounce the funeral
oration on the founder of the Bodleian Library. A man of well-balanced
judgment, not tied to any party views, a lover of peace detesting " the
brawls grown from religion," John Hales is a typical Latitudinarian,
gifted with acuteness of intellect, a most delicate perception of the pro-
portion of things, and a profound spiritual insight, viewing the current
of religious partisanship from the elevated standpoint of a candid observer
rather than from that of a chief actor in the turmoil of political and
religious warfare. As a royalist, he suffered with the rest and was deprived
of his emoluments, severed from his friends and books, and exposed to
indigence in his old age. Yet he remained throughout unsoured by mis-
fortune, retaining a genial and humane kindliness, fiill of charity towards
others. He " would often say that he would renoimce the religion of
the Church of England, tomorrow, if it obliged him to believe that any
other Christian should be damned, and that nobody would conclude
another man to be damned who did not wish him so." He shows that
pride and passion rather than conscience are the cause of religious
fintagonism, that heresy and schisiQ are scarecrows to frighten the

748 Jeremy Taylor and The Liberty of Prophesying.

unwary, while sectaries are reminded that "communion" is "the strength
and good of all socitety, sacred and civil." Hales is quick in detecting
the weak points in an argument and the flaws in hasty assumptions.
As to the claims of antiquity, he justly points out that the age of
opinions does not add to their value. As to the plea of the universal
acceptance of truth, quod ah omnibus, he shows, like his contemporary
Pascal, that the power of majorities consists in their number, not their
reason — "there are more which run against the truth than with it."
In short, John Hales is a religious critic, devout, but not dogmatic ;
rational, but without rashness; liberal, but opposed to licence; a lover
of simplicity in religious belief, yet at the same time a rare example of
philosophical breadth; in his mental attitude maintaining a singularly
calm steadfastness in the whirlpool of theological and political unrest.

Ten years lie between the publication of Chillingworth's work and
The Liberty of Prophesying, by Jeremy Taylor ; and many and far-
reaching events had occurred in the interval which account for the
differences in their style and method, apart from differences in personal
disposition and mental characteristics. The triumph of Puritanism, its
split into two parties, the submergence of the moderate section by
the violence of the revolutionary current, the displacement of the
Presbyterians by the Independents, and the multiplication of sects, lead-
ing to greater diversity of religious opinion, furnished the psychological
moment for the appearance of such a work as Taylor's, which was
intended to secure intellectual freedom from spiritual tyranny. He takes
up the same ground a^ his two predecessors, but rests his argument, not
only on the uncertainty of tradition and the inconsistency of the Fathers,
as weakening their authority, but also on the fallibility of reason in the
interpretation of the Bible, thence deducing the duty of agreeing to
differ. His aim is not only reconciliation, but reconstruction on a wider
basis. His position is near to that of a sceptical eclectic; hence the
dread with which the saintly Saunderson regards his "novelties." Jeremy
Taylor is not a controversialist pure and simple ; he is a casuist in his
Dudor Dubitantium, with its " subtilties and spiriosities," a rhetorician
rather than a reasoner: for his style is full of redundancy and prolixity,
though less so in this work than in some of his other writingk. He is a
Pietist in his several collections of meditations, especially in The Golden
Grove, so called in honour of his friend, the Earl of Carbery, at whose
seat bearing this name he found hospitality.. He is a promoter of
saintly living and dying, a guide of souls, turning them away from arid
disputation to mystical communion with God ; " there is no cure for us,
but piety and charity." He is a literary churchman rather than a logical
divine. His chivalrous defence of episcopacy and somewhat incon-
clusive dissuasion from Romanism are ineffective, bilt not so miich as has
been surmised, on account of a sense of insecurity as to his own stand-
point, or of his " critical insensibility." He is less uncompromising than

StilUngJleet's Itenicon. 749

his predecessors, because he is more humanely sympathetic in his attitude
towards those in error. While unanimity is impossible, and doctrinal
uniformity has proved ineffective, and "no man is a heretic against his
will," the unity of the spirit is insisted upon as essential, and Taylor
could unite all in the bond of peace and of all 'virtues. " I thought it
might not misbecome my duty and endeavours to 'plead for peace and
charity and forgiveness and permissions mutual ; although I had reason
to believe that such is the iniquity of men, and they so indisposed to
receive such impresses, that I had as good plough the sands, or till
the air."

A very different mind from Jeremy Taylor's was that of Edward
Stillingfleet, though they are frequently mentioned together as men of
similar views and aims. Both are animated by the same catholicity of
spirit ; but, whereas Stillingfleet is distinguished by greater intellectual
penetration and polemical adroitness, Jeremy Taylor excels by the ardour
of his earnest affectionateness and meditative mental detachment. He
also shows greater consistency in adhering to his liberal principles with the
changing times. But, with the development of events in the Restoration
period, both alike display the same tendency to lean on the State for
the restraint of sectarian fanaticism and ecclesiastical intolerance. The
Irenicon was published in 1659 and republished in 1662, the year in
which the Act of Uniformity was passed, with the first motto on its
title-page, " Let your moderation be known to all men." At this time,
and more especially among the younger clergy, an earnest desire was
felt for a compromise between the religious parties ; and Stillingfleet was
still a young man when he wrote the book. In it he builds up an
argument on the basis of the insecurity of tradition and authority like
his predecessors, but takes a step further in the direction of Latitu-
dinarianism by emphasising the indifference of forms, maintaining "that
the form of church government is a mere matter of prudence, regulated
by the word of God." From the composing effects of Christian prudence
in the rulers of the Church he expects a termination " of our strange
divisions and unchristian animosities, while we pretend to serve the
Prince of Peace." He lived to alter his tone when he had attained to
episcopal rank after the Restoration. Then he became the special pleader
of his own Church and Order ; yet the Irenicon is the sincere expression
of those principles which had been instilled into his mind by the band
of Cambridge Latitudinarian divines known as the Cambridge Platonists,

These were so called because they were given to the study of Plato
and Neoplatonism. With the idealist philosopher, they saw the spiritual
realities behind the phenomenal world; and, imbued with the new spirit
of speculation as the century advanced, they endeavpured to supply the
need felt for bringing religious thought into relation with the thought
of the time. Most of them were members of the Puritan College of
Emmanuel, where dogmatic rigidity naturally produced a reaction.

T50 The Cambridge Platonists.

Their leader, Benjamin Whichcote, was utterly unlilce " the stiff and
narrow" divines who had filled the highest places in the University
during the ascendancy of the Puritan party. Burnet speaks of him as
"a man of rare temperj very mild and obliging; being disgusted
with the dry systematical way of those times, he studied to raise those
who conversed with him to a nobler set of thoughts, and tfl consider
religion as a seed of a deiform nature." In contrast with the " sourness
and severity" of the Puritan doctrine he held up "a kind of moral
divinity " ; so one of its representatives, his former tutor Tuckney, com-
plains. Two of his most distinguished pupils, Henry More and Ralph
Cudworth, were well acquainted with the new philosophy and in direct
correspondence with Descartes. They and others followed the prevailing
tendency of the day to reconsider the criterion of truth, to seek for somie
new principle of certitude amid the decay of antiquated systems. Prom the
first, they exercised considerable influence on the affairs of national life.
Whichcote was in the confidence of some of the leading men of the
Commonwealth, and as Provost of King's and afternoon lecturer at
Trinity Church his chief power was felt in the lecture room and the
pulpit, mainly among the youth of the University, in expanding religious
thought by showing its affinity with all that is noble and pure in human
nature. As to religious controversy, he reminds his contemporaries
that "the maintenance of truth is rather God's charge and the con-
tinuance of charity ours"; that the "vitals of religion" are few; that
"there is nothing more unnatural to religion than contentions about
it." He admits unreservedly the claims of reason: "Reason is the
Divine Governor of man's life; it is the very voice of God."

John Smith, also a pupil of Whichcote, was a Platonist in the best sense
of the word, a man of philosophic breadth, rich in thoiight, and possessing
a marked distinction of style. For him Divinity is "the true efflux of the
eternal light " — so far he platonises with Plato. " Divinity is not so well
perceived by a subtile wit as by a purified sense " ; here he follows Plotinus.
Smith's was a lofty and intellectual nature, passionate in its ardent love
for truth, even impetuous, but kept in check by humility, patience, and
"the philosophic mind." His Sekct Discourses (1661) are perhaps the
most important work of this Cambridge school ; they are " impregnated
with Divine notions." In an age still under the sense of religious
terror, his piety was free from all servile fear, and the " sour and ghastly
apprehension of God." He was equally free from that unbecoming
assumption of familiarity with the Deity which was the weakness
of the Pietists. They imagine, as he puts it, "that we are become
heaven's darlings as much as we are our own." He discards a verbal basis
of belief, " subtle niceties," in formulating religious truth. The latter,
he says, is better understood by unfolding itself in the purity of men's
hearts and lives, but is divinely imparted, as a revelation, by "the
free influx of the divine mind upon our minds and understanding."

Cudworth's Intellectual System. 761

Henry More, in his Divine Dialogues and poems, is the type of the
devout mystic — a recluse who refused the most tempting offers of
preferment in favour of contemplative seclusion. His personality was
singularly attractive; he was a pure idealist, regarding Christianity
as "the deepest and choicest piece of philosophy." He followed
reason, but knew its limitations and fell back upon " Divine sagacity "
— spiritual illumination — as antecedent to rational apprehensidn. He
pointed out the importance of inwardness in religion, and looked on
holiness as the portal admitting to divine knowledge. " God reserves
his choicest secrets to the purest minds." He was a transcendentalist,
who had his occasional raptures, in contact with the spiritual world.
William Law, a kindred spirit of that age, speaks of him as a Babylonish
philosopher, but is deeply impressed by his profound piety. Even
Hobbes, with whom he maintained friendly relations in spite of their
differences of opinion, could say that, if ever he found his own opinions
untenable, " he would embrace the philosophy of Dr More."

Ralph Cudworth, as a thinker and a moralist, occupied a preeminent
position among the Cambridge Platonists. In the sermon preached before
Parliament in 1647 he was bold enough to remind his hearers that many
who pull down idols in churches set them up in their own hearts, and,
while they quarrelled with painted glass, made no scruple at all of enter-
taining many foul lusts, and committing continual idolatry with them. In
the Intellectual System, a monument of massive learning and strenuous
thought, he, like Henry More, attacked the materialism and fatalistic
tendencies of the Leviathan, and became the advocate of a spiritual
philosophy ; while in his treatise on morality on " a rational basis " he
sought to vindicate the immutable and eternal laws of ethics, as against
the opinion of Hobbes that they are the decrees of the legislator
enforced by the magistrate. He was opposed alike to the opinionative
zeal of the religious bigot and to that of the scientific dogmatist. If the
Cambridge Platonists "cried up reason," as their orthodox opponents
complain. More and Cudworth did so,at least,as apologists for Christianity,
setting forth its reasonableness in an age of scientific discovery and free
enquiry. They were philosophers in the interest of religion. Cudworth
thus controverted the monism of Hobbes, the doctrine that all mutation
is motion, thought included, and that motion can have no cause except
motion. To this he opposed the philosophical dualism of his Intellec-
tual System. The modern identification of the cosmos and its moving
cause was stiU an unfamiliar idea; hence Cudworth, in his defence of
theism, opposed what he considered atheism in Hobbes. It is significant
of the growing antagonism to religion in the upper ranks of society at the
time, that the courtiers of Charles II did all they could in the first instance
to delay the issue of the Intellectual System and to destroy its reputation
after it was published. The Bling's patronage of Hobbes and science
generally, it has been suggested, arose from the idea that these " scientific

752, Glanvill. — The later Latitudiriarians.

nonconformists " tended to lessen the power and authority of religion as
a dominating factor in political life. In the same way his counsellors,
le ministere des rouh, looked upon unbridled speculation as an encoiu-age-
ment to moral litence.

On the other hand the progress of science had its salutary effect in
aiding the efforts of the Latitudinarian divines as pioneers of scientific
iJieology — notably so in the case of Joseph Glanvill, who, though a firm
believer in witchcraft, was one of the earliest members of the Royal Society.
He was not one of the Cambridge Platonists, and lamented the fact of not
haAdng lived near them ; but he was in full sympathy with their aims. In
his work on the Vanity of Dogmatising, republished under the title Scepsis
Sdentifica in a considerably altered form, he speaks of opinions as " the
rattles of immature intellects." He dwells on the difficulty of finding
truth, though he says also, " A good will, help'd by a good wit, can find
truth anywhere." He is in full accord with the intellectual movement of
the times, speaks of Descartes as the "grand secretary of nature," and is one
of the first propounders of philosophic doubt in England. At the same
time, he denies that there is any antagonism between faith and science.
"To say reason opposes faith, is to scandalise both." As to divine
truths that were contained in Christ's teaching, they " were most pure
in their source, and Time could not perfect what Eternity began."
Nathanael Culverwell, the most distinguished among the lesser lights of
the movement, deserves special mention as one of the earliest expositors
of " physical ethics." Quoting Lord Bacon's saying that " all morality
is nothing but a collection and bundling up of natural precepts," he
adds that moralists only " enlarge the fringe of nature's garments." In
his conception of ethnic morality he was far in advance of his time.

Thus the way was prepared for the later Latitudinarians. These
applied the principles of their predecessors to practical politics in Church
and State. The most prominent among the Latitudinarians of the
Revolution is Burnet, whose sincere piety, large-hearted sympathy,
common sense, and courage, notwithstanding some faults, well fitted him
for the task of extending liberty of thought in the Church and con-
ciliating Nonconformity so far as possible, though political necessity
compelled him to enforce strictly the laws against Roman Catholics.
The appointment of Latitudinarian Bishops was the direct result of the
hostile attitude of the Non-jurors. Though holding fast to episcopacy
and the liturgy, the Latitudinarians were willing to tolerate other forms^
and some modification of subscription. Always ready to minimise the
importance of differences in ceremonial, they aimed at keeping the doors
of the Church " wider open," and thought that nothing should be con-
sidered absolutely divine and unalterable in the external ordering of her
system. Among them was Tillotson, conciliatory and circumspect, a
pattern of " sweet reasonableness "; Bishop Fowler, the author of the Free
Discourse between two Intimate Friends, in which he says that the "design

Pietism in Holland: Gisbert Voet.

lOO

of the Gospel is to make men good, not to intoxicate their brains with
notions"; Bishop Patrick, a practical divine witli a touch of mysticism,
the author of A Brief Account of the new sect of Latitude Men, which
contains a vivid description of the movement; Sheldon, one of the
survivors of Falkland's circle, considered from the first as one " bom and
bred " to become Archbishop of Canterbury ; the laborious Tenison, a
disciple, like Tillotson, of Cudworth, and, like him, one of the great
preachers of the day ; and Cumberland, the defender of the innate law
of nature against the utilitarianism of Hobbes. All these adopted
moderation as a principle of action. Their accommodation to the
circumstances of the times might incur the reproach of political expe-
diency with a touch of worldly liberalism. As the disciples of the Cam-
bridge Platonists they failed, perhaps, in reaching the same high level of
spirituality, or the same depth of intellectual penetration — they were
statesmen rather than Christian philosophers. But, on the other hand,
their minds were more completely emancipated from theological prepos-
sessions, and their chief characteristic was sobriety of judgment; > Their
style, too, bore traces of a change under the influence of the literary
movement of the times towards greater clearness, conciseness, dignity,
delicacy of taste, and freedom from the last traces of controversial invec-
tive. Stating their opinions with the quiet force of moral conviction,
with no less earnestness, though with greater calm and caution, they
were instrumental at a critical moment of constitutional development in
helping to regulate and to moderate the progress of national life in
England.

Pietism in Germany preceded the later Rationalism, whereas in
England the Pietism of the Evangelical Revival succeeded Latitudin-
arianism. Pietism, taking its rise among the Calvinists in the Nether-
lands, where stirring political events and dangers had intensified religious
excitement, thence found its way first into the adjacent countries
of Germany lying between Rhine and Weser. Thence it spread in a
southerly direction to the territories near the Neckar and the Maiii,
many of the younger clergy in those parts resorting to the then famous
universities in HoUand. Francis Rous, the mystical Provost of Eton,
had graduated in the University of Leyden ; Gisbert Voet, a native of
Heusden in Holland, a delegate at the Synod of Dort, and professor
of theology at Utrecht from 1634 to 1676, exercised considerable influence
in this way. Voet was a man of great learning, both classical and
patristic, and was well versed in medieval theology. He has been called
the " patron of conventicles," that is, private assemblies for the cultivation
of greater piety, and was himself a man of intense earnestness and irre-
proachable character. As a strict puritan, he was a severe censor of
the drama, a determined opponent of gambling and all forms of amuse-
ment tending to self-indulgence. For the pleasures of the table, for

C. M. B. V. CH. XXIV. 48

754 Spinoza and the Dutch Pietists.

example, he proposed to substitute intellectual conversation at meals on
subjects connected with religion, philosophy and history. He spoke
pf the Church as standing in need of reforms " drca praam, pietatis et
boiiorum operum'" ; and like the mystic Wilhelm Teelinck, whom he much
admired, he tried to stem the tide of secularising ethics, and to rouse the
people from the torpor of religious formalism and indifference. Johann
Cpcceius (Koch), a native of Bremen, professor and rector at the Uni-
versity of Leyden, which he quitted in 1660, was not like Voet, a Calvinistic
^' precisian," but one of the earliest representatives of the higher criticism,
regarding an improved method of biblical interpretation as the first
requisite of any system of religious reform. Though a man of immense
erudition, he puts Leben (life) above Lehre (doctrine) and emphasises the
superior importance of attending to conduct rather than correct opinions
in matters of religion. He is the distinguished founder of the so-called
"party, of aristocratic (theological) science" (Partei der vomehmen
Wissenschaft). Cocceius, in his friendly attitude towards the Cartesian
philosophy, differed from Voet, who violently opposed the teaching of
Descartes during his residence at Utrecht. This led to an unseemly
controversy between the Voetians and Cocceians, and serves to show the
close connexion between philosophy and religion at this time.

The intellectual atmosphere of the age was impregnated by the spirit
of Grotius and Spinoza, the inaugurators of the new historical method and
of a naturalistic conception of cosmic law. There was a great deal, morer
over, in the philosophy of Spinoza on its mystical side which attracted
Pietists generally. He counted among his followers Pontiaan van Hattem
of Bergen-op-Zoom and Jacob Vershoor of Flushing. There was a close
connexion between his " amor inteUectualis " and the " laetitia spiritualis""
of the orthodox pietistic school; and he had many friends among the
" CoUegiants," a sniall community of Remonstrant dissenters. Thus,
after his excommunication by the Synagogue, it was among these that
he found an asylum ; and in a house occupied by them at this time
some of his unpublished letters have been discovered. The common
ground of Spinozism and Pietism is their cheerful quietism — the
imperturbable tranquillity of the mind in its complete union with God.
In this the English mystic Henry More agrees with the Dutch
Pietists and Spinoza; between whom and England there are other
points of connexion. He was bom in the same year as Locke ; one of
his tutors was sent to plead the cause of the Jews in England with the
great Protector ; and his friend, Henry Oldenburg, a learned German,
during his official residence in England became the first secretary of the
Royal Society. There are also signs of the influence of Hobbes in Spinoza's
theory of civil government. The doctrine of religious liberty he had
seen applied in HoUand; but his Tractatus Theologko-Politicus is the
first comprehensive plea for toleration published in modern Europe. He
points out that no opinions can be tolerated which are subversive of the

Lodenstein and Labadie. 755

safety of the State ; but that in all other cases the State has no right to inter-
fere with the opinions of private individuals. He was an admirer of the
de Witts and the intellectual supporter of their policy. When a call came
to him from the Elector Palatine Charles Lewis, brother of the Princess
Elizabeth, the correspondent of Descartes, to a professorship of philo-
sophy at Heidelberg, he refused to accept it as likely to interfere with
the tranquillity of a scholar's life — and other illustrations might be added
of the independence of his noble character. In religion Spinoza is the pre-
cursor of naturalistic theism, or mystical pantheism, which identifies God
with the universe; and in his attempt to spiritualise nature by his theory of
the Divine immanence he provides modem scientific monism with a creed.
Spinoza's intellectual love of God springs from his monotheistic concep-
tion of the Divine substance, as containing all things ; and from the
merging of the human with the Divine mind and will he deduces the theory
of moral liberty, as the practical outcome of his philosophy of religion.
From him Goethe professed to have learned the lesson of renunciation at
the call of duty; and the eclectic Pietism of Holland and Germany in its
more philosophical aspects is traceable, in part at least, to the same source.
Both Voet and Cocceius had for their pupil Jodocus van Lodenstein,
who has been called the first Pietist, because he gave the first impact to
the movement, as a distinct form of religious life and a development of
Calvinism. Its representatives were proud of the title " die Emstigen "
(the intense), or " die Feinen " (the refined), making it their aim to
displace by earnestness and devotion the existing formalism and indiifer-
entism in the Chiurch. They tried to rekindle the fire of holy emotion
and by the spirit of self-sacrifice and austere self-immolation to restore
the mystical iinion of the soul with God. Lodenstein, who is described
as a man of great dignity and modesty, goes back to Tauler and
Thomas a Kempis in his attempt to effect a union between the via
illuminativa and the via purgativa sive perfectiva, that is, intellectual
enlightenment with moral perfection. He remained a loyal churchman
to the end and served several cures with scrupulous attention to his duties,
differing in this respect from Labadie, who in his person seems to have
passed biogenetically (to use a scientific phrase) through all the stages of
pietistic evolution, beginning his career as a devout Romanist, and ending
by becoming a Protestant schismatic.

Jean de Labadie, bom in 1610, the son of a Governor of Guienne,
was educated by the Jesuits, and in his seventeenth year entered their
Order as a novice, in opposition to his father's wish. After a time,
and in consequence of a diligent study of the Bible and the writings
of St Augustine and St Bernard, he quitted the Society " by mutual
consent," and became a secular priest working under the Archbishop
of Bordeaux. His talent and successes drew on himself the attention
of the General of the Oratorians, and he was called to Paris as a
member of this Congregation. Compelled by Jesuit intrigues to leave,
OH. XXIV. 48 — 2

766 Labadism and Quakensm.

he followed the invitation of the Bishop of Amiens, who appointed him
to a canonry. Here, as elsewhere, he earnestly exhorted the people to
study the Scriptures and to take the early Christian Church for their model.
He refused to join the Jansenists; yet, again, he incurred i the hostility
of the Jesuits, and at their instigation Mazarin persuaded him to return
to his own native province. Thither he resorted, accompanied by his
associates, as St Francis was by his confraternity, and like him possessing
the peculiar charm of personal attraction. After a while his position
here, too, became insecure, and he found an asylum in the castle
of the Vicomte de Cartets, a member of the Reformed Church. Here
he applied himself to a severe study of Calvinism. He joined the
Church at Montauban, and was appointed as a Protestant minister. But,
becoming obnoxious to the Roman Catholics, and even to some of
his congregation by reason of the rigour of his teaching, he retired
temporarily to Orange. On his way to follow a call to the French
Church in London, he arriyed at Geneva (1659); and here he was
persuaded to stay seven years, continuing his agitation against world-
liness, and in his tract Vi^ised. part advocating the utter separation of
the Church from the world. By degrees his position her^, too, became
untenable ; and he followed a call of the Walloon Church at Middelburg
in Zeeland, partly at the instigation of Anna Maria von Schuiuman,
"the Minerva of the seventeenth century," a learned lady bom at Cologne
and settled at Utrecht, who entertained pietistic sentiments similar to his
own. But the same causes which brought him into conflict with the
ecclesiastical authorities elsewhere again operated' here. ..His critical
aggressiveness and impatience under discipline at last brpught about, what
he calls his '^ separation heureuse^ when with about one-third of his
congregation he set up the first schismatic communion in the Reformed
Church. Labadie never was in want of adherents, male and female,
ladies of position in particular, fascinated by his passionate eloquence,
his self-confidence, the charm of his manners, and the ease and suppleness
acquired in his early Jesuit training. He was followed by them from
place to place, first to Herford, \yhere they were welcomed by the Abbess,
the Princess Palatine Elizabeth; and thence to Altona, where he died.
His followers settled at Wieuwerd, near Leeuwarden, in Friesland ; and
a remnant of them seems to have ultimately found a refuge in Maryland.

In several localities where Labadie and his followers settled they were
called Quakers : partly on account of the similarity of the views and
practices of the two sects, partly because Penn during his visit to Herford
to the Princess Elizabeth, over whom he exercised some influence, entered
into friendly relations with Labadie, with whose religious sensationalism
and morose Pietism the sobriety aiid simplicity of Penn were, however,
in strange contrast.

Some resemblances no doUbt existed between Quakerism and Labadism,
but there were still greater differences. Tlie followers of both believed in

I Calvinistic and Lmtheran Pietism. 767

the theory stated by Bai'clay '.'that the best and most certain knowledge of
God, is not that which is attained by premises premised and conclusions
deduced; but that which is enjoyed by conjimction of the mind of man
with the Supreme Intellect." Both were "fighters," though the Labadists
could never become a political power as did the early Quakers in England.
Both were opposed to priestly assumption and ceremonial formalism; but,
while the Quakers displa3ned considerable acuteness in temporal concerns
and political sagacity (as, for example, in their relation with James 11)^
skilfully adapted themselves to their surroundings, gradually sobered
down, and therefore survived, the Labadists, from their lack of these
powers, and for other reasons already stated, died out.

The Pietism of the Reformed Church in Germany differed little from
the Calvinistic Pietism in Holland, from which it was derived. Theodor
Untereyk at 'Muhlheim in the duchy of Berg speaks of himself as
ploughing with the oxen of Cocceius. In his Hallelujah and other
writings he approached Labadie in his views on the antagonism between
God and the world Allardin, a native of Bremen, and minister at
Emden in Estst Friesland from 1666 to 1707, followed on the same lines.
Joachim ^JeaJtder, rector of the Latin school under the E.eformed Church
at Diisseldorf, the hymnologist of the movement, in his BuMdesUeder,
dedicated to the merchants of Frankfort, and Nethenus, its weeping
prophet, bewailing the corruptions of the Church in his Seyfzendes
Turteltdubchen wnd ZiorCs Thrdnenflagge (1676), expressed the same
views. What is peculiar to this form of derived Pietism is its tendency
to sectarian dissidency, because, in being transplanted &om a more
to a less congenial soil, it came into collision with the order and
discipline of the Reformed Church of Germany, and the authority of
the " godly prince " as " summus EpisCopus.'" Friedrich Adolf Lampe,
however, the solid and scholarly disciple of Voet and Cocceius, is an
exception. He was a voluminous writer ; and, although, like the rest,
severe in his animadversions against "biilrgerliches Christenihum" (middle-
class Christianity), he loved to dwell on the more attractive aspects of
Christianity, on the love, rather than the sovereignty, of God, and on
filial affection as contrasted with the "timor JiMalis'" of Calvinistic
theology. Of Calvinistic Pietism generally it must be said that in its
appeals to the imagination, the emotions, and the will, rather than to
reason, in its chiliastic dreams, and in its comparative neglect of the
practical aspects of religion, it failed to produce results in proportion
to its efforts ; much force was dissipated in negative criticism of the
existing conditions in the Church and the world, which lessened its
reforming influence, while from lack of cohesion among its members
it failed to secure its own continuity.

In the Lutheran Church, where the feeling of corporate union was
sti'onger, Pietism was kept more strictly within the bounds of orthodoxy
and the Formula Corwordiae, Here lay influence and the feminine

758 Friedrich von Spee and Johann Arndt.

elements were weaker, and clericalism was proportionately stronger.
Here, too, we note a more pronounced tendency to return to the
theosophical mysticism of Jacob Boehme as well as to the asceticism
of St Bernard. Thus Pretorius, an orthodox Lutheran ecclesiastic,
compares the Pietist meditating in retirement to the lily of the valley.
In this development of contemplative Pietism we see Lutheran Church
reformers like Johann Arndt, with the pietistic hymnologists under his
influence, and the Jesuit Friedrich, von Spee (or Spe), approaching each
other. This remarkable man was one of the few, who, after the horrors of
the Thirty Years' War, helped to resuscitate the intellectual and moral
life of Germany. Living as he did when the rage against witches was at
its height (900 of them were burned by the orders of Bishop Philip Adolf
of Wiirzburg between 1627 and 1629) he published a book against
Hexemprozesse (trials of witches) — Ca/utio Criminalia (1631)— rfor which
he is highly commended by the broad-minded Thomasius. As professoi
of moral philosophy at Paderbom, Spee had a great influence over the
students, incurring the displeasure and suspicion of his superiors on
account of his supposed dangerously liberal views. The Guldene
Ttigetidbwh {GfAdsa Book of Virtue) is called by Leibniz an altogether
divine book, which, he says, should be in everybody's hand. But Spec's
fame mainly rests on his poetry, the collection of poems named Trutz-
N^achtigaU, composed amid the solitude of hiU and forest in a cloister
almost changed into a ruin by the war, and bearing the impress of a deep
and fervent spirit, purity of feeling, and an intense love for nature, while
spiritual joyousness alternates in them with melancholy sweetness. Spee,
like some of the French Quietists of the time, was " enivri de Tamour de
Dieu.'''' But, though his language is at times soft and sensuous, even
fantastic, nevertheless his poems, as a rule, are free from that irreverent
tone of familiarity with the Deity which so frequently characterises
pietistic poetry. He is a follower of the earlier Mystics, such as Suso ;
yet his own outlook on the world is not sombre, but clear and bright,
with a child's simplicity and a manly courage, with humanistic breadth
and spiritual ardour, and with an earnest yearning for peace and goodwill.
In the same spirit, but from a somewhat dififerent standpoint, Johann
Arndt, the German Fenelon, in his Four Books on the True Christianity
(1605), declared war against verbal professions of faith — Maukhristen-
thum — in the Lutheran Church. By his Paradisg'drtlein (little Eden),
which, like the Imitation, still maintains its place as a book of devotion
in Germany, Arndt became a light and guide in those dark days.
His works and the hymns of the period (Paul Gerhardt alone wrote
one hundred and twenty, some of which are still among the most
popular in use) express the yearning after a greater spirituality amid
the arid controversies and deadnesS of religion at the time. Arndt
was the first among Lutherans who showed the way back to medieval
devotion, adopting the language of the Canticles in describing the union

Jacob Boehme and Spener. 759

of the soul with the Divine Bridegroom. This sentiment, and more
than this, finds its counterpart in such hymns as that entitled Ein
LiehesUed des smfzenden Turteltavblems, which contains apostrophes
like "Mem Jesukm, mein Herzelein, mem SchMzekin, mein Bruder-
lein, du bist ja mein,'" etc., etc., full of the bitter-sweet ecstatic
emotionalism which marks the sancta amatoria of the period. They
express a sensuous delight in dwelling on Christ's sufferings and the
agonies of the Cross, as in the well-known hymn O Havipt wall Blut und
Wunden. Whatever their faults in the way of lack of reverence or
dignified reticence, they reflect the higher aims and aspirations of noble
souls, and form a comment on the spiritual exhaustion from which they
strive to escape at a time when the spiritual life in Germany was at its
lowest ebb. Blended with this is the mystical straining after spiritual
perfection exemplified by Boehme and his predecessor Valentin Weigel,
who thus protests against dead formalism: "Barren are the schools;
barren are all forms ; barren — worse than barren, these exclusive creeds,
this deadly polemical letter." A faithful follower of Lutheranism and free
from the sickly sentimentalism of the pietistic poetasters, the mystical
shoemaker of Gorlitz displays the freshness of a vigorous and ingenious
mind cast in a speculative mould ; but, undisciplined by literary culture
— he only read the Bible and Paracelsus — he loses himself in confusion of
thought and incoherence of expression. In his Aurora — where, as the
name suggests, Boehme describes the dawn of his inner illuminaition —
he represents life as a fuliginous striving after perfection, a warfare
between light and darkness, and between good and evil : God himself is
a manifestation of these opposites. WiUiam Law, the scholarly mystic,
was also a follower of Boehme ; and his influence on the Wesleys formed
a connecting link between the religious revivalists of the seventeenth and
eighteenth centuries.

The most prominent promoter of Pietism in the Lutheran Church was
Philip Jacob Spener, whose plastic nature, wide sympathies, and power
of assimilation specially fitted him for the task. Occupying a leading
position as a preacher in Frankfort, Leipzig, and Berlin successively,
he maintained throughout the sober-minded and correct attitude of a
loyal churchman. At the same time he was lenient, perhaps too lenient,
towards those whose enthusiasm carried them too far. An admirer,
if not a follower, of Amdt, he dwells in his Pia desideria on the
unsatisfactory state of the Church ; but, as a Church reformer, he avoids
the opposite extremes of worldliness and escape from the world
( WeltfiucM), and tries to raise the moral tone of Christian society by
educational methods. In his Klagen iiber das verdorbene Christenthum,
Missbrauch und Gebrauch (1684) he dwells on the weaker side of Church
life in his day, but objects to the epithet " Babylon " as by some applied
to it. He favours the establishment of Collegia pietatis, Erbauungs-
stunden (lessons of edAfication), and similar efforts for the cultivation of

CH. XXIV.

760 Franeke and the Halle Pietists.

Christian studies, as means of self-improvement supplementary to the
ordinary ministrations. He treats in the same way the Colkgia
philobibBca for Divinity students in the University of Leipzig as a
preparatory institution to promote efficiency in their future ministerial
work. If separatist tendencies resulted from all this, it was contrary
to the spirit and intention of Spener, whose sole aim was a return to
apostolical piety and simplicity. These ecclesiolae were to be aids, not
substitutes, for the Ecclesia. Towards Boehme and his disciple Gottfried
Arnold, whose Church History vas^iveA. Mosheim to emulation, Spener
maintained an attitude of benevolent neutrality. Gifted with a mild
tenlperament rather than great force of will, possessing the tact acquired by
constant intercourse with the cultured classes, and therefore apt to treat
with gentle tolerance the extravagant vagaries of earnest though somewhat
vulgar enthusiasts, he incurred the charge of facile self-accommodation,
vagueness, and indiscriminate comprehensiveness, calculated, as was
thought, to prepare the way for the indifFerentism of the Aufklarung.
It was left for the more powerful personality of August Hermann Franeke
to correct this tendency of his friend and fellow-worker.

Franeke was a man of great force of character and determination,
revered for his unfaltering faith and practical piety. He was the founder
of the first orphanage in Germany and also one of the eight ^^ Magisters"
in Leipzig who, under Spener, were engaged in the work of academic
revivalism by means of oratio, meditatio, tentatio ; with a view to developing
model Christians rather than sound theologians. Franeke himself had
passed, in a season of spiritual conflict, from doubt to faith, and set a high
value on individual conversion. By natural disposition domineering, he
was severe in his ascetical demands, more contentious and less compromis-
ing than Spener. Driven with Thomasius from Leipzig by the defenders
of scholastic pedantry and religious formalism, he joined him in exercising
a great influence upon the beginnings of the University of Halle, of
which both were original professors, and imparted his own spirit to the
Pietism of the Halle school. This movement in many respects resembles
the Methodist revival at Oxford, as the Koethen Lieder proceeding from
it correspond to the hymns of the two Wesleys. Much opposed by
the oi-thodox party, notably by Valentin Ernst Loscher, who in his
strictures speaks of Pietism as "maft^wi pktisticum,'" this form of Pietism
after a struggle of existence for thirty years in the Lutheran Church
became at last a social power among the nobility and gentry and even
among a few of the reigning Princes. This temporary alliance between
Pietism and despotism unhappily led to the lamentable episode of the
expulsion of Christian Wolff from Halle by Frederick William I of
Prussia through the instrumentality of Franeke £uid his school. In this
effort to protect the youth of the University from what they considered
the baneful teaching of the Wolffian philosophy (which in the main
coincided with that of Leibniz) — its detei-minism, and tendency to divorce

ZHppel and pietistic literature. 761

morality from religion— they were ready to undo their own work of
emancipating philosophical speculation from the dogmatism of the
schools. It should be added, however, that they deeply regretted the
success of their agitation, when they found that it led to the forcible
removal of their victims from the University. Johann Conrad Dippel,
" the Christian Democritus," is one of the few among those involved in
these discussions who in his writings displays the saving grace of humour.
He was a man of the world, with varied experiences, and many-sided
literary activities. For some time under Arnold's influeilce and moving
in pietistic circles, he afterwards took up an independent attitude
and became a " free-thinker among the Pietists " — a radical Pietist. As
such, he castigated with much critical acumen and in a piquant style
both the solemn obtuseness of some of the Pietists and the unyielding
pedantry of their oi"thodox opponents, charging both with neglecting
the moral factor of religion in their disputes. In his own views he leaned
towards Latitudinarianism ; he was one of the earliest of his time to hold
the view that the heathen may ultimately be saved, though instances of
an approach to universalism are not altogether wanting among the
Quietists of the seventeenth century in France and Germany. His
satirical disposition entailed upon him litigation and imprisonment, and
he ended as a solitary.

Among the literary productions of the movement in its later develop-
ments was the Berleburg Bible, published under the patronage of Count
Casimir von Berleburg, who with his mother made their seat the centre
of union for every shade of independent Pietism. This Bible in its
annotations follows on the lines of Madame Guyon in a similar enterprise
and dwells mainly on the conditions of the spiritual life, the souPs
illumination and piuification by immediate communion with God. An-
other publication was the journal called the Geistliche Fama, the organ
of the movement, which addressed itself to the varied crowd of Pietists,
now spread in different directions, which counted among its contributors
individuals belonging to every section of society: lawyers and professors,
medical men — one of this profession became its editor^teachers in
elementary schools, masters and journeymen of various trades, ambas-
sadors, generals, civil servants, political agents, and peasants — ^just as in
England the name of the Latitude men was " daily exagitated among
us," as one of them says, "in taverns and pulpits," But what held
together this body of Pietists of various denominations in Germany was
a community of thought and similarity of aims, rather than anything
approaching to identity of opinion; smail groups, like the "Inspirations-
gemeinden'" (" Congregations of Inspiration") were not even attached to
any particular Church, but indulged in a kind of " Jesuscultus " of their
own, while some individuals, like Johann Tennhart, who called himself
"God's chancellor," took up a standpoint of individual independence, and
all of them exhibited a strong tendency to abstain partially, or entirely,

762 Wilrtemberg Pietism. — Bogatzky.

from the use of Church services and sacraments, and exhibited a studied
indiflFerence to ecclesiastical forms and ceremonies. This attitude pro-
duced an edict in Wiirtemberg in 1694 warning the authorities against
permitting the introduction of the writings of Poiret, Antoinette de
Bourignon, Mrs Leade, Arnold, and the Petersens, members of the
extreme left of pietistic enthusiasts. This was followed by another
edict in 1707 designed to stop private religious meetings and compel
some of the recalcitrant Pietists to quit the country. A further rescript
contains prophylactic measures directed against the disintegrating in-
fluences of all such sectarian innovations and irregularities.

Wiirtemberg was called by some of the Pietists the ^ Augapfel
Gottes " on account of its privileged position, as compared with the rest
of Germany, after the Thirty Years' War. For the duchy possessed a
constitution ; and the Cynosura Ecclesiastica, which formed part of it,
secured coordinate rights for the Church in the Diet. The latter had
considerable power in limiting the ducal authority. Here, then, consti-
tutionalism and Pietism, introduced by Spener during his stay at
Stuttgart and Tubingen (1662), were often united in opposing autocratic
excesses — a union of democracy and Puritanism on a minor scale. The
chief representatives of this Pietism are Beata Sturm, the Mere Ang&lique
of Protestant Pietism — some compare her to the poor Armella of the
Catholic hagiology in the seventeenth century ; the noble Johann Jacob
Moser, a pietist statesman, who suffered for conscience' sake in prison,
and the genial theologian Friedrich Christoph Oetinger, who, in his
love of metaphysics, came into close contact with the WolfF-Leibnizian
philosophy. Brought under the influence of August Gottlieb Spangen-
berg at Jena and Count Zinzendorf on a visit to Hermhut, he tried
here to introduce his philosophia sacra, which represents Christ as the
author of the Physicum verum. His aim was to combine science with
revelation, and chemistry with religion ; and in so doing Oetinger lost
himself in a cloud of theosophy and mysticism after the manner of
Boehme and Swedenborg. In his closing days he became a legendary
figure in the history of Pietism, itself then approaching the stage of
spiritual exhaustion. It now deteriorated into a kind of effeminate
sentimentalism, producing among its members a feeling of morbid self-
depreciation, or lachrymose self-complacency, mainly expressed in religious
verse, voluminous as to quantity and feeble in quality — Karl Heinrich von
Bogatzky alone published three hundred and sixty-two hymns in his
sixtieth year — the swan-song of Pietism in the Lutheran Church.

What little remained of force in the movement was to some extent
absorbed in the Pietism of the Moravian community, which had in 1722
found an asylum in Hermhut from religious persecution in the Austrian
dominions. Its members were living under strict discipline in a kind of
common life, which, in its protest against the corruptions ' of social life
and religious decadence, revived the idea of Christian socialism. Nothing

Effects of Latitudinariardsm and Pietism. 763

resembling a commvmity of goods existed in the Moravian settlement; but
it was expected "that all inhabitants would take a voluntary share, accord-
ing to their ability, in defraying the necessary public expenses, and as good
citizens conform to the municipal regulations of the settlement." It
thus marks a new departure from a purely pietistic egoism to altruistic
endeavovu", from self-conscious and self-introspective mysticism to practical
self-surrender, thus preparing the way for the secularisation of Pietism in
the eighteenth centiuy.

Thus, in tracing the two movements of Latitudinarianism and
Pietism to a common source, and following their course, as deter-
mined by national character and local environment, and augmented by
tributaries of thought arising out of the peculiar circumstances of the
time, we perceive in their ultimate results corresponding differences.
In England the effect of Latitudinarianism was a broadening of the
current of thought, which broke the power of ecclesiastical tyranny, and,
with a "depression of theology," produced a gradual liberation of the
mind, while at the same time favourably affecting the growth of political
freedom and promoting a soberly ordered social life. In Germany,
where governmental repression and narrow particularism hampered free
development, forcing the mind to prey on itself. Pietism favoured the
growth of intellectual concentration, led on to critical enquiry and
religious speculation, and gradually freed itself from the trammels of
Protestant scholasticism. This had the effect of quickening the sensibility
of the soul-life and intensifying inward piety, producing at the same time
indifference to creeds and forms of worship, and ending in Gefuhlareligion
(the religion of feeling), or in romantic mysticism, such as that of Goethe's
"Beautiful Soul," an idealised picture of Fraulein von Klettenberg.

In their combined effect, Latitudinarianism in England and the
English-speaking countries oversea, on the one hand, and Pietism in
Germany and the neighbouring countries in northern and central
Europe, influenced by G^erman thought, on the other, appear as mutually
supplementary movements, the one more practically, the other more ideally,
affecting the course of European thought and life. Thus they succeeded
in establishing the supremacy of reason and the complete autonomy of
conscience, and brought about a partial recovery from religious lethargy
and moral enervation. To measure accurately the force and extent of this
dual movement in its ultimate effects and to assign to each its proper
share is beyond our power. Streams, however deep or broad, are merged
at last in the sea, blending with it and thus losing their own distinctive
colouring. So it is with the two streams or tendencies discussed in the
foregoing pages. They entered the ocean of general thought and feeling.
ITiey left their effect in broadening and deepening the current, as well as
in raising the level and changing the complexion, of European thought
and its translation into action ; and their impress thus remains on that
transition period which began in the latter half of the seventeenth century.

766

CHAPTER I.

THE GOVERNMENT OF LOUIS XIV.
(1661-1715.)

I. CONTEMPORARY WRITINGS.

A. Administbative.

BesongiiCj N. L'^tat de la France ou Ton voit tons les princes, dues et pairs, mar^-

chaux etc. 3 vols. Paris. 1698.
Boisgnillebert, P. le P. De'tail de la France sons le regno de Louis XIV. 2 vols.

Paris. 1693.

Factum de la France. Paris. 1707.

Boislisle, A. M. de. Correspondance des controleurs generaux des finanbes avec les
intendants des provinces. 2 vols. Paris. 1874-83.

Memoires des intendants sur I'etat des gfoe'ralites dresses pour I'instruction

du due de Bourgogne. Paris. 1881.

Bossuet, J. B. (Bishop of Meaux). Politique tir^e des propres paroles de I'Ecriture

Sainte. Paris. 1709.
BoulainviUiers, Comte de. J^tat de la France dans lequel on voit... tout ce qui peut

faire connoitre a fond cette monarchie. 3 vols. London. 1727.
Colbert, J. B. Lettres, instructions et memoires. Ed. P. Clement. 7 vols.

Paris. 1861-5.
Colbert de Croissy, Charles, Marquis de. jfitat du Poitou sous Louis XIV, annote et

publie'par D. Dugast-Matifeux. Fontenay-Ie-Comte. 1865.

Rapport au roi sur la province de Touraine en 1664. Public par Mourain de

Soardevdl. Tours. 1863.

Daire, 1^. ^^conomistes Financiers du xvin™" siecle. Paris. 1843. [Contains the
works of Vauban and Boisguillebert.]

Depping, G. B. Correspondance administrative sous le regne de Louis XIV.
4 vols. Paris. 1850-5.

Fl^chierj V. E. (Bishop of Nimes). Memoires sur les Grands Jours tenus a Cler-
mont en 1666-6, 2'^° ^dn, annot^e par P. A. Chdjuel. Paris. 1856.

Isambert, F. A., Jourdan, A. J. C. and Decrusy. Recjieil general des anciennes lois;
fran9aises de 420 a 1789. Vols, xyiii-xx. Paris. 1822-7.

Recueil de reglements generaux et particuliers concernant les manufactures

du royaume. 7 vols. Parig. 1730-60.

La Mare, 5f. de and Le Clerc 4e Brillet, N. Traite de la police. 4 vols. , Paris. 1713. >
Spanheim, Ezechiel. Relation de la cour de France en 1690. Publiee par C. Scheffer.

Paris. 1882.
Vauban, S. Le Prestre, seigneur de, Marechal. Projet d'une dime royaler 1707.;

(See also Boislisle, A. M. de. La proscription .du projet de dime royale et la mort
de Vauban. Paris. 1875.)

The Government of Louis XIV, 1661-1716.

B. The Protestants and the Revocation op the Edict.

Benoit, £lie. Histoire de I'J^dit de Nantes. 6 vols. Delft. 1693.

Histoire et apologie de la retraite des pasteurs a cause de la pers^cation.

Frankfort. 1687.

Bostaquet, Dumont de. M^moires inddits sur les temps qui ont precede et suivi la

revocation de I'i^dit de Nantes. Paris. 1864.
Braeys, de, Histoire du fanatisme de notre temps et du dessein que Ton avait eu

France de soulever les mdcontentements des Calvinistes. Paris. 1692.

Suites de cette histoire ou Ton voit les derniers troubles des Cevennes.

4 vols. Paris. 1709-13.

Cavallier, Jean. Memoirs of the wars of the Cevennes. London. 1726.

Claude^ Jean. Plaintes des Protestants cruellement opprimes dans le royaume de

France. Paris. 1885.
Court de Gebelin, A. Plistoire des troubles des Cevennes ou de la guerre des

Camisards. 3 vols. Alois. 1819.
Flechier, V. E. (Bishop of Nimes). Lettres choisies avec une relation des fanatiqnes

du Vivarez. Lyons. 1734.
Jurieu, Pierre. La politique du clerge de France. Amsterdam. 1680.

Les derniers efforts de I'innocence afBigee. ITie Hague. 1682.

Reflexions sur la cruelle persecution que souffre I'il^glise rdformee de France.

s. 1. 1685.

Lettres pastorales adress^es aux Fideles de France qui gemissent sous la

captivite de Babylone. 3 vols. Rotterdam. 1688.

La France toute catholique sous le regno de Louis le Grand. On y trouvera une

apologie pour I'ij^glise Romaine contre la satire. [Answer to Paul Jurieu.]

3 vols. Lyons. 1684.
Le FevTBj Jacques. Recueil des actes, titres, et memoires concernant les affaires

du clerg€ de France. 12 vols. Paris. 1716.
Le Gendre^ P. La vie de Pierre du Bosc. Rotterdam. 1694.
Leger, J. Histoire g^nerale des eglises evangeliques des valle'es du Piemont. Leyden.

1669.
Louvreleuil, J. B. Memoires historiques sur le pays de Gevaudan et sur la vUle de

Mende qui en est la capitale. Mende. 1726.
[Marteilhe, J.] Memoires d'un Protestant damnd aux galeres de France par cause

de religiouj Merits par lui-meme (1700-13). Paris. 1881.
Recueil des Edits, declarations, arrets, sentences, ordonnances, et autres comptes

rendus pour I'extirpation de la Religion pretendue reformee et autres coutraires

a la catholique^ apostolique et romaine. Paris. 1686.

C. Biographies, Memoirs etc.

Antoine, Jean and Francois. Journal de la mort de Louis XI V. 3 vols. Pans. 1849.

Berwick, Mardchal de. Memoires. 2 vols. (Petitot.) 1819.

Bussy-Rabutin, R. de (Roger de Rabutin, Comte de Bussy). Memoires. 2 vols.

Paris. 1867.
Catinat, N., Mar^chal de. Memoires et Correspondance. 3 vols. Paris. 1819.
Caylus, Madame de. Souvenirs. (Petitot.) Paris. 1884.
Choisy, Abbd de. Memoires pour servir a I'histoire du regne de Louis XIV. 2 vols

Paris. 1888.
Cosnac, Daniel de (Archeveque d'Aix). Memoires. Paris. 1852.
Cosnac, Comte Jules de. Souvenirs du regno de Louis XIV. 8 vols Paris

1374-31.

Bibliography. 767

Dangeau, P. de C, Marquis de. Journal de la cour de Louis XIV (1 684-1720).

Paris. 1854-68.
Du Plessis, Nicolas Joseph, Mar^chal (C^sar de Choiseul). M^moires (1627-71).

(Petitot.) Paris. 1827.
Flechier, V. £. (Bishop of Nimes). Correspondance de, avec Madame Deshoulieres

et sa fille. Ed. A. Fabre. Paris. 1882.
Foucault, N. J. M^moires (1660-1719). Paris. 1862.
Gourville. Me'moires (1649-97). 2 vols. (Petitot.) 1819.
Gramont, Marechal. Memoires (1607-77). Michaud and Poujoulat, iii, 7. Paris.

1850. 2 vols. Petitot, ii, 66-7.
Joly, Guy. Memoires cent. I'histoire de la R%ence d'Anne d'Autriche et des pre-
mieres anneesde la majority de Louis XIV jusqu'en 1666. (Petitot.) Paris. 1819.
La Fare, C. A., Marquis de. Memoires et reflexions sur les principaux evenemens du

regnede Louis XIV. Paris. 1886.
La Treraoille, Charlotte Amelie de. Me'moires (1652-1719). Paris. 1876.
Lafayette, Madame de. Memoires de la cour de France pour les annees 1688-9.

(Petitot). 1819.
Languet de Gergy, J. J. Memoires sur Madame de Maintenon et la cour de

Louis XIV. In T. Lavalle'e, La Famille d'Aubigne. Paris. 1863.
Legendre, Abbe. Memoires. PariSi 1863.
Louis XIV. (Euvres. 6 vols. Paris and Strassburg. 1805.

Memoires, pour I'instruction du Dauphin. Ed. Ch. Dreyss. 2 vols. Paris.

1860.

Maintenon, Madame de. Correspondance generale. Ed. T. Lavallee. 4 vols. Paris.

1865 etc.
Montglat, Marquis de. Me'moires (1610-68). (Petitot.) 1819.
Montpensier, Mademoiselle de. Memoires (1627-86). 4 vols. (Petitot.) 1819.
Motteville, Madame de. Memoires. 4 vols. Paris. 1869.
Orleans, Elizabeth Charlotte de Baviere, duchesse de. Memoires sur la cour de

Louis XIV et la regence. Paris. 1822.

Briefe der Herzogin Elizabeth Charlotte von Orleans an ihre fruhere Hof-

meisterin. Herausgegeben von E. Bodemann. Hanover and Leipzig. 1895.

Aus den Briefen der Herzogin von Orleans Elizabeth Charlotte an die Kfstn.

Sophie von Hanover. Ed. E. Bodemann. 2 vols. Hanover. 1891.

Briefe der Prinzessin Elisabeth Charlotte von Orleans von 1676-1722 (Bibl.

d. literar. Vereins). Vol. i. Ed. W. Menzel. Vols. u-vi. Ed. W. L. Holland.
6 vols. Stuttgart. 1843-81. Selection, by L. Geiger. Stuttgart. 1883.

Correspondance. Traduction franfaise par E. Jaegld. 3 vols. Paris. 1890.

(See also Ranke, L. von, Aus den Briefen etc. Franzos. Geschichte, vol. vr.

Bodemann, E., Elisabeth Charlotte von der Ffalz, Herzogin von Orleans.
Hist. Taschenbuch. 1891.)
Ormesson, Olivier de. Journal. Ed. P. A. Che'ruel. 2 vols. Paris. 1860.
Pellisson, P. Histoire de Louis XIV. 3 vols. Paris. 1749.
Rapin, le Pere. Memoires. 3 vols. Paris. 1865.
Saint-Hilaire. Memoires contenant ce qui s'est passe de plus considerable en

France depuis le deces du Cardinal Mazarin jusqu'a la mort de Louis XIV.

4 vols. Amsterdam. 1766.
Saint-Simon, Due de. Memoires sur le regne de Louis XIV. Ed. A. de Boislisle.

22 vols. Paris. 1878 etc.
Sevigu^, Madame de. (Grands Ecrivains.) 14 vols. Paris. 1862.
Sourches, Marquis de. Memoires sur le regno de Louis XIV (1681-1712). 13 vols.

Paris. 1882.
Torcy, Marquis de. Me'moires (1687-1713). Edd. J. F. Michaud et J. Poujoulat.

Paris. 1860.

ca, I.

768 The Government of Louis XIV, 1661-1715.

Turenne, Mardchal de. Memoires. Edd. J. F. Michaud et J. Poujoulat. Paris.

1850.
Ursins, Princesse des. Correspondance aveo Madame de Maintenon. 4 vols.

Paris. 1826.
Vallot, d'Aquin et Fagon. Journal de la sant^ de Louis XIV. Paris. 1862.
ViUars, Marechal de. Mdmoires (1672-1734). 4 vols. (Petitot.) Paris. 1819.
Viz^, J. D. de. Memoires pour servir k I'histoire de Louis le Grand, s. 1. 10 vols.

1697-1703.

II. LATER WORKS.

A. Administkation etc.

Aucoc, L. Le conseil d'etat avant et depuis 1789. Paris. 1876.
Babeau, A. Le Mardchal de Villars, gouverneur de Provence. D'apres sa corre-
spondance inedite. Paris. 1892.

La ville sous I'ancien regime. Paris. 1880.

Les artisans et les domestiques d'autrefois. Paris. 1886.

Le Village sous I'ancien regime. Paris. 1879.

La Province sous I'ancien regime. 2 vols. Paris. 1894.

Les voyageurs en France depuis la Renaissance jusqu'a la revolution. Paris.

1885.

Les Bourgeois d'autrefois. Paris. 1886.

Bailly, A. Histoire financiere de la France. Paris. 1839.

BeanlieU; E. P. Les gabeUes sous Louis XIV. Paris. 1903.

Benoit du Rey, E. Recherches sur la politique de Colbert. Paris. 1902.

Berriat Saint-Prix, C. Des tribunaux au xviii™' siecle. Palris. 18.59.

Chapais, A. E. C. Jean Talon, Inteudant de la uouvelle France (1665-72). Quebec.

1904.
Ch^ruel, P. A. Memoires sur la vie et le proces du surintendant Fouquet. 2 vols.

Paris. 1864.

Histoire de I'administration monarcbique en France depuis Favenement de

Philippe Auguste jusqu'a la mort de Louis XIV. 2 vols. Paris. 1855.

Clement, P. Dix ans du regne de Louis XIV. Paris. 1848.

Histoire de Colbert et de son administration. 2 vols. Paris. 1874.

La police sous Louis XIV. Paris. 1866.

Communay, A. Audijos. La gabelle en Gascogne. 2 vols. Paris. 1893
Dareste de la Chavanne. Histoire des classes agricoles en France depuis Saint
Louis jusqu'a Louis XIV. Paris. 1854.

Histoire de I'administration et des progres du pouvoir royal en France depuis

le regne de Philippe-Auguste jusqu'a la mort de Louis XIV. 2 vols. Paris.
1848.

Gasquet, A. Precis des institutions politiques et sociales de I'ancienne France.

2 vols. Paris. 1865.
Godard, C. Les pouvoirs des intendants sous Louis XIV. Paris. 1901.
Griin, A. Les !l&tats provinciaux sous Louis XIV. Paris. 1902.
Jal, A. Abraham Du Quesne et la marine de son temps. 2 vols. Paris. 1872.
Joubleau, F. ifitudes sur Colbert. 2 vols. 1856.

Lemontey, P. E. Essai sur I'^tablissement monarchique de Louis XIV. Paris. 1818.
Levasseur, E. Histoire des classes ouvrieres et de I'iudustrie en France avant 1789.

2 vols. Paris. 1900.
Lufay, Comte de. Les secretaires d'^^tat depuis leur institution jusqu'a la mort de

Louis XV. Paris. 1881.
Marcband. Un intendant sous Louis XIV, Paris. 1880,

Bibliography. 769

Martin, Germain. La grande Industrie sous le rfegne de Louis XIV. Paris. 1899.
Masson, P. Histoire du commerce fran^ais dans le Levant. Paris. 1896.
Neymarch, A. Colbert et son temps. 2 vols.

Paquetj J. Listitutions provinciates, communales et corporations. Paris. 1835.
Pasquier, F. Les Grands Jours de Poitiers. Toulouse, 1875.
Paulliat, L. Louis XIV et la compagnie des Indes Orientales de 1664. Paris. 1886.
Rameau, E. Une colonic feodale en Amerique. L'Acadie. Paris. 1877.
Raynouard, F. J. M. Histoire du Droit Municipal. 2 vols. Paris. 1829.
Thomas, C. Une province sous Louis XIV. Situation politique et administrative
de la Bomgogne de 1661 a 1715. Paris. 1844.

B. The French Pbotestants and the Revocation op the Edict of Nantes.

Agnew, D. C. A. Protestant exiles from France, or the Huguenot refugees and

their descendants in Great Britain and Ireland. 3 vols. London. 1874.
Baird, H. M. The Huguenots and the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes. 2 vols.

London. 1895.
Bonnemere, E. Histoire des Camisards. Paris. 1869.
Coquerel, C. A. Les for9ats pour la foi. ilfitude historique. Paris. 1867.
Douen, O. La revocation de I'fidit de Nantes a Paris. 3 vols. Paris. 1894.
Drion, C. Histoire chronologique de I'ifiglise protestante do France jusqu'a la

Revocation. 2 vols. Paris. 1865.
Haag, E. and i,. (Eugene et Simile). La France Protestante. 10 vols. Paris.

1847-69.
Hugues, E. Les synodes du Desert. Actes et reglements puhlies par E. Hugues.

4 vols. Paris. 1885.
Michel, A. Louvois et les Protestants. Paris. 1870.

Negre, L. La vie et le ministere de Claude Brousson (1647-98). Paris. 1878.
Pascal, P. ^lie Benoist et I'eglise reformee d'Alen9on d'apres des documents

in^dits. Paris. 1892.
Puaux, N. A. F. Vie de Jean Cavalier. Paris. 1868.

Histoire de la Reformation Fran9aise. 7 vols. Paris. 1857-63.

RuUiiere, C. C. de. !6claircissements historiques sur les causes de la revocation de

I'Edit de Nantes. 2 vols. Paris. 1788.
Weiss, C. Histoire des Refugie's Protestants de France depuis la revoc. de I'Edit

de Nantes. 2 vols. Paris. 1853.

See also Boasset, C. under C,

C. BlOORAPHIES.

Bievre, Marechal de. Georges Marechal, seigneur de Bievre, chirurgien et confidant

de Louis XIV (1668-1736). Paris. 1907.
Boislisle, A. de. Paul Scarron et Franifoise d'Aubigne. Paris. 1894.
Cheruel, P. A. Saint-Simon consider^ comme historien de Louis XIV. Paris. 1865.
Clement, P. Madame de Montespan et Louis XIV. Paris. 1868.
DoUinger, J. von. Addresses on historical and literary subjects. London. 1894.
Duclos, H. L. Madame de la Vallifere et Marie Therese d'Autriche. 2 vols. Paris.

1869.
Funclj-Brentano, F. L'homme au masque de velours noir dit, Le Masque de Fer.

(Revue Historique. Nov. 1894.)
GefFroy, A. Madame de Maintenou d'apres sa cori-espondance authentique. 2 vols.

Paris. 1887.
Guibal, G. Pierre Paul de Riquet; Etude Historique. (Revue de Toulouse. April,

1866.)

O. M. H. V. CH. I. 49

770 The Government of Louis XIV, 1661-1716.

Hassall, A. Louis XIV. London. 1895.

Krohu, W. Die letzten Lebensjahre Ludwig's XIV. Jena. 1865.

Lair, J. Louise de la Valliere et la jeunesse de Louis XIV d'apres des documents

ine'dits. Paris. 1881.
Lavall^e^ T. Histoire de Madame de Maintenon et de la maison royale de Saint-

Cyr. Paris. 1853.
Mesnard, P. Projets de gouvemement du duo de Bourgogne. Paris. 1860.
Michel, G. Histoire de Vauban. Paris. 1879.
NoaUles, Due de. Histoire de Madame, de Maintenon et des principaux ^v^nements

du regne de Louis XIV. 4 vols. Paris. 1848-58.
P^rey, Lucien (Luce Herpin). Le roman du Grand Roi Paris. 1894.
Rousset, C. Histoire de Louvois et de son administration politique et militaire.

Paris. 1862.
Sainte-Beuve, C. A. Causeries de Lundi. Articles on Louis XIV, Madame de la

Valliere, le suriutendant Fouquet, Madame de Maintenon, la Duchesse de

Bourgogne, le Due de Saint-Simon.
Topin, M. L'homme au masque de fer, Pai-is. 1869.

IIL GENERAL HISTORIES.

Bridges, J. H. France under Richelieu and Colbert. Edinburgh. 1866.
Dareste de la Chavanne, A. B. C. Histoire de France. 3rd edn. 9 vols. Paris.

1865-85. [Vols. V and vi.]
Gaillardin, C. Histoire du regne de Louis XIV. 5 vols. Paris. 1871-5.
Grant, A. J. The French Monarchy (1483-1789). Cambridge. 1900.
Kitchin, Dean. History of France. 3 vols. 4th edn. Oxford. 1903. [Vol. iii.]
Lavallee, T. Histoire des Francais depuis les temps des Gaulois jusqu'en 1873.

20th edn. 7 vols. Paris. 1876. [Vol. in.]
Lavisse, E. Histoire de France, depuis les origines jusqu'a la Revolution. 8 vols.

Paris. 1901 etc. (In progress.) [Vols, vii and vm, 1.]
Martin, Henri. Histoire de France. 4th edn. 19 vols. Paris. 1856-60.

[Vols. XIV-XVII.]
Michelet, J. Histoire de France depuis les origines jusqu'en 1789. 17 vols. Paris.

1871-4. [Vols, xin and xiv.]
Moret, B. Quinze ans du regne de Louis XIV, 1700-15. 3 vols. Paris. 1861-9.
Philippson, M. Das Zeitalter Ludwig's XIV. (AUg. Gesch. in Einzeld.) Berlin.

1879.
Rambaud, A. H. Histoire de la civilisation franfaise. 2 vols. Paris. 1885.
Ranke, L. von. Franzosische Geschichte im xvi**" und xvii*™ Jahrhundert. 6 vols.

[Vols. Ill and iv.] Sammtliche Werke. Vols, x and xi. Leipzig. 1869.
Sismondi, de. Histoire des Fran9ais depuis I'origine jusqu'en 1789. 31 vols. Paris.

1821-44. [Vols, xxiv-xxvii.]
Voltaire, F. Arouet de. Le Sieole de Louis XIV. 1st edn. Berlin. 1762.

rn

CHAPTER II.

THE FOREIGN POLICY OF LOUIS XIV.
(1661-97.)

I. BIBLIOGRAPHY AND MANUSCRIPTS.

For a systematic survey of the materials of the history of the foreign affairs
of France under Louis XIV see G. Pages, L'histoire diplomatique du regne de
Louis XIV: Sources et ^tat des Travaux, in Revue d'Histoire Moderne et Con-
temporaine. Vol. vii. No. jx, Paris, June, 1906. It is there shown how, from
the second decade of the personal reign of Louis XIV onwards, it became the rule
to regard diplomatic correspondence as public rather than private property ; so that
during the period of which the present chapter supplies an outline the archives
of French diplomacy — a branch of the administration which has never been more
ably served — are extraordinarily full. For detailed information as to their contents,
reference is made to A. Baschet, Histoire du Depot des Archives des Affaires ^tran-
geres, Paris, 1875. Of the Inventaire sommaire des Archives du Departement des
Affaires Etrangeres, Correspondance Politique, only one volume has hitherto appeared
(Paris, 1904). The Inventaire sommaire etc., Memoires et documents, Ser. i,
France, Ser. ii, Fonds divers, 2 vols. 1883-92, contains much interesting infor-
mation, of a more or less statistical nature, such as the record of audiences (from
1680 onwards). Fart of this record may be checked by the Notes on the Diplomatic
Relations of England and France (1603-88), which contains a list of ambassadors
from England to France and from France to England, compiled by C. H. Firth
and Mrs S. C. Lomax (Oxford, 1906). Besides the Archives of the French Foreign
Office, those of the War Office and the Archives Nationales, the Manuscript
Department of the Bibliotheque Nationale and of the Musee Conde are likewise
indicated by M. Pages.

For a general bibliography of the printed documents, and the Memoirs in
particular, of the reign, see G. Monod, Bibliographie de l'histoire de France (Paris,
1888); and compare Vol. i, of E. Bourgeois, Manuel historique de politique
toangere. Vol. i, 3rd edn. (Paris, 1901). Of the RecueU des instructions donne'es
aux ambassadeurs et ministres de France (from the Peace of Westphalia onwards to
the Revolution) some important series are not yet published.

IL PRINTED DOCUMENTS AND CONTEMPORARY MEMOIRS.

A. Treaties.

Actes et Memoires de la paix de Nimegue. Par A. Moetjens. 4 vols. Amsterdam.

1678-80.
Actes et Memoires de la paix de Ryswick. 6 vols. The Hague. 1726.
Dumont, J. Baron de Carlscroon. Corps uaiversel diplomatique du droit des gens.

8 vols. Amsterdam and the Hague. 1726-31 [Vols, vi-viii].
Saint-Prest, J. Y. de. Histoire des traitds de paix et autres negociations du xvii"""

siecle (-1679). 2 vols. Amsterdam. 1726.
Vast, H. Les grands traites du regne de Louis XIV. 3 Pai1a. Paris. 1893-9.

CB. u. 49 — 2

772 The Foreign Policy of Louis XIV.

B. Letters, Memoirs, and other Docuu^nts.
Amelot, M. Correspondance do Louis XIV aveo le Marquis Amelot, son ambassa-

deur en Portugal de 1685 a 1688. Nantes. 1863.
Avaux, J. A. de Mesmes, Comte de. N^gociations en HoIIande, 1679 [-88].

Ed. E. Mallet. 6 vols. 17S2-3.
Ndgociations k la Cour de Suede. Publ. par J. A. Wijnue. 3 vols, in 4.

Utrecht 1882-3.
Dangeau, P. de Courcillon, Marquis de. Journal (1684-1720), publ. par E. Souitie,

L. Dussieux etc. 19 vols. Paris.' 1864-60.
Estrades, Marechal Comte G. de. Lettres, mdmoires, ndgociations en quality

d'ambassadeur [in London etc.]. New edn. 9 vols. London. 1743.
Eugene, Prince of Savoy. Militarische Correspondenz, 1604-1703. Ed. F. Heller.

2 vols. Vienna. 1848-9.
Gourville, J. H. de. Memoires. Publ. par L. Lecestre. (See. de I'Hist. de

France.) 2 vols. Paris. 1894-5.
Immicli, M. Zur Vorgeschichte des Qrleans'schen Krieges. (Nuntiaturberichte aus

Wien u. Paris, 1685-8 etc.) Heidelberg. 1898.
Legrelle, A. Notes et documents sur la paix de Ryswick. Lille. 1894.
Lionne, Hugues de. Marquis de Berny. Lettres Inedites. Publ. par U. Chevalier.

Valence. 1879. [Lionne's embassies belong to an earlier period.]
Louis XrV. Memoires de Louis XIV pour I'instruction du Dauphin. Notes eta

par C. Dreyss. 2 vols. Paris. 1860.

(Euvres. 6 vols. Paris. 1805. [Vols, i and ii. Memoires historiqnes et

politiques.]

Mignet, F. A. M. N^gociations relatives a la succession d'Espague. 4 vols.

(Coll. des doc. ined.) Paris. 1836-42. Introduction separately printed in

Etudes Historiques. 6th edn. Paris. 1886.
Orleans, Henrietta of. See Baillon, Comte C. de, in III. below.
Pomponne, S. A., Marquis de. Memoires. Prec. de la Vie de Pomponne, par

J. Marichal. Paris. 1860.
It«cueil des instructions donnees aux ambassadeurs et ministres de France depuis

les traites de Westphalie jusqu'4 la Revolution. (With Introductions and

Notes ; including Austria, by A. Sorel ; Bavaria, Palatinate and Zweibriicken,

by A. Lebon,; Denmark, by A. Geffrey ; Naples and Parma, by J. Reinach ;

Poland, by L. Fargues ; Portugal, by Vicomte de Caix de Saint-Aymour ;

Prussia, by A. Waddington ; Rome, by G. Hanotaux ; Russia, 2 vols, by

A. Rambaud ; Savoy-Sardinia and Mantua, 2 vols, by Comte Horvic de

Beaucaire ; Spain, 3 vols, by A. Morel-Fatio and H. Leonardon ; Sweden, by

A. Geffrey.) 17 vols. Paris. 1884-1901.
Relazioni degli Stati Europei...dagli Ambasciatori Veneti nel Secolo xvn. Serie ii :

Francia. Venice. 1867 sqq. [Vols, ii and in.]
Sourches, L. F. du Bouchet, Marquis de. Me'moires sur le regne de Louis XIV

(1681-1712). Publ. par le Comte de Cosnac et A. Bertrand. 13 vols. Paris.

1882-93.
Spanheim, Ezechiel. Mdmoire sur les cpnjonctures de 1688. In Ranke, L. von,

Franzosische Geschichte, Vol. v (Sammtliche Werke, Vol. xii). «

Relation del la Cour de France en 1690. Ed. E.' Bourgeois. Paris. 1900.

Torcy, J. B. C, Marquis de. Journal ine'dit, 1709-11. Ed. F. Masson. Paris.

1884.

Memoires. Coll. Michaud et Poujoulat, iir, 8. Paris. 1850.

Turenne, H. de la Tour d'Auvergne, Mare'chal de. Me'moires. Publ. par le Comte

P. H. de Grimoard. 2 vols. Paris.?. 1782.
Villars, Mardchal de. Me'moires. Publ. par le Marquis de Vogiie. (Soc. de

J'Hist. de France.) Vols. i-iv. Paris. 1884-91.

Bibliography. ^73

III. LATER WORKS.

Airy, O. The English Restoration and Louis XIV. London. 1888.
Arneth, A. Ritter von, Prinz Eugen von Savoyen. Vienna. 1858-9.
Auerbach, B. La diplomatic fi:an9aise et la Cour de Saxe, 1648-88. Paris. 1906.
Aumale, Henri, Due de. Histoire des princes de Condd pendant le 16™' et 17™°

siecle. 7 vols, and Index and Atlas vols. Paris. 1869-96.
Baillon, Comte C. de. Honriette-Anne d'Angleterre, duchesse d'Orl&ns, sa vie

et sa correspondance. Paris. 1887.
Bavdot, G. La question des dix villes imperiales d' Alsace, depuis la paix de West-

phalie jusqu'aux arrets de reunions du conseil souverain de Brisach, 1648-80.

Paris. 1899.
Benoit, E. Histoire de I'ifidit de Nantes. 3 vols, in 6. Delft. 1693-5.
Bonnemere, E. La France sous Louis XIV, 1643-1715. 2 vols. Paris. 1864-5.
Bourgeois, E. Colbert de Croissy et les Chambres de Reunion. In Revue

Historique. Paris. 1888.
Carlson, F. F. Geschichte Schwedens. German transl. (Geach. d. Europ. Staaten.)

Vols. V and vi. Gotha. 1873-87.
Chdrnel, P. A. La politique exterieure de Louis XIV au debut de son gouverne-

ment personnel. Revue d'Histoire Diplomatique. Paris. 1890.
Claretta, Baron G. Storia di Carlo Emmanuele II di Savoia. Genoa. 1877-9.
Corbett, J. C. The English in the Mediterranean, 1603-1713. 2 vola London.

1904.
Depping, G. B. Geschichte des Krieges der Munsterer und Ccelner im Bundnisse

mit Frankreich gegen Holland in den Jahreu 1672-4. Munster. 1840.
Ennen, L. von. Frankreich unter der Niederrhein oder Gesch. von der Stadt und

Kurstaat Koln seit dem dreissig-jahrigen Kriege. Cologne. 1855-6.
Erdmannsdorffer, B. Deutsche Geschichte vom Westfal. Frieden bis zum Regie-

rungsantritt Friedrichs d. Grossen, 1648-1740. (AUg. Gesch. in Einzeld.)

2 vols. Berlin. 1892.
Fester, R. Die Augsburger AUianz von 1880. Munich. 1893.
Filon, C. A. D. La France et I'Autriche au xvii' siecle. Paris. 1859.
Flassan, G. de R. de. , Histoire g^n^rale et raisounee de la diplomatie fran^aise.

2nd edn. 7 vols. Paris. 1811.
Fomeron, H. Louise de Keroualle. Paris. 1886. Engl, transl. London. 1887.
Gaillardin, C. Histoire du regue de Louis XIV, 1671-1716. Paris.
Gerin, C. Le pape Innocent XI et la Revocation de I'Edit de Nantes. Rev. des

Quest. Hist, t xxiv. 1878.

Le pape Innocent XI et r]i!lection de Cologne en 1688. Rev. des Quest.

Hist. t. XXXIII. 1883.

Le pape Innocent XI et le siege de Vienne eu 1683. Rev. des Quest. Hist.

t. XXXIX. 1886.

Louis XIV et le Saint-SiJge. Paris. 1894.

Giraud, C. J. B. La marechale de Villars et son temps. Paris. 1881.
Grossmann, J. Der Kaiserliche Gesandte Franz von Lisola im Haag. In Archiv

fiir oesterr. Gesch. Vol. li. Vienna. 1873.
Grovestins, Sistema de. Guillaume III et Louis XIV. 8 vols. Paris. 1868.
Haller, J. Die deutsche Publizistik in den J. 1668-74. Ein Beitrag zur Gesch. d.

Raubkriege Ludwigs XIV, Heidelberg. 1892.
Haussonville, G. P. de Citron de. La duchesse de Bourgogne et ralliauce

savoyarde sous Louis XIV. Vols. i-ni. Paris. 1898-1903.
Haussonville, J. O. B. d6 Cldron de. Histoire de la reunion de la Lorraine k

la France. Paris. 1864.
Immich, M. Pabst Innocent XI. Berlin. 1900.
Jal, A. Abraham du Quesne et la Marine de son temps. Paris. 1872.

OH. U.

774 The Foreign Policy of Louis XIV.

Jnsserandj J. J. A French ambassador at the Court of Charles the Second. Le

C" de Cominges. London. 1892.
Elopp, O. Der Fall des Hauses Stuart... im Zusammenhang^e der europaischen

Angelegenheiten von 1660 bis 1714. 14 vols. Vienna. 1875-88.
Kocher, A. Geschichte von Hannover und Braunschweig, 1648-1714. Vols, i

and II (-1674). (Publ. a. d. Preuss. Staatsarchiven.) Leipzig. 1884-96.
Lanier, i^tude historique sur les relations de la France et da royaume de Suisse, de

1662 a 1703. Versailles. 1883.
Legrelle, A. Louis XIV et Strasbourg. Essai sur la politique de France. Paris.

1881 etc.

La diplomatie fran^aise et la succession d'£spagne. 4 vols. Paris. 1888-92.

Lemoine, J. et Lichtenberger, A }. Louise de K^roualle. Rev. des D. M. 1903.
Lonchay. La rivalit^ de la France et de I'Espagne auz Fays-Bas, 163S-1700.

Bruxelles. 1896.
Loth, A. Robert le Roux d'Esueval et les deux Crrdmonville, ambassadeurs de

Louis XIV. Rouen. 1873.
Meinecke, F. Der Regensburger Reichstag und der Devolutionskrieg. Hist

Zeitschr. New series, vol. xxiv. Munich. 1888.
MeUion. Vauban, rhomme de guerre, I'honime d'&at, rhomme prive. Paris. 1868.
Michel, G. Vauban. Paris. 1878.

Mouy, Comte de. L'ambassade du due de Cr^qui. Paris. 1891.
Miiller, P. L. Wilhelm III von Oranien und Georg von Waldeck. Eorrespoudenz,

2 vols. The Hague. 1873 and 1880.
Miillheim-Rechberg, H. Frhr. von. Die Annexion des Elsasses dnrch Frankreich,

und Ruckblicke auf die Verwaltung d. Landes vom Westphal. bis zum Byswicker

Frieden, 1648-97. 2nd edn. Strassburg. 1896.
Overmann, A. Die Abtretung des Elsass an Frankreich im Westfal. Frieden.

Karlsruhe. 1905.
Pages, G. Le Grand :filecteur et Louis XIV (1660-88). Paris. 1905.
Peter, H. Der Krieg des Grossen Kurfiirsten gegen Frankreich, 1672-5. Halle. 1870.
Piepape, L. de. Histpire de la reunion de la Franche-Comte a la France, l^venementa

diplomatiques et militaires (1279-1678). Paris. 1881.
Fimodan, G. de L. V. de R., Marquis de. La reunion de Toul a la France et les

demiers ^veques-comtes souverains. Paris. 1885.
Preuss, G. F. (Esterreich Frankreich und Baiern in der spanischen Erbfolgefrage

1685-9. In Histor. Vierteljahrsschrift. Vol. iv. Leipzig. 1901.
Pribram, A. F. Franz von Lisola und die Politik seiner Zeit. Leipzig. 1894.

Beitrag zur Gesch. des Rheinbundes von 1668. In Sitzungsberichte der

Akademie der Wissenschaften. Vienna. 1887.

Ranke, L. von. Franzosische Geschichte im xvi*™ und xvii*™ Jahrhundert. Sammtl.

Werke, vols, viu-xii. Leipzig. 1874 etc.
Reuss, R. L' Alsace au xvu° siecle. Paris. 1897.

Reynald, H. Succession d'Espagne : Louis XIV et Guillaume III. Paris. 1883.
Rousset, C. F. M. Histoire de Louvois. 4 vols. Paris. 1862-8.
Roy, J. Turenne, sa vie et les institutions militaires de son temps. Paris. 1884.
Saiut-Leger. L'acquisition de Dunkerque et de Mardyck par Louis XIV. In

Rev. d'Hist. Mod. Vol. ii. Paris. 1900-1.
Schmidt, A. Elsass und Lothringen. Nachweis, wie diese Frovinzen dem deutschen

Reiche verloren gingen. 3rd edn. Leipzig. 1870.
Topin, M. L'Europe et les Bourbons sous Louis XIV. Paris. 1868.
Vast, H. Les tentatives de Louis XIV pour arriver a I'Empire. Revue Historique, lxv.

Paris.
Waddington, A. Le Grand iSleoteur Fr^deric-Guillaume. Paris. 1905.

[See also Bibliographies . to Chapters I, V, VII, IX, Xa and c, XIT, XUI, XIV,
XVIII, XXI and XXII.]

11c

CHAPTER III.

FRENCH SEVENTEENTH CENTURY LITERATURE
AND ITS EUROPEAN INFLUENCE.

I. TEXTS.

A. French.

Balzac, J. L. Guez, sienr de. (Euvres. 2 vols. Paris. 1666.

Boileau-Despr&ux, N. (Euvres. Paris. 1666; 1701; etc.

Bolingbroke, H. St Johnj Viscount. Miscellaneous Works. 4 vols. Edinburgh.

1773.
Bossuet, J. B., Bishop of Meaux. (Euvres. Venice. 1736. Ed. Abbe' Guillaume.

Paris. 10 vols. 1885.
Bourdaloue, L. (Euvres. 16 vols. Paris. 1707-34.
Chesterfield, P D. Stanhope, 4th Earl of. Letters. Edd. C. Strachey and

A. Calthrop. London. 2 vols. 1901.

Letters to his godson. Ed. Earl of Carnarvon. Oxford. 1890.

Chiabrera, G. Collected works. 3 vols. Rome. 1718. Milan. 1807 etc.
Corneille, P. (Euvres. 12 vols. (Lea Grands iScrivains de la France.) Ed.

C. Marty-Laveaux. 1862-8.

Theatre de Corneille. Ed. Filix H^mon. 4 vols. 1887.

Corneille's edition of his works published in 1660 contains an Eceamen to each
play and the three Discours du poeme dramatique, de la tragedie, des
trois unites.
The dates of Corneille's chief plays are as follows. Melite, 1629; M^dee, 1635;
le Cid, 1636 or 1637; Horace, 1640; Cinna, 1640; Polyeucte, 1643;
Pompee, 1643-4; leMenteur, 1643-4; Suite duMenteur, 1644; Rodogune,
1644-5; The'odore, 1645; (Edipe, 1659; Psyche (with Moliere and
Quinault), 1671 ; Sure'na, 1674.
Descartes, R. (Euvres completes. 11 vols. 1824-6. Paris. Ed. V. Cousin.

(Euvres. Edd. C. Adam and P. Tannery. (In progress.) Correspondence.

2 vols. Paris. 1897-8.

The first complete edn. oi Descai-tes' Works was published in Latin, Amsterdam,
1650 ; in French, Paris, 1701.
Diderot, D. (Euvres completes. Edd. J. Ass^zat and M. Tourneux. 20 vols.

Paris. 1875-7.
Gay, John. Collected Poems. 2 vols. London. 1720.

Fables. London. 1727. Second series, 1738.

Poetical works. Ed. I. Underbill. 2 vols. London. 1893.

OH, III.

776 French VHth century literature audits European influence.

La Bruyere, J. de. (Euvres completes. Ed. G. Servois. (Les G. '!t. de la F.)

3 vols, Paris. 1865-78.
La Fontaine, J. de. Contes et Nouvelles. Paris. 1666, 1666, 1671, 1674.

Fables choisies. Paris. 1668, 1671, 1678, 1692.

Les Amours de Psyche. Paris. 1669.

(Euvres completes. Ed. H. Regnier. (Les G. &. de la F.). 11 vols. Paris.

1883-92.

Leibniz, G. W. Freiherr von. Gesammelte Werke. Edd. G. H. Pertz and others.

13 vols, (all published). Berlin and Halle. 1843-63.
Malebranche, N. (Euvres. 11 vols. Paris. 1712.

(Euvres. Ed. J. Simon. 2 vols. Paris. 1869-71.

Search after truth. Done out of French [by R. S^ult]. 2 vols. London. 1694.

Malherhe, F. de. CEuvres completes. Ed. L. Lalannei (Les G. ti, de la F.) 6 vols.

1862-9.
Maynard, F. de. (Euvres poetiques. Ed. F. Garrisson. 3 vols. Paris. 1886-6.
Moliere, J. B. P. de. (Euvres. Ed. E. Despois and P. Mesnard. (Les G. J^. de

laF.) 13 vols. Paris. 1873-1900.

Eng. trans. H. Van Laun. 6 vols. Edinburgh. 1876 S.

The Hays of Moliere, in French, with an English translation and Notes.

By A. R. Waller. 8 vols. Edinburgh. 1907.

The dates of Moliere's chief plays are as foUovrs : L'^tourdi, 1665 ; Les Precieuses

Ridicules, 1659; Sganarelle, 1660; L'!^cole des Maris, 1661; Les Facheux,

1661; L'^cole des Femmes, 1662; La Critique de L'ificole des Femmes,

1663; LaPrincesse d'filide, 1664; Tartuffe, 1664; Le Misanthrope, 1666;

Le Me'decin Malgr^ Lui, 1666; Georges Dandin, 1668; L'Avare, 1668;

Monsieur de Pourceaugnac, 1669; Le Bourgeois Gentilhomme, 1670; Les

Fourberies de Scapin, 1671; Les Femmes Savantes, 1672; Le Malade

Imaginaire, 1673.

Montaigne, Michel, Seigneur de. Essais. Books i and ii. Bordeaux. 1580. Book iii

was added in 1588. Edd. Mile de Gournay (Montaigne's fille dalliance) and

P. de Brach, 1595; Naiglon, 1802; R. Dezeimeris and H. Barckhausen, 1870

(text, 1680); H. Motheau and D. Jouaust, 7 vols. 1886 (text, 1688);

E. Courbet and Ch. Royer, 6 vols. 1872 ff. (text, 1696). [An edition is in

preparation organised by the municipality of Bordeaux.] English translation,

by J. Florio. 1603, 1613, 1632. Ed. A. R. Waller. 6 vols. 1897.

Pascal, B. (Euvres. Ed. P. Faug^re. (Les G. A de la F.) Paris. 1886 sqq.

Pensdes. Ed. P. Faugere. 2 vols. 2nd edn. 1897. Eng. trans, by C. K. Paul.

London. 1886.

Racan, H. de B., Marquis de. (Euvres completes. Ed. T. de Latour. 2 vols.

London. 1867.
Racine, J. (Euvres. 2 vols. Paris. 1675-6 etc.

(Euvres completes. Ed. P. Mesnard. (Les G. Jfi. de la F.) 8 vols. Paris.

1865-73.

CEuvres. Ed. Anatole France. 6 vols. Paris. 1874, 1876.

Theatre choisi. Ed. Petit de Julleville. Paris. 1888.

The dates of Racine's plays are as follows: La Thebaide, 1664; Alexandre le

Grand, 1666; Andromaque, 1667; Les Plaideurs, 1668; Britannicus, 1669;

Bdr&ice, 1670 ; Bajazet, 1672 ; Mithridate, 1673; Iphige'nie, 1676 ; Phedre,

1677; Esther, 1689; Athalie, 1691,

Ronsard, P. de. CEuvres completes. Ed. P. Blanchemain. 8 vols. Paris. 1857-67.

(Euvres. Ed. C. Marty-Laveaux, 6 vols. Paris. 1887-93.

Rotrou, J. de. (Euvres. Ed. Viollet-le-Duc. 6 vols. Paris. 1820-3.

Theatre choisi de R. Ed. F. Hdmon. Paris. 1883.

Rousseau, J. J. (Euvres completes. 5 vols. 1707.

Bibliography. 777

Saint-^remond, C. M. de S.-D., Seigneur de. CEuvres melees. Ed. C. Giraud.

3 vols. 1865. [A critical edition is greatly needed.]
Sedaine, M. J. CEuvres choisies. 3 vols. Paris. 1813.
Swift, Dean. Prose works. Edn. in progress. 12 vols. London. 1897 eqq.
Voiture, V. (Euvres. Ed. A. Roux. Paris. 1866.

Eng. trans, by J. OzeU. With Life etc. by Pope. 2 vols. London., 1716.

Voltaire, F. Arouet de. (Euvres completes. 70 vols. Kehl. 1786-9.

(Euvres completes. 62 vols. ' Paris. 1877-86.

Waller, E. Poems. Ed. G, T. Drury. London. 1893.

B. In other Literatubes.

Addison, J. Works. Ed. T. Tickell. London. 4 vols. 1721.

Works. Ed. H. G. Bohn and R. Hurd. London. 6 vols. 1866.

Bolingbroke, H. St John, Viscount. Philosophical Works. Ed. D. Mallet. 6 vols.

1764.
Cadalso, Jos^ de. Works. 3 vols. Madrid. 1818.
Chesterfield, P. D. Stanhope, 4th Earl of. Letters. Ed. by Lord Mahon. ; 6 vols.

1846-63. New edn. 6 vols. London. 1892.
Filicaya, V. da. Works. Florence. 1864.
Fleming, P. Geistliche u. weltliche Poemata. Jena. 1661.

L^teinische Gedichte. Ed. J. M. Lappenberg. Stuttgart. 1863.

Deutsche Gedichte. 2 vols. Ed. J. M. Lappenberg. Stuttgart. 1866.

Garth, Sir Samuel. The Dispensary. London. 1699; and many later editions.
Gellert, C. F. Sammtliche Werke. 10 vols. Leipzig. 1769-74 and 1867.
Gottsched, J. C. Deutsche Schaubiihne. 6 vols. Leipzig. 1741-6.

Gedichte. Ed. J. J. Schwabe. 2 vols. Leipzig. 1761.

Gryphius, Andreas. Lyrische Gedichte. Ed. J. Tittmann. Leipzig. 1880.
Guidi, C. A. Poesie. Verona. 1726.

Heinsius, Daniel. Opera. Leyden. 1673.
La Bruyere, J. de. First edn. Paris. 1688. See also edn. 1694.

Leibniz, G. W. Freiherr von. Opera Omnia. Geneva. 6 vols. 1768.

Lessing, G. E. Sammtliche Schriften. Edd. Lachmann and Muncker. 16 vols.
Stuttgart and Leipzig. 1886 S.

Dramatic works. Eng. trans. 2 vols. London. 1879.

Laocoon. Eng. trans, by Sir B. Phillimore. London. 1874.

MafFei, F. S., Marchese di. Collected works. 21 vols. Venice. 1790.

Opitz, Martin. Deutsche Poemata. Danzig. 1641.

Opera Poetica. Amsterdam. 1646.

Pope, A. Works. Ed. W. Elwin and W. J. Courthope. 10 vols. 1871-89.

Poetical works. (Globe edn.) Ed. A. W. Ward. London. 1869 sqq.

Prior, Matthew. Miscellaneous Works. Copied for press by A. Drift. 2nd edn.

London. 1740.

Poetical Works. Aldine edn. 2 vols. London (1836).

Ed. A. R. Waller. Cambridge Eng. Classics. Cambridge. 1907.

Swift, Dean. Works. Ed. Sir Walter Scott. 19 vols. Edinburgh. 1824.

New edn. 1883-4.

OH, llh

778 French Vjth century literature audits European irifiuence.

II. CRITICAL AND BIOGRAPHICAL WORKS,

Addison. — Beljame^ A. Le public et les hommes de lettres en Angleterre, 1660-
1744. Paris. 1881. (Dryden, Addison, Pope.)

Life. By W. J. Conrthope. London. 1884.

Arbuthnot— Life and Works of. By G. A. Aitken. Oxford. 1892.

Boileau. — Brunetiere, F. In Revue des Deux Mondes, 1 June, 1889, and in La
Grande Encyclop^die. (In progress.) Vol. vii. Paris, s. a.

Sainte-Beuve, C. A, In Portraits litteraires. Vol. i. Paris. 1836.

Bolingbroke. — Brosch, M. Bolingbroke u. d. Whigs u. Tories s. Zeit. Frankfort.

1883.

Collins, J. Churton. Bolingbroke, a historical study; and Voltaire in

England. London. 1886.

Bossuet. — ^R^elliau, A. Bossuethistorienduprotestantisme. 2ndedn. Paris. 1892.
Bourdaloue. — ^Belin, F. La Societe frau9aise au xvii° siecle d'apres les sermons de

Bourdaloue. Paris. 1875.
CorneiUe. Brunetiere, F. In La Grande Encyclopedie.

Picot, '&. Bibliographic Cornelienne. Paris. 1876. [Gives full details of

all Comeille's separate works.]

Sainte-Beuve. In Nouveaux Lundis. Vol. vii. Paris. 1867.

Descartes. — Brunetiere, F. Etudes critiques sur I'histoire de la litterature franfaise.

3rd and 4th ser. Paris. 1894.
Diderot.-:— Morley, J. Diderot and the Encyclopaedists. Loudon. 1878 ff.

Scherer, E. Diderot. Paris. 1880.

Gottsched, J. C— Danzel, T. W. Gottsched und seine Zeit. 1848.

l£ Bruyere. — Sainte-Beuve, C. A, Nouveaux Lundis. Vols, i (3rd edn. Paris.

1870), X.
La Fontaine. — Taine, H. La Fontaine et ses fables. 14th edn. Paris. 1898.

Sainte-Beuve. In Portraits litteraires. Vol. i. Paris. 1836.

Leibniz. — Guhrauer, G. E. Leibnitz. Eine Biographic. New edn. 2 vols, in 1.
Breslau. 1846.

Fischer, Kuno. Leibniz. Vol. ii of Gesch. der neueren Philosophic.

3rd edn. Heidelberg. 1889-.

Russell, B. Critical exposition of the philosophy of Leibnitz. Cambridge.

1900.

Lessing. — Sime, J. Lessing. 2 vols. London. 1877.

Life. By T. W. RoUeston. London. 1889.

Moliere.— Chatfield-Taylor, H. C. JMoliere. A bibliography. London. 1907.

Houssaye, A. Les Com^diens de Moliere. Paris. 1879.

Lacroix, P. Collection Moli^resque. Paris. 1867-76.

Trollope, H. M. The Life of Moliere. London. 1905.

Montaigne. — Sainte-Beuve's Causeries du Lundi, iv and ix, Paris, 3rd edn. 1869;
Nouveaux Lundis, ii and vi, Paris, 1870 (3rd edn.) and 1866; Vauvenargues,
Dialogue vi, Montaigne et Charron; E. Galy and L. Lapeyre, Montaigne
chez lui, Ferigueux, 1861; A. Griin, La Vie publique de Montaigne, 1855;
Lander's Imaginary Conversations, ed. Crump, Vol. iv, 1891 ; P. Bonnefon,
Montaigne L'homme et I'oeuvre, 1893; J. F. Payen, Documents inedits, 1847,
1850, 1855, 1856; M. Prior, Dialogues of the Dead, ed. A. R. Waller. 1907.

Pascal.— Boutroux, E. Paris. 1900.

Church, Dean. Pascal and other sermons. London. 1895.

Pope. — Leslie Stephen, life. (English Men of Letters.) London. 1880 sqq.
See also Beljame under Addison,

Bibliography. TT9

Racine. — Beyle, M. H. Racine et Shakespeare. Paris. 1822 and 1864.

Brunetiere, F. i^tudes critiques, 1" s^r. and Hist, et Litt. Vol. ii. Paris.

1885.

Taine, H, Nouveaux Essais de critique et d'histoire. Paris. 1865.

Rousseau. — Morley, J. Rousseau. 1873 etc.

Texte, J. Rousseau et les origines du cosmopolitisme litteraire. 1895.

Eng. trans, by J. W. Matthews. 1899.

Saint-Evremond and Ninon.— [A study by Mary C. Rowsell is in preparation.]
Swift.— Collins, J. Churton. Swift. A biographical and critical study. 1893.

Craik, Sir Henry. Life. London. 1882.

Leslie Stephen. Life. (English Men of Letters.) London. 1882.

Voiture. — Sainte-Beuve, C. A. Causeries du Lundi, xu.

Voltaire. See Collins, J. Churton under Bolingbroke.

Morley, J. Voltaire. London. 1872 etc.

The following should also he consulted: —

E. Faguet, Dix-huitieme siecle: Etudes litt. 10th edn. Paris. 1892. Dix-
septieme siecle: etudes litt. 10th edn. Paris. 1892. Du 16" au 18"
siecle: essais litt. 4th edn. 1890. Les grands maitresdu 17* siecle: dtudes
litt. et dram. 4th edn. Paris. 1888.

780

CHAPTER IV.

THE GALLICAN CHURCH.

I. CONTEMPORARY, OR NEARLY CONTEMPORARY, WRITINGS.

Aguesseau, Chancellor H. F. de. M^moires historiques sur les affaires de I'Egl&e

de 1697 a 1710. In (Euvres Completes, vol. xni. Paris. 1789.
Andre, G. Vie du Pere Malebranche. Ed. Pere Ingold. Paris. 1886.
Arnauld, Agnes. Lettres. Ed. P. Faugere. 2 vols. Paris. 1858.

Ang^lique. Lettres. 3 vols. Utrecht. 1742.

M^moires pour servir a I'histoire de Port-Royal, et a la vie de la lUv^rende

Mere Marie-Angelique de Sainte Magdelaine Ai-nauld, Reformatrice de ce
Monastere. 3 vols. Utrecht. 1742.

Antoine. CEuvres Completes. 42 parts in 37 vols. Paris. 1775-81. His

Letters are published separately in 9 vols. Nancy. 1727.

Avrjgny, H. R. de. Memoires Chronologiques pour servir a I'histoire eccl^siastique

de 1600 4 1716. 4 vols. Paris. 1720.
Baillet, Adrien. Vie de M. Descartes. 2 vols. Paris. 1691.

Vie d'Edmond Richer. Li^ge. 1714.

Vie de Godefroi Hermant. Amsterdam, I7l7.

Besoigne, J. Histoire de I'Abbaye de Poi-t Royal. 6 vols. Cologne. 1762.
Bossuet, Jacques Benigne (Bishop of Meaux). (Euvres Completes. Ed. F. Lachat

31 vols. Paris. 1862.
Carre de Montgeron, L. B. La Verite dee Miracles ope'r^s par I'intercession de

M. de Paris. Utrecht. 1737.
Charron, P. Les Trois Vdrites. Bordeaux. 1593.

Discours Chretiens. Bordeaux. 1600.

Traits de la Sagesse. Bordeaux. 1601.

Clemencet, C. Histoire g^nerale de Port Royal. 10 vols. Amsterdam, 1755.
Du Fosse, Pierre Thomas. Memoires. Ed. F. Bouquet. 4 vols. Rouen. 1877-9.
Dumas, HUaire. Histoire des Cinq Propositions de Jansdnius. 2 vols. Liege. 1699.
Du Vair, G. CEuvres. Rouen. 1622. Paris. 1625.
F&elon, F. de Salignao de la Mothe, Archbishop of Cambray. (Euvres Completes.

Ed. J. E. A. Gosselin. 10 vols. Paris. 1851.
Fontaine, N. Memoires pour servir k I'histoire de Port Royal. 4 vols. Cologne.

1753. Also 2 vols. Utrecht. 1736.
Fontenelle, B. le B. de. CEuvres. 11 vols. Paris. 1766.
Garasse, E. Mdmoires. Ed. C. Nisard. Paris. 1861.
Gerberon, G. Histoire Gen^rale du Jans^nisme. 3 vols. Amsterdam. 1700.
Guyon, Madame J. M. B. de la Mothe. Opuscules Spirituels. 2 vols. Paris. 1790.

Vie, Verite par elle-meme. S vols. Paris. 1791.

Bibliography. 781

Hermant, Godefroi. M^moires. Ed. A. Gazier. Paris. 1906 etc.

Hnet, Bishop Daniel. Mdmoires. Ed. Ch. Nisard. Paris. 1853.

Jansen, Bishop Cornelius. Angustinus. Louvain. 1640.

Lafitan, P. F. Histoire de la Constitution Unigenitus. 2 vols. Avignon. 1766.

Lancelot^ Claude. Memoires touchant la Vie de M. de Saint-Cyran. 2 vols.

Cologne. 1738.
Leydekker, M. Historia Jansenismi. Utrecht. 1695.
Le Dien, Ahbd F. Journal et Memoires, Ed. R. F, W. Guett^e. 4 vols. Paris.

1866.
Le Gendre, Abb^ L. Memoires. Ed. Ronx. Paris. 1863.
Louailj J. and Joncoux, F. M. de. Histoire du Cas de Conscience. 8 vols. Nancy.

1705-11.
Louail, J. and Cadry, J. B. Histoire du Livre des Reflexions Morales. 4 vols.

Amsterdam. 1723-54.
Malebranche, N. de. (Euvres Completes. Ed. A. E. de Genoude. 2 vols. Paris.

1840.
Molinos, Michael. Guida Spirituale. Rome. 1673.
Pascal, Blaise. Lettres Provinciales. Ed. J. de Soyres (with English notes).

Cambridge. 1880. Ed. A. Molinier. 2 vols. Paris. 1891.

Pensees. Ed. L. Brunschvicg. 3 vols. Paris. 1904. Smaller edition, by

the same editor, of Pensees et Opuscules. 1 vol. Paris. 1900.

Pascal, Jacqueline, Gilberte and Marguerite Perier [sisters and niece of Blaise].

Lettres, Opuscules et Memoires. Ed. P. Faugere. Paris. 1845.
Patin, Gui. Lettres Choisies. 3 vols. Cologne. 1691.

Nouvelles Lettres, tirees du cabinet de M. C. Spon. 2 vols. Amsterdam.

1718. [There is an extremely unsatisfactory edition of all his letters by
J. H. Re'veille-Parise. 3 vols. Paris. 1846.]

Phdipaux, J. Relation de I'origine et de la coudamnation du Quidtisme en France.

s. 1. 1732.
Quesnel, Pasquier. Reflexions morales sur le Nouveau Testament. Paris. 1693 etc.
As to the complicated history' of this book, and its various titles and editions,

see Maulvault, Repertoire des personnes et des choses k Port Royal. Paris.

1902 (226-31).

Correspondance du Pere Quesnel. Ed. Mme Albert Le Roy. 2 vols. Paris.

1900.

Racine, Abbe B, Ahr^ge de I'Histoire Ecclesiastique. 13 vols. Cologne. 1762-7.
Racine, Jean. Lettre a I'auteur des Heresies Imaginaires ; Lettre aux deux

Apologistes de Port Royal ; Abreg^ de I'Histoire de Port Royal. In Vol. iv

of (Euvres Completes. Ed. P. Mesnard. Paris. 1865.
Rapin, Rene. Histoire du Jansenisme. Ed. E. Domenech. Paris. 1873.

Memoires (1644-69). Ed. L. Aubineau. 3 vols. Paris. 1865.

Saint-Cyran, Jean du Vergier de Hauranne, Abbe de. Petrus Aurelius. Paris.

1631.

Lettres Chretiennes. Ed. Arnauld d'Andilly. 2 vols. Paris. 1646-9.

Another selection under the same title. 2 vols. Amsterdam. 1744.

Theologie Familiere, and other tracts. Paris. 1693.

Saint-^vremond, C. de M. de Saint-Denis de. (Euvres Melees. Ed. C. Giraud.

3 vols. Paris. 1865.
Simon, Richard. Lettres Choisies, with biographical sketch by A. A. Brazen do

la Martiniere. 4 vols. Amsterdam. 1730.

For a list of his works see Bernus, A. Notice Bibliographique sur Richard

Simon. Basel. 1882.

782 The Gallican Church.

II. LATER WORKS.
A. General.

Cr^tineau-Joly, J. A. M. Histoire de la Compa^ie de J^sus. 6 vols. Paris.

1844-6.
Denis, J. Articles in the Mdmoires de I'Acad^mie de Caen for 1866, 1868-71, 1884,

1886, 1891-1900.
Guett^e, Abbe' R. F. W. Histoire de r%lise de France. 12 vols. Paris. 1847-56.
Jervis, Prebendary W. H. History of the Church of France. 2 vols. London.

1872.
Moreri, L. Grand Dictionnaire Historique. 10 vols. Paris. 1769.
Picot, M. J. Essai historique sur I'influence de la religion en France pendant le

zviiiemiB siecle. 2 vols. Paris. 1824.

Memoires pour servir k I'histoire ecclesiastique pendant le xvniieme siecle.

4 vols. Paris. 1815.

Sicard, A. Les Eveques avant la Revolution. Paris. 1905.

B. Gallicanism.

Gerin, Charles. Recherches Historiques sur TAssemblee du Clerg^ de France en
1682. Paris. 1870.

Louis XIV et le Saint-Siege [down to 1676]. 2 vols. Paris. 1894.

Loyson, Abbd Hyacinths. L'Assemblee du Clerge de France en 1682. Paris. 1870.
Michaud, Eugene. Louis XIV et Innocent XI. 4 vols. Paris. 1882.

Moiiy, Comte C. de. Louis XIV et le Saint-Siege: L'Ambassade duDuc de Crequi,

1662-5. 2 vols. Paris. 1893.
Phillips, G. J. Das Regalienrecht in Frankreich. Halle. 1873.
Puyol, Abb^ E. Edmond Richer et la Re'novation du GiaUicanisme. 2 vols. Paris.

1876.

C, The Christian Rationalists.

Bonnefon, P. Montaigne et ses Amis. 2 vols. Paris. 1898.

Cougny, £. Guillaume du Vair. Paris. 1857.

Denis, J. Memoires de I'Academie de Caen, 1891.

Gerkrath, L. Franz Sanchez. Vienna. 1860.

Sainte-Beuve, C. A. Charron. Causeries da Lundi. 3rd edn. Vol. xi. Paris.

1868.
Strowski, F. Pascal et son temps: I. De Montaigne a Pascal. Paris. 1907.

D. The Libertines.

Brunetiere, F. La Philosophic de Moliere. In JEtudes Critiques. 2nd edn. Vol. iv.

Paris. 1894.
Denis, J. Memoires de I'Academie de Caen, 1884, 1896, 1900.
!^tienne, L. !l6tude sur La Mothe Le Vayer. Rennes. , 1849.
Perrens, F. T. Les Libertins en France. Paris. 1896.
Raynaud, M. Les Mddecins an Temps de Moliere. Paris. 1858.
Sainte-Beuve, C. A. Patin. Causeries du Lundi. 3rd edn. Vol. vm. Paris. 1868.

Naude. Portraits Litteraires. Vol. ii. Paris. 1864.

Saint-^vremond. Nouveaux Lundis. Vol. xiii. Paris. 1870,

Schirmacher, K. Th^ophile de Viau. [In German.] Paris. 1897.

Bibliography. 783

E. Cabtesianism.
See Bibliography to Chapter XXVII of Volume TV.
For the relations of Cartesianism to religion see especially —

BouiUier, F. Histoire de la Philosophie Cai-tdsienne. 2 vols. Paris. 1868.
BrunetierSj F. Jansenistes et Cartdsiens. In Etudes Critiques. 2nd edn. Vol. iv.

La philosophic de Bossuet in Vol. v. Paris. 1894.

See also the articles of Blondel, Boutroux and Lanson in the Descartes

Tercentenary numher of the Revue Metaphysique for July, 1896.

F. The Religious Revival.

Avend, G. d'. Le Clerge Franfais sous Louis XIIL In Revue Historiqne, Vols.

x;cxii, xxxiii. Paris. 1886-7.
Baumer, S. Johannes Mabillon. Augsburg. 1892.
Bertrand, L. Henri de Bethune, Archeveque de Bordeaux (1604-80). 2 vols.

Paris. 1902.
Cognet, Abbe. Antoine Godeau, fiveque de Grasse et de Vence (1605-72). Paris.

1900.
Ddjob, C. L'Influence du Concile de Trente sur la Litterature et les Beaux-arts.

Paris. 1884.
Dubois, G. Henri de Pardaillan de Gondrin, Archeveque de Sens de 1646 a 1674.

Alen9on. 1902.
Faillon, Abbe. Vie de M. Olier. 3 vols. Paris. 1873.
Loth, J. T. Saint Vincent de Paul et sa Mission Sociale. Paris. 1879.
Pignot, J. H. Un ^veque Reformateur sous Louis XIV: Gabriel de la Roquette;

iveque d'Autun. 2 vols. Paris. 1876.
Strowski, F. Saint Fran9ois de Sales. Paris. 1898.

G. BOSSVET AND THE FrEAOHERS.

BeUon, Abbe B. Bossuet, Directeur de Conscience. Paris. 1896.
Blampignon, Abb^ E. A. Massillon. Paris. 1879.

Episcopat de Massillon. Paris. 1884. Supplement. 1891.

Brunetiere, F. La Philosophie de Bossuet. In ifitudes Critiques. VoL v. Paris.

1896. See also Vols, vi and vii. Paris. 1899-1903.
Fabre, Adolphe. Fle'chier Orateur Paris. 1886.
Fabre, Antonin. Correspondance de Fle'chier avec Mmo Deshoulieres. Paris.

1871.

Jeunesse de FI€chier. 2 vols. Paris. 1882.

Feugere, A. Bourdaloue. Paris. 1889.

Jacquinet, P. Les Predicateurs du xviiieme Siecle avant Bossuet. Paris. 1886.

Laiisou, G. Bossuet. Paris. 1901.

Lebarq, J Histoire de la Predication de Bossuet. Paris. 1888.

Re'aume, Abbd A. Histoire de Jacques B&igne Bossuet. 3 vols. Paris. 1869.

Rebelliau, A. Bossuet, Historien du Protestantisme. Paris. 1891.

Bossuet. Paris. 1900.

Sainte-Beuve, C. A. Causeries du Lundi. Vols, x, xii, xiii. Nouveaux Lundis.
VoL II. Paris. 1857 etc.

Bourdaloue et Massillon. Causeries du Lundi. Vol. ix. 3rd edn. Paris.

1869. Fle'chier. Vol. xv. Paris. 1862.

Stephen, Sir J. Fitzjames. Horae Sabbaticae. Vol. n. London. 1891.
Urbain, C. Bibliographie de Bossuet. In Bibliotheque de Bibliographies Critiques.
Paris. 1900,

784 The Gallican Church.

H. Jansenism and Port RoYAt.

Bibliographieg.

Maulvault, A. Repertoire alphab^tique des personnes et des choses a Port Royal,

Paris. 1902.
Michaud; G. Preface to edition of Pascal's Pens^es. Fribonrg. 1897.

Theological Studies.

DoUinger, J, J. I. von, and Reuschj F. H. Geschichte der Monilstreitigkeiten im
siebzehnten Jabrhundert. 2 vols. Nordlingen. 1889.

Dreydorff, J. G. Pascal. Leipzig. 1870.

Linsenmann, F. X. Michael Baius, und die Grnndlegung des Jansenismus. Tubin-
gen. 1869.

Rencblin, H. Geschichte von Port Royal. 2 vols. Hamburg. 1839-44. .

History of Port Royal.
Beard, Charles. Port Royal. 2 vols. London. 1861.
Cousin, Victor. Jacqueline Pascal. Paris. 1882.
A. K. H. Angelique of Port Royal. London. 1905.
Sainte-Beuve, C. A. Port Royal. 6 vols, and Index. Paris. 1882,

The Later Jansenists.

Doublet, G. Le Jansenisme dans I'ancien diocese de Vence. Paris. 1901.
Duraud, V. Le Jansenisme au xviiiieme Siecle, et Joachim Colbert, Eveque de

MontpeUier. Toulouse. 1907.
Gazier, A. Uno Suite a I'Histoire de Port Royal. Paris. 1906.
Gilardoni, C. La Bulle Unigenitus et la Fin du Jansenisme en Champagne.

Vitry. 1892.
Le Roy, A. La France et Rome de 1700 a 1715. Paris. 1891.
Mathieu, P. F. Histoire des Miracules et des Convulsionnaires de Saint-Me'dard,

Paris. 1864.
SchiU, A. Die Constitution Unigenitus. Freiburg im Breisgau. 1876.
Sech^, L. Les Derniers Jansenistes. 3 vols. Paris. 1891.

L F^NELON AND THE QuiETISTS.

Bausset, Cardinal L. F. de. Histoire de Fenelon, 4 vols. Ed. J. E. A. Gosselin.

Paris. 1860.
Brunetiere, F. Histoire et Litte'raturo. Vol. ii. Paris. 1886.

Etudes Critiques. 4th edn. Vol. ii. Paris. 1893.

Cagnac, M. Fenelon, Directeur de Conscience. Paris. 1906.

Crousle, L. F&elon et Bossuet. 2 vols. Paris. 1894.

Denis, J. M^moires de I'Academie de Caen, 1894.

Guerrier, L. Mme Guyon. Paris. 1881.

Heppe, H. Geschichte der quietistischen Mystik. Berlin. 1875.

Masson, IM. Fenelon et Mme Guyon, Documents nouveaux et inedits. Paris, 1907.

Sainte-Beuve, C. A, Causeries du Lundi, 3rd edn. Vols, ii and x, Paris. 1868-70.

Scharling, C, £. Michael de Molinos. (German translation of Danish original.)

Gotha. 1865,

J. The Recrudescence op Rationalism.
(1) Malebranche.
Joly, H. Malebranche. Paris. 1901.
OlM-Laprnne, L. La Philosophie de Maklfrancl^e, ? vols, Paris. 1870.

Bibliography. 785

(2) Richard Simon.

BernuSj A. Richard Simon. Lausanne. 1869.
DeniSj J. Memoires de I'Academie de Caen^ 1870.

Reuan, E. L'Exegese Biblique et I'Esprit Fran^ais. In Revue des Deux Mondes for
November, 1865.

(3) FonteneUe.

Brunetiere, F. La Formation de I'ldee du Progreg. In &udes Critiques. 2nd edn.

Vol. V. Paris. 1896.
Laborde-Milaa^ A. FonteneUe. Paris. 1905.
Sainte-Beuve, C. A. Causeries du Lundi. 3rd edn. Vol. in, Paris. (1868.)

(4) Bayk.

Bmnetiere, F. La Critique de Bayle. In i^tudes Critiques. 2nd edn. Vol. v.

Paris. 1896.
Deschamps, Arsene. Genese du Scepticisme i^rudit.cliez Bayle. Brussels. 1876.
Feuerbach, Ludwig. Pierre Bayle. Vol. vi of Feuerbach's Sammtlicho Werke.

Leipzig. 1848.
Sainte-Beuve, C. A. Portraits Litteraires. Vol. i. Paris. 1864,

c. M. H. V. CH. IV. SO

786

CHAPTERS V AND IX.

ENGLAND UNDER CHARLES II AND JAMES II.
(1660-87.)

[For the administration of the navy in these reigns and the history of the Anglo-
Dutch Wars in the reign of Charles II see Bibliography to Chapter VIII. For Colonial
History see Bibliography to Chapter XXII, Section 1. For the History of the Revolution
of 1688 see Bibliography to Chapter X, Section 1. For the History of Toleration in
England see Bibliography to Chapter XI. For the History (f Literature see Bibliography
to Chapter VI. For the History of Science see Bibliography to Chapter XXIII,]

I. ORIGINAL SOURCES.
The chief sources of information for the period are :

(a) The State Papers in the Public Record Office. The published Calendar
of the Domestic State Papers extends to February 1676. Those from 1660-70 were
edited by Mrs M. A. Everett Green ; those from 1671-6 by F. H. Blackburne Daniell.
The Calendar of Treasury Boolcs and Papers edited by W. A. Shaw covers from
1660 to 1668 ; it is supplemented by vol. i of J. Redin^on's Calendar of Treasury
Papers. The Colonial papers, so far as they relate to America and the West Indies,
are calendared for the whole period. The Foreign State Papers are uncaleudared
but a list of volumes of State Papers, Foreign, preserved in the Public Record Office
has been published. London. 1904. Transcripts of the despatches of the French
and Venetian ambassadors and of the Papal Nuncios (?) are in the Record Office.

(i) Mss. in the British Museum. The class catalogue in the Department of
H88. should be consulted. The chief collections relating to this period are : the
papers of Sir Robert Southwell (Add. mss. 34,329-336 ; 34,339-346 ; 36,099-101) ;
the letter books of Henry Coventry (Add. ms. 26,126); the correspondence of
Sir George Downing (Add. mss. 22,919-20) ; correspondence of Charles Stuart, 4th
Duke of Richmond (Add. mss. 22,947-951); the Osborne and Godolphin mss.
(Add. MSS. 28,040-96); Hatton and Finch uss. (Add. mss. 29,648 £F.); correspondence
of Adda, the Papal Nuncio to James II (Add. mss. 16,896-7) ; Ellis mss. (Add. mss.
28,876 £f.).

The historical collections made by Sir James Mackintosh for his History of
Great Britain from the Revolution of 1688, consisting largely of copies of foreign
and English papers illustrating the reign of James II, are in the British Museum
(Add. MSB. 84,487-626).

Bibliography. 787

(c) The Bodleian Library contains Clarendon's correspondence during his
administration, mainly relating to foreign affairs ; Carte's collection^ which contains
many letters addressed to Ormond on English affairs and some volumes of the
papers of Edward Mountagu, 1st Earl of Sandwich, and Philip Lord Wharton;
Sheldon's and Sancroft's coi-respondence on ecclesiastical affairs ; papers on foreign
afiiairs collected by Richard Bridgman, clerk to the Privy Council ; a portion of the
naval correspondence of Samuel Pepys ; and many miscellaneous papers on both
foreign and domestic affairs amongst the Tanner, Rawlinson, and Ashmole mss.
Many volumes of the papers of Sir Leoline Jenkins are in the libraiy of All Souls
College, Oxford.

((2) A number of private collections relating to this period are described or
calendared in the Reports of the Historical mss. Commission, viz. the mss. of the
Marquis of Bath, which contain the Coventry papers (3rd and 4th Reports), the mss.
of the Duke of Sutherland (6th Report), the mss. of Sir H. IngUby (6th Report), the
mss. of Sir F. Graham, containing the despatches of Lord Preston (7th Report). The
papers of the House of Lords from 1660 to 1688 are calendared in Reports 7, 8, 9,
pt. 2, 11, pt. 2. In the octavo series the reports of most value are those on the mss.
of the Duke of Buccleuch, the Duke of Portland (vols, ii, iii), the Duke of Leeds,
the Duke of Rutland (vol. ii), the Earl of Dartmouth, the Earl of Lindsey,
Sir W. Fitzherbert, Mr J. E. Hodgkin, Mr S. H. Le Fleming, Mr J. M. Heathcote,
and the Calendar of the mss. of the Marquess of Ormonde at Kilkenny, new series,

vols. Ill, IV.

The Catalogue of the mss. of the late Alfred Morrison was privately printed iii
8 vols.

H. PAMPHLETS, NEWSPAPERS, BROADSIDES, AND CARICATURES.

(a) The collection of pamphlets in the British Museum known as the
Thomason Tracts (see vol. iv, p. 899) ends with April, 1661. A complete and fully
indexed catalogue made under the superintendence of G. K. Fortescue is now in
the press. Selections from the pamphlet literature of the period are to be found in :
Harleian Miscellany. Ed. T. Park. 10 vols. London. 1808-13.
Somers Tracts. Ed. Sir W. Scott. 13 vols. London. 1809-15, vols, vii-ix.
Phoenix Britannicus : being a miscellaneous collection of scarce and cui-ious tracts

etc., collected by J. Morgan. London. 1732.
The Phoenix : or a revival of scarce and valuable pieces etc., printed for

J. Morphew. 2 vols. 1707.
Stuart Tracts, 1603-93. Ed. C. H. Firth. 1903. (This volume is a reairrangemtot

of tracts originally reprinted in E. Arber's English Gamer. 8 vols. London.

1877-90.)
State Tracts: being a collection of several treatises relating to the government

privately printed in the reign of Charles II. Two volumes in one. London.

1692. (Published by Richard Baldwin and sometimes styled Baldwin's State

Tracts.)
Catalogue of Tracts for and s^inst the Popery (in or about the reign of James II)

in the Chetham Library. Ed. T. Jones. Chetham Society, 18S9> 1866.
The reprint of The Term Catalog^ies, 1668-1709, edited by E. Arber, Loudon,

1903-6, 3 vols., furnishes a key to the literature of tiie period, including

pamphlets.

(p) For Proclamations issued during the period see :
Bibliotheca Lindesiana. Hand List of Proclamations, vol. i, 1609-1714. Privately

printed. Aberdeen. 1893. The chief collections of proclamations for these

reigns are to be found in the British Museum, the Libraiy of the Society of

Antiquaries and the Library of Queen's College, Oxford.

CHS. v, IX. 60—2

788 England under Charles II and James II.

(c) . For Broadsides issued during this period see :

Lemon, R. A catalogue of printed Broadsides in the Possession of the Society of

Antiquaries. 1866.
A catalogue of English Broadsides, 1605-1897. Bibliotheca Lindesiana. 1898.

J. E, Hodgkin. Rariora. Vol. iii.

(d) Newspapers.

For lists of the newspapers published during this period see :

Nichols, John. Literary Anecdotes of the 18th century. 9 vols. London. 1812-5

(iv, 53-73).
Catalogue of English Ne^rspapers, 1641-66. Bibliotheca Lindesiana, Collations and

Notes, no. v, 1901.
Catalogue of a collection of early Newspapers and Essayists formed by J. T. Hope.

Oxford. 1866.

With the reign of Charles II begins the continuous issue of the London Gazette.
The first number appeared as the Oxford Gazette November 14, 1665, becoming the
London Gazette on February 6, 1606. Several of the controversial papers issued
during the latter years of Charles the Second's reign were subsequently collected
and published in volumes, viz.: The Observator by Roger L'Estrange, Apiil 13,
1681 to March 9, 1687, 3 vols. ; The Weekly Pacquet of Advice from Rome by
Henry Care, Dec. 3, 1678 to July 13, 1683, 5 vols. ; Heraclitus Ridens, Feb. 1, 1681
to Aug. 22, 1682, reprinted in 2 vols., 1713.

For the history of journalism during the period see :

Andrews, A. History, of British Journalism to 1856. 2 vols. London. 1859.
Fox Bourne, H. R. Engjish Newspapers. 2 vols. London. 1887.
Masson, D. Life of John Milton. Vol. vi. London. 1880.

(e) For Caricatures see Catalogue of the Prints and Drawings in the British
Museum, Division I. Political and Personal Satires. Vol. i. London. 1870.

(/) For political Ballads and Satires see :

Poems on Affairs of State, from the time of Oliver CromweU to the Abdication of
James II. 4 vols. London. 1703-7 (1702-4).

Rome Rhymed to Death. London. 1683.

A collection of eighty-six Loyal Poems collected by Nat. Thompson. London. 1686.

A choice collection of one hundred and eighty Loyal Songs collected by Nat. Thomp-
son. London. 1686.

Loyal Poems and Satyrs upon the Times since the beginning of the Salamanca Plot.
Collected by M[at] T[aubman]. London. 1686.
(These collections are indexed in Notes and Queries, 6th series, voL vi,

pp. 401-533.)

The Roxburghe Ballads, vols, iv, v. Ed. J. W. Ebsworth. (Ballad Society.) 1883-6.

The Bagford Ballads. Ed. J. W. Ebsworth. (Ballad Society.) 2 vols. 1878.

Bibliotheca Lindesiana. Catalogue of a collection of English Ballads. Privately
printed, 1890.

Wilkins, W. W. Political Ballads of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.
2 vols. London. 1860.

III. COIWEMPORARY AUTHORITIES.

Ailesbury, Thomas Bruce, second Earl of. Memoirs. Written by himself. Ed.

W. E. Buckley. Roxburghe Club. 2 vols. Westminster. 1890.
Anglesey, Arthur Annesley, Earl of. Memoirs of, by Sir Peter Pett. London. 1693.

Bibliography. 789

Arlingtoiij Henry Bennet, Earl of. Letters to Sir William Temple, July 1665 —

10 September 1670. Publish'd by Tho. Bebington. 2 vols. London. lYoi.
Letters to Sir B. Gascoigne. Letter of State to the Duke of Ormond...as

likewise to. ..the Duke of Buckingham. 1702.
Amauld, Antoine. CEuvres. 42 parts. P. xiv. Apologie pour les Catholiques.

Paris and Lausanne. 1776-83.
Aubrey, J. Brief Lives, chiefly of Contemporaries. Ed. A. Clark. 2 vols. Oxford.

1898.
Augustus Anglicus. A compendious view of the Life and Reign of that immortal

and glorious monarch Charles II. London. 1686.
Austria. — Pribram, A. F. Osterreichische Staatsvertrage. England, Vol. i.

1626-1748. (VerofFentlichungen der Kommission fiir neuere Geschichte Oster-

reichs.) Innsbruck. 1907.
Avaux, J. A. de M., Count de. N^gociations du Comte d'Avaux en Hollande, 1679

-[88]. Ed. E. Mallet. 6 vols. Paris. 1752-3. Engl. Trans. : Negotiations

of Count d'Avaux, ambassador from his most Christian Majesty to the States-
General of the United Provinces. Containing the steps taken by the Prince of

Orange to ascend the throne of Great Britain ; and the intrigues of France to

counteract his measures during that interesting period. Transl. from the French.

4 vols. London. 1764.
Avrigny,iHyacinthe Robillard de, de la Compagnie de J&us. M^moires pour servir

a I'histoire universelle de I'Europe. Paris. 1767.
Baker, Sir R. Chronicle of the Kings of England whereunto is added the reign of

Kling Charles I and the first thirteen years of King Charles II. (Continuation

by Edward PhiUips.) London. 1670.
Barnes, Ambrose. Memoirs of the Life of. Ed. W. H. D. Longstaffe. Surtees

Society. 1867.
Barozzi, N. and Berchet, G. Le Relazioni degli Stati Europei lette al Senate dagli

Ambasciatori Veneziani nel secolo decimosettimo. Serie iv: Inghilterra.

1 vol. Venice. 1863.
Basire, Archdeacon. — Darnell, W". N. Correspondence of Isaac Basire, Archdeacon

of Northumberland etc. With a memoir of his life. London. 1831.
Baxter, R. Reliquiae Baxterianae, or Mr Richard Baxter's Narrative of the most

Memorable Passages of his Life and Times. Ed. M. Sylvester. London. 1696.
Berry, A. Account of the life of Rachel Lady Russell, followed by a series of letters

from Lady RusseU to her husband.. .To which are added eleven' letters from

Dorothy Sidney Countess of Sunderland to George Savile Marquis of Halifax.

London. 1819.
BlundeU, William. A Cavalier's Note-Book. Ed. T. E. Gibson. London. 1880.
Bohun, Edmund. Diary and Autobiography, 1677-96. Ed. S. W. Rix. Privately

printed. Beccles. 1853.
Boyle, Roger, Earl of Orrery. A collection of the State Papers. London. 1742.
Bramston, Sir John. Autobiography. Ed. Lord Braybrooke. Camden Society.

London. 1845.
Bromley, G. A Collection of original Royal Letters written by King Charles the

First and Second etc. London. 1787.
Brown, T. Miscellanea Aulica or a Collection of State Treatises never before

published. London. 1702.
Bulstrode, Sir Richard. Original Letters written to the Earl of Arlington (1674)
London. 1712.

Memoirs and Reflections upon the Reign and Government of King Charles I

and King Charles II. London. 1721.

Bunyan, John. Grace Abounding to the Chief of Sinners. London. 1666,

Works. Ed. G. Offer. 3 vols. Edinburgh. 1866.

790 England under Charles II and James II.

Burnet, Gilbert (Bishop of Salisbury). The History of My Own Time. Ed. O. Airy.
Parti. The reign of Charles II. 2 vols. Oxford. 1897.

Bishop Burnet's History of his Own Time. Ed. M. J. Routh. 6 vols,

Oxford. 1833.

— TT-r A Supplement to Burnet's History of My Own Time. Ed. H. C. Foxcroft.
Oxford. 1902.

Some Passages of the Life and Death of John Earl of Rochester. London.

1680.

Life of Sir Matthew Hale. Published 1682. Reprinted. Oxford. 1866.

Calamy, Edmund. An historical account of my own life. Ed. J. T. Rutt. 2 vols.

London. 1829.

The Nonconformist's Memorial. Ed. S. Palmer. 3 vols. 1803.

Carte, Thomas. An history of the life of James, Duke of Ormond. 3 vols.

London. 1736.
Cart\rright, Thomas, Bishop of Chester. Diary of Thomas Cart wright, commencing. . .

August, 1686, and tei-minating... October, 1687. Ed. J. Hunter. Camden

Society. London. 1843.
Castlemaine, Roger Palmer, Earl of. The Catholique Apology, with a reply to the

answer.. ..By a person of honour. 3rd edu., much augmented. 1674.
Chamberlayne, Edward. Magnae Britanniae Notitia; or the present state of Great

Britain. 27th edn. Ed. J. Chamberlayne, F.R.S. London. 1748.
Chesterfield, Philip, second Earl of. Letters. London. 1835.
Clarendon, Edward Hyde, 1st Earl of. Life of Edward, Earl of Clarendon. ...A

continuationof the same... written by himself. 2 vols. Oxford. 1867.

State Papers. Vol. in. Oxford. 1786.

A Collection of Several Tracts of Edward, Earl of Clarendon. London. 1727.

Henry Hyde, 2nd Earl of. Correspondence of Henry Hyde, Earl of

Clarendon, and of his brother, Laurence Hyde, Earl of Rochester.... Ed.
S. W. Singer. 2 vols. London. 1828.

Clarke, J. S. The Life of King James the Second, King of England. Collected out

of Memoirs writ of his own hand. 2 vols. London. 1816.
Coke, Roger. A Detection of the Court and State of England during the four last

Reigns and the Interregnum. 2 vols. London. 1694.
Compleat Collection, A, of Farewell Sermons preached by Loudon and Country

Ministers, August 17, 1662. London. 1663.
Cook, Aurelian. Titus Britannicus, an Essay of History in the Life and Reign

of.. .King Charles IL London. 1686.
Cosin, John, Bishop of Durham. Correspondence, with other papers illustrative

of his life and times. Ed. G. Omsby. 2 vols. Sui-tees Society. 1869-70.
Dalrymple, Sir John. Memoirs of Great Britain and Ireland. 3 vols. Edinburgh.

1771.
Danby, Thomas Osborne, Earl of. Copies and extracts of some letters written to

and from the Earl of Danby (now Duke of Leeds) in the years 1676, 1677, and

1678, with some particular remarks upon them. Published by his Grace's

direction. London. 1710.

Memoirs relating to the Impeachment of Thomas Osborne, Earl of Danby

(now Duke of Leeds), in the year 1678. London. 1710.

Dangeau, Philippe de Couroillon, Marquis de. Journal du Marquis de Dangeau.

19 torn. Paris. 1864-60.
Depositions from the Castle of York relating to Offences committed in the Northern

Counties in the Seventeenth Century. Ed. J. Baine. Surtees Society. 1861.
Dryden, John. Works. Ed. Sir Walter Scott. 18 vols. London. 1808. Revised

and corrected by G. Saintsbury. 18 vols. Edinburgh. 1882-93.
Dugdale, SirW. Life, Diary, and Correspondence. Ed. W. Hamper. London. 1827.

Bibliography. 791

Dtunont, Jean, Baron de Carlscroon. Corps Universel diplomatique. 8 vols.

Amsterdam and the Hague. 1826-31.
Eachard, John, D.D., Master of Catherine Hall. The Grounds and Occasions of

the Contempt of the Clergy inquired into. Cambridge. 1670.
Echard, Laurence, Archdeacon of Stow. History of England. 3 vols. London

1707.
Ellis, Sir Henry. Original letters illustrative of English history. 11 vols. London.

1825-46.
Ellis, John. The Ellis Correspondence. Letters, 1686-3. Ed. Hon. G. A. Ellis.

2 vols. London. 1829.
Ellwood, T. The History of the Life of, written by his own hand. London. I7l4.
Essex Papers. Ed. O. Airy. Camden Society. 1890 etc. (In progress.)
Estrades, Comte Godefroi de. Lettres, Memoires et Negotiations de M. le Comte

d'Estrades.-.ambassadeur plenipotentiaire a la paix de Nimegue... 9 tom.

Londres. 1743.
Evelyn, John. Diary of John Evelyn. Ed. H. B. Wheatley. 4 vols. London.

1879. Ed. A. Dobson. 3 vols. London. 1906.

The Life of Mrs Godolphin. Ed. S. Wilberforce (Bishop of Winchester).

London. 1847. Ed. E. W. Harcourt. London. 1888.

Fairfax Correspondence. Vols, lu, iv. Ed. R. Bell. London. 1849.
Fanshawe, Anne Lady. Memoirs. Ed. R. Fanshawe. London. 1907.
Fanshawe, Sir Richard. Original Letters and Negotiations of Sir Richard Fanshawe,

the Earl of Sandwich, the Earl of Sunderland and Sir William Godolphin.

2 vols. London. 1724.
Foley, Henry. Records of the English Province of the Society of Jesus. 7 vols.

London. 1879-83.
Fox, George. A Journal or Historical Account of his Life, Travels, Sufferings etc.

London. 1694.
Frampton, Robert, Bishop of Gloucester. Life. Edited by T. S. Evans, London.

1876.
Grey, Anchitell. Debates in the House of Commons, 1667-94. 10 vols. London.

1763.
Groen van Frinsterer. Archives de la Maison d'Orange-Nassau. 2'"° sine. Vol. v.

Utrecht. 1861.
Gumble, T. Life of General Monck, Duke of Albemarle. London. 1671.
Gutch, John. Collectanea Curiosa or Miscellaneous Tracts... now first published

from the mss. of Archbishop Sancroft. 2 vols. Oxford. 1781,
Hale, Sir Matthew. Historia Placitorum Coronae. 2 vols. London. 1736.

Life by G. Burnet, together with the Life of H. Hammond by John Fell.

Oxford. 1856.

Halifax, George Savile, Marquis of. A Character of King Charles II. London.

1760.
Halstead, Robert (H. Mordaunt, Earl of Peterborough). Succinctes Genealogies.

London. 1685.
Hamilton, Anthony, Count. Memoires de la Vie du Comte de Grammont.

Contenant particulierement I'Histoirp amoureuse de la Cour d'Angleterre

sous le reghe de Charles II. Cologne. 1713. English translation. Memoirs

of Count Grammont. Ed. G. Goodwin. 2 vols. London. 1903.
Hatton, Correspondence of the family of. Ed. [Sir] £. Maunde Thompson.

Camden Society. London. 1878.
Heath, J. A brief Chronicle of the late Intestine War. London. 1663.
Henry, Philip. Diaries and Letters. 1631-96. Ed. M. H. Lee. London. 1882.
Heywood, Oliver. Autobiography, Diaries etc. Ed. J, Horsfall Turner. 2 vols.

Brighouse. 1881-2. Vol. in, Biugley. 1883.

ens. V, IX.

792 England under Charles II and James II.

Hodgsoiij John. Autobiography. Ed. H. Turner. Brighouse. 1882.
Hutchinson^ Lucy. Memqirs of the Life of Col. John Hutchinson. Ed. C. H. Firth.

2 vols. London. 1886.
Jenkins, Sir Leoline. Life and Letters. Ed. W. Wynne. 2 vols. Loindon. 1724.
Jolly, Thomas. Note-book, 1671-93. Ed. H. Fishwick. Chetham Society. 1894.
Journals of the House of Lords.
Journals of the House of Commons.

Jurieu, Pierre. La Politique du Clerg^ de France. Cologne, 1681.
Kiffln, William. Remarkable Passages in the Life of. Ed. W, Onne. London.

1823.
Lafayette, Comtesse. Histoire d'Henriette d'Angleterre. Ed. Anatole France.

Paris. 1882.
Lauderdale Papers. Ed. O. Airy. 3 vols. Camden Society. London. 1884-6.
L'Estrange, Sir Roger. Brief History of the Times. London. 1687-8.

The Observator. London. 1681-7.

Lilly, William. History of his Life and Times, 1602-81. Written by himself.

London. 1822.
Lloyd, D. Eikon Basilike, or the true Portraiture of his Sacred Majesty Charles H.

London. 1660.
Lower, Sir William. A Relation in form of Journal of the Voyage and Residence

which Charles II King of Great Britain hath made in Holland from the 26 May

to the 2 June 1660. Rendered into English out of the original French. Hague.

1660.
Ludlow, Edmund. Memoirs. Ed. C. H. Firth. 2 vols. Oxford. 1894.
Lilttrell, Narcissus. Brief historical relation of State Affairs. 6 vols. Oxford.

1857.
Macpherson, James. Original papers, containing the secret history of Great Britain

from the Restoration to the Accession of the House of Hanover. 2 vols.

London. 1776.
Macray, W. D. Council Notes of Clarendon to Charles 11. Roxburghe Club.
Magalotti, L. Travels of Cosmo III, Grand Duke of Tuscany, through England,

during the reign of King Charles II. London. 1821.
Magrath, J. H. The Flemings in Oxford, being documents selected from the Rydal

Papers. Vol. i. 1650-80. Oxford Historical Society. 1904.
Martindaie, Adam. Life, written by himself. Ed. R. Parkinson. Chetham Society.

1845.
Marvell, Andrew, The complete Works, in verse and prose, of Andrew Marvell, M.P.

Ed. A. B. Grosart. 4 vols. (Fuller Worthies Library.) Edinburgh. 1868 etc.

Poems and Satires. Ed, G. A. Aitken. 2 vols. London. 1892.

Mazarin, Cardinal. Lettres. Vol. iz. Ed. G. d'Avenel. (Documents In^dits sur

r Histoire de France.) Paris. 1906.

Middlesex County Records. Ed. J. C. Jeaffreson. Vols, iii, iv. Middlesex County
Records Society. 1888^ 1892.

Miege, Guy. A Relation of three Embassies from his sacred Majesty Charles II
to the Grand Duke of Muscovy, the King of Sweden and the King of
Denmark performed by the Earl of Carlisle in the years 1663 and 1664.
Loudon. 1669.

Migaet, Francois Auguste Marie. Negotiations relatives a la Succession d'Espagne.
4 vols. Paris. 1836-41.

Newcastle, Margaret, Duchess of. The Life of William Cavendish, Duke of New-
castle. Ed. C. H. Firth. London. 1886.

Newcome, Henry. Autobiography of. Ed. R. Parkinson. 2 vols. Chetham
Society. 1862.

Diary of. Ed. T. Heywood. Chetham Society, 1849,

Bihliograpliy. 793

North, Hon. Roger. Examen. London. 1740.

Lives of Francis North, Baron Guilford, Sir Dudley North, and Dr John

North, together with the autobiography of the author. Ed. A. Jessopp. 3 vols.
London. 1890.
Nottingham. Records of the Borough of. Vol. v. 1626-1702. Nottingham. 1902.
Ogilby, John. Entertainment of his Majesty Charles II in his passage through

London to his Coronation. London. 1662.
Oldmixon, John. History of England during the reigns of the Royal House of

Stuart. London. 1730.
Oliver, George. Collections towards illustrating ' the biography of the Scotch,

English and Irish Members of the Society of Jesus. London. 1845.
Orl&kns, Pierre Joseph de. History of the Revolutions in England under the family

of the Stuarts. Engl, transl. London. 1722.
Parker, Samuel, Bishop of Oxford. History of his own time. Transkted by Thomas

Newlin. London. 1727.
Parliamentary Histoi-y. iv. London. 1808.
Patrick, Symon, Bishop of Ely. Autobiography. Oxford. 1839.
Pepys, Samuel. Diary and Correspondence. Ed. Lord Braybrooke. 4 vols.

London. 1890. Ed. H. B. Wheatley. With Index and Pepysiana. 9 vols.

London. 1893-9.
Memoirs relating to the state of the Royal Navy of England for ten years,

determined December, 1688. London. (?)1690.
Plume, Thomas. Account of the Life and Death of John Hacket, Bishop of lioh-

field, Ed. M. E. C. Walcott. Lichfield. 1865.
Pope, Walter. Life of Seth Ward, Bishop of Salisbury. London. 1697.
Prideaux, Humphrey, Dean of Norwich. Letters to John Ellis. 1674-1722. Ed.

[Sir] E. Maunde Thompson. Camden Society London. 1876.
Reresby, Sir John. Memoirs. Ed. J. J. Cartwright. London. 1875.
Revolution Politicks. Being a complete Collection of all the Reports, Lies, and

Stories which were the Forerunners of the Great Revolution in 1688, commenc-
ing fi-om the Death of King Charles II. London. 1733.
Russell, Lady Rachel. Letters of. Ed. Earl Russell. 2 vols. London. 1853.
Rye House Plot.— The Secret History of the Rye House Plot and of Monmouth's

Rebellion written by Ford Lord Grey in 1686. London. 1764.
Sanderson, R. Original Letters from King William III then Prince of Orange to

King Charles II, Lord Arlington etc. Translated. London. 1704.
Savile Correspondence. Letters to and from Henry Savile etc., 1661-89. Ed.

W. D. Cooper. Camden Society 1868.
Schwerin, O. von. Briefe aus England tiber die Zeit von 1674 bis 1678. Berlin.

1837.
Secret History of the Reigns of King Charles II and King James II. 1690. n. p.
The Blatant Beast Muzzled or Reflections on a late Libel entitled the Secret

History etc. 1691. n. p.
Secret Service Expenses of Charles II and James II. Ed. J. Y. Akerman. Camden

Society. London. 1851.
Sheffield, John, Duke of Buckinghamshire. Memoirs, 1666-73. In Vol. ii of

Works. 4th edn. 2 vols. London. 1763.
Sidney, Algernon. Letters to the Hon. Henry Savile, ambassador in Paris in the

year 1679. London. 1740.

Works (including his Letters). London. 1772.

Sidney, Henry, Earl of Romney. Diai^ of the times of Charles II etc. Ed.

R. W. Blencowe. 2 vols. London. 1843.
Skinner, T. Life of General Monck, Duke of Albemarle. London. 1724.
Sorbiere, S. A voyage to England. Translated. London. 1709.

CHS. v, iz.

794 England under Charles II and James II.

Sprat, Thomas, Bishop of Rochester. A true account of the horrid conspiracy

against the late king [Charles II]. 1685.
State Trials. Vols. vi-x. Cohhett's Collection. London. 1809.
Sylvester, Matthew. Reliquiae Baxterianae, or Mr Richard Baxter's Narrative of

the most memorable passages of his life and times. Faithfully transcribed from
, hia own original us. Loudon. 1696.
Temple, Sir WiUiam. Works. 4 vols. Edinburgh. 1754.
Treby, Sir George. A collection of letters relating to the Popish Plot London.

1681.
^— The second part of the collection of letters. London. 1681.
Vaughan, Robert, D.D. Memorials of the Stuart Dynasty. 2 vols. London. 1831.
Welwood, James. Memoirs of the most Material Transactions in England for the

last hundred years preceding the Revolution in 1688. London. 1700, Another

edition. London. 1718.
Williamson, Sir Joseph. Letters addressed from London to Sir Joseph Williamson,

1673-4. Ed. W. D. Christie. 2 vols. (Camden Society.) London. 1874.
Wood, Anthony a. Life and Times of. Ed. A. Qark. 6 vols. Oxford. 1891-1900.

Atheuae Oxonienses. Ed. P. Bliss. 4 vols. London. 1813-20.

Worthington, J. Diary and Correspondence. Ed. by J. Crossley and R. C. Christie.

2 vols. (Chetham Society.) Manchester. 1847-86.

IV. LATER WORKS.

A, Histories,

Amos, A. The English Constitution in the Reign of King Charles II. London.

1867.
Brosch, M. Geschichte von England. (Gesch. der Europ. Staaten.) Vol. vii.

Gotha. 1892.
Campbell, John, Lord. Lives of the Lord Chancellors and Keepers of the Great

Seal of England. 6 vols. London. 1845-7.

Lives of the Chief Justices of England. 3 vols. London. 1849-57.

Carlson, F. F. Geschichte Schwedens. Vol. iv. (Geschichte der Europ. Staaten.)

Gotha. 1855.
Carte, Thomas. History of the Revolutions of Portugal from the foundation of that

kingdom to the year 1667; with letters of Sir Robert Southwell during his

embassy there to the Duke of Ormond. London. 1740.
Chdruel, P. A. Histoire de France sous le Ministere de Mazarin. 3 vols. Paris,

1882.
Cooke, G. W. History of Party. 3 vols. London. 1836-7.
Cretineau-Joly, J. A. M, Histoire politique, religieuse, et litteraire de la Compagnie

de J^sus. 6 vols. Paris. 1844-6.
Dodd, Charles. The Church History of England... chiefly with regard to the

' Catholics. In eight parts. Brussels. 1737.
Fortescue, J. W. A History of the British Army. Vol. i. London. 1899.
Foss, E. The Judges of England. 9 vols. London. 1848-64.
Fox, Rt Hon. Charles James, History of the early part of the reign of James II.

London. 1808.
Gneist, R. History of the English Constitution. Transl. by P. A. Ashworth,

2 vols. London. 1891.
Green, J. R. Short History of the English People. Ed. Mrs J. R. Green and

Miss Kate Norgate. 4 vols. London. 1892,

Bibliography. 795

Hallanij Henry. Constitutional History of England, 3 vols. London. 1884.
Harris, W., D.D. Historical and Critical Account of the Life of Charles IL

2 vols. London. 1814.
Hutton, W. H. The English Church from the Accession of Charles I to the dejith

of Anne. London. 1903.
Inunich, M. Geschichte des europaischen Staatensystems von 1660 bis 1789.

Berlin. 1903 etc.
Kennet, W., Bishop of Peterborough. A Register and Chronicle Ecclesiastical

and Civil (for the years 1660-2). London. 1728.

Compleat History of England. Vol. iii. London. 1706.

Elopp, O. Der Fall des Hauses Stuart und die Succession des Hauses Hannover.

Vols. i-iv. Vienna. 1875-6.
Lingard, J., D.D. History of England. 10 vols. London. 1849.
Macaulay, T. B., Lord. History of England. 5 vols. London. 1849.
Mackintosh, Rt Hon. Sir J. History of the Revolution in England in 1688.

London. 1834.
Macphcrson, James. History of Great Britain. 2 vols. London. 177S.
Neal, D. History of the Puiitans. Ed. J. Toulmin. 3 vols. London. 1837.
Parliamentary or Constitutional History of England. Vols, xxii, xxiii. London.

1757-60.
Ralph, James. History of England. 2 vols. London. 1736.
Ranke, L. von. Englkche Geschichte, vomehmlich in 16. u. 17. Jahrh. 9 Bde.

Sammtliche Werke, vols, xiv-xxi. Berlin. 1874 etc. Engl. Transl. by

C. W. Boase and others. 6 vols. Oxford. 1875 etc.
Rapin de Thoyras, Paul de. Histoire d'Angleterre. 13 tom. La Haye. 1724^36.
Stephen, Sir J. F. History of the Criminal Law in England. 3 vols. London.

1883.
Stoughton, John. Ecclesiastical History of England — The Church of the Restora-
tion. 2 vols. London. 1870.
Trevelyan, G. M. England under the Stuarts. London. 1904.
Walton, Clifford. History of the British Standing Army, 1660 to 1700. London.

1894.

B. Biographies, Monographs etc.

Acton, J. D., Lord. The Secret History of Charles IL Home and Foreign

Review, i. 146. London. 1862.
Airy, O. The English Restoration and Louis XTV. London. 1888.

Charles n. London. 1901.

Babington, Churchill. Mr Macaula/s Character of the Clergy in the latter part of

the seventeenth century considered. Cambridge. 1849.
Baillon, C. de. Henriette Anne d'Angleterre, sa vie et sa correspondance avec

Charles H. Paris. 1886.
Beljame, A. Le public et les hommes de lettres en Angleterre, 1660-1714. Paris.

1881.
Besse, J. A Collection of the Sufferings of the People called Quakers. 2 vols.

London. 1753.
Birch, T., D.D. Life of John Tillotson, Archbishop of Canterbury. 2nd edn.

London. 1753.
Boero, G. Istoria della Conversione alia Chiesa Cattolica di Carlo II, Re

d' Inghilterra. Rome. 1863.
Brady, W. Maziere. The Episcopal Succession in England, Scotland and Ireland.

3 vols. Rome. 1876-7.
Brady, W. Maziere. Anglo-Roman Papers. Paisley. 1890.

796 England under Charles it and James II.

Brown, J. John Bunyan, Ws life, times and work. London. 1887.

Burghclere, Lady. George Villiers, second Duke of Buckingham. London. 1903.

Carte, T. Life of James Duke of Ormond. 6 vols. Oxford. 1861.

Cartwright, J. Madame, a Life of Henrietta daughter of Charles I and Duohess of

Orleans. London. 1894.
Cartwright, W. C. The Jesuits: their constitution and teaching. An historical

sketch. London. 1876.
Chantelauze, R. de. Le Pere de la Chaize. Paris. 1859.

Charhuine, L. L'Influenoe Fran9aise en Angleterre au xvii' siecle; Paris. 1906.
Christie, W. D. Life of Anthony Ashley Cooper, Earl of Shaftesbury, 2 Vols.

London. 1871.
Clarkson, T. Memoirs of the private and public life of William Penn. New edn.

with preface by W. E. Forster. London. 1849.
Combe, E. The Sale of Dunkirk to King Lewis XIV. London. 1728.
Courtenay, T. P. Memoirs of the Life, Works, and Correspondence of Sir William

Temple. 2 vols. London. 1836.
dmningham. P., F.S.A. The Story of Nell Gwyn: and the Sayings of Charles IL

Ed. H. B. Wheatley. London. 1892.
Cunningham, W., D.D. Growth of English Industry and Commerce. Modem

Times. 2 vols. Cambridge. 1903.
Dallari, U. II matrimonio di Giacomo Stuart, Duca di York, con Maria d' Este.

Vols. I and ii. Modena. 1896.
Dalton, C. English Army Lists and Commission Registers, vol. i, 1661-89.

London. 1892.
Davis, John. History of the second Queen's Royal Regiment. Vol. i. London.

1887.
Dictionary of National Biography. Articles on Charles II and James II, and passim.

63 vols. Edd. Leslie Stephen and Sidney Lee. London. 1885-1900.
Douglas, R. K. Titus Oates. Blackwood's Magazine. London. February, 1889.
Dowell, S. History of taxation and taxes in England. 2nd edn. 4 vols. London.

1888.
D'Oyly, G. Life of William Sancroft, Archbishop of Canterbury. 2 vols. London.

1821. 2nd edn. London. 1840.
Duckett, Sir G. F. Penal laws and the Test Act m 1688. Kendal. 1879.
Ellis, G. Agar. Historical Enquiries respecting the character of Edward Hyde,

Earl of Clarendon. London. 1827.
Ewald, A. C. Life and Times of Algernon Sydney. 2 vols. London. 1873.
Fea, A. King Monmouth. London. 1902.

Ferguson, J. Robert Ferguson the Plotter, or The Secret of the Rye House Con-
spiracy. Edinburgh. 1887.
Fomeron, H. Louise de K^roualle, Duchessede Portsmouth. Paris. 1886.
Fox, Sir Stephen. Memoirs of the Life of. London. 1717.
Fox Bourne, H. R. Life of John Locke. 2 vols. London. 1876.
Foxcroft, H. C. Life and letters of Sir George Savile, Bart., first Marquis of

Halifax, with a new edition of his works. 2 vols. London. 1898.
Funck-Brentano, F. La Mort de "Madame." En collaboration avec M. le

Professeur Paul Brouardel et M. le Docteur Paul le Gendre. In Le Drame des

Poisons. Paris. 1900.
G^rin, C. Louis XIV et le Saint-Siege. 2 vols. Paris. 1894.
Godfrey, E. Social Life under the Stuarts. London. 1904.
Gooch, G. P. The History of English Democratic Ideas in the Seventeenth

Century. Cambridge. 1898.
Hamilton, A. H. G. Quarter Sessions from Queen Elizabeth to Anne. London. 1878.
Hamilton, R., LL.D. Inquiry,. .concerning the National Debt London. 1813.

Bibliography. 797

Harris, W., D.D. Some memoirs of the life and character of Thomas Manton.

London. 1725.
HenriqueSj H. S. Q. The return of the Jews to England. London. 1905.
HerZj G. B. English Public Opinion after the Restoration. London. 1902.
Hodgkin, T. George Fox. London. 1897.
Hosmer, J. K. Life of yoving Sir Henry Vane. London. 1888.
Immichj M. Fapst Innocenz XL Berlin. 1900.
Irving, H. B. Life of Judge Jeffreys. London. 1898.

Jesse, J. H. Memoirs of the Court of England under the Stuarts. 4 vols. 1840.
Jusserand, J. J. A French Ambassador at the Court of Charles II. Le Comte de

Comminges, from his unpublished Correspondence. London. 1892.
Lang, A. Who killed Sir Edmund Berry Godfrey? In The Valet's Tragedy.

London. 1903.
Lee, W, Melville. History of Police in England. London. 1901.
Lefevre-Pontalis, C. Vingt ann^es de r^publique parlementaire au 17" siecle.

Jean de Witt. 2 vols. Paris. 1884.
Lemoine, J. and Lichtenberger, A. Louise de Keroualle, Duchesse de Portsmouth.

Revue des Deux Mondes. Paris. March, 1903. ,
Lister, T. H. Life and Administration of Edward, Earl of Clarendon. 3 vols.

London. 1838.
Madden, R. R. History of the Penal Laws enacted against Roman Catholics.

London. 1847.
Marks, A. Who killed Sir Edmund Berry Godfrey .> Introd. J. H. Pollen, S.J.

London. 1906.
Masson, D. Life of John MUton. 6 vols., and Index volume. London. 1859-94.
Mazure, F. A. J. Histoire de la Revolution de 1688 en Angleterre./ 3 vols.

Paris. 1825. ,

Meadley, G. W. Memoirs of Algernon Sidney. London. 1813,
Moore, N., M.D., F.R.C.P., etc. An address on Hemiplegia. The Lancet at

p. 134. London. Vol. i. 1895.
Newdigate-Newdegate, Lady. Cavalier and Puritan under the Stuarts, compiled

from the private papers and diary of Sir Richard Newdigate. London. 1901.
Orme, W. Memoirs of the life. Writings and Religious Connexions of John Owen.

London. 1820.

The Practical Works of. . .R. Baxter ; with a life of the author. London. 1830.

■Overton, J. H. Life in the English Church, 1660-1714. London. 1885.
Palmer, C. F. R. Life of Philip Thomas Howard, Cardinal of Norfolk. London.

1867.
Palmer, S. See Calamy, Edmund, under III ante.
Papillon, A; F. W. Memoirs of Thomas Papillon of London, Merchant. Reading.

1887.
Parkinson, Rev. T. B. The Yorkshire Branch of the Popish Plot. The

Month, xvm, 383. London. 1873.
Penn, Granville. Memorials of Sir W. Penn. 2 vols. London. 1833.
Phillimore, L. Sir Christopher Wren, his family and his times. London. 1883.
Plumptre, E. H. Life of Thomas Ken, Bishop of Bath and Wells. 2 vols. London.

1889.
Pollock, J. The Popish Plot. London. 1903.

The Case of Sir Edmund Berry Godfrey. Law Quarterly Review. Vol. xxii.

No. 88. October, 1906.

Pribram, A. F. Franz Paul Freiherr von Lasola und die Politik seiner Zeit. Vienna.

1894.
Roberts, G. The Life, Progresses and Rebellion of James, Duke of Monmouth.

2 vols. Loudon. 1844.

oua. V, IX.

798 England under Charles II and James II.

Robinson, E. F. The early History of Coffee Houses in England. Londoii. 1893.
Routhj E. The English Occupation of Tangier, 1661-83. Transactions of the

Royal Historical Society, New Series, vol. xix.
Russell, Lord J. Life of William Lord Russell. 4th edn. London. 1853.
Scott, E. Rupert,. Prince Palatine. London. 1899.
Scott, Sir S. D. The British Army, its origin, progress and equipment. Vol. iir.

London. 1880.
Seccomhe, T. Titus Gates. In Twelve Bad Men. London. 1904.
Seeley, Sir J. R. The Growth of British Policy. 2 vols. Cambridge. 1897.
Sharpe, R. R. London and the Kingdom. VoL ii. London. 1894.
Shaw, W. A. The Be^hnings of the National Debt Owens College, Manchester.

Historical Essays. Ed. J. F. Tout and J. Tait. London. 1902.
Sitwell, Sir G. R. The First Whig. Privately printed. 1894.
Smith, C. F. Mary Rich, Countess of Warwick, her family and friends. London.

1901.
Spillman, J., S.J. Die Blutzeugen aus den Tagen der Titus Oates-Verschworung.

Freiburg i. B. 1901.
Steinman, G. S. Memoir of Mrs Myddelton. 1864.

Althorp Memoirs. 1869.

Memoir of Barbara Duchess of Cleveland. 1871. (All privately printed, s. 1.)

Stern, Alfred. Milton und seine Zeit. 2 vols. Leipzig. 1877-9.

Sydney, W. C. Social Life in England from the Restoration to the Revolution.

London. 1892.
Traill, H. D. Shaftesbury. London. 1888.
Tulloch, John. Rational Theology and Christian Philosophy in England in the

l7th century. (2nd edn.) 2 vols. Edinburgh and London. 1874.
Vemey, M. M. Memoirs of the Vemey Family. Vol. iv. From the Restoration

to the Revolution. London. 1899.
Weiss, C. Histoire des R^fugie's Protestants de France depuis la Revocation de

I'Edit de Nantes. 2 vols. Paris. 1853.
Wheatley, H. B. Samuel Pepys and the world he lived in. London. 1880.
Wilson, W. Life and times of Defoe. 3 vols. London. 1830.
Wolseley G., Viscount. The Life of John Churchill, Dulce of Marlborough, to the

accession of Queen Anne. 2 vols. London, 1894.

799

CHAPTER VI.

THE LITERATURE OF THE ENGLISH RESTORATION,
INCLUDING MILTON.

I. MILTON.

As to the dates of the successive early editions of Milton's works, their full
titles, and all requisite information concerning them, Masson's monumental work,
with its Index, cited helow, should of course be consulted. See also the bibliography
in R. Garnett's Life of John Miltou. Loudon. 1890.

A. Original Works.

(1) Poems.

(a) Ordinal Editions. \In order o/ piibKeation.l

Milton, John. [Comus.] A maske presented at Ludlow Castle, on Michaelmasse
night, 1634, before The Right Honorable John Earle of Bridgewater. Loudon.
1637.

•^— [Lycidas.] Justa Edovardo King naufrago ah Amicis moerentibus amoris
et iivtias xapiv. Cambridge. 1638. (The English verse in this has a separate
title : Obsequies to the memorie of Mr Edward King, a.d. 1688.)

Poems of Mr John Milton, both English and Latiu, compos'd at several times.

London. 1645.

Paradise Lost. A Poem written in Ten Books. London. 1667. The same.

1668 (with note on "The Verse," and The Argument).

[Shepherd, R. H.] Paradise Lost in ten books. Text exactly reproduced
from the first edn., with Appendices containing additions in later issues.
London. 1873.

- Paradise Lost. A Poem in Twelve Books. Second Edition. Revised and
augmented. London. 1674.

Facsimile of the Milton ms. in the Library of Trinity College, Cainbridge.
Edited by W. Aldis Wright. Cambridge. 1899.

Paradise Regain'd. A Poem. In IV Books. To which is added Samson

Agonistes. London. 1671.

Poems etc. upon Several Occasions. Both English and Latin etc. Composed

at several times. With a small Tractate of Education to Mr Hartlib. London.

1673.

Qt) Standard Modem Editions.

- The Poetical Works of John Milton. Ed. D. Masson. Three vols.
London. 1874.

800 Milton.

MUton, John. The Poetical Works of John MUton. With introdnotions by D.
Masson. Globe Edition. London. 1905.

Milton's Poems, with Critical Notes by W. Aldis Wright. Cambridge. 1903.

Poems upon several occasions, English, Italian and Latin. With translations,

notes etc. By J. Warton. 2nd edn. London. 1701.

(2) Pbosb Works.
(a) Original Editions. [In order of pubHcation.']

Hall, John, Bishop of Norwich. A Humble Remonstrance. London. 1641.

[Smectymnuus.] An Answer to a Booke entituled, an Humble Remonstrance.
London. 1641.

A Defence of the Humble Remonstrance, against the frivolous and false exceptions
of Smectymnuus. London. 1641.

Milton, John. Animadversions upon the Remonstrant's Defence, against Smectym-
nuus. London. 1641,

Sinectymriuus. A Vindication of the answer to the Humble Remonstrance. London.
1641.

[Hall, John.] A short answer to the tedious Vindication of Smectymnuus. By the
authors of The Humble Remonstrance. London. 1641.

Smectymnuus. A modest confutation of a slanderous libell, entituled. Animad-
versions upon the remonstrant's defense against Smectymnuus. [London.]
1642.

Milton, John. An apology against a pamphlet call'd a modest confutation of the
Animadversions upon the Remonstrant against Smectymnuus. London. 1642.

Of Reformation touching Church-Discipline in England. Two Bookes.

London. 1641.

Of prelatical Episcopacy. London. 1641.

The reason of Church-governement urg'd against Prelaty. In two Books.

London. 1641.

The Doctrine and Discipline of Divorce : restor'd to the good of both sexes,

from the bondage of Canon Law, and other mistakes, to Christian freedom,
guided by the Rule of Charity. London. 1643.

The judgment of Martin Bucer concerning Divorce.. .now Englisht. London.

1644.

Tetrachordon :' Expositions upon J;he foure chief places in Scripture, which

treat of Manage, or nullities in Mariage. London. 1645.

Colasterion : a Reply to a nameless answer against the Doctrine and Discipline

of Divorce. London. 1645.

The Tenure of Kings and Magistrates. London. 1649 (1648).

EIK0N0KAA2TH2 in Answer to a Book Intitl'd EIKQN BA2IAIKH. London.

1649.

[Saumaise, Claude de.] Defensio Regia, pro Carolo I ad Serenissimum Regem
Carolum II, FOium natu majorem, Heredem et Successorem legitimum.
[Leyden.] 1649.

Ad loannem Miltonum Responsio, opus posthumum Claudii Salmasii.

Dijon. 1660.

Milton, John. Joannis Miltoni Angli pro populo anglicano defensio contra Claudii

anonymi alias Salmasii defensionem regiam. London, 1650.
— — Editio emendatior. London, 1651,

Bibliography. 801

Milton^ John. Joannis Miltoni Angli pro populo Anglicano defensio secunda.
London. 1654.

Second defence of the people of England. [Translated by Francis Wrangham.]

London. 1816.

A treatise of Civil power in Ecclesiastical causes. London. 1659.

Considerations touching the likeliest means to remove Hirelings out of the

Church, wherein is also disoourc'd of Tithes, Church-fees, Church-revenues ;
And whether any maintenance of ministers can be settl'd by law. London.
1659.

—— The Readie and Easie Way to establish a Free Commonwealth. London.
1660.

Of true religion, haeresie, schism, toleration, and what best means may be

us'd against the growth of Popery. London. 1673.

loannis Miltonii Angli Epistolarum Familiarium Liber unus : quibus acces-

serunt, ejusdem, jam olim in CoUegio adolescentis, Prolusiones quaedam
oratoriae. London. 1674.

A Brief History of Moscovia. London. 1682.

A Defence of the People of England. London. 1692.

De Doctrina Christiana libri duo posthumi. Ed. Carolus Ricardus Sumner.

Cambridge and Loudon. 1825.

A Treatise of Christian Doctrine compiled from the Holy Scriptures alone.

Ti-anslated by Charles R. Sumner. Cambridge and London. 1826.

Original Letters and Papers of State addressed to Cromwell (1649-68), found

among the collections of Milton. Ed. J. Nickolls. London. 1743.

Original Papers, illustrative of Life and Writings of Milton ; including sixteen

Letters of State written by him. With an Appendix of Documents relating
to his association with the Powell family. Ed. W. D. Hamilton. (Camden
Society.) London. 1859.

A Common-place book of John Milton, and a Latin Essay and Latin Verses

presumed to be by Milton. Ed. Alfred J. Horwood. (Camden Society.)
London. 1876 and 1877.

(6) Later Editions.

The Works of John Milton, Historical, Political, and Miscellaneous. To

which is prefixed, an account of his life and writings [by T. Birch]. Two vols.
London. 1753.

Prose Works. Ed. Charles Symmons. Seven vols. London. 1806.

English Prose Writings. Ed. H. Morley. (Carisbrooke Library.) London.

1890.

— — Areopagitica. Preceded by illustrative documents. Ed. E. Arber. (English
Reprints.) London. 1868.

B. Biography and Cbitioism.
\In alphabetical order."]

Addison, Joseph. Notes upon the twelve books of Paradise Lost. Collected from
The Spectator. London. 1719. Arber's English Reprints. London. 1868.

Arnold, Matthew. Milton. Essays in Criticism. Second Series. London. 1888.

Sagehot, W. John Milton. In Vol. i of Literary Studies. Two vols. London.
1879.

Bridges, R. Milton's Prosody. Oxford. 1893.

Coleridge, Samuel Taylor. Seven lectures on Shakespeare and Milton. London.
1866.

Dowden, E. The idealism of Milton. Transcripts and Studies. London. 1888.

C. M. H. V. OH. VI. 51

802 Milton.

£dmuudsonj G. Milton and Vondel. A Curiosity of Literature. London. 1885.
Gamett, R. The Life of John Milton. London. 1890.

Macaulay, Thomas Bahing1»n. Milton. In critical and historical Essays contri-
buted to the Edinburgh Review. Three vols. London. 1843. [Vol. i.]
Masson, D. The Life of John Milton. Six vols. Cambridge. 1869-80. Vol. r.

Revised edition 1881. Index 1894.

The Three Devils : Luther's, Milton's and Goethe's. London. 1874.

Osgood, C. G. The Classical Mythology of Milton's English Poems. Yale Studies

in English. New York. 1900.
Pattison, Mark. Milton. (English Men of Letters.) London. 1879, 1906.
Raleigh, W. Milton. London. 1900.
Scherer, Edmond. Milton et le Paradis Perdu. In Etudes critiques de Littera-

ture. Paris. 1876. Vol. vi of ^fitudes sur la littdrature contemporaine. Paris.

1882-9. Engl. Transl. Essays on English Literature. Translated by George

Saintsbury. London. 1891.
See Arnold, Matthew. A French Critic on Milton. Mixed Essays. London.
1879.
Seeley, Sir J. R. Lectures and Essays. (Milton's Political Opinions and Milton's

Poetry.) London. 1870.
Stern, A. Milton und seine Zeit. 2 vols. Leipzig. 1877-9.
Turretini Family, the, of Genoa. Edinburgh Review. Vol. cLxvm. London.

October. 1888.

XL THE LITERATURE OF THE RESTORATION.

A. Original and Later Editions.

{The original editions of each work are mentioned in order of puUication. Of later
editions, except in special instances, only collective editions are cited."]

1. Dryden.

(o) Tragedies.

The Indian Emperor, or The Conquest of Mexico by the Spaniards. London. 1667.
Tyrannick Love, or The Royal Martyr. London. 1670. The Conquest of
Granada by the Spaniards. London. 1672. Amboyna. London. 1673.
Aureng-zebe. London. 1676. AU for Love, or The World well lost. London.
1678. Oedipus. London. 1678. The Duke of Guise. London. 1683. Don
Sebastian, King of PortugaL London. 1690. Cleomenes, The Spartan Heroe.
London. 1692.

(6) Comedies.

The Wild GaUant. London. 1669. Sir Martin Mar-all, or The Feigned Innocence.
London. 1668. An Evening's Love, or The Mock Astrologer. London. 1671.
The Assignation, or Love in a Nunnery. London. 1673. The Kind Keeper,
or M. Limberham. London. 1680. Amphitryon, or the two Socias. London.
1690.

(c) Tragi-comedies.

Secret Lover, or The Maiden Queen. London. 1668. The Rival Ladies. London.
1669. Marriage 4-la-mode. London. 1673. Troilus and Cressida, or Truth
found too late. London. 1679. The Spanish Fryar, or The Double Discovery
London. 1681. Love Triumphant, or Nature will prevail. London. 1694.

Bibliography. 803

(d) Operas.

The State of Innocence, or the Fall of Man. London. 1677. Alhion and Albanius.

London. 1685. King Arthur, or The British Worthy. London. 1691.

(e) Other Poetical Works.
A poem upon the death of his late Highness, Oliver, Lord Protector of England,
Scotland, and Ireland. London. 1659. Astraea Redux, a poem on the happy
Restoration of his Sacred Majesty Charles II. London. 1660. Annus Mira-
bilis. The Year of Wonders, 1666. An historical poem. London. 1667.
Absalom and Achitophel, a Poem. London. 1681. The Medall, a Satyre
against Sedition. London. 1682. MacFlecknoe, or, a Satire on the True
Blue Protestant Poet. London. 1682. The Second part of Absalom and
Achitophel, a Poem. London. 1682. Religio Laici, or a Layman's Faith.
A Poem. London. 1682. Threnodia Augustalis. A Funeral Pindarique
Poem. To the happy Memory of King Charles II. London. 1685. The
Hind and the Panther, a Poem. In three Parts. London. 1687. A Song
for St Cecilia's Day. London. 1687. Alexander's Feast, or the Power of
Miisique, an ode in honor of St Cecilia's Day. London. 1697. Fables, Ancient
and Modern, translated into verse from Homer, Ovid, Boccaccio and Chaucer :
with original poems. London. 1700.

Dryden, John. The Works of John Dryden. Ed. by Sir Walter Scott. Second
edition. 18 vols. Edinburgh. 1821. Revised by G. Saintsbury. 18 vols.
London. 1882-93.

The Poetical Works of John Dryden. Edited with a memoir, revised text,

and notes by W. D. Christie. Globe Edition. London. 1904.

2. Other Writkbs.

Behn, Aphara. Plays: The Forc'd Marriage, or the Jealous Bridegroom. A
"Tragi-comedy. London. 1671. The Amorous Prince, or the Curious Husband,
a Comedy. London. 1671. The Dutch Lover, a Comedy. London. 1673.
The Rover, or the Banish'd Cavaliers, a Comedy. London. 1677, 1681.
The Debauchee, a Comedy. 1677. The Town-Fopp, or Sir Timothy Tawdry.
London. 1677. Sir Patient Fancy, a Comedy. 1678. A Night's Intrigue,
or the Feign'd Curtizans, a Comedy. London. 1679. The Roundheads, or
The Good Old Cause, a Comedy. London. 1682. The City Heiress, or Sir
Timothy Treat-all, a Comedy. London. 1682. The False Count, or a New
Way to Play an Old Game. Loudon. 1682. The Lucky Chance, or An
Alderman's Bargain, a Comedy. London. 1687. The Younger Brother, or
the Amorous Jilt, a Comedy. London. 1696.

AU the Histories and Novels written by the late ingenious Mrs Behn. Fifth

edition. London. 1705.

Oroonoko, the Royal Slave. B«pr. from original edn. London. 1890.

Plays written by the ingenious Mrs Behn. (Reprint.) 4 vols. London. 1871.

The Novels of Mrs Aphara Behn. With an Introduction by E. A. Baker.

London. 1905.

Buckingham, George ViUiers, Duke of. The Rehearsal. London. 1672.

Works. 2 vols. 3rd edn. London. 1715.

ITie Rehearsal. Ed. E. Arber. (English Reprints.) London. 1868.

Bunyan, John. Grace Abounding. London. 1666. Pilgrim's Progress. London.

1678. The Life and Death of Mr Badman. London. 1680. The Holy War.
London. 1682. Cambridge. 1905. The Second Part of the Pilgrim's Progress.
London. 1684.

CH. VI. 51 — 2

804 The Literature of the Restoration.

Bunjran^ John. The Entire Works of. Edited with original introductions, notes
and a memoir, by H. Stebbing. 4 vols. London. 1859. .

Burnet, Gilbert (Bishop of Salisbury). History of My Own Time. 2 vols. 1724-34.
With notes by the Earl of Dartmouth etc. 6 vols. Oxford. 1833. New
edition, by O. Airy. Part i (Charles II). 2 Vols. Oxford. 1897-1900.

History of the Reformation of the Church of England. Part i. London.

1679. Part II. London. 1681. Part iii. London. 1716.

History of the Reformation etc. Ed. N. Pocock. 7 vols. Oxford.

1865.

Butler, Samuel. Hudibras. The First Part. Written in the time of the late Wars.
London. 1663. Hudibras. The Second Part. London. 1664. Hudibras.
The Third and last part. London. 1678-9.

Hudibras. With annotations and preface by Z. Grey. 2 vols. Cambridge.

1744. Later edition. 2 vols. London. 1801.

Hudibras. Written in the time of the late Wars. Tlie text, edited by A. R.

Waller. (Cambridge English Classics.) Cambridge. 1905.

Clarendon, Edward Hyde, Earl of. History of the Rebellion and Civil Wars
in England. In which is added Historical View of Ireland. 8 vols. Oxford.
1826. New edn. 7 vols. Oxford. 1839. Life of, in which is included a
continuation of the History of the Rebellion. By himself. 3 vols. Oxford.
1827.

Collier, Jeremy. A Short View of the Immorality and Profaneness of the English
Stage. London. 1698.

Congreve, William. Plays: The Old Bachelor. London. 1693. The Donble-
Dealer. London. 1693. Love for Love. London. 1695. The Way of the
World. London. 1730. The Mourning Bride, a tragedy, 2nd edition.
London. 1679.

[ ] Incognita, or Love and Duty Reconcil'd. London. 1692.

Edited by Alex. Charles Ewald, F.S.A. Mermaid Series. London and

New York. n.d.

Crowne, John. Tragedies: The History of Charles the Eighth of France, or the
Invasion of Naples by the French. London, 1672. The Destruction of
Jerusalem by Titus Vespasian. London. 1677. The Ambitious Statesman,
or The Loyal Favourite. London. 1679. Thyestes. London. 1681. Darius,
King of Persia. London. 1688. Regulus. London. 1694. Caligula. Loi)don.
1698.

Comedies: The Countrey Wit. London. 1675. City Politiques. London.

1683. Sir Coui-tly Nice, or It cannot be. London. 1685. The English Friar,
or The Town Sparks. London. 1690. The Married Beau, or The Curious
Impertinent. London. 1694.

Juliana, or the Princess of Poland, a Tragi-comedy. London. 1671.

Calisto, or the Chaste Nimph, a Masque. London. 1676.

Dramatic Works. Bdd. J. Maidment and W, H. Logan. London. 1872.

Dennis, John. Letters between Dryden, Wycherley, Mr , Congreve, and

Dennis. With transl. of select letters of Voiture. London. 1696.
Etheredge, Sir George. The Comical Revenge ; or. Love in a Tub. London. 1664.
She Wou'd if She Cou'd. London. : 1668. The Man of Mode, or Sir Fopling
Flutter. London. 1676.

The Works of Sir George Etheredge, Plays and Poems. Edited with an

introduction by A. Wilson Verity. London. 1888.

Evelyn, John. Sculptura, or the History and Art of Chalcography. London.
1662. With the unpublished second part. Ed. C. F. Bell. Oxford. 1906.
Sylva, or a Discourse of Forest-trees and the Propagation of Timber. London.
1664.

Bibliography. 806

Eveljroj John. Memoirs, first edited by William Bray from the original mss. London.
1818. The Diary of John Evelyn. Introduction and notes by Austin Dobsou.
3 vols. London. 1906.

life of Mrs Godolphin. Ed. S. Wilberforce (Bishop of Oxford). London.

1847. New edn. Ed. E. W. Harcourt. London. 1888.

Farquhar, George. Love in a Bottle. London. 1698. The Constant Couple,
or a Trip to the Jubilee. A Comedy. London. 1700. Sir Harry Wildair,
being a Sequel of a Trip to the Jubilee. London. l70l. The Inconstant, or
The Way to Win Him. London. 1702. The 'IVin-Rivals. A Comedy. London.
1703. The Recruiting Officer. A Comedy. London. 1706. The Beaux'
Stratagem. A Comedy. London. 1707.

The Dramatic Works of George Farquhar. Edited with Life and Notes by

A. C. Ewald. 2 vols. London. 1892.

George Farquhar. Edited with an introduction and notes by William Archer.

The Mermaid Series. London, n.d.

Robertson, J. G. Lessing and Farquhar. Modern Languages Review.
Vol. u. No. 1. Cambridge. October, 1906.

Fox, George. A Journal or Historical Account of the Life, Travels, Sufferings,
Christian Experiences etc. of George Fox. 2 vols. London. 1694, 1698.

Halifax, George Savile, Marquis of. Letters to a Dissenter. Loudon. 1687. New
Year's Gift, or Advice to a Daughter. London. 1688. Miscellanies. London.
1700, 1703.

Howard, Sir Robert. Four new plays. [The Surprisal, The Committee, or The
Faithful Irishman, The Indian Queen, The Vestal Virgin.] London. 1666.
The Blind Lady. London. 1660. "rhe Great Favourite, or the Duke of
Lerma. London. 1668.

■ Poems. Loudon. 1660. Poems on Several Occasions. London. 1696.

Hutchinson, Lupy. Memoirs of the Life of Colonel Hutchinson, Governor of
Nottingham. By his widow Lucy. Edited from the original manuscript by
the Rev. Julius Hutchinson. To which are added the letters of Colonel
Hutchinson and other papers. Revised with additional notes by C. H. Firth.
New edition. London. 1906.

Lee, Nathaniel. Nero, Emperor of Rome. London. 1675. Sophonisba, or
Hannibal's Overthrow. London. 1676. Gloriaria, or the Court of Augustus
Caesar. London. 1676. The Rival Queens, or "The Death of Alexander the
Great. London. 1677. Mithridates, King of Pontus. London. 1678. Caesar
Borgia, son of Pope Alexander VI. Loudon. 1680. Theodosius ; or the
Force of Love. A Tragedy. London. 1680. Lucius Junius Brutus, Father
of his Country. London. 1681. The Duke of Guise. London. 1683.
Constantine the Great. London. 1684. The Princess of Cleve. Loudon.
1689. The Massacre of Paris. London. 1690.

■ The plays of Nathaniel Lee. 3 vols. London. 1734.

Nathaniel Lee's Trauerspiel Theodosius or the Force of Love. Von Fritz

Resa. Berlin and Leipzig 1904.

Newcastle, Margaret, Duchess of The Life of William Cavendish Duke of
Newcastle. To which is added the true relation of va.y birth, breeding and life.
Ed. C. H. Firth. Second edition. London. [1906.]

Playes. London. 1662.

Plays never before printed. London. 1668.

Poems and Phancies. London. 1664. [With an introductory poem to the

Duchess by the Duke:]

Locke, John. A Letter concerning Toleration. London. 1689. A Second Letter
concerning Toleration. London. 1690. An Essay Concerning Humane
Understanding. In four books. London. 1690. Some Thoughts concerning

806 The Literature of the Restoration.

Education. London. 1693. Two Treatises on Giovemment. London.

1694.
Locke, John. The philosophical works of John Locke. Collected by J. A. St John.

London. 1843.
Manley, Mrs. Novels: The Secret Histoi-y of Queen Zara and the Zarazians.

Loudon. 1705. Court Intrigues in a Collection of Original Letters from the

Island of the New Atlantis. London. 1711. The Adventures of Rivella, or

The History of the Author of Atlantis. Loudon. 1714.

Plays: lie Royal Mischief. London. 1696. Almyna, or The Arabian

Vow. London. 1707. Lucius, the first Christian King of Britain. London.
1717. The Lost Lover, or The Jealous Husband. London. 1696.

Oldham, John. Satyrs upon the Jesuits. London. 1681.

Poetical works. Ed. R. Bell (Annotated Edn. of the Engl. Poets). London.

1854.

Compositions in Prose and Verse of John Oldham. Edited by E. Thompson.

3 vols. London. 1770.

Otway, Thomas. Alcibiades. London. 1675. Don Carlos, Prince of Spain.
London. 1676. Titus and Berenice. London. 1677. Friendship in Fashion.
London. 1678. The Orphan, or the Unhappy Marriage. London. 1680.
The Souldier's Fortune. London. 1681. Venice PreserVd, or A Plot Dis-
covered. London. 1682. The Atheist, or The Second Part of The Souldier's
Fortune. London. 1684. The History and Fall of CaiusMarius. London. 1692.

Works. With notes and life, by T. Thornton. 2 vols. 1813.

The Works of Thomas Otway. 2 vols. London. 1812. Thomas Otway.

With an Introduction and Notes, by the Hon. Roden Noel. Mermaid Series.
London, n.d.

Pepys, Samuel. The Diary of Samuel Pepys. With Lord Braybrooke's notes. Ed.
by Henry B. Wheatley. 8 vols. With Index and Pepysiana. London. 1893-9.

The Diary of Samuel Pepys. With an introduction and notes by G. Gregory

Smith. Globe edition. London. 1905.

Pordage, Samuel. Poems upon several occasions. London. 1660.

Rochester, John Wilmot, Earl of. Poems on several occasions : with Valentinian.'
A tragedy. London. 1696. The Poetical Works of John Earl of Rochester,
containing his select poems. London. 1793 etc.

Rymer, Thomas. Tragedies of the Last Age. London. 1678.

Saint-fivremont, Marguetel de Saint-Denis, Sienr de. Miscellanea: or Various
Discovirses upon 1. Tragedy, 2. Comedy, 3. The Italian and 4. The English
Comedy, 6. And Operas, to his Grace, the D. of Buckingham. Together
with Epicurus his Morals. Written Originally By the Sieur de Saint-I^vremont,
And made English By Ferrand Spence. To which is prefixt a general dis-
sertation, introductory to the several Tracts, and dedicated to T. M. Esquire.
London. 1686.

The Works of Monsieur de St Evremond, made English from the French

original: with the Life of the Author. By Mr des Maiseaux, F.R.S. To
which are added The Memoirs of the Dutchess of Mazarin etc. Second edition.
3 vols. London. 1728.

(Euvres melees de Saint-Evremond revues, annotees et precedees d'une

histoire de la vie et les ouvrages de I'auteur. Par Charles Giraud de ITnstitut

Paris. 1865.
Sedley, Sir Charles. Plays: Pompey the Great. London. 1664. Antony and

Cleopatra. London. 1677. The Tyrant King of Crete. London. 1719.

The Mulberry Garden. London. 1668. Bellaneira, or The Mistiess. London.

1687. The Grumbler. London. 1719.
The Happy Pair, or a Poem on Matrimony. London. 1702.

Bibliography. 80'?

Settle, Elkanah. P/oj/* .• Cambyses King of Persia. London. 1671. The Empress
of Morocco. London. 1673. Ibrahim, the Illustrious Bassa. London. 1677.
The Female Prelate, being the History of the Life and Death of Pope Joan.
London. 1680. The Heir of Morocco. London. 1662. The Distressed
Innocence, or The Princess of Persia. London. 1691.

Shad well, Thomas. Plays: The Sullen Lovers, or The Impertinents. London.
1668. The Humorists. London. 1671. The Miser. London. 1672. Epsom
WeUs. London. 1673. Psyche. London. 1676. The Virtuoso. London.
1676. The Libertine. London. 1676. The True Widow. London. 1679.
The Woman-Captain. London. 1680. The Lancashire Witches and Teague
O'Divelly the Irish Priest. London. 1681. The Squire of Alsatia. London.
1688. The Bury Fair. London. 1689. The Amorous Bigotte, with the
Second Part of Teague O'Divelly. London. 1690. The Scowrers. London.
1691. The Volunteers, or The Stock-Jobbers. London. 1693.

The Dramatic Works of Thomas ShadweU. 4 vols. London. 1720. Four

plays. Edited by G. Saintsbury. London. 1903.

The Medal of John Bayes. London. 1682.

Sheffield, John, Duke of Buckinghamshire. To a coquet beauty. London. 1709.
Sidney, Algernon. Discourses Concerning Government. London. 1698.

Letters of Algernon Sidney and Sidney Papers. London. 1825.

Southerne, Thomas. Plays : The Loyal Brother, or The Persian Prince. London.

1682. The Disappointment, or The Mother in Fashion. London. 1684. Sir
Antony Love, or the Rambling Lady. 1691. The Wives' Excuse, or Cuckolds
make themselves. London. 1692. The Maid's Last Prayer, or Any Rather
Than Fail. 1693. The Fatal Marriage, or Innocent Adultery. London.
1694. Oroonoko, or The Royal Slave. London. 1696. The Fate of Capua.
London. 1700. The Spartan Dame. London. 1719. Money the Mistress.
London. 1726.
Temple, Sir William. The works of Sir William Temple, Bart. To which is prefixed
some account of the life and writings of the author. 2 vols. London. 1720.

The works of Sir William Temple, Bart, complete. To which is prefixed

the life and character of the author considerably enlarged. A new edition.
4 vols. London. 1814.

Vanbrugh, Sir John. Plays : The Relapse, or Virtue in Danger. London. 1698.

The Provok'd Wife. London. 1710. The False Friend. London. 1702.

The Confederacy. London. 1706. The Mistake. Bell's British Theatre.

Vol. XIX. London. 1787. The Country House. London. 1716. Aesop.

The Hague. 1711.
Vanbrugh, Sir John, and Cibber, Colley. The Provok'd Husband, or A Journey to

London. London. 1728.
Vanbrugh, Sir John. Plays. Ed. W. C. Ward. 2 vols. London. 1893.
Walton, Izaak. The Compleat Angler, or the Contemplative Man's Recreation.

London. 1663.
The Lives of Dr John Donne, Sir Henry Wootton, Mr Richard Hooker,

Mr George Herbert. London. 1670. The Life of Dr Robert Sanderson,

late Lord Bishop of Lincoln. London. 1678.
Wilson, John, Recorder of Londonderry. The Cheats. London. 1671. The

Projectors. London. 1666. Andronicus Comnenius. London. 1663. Bel-

phegor, or The Marriage of the DevU. London. 1691.
The Dramatic Works of John Wilson. Edd. J. Maidment and W. H. Logan.

London and Edinburgh. 1674.
Wycherley, William. Love in a Wood, or St James' Park. London. 1672. The

Gentleman Dancing-Master. London. 1673. The Country Wife. London.

1676. The Plain-Dealer. London. 1677.

808 The LAterature of the Restoration.

Wycherley, William. William Wycherley. Ed. by W. C. Ward. The Mermaid
Series. London. 1887. London and New York. 1903.

B. Later Bioobaphy and Criticism.

Beljame, A. Le public et les hommes de lettres en Angleterre, 1660-1714. Paris.

1881.
Courthope, W. J., C.B. A Histoiy of English Poetry. (Vol. iv. Chapter xiv.)

London. 1903.
Foxcroft, H. C. Life, Letters and Works of George Savile, Marquis of Halifax.

London. 1898.
Grosse, Edmund. Seventeenth Century Studies. A Contribution to the History

of English Poetry. (Third edition.) London. 1897. The life of William

Congreve. London. 1888.
Hettner, H. Geschichte des englischen Literatur, 1660-70. Vol. i of Literatur-

geschichte d. 18. Jahrh. 3 vols. Brunswick. 1872.
Lowe, Robert W. Bibliographical Account of English Theatrical Literature.

London. 1888.

Thomas Betterton. London. 1891.

Montdgut, E. Davout. Le due et la duchesse de Newcastle. Paris. 1895.
Saintsbury, G. Dryden. English Men of Letters. London. 1881,1902.
Schmid, D. Congreve, sein Lebeu u. seine Werke. Wiener Beitrage, 6. Vienna.
1897.

George Farquhar, sein Leben u. seine Original-Dramen. Wiener Beitrage,

18. Vienna. 1904.

Taine, H. A. Histoire de la Litterature Anglaise. 9th edn., with Index. 6 vols.

Paris. 1892.
Ward, A. W. A History of English Dramatic Literature to the Death of Queen

Anne. New and revised edition. 3 vols. London. 1899.
Ward, T. H. The English Poets. Selections with Critical Introductions by various

Writers. 4 vols. London. 1887-94. (VoL ii, Ben Jonson to Dryden.

Vol. in, Addison to Blake.)
Wheatley, H. B. Samuel Pepys and the World he lived in. London. 1880.

[For plays seen by Pepys.]

809

CHAPTER VII.

THE ADMINISTRATIONS OF JOHN DE WITT AND
WILLIAM OF ORANGE (1651-88).

I. PRINTED COLLECTIONS OF ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS, LETTERS,

MEMOIRS ETC.

Archief v. den Raadpensionaris Antonie Heinsius, 1683-97. 3 vols. The Hague.

1867-80.
Arlington, Comte de. Lettres au Chev. Temple cont. une relation des traites de

I'eveque de Munster, de Breda, d'Aix-la-Chapelle etc., 1665-70. Utrecht.

1701.
Avaux, Comte de [Jean Antoine de Mesmes]. Negotiations en HoUande, 1679-88.

6 vols. Paris. 1750-4.
Beverningh, H. van. Verhael gehouden d. H. van Bevemingh, W. Nieuwpoort,

J. van de Perre en A. P. Jongestal als Gedeputeerden en extraordin. amhassa^

deurs der Staten-Generael aen de Republiek van Engelandt, waer in de vrede-

handeling...onder CromweU (1653-4). The Hague. 1726.
Boreel, J. Brieven...aan R. v. Kinschot...over verschillende zaken in Zeeland en

op de vloot voorgevallen, 1660-6, medegedeeld d. G. L. F. v. Kinschot.

Utrecht 1862.
Briefwisseling tusschen Karel II, Koning van Engeland en Willem III, prins van

Oranje in 1672, medegedeeld d. G. D. J. Schotel. Arnhem. 1864.
Byam, General W. Verhaal van de inneming van Paramaribo (Suriname) 1666 ;

medegedeeld d. 6. Edmundson. The Hague. 1898.
Clarendon Correspondence. 2 vols. London. 1828.
Combes, F. Correspondance fran^aise de J. de Witt. Melanges historiqaes.

Vol. I. Paris. 1873.
Estrades, Comte G. de. Lettres, M^moires et Negotiations. 9 vols. London.

1743.
Lettres et Negotiations du Marechal d'Estrades, Colbert, de Croisy et Comte

d' Avaux, ambassadeurs du roi de France a la paix de Nimegue et les reponses

et instructions du roi, 1676-7. 3 vols. The Hague. 1710.
Fruin, R. Geheime briefwisseling van Lieuwe von Aitzema. Arnhem. 1864.
Gardiner, S. R. Letters and Papers rel. to the First Dutch War, 1652-4. (Navy

Records Society.) 2 vols. London. 1899-1900.
Geheime correspondentie met Engeland, 1659-60. Hist. Gen. Kroniek. 26 Jrg.

760.
Goes, Briefwisseling van de Gebroeders van der. Ed. Gonnet. Utrecht. 1901.
Groen van Prinsterer, G. Archives ou correspondance inddite de la maison d'Orange-

Nassau. 2*« Se'rie, 1584-1688. 6 vols. Utrecht. 1867-60.
Guiche, Comte de. M^moires. 7 vols. London. 1742.
Hop en Vivien. Notulen, gehouden ter Statenvergadering van Holland, 1671-5,

door Cornells Hop, pensionaris van Amsterdam en Nicolaas Vivien, pensiouaris

van Dordrecht, uitg. d. N. Japikse. Amsterdam. 1903.

810 De Witt, and William of Orange to 1688.

Huyghene, CoDstantijn. Dagboek, 1606-86. Ed. J. H. Unger. Amsterdam. 1886.

Me'moires. Ed. T. Jorissen. The Hague. 1873.

Huyghens de zoon, Constantijn. Journal gedurende de veldtochten der Jaren 1673,

1676, 1676, 1677 en 1688. Utrecht. 1881.
Jonge, J. C. de. Verhandelingen en onuitgegeven stukken. 2 vols. Delft.

1826-8. [Contains : Briefwisseling tusschen J. en C. de Witt, 1672. Brief-

wisseling tusschen H. Beverningh en J. de Witt, 1672. Facsimile van het

Eeuwig Edict etc.]
Journal van den togt van M. A. de Ruyter naar Denemarken. Hist. Gen. Kroniek.

13 Jrg. 63.
Marie, reine d'Angleterre, epouse de Guillaume III, Lettres et memoires de.

Collection de doc. autheut. inedits publ. par M. Comtesse Bentinck. The

Hague. 1880.
Mary, queen of England. Memoirs of. Ed. R. Doebner. Leipzig. 1886.
Morrer, Th. Het Archief van M. Adriansz. de Ruyter. Ned. Spect. 1897. 220-9.
Muller, P. L. Brieven van Georg Frederik van Waldeck aan WiUem III (1666-83).

The Hague. 1883.

Briefwisseling tusschen Fagel en Graaf van Waldeck in 1677. The Hague.

1873.

Neydei-meyer v. Rosenthal, J. F. H. Geheime brieven van de Gezanten Beverningh
en Nieuwpoort aan den Raadpensionaris Johan de Witt in de jaren 1663-4.
Nijhoff's Bijd. x, 266.

Nimegue, Actes et Memoires de la paix de. Ed. A. Moetjens. 8 vols. The Hague.
1697.

Records of New Amsterdam, The, from 1663 to 1674. Ed. B. Femow. 7 vols.
New York. 1897.

Resolutien van consideratie van de Staten v. Holland ende West-Vriesland...zedert
den aenvangh der bedieninge van J. de Witt. 2 Aug. 1663 — 19 Dec. 1668.
Utrecht. 1706.

Resolutien Secrete van Holland en West-Vriesland, zedert den aenvangh der
bedieninge van J. de Witt en door hem onderscheidentlijk van de resolutien
van consideratie bijeen vergadert, 1663-68. Utrecht. 1717.

Riebeek, J. van. Dagverhaal, 1662-62. 3 vols. Utrecht. 1884-94.

Sypesteyn, J. W. van. Geschiedkundige bijdragen en onuitgegeven stukken.
3 vols. The Hague. 1864-6. Containing original documents from the pri-
vate archives of the House of Orange-Nassau during the time of de Witt
and William III.

Temple, Sir W. Letters written by W. Temple and other Ministers of State
containing an account of the most important transactions that passed from
1666-72. 3 vols. London. 1702-3.

Letters written during his being ambassador at the Hague to the Earl of

Arlington and John Trevor, Secretaries of State, by D. Jones. London. 1699.

Thurloe, J. Collection of State papers etc. 7 vols. London. 1702-3.

Witt, J. de. Brieven... gewisselt tusschen den Heer Johan de Witt ende de

gevolmagtigden v. d. Staet d. Vereen. Nederl. So in Vranckryck, Engelandt,
Zweden, Denemarken, Poolen enz 1662-69. 6 vols. The Hague. 1723-6.

Brieven van Johan de Witt, eerste deel, 1650-8. Amsterdam. 1906. [This

is the first vol. published by Dr G. W. Kernkamp for the Historical Society (at
Utrecht) of the lengthy extracts (left in ms.) made by the late Prof. Robert
Fruin covering the entire correspondence of John de Witt, which lies in the
Royal Archives at the Hague.]

Deductie ofte declaratie van de Staten v. Holland en West-Vriesland...

Ingestellt ende diende tot justificatie van 't verleenen van Seeckere Aote van
Seclusie, raeckende 't employ van den Prince van Oraigne.... The Hague. 1664.

Bibliography. 811

II. HISTORIES, NARRATIVES AND OTHER WORKS WHOLLY OR
IN PART CONTEMPORARY.

Aitzema, L. v. Saken van Staet en Oorlogh in en omtrent de Vereenigte Neder-

landen, 1621-68. 7 vols. The Hague. 1669-71.
Basnage, J. Annales des Provinces Unies, depiiis les negotiations' pour la paix

de Munster avec la description de leur gouvernement jusqu'a 1678. 2 vols.

The Hague. 1719-26.
fiontemantelj H. De Regeeringe van Amsterdam, soo in 't civiel als crimineel en

militaire, 1653-72. Ed. G. W. Kernkamp. 2 vols. The Hague. 1897.
Bos, L. V. d. Leeven en bedrijf van...Willem Hendrik III... van zijn Geboorte tot

het Stadhouderschap in 1674. Amsterdam. 1676.

Leven eu daden der doorlug^iste Zee-Helden. Amsterdam. 1683.

Brandt, G. Leven eu bedrijf van Michiel de Ruyter. Amsterdam. 1687.
Burnet, Gilbert (Bishop of Salisbury). History of My Own Time. 2 vols. London.

1724-34.
Commelin, Iz. Leeven en bedrijf van Willem Hendrick III, Prince v. Orangien en

Nassau. Amsterdam. 1676.
Court, P. de la. Interest van Holland ofle Gronden van Holland's Welvaren

[revised with additions by John de Witt]. Amsterdam. 1663.

Aanwijziug der heilsame polit. Gronden en maximen van Holland. [An

enlarged edition of the Interest van Holland]. Leyden. 1669.

Donselaer, Tobias. Het ontroerde Nederlaud. 2 vols. Amsterdam. 1674^6.

Droste, C. Overblijfsels van geheugenis der bisonderste voorvallen in zijn leven
(1654-98) met aant. d. R. Fruin. 2 vols. Leyden. 1879.

Dutch, The, drawn to the life in an exact description, a character of the several

provinces of the Netherlands, an account of their trade and industry a

history of the last war, 1612-60. London. 1664.

Hall, R. The history of the barbarous cruelties and massacres committed by the
Dutch in the East Indies etc. London. 1712.

Hoeven, E. v. d. Histoire de la vie et de la mort de Corneille et Jean de Witt.
2 vols. Utrecht. 1709.

Hollantse Mercurius, 1660-90. 40 vols. Haarlem. 1661-90.

[Konijnberg, J.] Den Bngelse en Munstersen oorlogh tegen de vrye Vereen-
Nederlanden, 1654-67. Amsterdam. 1668.

Leclerc, J. Histoire des Provinces Unies jusqu'a la paix d'Utrecht. 4 vols. Am-
sterdam. 1725.

Montanus, A. De beroerde Oceaan of twee-jarige zee-daden tusschen de Vereen-
Nederlanden en Engelsch. Amsterdam. 1655.

Saint-Disdier, Alexander Toussaint Limogon de. Histoire des negotiations de
Nimegue. Paris. 1680.

State, The present, of the United Provinces of the Low Countries as to the Govern-
ment, laws, forces, riches, manners, customs, revenue and territory of the
Dutch, in three books, collected by W. A., Fellow of the Royal Society.
London. 1691.

Survey, An exact, of the Affaires of the United Netherlands. Loudon. 1666.

Sylvius, L. [Lambert van den Bos]. Historia onzes tijds sedert 1669. 4 vols.
Amsterdam. 1685-99.

Temple, Sir W. Memoirs of what passed in Christendom, from the war begun
1672 to 1681. 2 vols. London. 1709.

Miscellanea. 2 vols. London. 1680-90.

TJassens, J. Zee-politie der Vereen-Nederlauden. The Hague. 1670.

812 De Witt, and William of Orange to 1688.

Tooneelgordijn, Swart., opgeschoven voor de Gebroeders C. en J. de Witt. 3 vols.

[Amsterdam.] 1677-8.
Valckenier, P., 't verwerde Europa, ofte polityke en histor. beschryvinge van de

waare...oorsaken van de oorlogen en revolutien in Enropa, voornamelijk in en

omtrent de Nederlanden 1664-72. 3 vols. Amsterdam. .1688.
Vie et actions de C. B. von Gale, ^^veque de Munster. Leyden. 1681.
Wicquefort, Abraham de. Histoire des Provinces Unies des Pays-Bas depuis la pais

de Munster, 1648-58. [Edd. L. E. Lenting and C. A. C. van Buren.] 4 vols.

Amsterdam.. 1861-74.

Memoires touchaut les Ambassadeurs et les Ministres publics. The Hague.

1677.

III. LATER WORKS.

(A) Adhinistoation op John de Witt, 1653-72.

Being, L. Jean de Witt en zijne buitenlandsche politiek, 1653-60. Groningen.

1871.
Brill, W. C. CromwiBll's streven naar eene coalitie tusschen de Nederlandschfi en

de Britsche republiek. Amsterdam. 1891.
Bussemaker, C. H. Geschiedenis van Overijssel, gedurende het eerste Stadhouder-

looze tijdperk. 2 vols. The Hague. 1888-9.
Combes, P. Jean de Witt, Grand Pensionnaire de Hollande, et Lous XIV, d'apres

la correspondance fran^aise de Jean de Witt. Bordeaux. 1883.
Fruin, R. Het aandeel van den Raadpensionaris de Witt aan het Interest van

Holland van P. de la Court. Amsterdam. 1865.

Het proces van Buat, 1666. The Hague. 1881.

Geddes, J. Histoiy of the Administration of John de Witt. The Hague. 1879.

(Only one volume dealing with the period of the first English war was

published.)
Japikse, N. De verwikkelingen tusschen de Republiek en Engeland, 1660-6.

London. 1900.
Knottenbelt, W. C. Geschiednis der Staatkunde van J. de Witt Amsterdam.

1862.
Kroon, A. W. Jan de Witt contra Oranje, 1660-72. Amsterdam. 1868.
Lefevre-Pontalis, A. Vingt ann^es de Rdpublique parlementaire au xvii° siecle, Jean

de Witt, Grand Pensionnaire de Hollande. 2 vols. Paris. 1884.
Mitzukuri, G. Englisch-Niederlandische Unionsbestrebungen im Zeitalter Crom-

wells. Tubingen. 1891.
Muller Fz, S. Mare clausum. Bijdrage tot de Greschiedenis der rivaliteit van

Engeland en Nederland in de 17e eeuw. Amsterdam. 1872.
Muller, P. L. Nederland en de Groote Keurvorst. The Hague. 1870.
Naber, J. C. De Staatkunde van Johan de Witt. Utrecht. 1882.
Oostkamp, J. A. Leven en daden van Maarten Hzn. Tromp en Jacob van Wasse-

naar van Obdam. Deventer. 1826.
Simons, P. - Johan de Witt en zijn tijd. 3 vols. Amsterdam. 1832-42.
Wijnne, A. J. Geschiedenis. Het proces van Comelis de Witt De dood der

de Witten. Groningen. 1870.

(B) Administration of William III, 1672-88.

Bylandt, F. W. C. P. van. Het diplomatisch beleid van Hier. v. Beverningh,

1672-8. The Hague. 1863.
Corstiens, P. Bernard van Galen Vorst-Bisschop van Munster. Hist. Schets van

een belangrijk tijdperk der l7e eeuw en der Nederlandsche republiek omtrent,

1672. Rotterdam. 1872.

Bibliography. 813

Depping, G. B. Geschiedenis van den oorlog der Munsterschen en Keulscheu, in

verband met Frankrijk tegen Holland 1672-4. (Tr. from Gei-man.) Arnhem.

1841.
Doesburg, J. J. Engeland en de Republiek der Vereen-Provintien, 1678-85.

Tijdschr. Gesch. vi, 246, 290, 366, vin, 33, 72, 143.
Foppens, A. Memoires secrets sur le gouvemement et les affaires des Pays-Baa,

1680-2. Published by L. Galestoot. Brussels. 1877.
Fruin, R. De Schuld van Willem III en zijn vrienden aan den moord der Ge-

broeders de Witt. Amsterdam. 1867.

De slag bij St Denis in verband met de vredehandel te Nymegen. Amsterdam.

1877.

Prins Willem III in zijn verhouding tot Engeland. Amsterdam. 1889.

Grossinann, J. Der Eaiserl. Gesandte Franz von Lisola in Haag, 1672-3. Vienna.

1873.
Grovestins, Sirtema de. Guillanme III et Louis XIV. Histoire des luttes et

rivalites politiques entre les puissances maritimes et la France. 8 vols. Paris.

1868.
Knoop, W. J. Nederland in 1672 en 1673. Krijgskundige beschouwingen. Her-

togenbosch. 1851.

Krijgs- en geschiedkundige beschouwingen over Willem III, 1672-97. 3 vols.

Schiedam. 1895.

Kramer, F. J. L. De Nederlandsch-Spaansche diplomatie voor den vrede van

Nymegen. Bijd. tot de staatk. Geschiedenis der Nederlanden in het tijdperk

van Willem III. Utrecht. 1892.
Lort-Serignan, A. de. Guillaume III Stathouder de Holland et roi d'Angleterre.

iJEtude historique sur la vie et les campagnes de ce prince, d'apres les documents

la plupart inedits du Depot de la Guerre. Paris. 1880.
Muller, P. L. WUhelm III von Oranien und Georg Friedrich von Waldeck. Ein

Beitrag zur Geschichte des Kampfes um das Europaische Gleichgewicht, 1679-92.

2 vols. The Hague. 1873-80.
Sypesteyn, C. A. v. De verdediging van Nederland in 1672 en 1673, voor een

groot deel uit onuitgegeven Stukken. 2 vols. The Hague. 1850.
Sypesteyn, J. W. v. Eenige Gebeurtenissen gedurende het leven van Prins Hendrik

Casimir II van Nassau, 1664-96. Gesch. Bijd. iii, 1.

Nederland en Brandenburgh in 1672 en 1673. The Hague. 1868.

Traill, H. D. WUliam the Third. London. 1888.

Trevor, A. Life and times of William lU, 1660-1702. 2 vols. London. 1836-6.

(C) Other Works bearing upon the Histobv op the Period, 1663-88.

Berg van Dussen-Muilkerk, W. E. J. De refiigife in de Nederlanden na de

herroeping van het edict van Nantes. Invloed vom hunne overeenkomst op

handel en nijverheid. Amsterdam. 1845.
Blok, P. J. Geschiedenis van het Nederlandsche Volk. Vol. v. Groningen.

1902.
Busken-Huet, C. Het land van Rembrandt. 6 vols. Haarlem. 1899.
Courtenay, Th. P. Memoirs of the Life, Works and Correspondence of Sir William

Temple. 2 vols. London. 1836.
Ellis Barker, J. The rise and decline of the Netherlands — a political and economic

history, and a study in practical statesmanship. London. 1906.
Fruin, R. Geschiedenis der Staat-InsteUingen in Nederland. The Hague. 1893.
Groot, J. P. C. de. Levenschets van Pieter de Groot, gezant der Vereen-Neder-

landen. The Hague. 1847.

814 De Witt, and William of Orange to 1688.

Grossmann, J. Die Amsterdammer Borse vor zwei Hundert Jahren. Ein Beitrajj
zur Geschichte der Politik und des Borsenvreseus in mittleren Europa, 1672-3,
nach den Akten des Wiener Staats-Archives. The Hague. 1876.

Hooft, D. Hieronymus van Bevemingli, 1614-90. Amsterdam. 1827.

JongBj J. C. de. Levensbeschrijving van Johan en Cornelia Evertsen, L' Admiralen
van Zeeland. The Hague. 1820.

Geschiedenis van het Nederlandsche Zeewesen. 6 vols. The Hague. 1833-45.

Jorissen, T. Constantin Huyghens. Studien. Arnhem. 1871.

Kinderen Fz, F. der. De Nederlandsche Republiek en Munster gedurende de
jaren 1660-79. 2 vols. Leyden. 1871-4.

Koenen, H. J. Geschiedenis van de vestiging en den invloed der Fransche
vluchtelingen in Nederland. Leyden. 1846.

Luzac, E. Holland's Rijkdom, behondende den oorsprong van den Koophandel en
de magt van dezer Staat. 4 vols. Leyden. 1781. A translation corrected
and enlarged of Serionne's Richesse de la Hollande. 2 vols. London. 1778.

Muller, P. L. Onze Gouden Eeuw. De Republiek der Vereen-Nederlanden in
haar bloeitijd geschetst. 3 vols. Leyden. 1896-8.

Seeley, Sir J. R. The Growth of British Policy. 2 vols. Cambridge. 1896.

Wagenaar, J. Vaterlandsche historie, vols, xii-xv. Amsterdam. 1749-59. The
volumes of Wagenaar's great history dealing vfith this period are among the
most valuable in the whole work. Though an adherent of De Witt's party,
Wagenaar strove to write impartially, is trustworthy in his facts, and had access
to special sources of information, documentary and personal, of which he made
good use.

Williams, J. The Rise, Progress and Present State of the Northern Governments :
viz. the United Provinces, Denmark, Sweden, Russia and Poland. 2 vols.
London. 1777.

For Arehivalia ; Bibliographies ; General History ; the Dutch East and West India
Companies; Literature, Culture, and the Fine Arts, reference should be made to the
Bibliography to Chapter XIX of Vol. IV.

For the subjects — Promncial History: Religious and Ecnlesiastioal History:
Commerce and Industry — to the Bibliography to Chapters Vj VI and XIX of Vol. III.

815

CHAPTEK VIII.

THE ANGLO-DUTCH WARS.

(1) NAVAL ADMINISTRATION UNDER CHARLES II AND JAMES IL
[See also under (2) below.'\

I. Contemporary Authorities.

Those asterisked are mamiscriyt.

Commons' Journals.

Jackson, Sir George. Naval Commissioners from 12 Charles II to 1 George III,
1660-1760j compiled from the original warrants and returns ; with historical
notices by Sir G. F. Duckett. Privately printed. Lewes. 1889.

Lords' Journals.

*Peimj Sir WiUiam. Naval Tracts. British Museum. Sloane mss. 3232.

Pepys, Samuel. Diary. Transcribed by M. Bright; with Lord Braybrooke's
notes. Ed. H. B. Wheatley. B vols, and index. London. 1899.

Memoirs of the Royal Navy, 1679-88. London. 1690. Reprinted, Oxford,

1906, with an Introduction by J. R. Tanner.

*Pepysian Manuscripts contained in the Library of Magdalene College, Cambridge.
[Of the 3000 volumes of which the Pepysian Library consists, some 260 are mss.
and of these about half are mss. relating to the navy. A full description of
these naval mss. has been begun by the Navy Records Society (see next title).
An annotated Catalogue of the whole Library is also being prepared with
the sanction of Magdalene CoUege.]

A Descriptive Catalogue of the Naval Manuscripts in the Pepysian Library.

Edited for the Navy Records Society by J. R. Tanner. London. 1903-.

[Of this 2 vols, have been published, the first containing Pepys's Register of Ships
and Register of Sea 0£Scers, and the second a precis of the Admiralty Letters
from June 19, 1673 to Dec. 31, 1674. The next volume, continuing the
Admiralty Letters as far as May T, 1677, will be published in the course of
the year 1908.]
•Rawlinson Manuscripts in the Bodleian Library at Oxford.

[Some of Pepys's manuscripts are in the Rawlinson Collection. These are de-
scribed in W. D. Macray's Catalogue of the Rawlinson mss. published in 1862.]
Statutes of the Realm.

Teonge, Henry, The Diary of Henry Teonge, Chaplain on board His Majesty's
Ships Assistance, Bristol, and Royal Oak, anuo 1675 to 1679. London. 1825.

IL Later Histories.

Charnock, J. History of Marine Architecture, including an enlarged view of lie
nautical Regulation and Naval History, both civil and military, of all Nations,
especially of Great Britain etc. 3 vols. London. 1800-2.

Oowes, Sir W. Laird. The Royal Navy. A History from the earliest Times to the
present. 7 vols. London, 1897-1903. Vol. ii,

OH. VJIJ,

816 The Angh-Dutch Wars.

Derrickj C. Memoirs of the Rise and Progress of the Royal Navy. London. 1806.
Penn, Granville. Memorials of the Professional Life and Times of Sir W. Penn.

2 vols. London. 1833.
Tanner, J. R. A Descriptive Catalogue of the Naval Manuscripts in the Pepysian

Library. Published by the Navy Records Society. London. 1 903 etc. [Vol. i

contains an Introduction of 251 pp. dealing with the administrative history of

the English Navy from 1660 to 1688.]
Wheatley, H. B. Pepysiana. London. 1899.
Samuel Pepys and the World he lived in. London. 1895

(2) THE WARS (1664r-74).
[/See also under (1) above.}

I. Contemporary Authorities.
Those asterisked are manuscript.

Aitzema, L. van. Saken van Staat en Oorlogh, in ende omtrent de Vereenigde

Nederlanden. [To 1669.] The Hague. 1657-71.
Brandt, Gerrit. Leven en Bedryf van der Heere M. de Ruiter. Amsterdam.

1790. French Trans. 1698.
British Museum. Additional mss. 18,980-2 (Rupert's correspondence), 19,098 and

27,790. Egerton mss. 928. Harleian mss. 1626.
Burnet, Gilbert. History of My Own Time. 2 vols. London. 1724-34. Part I :

Charles II. Ed. O. Airy. 2 vols. Oxford. 1897-1900.
Clarendon, Edward Hyde, Earl of. Life of, by himself, in which is included a

Continuation of his History of the Rebellion. 3 vols. Oxford. 1827.
Description exacte de tout ce qui s'est passe dans les guerres entre le Roy d'Angle-
terre, le Roy de France, les l^tats des Provinces-Unies des Pays-Bas, et I'j^vesque
de Munster. Amsterdam. 1668.
Evelyn, John. Diary. Ed. Austin Dobson. 3 vols. London. 1906.
Fighting Instructions, 1530-1816. [Navy Records Society.] Edited by Julian S.

Corbett. London. 1905.
Guiche, Armand de Gramont, Comte de. Memoires conceruant les Provinces-Unies.

London. 1744.
Gamble, T. The Life of General Monck, Duke of Albemarle, with remarks upon

his actions. London. 1671.
^Historical Manuscripts Commission :

Marquis of Bath's mss. Sir William Coventry's papers. Fourth Report.

Conington Castle mss.

Dartmouth mss. Vol. i. (6. Legge's Journals.) Appendix 6 to Eleventh

Report.
Dartmouth mss. Vol. in. (Spragg's Journal and detailed reports of battles

of 1672 and 1673.) Appendix 1 to Fifteenth Report.
Eliot Hodgkin mss. (Reports of Rupert and Monck to House of Commons.)

Appendix 2 to Fifteenth Report.
Le Fleming mss. Appendix 7 to Twelfth Report
Kenyon mss. Appendix 4 to Fourteenth Report.
Lindsay mss. Appendix 9 to Fourteenth Report.
Duke of Portland's mss. Vols, i and ii. Appendices 1 and 2 to Thirteenth

Report.
Duke of Somerset's mss. Appendix 7 to Fifteenth Report.
Hoeven, Emanuel van der. Leeven en dood de doorlugtige heeren gebroders C, de
Witt en J. de Witt. Amsterdam. 1706.

Bibliography. 817

Hoste, Paul. L'Art des Armeea Navales. Lyons. 1697.

Miinsterj Bishop of. The Life and Actions of C. Bernard von Galen, Bishop of

Miinster. London. 1680.
Rupert, Prince. An Exact Relation of the several Engagements of His Majesty's

fleet under the command of His Highness Prince Rupert. 1673.

Historical Memoirs of the Life and Death of Prince Rupert. Published by

Thomas Malthus. London. 1683.

Skinner, T. The Life of General Monck. From an original us. of T. Skinner ;

edited by W. Webster. London. 1723.
State Papers, Domestic. Charles II. Public Record Office. (These are abstracted

and printed in the Calendar of State Papers, Domestic. 1664-7, and 1672-3.)
Stubbs, Henry. A Justification of the present War against the United Netherlands.

London. 1672.

A further Justification. London. 1673.

Sylvius, Lodewijk. Historien onses Tyds, behelzende Saken van Staet en Oorlogh,
etc., 1669-79. Amsterdam. 1685.

Temple, Sir William. Works. New ed. 4 vols. London. 1770. [Vol. i : Ob-
servations upon the Netherlands. — Letters, 1665-72.]

Tromp, Comeille, la Vie de. The Hague. 1694. [A French translation and
abridgment of a Dutch work published in 1692.]

Williamson, Sir Joseph. Letters from London to Sir J. W., while Plenipotentiary
at Cologne, 1673-4. 2 vols. Camden Society. London. 1874.

II. Later Works.

Brinkmann, C. Charles II and the Bishop of Munster in the Dutch War of 1666-6.

English Historical Review. London. 1906.
Campbell, J. Lives of the Admirals. 3rd edition. London. 1761.
Chamock, J. Biographica Navalis, or impartial memoirs of the Lives and Characters

of Officers of the Navy of Great Britain from 1660 to the present time. 6 vols.

London. 1794-8. [Vols, i and ii.]
Chevalier, E. Histoire de la Marine Fran^aise jusqu'an traits de paix de 1762.

Paris. 1902.
CoUiber, S. Columna Rostrata ; or, a critical History of the English Sea Affairs.

London. 1727.
Colomb, Vice-Admiral P. H. Naval Warfare, its ruling Principles and Practices

historically treated. London. 1891. (2nd edition. 1895.)
Corbett, Julian S. England in the Mediterranean, 1603-1713. London. 1904.

Monck. (English Men of Action Series.) London. 1889.

Dictionary of National Biography [including among others AUin, Coventry, Holmes,

James II, Jordan, Kempthome, Lawson, Monck, Montagu, Myngs, Penn,

Rupert, Spragg]. London. 1885-1901.
Entick, John. A New Naval History. London. 1757.
Guerin, E. Histoire Maritime de la France. 2nd edn. Paris. 1844.
Guizot. Life of Monck. Translated etc. by J. Stuart Wortley. London. 1838.
Hannay, David. A Short History of the Royal Navy, 1213-1688. London. 1898.
Jal, A. Abraham Du Quesne et la marine de son temps. Paris. 1872.
Japikse, N. De Verwikkelingen tusschen de Republiek en Engeland, van 1660-5.

Leyden. 1900.

Louis XIV et la guerre anglo-hoUandaise. Revue Historique. Paris. 1906.

Jonge, J. C. de. Geschiedenis van het Nederlandsche Zeewesen. The Hague and

Amsterdam. 1833-4.
Levens-beschrijving van Johan en Cornelis Evertsen. The Hague. 1820.

0. M. H. V. OB. viii. 62

818 The Anglo-Dutch Wars.

Lediard, T. The Naval History of England in all its Branches, from the Norman

Conquest, 10G6, to the Conclusion of 1734. 2 vols. London. 1736.
Lefevre-Pontalis, A. Jean de Witt. Paris. 1884. [An English translation by

S. E. and A. Stephenson. London. 1885.]
Mahan, A. T. (Capt. U.S.N,). The Influence of Sea Power upon History, 1660-1783.

London. [1889.]
Ranke, L. von. History of England, principally in the xviith century. Engl.

Transl. 6 vols. Oxford. 1876. Vol. iii.
Wagenaar, J. Vaderlandsche Historie. Amsterdam. 1749-69.
Warburton, Eliot, Life of Prince Rupert, Loudon, 1849.

819

CHAPTER X.

THE REVOLUTION AND THE REVOLUTION SETTLEMENT
IN GREAT BRITAIN.

(1) ENGLAND, 1687-1702.

I. ARCHIVES.
A. At the British Museum.
a. Documents connected with the Revolution.

Add. Mss. 10,118. Materials for History of James, by Joseph Johnston, Prior of
Benedictines of St Edmund's in Paris.

Add. MSS. 15,614. Panegyrics on Mary of Modena.

The attack on the Universities is described in Lord Guilford's mss.. Add. mss.
82,523, Oxford, ff. 69-64, Cambridge, if. 64-7. An excellent anonymous con-
temporary account of "the Cambridge case and all the proceedings therein" is
to be found in the Treasury of Peterhouse, Cambridge.

Documents connected with the Revolution 1687-9 will be found in Add. mss.
9828, f. 24, 12,097, ff. 33-4, 17,017, f. 125, 27,382, 28,053 (Correspondence of
Danby, 1660-96), 33,286 (Documents concerning the birth of the Prince of
Wales), 32,095 (Letters as to James' first flight), 33,923 (Narratives of Sir
J. Knatchbull and Sir E. Dering on James' first flight; very valuable).

34,487 (News letters sent into the country chiefly in last six months of 1688).

34,616, ff. 194, 208.

Stowe MSS. 222, ff. 383, 6 ; 241, f. 66 ; 640, f. 59.

Add. MSS. 32,681 (Scattered papers on Church matters by Burnet, chiefly 1688 c.).

Add. MSS. 32,620. North, Dudley, Lord Guilford (views on the Regency question,
1683. Essay on the Royal Prerogative etc.).

Add. MSS. 32,680 (Papers of Henry Sidney ; mostly published in Blencowe's
Life, q.v.),

b. Documents concerning Foreign Affairs.

Add. MSS. 28,927, f. 140 (A few fragments of King William's notes and letters).
Add. MSS. 24,906 (William's letters to Godolphin (691-3-); not of much value).

The Mackintosh Collection, parts of which have appeared in the Historical mss.
Commission publications, is of great value. The most important are Add. mss.
34,504-5, Despatches of WiUiam to Heinsius, 34,606, Correspondence of
Heinsius, and 34,612, Summaries of the Despatches of the Dutch Ambassadors,
1686-8. [Although these were used by Macaulay, much information of first-
rate importance is stiU to be gleaned from them.]

CH. X. 62—2

820 England, 1687-1702.

e. Documents eiehihiting Economic and Social Conditions.

Stowe Mss. 292. An elaborate comparison as regards population and taxes between

England, Holland and France.
Add. MSS. 15,633. Statements of Accounts 1688-1702.
Add. MSS. 10,119-23. Egerton mss. 648. General account of Finance, Trade,

Revenue etc.
Add. MSS. 6703. History of the Exchequer Bills, ff. 32-42. [An instructive

contemporary account.]

d. Documents eschihiting the working qf the Emecutive.

Add. MSS. 28,132; Add. mss. 34,349. Calendar of Privy Council business, and

powers of the Board.
Add. MSS. 36,107. Council notes by Southwell, clerk to Council, 1660-1708.
The notes on the Council in 1696 should be compared with William Ill's Privy

Council Register, Vol. rv, pp. 364 et seqq., at the Privy Council Office, and

with Home Office Domestic Papers — Secretaries' Letter Book, No. 100, at the

Record Office (1694-1701).

B. At thb Recobd Office.

The Secretaries' Letter Books, Vol. i-vi (1689-1703), contain some information
about domestic affairs and the working of executive government.

C. At the Privy Council Office.

Privy Council Registers, James II, vol. u (1687-8), William III (1688-90), con-
tain important details regarding the Revolution Settlement.

II. RECORDS OF AN OFFICIAL CHARACTER.

Lords, House of. Proceedings of, 1690-1. Hist. mss. Commission Report xiii,

App. 6. London. 1892.

of 1692-9. Report xiv, App. 6. London. 1896-1906.

Parliamentary History. Vol. iv, pp. 1367 et seqq. London. 1808. Vol. v

(1688-1702). London. 1809.
Protests of the Lords. Ed. J. E. T. Rogers. Vol. n. Oxford. 1876.
State Papers, Colonial, Calendars of. Ed. J. W. Fortescue, 1686-8. London.

1899. 1689-92, ib. 1901. 1693-6, ib. 1903. 1696-7, ib. 1904. 1697-8, ib.

1905.
State Papers, Domestic, Calendars of. Ed. W. J. Hardy, 1690-1. London.

1896. 1691-2, ib. 1900. 1693, ib. 1903. 1694-5, ib. 1906.
State Tracts (1660-89). London. 1696.

III. CONTEMPORARY AUTHORITIES, DIARIES, MEMOIRS, PRIVATE
CORRESPONDENCE ETC.

A. GenebaIi,

Annandale mss. See Johnstone, J. J. Hope.

Boyer, Abel. History of King William III. 3 vols. London. 1702-3.
Burchett, Josiah. Memoirs of the Transactions at Sea during the War with France,
1688-97. London. 1703.

Bibliography. 821

Burnet, Gilbert (Bishop of Salisbury). History of My Own Time. (Reign of
Charles II.) Ed. O. Airy. 2 vols. Oxford. 1897.

Higgins, Bevil. Historical and critical remarks on Burnet's History. London.
1726.

Supplement to History. Ed. H. C. Foxcroft. Oxford. 1902.

Six Papers on the Test Acts. London. 1687.

Carstares, W. (Secretary to King William). Papers. Ed. J. McCormick. London.

1774.
Clarendon, Henry Hyde, Earl of, and Rochester, Lawrence Hyde, Earl of. Corre-
spondence. Vol. n. London. 1828.
Clarke, J. S. Life of James II. 2 vols. London. 1816. [Includes many

unpublished documents.]
Coke Papers in mss. of Earl Cowper. Hist. mss. Commission Report xn. App.

Pt. n, vol. n. London. 1888.
Courtenay, T. P. Life, Works, and Correspondence of Sir William Temple. 2 vols.

London. 1836.
Courthorp, Sir George. Memoirs. Ed. Mrs S. C. Lomas. Camden Misc. vol. xi,

3rd Ser. vol. xiii. London. 1907.
Evelyn, John. Diary and Correspondence. Ed. W. Bray. Life by H. B.

Wheatley. London. 1906.
Fingall, Earl of. Hist. mss. Commission Report x. App. Pt. v, pp. 107-204.

London. 1885.
James II. Letters to Abbot La Trappe. Ed. Lord Acton. Philobiblon Soc. Misc.
Vol. xrv. London. 1877.

Memoirs and Correspondence in James Macpherson's Original Papers. 2 vols.

London. 1776.

Johnstone, J. J. Hope. Annandale mss. Hist. mss. Commission Report xv. App.

Pt. IX. London. 1897.
Locke, John. Familiar Letters. Works. Vol. ix, x. London. 1823.
Luttrell, Narcissus. Brief Relation of State Affairs. Vols. i-iv. Oxford. 1857.
Marchmont Papers in mss. of Sir H. H. Campbell. Hist. mss. Commission

Report xrv, Pt. iii, pp. 116 et seqq. London. 1894.
Mary, Queen. Lettres et Memoires de Marie, Reine d'Angleterre. London. 1880.

Memoirs and Letters of, with those of James II and William III to Electress

Sophia. Ed. R. Doebner. Leipzig. 1886.

Reresby, Sir John. Memoirs. London. 1904.

Shrewsbury, Charles Talbot, Duke of. Memoirs and Correspondence. Ed. W. Coxe.

London. 1821.
Shrewsbury Papers. In mss. of Duke of Buccleugh. Hist. mss. Commission

Report XV, Vol. u. Parts i, n. (mss. preserved at Montagu House, Whitehall.

London.) 1903.
Somers Tracts. Ed. Sir Walter Scott. Vol. ix-xi. London. 1823.
State Papers. Ed. Earl Hardwicke. Vol. ii, pp. 399-466. London. 1778.
Temple, Sir William. See Courtenay, T. P.
William III. Leven van Willem Henrik Prins van Orange. By A. Montanns.

Amsterdam. 1677.

Letters of — and of Louis XIV — with those of their Ministers. Ed.
P. Grimblot. 2 vols. London. 1848.
Woodcock, Thomas (ob. 1695). Extracts from papers of. By Prof. G. C. Moore

Smith. [Camden Misc. vol. xi. New Ser. vol. xiii.] London. 1907.

CH. X,

822 England, 1687-1702.

B. The Revolution and its Causes.

Ailesbiiry, Thomas Bruce, Earl of. Memoirs. Roxburghe Club. Westminster. 1890.
Buckinghamshire, John Sheffield, Duke of. Account of the Revolution. Works,

VoL u, pp. 69-102. London. 1723.
Danby, Earl. See Leeds, first Duke of.
Dartmouth, Earl of. Hist. mss. Commission Report xi. App. Pt. v, vol. r.

London, 1887. Rep. xv, App. Pt. i, pp. 133-46, vol. m. London. 1896.
Ellis, John. Correspondence. 1686-8. 2 vols. London. 1829.
Fleming, S. H. Le. Hist. mss. Commission Report xn. App. Pt. xvii, pp. 199 sqq.

London. 1890.
Hamilton, Duke of. Hist. mss. Commission Report xi. App. Pt. vi, pp. 171-98.

London. 1887.
Kenyon, Lord. Hist. mss. Commission Report xiv. App. Pt. iv, pp. 187-238.

London. 1894.
Leeds, first Duke of (Earl Danby). Correspondence, pp. 447-54 in Lindsey, Hist.

MSS. Commission Report xrv. App. Pt. ix. London. 1895.
Leeds, Duke of. Hist. mss. Commission Report xi, Pt. vn, pp. 23-34. London.

1888.
Leyborne, Popham F. W. Papers — Attack on University of Cambridge, pp. 261

-89. Hist. MSS. Commission Report xv. London. 1899.
Lothian, Marquis of. Hist. mss. Commission Report xvi. London. 1899.
Montague, Lord, of Beaulieu. Attack on University of Oxford, pp. 198 et seqq.

Hist. MSS. Commission Report xv. London. 1899.
Morrison, Alfred. Hist. mss. Commission Report ix, Pt. n. London. 1895.
Ormonde, Marquis of. Hist. mss. Commission Report xi. App. Pt. v. London.

1896.
Ormonde, James, Duke of. Life, by Thomas Carte. Vol. u, pp. 642-9. London.

1736.
Parliamentary History. Vol. v. App. rv. London. 1809.

Portland, Duke of. Hist. mss. Commission Report xv. App. Pt. iv. London. 1897-
Rapin, TTioyras de. History of England. Book xxrv. Vol. n. London. 1733.
Somers Tracts. Ed. Sir Walter Scott. Vol. x, 267. London. 1813.
Stopford Sackville, Mrs. Hist. mss. Commission Report xv. Vol. i, pp. 29-32.

London. 1904.

C. The PoliticaIi Philosoprt op the Revolution.

Filmer, Sir Robert. Freeholders' Grand Inquest, touching the King and his
Parliament ; Observations on Government etc. London. 1679.

Patriarcha, or the Natural Power of Kings. With introduction by

Henry Morley. London. 1903.

Hobbes, John. The Leviathan. Ed. A. R. Waller. Cambridge. 1904.
Locke, John. Two Treatises on Civil Government. With introduction by
Henry Morley. London. 1903.

CoUected Pieces. Ed. John Hales. London. 1720.

Milton, John. Areopagitica. Ed. J. W. Hales. Oxford. 1874.

Prose Works. Ed. J. A. St John. 6 vols. London. 1848-63.

Smith, Sir Thomas. De Republica Anglorum. Ed. L. Alston. Cambridge. 1906.
Somers, John, Lord. Judgment of Whole Kingdoms and Nations, concerning the

Rights, Power and Prerogative of Kings, and the Rights etc., of the People.

London. 1771 .

[ -, or Daniel Defoe.] Vox Populi Vox Dei. London. 1709.

Sydney, Algernon. Works of. London. 1772. [The Discourses on Government

were never read by Locke.]

Bibliography. 823

D. Economic Pamphlets, Writings etc.

Addison, Joseph. The Spectator, No. 3. 3 March, 1710. Ed. T. Arnold. Oxford.

1875.
Gary, John (merchant in Bristol). Essay towards the settlement of a National

Credit in England. London. 1696.
Chamberlain, Hugh. A Bank Dialogue between, and a Country Gentleman.

London. 1696.
Child, Sir Josiah. Observations concerning trade and interest. London. 1668.
Cradock, Francis. An expedient for raising a revenue by creating Banks. London.

1660.
Law, WiUiam. Memoires sur les Banques. In !l^conomistes et Financiers du

xvin= siecle. With notes by E. Daire. Paris. 1843.
Locke, John. Economic pamphlets. Works. Vol. v. London. 1823.
North, Dudley. Life, by Roger North. London. 1744. In Lives of the Norths.

£d. A. Jessopp. London. 1890.
Paterson, WiUiam. Writings. Ed. S. Bannister. London. 1868.
Petty, Sir William. Works. Ed. C. H. HuU. 2 vols. Cambridge. 1899.
Ranke, L. von. History of England, principally in Seventeenth Century. Vol. vi,

pp. 144-274. Oxford. 1876.
Shaw, W. A. Select Tracts illustrative of English Monetary History, 1626-1730.

London. 1896.
Temple, Sir WUliam. Observations on the United Provinces. 6th edition. London.

1693.

IV. SECONDARY AUTHORITIES.

A. General.

Acton, Lord. Lectures on Modern History, pp. 196-276. London. 1906.

Brosch, M. Geschichte von England. Vol. vm. Gotha. 1903.

Dalrymple, Sir John. Memoirs of Great Britain and Ireland. 3 vols. Dublin.

1771-8.
Klopp, Onno. Der Fall des Hauses Stuart. Vols. i-ii. Vienna. 1876-88.
Macaulay, T. B., Lord. History, vols, i-vi ; Essays, vols. i-in. London. 1898.
Michael, W. Englische Geschichte im ISten Jahrhundert. Bd. i. Hamburg

and Leipzig. 1896.
Ranke, Leopold von. History of England, principally in the Seventeenth Century.

Eng. tr. Vols, iv-vi. Oxford. 1875.
Seeley, Sir J. R. The Growth of British Policy. Vol. ir, pp. 250 sqq. Cambridge.

1895.

B. The Revolution of 1688.

Bloxam, J. R. Magdalen College and King James II. Oxford Historical Society.

1886.
Fox, Charles James. History of the Reign of James II. London. 1857.
Guizot, F. Pourquoi la Revolution d'Angleterre ar-t-elle reussi .'' Paris. 1860.
Haake, P. Brandenburgische Politik und Kriegfiihrung in den Jahren 1688-9.

Cassel. 1896.
Koch, G. Die Friedensbestrebungen Wilhelms von Oranien in den Jahren 1694-7.

Tubingen and Leipzig. 1903.
Mackintosh, Sir James. History of the Revolution in England in 1688. London.

1834.
Maynard, T. Histoire de la Revolution de 1688. Tours. 1857-
Mazure, F. A. J. Histoire de la Revolution de 1688 en Angleterre. 3 vols,

Paris. 1848.

CH. a.

824 England, 1687-1702.

C. BlOSRAPHY AND SoOIAL LlFB.

Halifax, George Savilis, Marquis of. Life, by H. C. Foxcroft. 2 vols. London.

1898.
Jesse, J. H. Memoirs of the Court of England, 1688-1760. Vol. i. London.

1843.
Marlborough, Life of John Churchill, Duke of, to 1702. By Viscount Wolaeley,

London. 1894.
Mary of Modena. By "Martin HaQe." London. 1906.
Nyevelt, van. Baroness Suzette van Zuylen. Court Life in the Dutch Republic.

London. 1906.
Paget, J. Marlborough — the Brest incident. In Puzzles and Paradoxes. London.

1874.
Penn, William. Historical biography of, by W. H. Dixon. London. 1872. Life,

by A. C. Buell. New York. 1904.
Romney, Henry Sidney, 1st Earl of. Diary etc. Ed. B. W. Blencowe. 2 vols.

London. 1843.
Sanford, J. L., and Meredith Townsend. The Great Governing Families of England.

2 vols. London. 1865.
Shaftesbury, 1st Earl of. Life, by W. D. Christie. 2 vols. London. 1871.

D. PotiTiGAt. Philosophy.

Bastide, C. John Locke : ses theories politiques et leur influence en Angleterre.

Paris. 1907.
Figgis, J. N. The Divine Right of Kings. Cambridge. 1896.

From Gerson to Grotius, 1414r-1625. Cambridge. 1907.

Gooch, G. P. English Democratic Ideals in the Seventeenth Century. Cambridge.

1898.
Lyon, G. La Fhilosophie de Thomas Hobbes. Paris. 1893.
Mayer, V. Thomas Hobbes : Darstellung und Kritik seiner philosophischen, staats-

rechtlichen imd kirchenpolitischen Lehren. Freiburg i. B. 1884.
PoUard, A. F. Factors in Modern History, pp. 166-80. London. 1907.
Robertson, G. Croom. Hobbes. Edinburgh. 1886.

E. Constitutional History.

Abbot, W. C. Long Parliament of Charles II. Articles in English Historical

Review. January — April, 1906. London. 1906.
Burnet, Gilbert (Bishop of Salisbury). Memorial to Princess Sophia : a delineation

of the Constitution and Policy of England. London. 1816.
Hallam, Henry. Constitutional History of England. Vol. ii. London. 1879.
Lord, W. F. Development of Political Parties during the reign of Queen Anne.

Trans, of Royal Historical Society. New Ser. Vol. xiv. London. 1900.
Merz, Teresa. The Junto. Newcastie-on-Tyne. 1907.
Pike, L. O. Constitutional History of House of Lords. London. 1894.
Sheridan, Thomas. Powers of Parliament. Ed. Saxe Bannister. London. 1870.
Torrens, W. M. History of Cabinets. Vol. i. London. 1894.

F. Economic History.

Andr^ades, A. Histoire de la Banque d'Augleterre. Vol. i, pp. 1-168. Paris.

1904.
Bagehot, Walter. Lombard Street. London. 1873.
Craik, G. L. History of British Commerce. Vol. u. London. 1844.

Bibliography. 825

Cunmnghanij W. Growth of ifenglish Industry and Commeice. Vol. ii.

Cambridge. 1896.
Dowellj S. History of Taxation. Vols, ii-iv. London. 1888.
Fitzmanrice, Lord E. Life of Sir William Petty. London. 1896.
Hewins, W. A. S. English Trade and Finance in the Seventeenth Century.

London. 1892.
Macleod, H. D. Theory and Practice of Banking. 2 vols. London. 1883.
Macpherson, David. Annals of Commerce. Vol. n. London. 1806.
Pasquierj M. Sir WiUiam Petty : ses idees economiques. Paris. 1903.
Rogers, J. E. T. First nine years of the Bank of England. Oxford. 1887.
Schmoller, G. The Mercantile System and its historic significance. Bng. tr.

New York. 1906.
Shaw, W. A. History of Currency, 1262-1894. London. 1896.
Yeats, John. Growth and Vicissitudes of Commerce, 1600-1879. London. 1872.

G. Military and Naval History.

Callwell, Col. C. E. Military Operations and Maritime Preponderance. Edinburgh

and London. 1906.
Clowes, Sir W. L. The Royal Navy. Vol. n. London. 1897.
Colomb, Admiral P. H. Naval Warfare. London. 1896.
Corbett, J. S. England in the Mediterranean. Vol. i. London. 1904. Fighting

instructions [1630-1816. Navy Rec. Soc. Pub. No. 29]. London. 1905.
Fortescue, J. W. History of British Army. Vol. i. London. 1899.
Laughton, Sir J. K. Memoirs relating to Lord Torrington. (Camden Society.) •

London. 1889.
Lord, W. F. England and France in the Mediterranean (1660-1830). London.

1901.
Mahan, A. T. The Influence of Sea Power upon History, 1660-1783. London.

[1889.]

(2) SCOTLAND FROM THE RESTORATION TO THE
UNION OF THE PARLIAMENTS.

I, State Papers and other Contemporary Documents.

Acts of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, 1638-42. Ed. T. Pitcairn.

Repr. under the superintendence of the Church Law Society. 1843.
Acts of the Parliament of Scotland (Official Edition). 11 vols. 1814-44. Vols, vi-xi.
Argyll Papers. 1640-1723. Ed. J. Maidment. Edinburgh. 1834.
Baillie, George, of Jerviswoode. Correspondence. (Bannatyne Club.) 1842.
Baron, D. G. Court-Book of the Baronv of Urie. (Scot. Hist. Soc.) Edinburgh.

1892.
Calendar of State Papers. Domestic Series. 1660-96.
Darien Papers. Ed. J. H. Burton. (Bannatyne Club.) 1849.
Diary of and General Expenditure Book of William Cunningham of Craigends,

1673-89. (iScot. Hist. Soc.) 1887.
Fraser, Sir William. Series of Histories of Scottish Families. Edinburgh. 1868-97.
The Earls of Cromartie: their kindred, country and correspondence. 2 vols.

Edinburgh. 1876.
Full and Exact Collection of all the Considerable Addresses... relating to the Company.

of Scotland, ^trading to Africa and the Indies. Printed in the year 1700. s.l.
Hardwicke, Philip, Earl of. Miscellaneous State Papers. Vol. ii. London. 1778.

826 Scotland from the Restoration to the Union.

Historical mss. Commission. Report on Manuscripts of the Duke of Buccleuch and
Queensberry. 1897.

Report on the Manuscripts of the Earl of Mar and Kellie. 1904.

Report on the Manuscripts of the Duke of Portland. 1899.

Howell, J. B. State Trials. Vols, t-xiv. London. 1810-12.
Journals of the House of Commons. Vols, viii-xv. 1660 to 1708.

ofthe House of Lords. Vols, xi-xvm. 1660-1709.

Lauderdale Papers. 1639-79. EA. O. Airy. Camden Soc. 1884-6.

Letters illustrative of Public Affairs in Scotland addressed to Greorge, Earl of

Aberdeen. 1681-4. (Spalding Club.) 1851.
Letters of John Graham of Claverhouse, Viscount of Dundee. (Bannatyne Club.)

1826.
Levens and Melville Papers : Letters and State Papers chiefly addressed to George,

Earl of Melville, Secretary for Scotland. 1689-91. (Bannatyne Club.) 1843.
Lothian Papers. 1616-67. Ed. D. Laing. 2 vols. Edinburgh. 1876.
Mackay, W. Extracts from the Presbytery Records of Inverness and Dingwall.

1638-88. (Scot. Hist. Soe.) Edinburgh, 1896.
Manuscripts relating to the Kirk of Scotland. In Library of General Assembly of

Church of ScoUand. Edinburgh.
Marchmont Papers. 1685-1760. 3 vols. London. 1831.
National Manuscripts of Scotland. Part iii. Southampton. 1867.
Original Papers containing the Secret History of Great Britain. 1660-1714.

2 vols. London. 1776.
JPapers illustrative of the Highlands of Scotland. 1689-96. (Maitland Club.) 1845.
Publications of the Burgh Record Society of Scotland. Edinburgh. 1872 etc.
Register of the Privy Council of Scotland. General Register House, Edinburgh,

published to 1660.
Somers Tracts. 13 vols. Ed. Sir W. Scott. London. 1809-15. Vols, x, xi.
State Papers and Letters addressed to William Carstares. Ed. J. M°Cormick.

Edinburgh. 1774.
State Tracts of the Reign of William III. 1707.
Statutes at Large from Magna Carta to 41 George III. Vols, m, iv. London.

1769-1800.
Tracts on the Union, 2 vols. Signet Library. Edinburgh.

II. CoNTEUPORART HISTORIES, MeMOIKS AND DiARIES,

Account Book of Sir John Foulis of Ravelston, 1671-1707. Ed. A. W. C. Hallen.

(Scot. Hist. Soc.) 1894.
Baillie, R. Letters and Journals. 1637-62. 3 vols. (Bannatyne Club.) Edinburgh.

1842.
Balcarres, Colin, Earl of. Memoirs touching the Revolution in Scotland. (Bannatyne

Club.) 1841.
Brodie, F. Diary. 1652-80. Ed. D. Laing. (Spalding Club.^ Aberdeen. 1863.
Burnet, Gilbert (Bishop of Salisbury). History of My Own Time. Ed. O. Airy.

2 vols. Oxford. 1897-1900.

Supplement to Burnet's History of My Own Time. Ed. H. C. Foxcroft.

Oxford. 1902.

Some unpublished Letters of Gilbert Burnet the Historian. Ed. H. C. Foxcroft.

Camden Miscellany. Vol. xi. London. 1907.

Clerk, Sir J., of Penecuik. Memoirs. 1676-1756. (Scot. Hist. Soc.) 1892.
Cloud of Witnesses, or the Sufferer's Mirrours, by T. M. London. 1670.
Defoe, D. The History of the Union of Great Britain. Edinburgh. 1709.

Memoirs of the Church of Scotland. 1717- Reprinted. Edinburgh. 1844,

Bibliography. 827

Erskine, Col. the Hon. John, of Carnock. Diary of. 1683-7. (Scot. Hist. Soc.)

1893.
Fletcher, A., of Saltorm. Political Works. Glasgow. 1749.
Hodgson, Captain John. Memoirs. Ed. Sir W. Scott. Edinburgh. 1829.
Hook, Colonel N. Correspondence. (Roxburghe Club.) 1871.
Hume, D., of Crossrigg. Diary of Proceedings in the Parliament of Scotland.

(1700-7.) (Bannatyne Club.) 1828.
Kirkton, J. TTtie Secret and True History of the Church of Scotland. Ed.

C. K. Sharpe. Edinburgh. 1817.

Lamont, J. Diary. 1649-72. (Maitland Club.) 1830.

Lauder, Sir J., of Fountainhall. Historical Observes of Memorable Occurrenta in
Church and State. 1680-6. (Bannatyne Club.) 1840.

Chronological Notices of Scottish Affairs. 1680-1701. Ed. Sir W. Scott.

Edinburgh. 1822.

Historical Notices of Scottish Affairs. 1661-88. 2 vols. (Bannatyne Club.)

1848.

Journals, with his Observations on Public Affairs etc. 1666-76. Ed.

D. Crawford. (Scot. Hist. Soc.) 1900.

Law, R. Memorials of the memorable things that fell out within the Island of

Britain from 1638 to 1684. Ed. C. K. Sharpe. Edinburgh. 1818.
Letters addressed by Scottish Prelates to Archbishop Sancroft in the reigns of

Charles II and James VU. Edinburgh. 1848.
Lindsay, P. Interest of Scotland considered. Edinburgh. 1733.
Luttrell, N. Brief Historical Relation of State Affairs from September 1678 to

April 1714. 6 vols. Oxford. 1867.
Mackay, H. Memoirs of the War carried on in Scotland and Ireland. 1689-91.

(Bannatyne Club.) 1833.
Mackenzie, Sir G. Memoirs of the Affairs of Scotland from the Restoration of

ChariesIL 1660-71. Edinburgh. 1818.
Memoirs of John Ker of Kersland in North Britain. 3 vols. London. 1726.
Memoirs of the Secret Services of John Macky, Esq. London. 1733.
Miscellany of the Scottish History Society. Vol. i. Edinburgh. 1894.
Morer, Thomas. Short Account of Scotland. London. 1702.
Naphtali, or the Wrestlings of the Church of Scotland for the Kingdom of Christ.

Edinburgh. 1667.
Narrative of Mr James Nimmo, a Covenanter. 1664-1709. (Scot. Hist. Soc.) 1889.
Nicoll, J. Diary. 1660-67. (Bannatyne Club.) 1836.
Paterson, W. Writings of. Ed. Saxe Bannister. 3 vols. London. 1859.
Shields, A. Faithful Contendings Displayed. Edinburgh. 1733.
Taylor, A. A Journey to Edenborough in 1706. Ed. W. Cowan. Edinburgh.

1903.
Turner, Sir J. Memoirs of My Own Time. 1632-70. Edinburgh. 1829.

III. Later Histories and Biographies.

Airy, O. The Lauderdale Papers. Quarterly Review. July, 1884.

Archbishop Sharp. Scottish Review. Paisley. ' July, 1884

Alton, W. A History of the Rencounter at Drumclog and BothweU Bridge.

Hamilton. 1821.
Argyll, Duke of. Scotland as it was and is. 2 vols. Edinburgh. 2nd edn. 1887.
Bannister, S. William Paterson, the Merchant Statesman. Edinburgh. 1868.
Barbe, L. A. Viscount Dundee. Edinburgh. 1904.
Barbour, J. S. A History of William Paterson and the Darien Company. Edinburgh.

1907.

828 Scotland from the Restoration to the Union.

Bellesheim, A. A History of the Catholic Church in Scotland. Translated by

D. O. H. Blair. 4 vols. Edinburgh. 1887-90,
Bingham, H. Early History of Scots-Darien Company. Scottish Historical Review.

Vol. HI. Glasgow. 1906.
Biscoe, A. C. The Earls of Middleton, Lords of Clermont and of Fettercairn,

London. 1876.
Borland, F. History of Darien. Glasgow. 1779.
Boyer, A. The History of Queen Anne. London. 1735.
Bremner, D. The Industries of Scotland : their rise, progress and present condition.

Edinburgh. 1869.
Brown, P. Hume. History of Scotland. Vol. ii. Cambridge. 1904.
Bruce, J. Reports upon the Union of the Kingdoms of England and Scotland.

London. 1779.
Buckle, H. T. History of Civilization in England. Vols, ii, iii. London. 1868.
Burton, J. H. History of Scotland from Agricola's Invasion. Vols, vii, viii.

Edinburgh. Last edn. 1905.
Butler, D. The Life and Letters of Robert Leighton, Restoration Bishop of Dun-
blane and Archbishop of Glasgow. London. 1903.
Chambers, R. Domestic Annals of Scotland from the Reformation. Vol. iii.

Edinburgh. 1868-61.
Crichton, A. Memoirs of the Rev. John Blackadder, composed chiefly from Memoirs

of his Life and Ministry written by himself. Edinburgh, 1820.
Cunningham, J. The Church History of Scotland from the commencement of the

Christian Era to the present century. 2 vols. Edinburgh. 1859.
Despot's Champion [Viscount Dundee]. By a Southron. London. 1889.
Fleming, D. H. Six Saints of the Covenant. London. 1901.
Fox, C.J. History of the early part of the Reign of James the Second. L6ndon. 1808.
Eraser, Sir W. The Earls of Cromarty. 2 vols. Edinburgh. 1876.
Graham, J. M. Annals and Correspondence of the Viscount and the first and

second Earls of Stair. 2 vols. Edinburgh. 1876.
Grub, G. Ecclesiastical History of Scotland. 4 vols. Edinburgh. 1861.
Herkless, J. Richard Cameron. Edinburgh. 1896.
Heron, A. Rise and Progress of the Company of Merchants of the City of Edinburgh.

Edinburgh. 1903.
Keith, Bishop. An Historical Catalogue of the Scottish Bishops down to the year

1688. Ed. M. Russell. Edinburgh. 1824.
Laing, M. History of Scotland from the Union of the Crown to the Union of the

Parliaments. 4 vols. London. 1800-4.
Lang, A. History of Scotland. Vols, iii, iv. Edinburgh and London. 1904-7.
Lecky, W, E. H. History of England during the Eighteenth Century. Vol. i.

London. 1878-90.
Lee, J. Lectures on the History of the Church of Scotland from the Reformation

to the Revolution Settlement 2 vols. Edinburgh. 1860.
life of Rev. Robert Blair, containing his Autobiography, 1593-1636 — with con-
tinuation by his son-in-law to 1680 — (Wodrow Society). Edinburgh. 1848.
Ma«aulay, T. B., Lord. History of England. Works. Ed. Lady Trevelyan.

Vols. i-iv. London. 1866.
Mackay, R. J. G. Memoir of Sir James Dalrymple, first Earl of Stair. Edinburgh,

1873.
Mackinnon, J. The Union of England and Scotland. London. 1896.
Mackintosh, J. History of Civilization in Scotland. 4 vols. Paisley. 1892-6.
Macpherson, D. Annals of Commerce, Manufactures, Fisheries, and Navigation.

Vol. IV. London. 1805.
M'Crie, T. Memoirs of William Veitch and George Bryson, Edinburgh, 1826,

Bibliography. 829

Mathiesoiij W. L. Politics and Religion : a Study in Scottish History from the
Reformation to the Revolution. Glasgow. 1902.

Scotland and the Union : a History of Scotland from 1695 to 1747. Glasgow.

1905.

Murray, Lady G. Memoirs of the Lives and Characters of the Right Honourable
G«orge BaiUie of Jerviswood and of Lady Grisell Baillie. Edinburgh. 1822.

Napier, M. Memorials and Letters illustrative of the Life and Times of John
Graham of Claverhouse. 3 vols. Edinburgh. 1859-62.

Ormond, G. W. T. The Early History of the Scottish Union Question. Edinburgh.
1897.

Fletcher of Saltoun. Edinburgh. 1897.

Scott, H. Fasti Ecclesiae Scoticanae : The succession of Ministers in the Parish
Churches of Scotland from the Reformation to the present time. 3 vols.
Edinburgh. 1866-71.

Shields, A. Life and Death of that eminently pious Minister and Martyr, Mr James
Renv^ick. Edinburgh. 1724.

Hind let Loose. Edinburgh. 1744.

Skinner, J. Ecclesiastical History of Scotland. 2 vols. Loudon. 1788.
Smellie, A. Men of the Covenant. London. 1903.

SomervUle, T. The History of Great Britain during the Reign of Queen Anne.
London. 1798.

History of Political Transactions and of Parties from the Restoration of King

Charles the Second to the Death of King William. London. 1792.

Stephen, T. History of the Church of Scotland from the Reformation to the
present time. 4 vols. London. 1843-4.

Life and Times of Archbishop Sharp. London. 1839.

Story, H. WiUiam Carstares : a character and career of the Revolutionary Epoch,

1649-1716. London. 1894.
Terry, C. S. The Chevalier de St George and the Jacobite Movements in his

favour. 1701-20. London. 1901.

The Pentland Rising : RuUion Green. Glasgow. 1905.

John Graham of Claverhouse, Viscoimt of Dundee. 1648-89. London. 1905.

Tindalj A. The History of England. Written in French by M. Rapin de Thoyres.
Translated into English, with continuation to the present times. 21 vols
London. 1767-9.

Wilcock, J. The Great Marquess : Life and Times of Archibald, eighth Earl and
first (and only) Marquess of Argyll. 1607-61. Edinburgh and London. 1903.

Wodrow, R. History of the Sufferings of the Church of Scotland from the Resto-
ration. Ed. R. Bums. 4 vols. Glasgow. 1836.

(3) IRELAND, 1660-1700.
L ORIGINAL SOURCES.

For the history of the Restoration Settlement the most valuable (and hitherto
unutilised) source of information is a series of folio volumes, marked A to M,
preserved in the Public Record Office, Dublin, consisting of original documents and
transcripts ranging from 1660-74. These volumes, which first came to light owing
to the researches instituted by the Record Commissioners in 1811 (see 16th Annual
Report, 1825), owed their origin to a commission of inquiry into the working of
the Acts of Settlement and Explanation, which Richard Talbot, afterwards Duke

830 Ireland, 1660-1700,

of Tyrconnel, succeeded in getting appointed in 1672. The commission was
revoked at the instance of the English Parliament and the documents, like so many
others, passed into the hands of private individuals. All but one volume (J) were
recovered by the Record Commissioners, and in 1886 they were transferred to their
present resting-place (of. Deputy-Keeper's Reports, xix, App. v, pp. 36-87).
Duplicates of many of these documents, especially petitions for restoration, are
preserved in the Rolls Office, Fetter Lane, and are now (with other state papers
of Charles' reign) being calendared by R. P, Mahaffy.

For the proceedings of the Court of Claims, which began its labours in Januaiy,
1666, such of them as escaped destruction by fire in 1711 have been catalogued
in the Supplement to the Eighth Report of the Record Commissioners (1819),
pp. 248-300, and are now to be found in the Public Record Office, Dublin, in
35 vols, folio. To these, in this connection, must be added the books of Survey and
Distribution in the same repository (cf. Bibliography, voL iv. p. 913). Bearing
upon the same subject, though of less importance, are certain volumes in the
Library of Trinity College, Dublin, viz. E. 3. 24, Proceedings of the Commissioners
from the Convention in 1660 etc. (cf. F. 2. 1, Nos. 22, 23, 25) ; F. 3. 18, No. 43,
Letters relating to parliamentary proceedings in 1661 ; F. 1. 22, No. 6, A Defence
of the Settlement of Ireland in answer to Sir Richard Nagle's famous '' Coventry
Letter." Abstracts of the decrees of the Court of Claims (1663) will be found in
British Museum Egerton ms. 789 and certificates of the Commissioners of the Court
of aaims (1666) in Add. ms. 18,023.

For the Duke of Ormond's second and third administration (1661-9 ; 1677-85),
in addition to the official documents in the Rolls Office, the papers in the Carte
collection in the Bodleian Library, Oxford, reported on by C. W. Russell and
J. P. Prendergast in the Thirty-second Report of the Deputy-Keeper of the
Public Records, Appendix i, London, 1871 (cf. Bibliography, vol. rv, p. 913), and
those preserved in Kilkenny Castle, now being calendared for the Historical mss.
Commission by C. Litton Falkiner, are prime sources of information. A narrative
by Sir Theophilus Jones of the conspiracy of 1663 will be found in Trinity College,
Dublin, F. 3. 18, No. 47, and another in Brit. Mus. Sloane ms. 4784, No. 19. The
Remonstrance of the Irish to Charles II (1666) is in Add. ms. 14,422.

For the viceroyalty of Arthur Capel, Earl of Essex (1672-7), his correspondence
in 22 vols., formerly part of the Stowe collection and now in the British Museum,
is the principal and indispensable source of information. A copy of the rules for
the regulation of corporations (1672) is in Trinity College, Dublin, F. 1. 2.

Clarendon's letters have been published; but a collection of those of his
successor, the Duke of T3rrconnel, at present scattered about in all directions, is
one of the chief desiderata of Irish history.

For the Revolution and War in Ireland the most important documents have been
published. But among the unpublished sources are (1) a collection of seven folio
volumes, containing some original letters from James II to Hamilton, during the
siege of Derry, preserved in the Royal Irish Academy, Dublin; (2) the corre-
spondence of George Clarke, secretary-at-war (1690-4), in 13 volumes, preserved in
Trinity College, Dublin, K. 5. 1-13, partly used by W. Harris for his Life of
William III (cf. fol. ed., p. 264 note) ; (3) a volume of Nairne Papers (1689-1701)
in the Carte Collection, vol. clxxxi ; (4) papers formerly belonging to Sir Robert
and Edward Southwell, principal secretaries of State in Ireland. These papers, at
one time in the collection of Sir Thomas Fhillipps of Middle Hill, Cheltenham, are
now divided between the British Museum, Trinity College, Dublin, and the Public
Record Office, Dublin. For Ireland for the period in question the following are of
importance: — ^Trinity College, Dublin, i. 6. 9, 3 vols., especially vol. ii. No. 36, for
the Proclamation of 7 July, 1691 (cf. T. K. Abbott's Catalogue of mss., pp. 213-20) ;
Public Record Office, Dublin, volumes numbered 132, 137 and especially 141-5,

Bihliography. 831

containing an account of William's progresB In Ireland (cf. Deputy-Keeper's Report,
XXX, pp. 37-9 and App. i, pp. 44-68) ; (5) a considerable mass of only partly used
material in the Archives dee Affaires !^trang6res, Paris. Among documents of
minor importance attention may be called to some letters of James II relating to
Derry and a list of families who fled from Ireland circa 1688, in Tiinity College,
Dublin, E. 2. 19 and F. 4. 3 ; a journal from London relating to the relief of
Londonderry etc. 1689, in the Royal Irish Academy ; and some legal proceedings
arising out of the Rebellion, in the Public Record Office, Dublin (cf. Deputy-
Keeper's Report, xvii, App. i, pp. 16-19).

For the period immediately following the Revolution we are dependent almost
entirely on the Rolls Office and the Clarke and Southwell collections already
mentioned. In connection with the proceedings arising out of the Act of Resump-
tion reference should be made to the "Trustees' Surveys" in 13 vols, in the Public
Record Office, of which a catalogue was published in the Record Commissioners
Eighth Report (1819), App. m, pp. 334-62 and 613-21 ; and to Brit Mus. Add.
MSB. 13,966, 14,406, 17,608, 17,774, 18,022 and 18,718.

II. PRINTED DOCUMENTS, PAMPHLETS AND AUTHORITIES
MAINLY CONTEMPORARY.

A. A. The sad estate and condition of Ireland.. .with the Declaration... for dis-
arming all Protestants. London. 1689.
Abstract of the claims of.. .Innocents in the city and county of Dublin. Dublin.

1663.
Account of the Public Affairs of Ireland since the discovery of the late Plot

London. 1679.
Account of the Transactions of the late King James in Ireland. London. 1690.
Adair, P. A true Narrative of the.. .Presbyterian Church in Ireland (1623-70).

Ed. W. D. Killen. Belfast 1866.
Aickin, J. Londerias. Dublin. 1699.
Animadversions on the proposal for sending back the nobility and gentry of Ireland.

London. 1690.
Aphorisms relating to the kingdom of Ireland etc London. 1689. Harl. Misc.

Vol. v. Somers Tracts. Vol. ii.
Apology for the Protestants of Ireland etc. London. 1689. Somers Tracts.

Vol. II. Dutch trans. Amsterdam. 1689.
Apology for the failures charged on... Walker's account (of the siege of London-
derry). London. 1689.
Arguments for and against the Bill for prohibiting the exportation of woollen

manufactures from Ireland. London. 1698.
Ash, T. Narrative of the Siege of Londonderry.

Atwood, W, Thehistoryandreasonsof the Dependency of Ireland. London. 1698.
Aungier, Francis, Lord. The state of His Majesty's Revenue in Ireland. Savoy.

1673.
Berwick, E. The Rawdon Papers. London. 1819.
Boyse, J. A Vindication of.. .Alexander Osborne in.. .the affairs of the north etc.

London. 1690.
Brief Character of Ireland. London. 1692.
Burnet, G. (Bishop of Salisbury). History of My Own Time. 6 vols. Oxford.

1823.
Bunidge, E. Jus Regium, or the King's right to grant Forfeitures. London. 1701.
Bussy-Rabutin, R. Comte de. Correspondance avec sa famille et ses amis, 1666-93.

Ed. L. Lalanne. 6 vols. 1858.

832 Ireland, 1660-1700.

Campana de Cavelli, Marquise de. Les derniers Stuarts. 2 vols. Paris. 1871.
Caron, R. Loyalty asserted and the late Remonstrance... confirmed etc. London.
1662.

Remonstrantia Hibemorum Lovaniens. etc. [London.] 1666.

Carrol, J. A Narrative of the Popish Plot in Ireland etc. London. 1681.
Carte, T. • History of the Life of James, Duke of Ormond (1610-88). 3 vols.

London. 1736. 6 vols. Oxford. 1851.
Gary, J. A Vindication of the Parliament of England. London. 1698.
Case of the Forfeitures in Ireland fairly stated etc. London, 1700.
Character of the Protestants of Ireland. London. 1689.
Clarendon, Henry Earl of. State Letters. 2 vols. Oxford. 1765. Dublin. 1765.

Ed. S. W. Singer (enlarged). 2 vols. London. 1828.
Clarke, J. S. Life of James IL 2 vols. London. 1816. Pt. iv.
Considerations concerning Ireland... in respect of an Union, [London.] 1690.
Count O'Hamlyn's (O'Hanlon) Downfall. Dublin. 1681.
Cox, Sir R. Hibernia-Anglicana. 2 vols. London. 1689.
Croker, T. C. Narratives Illustrative of the Contests in Ireland in 1641 and 1690.

London. 1841.
Dalrymple, Sir J. Memoirs. 3 vols. London. 1790. Vol. in.
Dangeau, P. de C, Marquis de. Journal 1684^1720. Edd. E. Soutre, L. Dussieux

etc. 19 vols. Paris. 1854^60.
D'Avaux, Comte. Negociations...en Irlande, 1689-90. [Privately printed at the

expense of the Foreign OflSce.] 1830.
Davies, R. (Dean of Cork); Journal of (1688-90). Ed. R. Caulfield. (Camden

Soc.) London. 1837.
Declaration and Remonstrance of the... gentlemen of the Roman Catholic religion

in Ireland, 1662. Somers Tracts. Vol. vii.
Declaration of the General Convention of Ireland etc. London. 1660.
[De La Brune, G. ?] Histoire de la Revolution d'lrlande arrivee sous Guillaume III.

Amsterdam. 1691.
Diary of the Siege of Athlone by an engineer of the anny, London. 1691.
Diary of the Siege of Limerick. London. 1692.
Dineley or Dingley, T. Observations on a Voyage through.. .Ireland. ..in.. .1681.

Dublin. 1870.
Discourse on the woollen manufactures of Ireland. London. 1698.
Dumont de Bostaquet. Memoires in^its. Paris. 1864.
Dunton, J. Account of Ireland. London. 1699.
Edmundson, W., A Journal of the Life, Travels, Sufferings and Labours of. Dublin

and London. 1715.
Essay upon the advancement of trade in Ireland. Dublin. 1673.
Essex, Arthur (Capel), Earl of. Letters. London. 1770. Dublin. 1773.

Papers, 1672-9. Ed. O. Airy. (Camden Soc.) London. 1890.

Exact Relation of the persecutions sustained by the Protestants of Ireland, London.

1689.
Faithful History of the northern affairs of Ireland... to the siege of Londonderry.

London. 1690.
Fitzgerald, D. A Narrative of the Irish Popish Plot etc. London. 1680.
Fitzjames, J., Due de Bertrick. Memoires. 2 tom. Paris. 1778. Trans. London.

1779.
[French, N., Bishop of Ferns.] A Narrative of the Earl of Clarendon's settlement

and sale of Ireland. Trans. R^cit exact... de la vente etc. (Paris?) 16U6

Reprinted with the title Iniquity display'd. London. 1700.
Full and impartial Account of all the Secret Consults of the Romish party in

Ireland (1660-89). London. 1690.

Bibliography. 833

Full and true Account of the landing and reception of the late King James at

Kinsale. London. 1689.
Full and true Account of a new Hellish Popish Plot. London. 1679.
GUbert, J. T. Calendar of Ancient Records of Dublin. 11 vols. Dublin. 1889-1904.

A Jacobite Narrative of the War in Ireland, 1688-91. Dublin.

Grinkel, G. de. Earl of Athlone. An exact Journal of the victorious progress of

General Ginckle. London. 1691.
Grimblot, P. Letters of William IIL 2 vols. London. 1848.
H. J. An Account of the Transactions in the north of Ireland. [London ?] 1692.

Argument proving that it is the interest of England that the forfeited estates

be purchased by an incorporated company. London. 1701.

Hamjll, W. A View of the Danger and Folly of being public spirited. s.L 1721.
Hamilton, A. A true Relation of the actions of the Inuiskilling Men etc. London.

1690.
Hamilton, W. The exemplary Life and Character of James Bonnell, Esq. 3rd edn.

London. 1707.
Hamilton mss. Ed. T. K. Lowiy. Belfast. 1867.

Harris, W. History of the Life and Reign of William IIL Dublin. 1749.
Historical mss. Commission :

Marquis of Bath. 4th Rep. App. p. 247.

Lord de Ros. (Ginkel's Letters.) 4th Rep. App. p. 317*

Sir A. Malet. 5th Rep. p. 317.

Earl of Fingall. 10th Rep. App. v. 1885.

Duke of Hamilton. 11th Rep. App. vi. 1887.

House of Lords (1689-90). 12th Rep. App. vi. 1889.

S. H. Le Fleming, Esq. 12th Rep. App. vii. 1890.

Duke of Portland. 14th Rep. App. n. 1894.
History of the Ministerial Conduct of the chief Governors of Ireland from 1688 to...

1763. London. 1764.
Horrid Conspiracie of such... as intended a new rebellion in... Ireland. London.

1663.
In nomine Sanctissimae Trinitatis vera descriptio modemi status Catholicorum in

Regno Hiberniae etc. 1667.
Information of Eustace Comyne as to the Popish Plot. London. 1680.
Interest of England in the preservation of Ireland. London. 1689.
Ireland Preserved : or The Siege of Londonderry etc. Dublin. 1730.
Ireland's Lamentation etc. London. 1689.
Ireland's sad Lamentation etc. London. 1680.
Irish Hudibras. London. 1689.

Journals of the House of Commons (England and Ireland).
Journal of the Proceedings of the Parliament in Ireland. London. 1689.
Just Vindication of the Protestants of Ireland.. .with reflections on... The Character

of the Protestants etc. London. 1689.
King, W. (Archbishop of Dublin). State of the Protestants of Ireland. London.

1691.
[Kirkpatrick, J.] Historical Essay upon the loyalty of the Presbyterians. Belfast.

1713.
Lascelles, J. Liber Munerum publicorum Hiberniae. 2 vols. Ix)ndon. 1824.

Index in Ninth Report of the Deputy-Keeper of Public Records in Ireland.

App. III. Dublin. 1877.
Letter from a gentleman in Ireland.. .upon...A Vindication of.. .Richard earl of

Tyrconnel. Dublin. 1688.
Letter from a souldier to the Commons of England etc. London. 1702.
Letter to a Member of Parliament relating to the Irish Forfeitures. London. 1701.

0. M. H. V. CH. X. 53

834 Ireland, 1660-1700.

Leslie, C. An Answer to a Book intituled The State of tlie Protestants in Ireland.

London. 1692.
Life and Death of the incomparable... Tory R. O'Hanlyn (O'Hanlon). Dublin. 1682.
List of the claims as they are entered with the Trustees at Chichester House...

Dublin, 1700. Dublin. 1701.
Luttrell, N. Brief Historical Relation of State Affairs. 6 vols. Oxford. 1857.
MacCormick, W. A further impartial Account of the Actions of the Inniskilling

Men etc. London. 1691. Dungannon. 1896.
MacKenzie, J. A Narrative of the siege of Londonderry etc. London. 1690.

Ed. W. D. Killen. Belfast. 1861.
Macpherson, J. Original Papers. London. 1776.
Manby, P. The considerations which obliged Peter Manby, Dean of Deny, to

embrace the Catholique Religion. Dublin. 1687.
Memoirs of Ireland from Uie Restoration to the present times etc. London. 1716.
Moderate Cavalier : or The Soldier's Description of Ireland. London. 1675.
Molyneux, W. The Case of Ireland... stated. Dublin. 1698.
Moran, P. F. Spicilegium Ossoriense. 3 vols. Dublin. 1878. Vol. ii.
Murphy,E. The Present State ofIreland...particularly of Ulster etc. London. 1681.
New Proposal for raising more money for the speedy reduction of Ireland. [London.

1689.]
O'Kelly, C. Macariae Excidium. Ed. J. C. O'Callaghan. Dublin. 1846. Ed.

Count Plunket and E. Hogan under the title The Jacobite War in Ireland.

Dublin. 1894.
Ormond Manuscripts. Edd. J. T. Gilbert and C. L. Falkiner. (In progress.)

(Hist. Mss. Comm.) London. 1895-.
Orrery, R. Earl of. An Answer to a scandalous Letter... by P. Walsh etc. London.

1662.

State Letters. 2 vols. London. 1742.

Parker, R. Memoirs of the military transactions... in Ireland etc. Dublin. 1746.

Petty, Sir W. Political Anatomy of Ireland. London. 1672.

Popish (The) Champion: or a complete histoiy of the Life... of Richai-d Earl of

Tyrconnel etc. London. 1689.
Proposals for Irish Forfeitures with regard to law and good conscience. [London.

1699.]
Proposal for sending back the nobility and gentry of Ireland etc. London. 1690.
Proposals for raising a million of money out of the Irish Forfeitures. London.

1694.
Reflections on... A Faithful History of the northern affairs of Ireland. Dublin. 1691.
Reflections on. ..An Apology for... Walker's True Account of the siege of London-
derry. London. 1689.
Reilly, H. Ireland's Case briefly stated. 2 pts. London. 1695.
Relation of the bloody massacres in Ireland, acted by... the Jesuits etc. London.

1689.
Relation of what happened during the last campaign in Ireland. Dublin. 1689.
Report of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the Irish Forfeitures, 1699.

London. 1700.
Reresby, Sir J. Memoirs. London. 1734.

Sad and lamentable condition of the Protestants in Ireland. London. 1689.
Sad estate and condition of Ireland, London. 1689.
Samson, T. A Narrative of the late Popish Plot. London. 1680.
Second Report of the Trustees for the sale of Forfeited estates in Ireland. London.

1701.
Several Informations of John Macnamara... relating to the Popish Plot. London.

1680.

BibliogrcCphy. 835

[Shirley, J.] The true impartial History and Wars of.. .Ireland. 2nd edn. London.

1692.
Short View of Both Reports in relation to the Irish Forfeitures etc. London. 1701.
Short View of the Methods mad& use of in Ireland for the subversion of the

Protestant Religion. London. 1689.
Speke, H. Memoirs of the most remarkable passages... of the Revolution. Dublin.

1709.
State of Ireland, with a vindication of the Act of Settlement. London. 1688.
State of the Popish and Protestant properties in.. .Ireland in.. .1641. ..1653.. .1662

and this present year 1689. London. 1689.
State Papers relating to Ireland, 1660-, Calendar of. (In progress.) Ed. R. P.

Mahaffy. London. 1905-.
State Papers of the reign of William III, Calendar of. Ed. W. J. Hardy. Vols.

i-m. London. 1896.
[Story, G., Dean of Limerick.] A True and Impartial History of the. ..Wars of

Ireland. London. 1691.

A Continuation of the Impai-tial History of the Wars of Ireland. London.

1693.

Stuart Mss., Calendar of. (Hist. mss. Comm.) 2 vols. London. 1902.

Taafe, Viscount. Observations on affairs in Ireland from the settlement in 1691.

Dublin. 1766.
Temple, Sir W. An Essay upon the advancement of Trade in Ireland. London.

1680.
Tindal, N. History of England (in continuation of Rapin). Vol. in. London. 1744.
True Account of the whole proceedings of Parliament in Ireland. London. 1689.

Somers Tracts. Vol. iv.
True Account of the present State of Ireland. London. 1689. Somers Tracts.

Vol. III.
True and Impartial Account of the most remarkable passages in Ireland since

December, 1680 etc. London. 1689.
True and perfect Journal of the affairs of Ireland since H.M.'s arrival. London.

1690.
True Narrative of the murders etc. perpetrated on the Protestants in Ireland.

London. 1690.
True Representation... how matters were carried. ..in Ireland by the late King

James. London. 1689.
Truncheon, J., Esq. (pseitd.). The Secret History of the Trust. London. 1702.
Vernon, J. Letters illustrative of the reign of William III, 1698-1708. Ed.

G. P. R. James. 3 vols. London. 1841.
Vindication of the present government... under... Richard earl of Tyrconnel.

London. 1688.
Voornaame tydinge uyt lerland etc. Amsterdam. 1689.
Walker, G. A True Account of the siege of Londonderry. London. 1689.

A Vindication of the True Account. London. 1689.

Walsh, P. The Answer to the exceptions... to the late printed Remonstrance etc.
London. 1662.

The History and Vindication of the... Irish Remonstrance. London. 1674.

[Waltenhall, E.] The Case of the Irish Protestants. London. 1691.

Weighty Queries i-elating to the past, present and future state of Ireland. London.

1691.
Yarranton, A. England's Improvements by sea and laud. London. 1677.
Yerlant veriest etc. Amsterdam. 1690.

63-

836 Ireland, 1660-1700.

III. LATER AUTHORITIES.

Agnew, D. C. A. life of Henri de Ruvigny, Earl of Gfalway. Edinburgh. 1864.

Protestant Exiles from France. 2 vols. Edinburgh. 1871.

Ball, J. T. Historical Review of the Legislativte Systems operative in Ireland,

1172-1800. Dublin. 1882.
Bellesheim, A. Geschichte der Katholischen Kirche in Irland. 3 vols. Mainz.

1890-1.
Blake, M. Blake Family Records. 2nd Series. (1600-1700.) London. 1906.
Bonn, M. J. Die englische Kolonisation in Irland. 2 vols. Berlin. 1906.
Bradshaw, W. H. Enniskillen Long Ago. Dublin. 1892.
Browne, A. A Brief Review.. .whether the Articles of Limerick have been violated.

Dublin. 1788.
Cane, R. William and Jacobite Wars in Ireland. [Unfinished.] Dublin, n.d.
Carey, M. Vindiciae Hibernicae. 2nd edn. Philadelphia. 1822.
Christie, W. D. Life of Ashley Cooper, Earl of Shaftesbury. London. 1871.
Cork and Orrery, Countess of. Orrery Papers. London. 1903.
Crawford, W. History of Ireland. 2 vols. Strabane. 1783.
Crolly, G. Life and Death of Oliver Plunket, Primate of Ireland. Dublin. 1850.
Curry, J. History and Critical Review of the Civil Wars in Ireland. Dublin. 1810.
D' Alton, J. King James's Irish Army List, 1689. Dublin. 1865. 2nd edn. 1861.
Davis, T. The Patriot Parliament of 1689. Ed. Sir C. G. Duffy. London. 1893.
Dix, E. R. M^C. Catalogue of early Dublin printed Books (1601-1700). Dublin.

1898.
Dowd, J. Limerick and its Sieges. Limerick. 1890.
Dwyer, P. The Siege of Derry in 1689. London. 1893.
Falkiner, C. Litton. Illustrations of Irish History. London. 1904.
Fitzmaurice, Lord E. Life of Sir W. Petty. London. 1896.
Forbes, J. Memoirs of the Earls of Granard. London. 1868.
Froude, J. A. The English in Ireland. 3 vols. London. 1887.
Gosse, E. Jeremy Taylor. (English Men of Letters.) London. 1904.
Graham, J. History of Ireland from the Relief of Londonderry to the Surrender of

Limerick. Dublin. 1839.

History of the siege of Londonderry. Dublin. 1829.

Hardinge, W. H. On manuscript, mapped and other Townland Surveys in Ireland.
2 pts. Dublin. 1864-6.

On an unpublished Essay on Ireland by Sir W. Petty, 1687. Dublin. 1866.

Hassencamp, R. Geschichte Irlands. Leipzig. 1886.

Hempton, J. The siege and history of Londonderry. Derry. 1861.
Hutchinson, J. H. The Commercial Restraints of Ireland considered. Dublin.

1779. Ed. W. G. Carroll. Dublin. 1888.
Ingram, T. D. Two Chapters of Irish History. London. 1888.

Critical Examination of Irish History. 2 vols. London. 1900.

Killen, W. D. Ecclesiastical History of Ireland. 2 vols. London. 1876.
King, Sir C. S. A Great Archbishop of Dublin (King). London. 1906.
Klopp, O. Der Fall des Hauses Stuart. 14 vols. Vienna. 1876-88. [Vol. v.]
Latimer, W. T. History of the Irish Presbyterians. 2nd edn. Belfast. 1902.
Lecky, W. E. H. History of England in the eighteenth century. 8 vols. London.

1877-90. Ireland published separately. 6 vols. London. 1892.
LeIand, T. History of Ireland. 3 vols. London. 1773.
Macartney-Filgate, E. The War of AVilliam III in Ireland. Dublin. 1906.
Macaulay, Lord. History of England. 8 vols. London. 1858-62.
MacGeoghegan, J. Histoire de I'lrlande. 3 vols. Amsterdam. 1768-62. [Vol. in.]
Mackay, J, Life of General Hugh Mackay. Edinburgh. 1836.

Bibliography. 837

Madden^ R. R. History of the Penal Laws. London. 1847.

Mant, R. (Bishop of Down). History of the Church of Ireland. 2 vols. London.

1840.
Mathews, T. An Account of the O'Dempseys of Clan-Maliere. Dublin. 1906.
Moran, P. F. (Cardinal). Memoirs of the Most Rev. Oliver Plunket Dublin.

1861.
Monutmorres, Lord. The History of the Principal Transactions of the Irish

Parliament, 1634^66. 2 vols. London. 1792.
MuUalla, J. View of Irish Affairs from 1688-1796. Dublin. 1796.
Murray, Alice E. Commercial Relations between £ngland and Ireland. London.

1903.
O'CaUaghan, J. C. History of the Irish Brigades in... France. Dublin. 1864.
O'Conor, M. Military History of the Irish Nation (1660-1760). Dublin. 1846.
Prendergast, J. P. Ireland from the Restoration to the Revolution. London. 1887.
Ranke, L. von. History of England. Engl, trans. 7 vols. Oxford. 1876.
Reid, J. S. History of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland. Ed. W. D. Killen.

3 vols. Belfast. 1867.
Studies in Irish History. Ed. R. B. O'Brien. Dublin. 1903.
Todhunter, J. Life of Patrick Sarsfield. London. 1896.
Two Centuries of Irish History (1691-1870). London. 1888. 2nd edn. enlarged.

London. 1907.
Ulster Journal of Archaeology. Belfast. 1863 etc. :

Vol. I. French Settlers in Ireland.

Vol. II. Biographical Notes on Rev. George Walker.

Vol. IV. Two unpublished Diaries connected with the Battle of the Boyne.

Vol. V. Richard Talbot, Duke of Tyrconnel.
Wight, T. History of the... Quakers in Ireland (1663-1700). Dublin. 1761.

2nd edn. enlarged. Dublin. 1800.
Wilde, Sir W. R. The Beauties of the Boyne etc. 2nd edn. Dublin. 1860.
Witherow, T. Memorials of Presbyterianism in Ireland (1623-1731). Belfast. 1879.

Derry and Enniskillen in 1689. Belfast. 1885.

Wood-Martin, W, 6. Sligo and the Enniskillenera. 2nd edn. Dublin. 1882.

[iSee also Bibliography to Chapter XVUI of Vol. Ill (m,, c).]

838

CHAPTER XL

TOLERATION IN ENGLAND.

The following works deal more specially with the growth of Toleration in
England from Oliver Cromwell to the year 1690. Information on the subject will
of course be also found in the standard histories, the diarists, and the collections of
tracts, for which see Bibliographies to Chapters xii, xv and xix of vol. iv, and to
Chapters v and ix, vi, and x of the present volume.

I. CONTEMPORARY AUTHORITIES.

Baxter, Richard. Reliquiae Baxterianae, or Mr Richard Baxter's Narrative of the

most memorable passages of his Life and Times. Ed. M. Sylvester. London.

1696. [For the voluntary discipline at Kidderminster.]
Of National Churches, their description, institution, uses, preservation,

danger, maladies and cure; partly applied to England. London. 1691.
Burnet, Gilbert (Bishop of Salisbury). History of My Own Time. Ed. O. Airy.

2 vols. Oxford. 1897.
Burton, Thomas. Diary. [1664-9.] 4 vols. London. 1828. [Vols, i and ii,

Nayler's case.]
Cakmy, Edm. Account of my own Life. 2 vols London. 1829-30.
Cosin, John, Bishop of Durham, Correspondence of. Surtees Society's Publ. 1872.
[Croft, Herbert, Bishop of Hereford.] The Naked Truth, or The True State of the

Primitive Church. By an Humble Moderator. London. 1675.
Answered by

(1) [Fell, S.] Lex Talionis, or the Author of Naked Truth stript naked.

London. 1676.

(2) Animadversions on a Late Pamphlet entitled The Naked Truth ; or the

True State of the Primitive Church. London. 1676.

(3) A Modest Survey of the most considerable things in a Discourse Lately

Published, entitled Naked Truth. London. 1676.
Gauden, John, D.D., Bishop Elect of Exeter. Considerations touching the liturgy

of the Church of England, In reference to His Majesties late gracious Declaration,

And in order to an happy Union in Church and State. 44 pp. London. 1661.
Halifax, Marquis of. See Foxcroft, H. C. under II infra.
Lestrange, Roger. Interest mistaken or the Holy Cheat: proving that the design

of the Presbyterians is to enslave both King and People under the Masque of

Religion. 4to. 160 pp. London. 1661.
Locke, John. Letters on Toleration. London. 1689.
[Robinson, H.] Liberty of Conscience, or the sole means to obtaine Peace and Truth.

March 24, 164S. [See account by S. R. Gardiner. English Historical Review,

I, 144 and ix, 715.]
Scheme of Toleration propounded at Uxbridge, 1646. Publ. by S. R. Gardiner

in English Historical Review, ii, 340.
Stillingileet, Edward. Irenicum, a weapon-salve for the Churches Wounds. London.

1659.

Bibliography. 839

Taylor, Jeremy (Bishop of Down and Connor). A discourse of the liherty of

Prophesying, with its just limits and temper, shewing the unveasonahleness of

prescrihing to other men's faith, and the iniquity of persecuting differing

opinions. London. 1647.
Thorndike, H. A Discourse of the Forbearance, or the Penalties which a due

Reformation requires. London. 1670.
Tillotson, John (Archbishop of Canterbury). Life by Dr Thos. Birch. London.

1752.
[Tomliins, T.] The Modern Pleas for Comprehension, Toleration, and The taking

away the Obligation to the Renouncing of the Covenant, Considered and

Discussed. London. 1676.
Tracts on Liberty of Conscience and Persecution, 1614-61. Edited for the Hanserd

Knollys Society by E. B. Underbill. London. 1846.
Williams, Roger. The Bloudy Tenent of Persecution. Edited for the Hanserd

Knollys Society by E. B. Underbill. London. 1848,

IL LATER WRITERS.

Brown, Louise F. The Religious Factors in the Convention Parliament. English

Historical Review, xxu, 51, January 1907. [Never Presbyterian majority.

Presbyterian and Independent majority at first; Royalist later.]
lyOyly, G. Life of Sancroft. 2 vols. London. 1821.

Foxcroft, H. C. The life and Letters of Sir George Savile, Bart., First Marquis
. of Halifax etc. ; with a new edition of his works, now for the first time collected

and revised. 2 vols. London. 1898.
Gardiner, S. R. A scheme of Toleration in 1645. English Historical Review, ii,

340. 1887.

Cromwell's place in history. London. 1897.

Goochj G. P. History of English democratic ideals in the seventeenth century.

Cambridge. 1898. [Contains abundant references.]
Hunt, J. Religious Thought in England, from the Reformation to the end of the

last Century. 3 vols. London. 1870.
Hutton, W. H. The English Church from the accession of Charles I to the death

of Anne (1625-1714). London. 1903.
Inderwick, F. A. The Interregnum (a.d. 1648-60). Studies of the Commonwealth,

Legislative, Social, and Legal. London. 1891. [Especially for modern aspect

of its legislation.]
Lathbury, T, History of the Convocation of the Church of England. London.

1842, 1853.
Massou, David. Life of Milton. 6 vols. London. 1873. 2nd edition of vol. i.

1881. [History of Toleration traced m, 98-169 to 1647.]
Overton, J. H. Life in the English Church (1660-1714). London. 1886. (With

Bibliography.)
Plumptre, E. H. (Dean of Bath and Wells). Life of Thomas Ken, D.D., Bishop of

Bath and Wells. 2 vols. London. 1888, 1890.
Pollock, John. The Popish Plot. London. 1903. (With Bibliography.)
Sayous, M. '&. Les derniers Stuarts et Guillaume III. In Lavisse and Rambaud's

Histoire Gen^rale du iv° Siecle a nos Jours. Vol. vj. Paris. 1895. (With

Bibliography.)
TuUoch, J. Rational Theology and Christian Philosophy in England in the

seventeenth century. 2 vols. Edinburgh. 1872, 1874.
Weingarten, H. Die Revolutionskirchen Englands. Ein Beitrag zur inneren

Geschichte der engl. Kirche und der Reformation. Leipzig. 1868.
Worcester, E. E. The Religious Opinions of John Locke. Leipzig. 1889.

[Sources traced in earlier writers.]

840

CHAPTER XII.

AUSTRIA, POLAND AND TURKEY.

For a bibliography of Polish History, see Dr Ludwig Finkel, Bibliographia
Historyi Polskiej. 3 vols. Cracow. 1891-1904.

I. CONTEMPORARY AUTHORITIES.

A. General, including Countries not speoipibd in other Subsections.

Acta Historica res gestas Poloniae illustrantia, 1607-1795. Vol. vi. (Akta do dziejow
krola Jana III sprawy roku 1683 [specially relating to the relief of Vienna] ;
ed. F. Kluczycki.) Cracow. 1883.

Barozzi, N. and Berchet, G. Relazioni degli stati Europei lette al Senato degli
ambasciatori Veneti nel secolo decimo-settimo. Serie v. Turchia. 3 vols.
Venice. 1871-77.

Dumont, J. (Baron de Carlscroon). Corps Universel Diplomatique. With Supple-
ment. 5 vols in 7. Amsterdam. 1739.

GeiFroy, A. Recueil des instructions donndes aux ambassadeurs et ministres de
France en Suede. Paris. 1886.

Lexington Papers, the, or Some account of the Courts of London and Vienna at the
conclusion of the seventeenth century, extracted from the official and private
correspondence of Robert Sutton, Lord Lexington, British Minister at Vienna,
1694r-8. Selected and edited by H. Manners Sutton. London. 1851.

Liinig, J. C. Literae procemm Europae, 1572-1701. 3 vols. Leipzig. 1714.

Sylloge publieorum negotiorum, 1674^1702. 2 vols. Frankfort and Leipzig,

1694-1702.

Mignet, F. A. M. Negociations relatives a la succession d'Espagne sous Louis XIV.
4 vols. Paris. 1836-42. [Invaluable for the student of eastern as of western
history in the later 17th century.]

Rambaud, A. Recueil des instructions donn^es aux ambassadeurs et ministres en
Russie. 2 vols. Paris. 1890.

Saint-Prest, J. Y. de. Histoire des Traites de Paix et autres Negociations du 17°"
Siecle. . (Introduction au Corps Universel Diplomatique de Dumont.) 2 vols.
Amsterdam, 1725.

B. The Austrian Dominions, iNOLuniNO Hungary, and the Empire.

Acta conjurationis Bani P. Zrinio et Com. Fr. Frangepani illustrantia, collegit

Fr. Racki. Agram. 1873.
Farkas, Deak. Graf Toekoely Imre levelei. (Letters of Tokolyi to Michael Teleki

and to the Prince of Transylvania, Michael Apaffi.) Budapest. 1882.

Sibliography. 841

Fiedler, J. Relationen der Botschafter Venedigs iiber Deutschland und Oesterreich

im siebzehnteh Jahrhundert. Vol. u. K. Leopold I. (Pontes Rerum Austria-

carum, vol. xxvii.) Vienna. 1867.
Flamitzer, Johann Nicolaus. Ewige Vermahlung des glorwurdigsten Erz-Hauses

Oesterreich mit der Ungarischen Konigs-Cron. Niirnberg. 1688.
Gerando, A. de. La Transylvanie et ses habitants. 2 vols. Paris. 1846.

[Vol. I contains some account of the history of Transylvania in the l7th

century, and the appendix gives a curious Austrian attack on Louis XIV in the

form of a prayer supposed to be offered to the French king by the Vizier Kara

Mustapha in 1686.]
Heller, F. Prinz Eugen : militarische Correspondenz (1649-1706). 2 vols.

Vienna. 1848.
Histoire d'!6meric comte de Tekeli. Cologne. 1693. Published in the same year

in English (London), and in German (Berlin).
Historia Diplomatica de Statu Religionis Evangelicae in Hungaria. Frankfort.

1710.
Hungary. — Scriptores rerum hungaricainim. Vols, xxiii, xxiv, xxvii.
Leopold I. Corrispondenza epistolare tra Leopoldo I imp. ed il P. Marco d' Aviano

Capuccino. Ed. O. Klopp. Graz. 1688.
Lisola, F. von. Die Berichte des Kaiserl. Gesandten Franz von Lisola a. d. J.

1656-60. Mit einer Einleitung, hrsgbn. von A. F. Pribram. Vienna. 1887.
Liinig, J. C. Teutsche Reichs-Canzlei, oder auserlesene Briefe seit dem West-

phalischen bis auf den Rastadtischen Frieden. 8 vols. Leipzig. 1714.
Michiels, A. Histoire secrete du gouvernement autrichien. Paris. 1861. 4th

ed. 1879.
Montecuccoli, Fiirst R. Ausgewahlte Schriften. Ed. A. Veltze. 4 vols. Vienna.

1899-1901.
Pachner, J. J. von EggenstorfF. Vollstandige Sammlung aller von Anfang d. noch

furwahrend. Teutschen Reichstags d. a. 166S bis anhero abgefassteu Reichs-

abschlusse. 4 vols. Ratisbon. 1740-7.
Perfetta e veridica relatione delle processi criminali et epecutioni delli medesimi

contro li tre Conti Francesco Nadasdi, Pietro di Zrin et Francesco Christoffero

Frangepani. Vienna. 1671.
Pribram, A. F. Die Berichte des Kaiserl. Gesandten Franz von Lisola aus den

Jahren 1666-80. Vienna. 1887.
Venetianische Depeschen vom Kaiserhofe. Vol. i. 1667-61. Vienna.

1901.
Pufendorf, E. Bericht iiber K. Leopold, seinen Hof u. die oesterreich. Politik,

1671-74. Hrsgbn. von K. G. Helbig. Leipzig. 1862.
Sorel, A. Recueil des instructidns donnees aux ambassadeurs et ministres de France

en Autriche. Paris. 1884.
Starhemberg, Count E. R. von. Vertrauliche Briefe d. Grafen E. R. von Starhem-

berg a. d. J. 1682-99. Hrsgbn. von V. v. Reuner. 2 parts. Vienna.

1890-1.

C. Poland.

Acta Historica res gestae Poloniae illustrantia, 1607-1796. Vol. ii. (Pisma do wiekn

i spraw Jana Sobieskiego ; ed. F. Kluczychi.) Cracow. 1880. Vols, m, v, vu.

(Archivum Frankuskie do Dziejow Jana iii.) lb. 1879-84.
D. (i.e. Dalerac, M.). Les anecdotes de Pologne, ou me'moires secrets du regne de

Jean Sobieski HI. 2 vols. Amsterdam. 1699.
Farges, L. Recueil des instructions donne'es aux ambassadeurs et ministres de

France en Pologne. 2 vols. Paris. 1888.

842 Austria, Poland and Turkey.

Sobieski, King John. Hyde, Laurence. Diary of the particular occurrences during
his embassy to John Sobieski, King of Poland, in 1676. Appendix to Vol. i
of Clarendon Correspondence ; ed. S. W. Singer. London. 1828.

Lettres a la feine Marie Casimire pendant la campagne de Vienne en 1683.

Traduites par M. le Comte Plater. Louvain. 1827.

Tag-Register von dem Feldzug, welchen die polnische Annee unter dem

Commando des Ober-Feld Herrn und Reichsmarschalks, Herm Johannis
Sobieski, durch Podolien und die Ukraina verrichtet, deme ich in Dienst
des frantzosischen Plenipotentiary, Marquisen des Courthonne und Abten
von Panlmiera, mit beygewohnet Anno 1671. In Scriptores Rerum Poloni-
carum. Vol. iv. Cracow. 1878.

Zaluski, Andreas Chrysostomus. Epistolae historico-familiares. 3 vols. Brunsberg.
1709-11. [Vols. I and ii cover the period 1667 to 1700.]

Mowy na radach. (Speeches delivered in the councUs and diets up to 1689.)

Kalisch. 1702.

D. The Ottoman Eiupire, including its Wars with the Empire, Hungary,

Poland and Venice.

Chassepol, Fran9ois de. The history of the grand visiers Mahomet and Achmet

Coprogli, and of the three last grand siguiors; Englished by John Evelyn.

London. 1677.
Coronelli. Description G^ographique et Historique de la Morde reconquise par les

Vdnitiens. Paris. 1687.
Galland, Antoine. Journal pendant son s^jour k Constantinople (1672, 1673).

Publie et annote par C. Schefer. 2 vols. Paris. 1881.
Gratianus, Joannes. Francisci Mauroceni Peloponnesiaci, Venetiarum principis,

gesta. Padua. 1698.
Hartnaccius (Dan.) PomeranuB. Bellorum inter Christianos et Turcos conspectio.

Hamburg. 1687.
Kochowski, Vespasianus. Commentarius belli adversum Turcas ad Viennam et

in Hungaria A. C. 1683, gesti ductu et auspiciis Joannis III regis Polonia-

rum. Cracow. 1684.
Lettre d'un bourgeois de Cologne a un ami sur la prise de Bude et sur les autres

affaires pf esentes. Cologne. 1684.
Locatelli, Alessandro. Historia della Veneta Guerra in Levante contro 1' Impero

Ottomano. 2 vols. Cologne. 1705.
Memoires de la guerre de Transilvanie et de Hongrie, entre I'empereur Leopold I

et le grand seigneur Mehemet IV. Georges Ragotski et les autres successeurs

princes de Transilvaiiie. 2 vols. Amsterdam., 1680.
Noi-th, Roger. Life of Dudley North. In Lives of the Norths, ed. A. Jessopp.

London. 1890.
Richards, Jacob. A journal of the siege and taking of Buda by the imperial army

in 1686. London. 1687.
Rycaut, Sir Paul. The history of the Turks, beginning with the year 1679, being

a full relation of the last troubles in Hungary, with the sieges of Vienna

and Buda etc., until the end of the year 1698 and 1699. London. 1700.
Shirley, John. A true account of the heroick actions of the confederate princes

against the Turks and Hungarian rebels during the last campaign ; but more

particularly the siege and taking of Newheusel. London. 1686.
Taaffe, Count. His letters from the imperial camp to his brother the earl of

Carlingford in London, giving an account of the most considerable actions,

both before, and at, the raising of the siege of Vienna, together with several

remarkable passages afterward in the victorious campagne against the Turks in

Hungary. London. 1684.

Bibliography. 843

Turldsche Urkunden den Rrieg des J&hres 1683 betreffend, nach den Aufzeich-

uungen des Marc Antonio Mannucha della Torre. Herausg. von V. von

Reuner. Vienna. 1888.
Vaelckeren, Joannes Petrus. Vienna a Turcis obsessa, a Christianis liberata ; sive

diarium obsidionis Viennensis a 6 Mali ad 16 Septembris. Vienna. 1688.
Vienna, Siege of (1683). — Tagebuch d. Grafen F. B. Harrach wahrend d. Bela-

gerung v. Wien, 1683. Mitgeth. von F. Men5ik. Vienna. 1899.

Rom u. Wien im J. 1683. Ausgew. Aktenstiicke aus Rom. Archiven zur

zweiten Sakularfeier d. Befreiung Wiens. Hrsgbn. von A, Sauer. Vienna.
1883.

II. LATER WORKS.

A. Gbnebal, including Countries not specified in othbb Subsections.
AbeliUj J. P. Theatrum Europaeum. 21 vols. Frankfort. 1636-1738. [Vols.

VIII-XVI.]

Immich, M. Geschichte des Europaischen Staatensystems von 1600-1789. Munich.
1905.

Papst Innocenz XI. 1676-89. Berlin. 1899.

Elopp, O. Der Fall des Hauses Stuart. 14 vols. Vienna. 1876-88.

[Contains many interesting references to Eastern history in relation to Western
politics.]

Das Jahr 1683 und der folgende grosse Tiirkenkrieg bis zum Frieden von

Carlowitz, 1699. Graz. 1882.

[The best general account of the history of eastern Europe during the period
covered by the chapter.]

B. The Austrian Dominions, including Hungary, and the Empire.

Acsady, Ignatius. Magyarorozag Budavar visszafoglasa Koroban. (Hungary at the
time of the re-conquest of Buda in 1686.) Budapest. 1886.

Ameth, A. Ritter von. Das Leben des K. Feldmarshalls Grafen Guide Starhem-
berg. Vienna. 1863.

Prinz Eugen von Savoyen. 2nd edn. 3 vols. Vienna. 1864.

Campori, C. Raimondo Montecucnli, la sua famiglia e i suoi tempi. Florence.

1876.
Erdmanned6r£Fer, B. Deutsche Geschichte vom Westfal. Frieden bis zum Regie-

rungsantritt Friedr. d. Grossen, 1648-1740. (Allg. Gesch. in Einzeldar-

stellungen.) 2 vols. Berlin. 1892-3.
Feldzuge des Prinzen Eugen von Savoy. Bearbeitet von Moriz edlen von Angeli.

Vols. 1 and ii (with Atlas). Vienna. 1876.
Fessler, J. A. Geschichte Ungarns. French tr. by J. J. HeUert. 18 vols.

1835-43.
Grossmann, J. Die Geschaftsordnung in Sachen d. ausseren Politik am Wiener

Hofe zu K. Leopolds und Lobkowitz' Zeiten. Forschungen zur Deutschen

Gesch. 12. ,. , J T

B. Montecuccoli. Ein Beitrag zur Oesterreich. Gesch.... vornehmL d. J.

1672-3. Archiv fur Oesterreich. Gesch. 67.

Heigel, K. T. von. Neue Beitrage zur Charakteristik K. Leopolds I. In Geschichtl.

Bilder und Skizzen. Munich. 1897.
Horvath, M. Geschichte der Ungarn. 2 vols. Budapest. 1861-6.
Huber,A. Geschichte Oesterreichs. (Gesch. d. Europ. Staaten.) Vols, i-v, Gotha.

1885-96.
[Vanel.] Histoire des troubles de Hongrie. Paris. 1686.

844 Austria, Poland and Turkey.

Joachim^ E. Die Entwicklung des Rheinbundes v. J, 1658. Acht Jahre reichs-

standiger Politik, Leipzig. 1886.
Karolyi, A. A magyar alkotmany felfiiggesztese 1673 ban. (The suspension of the

Hungarian constitution in 1678.) Budapest. 1882.
Katona, Stephanus. Historia Critica Regum Hungariae stirpis Austriacae. Buda-
pest. 1804. [Vols, xxxiii-xxxvi.]
Kausler, F. von. Das Leben des Prinzen Eugeu von Savoyen, hauptsachlicb aus

dem militarischen Gesichtspunkte. 2 vols. Freiburg i/B. 1838.
KroneSj Franz von. Zur Geschichte Ungarns (1671-83), mit besonderer Ruok-

sicht auf die Thatigkeit und die Geschicke des JesuitenordeAs. Archiv fiir

Oesterreichische Geschichte. Vol. lxxz. Vienna. 1894.
Lefaivre, Albert. Les Magyars pendant la domination Ottomane en Hongrie

(1626-1722). 2 vols. Paris. 1902.
Mailath, Count N. G. Geschichte der Magyaren. 6 vols. Vienna. 1828-37.
Geschichte Oesterreichs. (Gesch. d. Europ. Staaten.) 6 vols. Hamburg.

1834, 1836.
Mauvillon, E. Histoire du Prince Eugene de Savoie. 6 vols. Vienna. 1777.
Pauler, J. Wesselenyi Ferencz nada es tarsainak ffisszeekiiv^se. (The conspiracy

of Fr. Wessele'nyi and his accomplices.) 1664-1771. 2 vols. Budapest. 1877.
Pribram, A. F. Zur Wahl Leopold I, 1664-8. Archiv fur Oesterreichische

Geschichte. Bd lxxiii. Vienna. 1888.
Rinck, E. G. Leopold des Grossen Leben und Thaten. Leipzig. 1709.
Sayous, P. A. Histoire generale des Hongrois. 2 vols. Paris. 1876.
Sybel, H. von. Prinz Eugen von Savoyen. ' In Kleine Histor. Schriften. Vol. i.

3rd edn. Munich. 1880.
Thalloczy, Louis. Apassy Mihaly udvara. Budapest. 1879.
Wagner, F. Historia Leopoldi Magni Caesaris. 2 vols. Augsburg. 1719-31.
Wolf, A. Fiirst Wenzel Lobkowitz, erster geheimer Rath Kaisers Leopold's I,

1609-77; sein Leben und Wirken. Vienna. 1869.

C. Poland.

Coyer, Abbd Gabriel Fran9ois. Histoire de Jean Sobieski, roi de Pologne. 4 vols.

Amsterdam. 1761 and 1783.
Dupont, P. M^moires pour servir a I'histoire de Sobieski. Warsaw. 1886.
Hirsch, F. Die Wahl Joh. Sobieskis zum Konig von Polen, 1674. Hist.

Zeitschr. lxxvii.
Oziecki, F. De regni Poloniae candidatis deque electione Wisnowiecki. Halle.

1869.
Rieder, G. Johann III, Konig von Polen. Vienna. 1883.
Salvandy, Count N. A. de. Histoire du roi Jean Sobieski, et de I'Histoire de

Pologne avant et sous Jean Sobieski. New edn. 2 vols. Brussels. 1876.
Waliszewki, K. Marysienka. Marie de la Grange d'Arquien, queen of Poland,

1641-1716. Translated by Lady Mary Loyd. London. 1898.

D. The Oitouan Empire, inoludino its Wars with the Empire, Hunoart,

Poland and Venice.

Arrighi, Antonio. De vita et rebus Francisci Mauroceni libri quatuor. Padua.

1749.
Brosch, M. Geschichten aus dem Leben dreier Grosswesire (Mohammed Sokolli,

Mohammed and Ahmed Kiuprili). Gotha. 1899.
Bruzzo, G. Francesco Morosiui e la couquista della Morea. Venice. 1890.

Bibliography. 845

Cantetniru, Demetriu (Prince of Moldavia). Operele lui. Bucharest. 1875-83.

[Vols. I and ii contain the Descriptio Moldaviae and transl. ; vols, in and iv

the History of the Ottoman Empire.]
Contarinij G. Istoria della guerra di Leopoldo I contra il Turco (1683-90).

2 vols. Venice. 1710.
Finlay, G. History of Greece from b.o. 146 to a.d. 1864. Vol. v. Greece under

Othoman and Venetian Domination, a.d. 1463-1821. Oxford. 1877.
Hammer-Purgstallj J. Frhr. von. Geschichte des Osmanischen Reiohes. Vol. vi.

Budapest. 1830.
Huber, A. Oesterreich's diplomatische Beziehungen znr Pforte, 1668-64. Vienna.

1898.
Kabdelo, H. Bibliographie zur Geschichte der beiden Tiirkenbelagerungen Wien's.

Vienna. 1876.
Maiden, H. E. Vienna, 1683 : the Defeat of the Turks by John Sobieski. London.

1883.
Newald, J. Beitrage zur Geschichte der Belagerung von Wien durch die Tiirken

im Jahre 1683. Historische Studien. Vienna. 1883,
Pfister, F. von. Der Krieg von Morea in den Jahren 1687 und 1688. Cassel.

1846.
Popovic, Michajlo R. Der Friede von Karlowitz (1699). (Inaug. Diss.) Leipzig.

1893.
Pribram, A. F. Franz Paul Freiherr von Lisola (1613-74) und die Politik seiner

Zeit. Leipzig. 1894.
Ranke, L. von. Die Venetianer in Morea. Historisch-Politische Zeitschrift,

Vol. II. Berlin. 1836. Sammtl. Werke. Vol. xiii. Leipzig. 1878 etc.
Roder von Diersburg, P. Des Markgrafen Ludwig von Baden Feldzuge wider

die Turken. 2 vols. Karlsruhe. 1839-42.
Rycaut, Sir Paul. The History of the Turkish Empire from the year 1623 to the

year 1677, containing the reigns of the three last emperours, viz. sultan Morat

or Amurat IV, sultan Ibrahim and sultan Mahomet IV. London. 1680.
Schwencke, A. Geschichte der Hannoverschen Truppen in Griechenland, 1686-89.

Hanover. 1864.
Solaye, L. de La. Mdmoires ou Relation Militaire, contenant ce qui s'est passe de

plus considerable dans les attaques et dans la deffence de la ville de Candie

depuis I'annee 1646. Paris. 1670.
Uhlich, G. Geschichte der zweiten Turckischen Belagerung Wiens. Vienna.

1783.
Valiero, A. Storia della Guerra di Candia.
Vienna, Siege of (1683). Das Kriegsjahr 1683. Nach Akten u. a. authentischen

Quellen darg. in der Abt. f. Kriegsgesch. d. K. K. Kriegs-Archivs. Mitt.

d. K. K. Kriegs-Archivs. Jahrg. 1883. Vienna.
Zinkeisen, J. W. Geschichte des Osmanischen Reiches in Europa. (Geschichte

der Europ. Staaten.) 7 vols, and Index. Hamburg and Gotha. 1840-63.

[Vols. IV and v.]

846

CHAPTEK XIIL

THE TREATIES OF PARTITION AND THE
SPANISH SUCCESSION.

I. CONTEMPORARY AUTHORITIES.

(A) Documents^ Letters and Memoirs.

Abelin^ J. P. Theatrum Europaeum. 21 vols. Frankfort. 1636-1738. [Vol. vii.

1707.]
Archives ou Correspondance inedite de la Maison d'Orange-Nassau. Recueil publie

par Groen van Prinsterer. Deuxieme seriOj v, 1650-88. Utrecht. 1861.

Troisieme serie, publiee par P. T. L. Kramer. Vol. i. 1689-97. Leyden.

1907.
Barozzij N. and Berchet, G. Relazioni degli Stati Europei lette al Senato dagli

Ambasciatori Veneti, nel secolo decimosettimo. 2 vols. Venice. 1856-60.
Burnet, G. (Bishop of Salisbury). History of My Own Time. 6 vols. Oxford.

1823.
Coxe, W. Private and orig:inal correspondence of Charles Talbot, Duke of Shrews-
bury, with King William. London. 1821.
Crrimblot, P. Letters of William III and Louis XIV and of their ministers, 1697-

1700. 2 vols. London. 1848.
Harcourt, Marquis de. — Hippeau, C. Avenement des Bourbons au trone d'Espa^ne;

correspondance inedite du marquis d'Harcourt. 2 vols. Paris. 1876.
Hardwicke Papers, the. Miscellaneous State Papers, from 1501 to 1726. Vol. ii.

London. 1778.
Harrach, Count Ferd. Bonaventura von. Memoires et negociations secretes de

Ferdinand Bonaventura comte d'Harrach depuis I'annee 1695 jusqu'au traite

de partage. 2 vols. The Hague. 1720.

Tagebuch wahrend seines Aufenthaltes am epanischen Hofe 1697 und 1698.

Herausgegeben von A. Gaedecke. Archiv f. Oester. Gesch. 48. 1872.

Konige, der, in Hispanien, Leben, Regierung und Absterben, von Athanarico an

bis auf Carln den Andern. Niirnberg. 1684.
Lamberty, G. de. Memoires pour servir a I'histoire du xvin« siecle, contenant les

negociations, traitds, resolutions. 14 vols. 2nd edn. Amsterdam. 1736-40.
Louis XIV. Lettres aux princes de I'Europe, a ses generaux, a ses ministres etc.

recueillies par M. Rose. 2 vols. Paris. 1765.

Lettres au comte de Briord, ambassadeur extraordinaire de S. M. Tres

Chr^tienne aupres des !)&tats-Gen^raux, dans les ann^es 1700-1. La Haye.
1728.

Louville, Marquis de. Memoires secrets. 2 vols. Paris. 1818.
Macpherson, James. Original Papers. 2 vols. 1776.

Bibliography. 847

M^moires et ndgociations secretes de diverses Cours de I'Burope contenant ce qui s'y

est pass^ depuis le premier traite de partage de la succession d'Espagne jusqu'a

la paix de Bade suivie du traite de la Barriere. The Hague. 1721-6.
Memoires pour servir a I'histoire des negociations depuis le traits de Ryswick jusqu'a

la paix d'Utrecht. 3 vols. Paris. 1717.
Memoires de la Cour d'Espagne. The Hague. 1692.

Menor estad de Carlos II. (Minority of Charles 11.) Coll. des doc. indd. 67.
Mignet; F. A. M. Negociations relatives k la succession d'Espagne sous Louis XIV.

Collection des doc. ined. 4 vols. Paris. 1835-42.
Montalto. Cartas del duque de M. a Don Pedro Ronquillo, embajador de S. M. C.

en Inglaterra desde 3 de enero de 1685 hasta 30 de diciembre de 1688. Coll.

des doc. ined. 79.
Morel-Fatio, A. L'Espagne au xvi= et au xvii° siecle. Documents historiques et

litt^raires publics et annotes. Heilbronn, Paris and Madrid. 1878.
"N. N." La vita di Don Giovanni d' Austria figlio naturale di Filippo IV Re di

Spagna. Colonia. 1686.
Oesterreichische Staatsvertrage. England. Bearbeitet von A. F. Pribram. Vol. i :

1526-1748. Innsbruck. 1907.
Orleans, Elisabeth Charlotte Prinzessin von. Briefe. Edd. W. Menzel and

W. L. Holland. 6 vols. (Bibl. des Litterar. Vereins.) Stuttgart. 1843-81.

See RankCj L. v. Aus den Briefen der Herzogin v. Orleans Elisabeth Charlotte
an die Kurfurstin Sophie. (Franzos. Gesch. Sammtl. Werke, Vol. xviii.)
Orsini, see Ursins.
Recueil des instructions donnees aux Ambassadeurs et Ministres de France deptiis les

traites de Westphalie jusqu'a la Revolution fran9aise.

Espagne, i (1649-1700). Ed. Morel-Fatio. Paris. 1894.
Autriche. Ed. A. Sorel. Paris. 1884.

Baviere, Palatinat, Deux-Ponts. Ed. A. Lebon. Paris. 1889.
Saint-Simon, Due de. Mdmoires complets et authentiques sur le siecle de Louis XIV

et la B^gence. Ed. P. A. Che'ruel. 13 vols. Paris. 1878.
State Papers. Calendars of Treasuiy Papers, 1687-1701-2. London. 1871.
Torcy, Marquis de. Memoires, 1687-1713. Michaud et Poujoulat. iii. 8. Paris.

1850.
Ursins, Princesse des. Lettres inedites. Publ. avec une introd. etc. par A. Geftoy.

Paris. 1869.

et Mme de Maintenon. Lettres inedites. 4 vols. Paris. 1826.

Villars, Marechal de. Memoires, 1672-1734. Paris. 1884.

Voltaire, A. de. Le siecle de Louis XIV. Berlin. 1762. [Often reprinted.]

(B) Pamphlets.

See Ringhoffer, K. B. Die Flugschriften-Literatur zu Beginn des spanischen Erb-
folgekrieges. Berlin. 1881.

Some Pamphlets are printed in Somers' Tracts, vol. xi. Besides these may be

cited the following :
Curieuse Staats Frage, wer in dem grossen monarchischen Konigreich Spanien der

rechtmassige Successor sein soil. Cologne. 1700.
Franckreichs Hohe Freuden-Fahne uber die grosse Spanische Succession und

Erbschaft. Cologne. 1701.
Obrecht. Excerpta historica et juridica de natura successionis in Monarchiam

Hispaniae. 1700. Continuatio i, 1701. Continuatio n, 1701.
Oesterreichisches Becht an die Spanische Monarchie. 1701.

848 The Treaties of Partition and the Spanish Succession.

Politische Staata-Frage : Ob der Herzog von Anjou in der Spanischen Monarchie

mit Recht succediren konne Oder uicht ? Cologne. 1701.
Spaniens Hohe Trauer-Fahne iiber den friihen Todesfall seines Koniges Caroli II.

Cologne. 1701.
Wadsworth, T. The present estate of Spayne. London. 1630.
Wabrheit, Die, an das Licht gebracbte — des oesterreichischen Recbts und franzo-

siscben Unrecbts zur spaniscben Succession, s. 1., s. a.
Zanetomato, D. Relatione succinta del governo della &mosa Corte di Spagna.

"Cosmopolis." 1672.

II. LATER AUTHORITIES.

Anderson, A. An Historical and Cbronological Deduction of the Origin of Commerce.

4 vols. London. 1787-9.
Baudrillart, A. Philippe V et la Cour de France. 6 vols. Paris. 1890-1901.

Vol. I.
Bonnemere, E. La France sous Louis XIV. 2 vols. Paris. 1865.
Cobbett, W. Parliamentary History of England. Vol. v. London. 1809.
Combes, F. La Princesse des Ursins. Paris. 1858.

Courcy, Marquis de. La coalition de 1701 contre la France. 2 vols. Paris. 1886.
Coxe, W. Memoirs of the Kings of Spain of the House of Bourbon. Vol. i.

London. 1815.
Denans de Courcbetet. Histoire des n^gociations et du traits de paix des Pyr^n^es.

2 vols. Paris. 1760.
Desdevises du Dezert. L'Espagne de I'ancien regime. 2 vols. Paris. 1897-9.
Duclos, H. Madame de La Valliere et Marie Therese d'Autriche, femme de

Louis XIV. 2 vols. Paris. 1869.
Dunlop, T. Memoirs of Spain during the reigns of Philip IV and Charles II.

2 vols. Edinburgh. 1834.
Eugene, Prince. — Feldziige des Prinzen Eugen von Savoyen. i Serie, in Bd.

Spanischer Successions-Krieg. Vienna. 1876.
Florez, H. Memorias de las Reynas Catolicas. 2 vols. 2nd edn. Madrid. 1770.
Gaedeke, A. Die Politik Oesterreichs in der Spanischen Erbfolgefrage. Nebst

Akten und Urkunden. 2 vols. Leipzig. 1877.
Gaillardin, C. Histoire du regne de Louis XIV. 6 vols. Paris. 1871-6.
Havemann, W. Darstellungen aus der inneren Geschichte Spaniens wahrend des

XV, XVI und XVII Jabrhundei-ts. Gottingen. 1860.
Heigel, K. T. v. Kurprinz Joseph Ferdinand von Bayern und die spaniscbe Erb-

folge, 1692-9. Quellen u. Abb. z. neuer. Gesch. Bayerns. Munich. 1879.
Hume, Martin. Spain. Its Greatness and Decay. Cambridge. 1898.

History of the Spanish People. London. 1901.

Immich, M. Geschichte des Europaischen Staatensystems von 1660-1789. (Below,

G. von, and Meinecke, F. Handbuch der mittelalterlichen u. neueren Ge-
schichte, II.) Munich and Berlin. 1905.
Klopp, Onno. Der Fall des Hauses Stuart und die Succession des Hanses Hannover

in Gross-Britannien und Irland, im Zusammenhang'e der europaischen Ange-

legenheiten von 1660-1714. 14 vols. Vienna. 1876-88.
Koch, G. Die Friedensbestrebungen Wilhelms III von England in den Jahren

1694-7. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des Ryswyker Friedens. Tubingen and

Leipzig. 1903.
Lafuente, M. Historia general de Bspafia, cont. Valera. Vol. xi. Barcelona.

1889.

Bibliography. 849

Legrellej A. La diplomalSe francaise et la succession d'Espagne. 4 vols. Paris.
1888-92. [The principal work on the subject of this chapter.]

Notes et Documents sur la paix de Ryswick. Lille. 1894.

Macaulay, T. B., Lord. The History of England from the Accession of James II.

5 vols. London. 1848-61.

War of the Succession in Spain. 1832. (Essays.)

Mahonj Lord {see Stanhope, Earl).

Michael, W. Englische Geschicfate im 18. Jahrhundert. Vol. r. Hamburg and

Leipzig. 1896.
Morel-Fatio, A. Un Grand d'Espagne agent politique de Louis XIV. (Etudes sur

I'Espagne, m.) Paris. 1904.
Moret, E. Quinze Ans du regne de Louis XIV ; 1700-16. 3 vols. Paris. 1851-9.
Noorden, K. v. Europaische Geschichte im 18. Jahrhundert. 3 vols. Diisseldorf.

1870-83. !

Preuss, G. F. Konig Wilhelm III, Bayern und die Grosse Allianz 17Q1. Hist.

Zeitschr. Vol. xciii.

Oesterreichj Frankreich und Bayern in der Spanischen Erbfolgefrage 1685-9.

Hist. Vierteljahrsschrift. Vol. rv. Leipzig. 1906.

Wilhelm III von England und das Haus Wittelsbach im Zeitalter der

spanischen Erbfolgefrage. Part 1. Breslau. 1904.

Ranke, L. v. Franzosische Geschichte, vornehmlich im 16 u. 17 Jahrhundert.

6 vols. Sammtl. Werke. Leipzig. 1874 etc. (Vols, vra-xiii.)

Die Osmanen und die Spanische Monarchie im 16 u. 17 Jahrh. Sammtl.

Werke. Leipzig. 1874 etc. (Vols, xxxv-xxxvi.)

Englische Geschichte vornehmlich im 17 Jahrh. 9 vols. Sammtl. Werke.

Leipzig. 1874 etc. (Vols, xiv-xx.)

Reynald, H. Louis XIV et Guillaume HI, Histoire des deux traite's de partage et

du testament de Charles II. 2 vols. Paris. 1883.

; Guerre de la Succession d'Espagne. Paris. 1878.

Rosseneuw Saint-Hilaire. La Princesse des Ursins. Paris. 1876.

San Phelipe. Comentarios de la guerra de Espana e la historia de su rey Phelipe V

el animoso. Vol. i. Genoa, s. d. Vol. ii. s. 1., s. d.
Sirtema de Grbvestins. Guillaume III et Louis XIV. 8 vols. Paris. 1868.

Histoire des luttes et rivalites politiques entre les puissances maritimes et la

France durant la seconde moitie du xvii« siecle. Vols, vii and vni. Paris. 1866.

Stanhope, Earl. History of England, comprising the reign of Queen Anne. London.

1870.
Spain imder Charles II ; or extracts from the correspondence of Alexander

Stanhope, British Minister at Madrid, 1690-9. 2nd edn. London. 1844.

History of the War of the Succession in Spain. London. 1832.

Targe, J. B. Histoire de I'avenement de la maison de Bourbon au trone

d'Espagne. 6 vols. Paris. 1772.
Tindal N. The History of England by Rapin de Thoyras continued from the

Revolution to the Accession of George II. Vol. iii. London. 1744.
Topin W. L'Europe et les Bourbons sous Louis XIV. Paris. 1867.
Voffii^ Marquis E. J. M. de. Villars d'apres sa correspondance et des documents

inWts. Paris. 1888.
Wagner, F. Historia Leopold! M. Caes. Aug. 2 parts. Augsburg. 1719-31.
Weiss, Ch. L'Espagne depuis le regne de Philippe II jusqu'a I'avenement des

Bourbons. 2 vols. Paris. 1844.
Whitelock W. W. Das Verhaltnis Max Emanuels von Bayern zu Wilhelm III von

England. (Diss.) Munich. 1893.
Wood, William. A Survey of Trade. London. 1722.

0. M. a. V. OH. XIII. ^^

850

CHAPTER XIV.

THE WAR OF THE SPANISH SUCCESSION.

(1) CAMPAIGNS AND NEGOTIATIONS.

A. Genebai.; including Campaigns in Germany and the Netherlands.

1. Contemporary Authorities.

Foreign Office Records.

State Papers, DomestiCj Anne. Public Record Office.

Secretary at War's Common Letter Book. lb.

Miscellaneous Orders : Forces Abroad, Guards and Garrisons. lb.

Treasury Papers. lb. Calendar. Ed. J. Bedington. Vols, iii and iv. 1702-14.

British Army Lists and Commission Registers. Ed. C. Dalton. Vols, iv-vi.

London. 1898 etc.
"Blenheim Roll, the. Ed. C. Dalton. London. 1899.
Coxa papers. British Museum.

Berwick, Marshal. Memoires. Ed. Abbe Margon. Paris. 1737. Collection

Petitot. Vols. liXv, Lxvi.
Boyer, Abel. History of the Reign of Queen Anne. 11 vols. London. 1703-13.
Brodrick, Thomas. Compleat History of the Late War in the Netherlands. 1713.
Burnet, Gilbert (Bishop of Salisbury). History of My Own Time. 2 vols. 1724-34.

With notes by Earl of Dartmouth etc. New edn. 6 vols. Oxford. 1838.
Catinat, Marshal. Memoires et correspondance. Paris. 1819.
Dangeauj P. de C, Marquis de. Journal de la Cour de Louis XIV, 1684-1720. 19

vols. Paris. 1864-60.
Deane, John (Private, 1st Guards). Journal. London. 1846.
Eugene, Prince, of Savoy. Militarische Correspondenz. Ed. F. Heller, 2 vols.

Vienna. 1848.

Feldzuge. Published by the Ministry of War. Vienna. 1876.

Sammlung d. hinterlass. politischer Schriften. 7 Parts and Suppl. Stuttgart

and Tubingen. 1811-21.

As to the forgeries in this see P. Bohm, Die Sammlung etc. Freiburg. 1900.
Feuquieres, Marquis M. de. Memoires. 3rd edn. Paris. 1736.
Gallas, Count. Die diplomatische Korrespondenz des Grafen Joh. Wenzel Gallas,

Kaiserl. Gesandten in Loudon u. im Haag, wahrend d. Span. Successionskriegeis.

Hrsgbn. von C. Hofler. Archiv fiir Oesterreich. Geschichte, 41.
Godolphin Papers. Add. mss. British Museum, 28,055.
Hare, Francis (Bishop of Chichester). Allies, the, and the late Ministry defended

against France. 1711.

Conduct, the, of the Duke of Marlborough during the present war (with

original papers). 1712.

Management, the, of the War. 1711.

Bibliography. 851

Hatton-Finch Papers. Add. mss. British Museum, 29,690-1.
Historical Manuscripts Commission. Blenheim papers (8th Report).

Hare papers. Appendix ix, to 14th Report.

Hodgkin papers. Appendix ii, to 16th Report.

Portland papers. Vol. iv. Appendix to 16th Report.

Kane, Richard (Brigadier-General). Campaigns of King William and the Duke of

Marlborough. 2nd edn. London. 1747.
La Colonic. Me'moires contenant les evenements de la guerre depuis 1692 k 1717.

Brussels. 1737,
La Torre, de. Memoires et negotiations secrettes de diverses cours de I'Europe.

5 vols. The Hague. 1721-6.
Lamherty, G. de. Memoires pour servir a I'histoire du xvin" siecle. Cont. negocia-

tions, trait^s etc., lies par une narration. 14 vols. Amsterdam. 17S3-40.

[Vol. vm.]
Lediard, Thomas. Life of Marlborough. London. 1738.
Lettres et memoires sur la conduite de la preseute guerre et sur les negociations de

pais, jusqu'a la fin des conferences de Geertruydenbergh. 2 vols. The Hague.

1711-2.
Lewis, Margrave of Baden. — Kriegs- u. Staats-Schriften des Markgrafen Ludwig

Wilhelm von Baden iiber den Span. Erbfolgekrieg. Hrsgbn. von P. Rdder von

Diersbnrg. 2 vols. Carlsruhe. 1850.
Lives of the two illustrious Generals, John, Duke of Marlborough, and Francis

Eugene, Prince of Savoy. London. 1713.
Marlborough's Dispatches. Edited by Sir George Murray. 6 vols. London. 1846.
, Heinsius and Hop. Correspondance diplomatique et militaire du due de M.,

du grand-pensionnaire Heinsius et du tre'sor.-gen. J. Hop. Publ. par G. G.

Vreede. Amsterdam. 1850.

Sarah, Duchess of. Private Correspondence, with her sketches and opinions

of her contemporaries, and private correspondence of her husband. 2 vols.
London. 1838.

Millner, John (Sergeant, 18th Foot). Journal. London. 1736.

Noailles, Adrian Maurice, Due de. Memoires politiques et militaires. Ed. I'Abbe

C. F. X. Milot. 6 vols, in 12. Paris. 1777. Coll. Nouv., Michaud et

Poujoulat, III, 10.
Saint-Hilaire, Mormes, sieur de. Memoires. Amsterdam. 1766.
Saint-Simon, Due de. Memoires. 21 vols. Paris. 1873-86.
Torcy, Marquis de. Memoires pour servir a I'hist. des negociations, depuis le

traits de Rijswijck, jusqu'a la paix d'Utrecht. 3 vols. London, 1767. Coll.

Michaud et Poujoulat. Nouv. Coll. iii, 8. Paris. 1850.

Journal. 1709-11. Ed. F. Masson. Paris. 1884.

Vault, F. E. de, and Pelet, J. J. G. Memoires relatifs a la Succession d'Espagne.

(Collection des documents inddits.) Paris. 1836-62. 11 vols.
Villars, Marshal. Memoires. 1672-1734. (Societe de I'Histoire de France.) 4 vols.

Paris. 1884-91. Also CoU. Nouv., Michaud et Poujoulat, iii, 9 and Coll.

Petitot, II, 68-71.

The chief English Newspapers of the period were :

The Postman. The Postboy. The Daily Courant. The London Gazette.

2. Later Works.

Alison, Sir Archibald. Life of Marlborough. 2nd edition. 1852.
Arneth, A. Ritter von. Prinz Eugen von Savoyen. 3 vols. Vienna. 1868.
Campbell, John. Military History of Eugene and Marlborough. London. 1736.
Courcy, Marquis de. La Coalition de 1701 centre la France. Paris. 1886.

OH. XIV. 64—2

852 The War of the Spanish Succession.

Court de Gebelin. L'Histoirede la Guerre des Camisards. Paris. 1819.

Coxe, W. Life of Marlborough. 3 vols. London. 1818-9.

Davis, Colonel John. History of the 2nd (Queen's) Regiment. Vol. ii. London.

1895.
Dumont, J. Les Batailles et Victoires du Prince Eugene. 1725.
— — et Rousset de Missy, J. Histoire Militaire du Prince Eugene et le Due de

Marlborough. Paris. 1725-9.
Elliott, H. Life.ofGodolphin. London. 1888.
Eunen, L. Der Spanische Erbfolgekrieg u. der Churfiirst Joseph Clemens von

Koln. Jena. 1851.
Everard, Major H, History of the 29th (Worcestershire) Regiment.
Fortescue, J. W. History of the British Army. Vol. r. London. 1899.
Gachard, M. Histoire de la Belgique au commencement du 18™ siecle. Brussels.

1880.
Gaedeke, A. Die Politik Oesterreichs in der Spanischen Erbfolgefrage. 2 vols.

Leipzig. 1877.
Hamilton, Sir T. W. History of the Grenadier Guards. London. 1894.
La Rosiere, Carlet de. Campagne du Marechal de Tallard en 1704. Amsterdam.

1755.

Campagne du Mar&hal de Villars et de I'^^lecteur. Maximilien Emmanuel

en 1703. Amsterdam. 1766.

Legrelle, A. Une negociation inconnue entre Berwick et Marlborough. 1708-9.

Paris. 1893.
Madgett and Dutems, J. F. H. Histoire de John Churchill, Due de Marlborough.

3 vols. Paris. 1808.
Matuschka. Feldziige des Prinzen Eugen von Savoyen. 20 vols. Vienna. 1876-92.
Noorden, Carl von. Der Spanische Erbfolgekrieg. Vols. i-m. (Europ. Gesch. im

18. Jahrh. Part i.) Dusseldorf. 1870-82.
Quincy, Marquis de. Histoire militaire du regne de Louis le Grand. 1726.

7 vols.
Reynald, H. Guerre de la Succession de I'Espagne. Negociations entre la France,

I'Aflgleterre et la HoUande en 1705 et 6. Paris. 1878.
Ringhofifer, K. E. Die Flugschriften-Literatur zu Beginn d. span. Erbfolgekrieges.

Berlin. 1881.
Stanhope, Earl. History of JEngland in the Reign of Queen Anne. London. 1870.
Vogii^, C. J. M., Marquis de. Villars d'aprls sa correspondance. Paris. 1888.

B. Campaigns in Spain and Italy.
1. Contemporary Authorities.

British Museum. Byng papers. Add. mss. 31,968.

Egerton mss.

Leake papers. Add. mss. 6438-40.

Methuen papers. Add. mss. 28,055.

Richards papers. Stowe mss.

Rook papers. Add. mss. 16,909.

Ruvigny papers. Add. mss. 9718.

Stepney papers. Add. mss. 7068.

Strafford papers. Add. mss. 31,134.

State Papers, Spain. (Public Record Office.)

Abel, C. Diarium belli hispanici, oder Vollstand. Tag-Register d. jetzigen Spanis-
chen Krieges, wie er von 1701-7 in Spanien, Italien etc. gefiihrt worden...,
Halberstodt. 1707.

Bibliography. &53

Freind, John. Account of the Earl of Peterborough's Conduct in Spain. London.

1707. ^ ^

Hill, Richard. The diplomatic correspondence of R. H., Envoy Extr. from the

Court of St James to the Duke of Savoy, 1703-6. Ed. W. Blackley. 2 vols.

London. 1846.
Impartial Inquiry into the management of the War in Spain. London. 1712.
Louis XIV. — Correspondance avec M. Amelot, son amhassadeur en Espagne. 1705-9.

2 vols. Nantea. 1864.
Saint-Philippe. M^moires pour servir a I'histoire de I'Espagne sous le regne de

Philippe V. Amsterdam. 1766.
Saint-Pierre, Colonel James de. Journal, mss. belonging to the Royal Engineers.
Tesse, Marshal de. Memoires. Paris. 1806.

2. Later Works.

Alberi, E. Le guerre d' Italic del Principe Eugenie di Savoia. Turin. 1831.
Arneth, A., Ritter von. Das Leben d. Kaiserl. Feldmarsohalls Grafen Guide

Starhemberg. Vienna. 1863.
CaUegari. L' assedio di Torino del 1706. Venice. 1893.
Drinkwater, J. History of Gibraltar. London. 1786.
Kiinzel. Leben und Briefcvechsel des Landgrafen Georg von Hessen-Darmstadt.

Friedberg and London. 1869.
Landau, M. Geschichte Karls VI als Konig von Spanien. Stuttgart. 1889.
Parnell, Colonel Arthur. The War of the Succession in Spain. London, 1888.
Russell, Colonel F. Life of Peterborough. London. 1887.
Stanhope, Earl (Lord Mahon). History of the War of the Succession in Spain.

London. 1832.
Stebbing, W. Peterborough. (English Men of Action series.) London.

C. Navai.

1. Contemporary Authorities.

Admiralty Papers. Public Record Office.

Carutti, D. Storia del regno di Vittorio Amadeo U. Florence. 1863.
Duguay-Trouin, R. Memoires. Michaud and Poujoulat. in, 9. Paris. 1860.
Forbin, Claude de. Memoires. Amsterdam. 1729. Michaud and Poujoulat. lb.
Leake, S. W. Life of Sir John Leake. 1760.
Martin, Captain Stephen, Life of. Ed. Sir Clements Markham. Navy Records

Society. London. 1895.
Rooke, Sir George. Journal. Ed. O. Browning. Navy Records Society. London.

1897.
Torrington, Lord, Memoirs relating to. Ed. J. K. Laughton. Camden Society.

London. 1891.
Villette, Marquis de. Memoires. Publ.par.L. J. N. Mommerque (Soc. de I'hist.

de France). Paris. 1844.

2. Later Works.

Chevalier, Captain E. Histoire de la Marine fran9aise. Vol. i (to 1763). Paris.

1902.
Communay, A. Le Comte de Toulouse et la bataille de Malaga. Paris. 1886.
Corbett, J. S. England in the Mediterranean, 1606-1713. Loudon. 1904.
Gn^rin, L. Histoire Maritime de la France. Paris. 1844.

854 The War of the Spanish Succession.

(2) THE PEACE OF UTRECHT.
[For earlier peace negotiations see premoius Section.'\

I. Abcbives.

The chief Archives containing correspondence as to the Peace of Utrecht are
those of the Ministere des Affaires ^trangeres at Paris, of the Record OiEce and the
British Museum in London^ and of the Hague and Vienna. It was in the Record
Office that O. Weher was fortunate enough to discover the Correspondence of
Louis XIV with his plenipotentiaries at Utrecht. Mesnager's and Gaultier's reports
are of course at Paris.

II. Texts and Contbnts op Treaties.

Actes, M^moires et autres pieces authentiques concernant la paix d'Utrecht.

6 vols. Utrecht. 1714-6. [Vol. i contains list of plenipotentiaries.]
Dumont, J., Baron de Carlscroon. Corps universel diplomatique. 8 vols, in 16.

Amsterdam. 1726-31. With Supplement. 6 vols in 7. lb. 1789. [Vol. viii.]
Koch, C. W. von. Histoire abregee des traites. Cont. jusqu'a 1816 par F. Schoell.

16 vols. 1817-8. [Vol. II.]
Rastatt, Peace of. Les Articles prdliminaires pour la paix g^n^rale dont on est

cohvenu a Rastadt. [In French and in German.] s. 1. 1714.

Historic Rastadtischer Friedens-Handlungen. Benebst zweyen Friedens-

Projecten n. dem Friedens-Instrument. Jena. 1714.

III. CONTEUFORARY DoOUUENTS, AcCOUNTS AND CoMUBNTS.

Avis aux negociateurs sur les nouveaux plans de partage. Trad, de I'anglais.

London. 1712.
Bolingbroke, H. St John, Viscount. Letters and Correspondence during the time

he was Secretary of State. With notes etp. by G. Parke. 4 vols. London.

1798.

The Remarks on the Barrier Treaty vindicated in a Letter to the Author.

1712. London. 1712. [Works of Swift, ed. by Sir W. Scott, vol. iv.
Formerly ascribed to Swift, but claimed for Bolingbroke by the late Sir C. W.
Dilke.]

A sketch of the state and history of Europe from the Pyrenean treaty in

1659 continued. Letter vni of Letters on the Use and Study of History.
New edn. 1770.

[Defoe, D.] Minutes of the negotiation of Mons. Mesnager at the Court of England

during the four last years of Queen Anne, done out of French. 2nd edn.

London. 1736.
Prior, Matthew. The history of his own time. From the uss. of Prior, copied

for press by A. Drift. 2nd edn. London. 1770.
Recueil des instructions donne'es aux ambassadeurs et ministres de France depuis les

traitds de Westphalie jusqu'a la Revolution. With Introductions and Notes by

A. Sorel and others. 17 vols. Paris. 1884-1901.
Short State, a, of the War and Peace. 2nd edn. London. 1716. [In favour

of the Peace.]
Steele, Sir Richard. The Crisis. January, 1714. Reprinted in H. Morley. Famous

Pamphlets. London. 1886.

The Importance of Dunkirk. London.: 1713.

Bibliography. 865

Swift, Dean. The Conduct of the Allies and of the Late Ministry, in beginning
and carrying on the War. 1712. Works. Ed. Sir W. Scott. Vol. iv.
Edinburgh. 1824.
See An Appendix to the Conduct of the Allies. The Examiner, Jan. 16, 1713.
[Suggested by Swift.] lb.

History of the Four last Years of the Queen. London. 1768. Works.

Ed. Sir W. Scott. Vol. v. Edinburgh. 1824.

[As to Swift's authorship of this work, which according to a Preface pur-
porting to be written by him was designed for publication in 1713, see Sir
Henry Craik's Life of Swift (London, 1882), Appendix in.]

Journal to Stella. Works. Ed. Sir Walter Scott. 2nd edn. Vols, ui and

IV. Edinburgh. 1824.

The Public Spirit of the Whigs set forth in their generous encouragement of

theauthor of The Crisis. March, 1714. Works. Ed. Sir W. Scott. 2nd edn.
Vol. IV. London. 1824.

Some Remarks on the Barrier Treaty between Her Majesty and the States-
General. 1712. Works. Ed. Sir W. Scott. Vol. v. Edinburgh. 1814.

[This is a continuation of the Conduct of the Allies, and refers to the Barrier
Treaty of 1709, which is reprinted textually.]
Utrecht, Peace of, etc. Histoire du congres et de la paix d' Utrecht comme aussi de

celles de Rastadt et de Bade, conten. les particularit^s les plus remarquables et

les plus interessants desdites negoc. Utrecht. 1716.
Walpole, Sir Robert. A Report from the Committee of Secrecy appointed by order

of the House of Commons to examine several books and papers... relating to the

late negotiations of peace and commerce. Reported June 9, 1715, by Robert

Walpole, Chairman. With appendix of documents. London. 1716.
Wcntworth Papers, the, 1706-39. (Selections from the Correspondence of Lord Raby,

afterwards Earl of Strafford.) With memoirs and notes by J. J. Cartwright.

London. 1883.

[For contemporary English political journals see Bibliography to Chapter XV.}

IV. Later Writings.

Brosch, M. Geschichte von England. (Gesch. der Europ. Staaten.) Vol. vin.

Gotha. 1893.
Lord BoHngbroke u. die Whigs und Tories seiner Zeit. Frankfort. 1883.

[Valuable for its use of the despatches of Grimani, the Venetian resident in

London, who was intimate with Lord Jersey.]
Carutti, D. Storia della diplomazia della corte di Savoia. 2 vols. Rome. 1876-6.
DoUot, R. Les origines de la neutralite' de la Belgique et le systeme de la Barriere

Paris. 1902.
Droysen, J. G. Geschichte der Preuss. Politik. 5 vols, in 10. Leipzig. 1868-86.

[Vol. IV, Parts i and ii ; and rv. Documents.]
Erdmannsdorffer, B. Deutsche Geschichte vom Westfal. Frieden bis zum Regier-

ungs-antritt Friedrichs d. Grossen. (AUg. Gesch. in Einzeldarstellungen.)

2 vols. Berlin. 1892-3.

Giraud, C. La paix d'Utrecht. Paris. 1847.

Liverpool, Charles Jenkinson, Earl of. Discourse on the conduct of the Government

of Great Britain in respect to neutral nations. New edn. Edinburgh. 1837.

[First published as Preface to Collection of Treaties of Peace etc., 1748-83.

3 vols. London. 1786.]

Noorden, C. von. Lord Boliugbroke. Leipzig. 1862.

OB. ziv.

856 The War of the Spanish Succession.

Pometti, F. Studii sul pontificato di Clemente ,XIj 1700-21. Arch, della Soc.

Rom. di stoiia patria, 21-8.
Topin, M. L'Europe et les Bourbons sous Louis XIV. Paris. 1868. [The

: negotiations of Polignac]
Weber, O. Der Friede von Rastatt, 1714. Deutsche Zeitung fur Geschichts-

wissensch; 8.
Der Friede von Utrecht. Verhandlungen zwischen England, Frankreich,

den Kaiser, und den Generalstaaten, 1710-3. Gotha. 1891. [The most

complete account extant, based on documents, of the peace negotiations from

1710 onwards.]
Zwiedeneck-Sudenhorst, H. von. Deutsche Geschichte im Zeitalter der Grundung

des Freussischen Konigtums. (Bibl. Deutscher Gesch.) 2 vols. Stuttgart.

1887-94.

[For the Princess des Ursina {Orsini) and the Court of Philip V see Bibliogrq,phy

to Chapter XIII.]

857

CHAPTER XV.

PARTY GOVERNMENT UNDER QUEEN ANNE.

I. ARCHIVES.
A. At the British Museum.

The age of Anne is not quite as rich in unpublished material as that of William.
But the Jacobite despatches and papers are of great importance.

Party Politics are discussed in Anne's correspondence. Add. mss. 28,070, especially
in a letter to Godolphin, f. 12. Stowe mss. 248 give Barley's plan, addressed to the
Queen on Oct. 30, 1710. Add. mss. 28,056-8 give the correspondence of Godolphin,
chiefly relating to Spanish affairs. The state of the National Debt (1711-26) is
given in Egerton mss. 923. Add. mss. 28,080 give a Pension List. Interesting
Jacobite Documents : Add. mss. 12,079, 32,499, 33,033.

Hanoverian papers : Stowe mss. 222. Correspondence of Robethon : Add. mss.
22,217. (Stray diplomatic papers connected with the Peace of Utrecht.)

B. At the Privt Council Office.

Privy Council Registers. Anne, Vol. vi, pp. 87 sqq., George I, Vol. i, pp. 1-86,
give the only authentic, though a meagre, account of the last Councils held under
Queen Aime, the proceedings of the Regency, and the accession of George I,

II. DOCUMENTS OF AN OFFICIAL CHARACTER.

Parliamentary History. Vol. vi (1702-14). London. 1809.

Protests of the Lords. Ed. J. E. T. Rogers. Vol. ii. Oxford. 1876.

III. CONTEMPORARY MEMOIRS, CORRESPONDENCE, DOCUMENTS,
PAMPHLETS ETC., OF AN UNOFFICIAL CHARACTER.

A. Genebai..

Addison, Joseph. Works. Ed. R. Hurd, Bishop of Worcester. 6 vols. London.

1864^6.
AUesbury, Marquis of. See under Somerset, Duke of.
Arbuthnot, John. Works. 2 vols. Glasgow. 1761.

Astley, Mrs Franldand Russell. Hist. mss. Commission Rep. xv. London. 1900.
Bath, Marquis of. Longleat mss. Vol. i. Hist. uss. Commission Rep. xv. Loudon.

1904.
Berwick, Duke of. M^moires. 2 vols. "En Suisse." 1778. Coll. Petitot.

Vols. Lxv-vi. Paris. 1828.
Bolingbroke, Henry St John, Viscount. Philosophical Works. Vol. i. Ed., with

Life, by David Mallet. London. 1764.

Letters, Public and Private. Ed. Gilbert Parke. 4 vols. London. 1798.

Life. By Oliver Goldsmith. London. 1770.

Boyer, Abel. History of Queen Anne. London. 1735.

Coke Papers. Earl Cowper's mss. Vol. in. Hist. mss. Commission Rep. xii.
App. Pt. III. London. 1889.

868 Party Government under Queen Anne.

Cowper, Mary, Lady. Diaiy. Ed. S. Cowper. London. 1866.
Cowper, William, Earl. Private Diary. (Roxburghe Club.) Eton. 1833.
Dartmouth, Earl of. Hist. mss. Commission Rep. xi. App. Pt. v. London. 1887.
Defoe, Daniel. Miscellaneous Works, Ed. J. S. Keltie. Edinburgh. 1869.

Memoirs of public transactions in the life and administration of the Duke of

Shrewsbury. London. 1718.

Reasons why the Nation ought to put an end to this expensive war. Loudon,

1711.

Secret History of the 'White Staff. London. 1714.

Fortescue, J, B. Hist. mss. Commission Rep. xiii, Pt. iii. Vol. i. London. 1892,
Gaultier, Abb^, Extracts from papers of, Edinburgh Review, Vol, lxii, pp. 1-36.

Edinburgh. 1835.
Hodgkin, J. E. Hist. mss. Commission Rep. xv. App. Pt. n, London. 1897,
Luttrell, Narcissus. Brief relation of State Affairs. Vols, v, vi. Oxford. 1867.
Macpherson, James. Original Papers. 2 vols. London. 1776.
Mar and Kellie, Earl of. Hist. mss. Commission Rep. xvi. London. 1904.
Marlborough, John Churchill, Duke of. Correspondance diplomatique et militaire,

et du Grand Pensionnaire Heinsius. Ed. G. G. Vreede. Amsterdam. 1860.

Memoirs and Correspondence. 3 vols. Ed. W. Coxe. London. 1818-9.

New edition, by J. Wade. London. 1847-8.

— ^ Negociation, ime, inconnue entre Berwicke et Marlborough 1708-9. Ed.
A. LegreUe, Ghent, 1893. [Chief documents of Berwick-Marlborough corre-
spondence.]

Conduct of Duke of Marlborough during the present war. By Francis Hare,

Bishop of Chichester. London. 1712.

No Queen, no General. Dublin and London, 1712,

Marlborough, Sarah, Duchess of. Correspondence, Private. 2 vols. London. 1838.

Letters of. London. 1876.

An account of her conduct from coming to Court to 1710, By N. Hooke.

London. 1742.

The other side of the question (reply to above). By J. Ralph, London, 1742.

A full vindication of the Duchess Dowager. By H. Fielding, London, 1742.

Moray, C. S. H. Drummond. Hist. mss. Commission Rep. x. App. Pt. i, pp. 137-

60. London. 1896.
Portland, Duke of. Hist. mss. Commission Rep. xiii. Vol. ii. App. ii. London. 1891.

Rep. XV. Vol. IV. App. iv. London. 1897, xv. Vol, v. London, 1899.

Vol. VII. 1901.

Prior, Matthew. Poems. Ed. A. R. Waller, 2 vols, Cambridge. 1905-7.
— — Miscellaneous Works, Ed. Adrian Drift. London. 1740.

Attributed to. History of his own times. Ed. Adrian Drift. London. 1740.

Shaftesbury, Anthony Ashley Cooper, 3rd Earl of. Characteristics. Ed. S. M.

Robertson. 2 vols. London. 1900.

Somers Tracts. Ed. Sir Walter Scott. Vol. xi-xiii. London. 1823.

Somerset, Duke of. mss, with those of Marquis of Ailesbury. Hist. mss. Com-
mission Rep. XV. App. Pt. VII. London. 1898.

Spectator, the. Ed. C. G. Smith. London. 1897. Digest. Index of. London. 1892.

State Papers. Ed. Earl of Hardwicke. Vol. ii, pp. 457 et seqq. London. 1768.

Steele, Sir R. Correspondence. London. 1787.

The Crisis and Apology. London, 17l4,

The Tatler, Ed. G. A. Aitken. 4 vols. London. 1898.

Stuart Papers. Calendar of Stuart mss. belonging to H.M. the King. Vols, i, u.
Hist. mss. Commission Rep. xv. London. 1902-4.

Correspondence. (Bishop Atterbury.) 2 vols. London. 1847.

Swift, Jonathan, Dean of St Patrick. Letters impublished. Ed. G. B. Hill.
London. 1899.

Bibliography. 859

Swift, Jonathan, Dean of St Patrick. Works, Complete Prose. Ed. Temple Scott.

11 vols. London. 1897-1907.

[ ] History of last four years of Queen Anne. London. 1768.

Torcy, J. B. Colbert, Marquis de. Journal ine'dit (1704:-11). Publie par F. Masson.

Paris. 1884.
Townsend, Marquis of. Hist. mss. Commission Rep. xi. App. Pt. iv, pp. 48-98.

London. 1887.
Walpole, Horatio, Lord. Memoirs. Ed. W. Coxe. London. 1802.
Walpole, Sir Robert. Memoirs, with correspondence. Edited by the same. Vol. i.

London. 1798.
[ ^] A short History of the Parliament. London. 1713. [Pamphlet attributed

to Sir Robert Walpole.]
Wentworth Papers, The. Correspondence of Thomas Wentworth, Lord Raby,

created Earl Strafford. Ed. J. J. Cartwright. London. 1883.
Wharton, Thomas, First Marquis of. Memoirs of Life, with Speeches, by Sir R. Steele.

London. 171S.

B. Ecclesiastical.

Atterbury, Francis, afterwards Bishop of Rochester. Rights and Powers of an

English Convocation. London. 1700.
Bainbrigg, T. Seasonable Reflections on a late Pamphlet entitled History of Passive

Obedience. London. 1690.
Clarendon, Edward Hyde, Earl of. An examination of Hobbes' Leviathan.

London. 1676.

Religion and Policy. London. 1811.

Kennet, White, Bishop of Peterborough. Ecclesiastical Synods and Parliamentary

Convocations. London. 1701.
Locke, John. Letters on Toleration. Works. Vol. vi. London. 1823.
Perm, William. Great Case of Liberty of Conscience. Loudon. 1670.

Advice as to the Tests. London. 1687.

Sacheverell, Henry, Documents and Pamphlets connected with :

General account of Proceedings in Parliamentary History. Vol. vi, pp. 810-86.

London. 1810.
Speech of Four Managers upon the first Article of Impeachment. Speech of

Dr Sacheverell and answer. London. 1710.
Bickerstaff, Isaac. Letter to Dr Sacheverell. Loudon. 1709.
Have at you. Blind Harpers. London. 1710. [Three ballads on Dr Sacheverell.]
High Church displayed — being a complete history of the affair of Dr Sacheverell.

[By John Toland.] London. 1711.
Kennet, White, Bishop of Peterborough. True answer to Dr Sacheverell.

London. 1709.
Wake, William, afterwards Archbishop of Canterbury. The authority of Christian
Princes. London. 1697.

State of the Church and Clergy of England in their Convocation. London.

1703.

rV. SECONDARY AUTHORITIES.

A. General Histories covbbino the whole period.

[See also Bibliography to Chapter X {William III).']

Brosch, Moritz. Geschichte von England. (Gesch. d. Europ. Staaten.) Vol. viii.

Gotha. 1893.
Burton, J. H. History of Reign of Queen Anne. 3 vols. London. 1880.
Klopp, Onno. Der Fall des Hauses Stuart. 14 vols. Vienna. 1876-88. [Vols.

X-XIV.]

860 Party Government under Queen Anne.

Lecky,W.E. H. History of England in Eighteenth Century. VoLi. London. 1897.
Michael, W. Englische Gesehichte im 18 Jahrhundert. Vol. i. Hamburg. 1896.
Schlosser, F. C. History of England in Eighteenth Century. Engl. Transl. by

D. Davison. Vol. i. London. 1843.
Stanhope, Philip Henry, Earl. History of the reign of Anne. London. 1872.
Wyon, F. W. History of Great Britain under Queen Anne. 2 vols. London. 1876.

B. Selected parts op the beign.
Brosch, Moritz. Bolingbroke und die Whigs nnd Tories seiner Zeit. Frankfort. 1883.
Head, F, W. The Fallen Stuarts. Cambridge; 1901.
Salamon, Felix. Gesehichte des letzten Ministeriums Konigin Annas von England.

Gotha. 1894.
Ward, A. W. Great Britain and Hanover. Oxford. 1899.

C. Biographical etc.
Anne, Queen. Life. By Herbert Paul. London. 1906.
Addison, Joseph. Life. By Lucy Aitkin. 2 vols. London. 1843.
Arbuthnot, John. Life. By G. A. Aitken. London. 1892.
Bolingbroke. Life of. By Oliver Goldsmith. New edn. London. 1809.
and his Times. By W. Sichel. London. 1901.

By R. Harrop. London. 1884.

Godolphin, Sidney, Elarl of. Life. By H. Elliott. London. 1888.
Harley, Robert, Earl of Oxford. Life. By E. S. Roscoe. London. 1902.
Leibniz, G. W. Frhr. von. La Diplomatic de Leibniz pour la Succession d' Angldterrfe.

Par C. B. FaiTO. Revue d'histoire diplomatique. No. 2, pp. 199-237- Paris' 1907.
Marlborough, John Churchill, Duke of. Military Life of By Sir Archibald

Alison. London. 1843.
Marlborough, Sarah, Duchess of. By Mrs Arthur Colville. London. 1904.
Sophia, the Electress, and the Hanoverian Succession. ByA. W.Ward. Paris. 1903.
Steele, Sir Richard. Life of By G. A. Aitken. London. 1889.
Stephen, Sir Leslie. History of English Thought in the Eighteenth Century.

2 vols. London. 1902.
Swift, Jonathan, Dean of St Patrick. Life. BySir H. Craik. 2 vols. London. 1894.

Life of. By Thomas Sheridan. London. 1784.

D. Ecclesiastical.
Abbey, C. J., and J. H. Overton. The English Church in the Seventeenth Century.
London. 1904.

The English Church and its Bishops, 1700-1800. London. 1887.

Babington, C. Criticism of Macaula/s character of the Clergy. London. 1849.
Campagnac, E. T. The Cambridge Platonists. Oxford. 1901.

Conway, B. K. History of English Philanthropy. London. 1905.

Eachard, John, D.D. Works. 3 vols. London. 1773-4.

Hutton, W. H. The English Church, 1626-1714. London. 1903.

Lathbury, Thomas. Histoiy of the Convocation of the Church of England.

London. 1842.
Overton, J. H., and F. Relton. The English Church, 1714-1800. London. 1906.

And C. J. Abbey [v. supra].
Pascoe, C. F. Two hundred years of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel

[1701-1900]. London. 1901.
Simon, J. S. Revival of Religion in England in the Eighteenth Century. London.

1907.
Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, Past and Present of (1698-1861).

London. 1861.
Stoughton, J. Religion in England, 1702-1800. Vol. i. London. 1878.
Wameck, G. Histoiy of the Protestant Missions. Trans. George Rohson.

Edinburgh and I^ondon. 1906.

[See also Bibliography to Chapter XIV."]

861

CHAPTER XVI.

RUSSIA BEFORE PETER THE GREAT (1477-1682).

The construction of a satisfactory bibliography to this Chapter is practically
impossible, because there is no complete collection of Russian historical works in
England. The British Museum collection is considerable, but far from complete,
and there is no other.

Historical materials existing in Russia are being continually published, not only
by government commissions, but by many historical societies and local records
commissions, in their Memoirs, Transactions etc. ; such as the Archaeographical Com-
mission of Vilna, the Records Commissions of Nizhni Novgorod, Riazan, Simbirsk,
the Statistical Committee of Vitebsk etc. Especially valuable are the Chteniia of
the Imperial Society of History and Russian Antiquities, of Moscow (1st series,
1846-8, 2nd series, 1858 sqq.). This general reference to this class of publications
must suffice.

Besides the material in Russian archives, there are unpublished documents in
foreign archives and libraries (Rome, Vienna, Paris etc.; see the bibliographies in
Pierling, La Russie et le Saint-Siege. Paris. 1885).

In the enumeration under III it has been found necessary, from considerations
of space, to exclude (with a few exceptions) monographs and essays contained in
periodical publications (Zhumal ministverstva narodnago prosvieshcheniia, Istori-
cheskii Viestnik, Russkaia Starina, are the most important historical journals in
Russia).

The following bibliographies are useful :
Ciampi, S. Bibliografia critica delle antiche reciproche corrispondenze — dell' Italia

colla Russia, coUa Polonia. 3 vols. Florence. 1834-42.
Ikonnikov, V. S. Opyt russkoi istoriographii. Vol. i. Books 1-2. Kieflf. 1891-2.
Mezhov, V. I. Sistematicheskii Katalog russkim knigam... (1825-69). St, Peters-
burg. 1869. Continued up to 1876 in further vols. ; last vol. 1877.

See also IkonnikoVs articles in Jahresberichte der Geschichtswissenschaft.
Berlin. 1880 sqq.

For the ecclesiastical history of Russia in the sixteenth century, and for
Demetrius the Pretender, compare the bibliographical lists in Pierling's La Russie
et le Saint-Siege (see below under III), and for the reign of Ivan IV, the list of
books in Waliszewski's Ivan le Terrible (below under III).

L DOCUMENTS, CHRONICLES, AND OTHER CONTEMPORARY

SOURCES.

A. Russian.
Akty g. lushkova. In the Chteniia of the Moscow Soc. of History and Antiquities,
m. Moscow. 1808.

CH. XVI.

862 Russia before Peter the Cheat (1477-1682).

Akt^ otnosiashchiesia k istorii iuzhnoi i ssapadnoi Rossii. 6 vols. St Petersburg.

1863 sqq.
Akty otuosiashchiesia k istorii zapadnoi Rossii. (Archaeographical Commission.)

St Petersburg. 1846 sqq.
Akty istoricheskiie, sobrannye i izdannye Arkheographiceskoiu Kommissieiu. 6 vols.

St Petersburg. 1841 sqq.
Akty sobrannye — Arkheographicheskoiu ekspedytsieiu imperatorskoi Akademii

Nauk. 4 vols. St Petersburg. 1836-8.
Alexis (Tsar). Sobranie pisem tsaria Aleksieia Mikhailovicha. Ed. P. Bartenev.
Moscow. 1856.

Ulozhenie. Various edns. St Petersburg. 1737, 1769, 1804.

Annals. Polnoe Sobranie Russkikh Lietopisei (published by the Archaeographical
Commission). St Petersburg. 1841 sqq.

Vol. II, pp. 230 sqq. Gustinskaia Lietopia.

Vol. Ill, pp. 207 sqq. Novgorodakaia tret'ia Lietopia.

Vol. IV, pp. 1 sqq. Novgorodskaia chetvertaia Lietopia.

ib., pp. 173 sqq. Pskovskaia pervaia Lietopis.

Vol. Vj pp. 1 sqq. Pskovskaia vtoraia Lietopis.

Vol. VI, pp. 1 sqq. Prodolzhenie Sophiiskoi pervoi Lietopisi (1471-

1609).
ib., pp. 119 sqq. Sophiiskaia vtoraia Lietopis.

Vol. VIII, pp. 9 sqq. Prodolzhenie Lietopisi po Voskresenskomu spisku.
Vol. XV. Tverskaia Lietopia.
Alexandrovskaia Lietopis. St Petersburg. 1876.
Esipovskaia Lietopis. Ed. Spaski. St Petersburg. 1823.
Lvovskaia Lietopis. St Petersburg. 1792.
Moskovskaia Lietopis. Ed. Lebedev. 1896.
Normautskaia Lietopis. 1850.
Remezovskaia Lietopis. St Petersburg. 1880.

Russkaia Lietopis po Nikonovy spisky. Ed. Schlozer. In 8 parts. St Peters-
burg. 1767-92.
Stroganovskaia Lietopis. Ed. Spaski. St Petersburg. 1821.
Tsarstvennaia Kniga. St Petersburg. 1769.
Archiv zapadnorusskikh uniatskikh Mitropolitov. Part i (1470-l700). St Peters-
burg. 1897.
Avvakum. Zhitie protopopa Avvakuma im samom napisannoe. Ed. Tikhopravov.

St Petersburg. 1861.
Besieda prepodobnago Sergiia i tiermana Valaamskikh Chudotvortsov. Edd, Dru-

zhinin and D'iakonov. St Petersburg. 1890.
Boldakov, J. M. Sbornik materialov po russkoi istorii. Ed. Sheremetev. St Peters-
burg. 1896.
Boris (Tsar). Gramota Tsaria Borisa. In the Sbornik kniazia Obolenskago,

no. 8.
D'iakonov, M. A. Akty otnosiashchyesia k istorii tiaglago naseleniia v moskovskom

gosudarstvie. 2 vols. Dorpat. 1895-7.
Dmitrievski, A. Arkhiepiskop Elassonski Arseni i Memuary ego iz russkoi istorii.

Kieff. 1899.
Domostroi. Ed. Zabielin. Moscow. 1882. (Also ed. Golochwastov. Moscow.

1849. Ed. lakovlev. St Petersburg. 1867.)
Drevniaia Rossiiskaia Vivliothika. See Novikov.
Forsten, G. V. Akty i pisma k istorii baltiiskago voprosa v xvi i xvii stolietiiakh,

2 vols. St Petersburg. 1889-93.
Ivan IV. Sudebnik. Ed. Bashilov. St Petersburg. 1768. Ed. Tatishchev.
Moscow. 1786. Also in Akty istoricheskiie, vol. i.

Bibliography. 863

Izviet startsa Varlaama. Ed. Platonov in Russkaia Istoricheskaia Biblioteka.
Vol. XIII. St Petersburg. 1891.

Kniga posolskaia Metryki Velikago Kniazhestva Litovskago, 1506. (Ed. Pogodin
and Dubienski, in Sbornik of Obolenski, vol. i.) Moscow. 1838.

Kotoshikhinj G. li, O Rossii v tsarstvovanie Aleksiia Mikhailovicha. Ed.
Berednikov. St Petersburg. 1840. Revised by Korkunov. St Petersburg.
1869.

Erizbanicb; luri. Politichnyia Dumy (and other writings). £d; Bezsonov. Moscow.
1859, 1860.

Kurbski, Prince A. M. Skazaniia. Ed. Ustrialov. St Petersburg. 1868.

Likhachev, N. P. Sbornik Aktov Lildiacheva. St Petersburg. 1895.

Maxim, the Greek. Sochineniia prepodobnago Maksima Greka. 3 vols. Kazan.
1869-62.

Mukhanov, P. A. Sbornik Mukhanova. 2nd edn. St Petersburg. 1866.

Napierski, C. E. Russto-livonskie Akty. (Archaeographical Commission.) St Peters-
burg. 1868.

Nikon, Patriarch. Zhitie sviatieishago Patriarkh Nikona, pisannoe niekotorym
byvshim pri uem klerikom. St Petersburg. 1817. (See also below under
Palmer.)

Novikov, N. J. Drevniaia Rossiiskaia Vivliothika. 20 parts. 2nd edn. Moscow.
1788-91. Prodolzhenie Drevnei Rossiiskoi VivliotMki. 11 parts. St Peters-
burg. 1786-1801.

Obolenski, Prince M. A, Sobornaia Gramota Dukhoventsva pravoslavnoi vostochnoi
Tserkvi utverzhdaiushchaia san Tsaria za velikim kn. loannom IV Vasil'evichem
1661 goda. Moscow. 1860.

Palitsyn, Avraami. Skazanie. In Russk. ist. Bibl. Vol. xiii.

Palmer, W. The Patriarch and the Tsar. In 6 vols. [Vol. i contains translations
of the Replies of Nikon to interrogations of his opponents ; vol. ii testimoniies
concerning Nikon from the Travels of Makarios (?.«.); vol. in the history of
his Condemnation, transl. from the work of Paisios Ligarides.] London.
1871-6.

Pamiatniki, published by the Local Record Commission from the Archives of Kiev.
Vols, i-iii. KieflF. 1845-6. New edn. 1898.

Philaret (Patriarch). Rnkopis' Philareta, Patriarliha moskovskago i vseia Rossii.
Ed. Mukhanov. Moscow. 1837.

Piesni sobrannyia. Ed. P. V. Kireevski. Moscow. 1860-2.

Platonov, S. Th. Drevnerusskiia skazaniia i poviesti o Smutnom Vremeni.
St Petersburg. 1888.

Popov, A. N. Drevne-russkiia polemicheskiia sochineniia protiv Protestantov.
Part I. Otviet Tsaria loanna Vasil'evicha Groznago lanu Rokitie. Moscow.
1878.

Materialy dlia istorii vozmushcheniia Sten'ki Razina. Moscow. 1867.

Obzor khronographov russkoi redaktsii. Moscow. 1866. 2nd edn.

1869.

Ptaszycki, S. L. Pismo pervago Samosvantsa k Papie Klimentu VIII. St Peters-
burg. 1899.

Recueil des trait^s et conventions conclus par la Russie avec les puissances toangeres.
Ed. Martens. St Petersburg. Vol. i. (Traite's avec I'Autriche, 1648-1762.)
1874. Vol. V. (Traites avec I'Allemagne, 1656-1762.) 1880.

Russkaia Istoricheskaia Biblioteka. (Published by the Archaeographical Com-
mission.) Vols, i-xviii. St Petersburg. 1872-98.

Russkii Istoricheskii Sbornik. Issued by the Imperial Society of History and
Russian Antiquities, Moscow. 7 vols. Moscow. 1837-44.

Sakharov, I. Skazaniia russkago naroda, 2 vols. St Petersburg. 1841-9.

ca. XVI.

864 Russia before Peter the Great (1477-1682).

Sbornik imperatorskag'o Russkaga istoricheskago obshchestva. Certain volumes of

this collection form a series of "Monuments of the diplomatic relations of Old

Russia with foreign powers" (Pamiatniki diplomaticheskikh snoshenii drevnei

Rossii s derzhavami inostrannymi). St Petersburg.

Pam. dipl. sn. moskovskago gosudarstva s Niemetskim Ordenom v Prussii,

1616-20. Ed. Karpov. (=Vol. uii.) 1887.
Pam. dipl. sn. moskovskago gosudarstva s Krymom, Nagaiami i Turtsieia.
Vol. I (1474-1505). 1884. Vol. ii (1508-21). 1895. Ed. Karpov and
Shtendman. (=Vols. xli and xcv.)
Pam. dipl. sn. moskovskago gosudarstva s Polskolitovskim gosudai'stvom.
Vol. I (1487-1633). 1882. Vol. ii (1633-60). 1887. Vol. iii (1560-71).
1892. Ed. Karpov. (=Vols. xxxv, lix^ and lxxi.)
Doneseniia Niderlandskikh poslannikov o ikh posolstvie v Shvetsiiu i Rossiiu
V 1615 i 1616 gg. Ed. Bek. 1878. (Vol. xxiv.) [This does not appear
under the sub-title of Pam. dipl. snosh. etc.]
Verbaal van de Nederlandsche gezanten Albert Kounraats Burgh en Johan
van Veltdriel van hunne legatie aan het Hof van Rusland, in de jaren 1630
en 1631. Ed. V.A. Kordt. 1902. (=Vol. cxvi.)
Pam. dipl. sn. moskovskago gosudarstva s Anglieiu (1531-1604). 1883.
Ed. Bestuzhev-Riumin.
Sbornik kniazia Obolenskago. (Documents from 1606 to 1766.) 12 numbers.

Moscow. 1838-59.
Sbornik starinnykh bumag khraniashchikhsia v Museie Shchukina. Vols. i-ii.

Moscow. 1896-7.
Shtendman, G. Ph. Dielo o patriarkhie Nikonie. (With documents.) St Peters-
burg. 1897.
Sinodik of the Monastery of St Cyril. In Ustrialov's edn. of Kurbski, q.v.
Sobranie Gosudarstvennykh Gramot i Dagovorov. 5 vols. Moscow. 1819-94.
Solovetskii Lietopisets na chetyre stolietiia (1429-1833). Ed. Dosithei (Archi-
mandrite). Moscow. 1833.
Stepennaia Kniga. In Platonov^ Part i, Stati po Russkoi istorii. . St Petersburg.

1903.
Stoglav. Ed. Khozhanchikov, St Petersburg. 1868.

Ustrialov, N. G. Skazaniia sobremennikov o Dimitrii Samosvantsie. Parts i-v.
St Petersburg. 1831-4.

B. Foreign.

Acta Historica res gestas Foloniae illustrantia ab anno 1507 usque ad annum 1796.
Cracow. (Vol. i, 1878; vol. xii, 2, 1890.)

Adams, Clement. Anglorum navigatio ad Moscovitas. In Marnius, ;.». (English
tr. in Halduyt and Purchas, q.v.)

Adelung, F. von. Kritisch-litterarische Ubersicht der Reisenden in Russland bis
1700 deren Berichte bekaunt sind. 2 vols. St Petersburg and Leipzig. 1846.

Archivum Domus Sapiehanae...Archiwum Domu Sapiehdw. (In progress.) Lemberg.
1892 etc.

Bathory, Stephen. Dnevnik posliednago pokhoda Stephana Batoria na Rossiiu
(1681-2) i diplomaticheskaia perepiska togo vremeni. Ed. Koialovich. St Peters-
burg. 1867.

Bibliotheque des ecrivains etrangers sur la Russie (Biblioteka inostrannykh pisatelei
o Rossii). 2 vols. St Petersburg. 1836, 1847.

Bond, E. A. Russia at the close of the sixteenth century. Edn. of the works of
Giles, Fletcher and Jerome Horsey (with documents pertaining to relations of
Russia and England in reign of Elizabeth). Hakluyt Society, London. 185G.

Bibliography. 865

Boutourliiij M. Documenti che si conservano nel R. Archivio di state in Firenze,

sezione Medicea^ riguardanti 1' antica Moscovia (Russia). 2 vols. Moscow. 1871.
Canaye. Lettres et Ambassade de messire Philippe CanayOj Seigneur de Fresne.

3 vols. Paris. 1636-6.
Collins (Dr)j Samuel. The Present State of Russia in a Letter to a Friend at

London. London. 1671.
Dlugossius, Joannes. Historia Polonica. Booli xiii. Ed. Groddeclci. Vol. ii.

Leipzig. 1712.
Dnevnik liublinskago seima 1669 goda (Polish with Russian translation). Publ. by

Archaeographical Commission. St Petersburg. 1869.
Dogiel, M. Codex diplomaticus Regni Poloniae et Magni Ducatus Lithuaniae.

Wilna. 1768 sqq.
Epistolae Patriarcharum Graecorum ad principes Moscoviae usque ad annum 1613.

Ed. W. Kegel, in Analecta Byzantino-russica, pp. 72 sqq. St Petersburg. 1891.
Fabri, J. Moscovitarum religio. Tubingen. 1525. (Included in the collection

of Marnius, q.v.)
Fletcher, Giles. Of the Russe Commonwealth, or manner of Government by the

Russe Emperor. London. 1591. New edn. by E. A. Bond, q.v.
Foy de la Neuville. Relation curieuse et nouvelle de Moscovie. The Hague. 1699.
Gordon, Patrick (General). Tagebuch. Ed. by Prince Obolenski and M. C. Posselt.

2 vols. Moscow and St Petersburg. 1849-62.
Guagninus, AL Rerum Polonicarum tomi tres. Frankfort. 1684.
Haklujft, R. Collection of the early voyages, travels and discoveries of the English

nation. (New edn. in 6 vols.) Vol. i. London. 1809. (Contains documents

connected with the Chancellor expedition.)
Hamel, J. Tradescant der altere, 1618, in Russland. St Petersburg. 1847.

Transl. J. S. Leigh, England and Russia. London. 1864.
Heidenstein, R, Rerum Polonicarum ab excessu Sigismundi Augusti libri xii.

Frankfort. 1672,

Zapiski o moskovskoi voinie (1578-82). St Petersburg. 1889.

Herberstein, Siegmund, Freiherr von. Rerum Moscoviticarum Commentarii.

Basel. 1661. Also in Marnius, q.v. Also in the Hakluyt Society's Publications.

London. 1861.
Herburt z Fulsztyna, L Chronica. Basel. 1671 ; 1616.
Historiae Ruthenicae scriptores exteri, saeculi xvi. Ed. A. de Starczewski. 2 vols.

Berlin and St Petersburg. 1841-2.
Horsey, Sir Jerome. A relacion or Memoriall. See Bond.
Jovius [=Giovio], Paulus. De legatione Basilii Magni ad Clementem VII Pont.

Max. liber. Basel. Earliest edn. 1626. Printed in Hakluyt Soc. edn. of

Herberstein, q.v., and in Marnius, q.v.
Lasicius, J. [Lasifki]. De Russorum, Moscovitarum, et Tartarorum religione.

Speyer. 1582.
Ligarides, Paisios. See Palmer.

Listy Stanislawa Zolkiewskiego, 1584-1620. Cracow. 1868.
Makarios. Travels of Macarius, Patriarch of Antioch. Transl. by F. C. Belfour.

2 parts. London. 1829-31. (See also under Palmer.)
Margeret, J. ^ta.t present de 1' empire de Russie. Paris. 1864.
Marnius, Claudius. Rerum Moscoviticarum auctores varii. Frankfort. 1600.
Massa, Isaac, de Haarlem. Histoire des guerres de la Moscovie (1601-10). 2 vols.

(Vol. I, Dutch ; Vol. ii, French translation.) Brussels. 1866.
Mayerberg, A. von (Baron). Iter in Moschoviam, s.d. Relation d'un voyage en

Moscovie. Ed. JPrince A. Galitsyn. 2 vols. Paris, Carlsruhe, Leipzig. 1858.
Memorabilis et perinde stupenda de crudeli Moscovitarum expeditione narratio, ex

germanico in latinum converaa. Douai, 1663 ; facsimile, Paris, 1868.

C. M. H. V. CH. XVI. 65

866 Rmsia before Peter the Great (1477-1682).

Michalo, Lithuanus. De moribui Tartarorum Lituanorum et MoBchorum frag^

mina x. Basel. 1616.
Monumenta medii aevi historica res gestas Poloniae illustrantia. Cracow. Vol. xi.

Actorum saeculi xv ad res publicas Poloniae spectantium Index. By A. Lewicki.

1888. Vol. XIV. Codex Epistolaris saeculi decimi quinti, vol. iii (1392-1501).

Ed. A. Lewicki. 1894.
Miinster, Sebastian. Cosraographei. Basel, 1660. French tr. Paris, 1576.
Oderbornius, Paulus. loannis Basilidis magni Moschoviae ducis vita. Wittenberg.

1686. (Included in collection of Marnius, q.v.)
Olearius, Adam. Vermehrte neue Beschreibung der Muscowitischen und Persischen

so durch Gelegenheit einer Holsteinischen Gesandschafft an den Rusaischen

Zaar und Konig in Persien geschehen. Edn. 2. Schleswig. 1656. (Edn. 1

appeared 1646.) French transl. by de Wicquefoi-t. 2 vols. Paris. 1659 ;

New. edn. Amsterdam. 1727. English transl. by J. Davies. 2 parts.

London. 1662.
Orzechowski. Rerum Polonicarum ab excessu D. Sigismundi I Annales. Appended

to Dlugossius. Vol. II. Ed. Groddecki. Leipzig. 1712.
Pierling, le Pere. Bathory et Possevino. Documents inedits sur les Rapports du

Saint-Siege avec les Slaves. Paris. 1887.
Piotrowski, J. Dziennik wyprawy Stefana Batorego pod Pskow. Ed. A. Czuczynaki.

Cracow. 1894.
Possevino, Ant. Moscovia et alia opera. Wilna. 1687. Ed. Pierling. Paris. 1882.
Purchas, Samuel. Hakluytus Posthumus, or Purchase his Pilgrimes. Book ii.

Part III. London. 1626.
Recueil des Instructions donndes aux ambassadeurs et ministres de France depuis

les traites de Westphalie jusqu'a la revolution franfaise. Russie (with intro-
duction and notes by A. Rambaud). Vol. i. Paris. 1890.
Relacye Nuncyuszdw apostolskich i innych osob o Polsce od roku 1648 do 1690.

2 vols. Berlin. 1864.
Rerum Rossicarum Scriptores Exteri. Vol. i. Conradi Bussovii et Petri Petraei

Chronica Moscovitica. (Publ. by Archaeographical Commission.) St Petersburg.

1861.
Rinhuber, Laurent. Relation du voyage en Russie iait en 1684. Berlin. 1883.
Scriptores rerum Polonicarum. Vols. i-. (In progress.) Cracow. 1872-.
(Solikowski, J. D. =) Sulicovius. Commentarius brevis rerum Polonicarum a morte

Sigismundi Augusti Poloniae regis. Danzig. 1647.
Struys, John. Voyages en Moscovie, en Tartarie, en Perse, aux Indes, et en

plusieurs autres pais etrangers. Amsterdam. 1681. (Eng. transl. by John

Morrison. London. 1684.)
Tembereki, St. Chronicle. In Script, rer. PoL Vol. xvi. 1898.
Theiner, A. Monuments historiques relatifs aux regnes d' Alexis Michaelowitch,

Feodor III et Pierre le Grand, Czars de Russie. Rome. 1859.
Vetera Monumenta Poloniae et Lithuaniae gentiumque finitimarum historiam

illustrantia. 4 vols. Rome. 1860-4.
Tolstoy, George. The first forty years of intercourse between England and Russia,

1563-93. Documents [English with Russian translations]. [Also equivalent

Russian title.] St Petersburg. 1876.
Turgenev, A. I. Historica Russiae monumenta ex antiquis exterarum gentium

archivis deprompta(publ. by Imp. Acad, of Sc). 2 vols. St Petersburg. 1841;

supplementum, 1848.
Vimina, Alberto. Historia delle guerre civili di Polonia. With appendix: Relazione

della Moscovia. Venice. 1671.
Zholkievski. Zapiski Getmana Zholkievskago o moskovskoi voinie. St Petersburg.

1871.

Bibliography. 867

• II. GENERAL WORKS.

Bantysh-Kamenskij N. N. Istoriia Maloi Rossii. 3 parts. 3rd edn. Moscow. 1842.

Bemhardi, Th. von. Greschiclite Russlands nnd der europaischen Politik in den
Jahren 1814-31. Part ii, pp. 267-428. Leipzig. 1874.

Bestuzhev-Riumin, K. Russkaia istoriia. Vol. ii. St Petersburg. 1885.

BieloVj E. A. Russkaia istoriia do rephormy Petra Velikago. St Petersburg. 1895.

Biographical Dictionary. Russkii biographicheskii Slovar'. Ed. under the direction
of A. A. Polovzov, president of Imp. Russ. Hist. Society. Vols. i-. St Peters-
burg. 1896-.

Bruckner, A. Geschichte Russlands bis zum Ende des 18. Jahrhunderts. Vol. i.
(All published.) Gotha. 1896.

Golubinski, E. E. Istoriia russkoi tserkvi. Vol. i, in 2 Parts. 2nd edn. Moscow.
1901, 1904. Vol. II, first half. Moscow. 1900.

Gumilevski, Ph. Istoriia russkoi tserkvi. Moscow. 1888.

Karamzin, N. Istoriia gosudarstva rossiiskago. Vols, vi-xii. 3rd edn. St Peters-
burg. 1830-1. (French translation in 11 vols., 1819-26.)

Kliuchevski, V. O. Kratkoe posobie po russkoi istorii. 2nd edn. Moscow. 1900.

Kostomarov, N. I. Russkaia istoriia v zhizneopisaniiakh eia glavnieishykh dieia-
telei. 4th edn. Vols, i and ii. St Petersburg. 1896.

Makary (Archbishop). Istoriia russkoi tserkvi. 12 vols. St Petersburg. 1867-83.

Markevich, N. Istoriia Malorossii. 6 vols. Moscow. 1842-3.

Morfill, W. R. Russia. New edn. London. 1903.

Muraviev [Mouravieff], A. N. A History of the Church of Russia, translated by
Blackmore. Oxford. 1842.

Polevoi, N. A. Istoriia russkago naroda. 2nd edn. 6 vols. Moscow. 1830-3.

Pypin, A. N. Istoriia russkoi literatury. Vol. n. St Petersburg. 1898.

Rambaud, A. Histoire de la Russie. New edn. Paris. 1893.

Richter, A. von. Geschichte der Ostsee-Provinzen. 3 vols. Riga. 1867-8.

Schiemann, Th. Russland, Polen, und Livland bis in's 17. Jahrhundert. 2 vols.
Berlin. 1886.

Seraphim, E. Geschichte livlands, Esthlands und Kurlands. 2 vols. Reval. 1894-6.

Geschichte von Livland. Vol. i. Gotha. 1906.

Solov'ev, S. M. Istoriia Rossii s drevnieishikh vremen. 29 vols. Moscow.
1861-78. New edn. with index, St Petersburg. Vols, v-xiii.

Strahl, P. and Herrmann, E. Geschichte des Russischen Staates. Vol. u, by Strahl
(to 1606); Vol. Ill, by Herrmann (1606-1682). (Gesch. d. Europ. Staaten.)
Hamburg. 1839, 1846.

Theiner, A. Annales ecclesiastic!. 3 vols. Rome. 1866.

Zabielin, I. Istoriia Moskvy. Moscow. 1902.

Zagoskin, G. Istoriia prava moskovskago gosudarstva. Kazan. 1877.

III. SPECLA.L HISTORIES, MONOGRAPHS ETC.

Bacmeister, J. V. Beytrage znr Lebensgeschichte des Patriarchen Nikon. Riga.
1788.

Bagaliei, D. I. Ocherki iz istorii kolonizatsii stepnoi okrainy moskovskago gosu-
darstva. (Imp. Society of History and Antiquities of Russia.) Moscow. 1887.

Bain, R. N. First Romanovs (1613-1726). London. 1905.

Bantysh-Kamenski, N. N. Obzor vnieshnikh snosheuii Rossii po 1800 god. 3 vols.
Moscow. 1894^7.

Barsukov, A. P. Rod Sheremetievykh. Vols, i-vii. St Petersburg. 1881-99.

Bauer, Erwin. Die Wahl Michail Feodorowitsch Romanows zum Zaren von Russ-
land. In Historische Zeitschrift, zz. 1886.

OH. XVI. 56 — 2

868 Rmsia before Peter the Great (1477-1682).

Beltrami, L. Aristotele da Bologna 1458-64. Milan. 1888.

Berchetj G. Relazione della Moscovia di Alberto Vimina. Milan. 1861.

Bielaiev, I. D. Krest'ane na Rusi. 3rd edn. Moscow. 1891.

Lektsii po istorii russkago zakouodatelstra. 2nd edn. Moscow. 1888.

Borosdin, A. K. Protopop Avvakum. 2nd edn. St Petersburg. 1900.
Bruckner, A. Beitrage zur Kulturgeschichte Russlands im 17. Jahrhundert. Leipzig.

1887.

Die Europaisierung Russlands. Gotha. 1888.

Buslaev, Th. I. Istoricheskie ocherki nisskoi narodnoi slovesnosti i iskustva.

2 vols. St Petersburg. 1861.
Buturlin, D. P. Istoriia smutuago vremeni v Rossii v nachalie xvii vieka. 3 parts.

St Petersburg. 1839-46.
Bykov, A. A. Patriarkh Nikon. Biographicheskii ocherk. St Petersburg. 1891.
Cawston, G. and Keane, A. H. The Early Chartered Companies (a.d. 1296-1858).

London. 1896.
Chechulin, N. D. Goroda moskovskago gosudarstva v xvi viekie. St Petersburg.

1889.
Chichagov, N. Zhizn kniazia Pozharskago, kelaria Palitsyna, grazhdanskago Minina.

St Petersburg. 1848.
Chicherin, B. N. O narodnom predstavitestvie. 2nd edn. Moscow. 1898.
D'iakonov, M. A. Vlast moskovskikh Gosudarei. St Petersburg. 1889.

Ocherki po istorii selskago naseleniia moskovskago gosudarstva. St Peters-
burg. 1898.

Razyskaniia po istorii prikriepleniia vladielcheskikh krest'ane v moskovskom

gosudarstvie. St Petersburg. 1901.

Dosithei (Archimandrite). Geographicheskoe, istoricheskoe, i statisticheskoe opisanie

Solovetskago monastyria. 3 parts. Moscow. 1836.
Einhorn, V. O. Ocherki iz istorii Malorossii v xvii viekie. Vol. i. Moscow. 1898.

Otstavka A. L. Ordinar-Nashchokina i ego otnosheniia k malorossiiskomu

voprosu. In Zhurn. Min. Nar. Prosv., xi, pp. 92 sqq. 1897.

Fiedler, J. Nikolaus Poppel, erster Gesandter Oesterreichs in Russland. Vienna.
1857.

Ein Versuch der Vereinigung der Russischen mit der Romischen Kirche im

sechszehnten Jahrhundert. In Sitzungsber. d. Ak. d. Wiss. Vol. xl. Vienna.
1862.

Galitzin, E., Prince. La Russie du xvii" siecle dans ses rappoi-ts avec TEurope

occidentale. Paris. 1865.
Gehring, J. Die Sekten der Russischen Kirche. Leipzig. 1898.
Golubev, S. T. Kievskii Mitropolit Petr Mogila. 2 vols. Kieff. 1883, 1898.
Gorski, P. O. Zhizn i istoricheskoe znachenie kniazia A. M. Kurbskago. Kazan.

1858.
Gradovski, A. Nachala russkago gosudarstvennago prava. 3 vols. St Petersburg.

1876—83.
Hirschberg, A. Dymitr Samozwaniec. Lemberg. 1890.
lasinski, A. N. Sochineniia kniazia Kurbskago. St Petersburg. 1889.
Ikonnikov, V. S. Opyt izsliedovauiia o kul'tumom znachenii Vizantii v russkoi

istorii. Kieff. 1869.

Izsliedovaniia o glavnykh napravleniiakh v naukie russkoi istorii: Vlianie

vizantiiskoi i iuzhno-russkoi obrazovannosti. Kieff. 1869.

Ilovaiski, D. I. Istoriia riazanskago kniazhestva. Moscow. 1868.

Smutnoe vremia moskovskago gosudarstva. Moscow. 1894.

Sobranie istoricheskikh sochinenii. Part 2. Moscow. 1897.

Ivanishev, N. D. Zhizn kniazia A. M. Kurbskago v Litvie. 2 vols. Kieff.

1849.

Bibliography. 869

Eapterev, N. Kharakter otnoshenii Rossii k pravoslavnomu Vostoku v xvi i xvii
stolietakh. Moscow. 1886.

Kapustin, M. Diplomaticheskiia snosheniia Rosgii s zapadnoi Evropoiu vo vtoroi
polovinie xvu-go vieka. Moscow. 1852.

Kazanski, P. Ispravlenie tserkovno-bogosluzhebnykh knig pri Patriai-khe Phi-
laretie. Moscow. 1848.

Kedrov. Avraami Palitsyn. Moscow. 1880.

Khrushchkov, I. R. K istorii russkikh pocht. St Petersburg. 1884.

Kisewetter, A. A. Ivan Grozny! i ego oponenty. Moscow. 1898.

Kliucbevski^ V. Boiarskaia duma drevnei Rusi. 2nd edn. Moscow. 1883.

Koialovich, M. O. Chteuiia po istorii zapadnoi Rossii. 4th edn. St Petersburg.
1884.

Kostomarov, N. Istoricheskiia Monographii i Izsliedovaniia. 20 vols. St Peters-
burg.

Besides many studies bearing on the period which will be found in vols, i-m,
zii-xiv, this collection contains the following works :

Vol. IV. Nazvanyi Tsar Dimitri. 3rd edn. 1883.

Vol. V. Tsar Vasilii Shuiski i Vory. 3rd edn. 1883.

Vol. VI. Moskovskoe Razoren'e : Smutnoe Vremia moskovskago gosudarstva

v nachalie xvi stolietiia 1604-13. 3rd edn. 1884.
Vols, ix-xi. Bogdan Khmel'mtski. 4th edn. 1884.
Vol. XVI. Ruina : istoricheskaia monographiia 1663-87 ', Hetmanstva Bur-

khovetskago Mnogogrieshnago i Samolovicha. 1882.
Vol. XIX. Ocherk domashnei zhizni i nravov velikorusskago uaroda v xvi

i xvn stolietiiakh. 3rd edn. and Starinnye zemskie Sobory. 1887.
Vol. XX. Ocherk torgovly moskovskago gosudarstva v xvi i xvii stolietiiakh.

2nd edn. 1889.

Kovalevski, M. Modern Customs and Ancient Laws of Russia. London. 1891.
Lappo, I. L Velikoe kniazhestvo litovskoe v 1569-81 godakh. St Petersburg.

1901.
Lappo-Danilevski, A. S. Razskazaniia po istorii prikriepleniia vladielcheskikh

krest'ane. St Petersburg. 1901.
Latkin, V. Zemskie Sobory drevnei Rusi. St Petersburg. 1855.
Lebedev, N. Makarii mitropolit vserossiiskii. Moscow, 1881.

Stoglavnyi Sobor. Moscow. 1882.

Leger, L. Russes et Slaves. Paris. 1890.

Lileey, N. Simeon Bekbulatovich Khan Kasimovski, Tver. 1891.

Liubavski, M. K. Oblastnoe dielenie i miestnoe upravlenie litovsko-russkago

gosudarstva. Moscow. 1892.
Makary (Archbishop). Istoriia russkago Raskola izviestnago pod imeuem Staro-

obriadstva. 2nd edn. St Petersburg. 1858.
Marchockij M. S. Historya wojny Moskiewskiej. Posen. 1841.
Markevich, A. L G. K. Kotoshikhin i ego sochinenie. Odessa. 1896.

Izbranie na tsarstvo Mikhaila Th. Romanova. In Zhurn. Min. Nar. Prosv.,

Sept. and Oct. St Petersburg. 1891.

Istoriia miestnichestva v moskovskom gosudarstvie v xv-xvii viekie. Odessa.

1888.

Grigori Karpovich Kotoshikhin i ego sochinenie o moskovskom gosudarstvie

v polovinie xvii vieka. Odessa. 1895.

Mikhailovskij N. K. Ivan Grozny! v russkoi literaturie. In the author's So-

chineniia, voL vi, pp. 127 sqq. St Petersburg. 1897-
Miklashevsldj I. N. K istorii khoziaistvennago byta moskovskago gosudarstva.

Pai-t 1. Moscow. 1894.

870 Bitssia before Peter the Great (14T7-1682).

Miliukov, P. Ocherki po istorii russkoi kultury. 3 vols. St Petersburg. 1896-
1901. German transl. by E. Davidson. Leipzig^. 1898 etc. (In progress.)

Spornye voprosy. St Petersburg. 1902.

Nebol'sin, P. I. Pokorenie Sibiri. 2 parts. St Petersburg. 1849.

Nekrasov, I. S. Opyt istoriko-literaturnago izsliedovaniia o proiskhozhdenii drevne-

russkago Domostroia. Moscow. 1873.
Opokov, Z. Kniaz A. M. Kurbski. KiefF. 1872.
"P— ski." Kniaz A. M. Kurbski. Kazan. 1873.
Panteniusj Th. H. Der falsche Demetrius. Bielefeld. 1904.
Pavlovj A. S. Istoricheskii ocherk sekuliaryzatsii tserkovnykh zemel. Odessa.

1871.
Pavlov-Silvanskij N. Gosudarevy sluzhilye liudi. St Petersburg. 1898.
Pierling, le Pere. Le Saint-Siege, la Pologne et Moscou (1682-7). Paris. 1886.

La Russie et le Saint-Siege. !^tudes diplomatiques. 3 vols. Paris. 189&-

1901.

Platonov, S. Th. Lektsii po russkoi istorii. St Petersburg. 1901.

Ocherki po istorii Smuty v Moskovskom gosudarstvie. 2nd edn. St Peters-
burg. 1901.

Stati po russkoi istorii. St Petersburg. 1903.

Rozhkov, N. Sel'skoe khoziaistvo v moskovskoi Rusi v xvi viekie. Moscoir. 1899.
Rushcbinski, L. P. Religiosnyi byt Russkikh po sviedieniiakh inostrannykh

pisatelei xvi i xvii viekov. Moscow. 1871.
Savva, V. I. Moskovskie Tsari i vizantiiskie Vasilevsy. Charkoff. 1901.
Scepkin, E. N. Kratkiia izviestiia o Lzhedimitrii I. Odessa. 1900.

Wer war Pseudodemetrius I? In Archiv fur slavische Philologie, Vols.

xx-xxii. Berlin. 1898-1900.

Scherer, J. B. Annales de la Petite-Russie, ou Histoires des Cosaques-Saporogues.
2 vols. Paris. 1788.

Histoire raisonn^e du Commerce de la Russie. 2 vols. Paris. 1788.

Senigov, I. Narodnoe vozzrenie na dieiatelnost loanna Groznago. St Petersburg.

1902.
Seredonin, 8. M. Sochinenie Dzhil'sa Phletchera " Of the Russe Commonwealth/'

kak istoricheskii istochnik. St Petersburg. 1891.
Sergieevichj V. Drevnosti russkago prava. 3 vols. St Petersburg. 1890-1903.

Lektsii po istorii russkago prava. St Petersburg. 1883.

Shchapov, A. P. Russkii Raskol Staroobriadstva. Kazan. 1869.

Shestakov, S. Vizantiiskii typ Domostroia i cherty skhodstva ego 8 Domostroem
Silvestra. In Vizantiiskii Vremennik, viii, 38 sqq. St Petersburg. 1901.

Shmurlo, E. Vostok i Zapad v russkoi istorii. Dorpat. 1896.

Smirnov, P. S. Vnutrenniie voprosy v Raskolie. St Petersburg. 1898.

Smirnov, S. Biographiia kniazia D. M. Fozharskago. Moscow. 1862.

Sobolevskij A. J. Zapadnoe vliianie na literaturu moskovskoi Rusi zv-zvii t.
St Petersburg. 1898.

Sokolovski, G. P. Ocherk istorii selskoi obshchiny na sieverie Rossii. St Peters-
burg. 1877.

Stein, F. Geschichte des Russischen Heeres. Leipzig. 1896.

Stroev, P. M. Vykhody gosudarei tsarei i velikikh kniazei MikhaUa Theodorovicha,
Aleksiia Mikhailovicha, Theodora Aleksievicha, vseia Rusii samderzhtsev (s 1632
po 1681 god). Moscow.

Szadeczky, L. Bathory Istvan. Budapest 1887.

Ternovski, N. N. Ivan Andreevich Krylov — ego znachenie i iazyk basen. Voronezh.
1896.

Ternovski, Ph. A. Izuchenie vizantiiskoi istorii i eia tendentsioznoe prilozhenie k
drevueiRusi. 2 parts. Kieff. 1876-6.

Bibliography. 871

Tikhomirov, G. V. Tsar Boris Theodorovich v tserkovnykh i grazMovanskikh
sobytiakh i mieropriiatiiakh ego vremeni. St Petersburg. 1903.

TlmotheeVj A. G. Istoriia tielesnykh nakazanii v russkom pravie. St Petersburg.
1897.

Tsvietaev, D. V. Iz istorii inostrannykh ispoviedanii v Rossii v xvi i xvn viekakh.
Moscow. 1886.

Protestanstvo i Protestanty v Rossii do epokhi preobrazovanii. Moscow.

1890 etc. (In progress.)

Uspenskij Th. Kak voznik i razvivalsia v Rossii vostochnyi vopros. St Petersburg.
1887.

Nakaz tsaria Ivana. Odessa. 1885.

Peregovory o mirie mezhdu Moskvoi i Polshei v 1581-1682 godakb. Odessa.

1887.

Ustrialov, N. G. Imenitye liudi Stroganovy. St Petersburg. 1842.

Waliszewskij K. Ivan le Terrible. Paris. 1904.

Zabielin, I. B. Domasbnii byt russkago naroda v xvi i xvii st. Part 1. Domashnii
byt x-usskikh tsarei v xvi i xvii st. Moscow. 1862. Part 2. Domashnii byt
russkikh tsarits v xvi i xvii st. 2nd edn. Moscow. 1872.

Minin i Pozharski. 3rd edn. Moscow. 1896.

Zaleskij S. Jezuici w Polsce. Lemberg. 1900.

Zamyslovski, E. Gerbersbtein i ego istoriko-geographicheskiiaizvieestiia o Rossii...
S prilozbeniem materialov dlia istoriko-geographicheskago Atlasa Rossii xvi v.
St Petersburg. 1884.

Tsarstvovanie Thedora Aleksieevicba. Part 1. (Survey of Sources.)

St Petersburg. 1871.

a72

CHAPTER XVII.

PETER THE GREAT AND HIS PUPILS.
(1689-1730.)

IWorks in the Russian language are marked (R.).]
I. BIBLIOGRAPHIES.

Ikonnikov, V. A sketch of Russian historiography. KiefF. 1892. (R.)

Index to all the periodical publications of the Russian Imperial Historical Society.

Moscow. 1883. (R.)
Index to the contents of the Russky Arkhiv (Russian Archives, one of the

principal historical magazines of Russia). 1863-92. Moscow. 1892. (R.)
Index to the contents of the Russian Historical Review, 1880-9. St Petersburg.

1891. (R.)
MezhoT, V. I. Bibliographical catalogue of literature published on the occasion of

the Jubilee of Peter the Great. St Petersburg. 1881. (R.)

Bibliographie des livres Russes d'histoire, 1800-64. St Petersburg. 1892-3.

Russian Imperial Historical Society's lists and indexes, 1815-S8. Moscow. 1889.

(R.)

II. COLLECTIONS OF ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS.

Ge&oy, M. A. Recueil des instructions donnees aux ambafisadeurs de France
depuis les trait^s de Westphalie etc. Commission des archives diplomatiques.
Vol. 11. Paris. 1884 etc.

Golitsuin, D. M., Prince, the elder. Correspondence, 1709-18. Studienko. Ma-
terials etc. VoL n. KiefF. 1852 etc. (R.)

Golovin, F. A., Count. Correspondence with Sheremetev. Moscow. 1860. (R.)

Golovkin, G. J., Count. Correspondence, 1708-12. Studienko: Materials etc.
Vol. I. Kieff. 1862 etc. (R.)

Kurakin, T. A., Prince. Archives of Prince Kurakin. St Petersburg. 1890. (R.)

The eighteenth century. Moscow. 1904. [Collection of Russian and French

diplomatic documents.]

Menshikov, A. D. Correspondence, 1708-22. Studienko: Materials etc. Vol. u.

KiefF. 1862 etc. (R.)
Newspapers of the time of Peter the Great. Moscow. 1903 etc. (R.)
Peter the Great, Correspondence of, with Sheremetev, 1707-22. Collections of the

Imperial Russian Historical Society. Vol. xxv. St Petersburg. 1878. (R.)

Documents relating to the visit of Peter the Great to Paris in 1717. St

Petersburg, 1881. (R.)

Bibliography. 873

Peter the Great. —Journal de Pierre le Grand depuis I'ann^e 1698 jusqu'4 la conclusion
de la Paix de Neustadt. Berlin. 1773.

Letters and correspondence of Peter the Great. St Petersburg. 1887 etc.

(R.) [The most important and exhaustive collection of documents relating to
Peter, still in progress.]

Russian Imperial Historical Society, Sbornik, or Collections of the. Vol. xv con-
taining the dispatches of the Prussian Minister, Mardefeldt, 1721-33 (German),
and the dispatches of the Saxon Minister, Lefort, 1721-30 (German); Vols, xi,
xiiix, Lvni, liXiv, Lxxxvi, xoii, xcvi, and o containing the correspondence of
the French Ministers, Campredon and Chetardie, 1725-40; Vols, txi, lxvi,
lixxvi and lxxx containing the correspondence of the English Ministers Whit-
worth, Mackenzie, Haldane, Norrls, Jeffreys, and Rondeau, 1704-39 (English).
St Petersburg. 1867 etc.

Senate, acts and proceedings of, during the reign of Peter the Great. St Petersburg.
1897 etc. (R.)

ShmurlOj E. F. Collection of documents relating to the history of the reign of
Peter the Great. Dorpat. 1903 etc. (Russian and French.)

Supreme Privy Council, protocols of, 1726-30. St Petersburg. 1886-98. (R.)

Tikhomirov, N. In memory of Peter the Great. Collection of documents relating
to Peter the Great. St Petersburg. 1872 etc. (R.)

Vorontsov Archives etc. Moscow. 1881 etc. (Russian and French.)

ni. CONTEMPORARY OR NEARLY CONTEMPORARY NARRATIVES.

(a) Peteb the Great.

A true authentick... history of the life and glorious actions of the Tsar of Muscovy.

London. [1730.?]
Bergholz, F. W. von. Diary. Moscow. 1902. (R.)

Crise. La Crise du Nord, ou reflexions sur la politique du Czar. [s. 1.] 1717.
Foy de la Neuville. Relation curieuse et nouvelle de Moscovie. The Hague. 1699.
Gordon, Patrick. Tagebuch. Moscow. 1849-52. The same, in an English

abridgement. (Spalding Club.) Aberdeen. 1859.
Hermann, E. Zeitgenossische Berichte etc. Berlin. 1872.
Juel, J. En Rejse tU Rusland under Tsar Peber. Copenhagen. 1893.
Kerb, J. G. Diarium itineris in Moscoviam, anno 1698. Vienna. [1700.?] English

Transl. by Count MacDonnell. London. 1860.
Pososhkov, J., Works of. Moscow. 1842. (R.)
Prokopovich, T. On the death of Peter the Ghreat [with copious ms. notes]. St

Petersburg. 1726. (R.)
Promemoria pour feire voir combien la puissance du Czar est redoutable. [The

Hague.] 1720.
Rinhuhr, L. Relation du voyage en Russie feit en 1694. Berlin. 1883. (French

and German.)

(b) Catherine I to Anne.

FitzJames, J., first Duke of Liria. Diario del viaje 4 Moscovea del Embajador el

Duque de Liria. (Coleccion de documentos ineditos para la historia de Espana.

Tomo 93.) Madrid. 1889.
Nepluyev, J. J. Correspondence [chiefly relating to oriental affairs during the

author's embassy at Constantinople]. St Petersburg. 1893. (R.)
[Rondeau, Lady.] Letters from a lady who resided some time in Russia. London.

1776.

874 Peter the Great and Us ptipils, 1689-1730.

IV. LATER WORKS,
(a) Genebaii.

Aleksandfenko; V, N. Russian diplomatic agents in London in the eighteenth

century. Warsaw. 1897-8. (R.)
— ' — Beitrage zur Geschichte der diplomatischen Verhandlungen zwischen Rnss-

land u. England^ Epoche Peters d. Grossen. Guhen. 1898.
Bain, R. N. The first Romanovs. London. 1906.

The Pupils of Peter the Great. London. 1897.

Bantuish-Kamensky, D. N. Biographies of the Russian generalissimos. St Peters-

hurg. 1840. (R.)
Bruckner, A. Die EuropSisierung Russlands. Gotha. 1888. (R.)
Dolgorukov, P. V., Prince. Biography of Count A. I. Osterman. In Russian

Conversation. Vol. u. St Petersburg. 1841. (R.)
Kostomarov, N. J. Russian history in biographies. St Petersburg. 1888 etc. (R.)
Morfill; W. R. A history of Russia from the birth of Peter the Great to the death

of Alexander II. London. 1902.
Muish, M. J. On the foreigners in Russia. St Petersburg. 1888. (R.)
Popov, A. N. From the life of Count Peter Tolstoi. Russky Vyestnik, No. 11.

St Petersburg. 1860.
Porozovskaya, B. D. The life of Menshikov. St Petersburg. 1896. (R.)
Sinitsinov, P. V. Preobrazhenskoe. Moscow 1896. (R.)
Sokolowski, A. History of Poland. Vol. in. Vienna. 1896-1906. (Polish.)
Solov'ev, S. M. History of Russia. Vols, x-xiv. St Petersburg. 1896 etc. (B.)
Vasilev, M. Russisch-franzosische Politik, 1689-1717. Tille, Geschichtliche Sta-

dien. i, 3. Gotha. 1902.

(b) Peter the Great.

Bogoslovsky, M. The provincial reforms of Peter the Great. Moscow. 1902. (R.)
Bozheryanov, I. N. St Petersburg in the times of Peter the Great. St Petersburg.

1901-3. (R.)
Briickner, A. J. Possoschkov. Ideen und Zustande in Russland zur Zeit Peters

des Grossen. Leipzig. 1878.

Patrick Gordon and his diary. St Petersburg. 1878. (R.)

Peter der Grrosse. Oncken: Allgemeine Geschichte, lu, 6. Berlin. 1878 etc.

Der Zarevitsch Alexei. Heidelberg. 1880.

Chistyakov, S. A. History of Peter the Great. St Petersburg. 1903. (R.)
Golikov, J. J. The acts of Peter the Great. Moscow. 1837-42. (R.)

Historical sketch of the life of Lefort. Moscow. 1800. (R.)

Hugon de Basseville, N. J. Pieces historiques sur la vie de Lefort. Geneva. 1784.
Pavlov-Selvansky, N. Projects of reform in the correspondence of the contemporaries

of Peter the Great. St Petersburg. 1897. (R.)
Pelkarsky, P. P. Science and literature in Russia under Peter the Great. St

Petersburg. 1862. (R.)
Pogodin, M. P. The first seventeen years of the life of Peter the Great. Moscow.

1876. (B.)
Posselt, M. C. Der General Franz Lefort. Frankfort 1866.

Peter der Grosse und Leibnitz. Dorpat. 1843.

Scheltema, J. Anecdotes historiques sur Pierre le Grand dans lea anndes 1697 et

1717. Lausanne. 1842.
Schuyler, E. Peter the Great. London. 1884.

Bibliography. 875

Sokolovsky, J. V. Peter the Great as the educator of the nation. Kazan. 1873. (R.)
Solov'ev, S. M. Public lectures on Peter the Great. St Petersburg. 1903. (R.)
Timchenko-Rnban, G. J. The first years of Petersburg. St Petersburg. 1901. (R.)
Ustryalov, N. G. Le proces du Tsarevitch Alexis Petrovitch. Leipsic. 1860.
Verenetj G. Pierre le Grand en Hollande... 1697 et 1717. Utrecht. 1866.
Waliszewski, K. Pierre le Grand. Paris. 1897.

Whitworth, Charles, Baron Whitworth. An account of Russia. (Strawberry Hill
Press.) 1768.

(c) Catherine I to Anne.

Andriev, V. Catharine I. Moscow. 1869. (R.)

Grot, Y. K. Origin of the Empress Catherine I. Zapiski of the Imperial Academy

of Sciences. Vol. xxxi. St Petersburg. 1877. (R.)
Korsakov, D. From the lives of Russian Statesmen of the eighteenth century.

Kazan. 1891. (R.)
Semevsky, M. I. Tsaritsa Catherine, Anne and William Mons. St Petersburg.

1884. (R.)

Tsaritsa Praskovia. St Petersburg. 1883. (R.)

Vodovozor, V. J. Sketches from Russian history of the eighteenth century. St

Petersburg. 1897. (R.)
Waliszewski, K. L'heritage de Pierre le Grand. Paris. 1900.

CH. xvu.

876

CHAPTER XVIII.

THE SCANDINAVIAN KINGDOMS.

r. BIBLIOGRAPHIES, CATALOGUES ETC.

Setterwall, K. Svensk historisk bibliografi, 1876-1900. Stockholm. 1907.

Forteckning ofver Acta Svecica i Calendars of State Papers. Stockholm.,

1889.
Warmholtz, C. G. Bibliotheca historica Sveo-Gothica. Vols, ix, x. Upsala.

1803-5.
Winkelmann, E. Bibliotheca Livoniae historica. Berlin. 1878.

IL DOCUMENTS.

The unpublished documentary sources for the reign of Charles XI are very
rich. By far the greatest portion of them is preserved in the Riksarkiv. in Stock-
holm. This includes the protocols of the Bid and Chancery together with drafts
and copies of outgoing official writings. From 1684 and 1688 respectively the
departments of Foreign Affairs and Justice are separated from the rest. A great
mass of official letters to the King and Had are also preserved. The Diplomatica
include not merely the reports of various agents to the government classified under
countries, but also a mass of transactions at congresses, the originals of treaties,
and foreign diplomatic papers. The Archives of the Chancery, and of the depart-
ments of Mines and Commerce, with great portions of those of the Treasury, are also
preserved here. Special sections contain documents relating to War, and to the
foreign provinces of Sweden (Bremen, Esthonia, Ingria, Livonia, Pomerania, and
Wismar). The transactions of the Diets are there; but the protocols of the
nobles are to be found in the Riddarhus. Finally mention must he made of
the Oxenstiema collection, and others which contain the papers of Nils Bielke,
Duke Adolphus John, and M. 6. de La Gardie. All these are in the Riksarkiv.
Other Archives are those of the Treasury, which contains the greater part of the
transactions concerning the Reduction, the fleet and war. The University Library
of Upsala contains the papers of B. Sparre, and J. A. Meyerfelt ; that of Lund, the
papers of F. Wrede. Among collections in private ownership is that at Eriksberg',
which contains parts of the papers of Bengt Oxenstierna and Magnus Stenbock.

III. CONTEMPORARY DOCUMENTS AND WRITINGS.

Acta et litterae ad historiam Snecanam. Fasc. 1-21. Upsala. 1817-26.

Allen, C. F, Bidrag til Danmarks Historie under Christian V, samlede fra uden-

laudske Arkiver. Ed. C. Bruun. 7 Svenske relationer, 1679-99. (From the

Riksarkiv. in Stockholm.)
Annerstedt, C. Faltmarskalken grefve Magnus Stenbock. Minnesteckning. 1906.

Bibliography. 877

Avaux, Comte J. A. de. N^gociations de monsieur le comte d'Avanx, ambassadeur
extraordinaire a la com de Suede pendant les annees 1693, 1697, 1698, publi^es
pour la premiere fois d'apr^s le manuscrit conserve k la bibliotheque de 1' Arsenal
a Paris par J. A. Wijnne. Utrecht. 1882-3.

Berkkemeyer, G. Der Bericht des liineburgischen Feldpredigers Georg Berkke-
meyer fiber die Feldzuge von 1674 bis 1679. MitgetheUt v. G. Weber.
Zeitschr. d. Histor. Vereins f. Niedersachsen. 1898.

Charles XI. Breftill Nils Bielke [1676-97]. Ed. O. Malmstrom. Stockholm. 1900.

Konung Carl den Xltes dag-bok. Ed. C. G. Nordin. Hernosand. 1808.

Fantj E. M. Handlingar til uplysning af svenska historien. Vols. i-iv. Upsala.

1789-1802.
Frederick William (the Great Elector). — Urkunden und Actenstucke zur Geschichte

des Kurfiirsten Friedrich WUhelm von Brandenburg. Vols, i-xix. Berlin.

1864-1906.
Fryxell, A. Handlingar rorande Sveriges historia, ur utrikes arkiver. Vols. i-iv.

Stockholm. 1836-43.
GjorweU, C. C. (Editor). Det swenska biblioteket. Vols, i-v with appendix.

Stockholm. 1757-62.
— '■ — '■ Nya svenska biblioteket. Vols, i, parts 1-2 ; ii. Stockholm. 1761-6.
Gtroot, P. de. — Lettres de Pierre de Groot, ambassadeur des Provinces-UnieSj

k A. de Wicquefort, resident des dues de Brunswick (1668-74). Publ. d'apres

les manuscrits par F. J. L. Kramer. The Hague. 1894.
Hulbech, J. M. Magister Provst Jorgen Mikkelsen Hulbechs om Krigsbegiven-

hederne i Danmark i aarene, 1709-15.
Jacobsen, S. Den nordiske kriigs kronicke [1675-9]. Ed. M. Weibull. Lund. 1897.
La Gardiska, de, Archivet, handlingar ur grefl. De la Gardiska biblioteket pS,

Loberod. Ed. P. Wieselgren. Parts 6-10, 12-15, 17. Lund. 1835-42.
Loenbom, S. Archivum, Historiskt, inneh^Uande markvardigheter, uplysningar

och anecdoter i swenska historien. §§ 1-6. Ed. S. Loenbom. Stockholm.

1774-6.

Handlingar til konung Carl Xltes historia. Collection 1-16. Stockholm.

1763-74.

Historiska markvardigheter till uplysning af swenska hafder. 4 vols. Stock-
holm. 1767-8.

Kongl ridets och faltmarskalkens, herr grefve Magni Stenbocks lefwerne.

4 vols. Stockholm. 1767-66. Danish translation. 3 vols. Copenhagen.
1789-90.

Uplysningar i swenska historien. 4 vols. Stockholm. 1768-71. New

edition. 3 vols. 1773-4.

Malmstrom, C. G. Handlingar rorande Sveriges historia under aren 1713-20.
Upsala. 1854.

Handlingar rorande Skandinaviens historia [published by K. Samfundet for

Utgifvande af handskrifter rorande Skandinaviens historia]. Stockholm, 1816-
60. Index, 1866.

Molesworth, R. An account of Denmark as it was in the year 1692. 4th edn.

London. 1738.
Oliva, Peace of. — Acta pacis Olivensis inedita...Recensmt, illustravit, observationes

adiecit Johannes Gottlob Boehmius. 2 vols. Breslau. 1763-6.
Riksdags-Protokoll, Sveriges ridderskaps och adels. Pa ridderskapets och adelns

bekostnad utgifna. Ser. 1, from 1629. Part 6, 2, 1665. 6, 1666-S. 7, 1660,

forra riksdagen. 8, 1660, senare riksdagen. (Part 5, 2-8, ed. B. Taube.)

9,1664. 10,1668. 11,1672. 12,1675-8. 13,1680. 14,1682-3. 16,1686-9.

16, 1693-7. 17, 1710, 1713-14. (Part 9-17, ed. S. Bergh.) Stockholm.

1876-1902.

8T8 The Scandinavian Kingdoms.

Schonbergj A. Samling af historiska bref an det svenska regerings-sattet i aldre
och nyare tider. Stockholm. 1777-8. New edition. Stockholm. 1849.

Stiemman, A. A. von (Editor). Alia riksdagars och motens beslut. Vols, n-ni,
appendix and index-yolume. Stockholm. 1729-1820.

Samling utaf kongl. bref, stadgar och fororduingar. Vols. m-vi. Stock-
holm. 1763-76.

Zsachackwitz, J. E. Historische Nachricht ron dem Nordischen Kriege, worinnen
solcher nach seinem Ursprunge betrachtet, und dessen Fortgang biss auf den
Braunschweigischen Congress beschrieben. Freystadt. 1716-19.

IV. LATER WORKS.

Bidrag til den store nordiske Krigs Historie. Udarbejdet ved Generalstaben af

H. W. Harbouj A. P. Tuxen, C. L. With-Seidelin og A. L. Hauaen. Vol. i.

Kong Frederik IVs forste Kamp om Sonderjylland Krigen, 1700. Vol. u.

Felttoget i Skane^ 1709-10. Vol. in. Felttogene i Nordtyskland og Baahnslen

i Ostersoen og Kattegat, 1710-12. Copenhagen. 1899-1906.
Bratt, A. Sveriges yttre politik under de preliminara forhandlingama fore freden i

Rijswijk. Upsala. 1906.
BuchholtZj A. Beitrage zur Lebensgeschichte Johann Reinhold Fatkula. Riga.

1893.
Bulardj G. Les traitfe de Saint-Germain (1679). Essai sur I'alliance ^troite de

Louis XrV et du grand flecteur apres la guerre de Hollande. Paris. 1898.
Carlson, F. F, Sveriges historia under Konungarne af Pfalziska Hnset. Carl XI.

Vols. ii-v. Stockholm. 1874^-85. German translation: Geschichte Schwe-

den's. Vols, v and vi. Gotha. 1873-87- (Gesch. der Europaischen Staaten.)
Fabricius, K. Skaanes Overgang fra Danmark til Sverige, 1660-76. 2 vols.

Copenhagen. 1906.
FShraeus, G. R. Stormaktstiden, senate skedet, 1660-1718. Vol. vii of Sveriges

historia intill tjugonde seklet. Ed. E. Hildebrand. Stockholm. 1906.

Om forandringen af Sveriges aUianssystem aren 1680-2 i dess sanunanhang

med de europeiska forvecklingarna. Upsala. 1891.

Sverige och Danmark, 1680-2. Ett bidrag till skandinavismens historia.

2 vols. Stockholm. 1897-8.

Fiyxell, A. Berattelser ur svenska historian. Stockholm. 1846-69. Latest

edition. 1902-3.
Hallendorf, C. Bidrag till det stora nordiska krigets forhistoria. Upsala. 1897.
Heigel, K. T. Das Project einer Wittelsbachischen Hausunion unter Schwedischem

Proteotorat, 1667-97. Munich. 1882.
Hojer, M. Ofversigt af Sveriges yttre politik under kren 1676-80. Ett bidrag till

Johan Gyllenstjernas historia. Upsala. 1876.
Holm, E. Studier til den store nordiske Krigs Historie, 1-2. Dan. Hist Tidsskr.

Danmarks Riges Historie, 1699-1814. Copenhagen. 1904.

Jensen, N. P. Den Skaanske Krig, 1676-9. Copenhagen. 1900.

Jorgensen, A. D. Peter Schumacher Griflrenfeld. 2 vols. Copenhagen. 1893-4.
Kocher, A. Geschichte von Hannover und Braunschweig, 1648 bis 1714. Vol. i:

1648-68. Vol.n: 1668-74. (Publicationenausd. K.PreuasischenStaatsarchiven,

Vols. XX and Lxiii.) Leipzig. 1884-96.
Lagermark, J. A. Karl XIIs krig i Norge, 1716. Upsala. 1883.
Lundqvist, K. G. Sveriges krig med staden Bremen och politik i samband darmed

aren 1666-6. Stockholm. 1893.
Munthe, C. O. Frederikshalds og Frederiksstens historie indtU 1720. Christiania.

1906.

Bibliography. 879

Nordwall, J. E. Sverige och RysBland efter freden i Kardis. Stockholm. Hist.

Tidskrift. 1890-1.
Olmer, E. Konflikten mellan Danmark och Holstein-Gottorp, 1695-1700. Med

sarskildt afseende fast vid Sveriges forh&llaude till deusamma. Goteborg.

1898-1901.
Paludan-Muller, C. P. Omrids af Kong Frederik den Fjerdes Kamp med Grev

Magnus Stenbock og Baron Gortz i Aarene 1712^ 13 og 14. Copenhagen.

1878.
Philippson, M. Der grosse Kurfiirst Friedrich Wilhelm von Brandenburg. Vol. ii :

1660 bis 1679. Vol. iii : 1660 bis 1688. Berlin. 1901-4.
Sjogren, O. Johan Reinhold Patkul. Historisk karaktersbild. Stockholm. 1882.
Stavenow, L. Sveriges politik vid tiden for Altonakongressen, 1686-9. Stockholm.

Historisk Tidskrift. 1895.
Stille, A. Danmarks politik gent emot Sverige, 1707-9. Lund. 1898.
Studier ofver Danmarks politik under Karl XIIs polska krig, 1700-7.

Malmo. 1889.
Tham, C. W. A. Bidrag till svenska riksdagarnes och regerings formernas historia

fr&n midten af sjuttoude ^rhundradet. 2 vols. Stockholm. 1845-8.
Thyren, J. C. W. Den forsta vapnade neutraliteten. Svensk-danska forbunden af

1690, 1691 och 1693, jamte en inledande ofversigt af Europas politiska stallniug

vid det stora krigets utbrott, 1688-9. Lund. 1885-6.
Varenius, O. Rafsten med Karl XIs formyndarestyrelse. 1. Dechargens gifvande

och ^terkaUande. 2. Den undersokande kommissionen af kx 1675. Upsala.

1901-3.
Wagner, S. Sk&nska kommissionen af 1669-70. Ett bidrag till de skSuska land-

skapens inre historia. Lund. 1886.
Weibull, M. Bidrag till den nordiska diplomatiens historia under senare halften

af det sjuttonde irhundradet. Sveriges forbund med Frankrike, 1672. Lund.

1865.
Wimarson, N. Sveriges krig 1 Tyskland, 1676-9. 2 vols. Lund. 1897, 1903.

[See also Bibliographies to Chapters I etc. {The Thirty Tears' War), and to
Chapter IX in Vol. IV, and to Chapter XXI of the present volume.']

880

CHAPTER XIX.

CHARLES XII AND THE GREAT NORTHERN WAR.

(1697-1721.)

I. BIBLIOGRAPHIES.

Alphabetisk register ofeer handlingar rorande Skandinavenska Historia. Stockholm.

1866.
Historisk Tidsskrift. Innehillsofirersikt, 1881-90. Stockholm. 1891.
Liske, X. Ofrersig^ af den polska literaturen^ med sarskildt afseende p3; den svenska

historien. SiliVergtolpe, Historiskt Bibliotek, 1875. Stockholm. 1876.

II. COLLECTIONS OF ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS ETC.

Charles XII. Egenhandiga bref. Stockholm. 1893. German version. Berlin.
1894.

Floderusj S. Handlingar horande till Konung Karl XIIs historia. Stockholm.
1819-26.

Fryxell, A. Handlingar rorande Sveriges historia. Vols, in and iv. Stockholm.
1836 etc.

GefBroy, M. A. Lettres inddites du Roi Charles XII. Paris. 1863.

Geijerj E. G. Acta et litterae ad historiam Suecanam. Upsala. 1817-26.

Handlingar rorande Skandinaviens historia. Vols, xxx-xl. Stockholm. 1816 etc.

Historiska Handlingar. Vols. v-x. Stockholm. 1816 etc.

Historisk Tidsskrift. Stockholm. 1881 etc.

Loenbom^ 8. Historiska markvardigheter. Stockholm. 1767 etc.

Northern War^ the great. Bidrag til den Store Nordiske Krigs Historie. Udgivne
af General Staben. Copenhagen. 1899.

Collection of materials relating to the great Northern War, edited by the

Instruction Committee of the Russian General Staff. Vols. i-xu. St Peters-
burg. 1892 etc. (In Russian. )

Svenska Historiska Foreningens Skrifter. Stockholm. 1892 etc.

IIL CONTEMPORARY OR NEARLY CONTEMPORARY NARRATIVES.

Adlerfeld, G. von. Histoire militaire de Charles XII etc. Amsterdam. 1740.

English version. London. 1740.
Bjelke, T. G., Count. Bjelke's h%komster af Karl XII, utgifna af Hallendorff.

Upsala. 1901. (In French.)

Bibliography. 881

Fabricej F. de. Anecdotes du sejour du Roi de Suede a Bender. Hamburg. 1760.
Krinann, D. Historia ablegationia Danielis Krmann ad regem Carolum XII.

1708-9. Budapest. 1884.
Maidmilian Emanuel, Prince of Wurtemberg. Des Frintzen Max Emanuels...Reisen

und Campagnen etc. Stuttgart. 1730.
Nordberg, 6. Leben and Thaten Karls des Zwolften. Hamburg. 1742. French

version. The Hague. 1748.
Ranftj M. Die merkwurdige Lebensgeschichte derer vier Schwedischen Peld-

marschallen Grafen Rehnscheld, Steenbock, Mayierfeld und Diicker. Leipzig.

1753.
Short View, a, of the conduct of the King of Sweden. London. [1716 ?]

IV. LATER WORKS.

(1) General.

Adelskjold, C. Karl XII och Svenskarne. Stockholm. 1903.

Axelson, G. E. Bidrag till kannedom om Sveriges tillst&nd p3< Karl XIIs tid.

Wisby. 1888.
Backstrom, P. Svenska flottans historia. Stockholm. 1884.
Bain, R. N. Charles XII and the coUapse of the Swedish Empire. London. 1895.
Bidrag til den Store Nordiske Krigs Historie. Copenhagen. 1890.
Biroglie, Jean de. Louis XTV et I'Alliance Su^doise. Blois. 1896.
Carlen, J. G. Nigra blad om Karl XII. Stockholm. 1868.
Carlson, F. F. Sveriges historia under Konungarne af Pfalziska Huset. Vol. ni.

Stockholm. 1883 etc.
Danmarks Riges Historie. Vol. v. Copenhagen. 1897 etc.
Horn, G. Arvid Bernhard Horn. Stockholm. 1862.
Mabnstrom, C. G. Sveriges politiska historia. Vol. n. Stockholm. 1893.
Mankell, J. Berattelse om svenska krigshistoriens markvardigaste faltslag. (With

Atlas.) Stockholm. 1867-9.
Oscar II, King of Sweden. Charles XIL Engl, trans, by G. F. Apgeorge.

Loudon. 1879. Premiere traduction fran9aise. Paris. 1906.
Sarauw, C. Die Feldzuge Karls XII. Leipzig. 1881.
Svedelius, W. C. Arvid Bernhard Horn. Svenska Akademiens Handlingar.

Vols, tiv, LV. Stockholm. 1879.

Minne af Grefve Karl Piper. Sv. Ak. Handl. Vol. xliv. Stockholm. 1869,

Sveriges Historia. Vol. iv. Stockholm. 1877 etc.

(2) FiBST Anti-Swedish coalition, 1699-1701.

Brulin H. Sverige och Frankrike under Nordiska Kriget och Spanska Successions-

krisen. Upsala. 1906.
HallendorflF, C. Konung Augusts politik Aren 1700-1. Upsala. 1890.
Hjarne, H. G. Karl XII. Omstortningen i Ost-Buropa. 1697-1703. Stockholm.

1902.
Wahrenberg, C. F. J. Bidrag till historien om Sveriges yttre politiska forhillenden
£r4n Karl XIs dod till Freden i Traventhal. Stockholm. 1865.

(3) The Polish Campaigns, 1701-7.

Beskow, B. von. Karl XII i Alt-Ranstadt. Stockholm. 1866.
Carlson' F. F. Om Sveriges inflytande p4 Konungavalet i Polen. 1704. Upsala.
1861.

0. M. H. V. OH. XIX. ""

882 Charles XII and the Great Northern War, 1697-1721.

Hamilton^ H., Count. Minne af GrelVe C. G. Eehnskjold. Svenska Akademiens

Handlingar. Vol. uu. Stockholm. 1878.
lioenbom^ S. Grefve M. Stenbocks Lefwerne. Stockholm. 1757-66.
Sjogren, O. Johan Reinhold Patkul. Silfverstolpe: Hist. Bib. 1880. Stockholm.

1880.
Syveton, G. Louis XIV et Charles XII au camp d'Altranstadt. 1707. Paris. 1900.

(4) The Russian Wab to Poltawa, 1702-9.

Carlson, E. Slaget vid Poltava. In Malmstroms Historiska Studier. Stockholm.

1897.
Sverige och Preussen. 1701-9. Silfverstolpe : Hist. Bib. 1884. Stockholm.

1884.
Carlson, F. F. Carl XIIs \&g mot Ryssland. Stockholm. 1885.

(6) The Turkish War.

Amira, A. Storia del soggiorno de Carlo XII i Turchia. Bucharest. 1905.

Jefties, J. Kapten Jeffe^yes href till Engelska Regierungen. 1711-16. Utgivna
genom E. Carlson. {In English.) Historiska handlingar. Vol. xvi, 2. Stock-
holm. 1897.

Kogalniceanu, M. Fragments tir& des chroniques moldaves pour servir a I'histoire
de Pierre le Grand et Charles XII. Jassy. 1895.

(6) The second and thibd coalitions against Sweden, 1710-21.

Beskow, B. von. Friherre von Goertz. Stockholm. 1868.

Carlson, F. F, Om fredsunderhandlingar, 1709-18. Stockholm. 1857.

Carstensen, W. and Lutken, O. Tordenskiold. Copenhagen. 1887.

Lagermark, J. A. Karl XIIs krig i Norge, 1716. Upsala. 1883.

Lilliestr&le, N. F. Magnus Stenbock og slaget ' ved Helsingborg. Helsingborg.

1890.
Oscar II. NSgra bidrag till Sveriges krigshistoria, 1711-12. Stockholm. 1892.
Schartau, S. ForhSHander mellan Sverige och Hanover, 1709-16. Lund. 1905.
Schenstrom, C. F. Armfeltska Karolinernas siata tag. Stockholm. 1890.
Seraphim, E. Geschichte Livlauds, Esthlands und Kurlands bis zur Einverleibong

in das Russische Reich. 2 vols. Reval. 1894-6.
Stille, A. Kriget i Skane, 1709-10. Stockholm. 1903.
Tuxen, A. P. Felttoget i Ska,ne, 1709-10. Copenhagen. 1903.
Westrin, T. Friherre von Goertz bref ur fangslet i Arnhem. Stockholm. 1898. '

883

CHAPTERS XX and XXI.

THE ORIGIN OF THE PRUSSIAN MONARCHY.
THE GREAT ELECTOR AND THE FIRST PRUSSIAN KING.

[See, for the period of the Reformation, the Bibliographies of Chapters IV-VIIIin
Vol. II; for the period of the Counter-Reformation and the sinking of Imperial authority,
the Bibliographies of Chapters V and XXI in Vol. Ill; for the times of the Thirty
Tears War and the period from the Peace of Westphalia to the Peace of Oliva, the
Bibliography of the Thirty Years War, Chapter XX in Vol. IV; and see also the
Bibliographies of Chapters II and XVIII in the present Volume.]

I. BIBLIOGRAPHY AND MS. SOURCES.

B. Brandenburg's new (7th) edition of Dahlmann-Waitz's Quellenkunde der
Deutschen Geschichte (Leipzig, 1906), with unique completeness covers every
part and every stage of the history of the Prussian State. Free use has been made
of this indispensable work, as well as of the second edition of V. Loewe's Biicher-
kunde der Deutschen Geschichte (Berlin, 1905), in the revision and enlargement of
the present bibliography, which has been compiled for its own limited purposes.

For a survey of the contents of the Prussian archives and libraries, in which are
to be found the body of the ms. sources of Prussian history, see, besides C. A. H.
Burkhardt's Hand- und Adressbuch der Deutschen Archive (Leipzig, 1887), and
P. Schwenke's Adressbuch der Deutschen BibUotheken (Leipzig, 1893), the Mittei-
Inngen der k. Preussischen Archivverwaltung, published periodically at Berlin since
1900. Seven numbers have already appeared, of which the first contains R. Koser,
Uber den gegenwartigen Stand der archivalischen Forschung in Preussen. The
following periodical publications are specially devoted to archivistic i-esearch in the
field of Prussian history :
Allgeraeines Archiv fur die Geschichtskunde des Preuss. Staates. Edited by L. von

Ledebur. 18 vols. Continued as Neues allgemeines Archiv fiir die Geschichts-
kunde des Pr. St. 3 vols. Berlin. 1830-6.
Zeitschrift fur Preuss. Gesch. und Landeskunde. Edited by R. Foss and others.

20 vols. Berlin. 1864-83.
Markische Forschungen. Hrsgbn. vom Verein fiir die Gesch. der Mark Brandenburg.

Vols. i-xx. Berlin. 1841 etc.
Forschungen zur Brandenburgischen u. Preussischen Geschichte. Vols, i-iv, ed.

R. Koser; v-ix, ed. A. Naudd; x sqq., ed. O. Hintze. 16 vols. Leipzig.

1888.
Ilohenzollem-Jahrbuch. Forschungen u. Abbildungen zur Gesch. der HohenzoUern

in Brandenburg-Preussen. Ed. P. Seidel. Vols, i-vii. Leipzig. 1897 etc.
Altpreussische Monatsschrift. Edd. R. Reicke and E. Wichert. Vols. i-xl. Konigs-

berg. 1883 etc.
Baltische Studien. Hrsgbn. von der Gesellschaft fiir Pommersche Geschichte u.

Altertumskunde. 47 vols. Stettin. 1832-98. Index. 1902. New Series.

6 vols. Stettin. 1897 etc.

CHS. XX, XXI. 56 — 2

884 Brandenburg-Prussia to 1713.

Pommersche Jahrbiicher. Hrsgbn. vom RugiKch-Pommerschen GMchichtsverein.

Vols, i-iii. Greifswald. 1900 etc.
The remains of the Archives of the German Order appear to be still preserved at
Vienna.

For a survey of the sources of the history of the Prussian monarchy, see
K. Kletke's Quellenkunde der Geschichte des Preussischen Staates (2 vols., Berlin,
1868-61), which deals with the authorities for the history of the entire State, with
the exception of the Rhenish and the (Swabian) Hohenzollern lands. (Vol. i. Die
Quellenschriftsteller ; Vol, u, Urkundenrepertorium.) M. Toppen, Geschichte der
Preussischen Historiographie von P. von Dusberg bis auf K. Schiitz (Berlin, 1863),
discusses the sources of the history of Prussia under the German Order. Generally,
A. Potthast, Bibliotheca medii aevi (2nd edn., Berlin, 1896), and W. Wattenbach,
Deutschland's Geschichtsquellen bis zur Mitte des 13. Jahrh. (6th edn., 2 vols.,
Berlin, 1893 ; 7th edn.. Vol. i, Stuttgart and Berlin, 1904), should also be con-
sulted. See also the following collections, now in progress, from most of which
particular publications are cited in the following sections :
Publikationen aus den K. Preussischen Staatsarchiven. Leipzig. 1878 etc.
Quellen und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des Hauses Hohenzollern. Hrsgbn.

von E. Berner. Berlin. 1901 etc.
Quellen fiir Pommer'sche Geschichte. Hrsgbn. von der Gesellschaft fiir Pommersche

Geschichts- nnd Alterthumskunde. Stettin. 1886 etc.
Geschichtsquellen der Proyinz Sachsen. Hrsgbn. von dem Geschichtlichen Verein

d. Provinz Sachsen, dann von der histor. Kommission der Provinz Sachsen,

1870 etc. [For Magdeburg etc.]
Publikationen der Gesellschaft fiir Rheinische Geschichtskunde. Bonn and Leipzig.

1884 etc. [For the Rhenish duchies etc.]
Much valuable information on earlier historical treatments of the i-eign of the
Great Elector, or passages in it, will be found in M. Philippson's work, cited below.
For a convenient summary of more recent writers on this great figure in Branden-
burg-Prussian history, see K. Jacob, Der Grosse Kurfiirst im Lichte der moderuen
Forschung (Deutsche Literaturzeitung, 1907, 1-6).

n. GENERAL HISTORIES.

Acta Borussica. Denkmaler der Preuss. Staatsverwaltung im 18. Jahrh. Published

by the R. Academy of Sciences at Berlin. 1892....
Acton, Lord. I^ectures on Modern History. Edd. J. N. Figgis and R. V. Laurence.

London. 1906. (Lecture xvii: Peter the Great and the Rise of Prussia.)
Berner, E. Die Hausverfassung der Hohenzollern. In Sybel's Histor. Zeitschr.

1884. 4.

Geschichte dee Preussischen Staates. 2nd edn. Bonn. 1896.

Bornhak, C. Geschichte des Preussischen Verwaltungsrechts. 3 vols. Berlin.

1884-92. [Administrative system of component parts of monarchy.]

Preussische Staats- und Rechtsgeschichte. Berlin. 1903.

Brandes, P. Geschichte der kirchl. Politik d. Hauses Brandenburg. Vol. i. Die

Gesch. d. evangel. Union in Deutschland. Pai-t i. Die Zeit des confessionellen

Gegensatzes (1680-1740). Gotha. 1872.
Buchholtz, S. Versuch eiuer Geschichte der Churmark Brandenburg. 6 vols.

Berlin. 1766-7.
Droysen, J. G. Geschichte der Preussischen Politik. 6 parts in 14 vols. Berlin.

1865-6, Vols, i-rv, 1. 2nd edn. 1868-72. Index to Pai-ts ^-iv, by C. Ger-

stenberg. Leipzig. 1876.

Criticised by O. Klupp in Kleindeutsche Geschichtsbaumeister, iii. Frei-
burg i. B, 1863.

Bibliography. 885

Fix, W. tybersichtenzurSnsserenGeschichtedesPreussischenStaats. Berlin. 1868.

[So far as it goes, a very useful compendium, with genealogies, indices etc.]
Frederick II. Meitioires pour servir a I'histoire de la maison de Brandebourg.

(Euvres de Frederic le Grand. Vol. i. Berlin. 1846.
Grossmann, F. Die gutsherrlichbauerlichen Verhaltnisse in der Mark Brandenburg

vom 16. bis 18. Jahrh. Leipzig. 1890.
Hering, D. H. Beitrage zur Gesch. der reformierten Kirche in der Preuas.-

Brandenburgischen Landern. 2 vols. Breslau. 1784-5.
Neue Beitrage zur Gesch. der reformierten Kirche in den Preuss.-Branden-

burg. Landern. 2 vols. Berlin. 1786-7.
Holtze, F. (editor). Beitrage zur Brandenburgisch-Preussischen Rechtsgeschichte.

Parts i-vi. Berlin. 1890 etc.
Isaacsohn, S. Das Preussische Beamtenthum im 17. Jahrh. Vol. ii of Geschicht©

d. Preuss. Beamtenthums vom Anfang des 15. Jahrh. bis auf die Gegenwart.

Berlin. 1878. [Contains much valuable personal information (with a useful

index of names) as well as an administrative survey.]
Lancizolle, C. W. von. Geschichte der Bildung des Preussischen Staats. Pai-t i in

two Sections. Berlin and Stettin. 1828.
Lavisse, E. J^tudes sur I'histoire de Prusse. (Les Prdd^cesseurs des HohenzoUem

en Prusse, and Les Princes colonisateurs de la Prusse.) Paris. 1879.
Lehmann, M. Preussen und die Katholische Kirche seit 1640. Nach den Acten

des geh. Staatsarchives. (Publ. a. d. K. Preuss. Staatsarch.) Vol. i: 1640-70.

Leipzig. 1878. [A standard work.]
Naude, W. and SchmoUer, G. Getreidehandelspolitik der Europaischen Staaten

vom 13. bis 18. Jahrh. Vol. i. Introduction. Vol. ii. Die Getreidehandlung

u. Kriegsmagazinverwaltung Preussens bis 1740. (Acta Boi'ussica.) Berlin.

1896-1901.
Pauli, C. F. Allgemeine Preussische Staatsgeschichte. 8 vols. Halle. 1760-9.

[Historical account of whole and parts.]
Prutz, H. Preussische Geschichte. 4 vols, Stuttgart. 1899-1902.
Ranke, L. von. Neun Bucher Preussischer Greschichte. 3 vols. Berlin. 1847-8.

Revised version : Zwolf Bucher Preussischer Geschichte. 6 vols. Leipzig.

2nd edn. 1878-9. Sammtl. Werke, vols, xxv-xxvii. [Well known as a

masterly survey.]
SchmoUer, G. Umrisse u. Untersnchungen zur Verfassungs-, Verwaltungs- u.

Wirtschaftsgesch., besonders des Preuss. Staates, in 17. u. 18. Jahrh. Leipzig.

1898.
Stenzel, G. A. H. Geschichte des Preussischen Staats (1763). (Gesch. d. Europ.

Staaten.) 5 vols. Hamburg. 1830-64.
Stolzel, A. Fiinfeehn Vortrage a. d. Brandenburgisch-Preussischen Rechts- u.

Staatsgeschichte. Berlin. 1889.
Wolff, E. Grundriss der Preussisch-Deutschen sozialpolitischen und Volkswirt-

schaftsgeschichte (1640-1898). (G. SchmoUer, Umrisse etc.) Berlin. 1899.

m. BRANDENBURG, ITS DOMINIONS AND THE ADJACENT LANDS,
BEFORE THE UNION WITH PRUSSIA.

A. Thb Mark Brandgnburo.
1. Printed Documents, Chronicles, and other contemporaht, or

NEARLY contemporary, AUTHORITIES.

Burkhardt, C. A. H. Quellensammlung zur Gesch. d. Hauses HohenzoUem.
Vol. I. Das funfFt Merckisch Buech, 1471-3. Jena. 1867.

CHS. XZ, XXI.

886 Brandenburg-Prussia to I7l3.

Gerckeiij P. W. Codex Diplomaticus Brandenburgensis. 8 vols. SalzwedeL

1769-85.
Magdeburg. Chroniken der Deutschen Stadte vom 14. bis 16. Jahrh. Hrsgbn.

durch d. histor. Kommission bei d. Akad. d. Wissensch. zu Munchen unter

Leitg. vom K. Hegel. Leipzig. 1862 etc. [Vols, vii and xxvii.]
Raumer, G. W. von. Codex Diplomaticus Brandenburgensis continuatus. 2 vols.,

with Appendix. Berlin, Stettin, and Elbing. 1831-3.

Regesta historiae Brandenburgensis. Chronologisch geordnete Ansziige aus

alien Chroniken und Urkunden zur Geschichte der Mark Brandenburg. Vol. i
(to 1200). Berlin. 1836.

Riedel, A. F. Codex Diplomaticus Brandenburgensis. Sammlung der Urkunden,
Chroniken u. sonstigen Quellenschriften fiir die Geschichte der Mark Branden-
burg u. ihrer Regeiiten. 25 vols. Berlin. 1838-66. [Part i deals with
the noble families, towns etc. of the Mark ; Part ir, with foreign affairs ;
Part HI (Novus Codex), with affairs of the State and the Electoral House.]
Index, by A. W. Heffter. 3 vols. Berlin. 1867-9.

Scriptorum de rebus Marchie Brandenburgensis maxime celebrium...Collectio. Ed.
J. G. Krause. Frankfort and Leipzig. 1729.

Urkundliches Material aus den Brandenburger Schoppenstuhlakten. Hrsgbn. von
A. Stolzel, unter Mitwirkung von E. Deichmann und V. Friese. 4 vols.
Berlin. 1901.

Wusternitz, Engelbert. Markische Chronik 1391-1425, nach Angelus u. Hafftitz,
hrsgbn. von J, Heidemann. Berlin. 1878.

2. Later Works.
(a) Before Albert the Bear. ,

Ewald, A. L. Die Eroberung Preussens durch die Deutschen. 4 vols. Halle.

1872-86.
Guttmann, B. Die Germanisierung der Slawen in der Mark. In Forschungen zur

Brandenburgpreuss. Geschichte. Vol. ix. Berlin. 1897.
Heinemann, C. von. Albrecht der Bar. Eine quellenmassige DarsteUung seines

Lebens. Darmstadt. 1864.
Schulze, E. O. Kolonisierung und Germanisierung der Gebiete zwischen Elbe und

Saale. 2nd edn. Leipzig. 1903.

(6) Under the Ascanian and Bavarian Margraves.

Heidemann, J. Die Mark Brandenburg unter Jobst von Mahren. Berlin. 1881.
Kloden, K. F. Diplomatische Geschichte des Markgrafen Waldemar von Branden-
burg. 2 vols. Berlin. 1844.

Diplomatische Geschichte des fur falsch erklarten Markgrafen Waldemar

von Brandenburg. Berlin. 1845.

Die Mark Brandenburg unter K. Karl IV bis zn ihrem ersten HohenzoUer-

schen Regenten, oder die Quitzows u. ihre Zeit 3rd edn. ; revised and edited
by E. Friedel. Berlin. 1890.

Kruner, F. Berlin als Mitglied der Hanse. Berlin. 1897.

Pflugk-Hartung, J. Zum Ubergange der Mark Brandenburg an das Haus Wittels-

bach. (Forschungen zur Brandenburg, u. Preuss. Geschichte, xiv.).
Salchow, G. Der tJbergang d. Mark Brandenburg an das Haus Wittelsbach

(Halle'sche Beitrage zur Geschichtsforschung, iv.) Halle. 1894.
Zimmermann, A. Versuch einer histor. Entwickelung der Markischen Stadtever-

fassungen. 3 vols. [Vol. ii : Documents.] Berliil. 1837.

Bibliography. 887

0. Under the HohenzoUenis.

Brandenburg, E. Konig Sigmund u. Kurfiirst Friedrich I von Brandenburg,

1409-26. Berlin. 1891.
Lewinski, L. Die Brandenburgische Kanzlei u. das Urkundenwesen wahrend der

Regierung d. beiden ersten Hohenzollerschen Markgrafen. Strassburg. 1893.
Liesegang, E. Zur Verfassungsgeachichte von Magdeburg u. Salzwedel. (For^

schungen zur Brandenburg, u. Preuss. Gesch. iii.)
Minutolij J. von. Friedrich I von Brandenburg und Memorabilia a. d. Leben der

Markgrafen von Brandenburg. Berlin. 1860.
Miihler, H. von. Geschichte der evangelischen Kirchenverfassung in der Mark

Brandenburg. Weimar. 1846.
Priebatsch, F. Geistiges Leben in der Mark Brandenburg am Ende des Mittelalters.

(Forschungen zur Brandenburg, u. Preuss. Gesch. xii.)
Riedel, A. F. Zehn Jahre aus der Gesch. der Ahnherren d. Preuss. Konigshauses.

Das Aufsteigen d. Burggrafen Friedrich VI von Nurnberg zur kurfiirstl.

Wiirde u. zur Reichstatthaltersohaft in Deutschland. Berlin. 1861.
Ropp, G. von der. Zur Charakteristik des Kurfursten Albrecht Achilles von

Brandenburg. Hohenzollern-Jahrbuch. ii.
Spieker, C. W. Gesch. der EinfUhrung der Reformation in der Mark Brandenburg.

Berlin. 1839.
Voigtj J. Die Erwerbung der Neumark Ziel und Erfolg der Brandenburgischen

Politik, 1402-67. Berlin. 1863.

B. PoMERANIA AND OTHER LANDS.

Barthold, F. W. Geschichte von Riigen und Pommern. 4 parts in 5 vols.

Hamburg. 1839-46.
Grunhagen, C. Geschichte Schlesiens. 2 vols. Gotha. 1884-6.
Keller, L. Die Gegenreformation in Westfalen u. am Niederrhein. (Publ. a. d. K.

Preuss. Staatsarchiven.) 2 vols. Leipzig. 1881-7.
Petsch, R. Verfassung und Verwaltung Hinterpommerns im 17. Jahrh. bis zur

Einverleibung in dem Brandenburg. Staat. (Staats- u. Sozialwissensch. For-
schungen. Ed. G. SchmoUer.) Leipzig. 1907
Bachfahl, F. Die Organisation der Gesammtverwaltung Schlesiens vor dem 30jahr.

Krieg. (Staats- u. Soz. Forschungen.) Leipzig. 1894.
Spahn, M. Verfassungs- und Wirtschaftsgeschichte des Herzogtums Pommern, von

1478 bis 1626. Leipzig. 1896.
Urkundeubuch fur die Geschichte des Niederrheins. Hi-sgbn. von T. L. Lacomblet.

4 vols. Dusseldorf. 1840-68.
Wehrmann, M. Geschichte von Pommern. (Deutsche Landesgeschichten.) Vol. ii.

Gotha. 1906.

IV. PRUSSIA BEFORE THE UNION WITH BRANDENBURG.

A. Printed Docdments, Chronicles and other contemporary,
OR nearly contemporary, authorities.

Codex diplomaticus Prussicus. Ed. J. Voigt. 6 vols, (to 1404). Konigsberg.

1 QQC_fl"I

Perlbach, M.' Preussische Regesten (to 1300). Konigsberg. 1876.

Preussisohea Urkundenbuch. Politische Abtheilung. Vol. i. Die BUdung des

Ordensstaates. 1. Halfte. Hrsgbn. von R. Philippi und K. P. Wolky.

Konigsberg. 1882.

cps. xx^ xxt,

888 Brandenburg-Prussia to 1713.

Prussia. Die Preuasischen Geschicht8schreiber des 16. und 17. Jahrh. Hrsgbn.

von dem Verein fur die Gesch. der Frovinz Preussen. 5 vols. Konigsberg and

Leipzig. 1876-96.
Scriptores rermn Prussicaram, oder Die Geschichtsquellen der Preuss. Vorzeit bis

zum Untergange der Ordensherrschaft. Hrsgbn. v. T. Hirsch, M. Toeppen,

£. Strehllce. 6 vols. Leipzig. 1861-74.
Tschackert, P. Urkundenbuch zur Reformationsgeschichte des Herzogtums Preussen.

(Publ. a. d. K. Preuss. Staatsarchiven, vols, xliii-xlv.) 3 vols, Leipzig. 1890.

B. Lateb Works.

Arnsledt, R. Geschichte der Stadt Konigsberg. Stuttgart. 1899.

Koch, A. Hermann von Salza, Meister des deutschen Ordens. Leipzig. 1885.

Koppmann^ K. Die Preussischen Beziehungen der Deutschen Hanse, 1375-1408.

Hanseat. Geschichtsbl. 1883.
Lohmeyer, K. Geschichte von Ost- und Westpreussen. Part i. 2nd edn. Gotha.

1881.
Sartorius, G. F. Geschichte des Hanseatischen Bundes n. Handels. 3 vols.

Gottingen. 1802-8.
Sattler, C. Das Ordensland Preussen und die Hanse bis zum Jahre 1370. Preuss

Jahrbucher. Vol. xu. Berlin. 1878.

See an art. on Sattler's Commercial Accounts of the Order in Revue
Historique, No. xxxix.

Der Staat des Deutschen Ordens zur Zeit seiner Bliite. Hist. Zeitschr. 49.

Die Hanse und der Deutsche Orden in Preussen bis zu dessen Verfall.

Hanseat. Geschichtsbl. 1882.

Schvrarz, S. Anfange des Stadtewesens in den Elb- und Saalegegenden. (Diss.)

Bonn. 1892.
Toppen, M. Der deutsche Ritterorden und die Stande Preussens. Hist. Zeitschr. 46.
Treitschke, H. von. Das deutsche Ordensland Preussen. In Histor. und politische

Aufsatze. 5th edn. Vol. i. Leipzig. 1886.
Voigt, J. Geschichte Preussens von der altesten Zeit bis zum Untergange der

Herrschaft des deutschen Ordens. 9 vols. Konigsberg. 1827-39.
' Handbuch der Geschichte Preussens bis zur Reformation. 3 vols. Konigsberg.

1841-3.

V. BRANDENBURG-PRUSSIA UNDER THE GREAT ELECTOR.

A. Printed Documents.

Louisa Henrietta. Briefe der Kurfurstin Luise Henriette von Brandenburg an den

Oberprasidenten Otto von Schwerin. Mitg. von F, Hirsch. (Forsch. zur

Brandenburg, u. Preuss. Gesch. viii.)
Meinardus, O. (Editor). ProtokoUe u. Relationen des Brandenburg. Geheimen

Rates a. d. Zeit des Kurfiirsten Friedrich Wilhelm. (Publicationeu a. d. K.

Preuss. Staatsarchiven. Vols, xli, uv, lv and lxv.) Vols. i-iv. Leipzig.

1889-97.
Momer, T. von. Kurbrandenburgs Staatsvertrage von 1601-1700. Nach den

Originalen des geh. Staatsarchivs. Berlin. 1867. [Abstracts.]
Pomponne. M^moires du Marquis de Pomponne. PuM. d'apres un manuscrit

in^dit de la bibliotheque du Corps L^gislatif. Vol. i. Paris. 1860.

Bibliography. 889

Prutz, H. Aus des Grossen Kurfursten letzten Jahren. Zur Geschichte seines
Hauses u. Hofes, seiner Regierung u. Politik. Berlin. 1897. [Mainly
founded on despatches of the French ambassador. Count Rebenac]
Schwerin, Otto Graf von. Briefe aus England uber der Zeit von 1674 bis 1678 ;

worin seine Lebensskizze. Berlin. 1837.
Urkunden und Aktenstucke zur Geschichte des Kurfursten Fricdrich Wilhelm von
Brandenburg. Vols, i-xvm. Berlin. 1864 sqq.
The following are the divisions of this monumental work (undertaken at the
suggestion of the German Emperor Frederick II when Crown Prince), the Intro-
ductions in which form, so far as they have proceeded, a complete history of the reign :
Auswartige Acten: I, France, 1640-85, ed. B. E. Simson ; II, Nether-
lands, 1646-87, ed. H. Peter ; III, P. i, Austria, 1640-76 ; Lisola's mission
etc., ed. A. F. Pribram.
Standische Verhandlungen: I, Cleves-Mark, 1641-66, ed. A. von Haeften;

II, Mark Brandenburg, 1640-84 (with history of the Estates in Brandenburg
before 1640), ed. S. Isaacsohn ; III, Prussia, vol. i, 1640-62 (with
history of the Estates in Prussia before 1640) ; IV, Prussia, vol. ii, 1661-3
(the great Diet of those years) ; ed. K. Breyssig.

Politische Verhandlungen; I, 1640-50; France, 1643-8; II, 1640-53;

III, 1651-2; IV, 1655-60; England, 1655-60; V, 1666-60 (to Peace of
Oliva) ; VI, 1660-6 ; VII, 1660-6 (includes the Palatine Wildfangstreit,
1665-6); VIII, 1666-70 (Magdeburg, War of Devolution and Triple
Alliance); IX, 1671-6 (Peace of Vossem); X (England, 1670-4; Denmark
and Sweden, 1670-6) ; XI, 1676-9 (Peace of St Germain and Diet of
Batisbon). Vols, i, iv, vi-viii, ed. B. Erdmannsdorffer ; vol. ix, ed.
T. Hirsch ; vols, xi, xii, xvm, ed. P. Hirsch ; vols, xm and xvii, ed. B. Brode.

Urkunden und Aktenstucke zur Gesch. d. inneren Politik des Kurfursten Friedrich
Wilhelm von Brandenburg. Part i. Geschichte der Brandenburgischen
Finanzen in dpr Zeit von 1640 bis 1697. Vol. i. Die Centralstellen der Kammer-
verwaltung. Die Amtskammer, das Kassenwesen u. die Domanen der Kurmark.
Ed. K. Breyssig. Vol. i. Leipzig. 1895.
Wicqnefort, A. de. De geheime Correspondentie van Abraham de Wicquefort met den
Franschen minister de Lionne. Uitg. door C. F. Haje. The Hague. 1901.
Cf. Waddington, A. Abraham de Wicquefort, ministre de Brandebourg en
France au temps de Louis XIV. (Seances de I'Acad. des sc. mor. et pol.,
618.)

B. CONTEMPORABT, OR NEARLY CONTEUPORART, AUTHORITIES.

Buch, Dietrich Sigismund von. Tagebuch a. d. Jahren 1674. (Publ. of Verein fur

Gesch. d. Mark Brandenburg.) Vol. i. Leipzig. 1904.
Pufendorf, Samuel. De habitu religionis Chriatianae ad vitam civilem. Bremen.
1686.

De rebus gestis Friderici Wilhelmi Magni electoris Brandenburgici com-

mentariorum libri xix. Berlin. 1696. German condensation by E. U(h3e).
Berlin. 1810.

Bluntschli, J. C. Samuel Pufendorf. Westermann's lUustrirte deutsche
Monatshefte. No. 68. May. 1862.

Criticised by O. Klopp, in Kleindeutsche Geschichtsbaumeister. Frei-
burg i. B. 1863.
Droysen, J. G. Zur Kritik Pufendorfs Abhandlungen zur neuereu

Geschichte. Leipzig. 1876.
Treitschke H. von. Samuel Pufendorf. Preuss. Jahrbiicher xxxvi,
pp. 87 sqq. (1876). Histor. u. polit. Aufsatze. Vol. iv. Leipzig. 1897.

GHB. XX, XXI.

890 Brandenburg-Prussia to 1713.

C. Later Works.
1, General.

Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie. Articles : Friedrich Wilhelm Kurfiii-st von

Brandenburg, by B. Erdmannsdorffer, and Friedrich I Kduig von Preussen,

by Xj vol. viij Leipzig, 1878; Fuchs, Paul von, by T. Hirsch, vol. viu, 1878;

Raule, Benjamin R., by P. Poten, vol. xxvii, 1888 ; and other articles.
Arndt, W. Waldeck's erste Verwendung ira Brandenburg. Dienste. 1661. In

Kleinere Beitrage zur Geschichte von Leipziger Dozeuten. Festschrift zum

Deutschen Historikertage. Leipzig. 1894.
Beyschlag, W. Der Grosse Kurfiirst als evangel. Charakter. Halle. 1893.
Droysen, J. G. Das Testament des Grossen Kurfiirsten. (Abhandl. der Sachs.

Gesellsch. d. Wissenschaften.) Leipzig. 1866.
Erdmannsdorffer, B. Deutsche Geschichte vom westfalischen Frieden bis zum

Regierungsantritt Friedrichs des Grossen. 1648-1740. 2 vols. Berlin. 1892.

Graf Georg Friedrich von Waldeck. Ein Preussischer Staatsmann im 17.

Jahrh. Berlin. 1869.

Der Grosse Kurfiirst. Leipzig. 1879.

Haake, P. Brandenburgische Politik und Kriegfuhrung 1688 und 1689. Cassel.

1896.
Hirsch, F. Otto von Schwerin. Part i. Hist. Zeitschr. 71 (N. F. 45). Munich

and Berlin. 1893.
Horn, F. Friedrich IH Kurfiirst von Brandenburg, erster Konig in Prenssen.

Berlin. 1816.
Meinardus, O. Neue Beitrage zur Gesch. d. Grossen Kurfiirsten. In Forschungen

zur Brandenburg-Preuss. Gesch. xvi, 2. Berlin. 1904. [Early period.]
Miinzer, E. Die Brandenburgische Publizistik unter dem Grossen Kui-fursten. In

Markische Forschungen, xviii. Berlin. 1884.
Orlich, L. von. Friedrich Wilhelm, der Grosse Kurfiirst. Berlin, Posen and

Bromberg. 1836. [An unpretending, but interesting biography, with numerous

public and private documents.]

Geschichte d. Preuss. Staates im 17. Jahrh., mit besonderer Beziehung auf

das Leben Friedrich Wilhelms des Grossen Kui-fiirsten. 8 vols. (Vol. in.
Documents.) Berlin. 1838-9.

Philippson, M. Der Grosse Kurfurst Friedrich Wilhelm von Brandenburg. 3 vols.

Berlin. 1897-8. [The most complete modern history of the reign.]
Rauchbar, J. G. von and Kurtze, L. Leben und Thaten des Feldm. Georg Friedrich

von Waldeck. Arolsen. 1867.
Salpius, F. von. Paul von Fuchs, ein Brandenburg. -preussischer Staatsmann vor

200 Jahren. Biographischer Essay. Leipzig. 1897.
Schmidt, H. G. Fabian Burggraf za Dohna. (Halle' sche Abhaudl. zur neueren

Gesch. XXXIV.) Halle. 1897.
Seraphim, A. Eine Schweater des Grossen Kurfursten, Luise Charlotte, Markgraiin

von Brandenburg, Herzogin von Kurland (1617-76). (Quellen u. Untersuch-

ungen zur Gesch. d. Hauses HohenzoUern, II.) Berlin. 1901.
Spahn, M. Der Grosse Kurfiirst. Die Wiedergeburt Deutschlands im 17. Jahrh.

(Weltgeschichte in Charakterbildern, iv.) Mainz. 1901.
Strecker, A. Franz von Meinders. Ein Brandenburgisch-Preussischer Staatsmann

im 17. Jahrh. Leipzig. 1892.

Bibliography. 891

2. Home Administration, including Church and Immigration.

Fieymaik, H. Zur Preussisclien Handels- und Zollpolitik von 1648-1818. (Diss.)

Halle. 1898.
Keller, L. Der Grosse Kurfiirst in seiner Stellung zu Religion und Kirche.

Hohenzollem-Jahrbuch, vii.
Koser, R. Brandenburg-Preussen in dem Kampfe zwischen Imperialismus und

reichsstandischer Libertat Hist. Zeitschr. 96 (N. F. 60). Munich and Berlin.

1906.
Landwehr, H. Die Kirehenpolitik Friedrich Wilhelms, des Grossen Kurfiirsten.

Berlin. 1894.
Spannagel, K. Minden und Ravensburg unter Brandenburgisch-Preuss. Herrschaft

von 1648 bis 1719. Hanover and Leipzig. 1894.
Varrentrapp, K. Der Grosse Kurfiirst u. die Universitaten. (University Oration.)

Strassburg. 1894.
Weiss, C. Histoire des Refugies Protestants de France depuis la Revocation de
, i I'Edit de Nantes, jusqu'a nos jours. Vol. i. Les Refugies dans le Brandebourg.

Paris. 1853.

3. Army, Navy and Colonial Affairs.

AfricanCompany.^-Brandenburg-Preussenauf der Westkiiste von Afi'ike 1681-1721.

(Kriegsgeschicht. Einzelschriften, hrsg. vom Grossen Generalstabe. 6.) Berlin.

1885.
Beheim-Schwarzbacb, M. HohenzoUernsche Colonisationen. Leipzig. 1874.
Crousaz, A. von. Die Organieationen des Brandenburgischen u. Preussischen

Heeres seit 1640 etc. 2 vols. 2nd edn. Berlin and Wriezen. 1873.
De THomme de Courbiere, R. Geschichte der Brandenburgiscb-Preussischen Heeres-

verfassung. Berlin. 1852.
Hirsch, F. Die Armee des Grossen Kurfursten wahrend d. Jahre 1660-6. Sybel's

Histor. Zeitschr. 1885. 2.
Jany, K. Die alte Armee von 1656 bis 1740. Urkundl. Beitrage u. Forschungen

zur Gesch. d. Preuss. Heeres. ii. 7.
Jordan, A. Geschichte der Brandenburg-Preuss. Kriegs-Marine. Berlin. 1866.
Roller, E. Ein Buckblick auf die Colonial-politik des Grossen Kurfursten. Preuss.

Jahrb. March, 1883.
Schrotter, F. Frhr. von. Die Brandenburgisch-Preussische Heeresverfassung unter

dem Grossen Kurfursten. Berlin. 1892.
Schiick, B. Brandenburg-Preussens Kolonialpolitik unter dem Grossen Kurfursten

u. seinen Nachfolgern (1647-1721). 2 vols. Leipzig. 1889.
Stuhr, P. F. Geschichte der See- und Kolonialmacht d. Kurfursten Friedrich

Wilhelm von Brandenburg. Berlin. 1839.

4. Wars and Foreign Affairs.

Amdt, W. Schweden, Brandenburg, Magdeburg, 1667. (Forschungen zur Bran-
denburg, u. Prensa. Gesch. xvii.)

Cheruel, P. A. Ligue et Alliance du Rhin. (Stances et trav. de I'Acad. des Sc.
Morales.) Paris. 1885.

Du Hamel de Breuil, Comte J. Le Grand Electeur. Aper9u de sa politique,
1667-88. (Ann. intern, d'hist. Communications faites au Congres de la Haye,
en 1898.)

Erdmannsdorffer, B. Zum Andenken an die Schlacht bei Fehrbellin. Preuss.
Jahrb. July, 1876.

CHS. ZX, XXI.

892 Brandenburg-Prussia to 1713.

Fehling, F. Frankreich und Brandenburg in den Jahren 1679-84. Beitrage zur

Gesch. der AUianzvertra^e d. Grossen Kurfiirsten mit Ludwig XIV. Leipzig.

1906.
Fock, O. Aus den letzten Tagen Pommerscher Selbetandigkeit. Wallenstein u. d.

Grosse Kurfurst vor Stralsund. Rugen-Pommersche Geschiohteu. Vol. vn,

Leipzig. 1872.
Haake, P. Brandenburgische Politik u. Kriegefiihrung i. d. Jahren 1688 u. 1689.

CasseL 1896.
Hirschj F. Brandenburg und England 1674-9. Berlin. 1898-9.

Der Grosse Kurfurst n. die Altstadt Magdeburg bis z. J. 1666. (Forschungen

zur Brandenburg, u. Preuss. Gesch., rv.)

Der Winterfeldzug in Preussen, 1677 bis 1679. Berlin. 1897.

JahnSj M. Der Grosse Kurfurst bei Fehrbellin, Wolgast und Stettin, 1676-7.

Hohenzollern-Jahrbuch, i. Leipzig. 1897.
Joachim, E. Die Entwicklung des Rheinbundes vom J. 1618. Acht Jahre

reichsstand. Politik, 1651-8. Leipzig. 1886.
Kirchho£F, Vizeadmiral z. D. Seemacht in der Ostsee. Berlin. 1907.
Kocher, A. Geschichte von Hannover u. Braunschweig, 1648-1714. Vols, i and ii

(to 1674). (Publ. a. d. K. Preuss. Staatsarch.) Leipzig. 1884-96.
Musebeck, E. Die Feldziige des Grossen Kurfiirsten in Pommern, 1676-7. Stettin.

1897.
Pages, G. Le grand i^lecteur et Louis XIV, 1660-88. Paris. 1905.

Note sur les documents franfais rel. a I'hist. des relations entre I'flecteur

Frederic Guillaume et Louis XIV. Part ii of Contributions a I'hist. de la
politique franfaise en AUemagne sous Louis XIV. Paris. 1905.

Peter, H. Der Krieg des Grossen Kurfiirsten gegen Frankreich 1672-6. Halle.

1870.
Pribram, A. F. Franz Paul Freiherr von Lisola (1613-74) und die Politik seiner

Zeit. Leipzig. 1894.

Oesterreich und Brandenburg, 1686 bis 1886. Innsbruck. 1884.

Recueil des Instructions donnees aux Ambassadeurs et Ministres de France, depuis
les Trait^s de Westphalie jusqu'a la R^vol. Fran^aise. Publ. sous les auspices
de la Commission des Archives diplomatiques du ministere des AS. ]^tr. xvi
Prusse. Avec nne Introd et Notes par A. Waddingtou. Paris. 1901.
[Covers the years 1648-1789.]

Riese, A. Friedrich Wilhelms des Grossen Kurfursten Winterfeldzug in Preussen
u. Samogitien gegen die Schweden in den Jahren 1678-9. Berlin. 1864.

RochoU, H. Der Grosse Kurfijrst im Elsass, 1674r-5. Strassburg. 1877.

Waddington, A. Le grand ^lecteur Frederic Guillaume de Brandebourg. Sa
politique extdrieure, 1670-8. Vol. i, 1640-60. Paris. 1906.

Wimarson, N. Sveriges Krig i Tyskland, 1676-9. 2 vols. Lund. 1897-1903.

Witzleben, A. von and Hassel, P. Fehrbellin. Berlin. 1876.

Zwiedeneck-Siidenhorst, H. von. Die offentliche Meinung in Deutschlaud im
Zeitalter Ludwigs XIV (1650-1700). Stuttgart. 1888.

VI. BRANDENBURG-PRUSSIA UNDER FREDERICK III (I).
[See also Works under V aidve.]

A. Printed Documents.

Frederick I. Aus dem Briefwechsel Friedrichs I von Preussen und seiner Familie.
(Quellen u. Untersuchungen zur Gesch. d, Hauses Hohenzollern.) Berlin.
1901.

Bibliography. 893

Frederick I. Briefe des Konigs Friedrich I von Freussen u. s. Sohnes des Kronpr.

Friedrich Wilhelm I an die Kurfiirstin Sophie von Hannover. Hrsg. von

£. Bodemann. Zeitschr. d. hist. Ver. fur Niedersachseu. 1809.
Schmoller, G. and Krauske, O. Die Behordeuorganisation u. d. allgem. Staatsver-

vraltung Preussens im 18. Jahrh. Vol. i. Akten. 1701-14. With Introd. by

G. Schmoller. (Acta Borussica.) Berlin. 1896.
Sophia Charlotte. Briefe der Konigin Sophie Charlotte von Freussen u. der Kur-

furstin Sophie von Hannover an Hannoversche Diplomaten. (FubL a. d. K.

Preuss. Staatsarchiven^ vol. lxxix.) Leipzig. 1906.

B. CONTBMPORART, OB NEARLY CONTBMPOllARY, AUTHORITIES.

Dohna, Comte Christophe de. Memoires originaux sur le regne et la cour de

Frederic I, roi de Prusse. Berlin. 1884.
Pdllnitz, C. L. von. Memoires pour servir a I'histoire des quatre derniers souverains

de la maison de Brandebourg. Publ. par F. L. Brunn. 2 vols. Berlin. 1791.
Pufendorf, Samuel von. De rebus gestis Friderici III electoris Brandenburgici,

post primi Borussiae regis, commentariorum libri iii complectentes annos 1688-

90. Fragmentum posthumum ex autographo autoris editum (by E. F. von

Hertzberg). Berlin. 1784.

C. Later Works.
1. General.

Danckelmann and Wartenberg. Fall und Ungnade zweier Staats-Minister in Teutsch-
land. A. L. Franzos. s. 1. 1712-3.

Koser, B, Sophie Charlotte, die erste Preussische Konigin. Deutsche Rund-
schau, 52.

Krauske, O. Konigin Sophie Charlotte. HohenzoUern-Jahrbuch, rv.

Ledebur, K. Frhr. von. Konig Friedrich 1 von Preussen. Beitrage zur Gesch.
seines Hofes, sowie der Wissenschaften, Kunste, u. Staatsverwaltung seiner Zeit.
Leipzig. 1888.

Ranke, L. von. Ueber den Pall d. Brandenburg. Ministers Eberhard von Danckel-
mann (1697-8). Aus holland. u. vornehmlich engl. Berichten. (With docu-
ments.) In Abhandlungen u. Versuche. Sammtl. Werke. Vol. xxiv.
Leipzig. 1872.

Schlosser, F. C. Geschichte des 18. Jahrhunderts etc. 7 vols, in 9. Heidelberg.
1836-48. Engl. Transl. by D. Davison. 8 vols. 1843-52.

Spannagel, K. Konrad von BurgsdoriF, ein Brandenburgischer Kriegs- und Staats-
mann a. d. Zeit der Kurfursten Georg Wilhelm u. Friedrich Wilhelm. (Quellen
u. Untersuchungen zur Gesch. des Hauses HohenzoUern, vol. v.) Berlin. 1903.

Vamhagen von Ense, K. A. Leben der Konigin von Preussen Sophie Charlotte.
(Biograph. Denkmaler, vol. iv.) 3rd edn. Leipzig. 1872. [Contains a
bibliography.]

Zwiedeneck-Sudenhorst, H. von. Deutsche Geschichte im Zeitalter der Grundung
des Preussischen Konigtums. 2 vols. Stuttgart. 1887.

2. Home Administration, including Education and Learning.
Bergmann, R. Geschichte der Ostpreussischen Stande und Steuem von 1688 bis

1704. Leipzig. 1901.
Bornhak, C. Geschichte des Preuss. Verwaltungsrechts. Vol. i : Bis zum Regie-

rungsantritt Friedrich Wilhelms I. Berlin. 1884. [Detailed survey of the

state of administrative law in the several parts of the Brandenburg-Prussian

monarchy.]

CHS. ZX, XXI.

894 Brandenburg-Prussia to 1713.

Geigerj L. Berlin 1683-1840. Geschichte de« geistigen Lebens der Preuss.

Hauptstadt. 2 vols. Berlin. 1893-5.
Guhrauer, G. E. G. W. Freiherr von Leibnitz. Eine Biographie. 2 vols. Breslau.

1842. Suppl. 1846.
Harnack, A, Geschichte der K. Preuss. Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin.

3 vols. Berlin. 1901.
Das geistige und wissenscbaftl. Leben in Brandenburg. Preussen um dag

Jahr 1700. Hohenzollern-Jahrbuch, iv. Leipzig. 1901.
Schmoller, G. Umrisse u. Untersuchungen zur Verfassnngs- Verwaltungs- und Wirt-

schaftsgeschichte; bes. des Preuss. Staates in 18. u. 19. Jahrh. Leipzig. 1898.
Schrotter, Frhr. F. von. Das Preussische Mimzwesen im 18. Jabrh. Vol. i : Die

Munzverwaltung der Konige Friedrich I und Friedrich Wilhelm I, 1701-40.

(Acta Borussica.) Berlin. 1904.

3. The Prussian Crown.

Friedensburg, W, Die Romiscbe Kurie u. d. Annahme d. Preuss. Konigswurde

durch Krfst. Friedrich III von Brandenburg. Hist. Zeitschr. 87 (N. F. 61).

Munich and Berlin. 1901.
Men£ik, F. Ein Beitrag zur Gesch. d. Verhandlungen iiber die Erteilung des

Preuss. Konigstitels. Vienna. 1901.
Thoemes, N. Der Anteil der Jesuiten an d. Preuss. Konigskrone von 1701.

Berlin. 1892.
Waddington, A. L' Acquisition de la couronne royale de Prusse par les Hohenzol-

lem. (Bibl. de la Faculty des Lettres, ix.) Paris. 1888.

[Cuhn's narrative of the acquisition of the royal crown^ on which, according
to Waddington, Droysen founded his narrative, remains still in ms.]

4. Wars and Foreign Affairs.

Berner, E. Die auswartige Politik d. Kurfursten Friedrich III von Brandenburg,

Konig Friedrich I in Preussen. HohenzoUern-Jahrbuch, iv. Leipzig. 1901.
Bourgeois, E. Neuchatel et la politique prussienne en Franche-Comt^, 1703-13.

Bibl. de la Faculte des Lettres de Lyon, i. Paris. 1887.
Chance, J. F. List of Diplomatic Representatives and Agents, England and North

Germany, 1689-1727. (Notes on the Diplomatic Relations of England and

Germany, edited by C. H. Firth.) Oxford. 1907.
Haake, P. Brandeuburgische Politik und Kriegfuhrung 1688 u. 1689. Cassel.

1896.
Hirsch, F. Der Winterfeldzug in Preussen, 1678-9. Berlin. 1896.
Klopp, O. Der Fall des Hauses Stuart u. die Succession d. Hauses Hannover in

England. 14 vols. Vienna. 1876-88.

Berner, £. Onno Klopp gegen den Grossen Kurfursten. Preuss. Jahrh.
1886. I.
Lundberg, B. De diplomatiska forbindelserna mellau Sverige och Preussen Iran

Pultavaslaget till fredsbrottet 1716. Lund. 1894.
Noorden, C. von. Die Preussische Politik im Spanischeu Erbfolgekriege. Hist.

Zeitschr., 18. Munich. 1867.
Pribram, A. F. Oesterreich und Brandenburg 1688 bis 1700. Prague and Leipzig.

1886.

895

CHAPTER XXII.

THE COLONIES AND INDIA.

(1) THE COLONIES.

For authorities on English and French North American coloniet, and French West
Indies, see Bibliographies to Chapters I and II, and Chapter III of Vol. VII.
Beference should also be made to the Bibliography of Chapter XXV of Vol. IV.

I. BIBLIOGRAPHIES.

Aslierj G. M. A bibliographical and historical essay on the Dutch books and

pamphlets relating to the New Netherlands and the Dutch West India

Company. Amsterdam. 1864-67.
Lamed, J. N. Literature of American History. London. 1902.
Mackenna, B. V. Bibliografia Americana. Valparaiso. 1879.
Theal, G. McC. History of South Africa under the Dutch East India Company.

Vol. n. Appendix. Notes on Books. 2nd edn. London. 1897.
Winsor, J. Narrative and critical history of America. Vols, n and vin. London.

1886-9.

11. DOCUMENTS.

For an account of the documents relating to Spanish and Portuguese America,
reference should be made to the Critical Essays in Winsor's History of America,
vol. vin. A short account of those relating to South Africa will be found in the
Preface of Theal's History of South Africa under the Dutch East India Company,
vol. I, 2nd edn., London, 1897. Full lists of the original authorities on Mexican
history will be found in notes at the end of Bancroft's History of Mexico, Vols, ii
and III (pai-t of Histoiy of Pacific States of North America),

Calendar of State Papers, Colonial Series, America and West Indies, for the years

1661-97. 8 vols.
Calvo, C. Complete Collection of treaties relating to Latin America. 11 vols.

Paris. 1862-9. Vol. x contains a repertory of original and unedited manu-
scripts.
Puentes, M. A. Memorias de los Vireyes (Peru). 6 vols. Lima. 1869.
Parliamentary Papers, 1899. The British and American cases in the Venezuela

boundary question, with appendices.
, 1904. The British and Brazilian cases in the British Guiana boundary

question, with appendices.
These Papers, many of which are in ms., are deposited in the British Museum
under the respective headings of Venezuelan Papers, 1899, and Brazilian
Papers, 1904.
Polo, J, T. Memorias de los Vireyes del Peru. Lima. 1899.
Rawlin, W. Collection of the Laws of Barbados. London. 1699.
Rela^ao dos manuscriptos portuguezes e estraugeiros de interesse para o Brazil

existentes no Museu Britanuico de Londi'es. Rio de Janeiro. 1903.
Report of the Lords of the Committee of Council on Trade to Africa, 1789. [For

the Slave Trade.]

896 The Colonies and India.

III. CONTEMPORARY WORKS.

Barbot, J. A description of the coasts of North and South Guinea written for the

most part in 1682. In Churchill's Voyages. Vol. v. 3rd edn. London.

1744-6.
Barrere, P. Nouvelle Relation de la France ^^quinoxiale. Paris. 1743.
Baskettj J. The Asiento : or contract for allowing to the subjects of Great Britain

the liberty of importing negroes into the Spanish America. London. 1713.
Blome, R. Description of the Island of Jamaica with the other Isles and Territories

in America to which the English are related.... London. 1672.

Present State of His Majesties Isles and Territories in America. London.

1687.

Bosmanj W. Description of the coast of Guinea. English translation. 2nd edn.

London. 1721.
Brief and perfect journal of the late proceedings and success of the English army in

the West Indies. London. 1655.
Brito Freire. Nova Lusitania, historia da guerra Brasilica. Lisbon. 1676.
Charlevoix, P. F. X. Histoire de I'lsle Espagnole ou de S. Domingue.... 2 vols.

Paris. 1730-1.

Histoire du Paraguay. 3 vols. Paris. 1756.

Da Rocha Pitta, S. Historia da America Portugueza. Lisbon. 1730.
Dam|)ier, Captain W. Voyages. Ed. by J. Maseiield. 2 vols. London. 1906.
Exquemelin, A. O. De Americaensche Zee Roovers. 1st edn, Amsterdam. 1678.
Earliest English edn. London. 1684-5.

For an account of the numerous editions of this work and of additions
to it see J. Winsor's History of America, Boston, 1889, Vol. viii, p. 260.
Gage, T. Survey of the West Indies. London. 1648. 4th edn. 1711.
The Golden Coast: a Description of Guinney. London. 1665.
Hakluyt Society Publications : —

Battell, Andrew, Adventures of. Series n. No. vi. London. 1901.
Expeditions into the Valley of the Amazons, 1639, 1640, 1639. London.

1859.
Leguat, F. Voyage of. 2 vols. London. 1891.

, Madrigo, P. de. Description of the Government of Peru. In the East and
West Indian Mirror. Series ii, vol. xviii. London. 1906.
Johnson, C. General History of the Pyrates. London. 1724.
Labat, J. B. Nquveau voyage aux iles de I'Amerique. 6 vols. Paris. 1722.

Nouvelle relation de I'Afrique occidentale. 5 vols. Paris. 1728.

Ligon, R. History of the Island of Barbados. London. 1667.

Linage, V. Norte de la Contratacidn de las Indias occideutales. Seville. 1672.

English translation by Captain John Stevens. London. 1702.
Menezes, Luis de. Historia de Portugal restaurado. 2 vols, Lisbon. 1679-98.
Nieuhof, J. Voyage in Brazil. Pinkerton's Voyages. Vol. xiv. London. 1808-14.
Oldmixon, J. British Empire in America. London. 1708. Later edn. 1741,
Olivares, M. de. Historia de la Compania de Jesus en Chile, 1693-1736. Vol. vii

of the Historiadores de Chile. Santiago. 1874.
Pinkerton, J. Voyages and Travels. Vol. xiv ; South America. Vol. xvi : Africa.

London. 1813-14. ,
Ponce de Leon, F. Descripcion del reyno de Chile, Madrid. 1644 [?].
Relation de ce qui s'est passee, dans les isles et Terre Ferme de I'Amerique pendant

la deruiere guerre avec I'Angleterre, eb depuis en execution du traite de

Breda.,,, Paris. 1671.

Bibliography. 897

Relation du Voyage de la mer du Sud aux cotes du Chily et du Perou fait pendant

les annees 1712, 13 et 1714. Paris. 1716. English translation. London.

1717.
Rogers Woodea. Cruising Voyage round the world, 1708-11. London. 1712.
Santa Teresa, G. G. Istoria delle guerre del regno del Brasile. 2 parts. Roma.

1698.
Sloane, Sir H. Voyage to... Barbados, Nieves, St Christopher's and Jamaica.

2 vols. London. 1725.
The present state of the Sugar Plantations considered ; but more especially that of

the Island of Barbados. London. 1713.
View of the English acquisitions in Guinea, A. London [i"]. 1686.
Wafer, L. New Voyages and Description of the Isthmus of America. London.

1699. Edited by G. P. Winship. Cleveland. 1903.
Warren, G. An impartial desci-iption of Surinam. London. 1667.
Wood, W. Occasional papers on the Asiento and the affairs of Jamaica. London.

1716.

IV. LATER WORKS.

A. Apbioa.

Bandinel, J. Some accounts of the Trade in Slaves from Africa as connected with

Europe and America. London. 1842.
Johnston, Sir H. H. Colonization of Africa. Cambridge. 1899.
Lucas, C. P. Historical Geography of the British Colonies. Vol. in: West Africa.

2nd edn. Oxford. 1900. Vol. iv : South and East Africa. 2 parts. Oxford

1897.
Melliss, J. C. St Helena. London. 1875.
Meredith, H. An account of the Gold Coast of Africa, with a brief history of the

African Company. London. 1812.
Theal, G. McC. History of South Africa under the Dutch East India Company.

2 vols. London. 1897.

The Portuguese in South Africa. Cape Town. 1897.

Trotter, A. P. Old Cape Colony from 1652 to 1806. Westminster. 1903.

B. Brazil.

Beauchamp, A. de. Histoire du Brfeil, 1600-1810. 3 vols. Paris. 1815.

Handelmann, H. Geschichte von Brasilien. Berlin. 1860.

Henderson, J. History of the Brazil. London. 1821.

Jornal do Instituto Historico e Geographico Brazileiro. Rio de Janeiro. 1839-.

Koenig, F. Duguay Trouin. Tours. 1886.

Lucio d'Azevedo, J. Os Jesuitas no Grao Para, 1653-1760. Lisbon. 1901.

Moraes, A. J. de M. Brasil historico, e a corographia historica do Imperio do

Brasil. Rio de Janeiro. 1866-7-
Netscher, P. M. Les Hollandais au Br&il. The Hague. 1853.
•Rodrigues, J. C. Religioes acatholicas no Brazil, 1500-1900. Rio de Janeiro.

1904.
SeptenvUie, Baron E. de. Brasil sous la domination Portugaise. Paris. 1872.
Southey, R. History of BrazU. 3 parts. London. 1810-19.
Vamhagen, P. A. de (Baron de Porto Seguro). Historia das Lutas com os HoUan-

dezes no Brazil desde 1624 a 1664. Lisbon. 1872.
Historia geral do Brazil. 2 vols. Rio de Janeiro. 1877.

C. M. H. V. CH. XXII. "<

898 The Colonies and India.

C. GniANA.

CoudreaUj H. A. La France ifiqninoxiale. 2 vols. Paris. 1836-7.
Dalton, H. G. History of British Guiana. 2 vols. London. 1855.
Edmundson, G. The Dutch in Western Guiana. Eng. Hist. Rev. 1901, 640.

The Dutch on the Amazon and Negro in the seventeenth century. Eng.

Hist. Rev. 1903, 642; 1904, 1.

Essai historique sur la Colonie de Surinam avec I'histoire de la nation Juive-

Portugaise et AUemande y dtablie. Paramaribo. 1788.
Hartsinck, J. Beschryving van Guiana of de Wilde Kust in Suid America. 2 vols.

Amsterdam. 1770.
Lucas, C. P Historical Geography of the British Colonies. Vol. ii: West Indies.

2nd edn. Oxford. 1906.
Palgrave, W. G. Dutch Guiana. London. 1876.
Bodway, J. History of British Guiana from 1688. 3 vols. Georgetown. 1891-4.

and Watt, T. Chronological History of the discovery and settlement of

Guiana, 1493-1688. Georgetown. 1888.

D. West Indies.

An Account of the European Settlements in America. Revised by Edmund Burke.

2 vols. London. 1757.
Atwood, T. History of Dominica. London. 1791.
Borde, P. G. L. Histoire de I'ile de la Trinidad, 1498-1797. 2 pai-ts. Paris.

1876-83.
Breen, H. H. St Lucia. London. 1844.

Bridges, G. W. Annals of Jamaica. 2 vols. London. 1827-8.
Bumey, J. History of the Buccaneers of America. London. 1816.
Davey, R. Cuba: past and present. London. 1898.
Davis, N. D. Cavaliers and Roundheads in Barbados. Georgetown, British

Guiana. 1887.
Edwards, Bryan. Historical Survey of St Domingo. London. 1801.

British Colonies in the West Indies. 6th edn. 6 vols. London. 1819.

Fiske, A. R. The West Indies. (Story of the Nations.) New York. 1899.
Humboldt, Baron F. H. A. von. Essai politique sur I'ile de Cuba. Paris. 1826.
Lefroy, Sjr J. H. Memorials of the Discovery and Early Settlement of the

Bermudas or Somers Islands, 1511-1687. 2 vols. London. 1877-9.
Long, E. History of Jamaica. 3 vols. London. 1774.
Lucas, C. P. Historical Geography of British Colonies. Vol. ii : West Indies.

2nd edn. Oxford. 1905.
Markham, C. R. Sea Fathers. London. 1884.
Norman, C. B. Corsairs of France. London. 1887.
Oliver, V. L. History of Antigua from 1635. 3 vols. London. 1894-9.
Poyer, J. History of Barbados, 1606-1801. London. 1808.
Rodway, J. The West Indies and the Spanish Main. (Story of the Nations.)

London. 1896.
Russell, W. C. William Dampier. (English Men of Action.) London. 1889.
Schomburgk, Sir R. H. History of Barbados. Loudon. 1848.
Southey, T. Chronological History of the West Indies. 3 vols. London. 1827.
Thombury, W. Buccaneers. London. 1858.
Woodcock, H. I. History of Tobago. Ayr. 1867.

Bibliography. 899

E. Spanish America.

Alegre, F. J. Historia de la Compania de Jesus en Nueva Espana (1566-1766).

Mexico. 1841-2.
Arana, D. B. Historia general de Chile. 16 vols. Santiago. 1884-1902.
Bancroft, H. H. History of the Pacific States of North America. 84 vols.

San Francisco. 1881-90. [Vols, iv-ix contain the History of Mexico.]
^-^ History of the Mexican people. San Francisco. 1887.
Bernard, M. Establishment of Spanish Rule in America. New York. 1898.
Burney, J. Chronological History of Discovery in the South Sea. London.

1803-16.
Deberle, A. Histoire de TAmerique du sud. 3rd edn. Paris. 1897.
Dominguez, L. Historia Argentina, 1482-1900. 4th edn. Buenos Ayres. 1870.
Fancourt, C. St J. History of Yucatan (to 1700). London. 1854.
Gibhs, A. R. British Honduras, from 1670. London. 1883.
Grothein, E. Jesuitenstaat in Paraguay. Leipzig. 1883.
Hale, S. Story of Mexico. (Story of the Nations.) New York. 1889.
Hall, B. Extracts from a Journal written on the coasts of Chile, Peru and

Mexico, 1820-2. 2 vols. 3rd edn. Edinburgh. 1824.
Henderson, J. History of the Brazil. London. 1820.
Humboldt, Baron F. H. A. von. Voyage aux regions equinoxiales du nouveau

continent, 1799-1804. 29 vols. Paris. 1807-17.
• Political Essay on the kingdom of New Spain. (From the above. Eng.

transl. by J. Black.) London. 1811. 3rd edn. 1822.
Jusurros, D. Statistical and commercial history of Guatemala. Eng. transl. by

J. Baily. London. 1823.
Lorente, Sebastian. Historia del Perii, 1598-1700. Paris. 1870. 1700-1821.

Lima. 1871.
Mackenna, B. V. Historia de la Ciudad de Santiago, 1641 a 1868. Valparaiso.

1869.
The Inquisition as it was in South America. Eng. transl. by J. W. Duffy.

London. 1869.
Markham, Sir C. R. History of Peru. Chicago. 1892.
Mendiburu, General. Historico-Biographical Dictionary of Peru. First part.

6 vols. Lima. 1874r-86.
Molina, G. I. Geographical and Civil History of ChiU. Eng. transl. 2 vols.

London. 1809.
Raynal, G. T. F. Histoire philosophique et politique des ^tablissements et du

commerce des Europ^ens dans les deux Indes. 10 vols. Geneva. 1780.

Eng. transl. by J. O. Justamond. 8 vols. London. 1783.
Root, J. W. Spain and its Colonies. London. 1898.
Washburn, C. A. History of Paraguay. Boston. 1871.
Watson, B. G. Spanish and Portuguese South America during the Colonial

period. 2 vols. London. 1884.
Wilcocke, S. H. History of the Viceroyalty of Buenos Ayres. London. 1807.

F. General Works.

Beer, L. The Commercial Policy of England towards the American Colonies.
(University of Columbia Studies in History, Economics etc.) New York. 1893.
Bonnassieux, P. Les Grandes Compagnies de Commerce. Paris. 1892.
Cawston, G. and Keane, A. H. The Early Chartered Companies. London. 1896.

CH. XXII. 67 — 2

900 The Colonies and India.

Cunningham, W. Growth of English Industry and Commerce. 4th edn. Cam-

hridge. 1905.
Egerton, H. E. History of Colonial Policy. London. 1898.
Hume, M. A. S. Spain, 1479-1788. Cambridge. 1899.
Kaye, P. L. English Colonial Administration under Lord Clarendon, 1660-7.

(Johns Hopkins Univ. Studies. Ser. 23.) Baltimore. 1905.
Leroy Beaulieu, P. De la colonisation chez les peuples modernes. 6th edn

2 vols. Paris. 1902.
Macmurdo, E. History of Portugal. 3 vols. Lbndon. 1888-9.
Merivale, H. T. Lectures on Colonisatioin and Colonies. 2nd edn. London. 1861.
Pauliat, L. La Politique coloniale et I'ancien regime. Paris. 1887.
Seeley, Sir J. R. The Growth of British Policy. 2 vols. London. 1895.
Smith, A. Wealth of Nations. Ed. by J. E. T. Rogers. 2 vols. London; 1869.
Stanford, E. Compendium of Geography. Africa. 2 vols. 2nd edn. London.

1904. Central and South America. 2 vols. London. 1901.

(2) INDIA.

I. GENERAL AUTHORITIES FOR THE HISTORY OF EUROPEANS

IN INDIA.

Raynal, G. T. F. Histoire philosophique et politique des e'tablissements et du
commerce des Europeens dans les deux Indes. 10 vols. Greneva. 1780.

Anderson, A. Historical and Chronological Deduction of the Origin of Commerce.
4 vols. London. 1787-9.

Macpherson, David. Annals of Commerce, 4 vols. London. 1805. European
Commerce with India. London. 1812.

II. THE ENGLISH IN INDIA,

A. Manuscript Records.
In the India Office : —

Court Books of the East India Company, i.e. Minutes of the Meetings of the

Courts of Directors.
Letter Books, i.e. Copies of Despatches sent out to India.
O. C. Records (Original Correspondence), i.e. Letters received by the Company

from its servants in the East.
Miscellaneous Factory Records.
In the Bodleian Library : —
The Rawlinson mss.

B. Record Publications and Narratives based directly upon the Records.

Birdwood, Sir George. Report on the Old Records of the India Office. London.

1891.
Extracts from the Government Records in Fort St George. Madras. Government

Press. 1871-3.
Forrest, G. W. Selections from the Letters, Despatches and other State Papers

preserved in the Bombay Secretariat. Maratha Series. 1 vol. Bombay. 1886.

Home Series. 2 vols. Bombay. 1887.
Janisch, H. R. Extracts from the St Helena Records, St Helena. 1886.
Pringle, A. T. Diary and Consultation Book of the Agent, Governor and Council

of Fort St feeorge, 1682, 1683, 1684-5. Madras. 1894 and 1895,

Bibliography. 901

Talboys Wheeler, J. Madras in the olden time. 3 vols. Madras. 1861.
Wilson, C. R. Early Annals of the English in Bengal. 2 vols. Calcutta. 1895-

1900.

Old Fort WUliam in Bengal. Indian Records Series. 2 vols. 1906.

Yule, Sir Henry. The Diary of Willia^i Hedges. 3 vols. [Hakluyt Society,

vols. Lxxiv, iixxv, and ucxviii.] London. 1886-8.

C. CONTEMPORABT WoRKS AND PaMPHLETS, TrAVELS AND VoYAQBS.

Anatomy, the, of Change Alley, by a Jobber. London. 1719.

Bowrey, Thomas. A Geographical Account of countries round the Bay of Bengal,

1669 to 1679. Ed. by Sir Richard Carnac Temple. London. 1906. Hakluyt

Society, series ii. vol. 12.
Britannia Languens. London. 1680.

Child, Sir Josia. The New Discourse of Trade. London. 1665.
Considerations on the East India Trade. London. 1701.
English Winding Sheet, an, for the East India Manufactors. London. 1700.
Exact Collection, an, of the Debates and Proceedings in Parliament in 1694 and 1696,

upon the enquiry into the late Briberies and Corrupt Practices. London. 1695.
Ereeholders', the, plea against Stock-jobbing Elections of Parliament Men. London.

1701.
Fryer, John, M.D. A new account of East India and Persia, in eight letters : being

nine years' travels begun 1672 and finished 1681. London. 1698.
Hamilton, Alexander. A new account of the East Indies. 2 vols. Edinburgh.

1727.
Lockyer, Charles. An Account of the Trade in India. London. 1711.
Luttrell, Narcissus. Brief Historical Relation of State Affairs. 1678-1714. 6 vols.

Oxford. 1857.
Ovington, F. A. A Voyage to Surat in the year 1689. London. 1696.
Some Remarks upon the present state of the East India Company's affairs. London.

1690.
Treatise, a, wherein is demonstrated that the East India Trade is the most national of

all foreign trades, by Philopatris. London. 1681.
True Relation, a, of the rise and progress of the East India Company. No date, circa

1700.

D. Later Works.

Anderson, Philip. The English in Western India. London. 1856.

Bruce, John. Annals of the Honourable East India Company. 3 vols. London.

1810.
Howell's State Trials. Vol. x. 34 vols. London. 1816-28.
Hunter, Sir W. W. A History of British India. 2 vols. London. 1899-1900.
Low, C. R. History of the Indian Navy. 2 vols. London. 1877.
Lyall, Sir Alfred. The British Dominion in India. London. 1906.
Macaulay, Lord. History of England. 7 vols. London. 1858.
Mill, James. History of British India. 10 vols. London. 1868.
Papillon, A. W. F. Memoirs of Thomas PapUlon of London, Merchant. London.

1887.

m. THE DUTCH IN INDIA.

Baldaeus,F. Naauwkeurigebeschryvinge van Malabar en Choromandel. Amsterdam.

1672.
Crawford, John. History of the Indian Archipelago. 3 vols. Edinburgh. 1820.

CH, XXU.

902 The Colonies and India.

Du Bois, J. P. Vies des Gouverneurs Gdndraux avec I'abrdge de I'histoire des
etablissements Hollandois aux Indes Orieatales. The Hague. 1763.

JongBj J. K. J. de. De Opkomst van het Nederlandsch Gezag in Oost Indie.
13 vols. The Hague. 1862-89.

Raffles, Sir T. Stamford. History of Java. 2 vols. London. 1817.

RibeyrOj J. Histoire de I'isle de Ceylan. Traduit du Portugais. Amsterdam. 1701.

St John, Horace. The Indian Archipelago. 2 vols. London. 1863.

Tennent, Sir James Emerson. Ceylon. London. 1860.

Theal, George McCall. History of South Africa. 5 vols. 1888.

IV. THE FRENCH IN INDIA.

Charpentier, Franfois. Relation de I'etablissement de la compagnie francaise pour

le commerce des Indes Orientales. Amsterdam. 1666.
Descartes, Mace. Histoire et Geographie de Madagascar. Paris. 1846.
Flacourt, !^tienne de. Histoire de la grande Isle de Madagascar. Paris. 1661.
Fosses, Castonnet des. L'Inde francaise avant Dupleix. Paris. 1887.
Jeanuin, Pres.— Les Negotiations de Monsieur le President Jeauuin. Paris. 1659.
Leibniz, G. W. Werke. Gemass s. handschriftl. Nachl. in Hannover hrsgbn von

Onno KIopp. Ser. i. Historischpolitische und staatswisseusch. Schriften.

11 vols. Hanover. 1864-73.
Lescure, M. Precis historique sur les etablissements franfais de I'lnde. Poudi-

chery. 1864.
Malleson, G. B. History of the French in India. Loudon. 1893.
Margry, P. Relations et memoires iuedits pour servir a I'histoire de la France

dans les pays d'outre-mer tires des archives du ministere de la marine et des

colonies. Paris. 1867.
Pauliat, L. Louis XIV et la compagnie des Indes Orientales de 1664. Paris. 1886.
Rennefort, Souchu de. Histoire des Indes Orientales. Paris. 1688.
Sottas, J. Une escadre franpaise aux Indes en 1690. Histoire de la compagnie

Royale des Indes Orientales 1664-1719. Paris. 1905.
Tavernier, Jean Baptiste. — Les six voyages de J. B. Tavernier. 2 vols. Paris. 1676.
Weber, H. La compagnie franfaise des Indes 1604-1875. Paris.. 1904.

V. THE OSTEND COMPANY.

Hertz, Gerald B. England and the Ostend Company. In English Historical Review,

April 1907.
Huisman, Michel. La Belgique Commerciale sous I'empereur Charles VI: La

compagnie d'Ostende. Brussels. 1902.
Importance, the, of the Ostend Company considered. London. 1726.

903

CHAPTER XXIII.

EUROPEAN SCIENCE IN THE SEVENTEENTH AND
EARLIER YEARS OF THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURIES.

[See ako articles on Academies, Alchemy, Botany, Chemistry, Medicine etc., in
Encyclopcedia Britannica ; and biographical articles in Allgemeine Deutsche Biographic,
Biographie Nouvelle, Dictionary of National Biography, and similar works.'\

I. GENERAL.

Birch, T. History of the Royal Society. 4 vols. London. 1766-7.

Buckle, H. T. History of Civilization. 3 vols. London. 1871.

Candolle, A. de. Histoire des sciences et des savants. Geneva and Basel. 1886.

Draper, J. W. History of the conflict between Religion and Science. (Int. Sci.

Series. Vol. xiii.) London. 1876.
Gesch. der Wissenschaften in Deutschland. Neuere Zeit. 23 vols. (In progress.)

Munich. 1864 etc.
Hamack, A. Gesch. d. k. Preuss. Akad. der Wiss. zu Berlin. 3 vols. Berlin.

1900.
Keller, L. G. W. Leibniz und die deutschen Sozietaten des 17 Jahrh. (Vortrage

u. Aufsatze a. d. Comenius Gesellschaft, xi. Jahrg. 3. Stuck.) Berlin. 1903.
Maury, C, F. A. Les Academies d'autrefois. 2ud edn. Vol. i. L'Acad. des

Sciences. Paris. 1864.
Rigaud, S. P. Correspondence of Scientific Men of the Seventeenth Century.

Oxford. 1841.
Royal Society, Record of the. London. 1901.

Weld, C. B. History of the Royal Society. 2 vols. London. , 1848.
Whewell, W. History of the Inductive Sciences from the earliest to the present

time. 3rd edn. 3 vols. Loudon. 1857.

IL MATHEMATICAL AND PHYSICAL SCIENCE.
A. Original Wobks and Treatises.

Bacon, Francis, Viscount St Albans. Collected Works. Ed. B. L. Ellis, J. Spedding,
and D, D. Heath. 2nd edition. 7 vols. London. 1870.

Barrow, I. Mathematical Works. Ed. W. Whewell. Cambridge. 1860.

Bernoulli, Jacques. Opera. 2 vols. Geneva. 1744.

Bernoulli, Jean. Opera omnia. 4 vols. Geneva. 1742.

Boyle, R. Works. Ed. Thomas Birch. 6 vols. London. 1744.

Commercinm Epistolicom J. Collins et aliorum de analysi promota jussu Soc. Reg.
in lucem editam. London. 1712.

904 European Science in \*Jth and early 18th Centuries.

Desargues, G. CEuvres. Reunies et analysees par M. Poudra. 2 vols. Paris. 1864.
Descartes, R. CEuvres. Publiees par C. Adam et P. Tannery. Paris. 1897 etc.
Publiees par V. Cousin. 11 vols. Paris. 1824-6.

CEuvres iu^dites. Ed. Foucher de Careil. Paris. 1859.

See also, as to his Mathematical Investigations, Erach and Gruber's AUgem.
Encyclopadie der Wissensch. Leipzig. 1818 etc. [Vol. xxix.]
Fermat, P. CEuvres publiees par P. Tannery et C. Henry. 4 vols. Paris.

1891-1901.
Galilei, G. Opere. 16 vols. Florence. 1842-56.

Opere. Edizione nazionale. Florence. 1890 etc.

Gerland, E. Das Thermometer. Berlin. 1886.

Gilbert, W. On the Loadstone and Magnetic Bodies, and on the Great Magnet,

the Earth. Ed. P. F. Mottelay. London. 1893.
Gunther, E. Collected Works. Ed. W. Leybourn. London. 1673.
Harriot, T. Artis ahalyticae praxis. London. 1631.
Hauksbee, F. Experiments. 2nd edition. London. 1719.
Hooke, R. Posthumous works. London. 1705.

Micrographia. London. 1665.

Horrocks, J. Opuscula astronomica. London. 1673.

Huygens, C. CEuvres completes. La Haye. 1888 etc.

Kepler, J. Opera omnia. Ed. C. Frisoh. 8 vols. Frankfort. 1868-71.

Leibniz, G. W. Gesammelte Werke. Hrsg. von G. H. Pertz, C. L. Grotefend, u.

G. I. Gerhardt. Berlin and Halle. 1843 etc.
L'Hospital, G. F. A. Analyse des Infinimeut Petits. Paris. 1696.
Maclauriu, Colin. Geometria Organica. London. 1720.

De Linearum Geometricarum Proprietatibua. London. 1720.

Treatise on Fluxions. Edinburgh. ' 1742.

Algebra. London. 1748.

Mansion, P. Esquisse de I'histoire du calcul infinitesimal. Ghent. 1887.
Napier, J. Collected Works. Edinburgh. 1839.
Newton, Sir I. Opera. Ed. S. Horsley. 6 vols. London. 1779-85.
Newton's Manuscript on Fluxions. Ed. N. Colson. London. 1736.
Oughtred, W. Trigonometria. London. 1657.

Clavis Mathematicae. London. 1631.

Pascal, Blaise. CEuvres completes. 3 vols. Paris. 1868.
Priestley, J. History of Discoveries relating to light etC; ^ London. 1772.
Sauveur, J. Principes d'Acoustique et de Musique. Paris, n.d.
Stevinus, S. Hypomnemata Mathematica. 5 vols. Leyden. 1608.

Collected Works. Ed. M. Stichen; Brussels. 1846.

Taylor, Brook. Methodus lucrementorum directa et inversa. London. 1716.

The principles of linear perspective. London. 1719.

Varignon, P. Traite du mouvement. Paris. 1725.

Nouvelle mecanique. 2 vols. Paris. 1725.

Eclaircissemens sur 1' Analyse des infiniment petits [by L'Hospital]. Paris.

1725.

Vieta, F. Opera mathematica. Leyden. 1646.

Vinci, Leonardo da. Literary works. Ed. J. P. Richter. London. 1883.

Wallis, J. Opera mathematica. 3 vols. Oxford, 1693-9.

Wingate, E. Arithmetic. London.! 1630.

B. General Works.

Ball, W. W. Rouse. History of Mathematics. 3rd edition. London. 1901.

Berry, A. History of Astronomy. London. 1898.

Bibliotheca Mathematica, Hrsg. von G. Euestrom. Stockholm. 1844 etc.

Bibliography. 906

Bulletin des sciences mathdmatiques et astrouomiques. Redige par G. Darboux.

Paris. 1870 etc.
BuUettiuo di bibliografia e di storia delle scienze matematiche e fisiche. Pubblicato

da B. Boncompagni. Roma. 1868 etc.
Cajori, F. History of Physics. New York. 1899.
Cantor, M. Vorlesungen fiber Geschichte der Mathematik. 3 vols. Leipzig.

1880-98.
ChasleSj M. Aper9u historique snr I'origine et le developpement des methodes en

g^ometrie. 2nd edn. Paris. 1875.
Clerke, A. M. A Popular History of Astronomy. New York. 1893.
Delambre, J. B. J. Histoire de I'astronomie. 6 vols. Paris. 1817-27.
Dreyer, J. L. E. History of the Planetary Systems. Cambridge. 1906.
Duhem, P. L'!l6volution des Theories Physiques. Louvain. 1896.
Duhringj E. Kritische Geschichte der...Mechanik. 3rd edn. Leipzig. 1887.
Gerland, E. Geschichte der Physik. Leipzig. 1892.

and Traumullerj F. Geschichte der physikalischen Experimentierkunst.

Leipzig. 1899.

Grant, R. History of physical astronomy. 2nd edn. London. 1852.

Gunther, S. Vermischte Untersuchungen zur Geschichte del- mathematischen
Wissenschaften. Leipzig. 1876.

Heller, A. Geschichte der Physik. 2 vols. Stuttgart. 1882.

Isely, L. L'Histoire des mathematiques dans la Suisse fran^aise. Neuchatel. 1884.

Lewis, Sir G. C. The astronomy of the ancients. London. 1862.

Libri, G. B. I. T. Histoire des sciences mathematiques en Italie depuis la renais-
sance. 4 vols. Paris. 1838-41.

Mach, E. The Science of Mechanics. Trans, by T. J. McCormack. London. 1893.

Marie, M. Histoire des sciences mathematiques et physiques. 12 vols. Pari?.
1883-8. -•

Montucla, J. E. Histoire des mathematiques. 2nd edn. Paris. 1802.

Ostwald, W. Klassiker der exacten Wissenschaften. Leipzig^. 1889 etc.

Poggendorif, J. C. Geschichte der Physik. Leipzig. 1879.

Biographisch-literarisches Handworterbuch zur Geschichte der exacten

Wissenschaften. 2 vols. Leipzig. 1863.

Quetelet, L. A. J. Les sciences mathematiques et physiques chez les Beiges,

Brussels. 1864.
Rosenberger, F. Geschichte der Physik. 3 vols. Brunswick. 1882-90.
Servus, H. Die Geschichte des Femrohrs. Berlin. 1886.
Wolf, R. Geschichte der Astronomie. Munich. 1877.
Zeitschrift fiir Mathematik u. Physik. Leipzig. 1836 etc. •
Zeuthen, H. G. Geschichte der Mathematik im 16. u. 17. Jahrhundert. Leipzig. 1906.

C. BlOQBAPHY AND CRITICISM.

Bacon, Francis, Viscount St Albans. Letters and Life. By J. Speddingi 7 volp.

London. 1861-74. > - •

Cavalieri, B. Bonaventura Cavalieri, da A. Favaro. Bologna. 1888.
Descartes, R. Vie par A. Baillet. 2 vols. Paris. 1691.

His life and work. By E. S. Haldane. London. 1906.

Galilei, Galileo. Galilei and the Roman Curia, by R. von Gebler. Translated

by Mrs G. Sturge. London. 1879.

His Life and Work. By J. J. Fahie. London. 1903.

Kepler, J. Johann Keppler's Leben und Wirken. Von J. L. C. von Breitschwert.

Stuttgart. 1831.
Leibniz, G. W. Biographie von G. E. Guhrauer. 2 vols, and a supplement.

Breslau. 1842-6.

906 European Science in 1*1 th and early 18th Centuries.

Leibniz, G. W. Leibniz. Von Kuno Fischer. Vol. ii of Gescbichte der neueren
Fhilosophie. Neue Gesammtausgabe. 7 vols. Heidelberg. 1889-1901.

Leibnitzens Ansprucb auf die Erfindung der DifFerenzialrechnung. Von H.

Sloman. Leipzig. 1857. English transl. Cambridge. 1860.

Napier, J. Memoirs. By M. Napier. Edinburgh. 1834.

— — Bibliography, see Appendix to The Construction.. .of Logarithms. Ed. by

W. R. Macdonald. Edinburgh. 1889.
Newton, Sir L life. By D. Brewster. 2 vols. Edinburgh. 1855.

Bibliography. By G. J. Gray. Cambridge. 1888.

Catalogue of the Portsmouth Collection of Books and Papers written by or

belonging to I. N. Cambridge. 1888.

Account of Newton's Discoveries. By Colin Maclaurin. London. 1748.

Essay on Newton's Principia. By W. W. Rouse Ball. London. 1893.

Historical Essay on Newton's Principia. By S. P. Rigaud. Oxford. 1838.

Isaac Newton und seine physikalischen Principien. Von F. Rosenberger.

Leipzig. 1895.

Pascal, Blaise. Pensees, fragments, et lettres. l^d. A. P. Faugere. Paris. 1844.
Stevinus, S. Notice hist, sur la vie de S. Stevin. (Gloires flamandes. i.) By
F. V. Goethals. Brussels. 1842.

in. OTHER BRANCHES OF SCIENCE.

A. Obioinal Works and Treatises.

1. Medicine, includirig Anatomy and Physiology,

Aselli, 6. De lactibus. Milan. 1627.

Bellini, L. De structura renum. Florence. 1662.

Berengarius, J. Anatomia. Venice. 1585.

Borelli, G. A. De motu animaUum. Rome. 1680-1.

Caesalpinus, A. Quaestionum peripateticarum lib. v. Florence. 1569.

Quaestionum medicarum lib. ii. Venice. 1593.

Columbus, M. R. De Re Anatomica. Venice. 1559.
Descartes, R. De Homine Liber. Leyden. 1662.

Fabricius, H., ab Aquapendente. De veuarum ostiolis. Padua. 1603.

De Respiratione et ejus instrumentis lib. u. Padua. 1615.

Falloppius, G. Observationes Anatomicae. Venice. 1662.
Freind, J. The history of Physic. London. 1744.

Glauber, J. R. Pharmacopoeia spagyrica. Amsterdam. 1664-68.
Glissou, F. Anatomia hepatis. Amsterdam. 1659.

"Tractatus de natura substantiae energetica. London. 1672.

De ventriculo. London. 1677.

Graaf, R. de. De natura et usu succi pancreatici. Leyden. 1671.
Harvey, W. Exercitatio de Motu Cordis. Frankfort. 1628.

Opera Omnia. [London.] 1766.

Helmont, J. B. van. Ortus medicinae. Amsterdam. 1648.

Hooke, R. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, no. 28. London.

1667.
Leeuwenhoek, A. van. Arcana naturae. Delft. 1695.

Opera Omnia. 4 vols. Leyden. 1719-22.

Phil. Trans. No. 142. London. 1679.

Lower, R. Tractatus de corde. London. 1669.

Mayow, J. De sale nitro et spiritu nitro-aereo. Oxford. 1674.

De respiratione. Leyden. 1671.

Bibliography. 907

Malpighi, M. De viscerum Btructura exercitatio anatomica. London. 1669.

De structura glandularum conglobatarum consimiliumque partium. London.

1689.

De pulmonibus observationes anatomicae. Bologna. 1661.

De omento, pinguedine et adeposis ductibus. Bonn. 1665.

Mundinus. De Anathomia. Strassburg. 1613.

Paracelsns, T. Chirurgia magna. 3 vols. Strassburg. 16?3.
Pecquet, J. Experimenta nova anatomica. Paris. 1661.
Rudbeck, O. Nova exercitatio anatomica. Arosen. 1663.

Epistola ad Thomam Bartholinum de vasis serosis. Upsala. 1657.

Ruysch, F. Opera. 6 vols. Amsterdam. 1737.

Servetus, M. Christianismi Restitutio, s. I. 1553.

Stahlj G. E. Zymotechnica Fundamentalis. [Halle.] 1697-

Specimen Beccherianum. Leipzig. 1703.

Theoria medica. Halle. 1708.

De mixti et vivi corporis vera diversitate. Halle. 1707.

Stensen, N. Observationes anatomicae. Leyden. 1662.

Observationum de musculis et glandulis specimen cum epistolis anatomicis

de anatomia rajae et de vitelli in intestina pulli transitu. Copenhagen. 1664

Elementorum myologiae specimen. Florence. 1667.

Dissertatio de cerebri anatome. Leyden. 1671.

Swammerdam, J. Biblia Naturae. 2 vols. (Dutch and Latin.) Ed. Boerhave

Leyden. 1737-8.
Sylvius, F. (F. de la Boe.). Opera Medica. Ed. nova. Utrecht. 1695.

Collectio disputationum medicarum. Amsterdam. 1663.

TacheniuB, O. Hippocrates chymicus. Brunswick. 1668.

Hippocraticae medicinae clavis. Frankfort. 1669.

Vesalius, A. De Humani Corporis Fabrica libri vii. Basel. 1643.

Vinci, Leonardo da. Note-books arranged and rendered into English by

E. McCurdy. London. 1906.
Wharton, T. Adenographia. London. 1666.
Willis, T. Cerebri anatome. London. 1664.

De anima Brutorum. London. 1672.

Wirsung, J. G. Figura ductus cujusdam...in pancreate...in diverais corporibus
humanis observati. Padua. 1642. [Sent to Riolau July 7, 1643. See Haller,
Bibliotheca Anatomica.]

2. Chemistry.

[See also under Medicine.^

Becher, J. J. Physica subterrauea. Frankfort. 1669.
Boyle, R. The sceptical chemist. Oxford. 1680.
Lefevre, N. Traite' de la Chymie. 2° e'd. Paris. 1669.

Valentine, B. Currus triumphalis antimonii. Toulouse. 1646. English transl.
London. 1661.

3. Botany.

Bauhin, C. Pinax Theatri Botanici. Basel. 1623.

UpoSpofios Theatri Botanici. Frankfort. 1620.

Bauhin, J. Historia Plantarum universalis. Yverdon. 1660-1.
Caesalpinus, A. De Plantis libri xvi. Florence. 1683.
Camerarius, R. J. De sexu Plantarum. Tubingen. 1694.
Clusius, C Rariorum Stirpium Historia. Antwerp. 1676.
Colonna, F. Phytobasanos. Naples. 1692.

Dodonaeus, R. Stirpium Historiae pemptades vi. Antwerp. 1683.

CH. XXIII.

908 European Science in Vlth and early 18th Centuries.

Fuchsius, L. De.Historia Stirpium. Basel. 1542.

Gerard, J. Herbal. London. 1697.

Gesner, C. Opera Botanica. Ed. C. C. Scheniedl. Nurnberg. 1754.

Grew, N. The Anatomy of Vegetables begun. London. 1672.

The Anatomy of Plants. 2nd edn. [London.] 1682.

Hales, S. Vegetable Staticks. London. 1727.

How, W. Phytologia Britannica. London. 1650.

Jungius, J. Isagoge Phytoscopica. Hamburg. 1678.

Lobelius, M. Plantarum seu Stirpinm historia. 2 vols. Antwerp. 1676.

Malpighi, M. Anatome Plantarum. 2 pts. London. 1676-9.

Matthiolus, P. A. 11 Dioscoride. [Edition of Dioscorides, with large additions by

M.] Venice. 1644.
Morison, R. Plantarum hist. unir. Oxoniensis. Parts ii-iii. Oxford. 1680-99.
Parkinson, J. Paradisi in sole Paradisus terrestris. London. 1629.

Theatrum Botanicum. London. 1640.

Kay, J. Methodus Plantarum. London. 1682.

Historia Plantarum. 3 vols. London. 1686-1704.

Scheuchzer, J. J. Herbarium diluvianum. Zurich. 1709.
Tournefort, J. P. de. !6lemens de Botanique. Paris. • 1694.

4. Zoology.

Aldrovandus, U. Ornithologiae, hoc est de avibus historiae, libri xii. Bologna.

1699-1634. [And other works.]
Fabricius, H., ab Aquapendente. De formatione ovi et pulli. Padua. 1603.
Gesner, C. Historia animalium. 6 vols. Zurich. 1551-87.
Harvey, W. Exercitationes de generatione Animalium. London. 1651.
Lister, M. Historia Animalium Augliae. Loudon. 1678.
Malpighi, M. Dissertatio epistolica de Bombyce. London. 1669.

Diss, epistolica de formatione pulli in ovo. London. 1673.

fi^y, J. Synopsis Methodica Animalium quadrupedum et serpentini generis.
London. 1693.

Methodus Insectorum. London. 1705.

Historia Insectorum. London. 1710.

Redi, F. Osservazioni intorno alle vipere. Florence. 1664.

Esperienze intorno a diverse cose naturali. Florence. 1671.

Experimenta cii'ca generationem Insectorum. Amsterdam. 1670.

Osservazioni intorno agli animali viventi che si trovano .negli animali viventi.

Florence. 1684.

Ruysch, F. Thesaurus animalium. Amsterdam. 1710.
Swammerdam, J. Historia insectorum generalis. Utrecht. 1669. ;
Topsell, E. Historie of four-footed beasts. London. 1607.

WUlughby, F. Ornithologiae libri tres. London. 1676. English trans. London.
1678.

De Historia Piscium libri quatuor. Oxford. 1686.

6. Geology and Mineralogy.

Agricola, G. Dialogus de re metallica. Basel. 1630.

De natura fossilium. Basel. 1646.

Aldrovandus, U. Museum metallicum. Bologna. 1648.
Burnet, T. The theory of the earth. Loudon. 1697.
Gesner, C. De omni rerum fossilium genere. Zurich. 1666.
Kircher, A. Mundus subterraneus. 2 vols. Amsterdam. 1666.

Bibliography. 909

Palissy, B. Discoure admirables de la nature des eaux et fontaines des m^taux, des

sels et salines, des pierres, dea terres, du feu et des dmaux. Paris. 1580.
Scheuchzer, J. J. Specimen Lithographiae Helveticae curiosae. Zurich. 1702.
Scilla, A. Lettera risponsiva circa i corpi marini che petrificati si trovano. Naples.

1670.
Stensen, N. De solido intra solidum naturaliter contento. Florence. 1669.

English transl. London. 1671.
Whiston, W. A new theory of the earth. London. 1696.
Woodward, J. Essay towards a natural history of the earth and terrestrial bodies.

London. 1696,

B. Generai. Works.
1. Natural Science in general.

Bibliotheca historico-naturalis : Verzeichniss der Biicher uber Naturgeschichte

1700-1846. Vol. 1, and supplementary vols, i and ii. Leipzig. 1846.
Childrey, J. Britannia Baconica : or the Natural History of England, Scotland,

and Wales. According as they are to be found in every shire. London. 1661.
Dannemann, F. Grundriss einer Geschichte der Naturwissenschaften. Leipzig.

1896 etc.
Dryander, J. Catalogus bibliothecae historico-naturalis J. Banks. 6 vols. London.

1798-1800.
Engelmann, W. Bibliotheca Historiae Naturalis. Leipzig. 1846-61.
Johnston, J. Historia naturalis. Amsterdam. 1657.

2. Medicine, including Anatomy and Physiology.

Baas, J. H. Grundriss der Geschichte der Medicin. Stuttgart, 1876.

Die geschichtliche Entwickelung des arztlichen Standes. Berlin. 1896.

Creighton, C. History of Epidemics in Britain. Cambridge. 1891-4.
Daremberg, C. La medecine, histoire et doctrines. Paris. 1866.

Histoire des sciences medicales. Paris. 1870.

Foster, Sir M. Lectures on the history of Physiology, during the 16th, I7th, and

18th centuries. Cambridge. 1901.
Haeser, H. Lehrbuch der Geschichte der Medicin und der epidemischeu Krank-

heiten. Jena. 1876-82.
Hirsch, A. Handbook of geographical and historical pathology. London. 1883-6.
McKay, W. J. S. History of ancient Gynaecology. London. 1901.
Pagel, J. L. Einfuhrung in die Gesch. d. Med. 2 vols. Berlin. 1898.
Puschmann,Th., and others. Handbuch d. Gesch. d. Med. 3 vols. Jena. 1902-6.
Sprengel, K. Versuch einer pragmatischen Geschichte der Arzneikunde. Halle.

1792.
Withington, E. T. Medical history from earliest times. London. 1894.

3. Chemistry.

Freund, I. The study of Chemical Composition. Cambridge. 1904.

Hofer, J. C. F. Histoire de la Chimie. 2 vols. Paris. 1842-3.

Kopp, H. Geschichte der Chemie. Brunswick. 1843-7.

Ladenburg, A. Lectures on the development of Chemistry since the time of

Lavoisier. Edinburgh. 1900.
Meyer, E. von. History of Chemistry. Eng. Transl. London. 1891.
Rodwell, G. F. The birth of Chemistry. London. 1874.
Roscoe, Sir H. E., and Schorlemmer, C. Treatise on Chemistry. 3 vols. London.

1878-94.

910 European Science in Vlth and early ISth Centuries.

RoscoBj Sir H. E. Treatise on Inorganic Chemistry. 2nd edn. 2 vols. London.

1906-7.
Thomson, T. History of Chemistry. 2 vols. London. 1830-1.
Thorpe, T. E. Essays in Historical Chemistry. London. 1902.

4. Botany.

Jessen, C. F. W. Botanik der Gegenwart und Vorzeit. Leipzig. 1864.

Meyer, E. H. F. Geschichte der Botanik. (Not completed ; does not reach the

17th century.) 4 vols. Konigsberg. 1854-7.
Pritzel, G. A. Thesaurus Literaturae Botanicae. Leipzig. 1851.
Pulteney, R. Sketches of the progress of Botany. London. 1790.
Sachs, J. von. History of Botany. English transL Oxford. 1890.
Sprengel, K. Geschichte der Botanik. Altenburg. 1817-8.

5. Zoology.

Carus, J. V. Geschichte der Zoologie bis auf J. Miiller und C. Darwin. Munich.
1872.

and Engelmann, W. Bibliotheca Zoologica. 2 vols. Leipzig. 1861.

Taschenberg, O. Bibliotheca Zoologica. Leipzig. 1886 etc.

6. Geology and Mineralogy.

Lyell, Sir C. Principles of Geology. 10th edn. London. 1867.
Zittel, K. A. von. History of Geology and Palaeontology to the end of the
19th century. London. 1901.

C. BlOOBAPHY AND CbITIOISM.

DUlenius. The Dillenian Herbaria... with biographical sketch by G. C. Druce.

Ed. S. H. Vines. Oxford. 1907.
Geikie, Sir A. The Founders of Geology. London. 1906.
Lawrence, T. Life of W. Harvey. In Harveii Opera Omnia. [London.] 1766.
Payne, J. F. Life of Sydenham. London. 1900.
Picard, L. M. F. Sydenham, sa vie, ses oeuvres. Paris. 1889.
Ray, J., Memorials of. Edited by E. Lankester. London. 1846.
Stirling, W. Some Apostles of Physiology. London. 1902.
Willis, R. W. Hai-vey : a History of the Discovery of the Circulation of the

Blood. London. 1878.

911

CHAPTER XXIV.
LATITUDINARIANISM AND PIETISM.

I. LATITUDINARIANISM.
A. Original Acthobities.

Bumetj Gilbert (Bishop of Salisbury). History of My Own Time. 2 vols. London.

1724-34. 6 vols. Oxford. 1833. New edn. by O. Airy. Oxford. 1897 etc.

(In progrress.)
Chillingworth, William. Works. 3 vols. Oxford. 1838. Edn. in one volume.

London. 1836.
Cudworth, Ralph. The true Intellectual System of the Universe. London. 1678.

With life by Thomas Birch. London. 1743. With Treatise concerning Eternal

Morality, and notes by Mosheim tr. by J. Harrison, 3 vols. London. 1846.

Sermon preached before the House of Commons March 31, 1647. Cam-
bridge. 1647.

A treatise concerning Eternal and Immutable Morality. London. 1731.

Culverwel, Nathaniel. Discourse of the Light of Nature. London. 1652. Another

edition edited by Dr Brown. Edinburgh. 1857.
Falkland, Lucius Cary, Lord. A Discourse on Infallibility, with T. White's Answer
to him, to which are added two discourses of Episcopacy by Viscount Falkland
and W. ChiUingworth. London. 1660.

Speech made in the House of Commons concerning Episcopacy. London.

1641.

Poems. Ed. A. B. Grosart Blackburn. 1871. 106 copies only printed

for private circulation, in vol. iii of the Miscellanies of the Fuller Worthies'
Library.

Fowler, Edward (Bp of Gloucester). Principles and Practices of certain Moderate
Divines of the Church of England, abusively called Latitudinarians etc. in a
Free Discourse between Two Intimate Friends. 2nd edn. London. 1671.

Glanvill, Joseph. The Vanity of Dogmatizing. London. 1661.

Scepsis Scientifica. London. 1665. [First published under the title of "The

Vanity of Dogmatizing."] The same ; edited with introductory Essay by
John Owen. London. 1885.

Hales, John. Golden Remains of the ever memorable Mr John Hales of Eton
College etc. London. 1673.

The way towards finding a decision of the Controversie now debated con-
cerning Church Government. London. 1641.

Works. Ed. Lord HaUes. 3 vols. Glasgow. 1766.

More, Henry. Henrici Mori Cantabrigiensis Opera Omnia. 3 vols. London.

1675-9.
■ Collection of several philosophical writings corrected and enlarged with

scholia and notes, 4th edn. London. 1712-3.

CB. zxiv.

912 Latitudinarianism and Pietism.

Patrick, Simon (Bishop of Ely). Works. Oxford. 1868.

[ .''] A brief account of the new sect of Latitude men, by S. P. ; attributed by

some to this Author. London. 1662.
Smith, John. Select Discourses, prepared by H. G. Williams, Cambridge. 1869.

The natural Truth of Christianity, selections from the "Select Discourses,"

with an introduction by Matthew Arnold. Ed. W. M. Metcalfe. Paisley. 1882.

StiUingfleet, Edward (Bishop of Worcester). Irenicum: a Weapon-salve for the
Church's wound. London. 1661.

Works. 3 vols. Oxford. 1838.

Taylor, Jeremy (Bishop of Dromore). Works. Ed. by Bp Heber, with Life.

London. 1822. Revised edn. 10 vols. London. 1849. Another edition by

Rev. C. P. Eden. 10 vols. London. 1862-9.
Tillotson, John (Archbishop of Canterbury). Works. 3 vols. With life by

T. Birch. London. 1752.
Whichcote, Benjamin. Moral and Religious Aphorisms collected from the ms.

papers of the Rev. and learned Dr Whichcote and published mdcoiii by

Dr Jeffery, now republished, with very large additions, by Samuel Salter, D.D.,

Prebendary of Norwich etc. London. 1753.

The Works of the learned B. Whichcote, D.D. Rector of St Lawrence, Jewry.

4 vols. Aberdeen. 1761.

B. Histories.

Barclay, Robert. The inner life of the Religious Societies of the Commonwealth.

London. 1877.
Brosch, M. Der Eirchenstaat. (Gesch. der Europ. Staaten.) 2 vols. Gotha.

1880-2.
Clarendon, Edward Hyde, Earl of. History of the Rebellion. New edn. 8 vols.

Oxford. 1826.

Life and continuation of the same. New edn. 3 vols. 1827.

Hettner, H. Geschichte der englischen Litteratur 1660-1770. (Vol. i of Litteratur-

Geschichte d. 18. Jahrh.) Brunswick. 1893.
Hunt, John. Religious Thought in England from the Reformation to the end of

last Century. 2 vols. London. 1870-1.
Klopp, Onno. Der Fall des Hauses Stuart und die Succession des Hauses Hannover.

14 vols. Vienna. 1876-88.
Lecky, W. E. H. History of England in the eighteenth century. London.

Vol. 1. 1878.
MuUinger, J. B. Cambridge Characteristics in the seventeenth century. London

and Cambridge. 1867.
Ranke, Leopold von. The Popes of Rome during the 16th and l7th centuries.

English Tr. 4th edn. Vol. in. London. 1866.
Sewell, William. History of the Quakers. 2 vols. London. 1795.
Short, Thomas Vinter (Bishop of St Asaph). Sketch of the History of the Church

of England to the Revolution, 1688. 9th edn. London. 1896.
Stem, A. Geschichte der Revolution in England. In Oncken's AUgemeine Ge-
schichte. Berlin. 1881.
Tulloch, John. National Theology and Christian Philosophy in England in the

seventeenth century. [Standard work on the subject.] 2 vols. London and

Edinburgh. 1892.
AVaddington, J. Congregational history 1667-1700. London. 1874.
Weingarten, Hermann. Die Revolutionskirchen Englands, Leipzig. 1868.

Bibliography. 913

C. BlOGIUPBIES.

Baxter, Richard. Reliquiae Baxterianae; Narrative of his Life and Times written

by himself. Published by M. Sylvester. London. 1696.
Heylyn, Peter. Cyprianus Anglicanus or the history of the life and death of

William (Laud). London. 1668, another edn. 1671.
Lewis, Lady. The Life of Lucius Carey, Viscount Falkland. Vol. i of Lives of

the friends and contemporaries of Lord Chancellor Clarendon etc. 3 vols.

London. 1852.
Maizeaux, Pierre des. An historical and critical account of the Life and Writings

of W. Chillingworth. London. 1725.
An historical and critical account of the Life and Writing;s of the ever

memorable Mr John Hales. London. 1719.
Marriott, J. A. R. The Life and Times of Lucius Cary, Viscount Falkland.

London. 1907.
Masson, David. The life of John Milton. 7 vols. Cambridge and London. 1859-94.
Overton, John H. William Law, Nonjuror and Mystic, his Life. London. 1881.
Ward, Richard. Life of Henry More. Loudon. 1710.
Wise, Thomas. Introduction to an abridgment of the Intellectual System of

R. Cudworth. 2 vols. London. 1706.

D. SCBSIDIARY AND SuPPLEMBNTABY AUTHORITIES.

Aubrey, I. Letters and Lives of Eminent Men. London. 1813.

Buckle, H. T. History of Civilization in England. New edn. 3 vols. London.

1872.
Coleridge, S. T. Notes on English Divines. Ed. Derwent Coleridge. 2 vols.

London. 1853.
Dowden, E. Puritan and Anglican. London. 1900.
Guizot, F. P. G. Histoire de la Civilisation en Europe. 18th edn. Brussels.

1838. Engl. tr. London. 1837 etc.
Gwatkin, H. M. The Church, past and present, by various writers. Edited by

H. M. G. London. 1900.
Hallam, H. Introduction to the Literature of Europe. 4 vols. 1864.
Macaulay, T. B., Lord. History of England. 4 vols. London. 1868.

Critical and Historical Essays. 2 vols. Loudon. 1868.

Martineau, James. Types of Ethical Theory. 2 vols. London. 1886. [VoL u

treats of Cudworth's system of Ethics.]
Phenix, The. Collection of manuscripts and printed works etc. 2 vols. London.

1707
Rushworth, John. Historical collections of private passages of State etc. 7 vols.

London. 1659-1701. ^.. u i. ,o=.

Selden,John. Table Talk, with notes by D, Irving. Edmburgh 1854.
Thurloe, John. Collection of State Papers from 1638 to 1660 ; with Life by Thomas

Birch. 7 vols. London. 1742.
Walker, John. Sufferings of the Clergy. London. 1714.
Wood, A. a. Athenae and Fasti Oxonienses. New edn. with notes, additions, and

continuation by P. Bliss., 4 vols. London. 1813-20. .„,,,,, ,

Worthington, John. Diary and Correspondence (Chetham Society). Edd. J. Crossley

and B. C. Christie. 2 vols, in 3. Manchester. 1847.
As to the I^titudinarians see also, under their several names, the lives in the
Dictionary of National Biography and the bibliography at the end of each article ;
cf Weber's (G.) Allgemei^e Weltgeschichte, vol. xii, pp. 83-4, and pp. 446-6 on
the literature of this period referring to Great Britam.

53

0. M. H. V. CU. XXIV.

914 Latitudinarianism and Pietism,

II. PIETISM.
A. PiBTisTio Whitings.

Arndtj Johann. Schola Amdiaoa. Rostock. 1627.

Das wahre Christenthum. Frankfort. 1605. 4th edn. by F. W. Krum-

macher. Leipzig. 1859.

Weike. Gesammtausgabe. Ed. J. J. Rambach. 3 vols. Leipzig and Goerlitz,

1735.

Arnold, Gottfried. Unparteiische Kirchen- und Ketzerhistorie. 4 vols. Frankfort.
1700-16. And 2 vols. Schaffhausen. 1740-2.

Bogatzky, Karl Heinricb von. Die Uebung der Gottseligkeit in allerlei Christ-
lichen Liedern. Halle. 1750.

Geistliche Gedichte. Halle. 1749.

Sammtliche Geistliche Lieder, Collected by K. Christopher E. Ehemann.

Halle. 1851.

— — Tagliches Schatzkastlein der Kinder Gottes. Halle. 1718.
Coccejus (Koch), Johann. Summadoctrinaedefoedereettestamento. Leyden. 1648.
Dippel, Johann Conrad. Sammtliche Werke. Ed. Canz, Berleburg. 1747.
Francke, August Hermann. Lectiones paraeneticae. 7 vols. Halle. 1726-36.

Timotheus. Zum Fiirbilde alien Theologiae studiosis. Halle. 1695.

Lahadie, Jean de. Declaration de la foi. Montauban. 1650.

Frotestatio eincera purae ac verae reformatae doctrinae generalisque ortho-

doxiae Johannis de Labadie. In Veritas sui vindex seu solemnis fidei declaratio
etc. Herford. 1672.

Lettres d' Adieu de M, de Labadie Pasteur se retirant de I'^glise d' Orange.

1660.

Lettre de J. de Labadie a ses amis de la communion romaine touchant sa

declaration, divis^e en deux parties. Montauban. 1651.

Declaration de Jean de Labadie, contenant les raisons qui I'ont oblige k

quitter la communion de I'il^glise Romaine, pour se ranger a celle de I'Eglise
Re'formee. Geneva. 1666.

For a complete catalogue of Labadie's writings see Bitschl, i, 246 note.

Lampe, Friedr. Adolf. Geheimniss des Gnadenbundes. Bremen. 1712.

Lange, Joachim. Aufrichtige Nachrichten. Answer to Loscher (see below),
1707-14.

Lodenstein, Jodocus van. Weegschale der onvolmaaktheden ofte bedenkingen
nopende 't gewigte of de regmatige agtinge te maken van de gebreken en
Struykdiugen der geheiligden op der aarden. Utrecht. 1664.

Beschonninge van Zion ofte aandachten en opmerkingen over den tegenwor-

dingentoestand van 'tgereformeerde Christen volk. 5th edn. Amsterdam. 1729.

Uytspanningen, first published 1676. 16th edn. Amsterdam. 1780.

Loscher, Valentin Ernst. Unschuldige Nachrichten. Leipzig. 1702 etc.
Oetinger, Friedr. Christoph. Leben und Briefe. Ed. K. C. B. Ehemann.

Stuttgart. 1859.
Spe (Spee), Friedrich (von Langenfeld). Cautio criminalis, seu de processibus
contra sagas etc. Rinteln. 1631, 2nd edn. Frankfort. 1632.

Giildenes Tugeudbuch etc. Cologne. 1649.

—. — Trutz NachtigalL Modernised by Karl Simrock. Heilbronn. 1876.
Spener, Philip Jacob. Pia Desideria (1676). Ed. Feldner. Dresden. 1846.

Theologische Bedenken. 4 Theile. Halle. 1700-2.

Voet (Voetius), Gciesbert. Ascetica sive Exercitia pietatis in usum juventutis aca-

demicae nunc edita. Groeningen. 1664.
Vollstandiger Catalogus, as appendix to Drei christliche Predigten und Ver-

Buchungeu, Frankfort. 1711.

Bibliography. 915

B. Histories.
1. General and Ecclesiastical.

Brandes, F. Der Kanzler Crell, ein Opfer des Orthodoxismus. Leipzig. 1873.
Coqnerelj Ch. Histoire des e'glises du desert chez les protestants en France. 2 vols.
Paris. 1841.

Goedeke, K. and Tittmann, J. Deutsche Dichter des xvii. Jahrhundeits. Leipzig.
1870.

Guericke, H. E. F. Handbuch der Kirohengeschichte. 2 vols. Halle. 1833.

9tli edn. 3 vols. Halle. 1866-7.
Hase, K. Kirchengeschichte. Leipzig. 1834. Contains very valuable references

to older authorities at the head of each Chapter.
Heppe, H. J. L. Geschichte der quietistischen Mystik in der Katholischeu Kirche.

Berlin. 1876.
Heringj D. H. Greschichte der kirchlichen Unionsversuche. 2 vols. Leipzig.

1836, 1839.
Huber, J. Der Jesuitenorden nach seiner Verfessung und Doktrin, Wirksamkeit

und Geschichte. Berlin. 1873.
Keller, L. Die Gegenreformation in Westphalen und am Niederrhein. Leipzig.

1881.
Koch, E. E. Geschichte des Elirchenlieds und Kirchengesangs. 3 vols. Stutt-
gart. 1852.
Mosheim, J. L. von. Institutes of Ecclesiastical History. Ed. by James Murdock.

Revised by James Seaton Reid. London. 1848.
Planck, G. J. Geschichte d. Theologie von der Concordienformel an bis in die

Mitte des 18. Jahrhunderts. Gottingen. 1831.
Schrockh, J. M. Kirchengeschichte seit der Reformation. 10 vols. Leipzig.

1804r-12.
Weiss, C. Histoire des refugies protestants de France. 2 vols. Paris. 1853.

2. Special Histories and Treatises.

Auberlen, K. A. Die Theosophie Friedrich Christoph Oetinger's nach ihren

Grundziigen. Tubingen. 1847. 2nd edn. Basel. 1869.
Barthold, F. W. Die Erweckten im xvii. Jahrhundert und in der ersten Halfte

des xvui. Jahrhunderts. In Raumer's Historisches Taschenbuch. 3te Folge.

Bd. 3, 4. Leipzig. 1852-3.
Cranz, David. Alte und Neue Bruderhistorie oder kurzgefasste Geschichte des

evangelischen Bruder-unitat etc. Barby. 1771. English translation by

B. La Trobe. London. 1780.
Floring, F. Arnold als Kirchenhistoriker. Darmstatt. 1883.
Goebel, M. Geschichte des Christlichen Lebens. 3 vols. Coblenz. 1849, 1862,

1860.
Gruneisen, C. Religiose Gemeinschaften Wiirtembergs. In Zeitschrift fur die

historische Theologie. Vol. xi. Leipzig. 1841.
Hartknoch, Christoph. Preussische Kirchenhistorie etc. Frankfort and Leipzig.

1686.
Heppe, H. L. J. Geschichte des Pietismus und der Mystik in der reformirten

Kirche, namentlich der Niederlande. Leyden. 1879.
Holmes, J. History of the Protestant Churches of the United Brethren. London

and Bradford. 1826-30.

CH. XXIV. o8— 2

916 Latitudinarianism and Pietism.

Ejaktas, K. F. A. Der innere Gang des deutschen Frotestantismus seit der Mitte

des vorigeu Jahrhunderts. Leipzig. 1854. New edn. 2 vols. Leipzig. 1874.
Kapff, S. C. von. Die Wurtembergischen Brtidergemeinden Kornthal und Wilhelms-

dorf. Kornthal. 1839.
Palmer^ C. von. Die Gemeinschaften u. Sekten Wiirtembergs. Tubingen. 1877.
Preger, W, Geschichte der Deutschen Mystik im Mittelalter. Leipzig. 1874.
Ritschl, A. Geschichte des Pietismus. Vol. i. Der Fietismus in der reformirten

Kirche. Vols, ii and in. Der Pietismus in der Lutherischen Kirche des 17.

und 18. Jahrh. 3 vols. Bonn. 1880-6. [The standard work on the subject.]
Schelwigj S. von. Sectirische Pietisterei. Dantzig. 1696. Fart ii at Hamburg.
Schmidj H. Die Geschichte des Pietismus. Nordlingen. 1863.
Sepp, C. Het Godgeleerd onderwijs in Nederland gedurende de 16 en 17 eeuwen.

Leyden. 1873, 1875.
Struve, B. G. Historic der Religionsbeschwerden zwischen den Katholiken u.

Evangelisten. Leipzig. 1722.
Tholuck, F. A. G. Der Geist der lutherischen Theologen Wittenbergs im 17. Jahr-

hundert. Hamburg. 1862.

Vorgeschichte des Rationalismus. 1 Abt. : Das akademische Leben des

17. Jahrhunderts. 2 vols. Halle. 1853-4. 2 Abt. : Das kirchliche Leben
des 17. Jahrh. 2 vols. 1861-2.

Lebenszeugen der lutherischen Kirche. Wittenberg. 1624. Later edn.

Gotha. 1859.

Die Mystik. Vortrag. Halle, Leipzig. 1853.

Walch, C. W. F. Entwurf einer Geschichte der Ketzereien etc. 11 vols.
Leipzig. 1762-85.

3. Biography and Letters,

Bender, W. J. K. Dippel der Freigeist aus dem Fietismus. Bonn. 1882.

Berkum, H. van. Jean de Labadie en de Labadisten. Sneek. 1851.

Colerus, J. C. Historia Gottfridei Arnoldi. Wittenberg. 1718.

Engelhardt, M. von. V. E. Lodenstein in seiuem Leben und Wirken dargesteUt.

Dorpat. 1853.
Guericke, H. E. F. A. H. Francke, eine Denkschrift. Halle. 1827.
Histoire curieuse de la vie, de la conduite et des vrais sentiments du S'. Jean de

Labadie. The Hague. 1670.
Hossbach, W. Ph. J. Spener und seine Zeit. 2 vols. Berlin. 1828. 3rd edn.

by Schweder. 1861.
Keulen, G. Geistliche und Erbauliche Briefe fiber das inwendige Leben und

wahre Wesen des Christenthums von Terateegen. Muhlhausen a/R. 1799.

Tersteegen, der fromme Liederdichter. Muhlhausen a/R. 1853.

Koelman, J. Der Labadisten dwalingeu grondig ontdekt en wederlegt. Amsterdam.

1684.
Kramer, G. August Hermann Francke. Eiu Lebensbild. Fart i. Halle. 1880.

Beitrage zur Geschichte Aug. Hermann Francke's. Halle. 1861.

Lappenberg, J. M. Reliquien des Fraulein Susanna Catharina von Klettenberg.

Hamburg. 1849.
Mohl, C. Die beiden Moser. In Monatsblatter zur Allgemeinen Zeitung. 1864.

Pp. 359-85.
Moser, Joh. Jacob. Lebensgeschichte von ihm selbst beschrieben. Stuttgart.

?1768.
Reitz, J. H. Historic der Wiedergeborenen. Idstein. 1717. [Part iv contains

biography of Lodenstein,]

Bibliography. 917

Rieger, Joh. Conrad. Die WurtembergerTabea( = Beata Sturm). Stuttgart. 1732.

Schmied, A. Das Leben Joh. Jac. Moser's. Stuttgart. 1868.

Tholuck, F. A. G. Philipp Jakob Spener. In Realenoyclopadie fur protestantiscbe

Theologie. Vol. xiv, pp. 614-34. Gotha. 1861.
Wachter, O. Joh. Jac. Moser dargestellt. Stuttgart. 1885.
Yvon, Pierre. Abr^e precis de la vie et la conduite et les vrais sentiments du feu

Labadie. In Gottfried Arnold's Kirchen- und Ketzergeschichte. (With Suppl.)

Frankfort. 1699.

C. Supplementary Authorities.

Arnold, M. Essays in Criticism. New edn. London. 1906. [Vol. i. Essay on

Spinoza.]
Auerbach, B. Spinoza, ein Denkerleben. Stuttgart. 1880.
Biisching, A. F. Beitrage zur Lebensgeschichte merkwurdiger Personen. 6 vols.

Hamburg. 1783-9.
Fechner, H. A. Jacob Bohme, sein Leben und seine Schriften. In Neues

Lausitzisches Magazin. Bd. xxxiii, pp. 313-446. Gorlitz. 1857.
Fischer, K. Baruch Spinoza's Leben u. Charakter. Mannheim. 1865.

Geschichte der ueuern Philosophie. 4 vols. Heidelberg. 1865.

Gass, W. Georg Calixtus und der Synkretismus. Breslau. 1846.
Hencke, E. L. T. Georg Calixtus und seine Zeit. 2 vols. Halle. 1853-6.
Lewes, G. H. History of Philosophy. 4th edn. 2 vols. London. 1871. [On

Spinoza.] ,, i ■ i

linde, A. von der. Spinoza, seine Lehre und deren erste Nachwirkungen m

Holland etc. Gottingen. 1862.
Martineau, J. A study of Religion. 2nd edn. 2 vols. Oxford. 1889. [For

Spinoza see Vol. ii.] r^ o . .
Types of Ethical Theory. . 2 vols. 2nd edn. Oxford. 1886. [On Spinoza s

system of Ethics and Philosophy.]
Nourrisson, J. F. Spinoza et le Naturalisme Contemporam. Pans. 1866.
PoUock, Sir P. Spinoza, his Life and PhQosophy. London. 1880. [Contams

an exhaustive bibliography of the subject.]
Sigwart, C. Spinoza's Neuentdeckter Tractat von Gott, dem Menschen, und dessen

GlUckseligkeit. Gotha. 1866. , „, ., , . j kt •* ±i\, o^„

Ueberweg, F. Grundriss der Geschichte der Philosophie der Neuzeit. 4th edn.

Berlin. 1876. [Pp. 69-87 on Spinoza.]
Vaughan, R. A. Hours with the Mystics. 2 vols. 7th edn. 1895.
Zeller e! Vortrage und Abhandlungen geschichtlichen Inhalts. 2nd edn. Leipzig.

1876. [Pp. 117-63 on Wolff and the Halle Pietists.]

OH. XXIVi

918

CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE

OF
LEADING EVENTS MENTIONED IN THIS VOLUME.

1133 The Saxon North Mark ' (Brandenburg) conferred upon Albert the Bear.
1147 Foundation of Moscow.

1186 The Brandenburg Margraves establish a claim on Pomerania.
1226 The Margraves of Brandenburg acquire the Spree district. — Foundation of
Berlin follows.
The Culm lands given to Hermann of Salza and the German Order.
1255 Building of Konigsberg.
1311 The German Order secures Danzig.

1324-73 The Mark Brandenburg subject to the House of Wittelsbach.
1343 Peace of Kalisch between the German Order and Poland.
1374 The Mark Brandenburg united to the Bohemian Crown.
1385-8 Brandenburg mortgaged to the Margraves of Moravia.

1410 Polish victory over the German Knights at Tannenberg.

1411 First Peace of Thorn between Poland and the German Order.

1417 Investment of Frederick of Hohenzollern with the margravate of Bran-
denburg.

1466 The Second or Perpetual Peace of Thorn between Poland and the German
Order.

1472 Marriage of Ivan III of Russia and the Greek Princess Sophia.

1473 February. The Brandenburg Dispositio Achillea.

1525 Albert of Hohenzollern, formerly High Master of the German Order, invested
with the secularised duchy of Prussia.
Giovio's Museovj/.
1533 Accession of Ivan IV, afterwards crowned Tsar (1547).
1543 Vesalius on Human Anatomy.
1550 Ivau IV summons the Sohor.

1552 Russian annexation of Kazan.

1553 Sir Hugh Willoughby's expedition for the discovery of the Northern

Passage. Foundation of the English " Muscovy Company."

1554 Russian annexation of Astrakhan.

1558-78 Gregory Stroganoff carries Russian colonisation beyond the Ural
Mountains.

1560 The Academia Secretorum Naturae founded at Naples.

1561 Gottfried Kettler, last High Master of the German Order in Livonia,

becomes Duke of Courland.
1566 Administration of the see of Magdeburg secured to Joachim Frederick
of Brandenburg.

Chronohgical Table. 919

1569 Union of Poland and Lithuania at Lublin.

1582-4 The Cossack Ermak Timotheevich captures Sibir.— Russian subjugation of

Siberia follows.
1589 Foundation of Patriarchate of Moscow.

1589-91 Galileo at Pisa lays foundation of the science of Dynamics.
1591 Francis Vieta publishes his algebraic work.
1595 May. Peace of Teusin between Russia^ Sweden, and Poland.
1605 Joachim Frederick of Brandenburg obtains administratorship of ducal Prussia.

Bacon's Advancement of Learning. Arndt's Four Books.
1605-6 Rule of Dimitri the Pretender at Moscow.

1608 French colony at Quebec founded by Champlain.

1609 Invasion of Russia by King Sigismund of Poland.

Kepler publishes his development of the Copernican system of astronomy.

1612 Jacob Boehme's Aurora.

1613 Michael Romanoff elected Tsar.

1614 Treaty of Xanten regulates Brandenburg and Neuburg claims to Julich-

Cleves-Berg inheritance.
Napier of Merchistoun on logarithms.

1616 Edict of Inquisition against Galileo's teaching of astronomy.

1617 Peace of Stolbova between Sweden and Russia.

1618 Union of the duchy of Prussia with Brandenburg.
1620 Bacon's Novum Organum.

1628 Harvey's Exercitatio de Motu Cordis.
1632 War between Poland and Russia.

Galileo's dialogues on the Copernican theory of astronomy.

1634 Treaty of Polianovka between Poland and Russia.

1635 Truce of Stuhmsdorf between Sweden and Poland (including Prussia).

1637 Death of Bogislav XIV of Pomerania. Swedes remain in possession of duchy.
Descartes' Discours. Milton's Lgcidas written.

1638 Death of Cornelius Jansen.

Publication of Chilling^orth's Religion of Protestants.

1640 Death of George William of Brandenburg and accession of Frederick

William (the Great Elector).
Posthumous publication of Jansen's treatise on the theology of St Augustine.

1641 Truce of Stockholm between Brandenburg and Sweden.

Milton's first pamphlet Of Beformation touching Church discipline in England.

1642 English commercial treaty with Portugal.
Hales' Schism and Schismatics.

1644 Portuguese rising in Brazil.

1645 Accession of the Tsar Alexis RomanoflF.

1646 Jeremy Taylor's Liberty of Prophesying. — Travels of Olearius.

1648 War between Venice and the Turks. Beginning of siege of Candia.

Accession of Mohammad IV.
Bishoprics of Halberstadt and Minden secured by Brandenburg.
The Russian Sobor draws up a new Code of Laws (Ulozhenie).

1649 Portuguese Brazil Company established.

Condemnation by the Sorbonne of five propositions from Jansen's Augustinus,
1650-63 Portuguese thrown back by Dutch in Ceylon and Malabar.

1651 English Navigation Act.

English factory established at Hooghley.
Hobbes' Lemathan.

1652 Abdication of Christina of Sweden and accession of Charles Gustavus.
Dutch East India Company form a settlement at the Cape of Good Hope.

1653 John de Witt Grand Pensionary of Holland.

920 Chronological Table.

1653 Eastern Pomerania secured by Brandenburg.

Innocent X declares the five Jansenist propositions heretical.

1654 The Prussian League renounces its allegiance to the German Order.
The Dutch expelled from Brazil.

1654-6 Liturgical reforms of Nikon, Patriarch of Moscow.

1655 British capture of Jamaica.

1656 Mohammad KiuprUi Grand Vezir. Revival of the Ottoman Power.
Harrington's Oceana. John Wallis' Arithmetica Infinitorum,

1656-7 Pascal's Provincial Letters.

1657 War between the United Provinces and Portugal.

1658 Peace of Roeskilde between Sweden and Denmark.

1659 Stillingfleet's Irenicon.

1660 February. Death of Charles Gustavus of Sweden.
April-May. The Stewart Restoration.

May. Peace of Copenhagen between Sweden and Denmark.

October. Establishment of hereditary monarchy in Denmark in the House

of Frederick HI. Growth of absolutism in Denmark and Norway.
Peace of Oliva. Independence of East Prussia recognised.
1660-73 James, Duke of York, Lord High Admiral of England.

1661 January. John Kemenyi Prince of Transylvania. Despatch of Imperial

force under Montecuculi against the Turks.
April-May. Savoy Conference.
June. Bombay ceded by Portugal to England.
August. Peace between the United Provinces and Portugal.
September. Reestablishment of the Episcopal Church of Scotland decreed.
November. Ormond appointed Lord Lieutenant of Ireland.
Death of Mazarin. Beginning of the personal rule of Louis XIV.
Defensive alliance and commercial treaty between England and Brandenburg.
Ahmad Kiuprili Grand Vezir.

New Charter granted to English East India Company.
The Scottish Rescissory Act English Disciplinary Naval Statute.
Boyle's Sceptical Chemist.

1662 January. Death of John Kem&yi.
May. English Act of Uniformity.

„ Restoration of the Scottish Bishops.
June. Reinstitution of lay patronage in Scotland.
August. Secession of St Bartholomew's Day.
September. ' Bill for the Settlement of Ireland.
December. Treaty between Portugal and the United Provinces.
The English Company of Royal Adventurers trading to Afiica (third Guinea

Company) incorporated.
The Royal Society of London incorporated by charter.

1663 October. Settlement between Prussian Estates and the Great Elector.

„ English expedition to Guinea Coast.

The Turks under Ahmad Kiuprili advance upon western Hungary.
Milton finishes Paradise Lost.
1663-8 Butler's Hudibras.

1664 February. English seizure of Dutch possessions on the west coast oi Africa.
Aug. Defeat of the Turks by Montecuculi at St Gothard. Peace of Vasvar.
English capture of New Amsterdam (New York).

Firat French Company trading with India founded. Colbert's First Tariff.
First Conventicle Act passed.

1665 January. De Ruyter recovers Goree from English occupation,
March. War between England and the United Provinces.

Chronological Table. 921

1665 June. Battle of Lowestoft.

September. Death of Philip IV of Spain. Accession of Charles II.

„ Bishop of Miinster declares war against United Provinces.

December, Bill for Explanation of the Act of Settlement of Ireland.
Five Mile Act passed. The Plague in London, Dryden's Essay of Dramatic
Poesy.
1665-6 Newton's discoveries in mathematics, and as to the law of Universal
Gravitation.

1666 January. France declares war against England.

June, The "Four Days' Battle" between the English and Dutch.

September, The Great Fire of London.

October, "Quadruple Alliance" of Holland^ Denmark, Brandenburg and

Brunswick-Luneburg.
Treaty of Cleves. Cleves, Mark, and Ravensberg secured by Brandenburg.
Religious rising in Scotland put down at Bullion Green.
1666-7 The Baskol (great schism) in the Russian Church breaks out.

1667 February. Dutch conquest of Tobago.

March. Secret treaty between Charles II and Louis XIV.
May. War of Devolution between Louis XIV and the Spanish Nether-
lands.
June. Dutch fleet in the Medway,

July. Peace of Breda between England and the United Provinces.
August. Fall of Clarendon.

Treaty of Andrusovo between Poland and Russia.
Colbert issues his increased tariff.

1668 January, Secret treaty between Louis XFV and the Emperor Leopold,
Triple Alliance of England, United Provinces, and Sweden, against France,
February, , French conquest of Franche Comt^.

May, Peace of Aix-la^Chapelle between the Allies and France.
Peace between Spain and Portugal. Spanish surrender of Portugal.
Bombay handed over to the English East India Company,

1669 Fall of Candia, followed by the cession of Crete to the Turks.
Abdication of John Casimir of Poland; election of Michael Wismowiecki.
The "Peace of Clement IX" accorded to the Jansenists,

Stensen lectures at Paris on the Anatomy of the Brain. _

1670 February, Accession of Christian V in Denmark and Norway. Admmis-

tration of Griffenfeld. .

May-June. Secret Treaty of Dover between Louis XIV and Charles 11.
British capture of Jamaica recognised by Spain.

Second Conventicle Act passed. _ _ . , i, , ■

Spinoza's Tractatus Theologieo-Politieus. Bossuets Expositton de la Dodnne

Gatholique.
'''' iti^ittlSe Sr?a^d wtdward Islands settled by the English

P^Zl"led and Samson Agonistes. QuesneVs meMon, Morale *ur
LZS. Testament. Malpighi and Grew on f-t"f Botany.
1672 February, William III of Orange Captain-General of the Dutch Union,
March Charles ll's Declaration of Indulgence.

wll between England and the United Provinces,
Anrii War between France and the United Provinces,
May.' Treaty between Louis XIV and Sweden,
^ Invasion of the United Provinces by Louis XIV.
", Anglo-French naval defeat in Southwold Bay,

922 Chronological Table.

1672 June-October. Coalition of the Hague between the Emperor, Brandenburg,

and Holland.
Julyi William of Orange proclaimed Stadholder of Holland and Zeeland.
August. Murder of John and Cornelius de Witt at the Hague.
October. Treaty of Buczacz between Poland and Turkey.
Third Guinea Company merged in Royal African Company.
Leibniz' Concilium Aegyptiacum.
1672-8 War between Turkey and Poland.

1673 March. Charles' Declaration of Indulgence cancelled. Test Act passed.
June. Dutch naval successes at Schooneveld. French take Maestricht.
August. Battle of the Texel.

November. The Turks defeated by John Sobieski at Khoczim.
1673-4 Spread of the Second Imperial Coalition against France.

1674 February. Treaty of London between England and the United Provinces.
August. Indecisive battle of Seneff between William of Orange and Conde.
December. War between Sweden and Brandenburg.

1675 January. Defeat of the Great Elector at Colmar.

„ Swedish invasion of Brandenburg.

April. Dutch victory o£F Messina. Death of de Ruyter.
June. Treaty between France and Poland.

„ Victory of the Great Elector over the Swedes at Fehrbellin.
July. Death of Turenne.

August. Sobieski defeats the Turks at Lemberg.

Committee of the Privy Council supersedes Council of Trade and Plantations.
Bishop Croft's Naked Truth. Dryden's Aurengzebe produced.
1675-9 War of Scania between Denmark and Sweden.

1676 June. Danish-Dutch naval victory over the Swedes at Cland.
October. Treaty of Zurawna between Poland and Turkey.
December. Swedish victory at Lund.

Accession of the Tsar Theodore III.

Death of the Grand Vezir Ahmad Kiuprili ; succession of Kara Mustafa.

1677 April. Defeat of Orange at Montcassel.

July. Victory of Charles XI of Sweden at Landskrona.

November. Marriage of William of Orange with Princess Mary of England.

War between Russia and Turkey.

1678 August. First denunciation of the Popish Plot.

„ (to February, 1679). Peace of Nymegen.

Emeric Tokolyi becomes the Hungarian national leader.
The French obtain the cession of Goree.
Cudworth's Intelleciiutl System. Dryden's All for Love produced^

1679 May. Introduction of the Exclusion Bill.

June. Treaty of St Germain-en-Laye between Brandenburg and Sweden.
„ Suppression of the Scottish Covenanting revolt at Bothwell Brigg.
Treaty of Lund between Denmark and Sweden.
The Habeas Corpus Act passed.

1680 Treaty of Bakchi-serai between Russia and Turkey.
Archbishopric of Magdeburg incorporated with Brandenburg.
Declaration of Sanquhar.

The Exclusion Bill thrown out.

1681 September. French seizure of Strassburg and Casale.
October. Assembly of Gallican Clergy.

Peace between Russia and Turkey.

Filmer's Patriarcha. Dryden's Spanish Friar and Absalom and Achitophel.

1682 March. The French Assembly of Clergy defines liberties of Gallican Church.

Chronological Table. 923

1682 Accession of Peter the Great. The Tsarevna Sophia Regent.
Outbreak of war between Austria and the Turks.
Brandenburg African Trading Company established at Konigsberg.
Privileges of City of London and other towns attacked by the Crown.

1682-90 Sir John Child Governor of Bombay.

1683 February. Association against France formed at the Hague.

June. Rye House plot discovered. Execution of Russell and Sidney.
July. Siege of Vienna by the Turks begun.
September. Relief of Vienna by John Sobieski.

„ Death of Colbert.

December. War between France and Spain.

1684 March. The Holy League between Austria, Poland, and Venice, against

the Turks.
August. Truce of Ratisbon between France and the Empire.
The Apologetical Declaration of the Scottish recusants.
Spener's Klagen.

1685 February. Death of Charles 11 of England and accession of James IT.
June. Risings of Monmouth and Argyll.

July. Monmouth defeated at Sedgmoor and executed.

August. Treaty of alliance between Great Elector and United Provinces.

„ Recapture of Neuhausel from the Turks.

October. Revocation of the Edict of Nantes.
November. Edict of Potsdam.
1685-8 Reforms in English naval administration.

1686 March. Treaty of alliance between the Emperor and the Great Elector.
July. Formation of the Augsburg Alliance.

September. Buda recovered from the Turks.
Leibniz' on the Calculus.

1687 January. Tyrconnel made Viceroy in Ireland.

Feb. -May. Diplomatic mission of Dykvelt in England.
April. The Declaration of Indulgence issued.
August. Turkish overthrow at Harkany, near Mohacs.

„ Halifax' Letter to a Dissenter.

September. Venetian siege and conquest of Athens.
November. Fagel's letter on Declaration of Indulgence.
December. Restoration of Austrian ascendancy in Hungary. Coronation

of Archduke Joseph.
Deposition of Mohammad IV and accession of Solyman II.
Newton's Principia. Pufendorf's De habitu religionis ad vitam civilem.

Dryden's Hind and Panther.

1688 May. Death of the Great Elector.

„ Declaration of Indulgence ordered to be read in churches.

', Petition of the Seven Bishops against reading of Declaration.
June. Birth of Prince James Edward (afterwards the "Old Pretender").
Trial and acquittal of the Seven Bishops. Invitation to William,

Prince of Orange.
September. The Emperor takes Belgrade.

Army of Louis XIV advances on the middle Rhine.
November. Landing of William of Orange at Torbay.
December. William of Orange enters London. Flight of James II, and

fall of the House of Stewart.
Bossuet's Histoire dea Variations des Eglises Protestantes.

1689 February. Declaration of Right. , ,, , -

William and Mary proclaimed King and Queen of Jingland.

924 Chronological Table.

1689 March. Rout of the Irish Protestjtnts at Dromore.

„ James enters Dublin.

April. Outbreak of war between France and Spain,

„ The siege of Berry begun.

„ The Scottish Convention issues Declaration offering the crown to

William and Mary.
May. The Grand Alliance formed.

„ Parliament summoned by James meets at Dublin.

„ The Toleration Act passed.
July. Relief of Derry. Defeat of James' troops at Newtown Butler.

„ Highland rising under Dundee put down at Killiecrankie.
October. Bill of Rights passed.
Mustafa Kiuprili Grand Vezir.
Locke's Two Treatises on Government.

1690 July. French victory at Fleurus.

„ Defeat of Anglo-Dutch fleet off Beachy Head.

„ Battle of the Boyne. Second flight of James to France.
Presbyterianism established in national Church of Scotland.
Turkish reconquest of Servian Widdin, and Belgrade.
Permanent establishment of the English factory at Calcutta.

1691 April. French capture of Mons.

July. Capture of Athlone by William's forces. Battle of Aughrim.
August. Victory of Lewis of Baden at Szalankemen. Death of Mustafa

Kiuprili.
October. Treaties of Limerick.

1692 February. Massacre of Glencoe.

May. Anglo-Dutch naval victory of La Hogue.

June. French capture of Namur.

August. William III defeated at Steinkirke. British repulse at St Malo.

Invasion of Dauphine by Victor Amadeus of Savoy.

1693 Defeat of William at Neerwinden.

French victory of Marsaglia and invasion of Piedmont.
1693-4 Foundation of the National Debt and of the Bank of Englandi

1694 December. Death of Mary^ Queen of England,
Foundation of University of HaUe.

The Triennial Act passed.

1695 William recaptures Namur.
Accession of the Sultan Mustafa 11.

Press Licensing Act dropped. Freedom of the Press established.
1695-1700 Initiation and ultimate failure of the Darien scheme.

1696 January. The Recoinage Act passed.

February. English "Assassination Plot" discovered.
August. The Duke of Savoy goes over to France.
Death of John Sobieski of Poland.
Conquest of Azoff by Peter the Great.

1697 September, Defeat of the Turks at Zenta by Prince Eugene.

„ Peace of Ryswyk,

Death of Charles XI of Sweden and accession of Charles XII.
Accession of Augustus II of Poland.
The Muscovite Embassy to the West.
F&elon's Explanation of the Matvims of the Saints. Dryden's Alemnder's Feast.

1698 June. Revolt of the Russian Strieltzy.
October. First Treaty of Partition.

New English Bast India Company (General Society) incorporated.

Chronological Table. 925

1698 British African trade thrown open.

J. Collier's Short View of the Profaneness and Immorality 'of the English Stage.

1699 January. Peace of Carlowitz.

Fehruary. Death of Electoral Prince Joseph Ferdinand of Bavaria.
August. Accession of Frederick IV of Denmark and Norway.
Septemher. Alliance hetween Denmark and Poland against Sweden.
Novemher. Russia joins the coalition against Sweden.
Beginning of the great administrative reforms of Peter the Great.

1700 April. Act of B«sumption of Irish gi-ants.
May. Second Treaty of Partition.

August. Peace of Traventhal hetween Sweden and Denmark.
Novemher. Death of Charles II of Spain.

« Battle of Narva.

Foundation of Berlin Academy of Sciences.
Defoe's Two Qreat Questions Considered.

1701 January. Coronation of Elector Frederick III of Brandenburg as Frederick 1,

King in Prussia.
February. Dutch Barrier fortresses occupied by French troops.
July. Outbreak of the War in Italy.
September. The Grand Alliance foi-med.

„ Death of James II. Recognition of his son as King by Louis.

The Act of Settlement passed.

Brandenburg-Prussia gains the privilegium de non appellando.
Defoe's True-bom Englishman.

1702 February. Prince Eugene's raid on Cremona.
March. Death of William III. Accession of Anne.
May. Charles XII in Warsaw.

July. Victory of Charles XII at Klissow. Capture of Cracow.

August. Failure of the English expedition against Cadiz.

September. Marlborough reduces Venloo.

October. Marlborough reduces Ruremonde and Liege. Rooke's capture

of the Plate fleet.
Godolphin and Marlborough's Tory Ministry formed.
1702-5 Rising in the Cevennes.

1703 April. Victory of Charles XII at Pultusk.

May. Portugal joins the Grand AUiance. Vienna threatened by Villars.

September. French victory at Hochstadt.

December. The Methuen Treaty between England and Foi'tugal.

Act of Security passed by the Scottish Parliament.

1704 January. Deposition of Augustus of Poland.
May-June. Marlborough's march to the Danube.
July. Stanislaus Leszczynski elected King of Poland.

August. Capture of Gibraltar, and naval battle off Velez Malaga.

„ Battle of Blenheim.

November. Convention of Ilbersheim.
The English Alien Act passed.
1704-5 Resignation of Tory Ministers. Whig additions to the Government..

1705 June. Swedish victory at Gemaurhof.

October. Peterborough's reduction of Barcelona. Catalonia and Valencia
adopt the Habsburg cause.

1706 February. Swedish victory at Fraustadt. Russian retreat.
May. Battle of RamUlies.

August. First negotiations for peace opened by Louis.

September. Eugene's victory at Turin. French evacuation of Piedmont.

926 Chronological Table.

1706 October. Swedish defeat at Kalisch.

„ Peace of Altranstadt between Sweden and Augustus of Saxony.

1707 March. Convention of Milan. The French abandon northern Italy. '

„ Act of Union between England and Scotland passed.

April. Defeat of the Allies at Almanza.
August. ''Perpetual Alliance" between Sweden and Prussia.

„ Failure of Eugene's attempt on Toulon.

Prussia acquires Tecklenburg, Neuchatel, and Valengin.
Peter the Great introduces into Russia the ''civil script."
Vauban's Projet d'une dtme royale. Death of Vauban.

1708 July. Battle of Oudenarde.

„ Victory of Charles XII at Holowczyn.
September. Swedish rout at Lyesna.

„ English capture of Minorca.

Permanent union of the two English East India Companies.
170a-9 Oct. -Feb. March of Charles XII through Severia and the Ukraine.
1708-10 Civil war in San Paulo. Portuguese organisation of district.

1709 May. Peace negotiations. The "Preliminaries" rejected by Louis.

,j Charles XII lays siege to Poltawa.
June. Battle of Poltawa. Revival of the northern league against Sweden.
September. Battle of Malplaquet.

October. Alliance between Russia and Denmark against Sweden.
„ First Dutch Barrier Treaty.,

1709-14 Charles XII .in Turkey.

1710 March. Negotiations at Gertruydenberg.
July. Victory of the Allies at AJmenara.
August. Victory of the Allies at Saragossa.
December. Defeat of the Allies at Brihuega.

J, Indecisive battle of Villa Viciosa.

Impeachment of Sacheverell and fall of the Whigs. Tory Ministry of
Harley and St John formed.

1711 March. War between Russia and Turkey.
April. Death of the Emperor Joseph I.

August. Peace of the Pruth between Russia and Turkey.
October. Election of the Emperor Charles VI.
December. Dismissal of Marlborough.
Plague in Copenhagen.

1712 January. Opening of peace negotiations at Utrecht.
February. Death of the Duke of Burgundy.
March. Death of the Duke of Britanny.

July. Separate armistice between England and France.

„ French victory at Denain.
December. Swedish victory over the Danes at Gadebusch.
Swift's Remarks on the Barrier Treaty.

1713 January. Second Dutch Barrier Treaty.
February. Death of Frederick I of Prussia.
April. Peace of Utrecht.

May. Swedish capitulation at Oldensworth.
July. Peace of Adrianople.
Issue of the Bull Unigenitus.
Dumont's Letter to an Englishman.

1714 March. Peace of Rastatt.

„ Battle of Storkyro. Russia overruns Finland.

May. The Schism Act.

Chronological Table. 927

1714 August. Death of Queen Anne. Accession of George I.
September. Peace of Baden.

1715 February. Peace between Spain and Portugal.

May-Jxme. Third Coalition against Sweden between Great Britain (Hanover),

Denmark, and Prussia.
September. Death of Louis XIV.
November. Third Dutch Barrier Treaty.
December. Fall of Stralsund.

1716 Treaty of Danzig between Russia and Mecklenburg-Schwerin.
1716-7 Russian expedition into Central Asia.

1718 December. Death of Charles XII of Sweden.
The viceroyalty of New Granada created.

1719 First Russian envoy in Pekin.
1719-20 Nov. -Feb. Treaties of Stockholm.

1720 July. Peace of Frederiksborg between Sweden and Denmark.

1721 August. Peace of Nystad between Sweden and Russia.
October. Peter the Great declared Emperor.

1722 Russian expansion in the Caspian provinces of Persia.
Ostend Company chartered.

Moravian community founded at Herrnhut.

1724 February. Treaty of Stockholm between Russia and Sweden.
June. Treaty of Constantinople between Russia and Tui-key.

1725 January. Death of Peter the Great.
February. Accession of Catharine I.
Anglo-Franco-Prnssian Treaty of Herrenhausen (Hanoverian Alliance).

1726 August Russia joins Austro-Spanish League.

1727 April. Treaty of Copenhagen between Denmark, England, and France.
May. Death of Catharine I. Accession of Peter II.

1729 Treaty of Seville between England, France, and Spain.

1730 January. Death of Peter II and accession of Anne.

1731 Ostend Company suppressed.

929

INDEX OF NAMES.

Aachen, the Peace of, 39; 153 sq.; 200;

373; 4i3; 650
Aberdeen, episcopal clergy of, and the penal

laws, 290
Academie des Sciences, 715; 741

Fran^aise, 741

Acadia, assigned to England, 442

Acre, siege of, 630

Acton, John Emerich Edward Dalberg-

Acton, Lord, 2; 253; 616; 617
Adalbert, St, 629
Adasheff, Alexis, favourite of Ivan the

Terrible, 489
Adda, Count de, papal Nuncio in England,

235
Addison, Joseph, French influence on, 70;

122 ; 133 ; 271 ; his Cato, 474 ; 476 sc|.q.
Adeler, Kort, Norwegian admiral, 561
Adige river, French army on, 402
Adrian VI, Pope, 635

Patriarch of Bussia, 530

Adrianople, 853 ; Turkish army at, 359 ;

Tokolyi at, 364, 366
• Peace of, 607

^sop, Bussian translation of, 629

Africa, English and Dutch in, 108, 149,
179 ; Brandenburg colony in, 647 ; Euro-
pean settlements in, 691 sqq.

African Company. See Eoyal African
Company
Trading Company {Brandenburg), 647

Afrosina, Tsarevioh Alexis' mistress, 539 sq.

Agreement of the People (1649), 327 sq.

Agrioola, Georgius. See Bauer, George

Ahmad II, Sultan, 369

Ill, Sultan, 604 sqq.

Airds Moss, Covenanters defeated at, 287
Aire, 39; ceded to France, 45; 429
Aix, Parlement of, 4
Aix-la-Chapelle. See Aachen
Albemarle, Arnold Joost van Keppel, first
Earl of, 257

George Monck, Duke of, 93 ; 100 ;

and the marriage of Charles II, 105;
106 ; in naval campaign of 1666, 183 sqq. ;
190; death of, 191; 280

Albert II, Emperor, 623

Alberti, Aristotile (Bidolfo Flora vanti), 482

C. M. H. V.

Albuquerque, AfEonzo de, Portuguese Viceroy
of India, 695

Antonio de. Governor of the Eio, 679

Aldrovandus, Ulysses, naturalist, 736; 738
Aldus Manutius, Venetian printer, 608
Alessandria, French garrison at, 415
Alet, canonry at, 85
Alexander VII (Fabio Ohigi), Pope, 76; 84

VIII (Pietro Ottoboni), Pope, 68

Alexandroff, Ivan IV at, 491

Alexis, Tsar, 343 sq. ; 503; the reign of,
604 sq. ; and the Patriarch Nikon, 606
sq. ; and ecclesiastical reforms, 508 sq. ;
514; the Code of, 515; 516; character
of, 616 sq. ; 518

Tsarevich, son of Peter the Great,

536 sqq. ; death of, 542 ; 547

Alfonso VI, King of Portugal, 34; 105
Algiers, French fleet sent to, 53
AH Pasha, Grand Vezir, 604; 606
Alicante, 376; capture of, 426
Alkmaar, and the Act of Seclusion, 143
AUardin, minister at Emden, 757
Allen, Sir Thomas, naval commander, 108 ;

180; 186; 190
Almanza, battle of, 419
Almeida, Francisco de, Portuguese Viceroy

of India, 695
Almenara, victory of Starhemberg at, 428
Alsace, taken by the French, 44; 47 sq.;

Louis XIV and, 165; 338; 413 ; 416; 420;

423; 425; French troops in, 431; the

Peace of Byswyk and, 463
Alt-Breisach, ceded by France, 436; 454
Altona, 579 ; Swedish sack of, 609 ; 612 ; 756
Altranstadt, 417; Charles XII at, 597

Peace of, 595, 597

Amalia von Solms, Princess of Orange.

See Orange
Amazon river, Portugal and, 448; 679;

683
Amboina, massacre of, 138, 697
Amegial, battle of, 34, 105
America, England and France in, 57, 438;

English and Dutch claims in, 108

North, and the Anglo-French treaty,

442; French colonisation in, 648 sq. ;
English colonisation in, 685 sq. ; 694

59

930

Index.

America, South, 107; Portuguese in, 372,
674 sqq. ; Spanish colonisation in, 680
sqct.; 693

Spanish, slave-trade to, 403, 445, 455

Amiens, Bishop of. See Caumartin

Peace of (1802), 444

Ampringen, Caspar von, Governor of

Hungary, 862 sq.; 357
Amsterdam, 43 ; 164 sq. ; 199 ; Bank of,

266 sqq. ; 270; 420; Peter the Great in,

526, 612 ; Bussian printing at, 529 ; Treaty

of (1717), 613
Amu Daria river, Eussian expedition to,

544
Anastasia Bomanova, Tsaritsa, 496
Andalusia, evacuated by the French, 416
Andover, James II at, 247
Andrusovo, Treaty of, 505
Angola, Brandenburg trade with, 647
Anguilla, colonised by the English, 687
Anhalt, House of, 618
Anjou, customs of, 13

Duke of. See Philip V, King of

Spain

Anna, Tsaritsa, 483

Anne, Empress of Enssia, 650; 566 sq.

Queen of England, party govern-
ment under, Chap. XV ; 63 ; 211 ; marriage
of, 230; 247; 262; and the Act of Settle-
ment, 275 ; and the Union, 297 sqq. ; and
the peace negotiations, 417, 480; and
Marlborough, 428; 429; 441; 451; iU-
ness and death of, 459 sq., 610

Tsesarevna. See Holstein-Gottorp,

Anne, Duchess of

• of Austria, Queen of France, 72;

376 sq.
Ansbach, re-united to Baireuth, 622
Antigua captured by the French, 110; 687
Antrim, Alexander Maodonnell, third Earl
. of, 807
Antwerp, 199 ; 407 ; 457 ; surrenders to

Marlborough, 416; 458 sq.
Apaffy, Michael, Prince of Transylvania.

See Transylvania
Apraksin, Pedor Matveievitoh, Eussian

admiral, 601 sq. ; 613
Aragon, 419; invaded by the Allies, 428
Aral, Sea of, Eussian expedition to, 544
Aranjuez, the Spanish Court at, 876; 891
Arbuthnot, John, English writer, 70
Archangel, 531 ; leather exports from, 534
Archimedes, 707 sq.
Ard^e, James II retires to, 313
Arenberg, merchandise tolls of, 547
Argyll, John Campbell, second Duke and

eleventh Earl of, 298; 476
Archibald Campbell, ninth Earl of,

229; 232; and the Scottish Test Act,

287; 289

Archibald Campbell, Marquis of,

282; 289

Aristotle, 707 sq.; 712; 736

Arleux, fort at, taken by Marlborough, 481

Arlington, Henry Bennet, Earl of, 100;

113 ; 162 sq. ; 198 ; and the Triple AUi-

ance, 200 ; signs the Treaty of Dover,

204 ; 205 ; created Earl, 207 ; 208 sq. ;

and the Test Act, 210 ; and the Prince

of Orange, 218 sq.
Armada, Spanish, 326
ArmeUa, Nicole, French mystic, 762
Armenia, the crown of, 660
Armfelt, Earl Gustaf, Baron von, Swedish

general, 609
Arnauld, Ang6Uque, Abbess of Port-

Eoyal, 83
AJitoine, and Cartesianism, 73; 88

sq. ; exile and death of, 89
Amdt, Johann, theologian, 758 sq.
Arnold, Gottfried, historian, 760 sqq.
Arquien, Henri de Lagrange, Marquis de,

856; 360

Mary de. See Mary d'Arquien,

Queen of Poland

Artois, Estates of, 4

Arundel, Henry, Lord Arundel of Wardour,

202; 204; 220
Aschersleben, castle of, 618
Aselli, Gaspar, anatomist, 727
Ashley, Lord. See Shaftesbury, Earl of
Asia, Eussian policy in, 544 sq.
Asiento, the, secured for French traders,

403 ; England and, 445 ; 455 ; 684
Assche, Marlborough at, 420
Astrabad, ceded to Eussia, 546
Astrakhan, annexed to Eussia, 479 ; 494 ;

revolt at, 531 ; 544
Ath, restored to Spain, 45, 63 ; 416
Athens, captured by the Venetians, 865
Athlone, besieged, 315 ; 317 sq.

Godert de Ginkel, first Earl of, in

Ireland, 316 sqq.; takes Limerick, 319

Athos, Mount, 507 sq.
Atkins, Governor of Barbados, 690
Aubignd, Theodore-Agrippa de, 20
Audijos, leader of the rising in Gaseony, 9
Auersperg, Johann Weichard, Prince von,

Austrian statesman, 349 ; 352
Aughrim, battle of, 261, 318
Augsburg, Bavaria and, 52; 408; 410

Alliance (1686), 35, 52 sq., 235, 654

Eeligious Peace of, 627

Augustine, St, the Janseuists and, 82 ; 755
Augustus II, King of Poland (Frederick
Augustus, Elector of Saxony), 369 sqq.;
417; 438; and Peter the Great, 526; 555;
and Denmark, 580 sq. ; and Patkul, 586,
595 ; joins the league against Sweden
(1699), 580, 587 ; and the great Northern
War, 587 sqq. ; Charles XII and, 689,
692; deposed, 593 ; treaty of, with Sweden
(1706), 695 ; and the Emperor Joseph,
696 ; and the second anti-Swedish league
(1709), 602; 603 sq.; 606 sq.; 660; and
Frederick I of Prussia, 666 ; 743
Aungier, Gerald, in India, 698
Aunis, the, customs of, 13
Aurangzeb, Emperor of Hindustan, 697 sqq.;
701

Index.

931

Austria (see also Leopold I, Emperor ;
Joseph 1, Emperor; Charles VI, Em-
peror), Chap. XII; war of, with Turkey,
36, 49 ; assists United Provinces against
France, 161 ; and the Spanish Succes-
sion, 377, 381, 384 sq., 387 sq., 391, 664;
and the Grand Alliance (1701), 398 sq. ;
and France, 404, 408; 435; league of,
with Russia, 551, 655; 610
Autre Eglise, and battle of Eamillies, 415 sq.
Avaux, Jean-Antoine de Mesmes, Count de,
French ambassador at the Hague, 165 sq.,
244, 397; in Ireland, 807 sq., 312, 314;
417; in Sweden, 566, 585
Avesnes, acquired by France, 33
Avignon, city of, 449
Awakum, Russian ecclesiastic, 509; 524
Ayr, and the Treaty of Union, 299
Ayrshire, recusants in, 283 sq.; 285
Ayscue, Sir George, English admiral, 184
Azoff, conquered by Peter the Great, 370;
371, 521 sq.; 503; 520; ceded to Russia,
527; 531; 545; 603 sq.; abandoned by
Russia, 606; 677

Sea of, Russian fleet in, 527, 605

Bacon, Francis, Viscount St Albans, 716;

724 sq.
Badajoz, 416; 456
Baden, invaded by the French, 57; 418;

Peace of, 436, 450, 454 sq.

Baden-Baden, Lewis William, Margrave

of, 61 ; 341 ; 366 ; commander of the
Imperial Army, 368 ; 369 ; and the
Spanish Succession, 401; Rhine cam-
paign of (1702), 406; at Stolhofen, 407;
408; joins Marlborough, 409; besieges
Ingolstadt, 410; 414; 416; 437; 452;
death of, 418

Bahamas, piracy in the, 691

Bahia, growth of importance of, 676 ;
677

BaiUeul, ceded to France, 45

Baireuth, and Ansbach, 622

Bains, Michael, professor at Louvain, 82

Bakchi-serai, Treaty of, 506

Baker, Major, at Dromore, 307

Baku, ceded to Russia, 545

Balaguer, captured by Starhemberg, 426

Baldo, Monte, Prince Eugene crosses, 402

Ballenstadt, House of, 618

Ballymore, captured by Ginkel, 317

Ballyneety, Sarsfield at, 316

Baltaji Mehemet, Grand Vezir, 604 sqq.

Baltic Sea, the struggle for supremacy in,
146 sq.; Russia and, 343, 494, 520; Po-
land and, 344 ; Peter the Great and, 526,
528; English fleet in, 551, 611; Sweden
and, 562sq., 607; 615; 634; 638

Balzac, Jean -Louis -Guez, Seigneur de,
French writer, 70

Bank of England, establishment of, 267 sq. ;
270

Bankaert, Adrian van, Dutch naval com-
mander, 195 sq.

Bankhem, Jan van, and the murder of the

de Witts, 159
Bantam, English factory at, 697
Bar, ceded to France, 33
Barbados, 110 ; de Ruyter at, 179 ; 284 ;

286 sq. ; English government in, 689 sq.
Barbarossa. See Frederick I, Emperor
Barbary corsairs, 179
Barcelona, 61 ; taken by the French, 62 ;

413; by Peterborough, 416; 432; siege of

(1713), 446
Barczai, Achatius, Prince of Transylvania.

See Transylvania
Barillou, Paul, Marquis de Branges, French

ambassador in England, 219; 222; 227;

and James II, 231 sq., 235, 247
Bavneveldt, Johan van Olden. See Olden-

barneveldt
Barrier Treaties, 424; 439 sq.; 448; 456 sqq.
Bart, Jean, French seaman, 59 ; 162
Bartholdi, Friedrioh Christian von, Bran-
denburg Minister at Vienna, 664
Basil II, Emperor of the East, 483
Bassewitz, Henning Friedrioh von, Hol-

stein Minister, 609
Bathory, Sophia, 352

Stephen, King of Poland. See Stephen

Baturin, destruction of, 600

Bauer, George (Georgius Agricola), 738

Bauhin, Jean, naturalist, 734

Bausch, Johann Lorenz, and the Academia

naturae curiosorum, 741
Bavaria, alliance of, vfith France, 42, 47,

404; 407; and the Spanish Netherlands,

447; 451

Charles Albert, Elector of (after-
wards Charles VII, Emperor), 407 ; 451

Ferdinand Maria, Elector of, 41 ; 47

Jose'ph Ferdinand, Electoral Prince

of, and the Spanish Succession, 377, 382,
384 sq.; death of, 385; 386sqq.; 659; 664

Maria Antonia, Eleetress of, 52 ; 377

Maximilian Emanuel, Elector of,

52 sq. ; 359 ; 366 sq. ; commander of the
Imperial army, 368; marriage of, 877;
and the Spanish Succession, 384, 386,
388 ; alUance of, with France, 404,
406 sqq.; at Donauworth, 409; at Blen-
heim, 410 ; 411 ; restoration of, 436 ;
438; 447; 450; 452; and the Peace of
Baden, 455

Baxter, Richard, presbyterian divine, 96;

at the Savoy Conference, 97; 100; 201;

imprisoned, 231 ; 238 ; and Cromwell,

328 ; 329 sq. ; 832 ; and James II, 335
Beachy Head, battle of, 59 ; 258 ; 261 ; 263 ;

315
Beard, John, and the East India Company,

700
B6arn, persecution of Protestants in, 24
Beaufort, Franpois de Vend6me, Due de,

French admiral, 182sq.; 187
Beaujolais, the, customs of, 13
Beaune, Florimond de, 711
Beausse, de, in Madagascar, 703

59—2

932

Index.

Becher, Johann Joaehim, chemist, 731
Bedloe, William, and Titus Oates, 222 ; 334
Behn, Aphra, 129; 136
Bekbulatovioh, Simeon, of Kazan, 492; 497
Belfast, taken by Schomberg, 312
Belgium, France and, 58; the Grand

Alliance (1701) and, 398; and the Barrier

Treaty, 424
Belgrade, taken by the Emperor, 56, 368;

recaptured by the Turks, 61, 369 ; 346 ;

359; Kara Mustafa at, 363 sq.; 367; 370
Belize river, the English on, 687
BeUarmin, Boberto, Cardinal, 75
Bellasis, John, Lord Bellasis, 320
Bellefonda, Bemardin Gigault, Marquis de.

Marshal of France, 59
Belleisle, French fleet at, 183
Bellenden, Sir William, dismissed, 284
Bellings, Sir Eichard, 204
Bellini, Laurentio, anatomist, 729
Belturbet, captured by Col. Wolseley, 313
Bengal, the Dutch in, 695, 697; 698;

defeat of the English in, 699 ; French

factory in, 703 ; 704 sq.
Benuet, Henry, Earl of Arlington. See

Arlington
Bentinok, William, Earl of Portland. See

Portland
Bentley, Biohard, 125
Berezina river, Charles XII crosses, 598
Berezofi, Menshikoff banished to, 554
Berg, duchy of, 350; 627 sq. ; 643
Bergen, naval battle oft, 110; 183
Beigeyek, Count, 420
Berkeley, Sir William, Vice-admiral, 184

of Stratton, John, Lord, Lord

Lieutenant of Ireland, 305

Berleburg, Casimir von. Count, 761
Berlin,' 594; 618; foundation of, 620; 625;

639; 645; French colony at, 646, 670;

669; Academy, 670
Bern, and NeuchStel, 449
Bernard, St, 755; 758
Bernoulli, James, mathematician, 718

John, mathematician, 718

Berry, customs of, 13

Charles, Duke of, 30 sq.; 393; 441

B^ruUe, Pierre de. Cardinal, 78
Berwick, James Fitzjames, Duke of, Marshal

of France, 262; 315; 405; in Spain, 416,
419, 446; 421 sq.; Marlborough and, 461

Besanpon, Parlement of, 4; 48

Bessarion, John, Cardinal, 482

Bestuzheff, Michael, Bussian diplomatist,
551

Bethlen Gabor, Prince of Transylvania.
See Transylvania

B^thune, captured by the Allies, 429

Maximilien-Alpin, Marquis of, French

envoy in Poland, 354; 356; 566

Betterton, Thomas, actor, 130

Beuningen, Conrad van, 145 ; Dutch am-
bassador at Paris, 152 sq.; in England,
154, 217; and de Witt, 154, 156; 164

Beverningh, Hieronymus van, Dutch envoy

to England, 141 sqq.; resigns, 154; 160;
164 sq.
Bicker, Cornelis, uncle of John de Witt, 145

Weudela, wife of John de Witt, 144

Biddle, John, Unitarian, 327

Bielke, Nils, Swedish statesman, 573

Bielowice, Charles XII at, 692

Bielski, Bogdan Jakowlewitsch, candidate

for Bussian crown, 497
Bijapur, war of, with Aurangzeb, C98
Bilsen, Marlborough at, 415
Binch, restored to Spain, 45
Birch, John, Colonel, 216
Birse, Peter the Great and Augustus II at,

590
"Black Box" incident, 226
Black Forest, French army in, 406 sqq.

Sea, Eussia and, 343, 370, 494, 526,

603

Blake, Eobert, Admiral, 105; 139; 372
Blanco, Cape, 691

Blenheim, battle of, 410 sq., 463, 668
Bodley, Sir Thomas, 747
Boehme, Jacob, mystic, 758 sqq.
Bbtzow on the Havel, 622
Bogatzky, Karl Heinrich von, 762
Bohemia, and the Habsburgs, 339 ; 351 ;

Brandenburg and, 621, 624
Boilean Despr^aux, Nicolas, 65 ; 67 ; 70
Eoisguillebert, Pierre le Pesant, Sieur de, 8;

29
Boisselot, Major-General, at the defence of

Limerick, 316
Bokhara, Eussia and, 544
Boliugbroke, Henry St John, Viscount,
70; 271; 337; 430; and the Peace of
Utrecht, 434, 440, 446, 450; 461; and
party government, 463 ; Secretary at War,
464 ; 465 sq. ; 469 ; Secretary of State,
470; 471; and the Stewart cause, 472 sq.;
473; and the Schism Act, 4.74 sq.; and
thefallof Oxford, 475; 476; and Eussia,
608
Bologna, botanic gardens at, 734
Bolotnikoff, Ivan, Bussian revolutionist, 500
Bombay, ceded to England, 105 ; 107 ; 698
Bombelli, Eaffaelle, mathematician, 710
Bonde, Gustaf, Swedish statesman, 565

sq. ; 575
Bonn, taken by the allies, 57 ; 161 ; cap-
tured by Marlborough, 407 ; 661
Bonzi, Pierre, Cardinal, Archbishop of

Narbonne, 85
Bordeaux, Parlement of, 4; 10

Archbishop of. See Sourdis

Bordeaux-Neufville, Antoine de, 106
Borelli, Giovanni Alfonso, physicist, 727

sq. ; 731 ; 733 sq. ; 740
Borgomainero, Marquis, Spanish ambas-
sador at Vienna, 358 ; 364
Boris Godunoff, Tsar, Eegeut of Eussia,
495 sq. ; elected Tsar, 497; death of,
498; 516; 622; 524
Borkelo, the Bishop of Miiuster and, 150 sq.
Bornhoved, Danish defeat at, 620

Index.

933

Bosnia, 366; Prince Eugene in, 370

Bossuet, Jacques-B^nigne, and Mon-
taigne, 64 sq. ; and Descartes, 65; 66;
and Cartesianism, 73; 74; 76; as a
preacher, 80; 81; 84; and the dispute
with the Papacy, 85 sq.; the writings
of, 86 ; and the Huguenots, 86 ; 87 ;
and F^nelon, 88; 90; 743

Bothmer, Johann Caspar von, Count,
Hanoverian envoy in Loudon, 476

Bothnia, Gulf of, 610

Bothwell Bridge, battle of, 225, 285 sq.

Bouchain, taken by the French, 44; 45;
431; 434

BonfSers, Louis-Prancjois de Boufflers, Duo
de. Marshal of France, 405 sq.; 421;
425 sq.

Boulonnais, the, 4; rising in, 9

Bourbonnaia, the, customs of, 13

Bourdaloue, Louis, 65; as a preacher, SO

Bourignon, Antoinette de, pietist, 762

Bournonville, Count, 651

Boyle, Bobert, physicist, 715; 722; 728;
and modern chemistry, 730 sq.; 732

Eoger, Earl of Orrery. See Orrery

Boyne, battle of the, 58, 261, 314
Brabant, 153; Marlborough in, 416; 426
Bradley, James, astronomer royal, 721
Brahe, Per, Swedish statesman, 564 sq. ;

568

Tycho, 709 ; 713

Bramhall, John, Abp of Armagh, 321
Brandaris, destroyed by the English, 187
Brandenburg, growth and development of,
to 1640, Chap. XX; under the Electors
Frederick William and Frederick III
(1640-1718), Chap. XXI; 25; and
France, 33, 38; and the United Pro-
vinces, 37, 157, 161, 164, 166; 39 sq.;
and Sweden, 45; 55; 414; 568; 386

the Kurmark of, 618; the Middle

Mark of, 618; the New Mark of,
618, 621, 624, 632, 634; the Northern
Mark of, 617 sq., 620; the Old Mark
of, 618 sq., 621, 625; the Vormark
(Priegnitz) of, 618; the Ukermark of,
618, 620

Electors of :

Albert I (the Bear), 618 sq.; 624

Albert II, 620

Albert Achilles, 624 sq.

Frederick I, 622 sq.

Frederick II, 620; 623 sq.; 634

Frederick III. See Frederick I, King

of Prussia
Frederick William (the Great Elector).

See Frederick William
George William, 637 sq.; 640 sqq.
Joaohim I, 624 sqq.
Joachim II, 624; 626 sq. , 636
Joaohim Frederick, 627 sq.j 636
John Cicero, 624
John George, 624; 627; 636
John Sigismund, Duke of Prussia, 627
. sq. ; 636 sq. ; 743

Brandenburg, Electors of:

Lewis (the Boman), 620 sq.

Otto V, 621

Sigismund. See Sigismund, Emperor

Waldemar I (the Great), 620; 631

Albert von, Cardinal, Archbishop

and Elector of Mainz. See Mainz

Charles Emil, Electoral Prince of,

651

Dorothea (of Holstein-Gliicksburg),

Electress of, 655 sq. ; 658

John, Margrave of, 621

John (the Alchemist), Margrave of,

623

John (Custrin), Margrave of, 626

John George, Margrave of, Prince

of Jagemdorf, 653

Louisa Henrietta, Electress of, 622 ;

641; 655 sq.; 668

Otto II, Margrave of, 620

Waldemar, the False, Pretender, 621

Brandenburg-Ansbach, Albert, Margrave
of. See Prussia, Albert, first Duke of

George (the Pious), Margrave of.

Prince of Jagemdorf, 625 sq.; 635

George Frederick, Margrave of. Prince

of Jagemdorf, 636
Sophia, Margravine of, 635

Brandenburg-Baireuth, Charles Ernest,
Margrave of, 418

Brandt, Carsten, German shipmaster, in
Bussia, 520

Brazil, Portugal and, 107; 146; 148; 448;
and Portugal, 67S sq. ; expulsion of
Dutch from, 675 sq.; slave labour in,
676 sq.; 677; discovery of gold in, 678 sq.

Company (Portuguese), 675

Breda, Charles II of England at, 148

Declaration of, 92; 94; 99

Treaty of, 37, 112 sq., 151, 154,

187, 189, 199, 329

Breisach,45; 48; ceded by France, 63 ; 408
Bremen, purchased by George I, 550;

Sweden and, 562 sq.; 669; 579; 682;

603
oocupied by the Danes, 607; 610

sq.; 613; bishopric of, 613; 652
Brenner Pass, Bavarian detachment at, 407
Brescia, 402; Prince Eugene at, 414
Bresse, customs of, 13
Brest, development of, 14; 62; 187 ;

English attack on, 261 sq., 460
Bridgeman, Sir Orlando, Lord Keeper of

the Privy Seal, 201 ; 207; 334
Brieg, principality of, 652; 659
Brienne, Henri-Louis de Lom^nie, Comte

de, French Secretary of State, 5
Briggs, Henry, mathematician, 709
Brihuega, Allies defeated at, 428
Bristol, George Digby, Earl of, 100 sq.;

103; 210
Britanny, Estates of, 4; rising in, 9 sq.

Louis, Duke of, death of, 434

Broglie, Victor Maurice, Comte de, 26
Browne, Sir Thomas, 332

934

Index.

Bruce, Andrew, Bishop of Duukeld, 290
Bruges, surrenders to Marlborough, 416;

the French at, 420; 421 sq.
Brun, St, 629

Brunswick, Congress of, 610
Brunswick-Liineburg, 581; and Mecklen-

burg-Giistrow, 663
Dukes of, 37; 43; join Quadruple

Alliance, 109 ; 161 ; 569 ; 571
— - House of, and Prance, 655 ; 662

Christian William, Duke of, 655

(Hanover), Ernest Augustus, Duke

of. See Hanover
Frederick Augustus, Prince of, 662

George Lewis, Duke of. See George

I, Sing of England

(Celle), George William, Duke of,

55; 244; 403

• (Hanover), John Frederick, Duke of,

651; 744

Maximilian William, Prince of, 662

Brunewick-Wolfenbiittel, Antony Ulrio,

Duke of, 403 ; 744

Princess Sophia Charlotte of, 538

Budolf Augustus, Duke of, 55 ; 403

Brussels, the Duke of York at, 225 ; 420 ;

422
Buat, Henri de Fleury de Coulan, Sieur de,

execution of, 152
Buchholtz, Colonel, expedition of to Lake

Tamuish, 544
Buckingham, George Villiers, second Duke

of, 95 ; 126 ; and the French alliance,

191 ; 198 ; 200 sq ; and the Treaty of

Dover, 203 sqq. ; 207 sqq. ; 216 ; sent to

the Tower, 218
Bucz4ez, Treaty of, 353
Buda, taken by Lnperialists, 52, 366; 339;

345 ; Turkish army at, 346 ; 363
Buen Ayre, the Dutch in, 687
Burgi, Jobst, mathematician, 709
Bulavin, Kondraty, leader of Cossack revolt,

597
Bulgaria, Black, 479
Bunyan, John, 136; 207; 335
Burghstead, John, regicide, 149
Burgos, depopulation of, 376
Burgsdorf, Conrad von, Brandenburg

statesman, 642
Burgundy, Estates of, 4 ; 13
Louis, Duke of, 28; 30 sq.; 88; 421;

434

Maria Adelaide, Duchess of, 30 sq.

Burke, Edmund, and the Act of Settle-
ment, 275; 702; 705

Burnet, Gilbert, Bishop of Salisbury, 136;

and Queen Mary, 167 ; 213 ; 235 ; 255 ;

258 ; 271 ; and Latitudinarianism, 752
Burntisland, bombarded by the Dutch, 188
Busher, Leonard, and religious toleration,

326
Butler, James, Duke of Ormond. See

Ormond

Samuel, 126; 133; 136

Thomas, Earl of Ossory. See Ossory

Buys, Willem, Dutch diplomatist, 422;

427 sq. ; 429
Byzantium, and the Greek Church, 483 sq.;

615

Cabal Ministry, 198; 201; 210; 214
Cabot, Sebastian, and theMuscovy Company,

613
Cadalso, Jos^ de, Spanish poet, 69
Cadiz, English fleet at, 61, 262; 379; 411

sq.
Oadogan, William, first Earl Cadogan,

421; 422; 458 sq.
Gaermarthen, Marquis of. See Leeds,

Duke of
Caesalpinus, Andreas, and the circulation

of the blood, 725 sq. ; 734 sqq. ; 738
Cairncross, Alexander, Archbishop of Glas-
gow, 290
Calais, James H at, 262
Calcutta, establishment of, 699
Calixtus, George, Protestant theologian,

648; 744
Camarao, South American Indian, 674
Cambray, 36 ; 39 ; taken by the French,

44; 45; 422; 430
Cambridge, Milton at, 116; University of,

237 sq.; 245

Platonists, 327; 332; 749 sqq.

Duke of, 474

Camerarius, Itudolf Jacob, botanist, 736
Cameron, Bichard, covenanter, 286 sq. ;

290
Garaisardx, the, 26

Camoens, Luis de, the lAisiad of, 695
Campbell. See Argyll
Oampeachy Bay, the English in, 687
Campredon, N. de, French ambassador in

Bussia, 551
Canada, France and, 13 ; 442; 684 sq.; 688
Canales, Marquez de, 390
Canary Islands, exports from, 677
Candia, 36; the Turks in, 40, 342 sq.;

348 sq.
Canea, taken by the Turks, 342
Cantemir, Demetrius, Hospodar of Mol-
davia, 604
Cape Breton Island, France and, 443

of Good Hope, Dutch occupation

of, 693 sqq.

Capel, Arthur, Earl of Essex. See Essex

Sir Henry, Lord Capel, 321

Caprara, Aeneas Sylvius, Count von, cap-
tures Neuhausel, 366; 369

Albert, Count, mission of to the

Porte, 358 sq.

Caracas, Dutch trade with, 688
Caraoena, Count, Spanish commander, 34
Garaffa, Antonio, Austrian field-marshal,

367
Carbery, Eiohard Vaughan, second Earl

of, 748
Cardan, Jerome, physician, 716
Carelia, ceded to Sweden, 503 ; 614
Carew, Thomas, poet, 745

Index.

935

covenanter, 286 sq.
Spanish possessions

Cargill, Donald,
Caribbean Sea,

680; 688; 691
Carlingford, Theobald TaafEe, first Earl

of, 109
Carlisle, Charles Howard, Earl of, 213
Carlowitz, General von, at Moscow, 587

Treaty of, 33; 61; 364; 371; 388

Carlsbad, Peter the Great at, 607
Carolina, 101 ; foundation of, 685
Caron, Frangois, director-general of French

commerce in India, 703
Carpi, French defeated at, 402

Girolamo da, 724

Carrickfergus, taken by Schomberg, 312;

313
Carrick-on-Suir, William III at, 315
Carstares, William, and the establishment

of Presbyterianism in Scotland, 293
Cartagena, 684; sack of, 691
Carteret, Sir George, 113
Cartets, Tisoomte de, and Labadie, 756
Cartwright, Thomas, Bishop of Chester,

234

Thomas, puritan, 326

Cary, Lucius, Viscount Falkland. See

Falkland
Casale, seized by the French, 48; 357
Casimir III, King of Poland, 632

IV, King of Poland, 624 ; 634

V, King of Poland. See John II

Casimir, Henry, Stadholder of Friesland.

See Nassau-Dietz
Caspian Sea, Bussia and, 520 sq., 544 sq.
Cassano, Prince Eugene repulsed at, 414
Cassard, JacqueS, in the West Indies, 679
Cassegrain, N., 721
Cassel, William of Orange defeated at, 44 ;

45; Charles XII at, 610; 743
Castel-Melhor, Louis Souza VaseoneeUos,

Count of, Portuguese statesman, 34
Castel-Eodngo, Governor of the Spanish

Netherlands, 152 sq.
CastUe, Council of, and the succession,

392; 428
Castlemaine, Barbara, Countess of. 111

Boger Palmer, Earl of, 235

Castro Vireyna, silver mines at, 682
Catalans, Philip V and the, 445 sq. ; 452
Catalonia, the French in, 61, 416; restored

to Spain, 63; 375; 428; 451; and Philip

V, 404, 436; the Allies in, 419; 426;

434; 440
Catania, naval battle of, 44
Catharine I, Empress of Bussia, 547 sq. ;

accession of, 549 ; 550 sq. ; illness and

death of, 551 sq.

II, Empress of Bussia, 479; 505

Ivanovna, Tsarevna, 611

of Braganza, Queen of England,

marriage of, 105; 106; 212 sq.; Titus
Gates and, 225; 698

Catinat de la Fauconnerie, Nicolas de,
Marshal of France, 60 sqq. ; 401 sq. ;
404 sqq.

Cats, Jacob, Grand Pensionary of Holland,

139
Caucasus vEussian influence in, 545
Caulet, Etienne-Fran(;ois de, Bishop of

Pamiers, 84 sq.
Caumartin, Frangois Leffivre de, Bishop

of Amiens, 756
Cavalier, Jean, Camisard leader, 26
Cavalieri, Bonaventura, mathematician, 711
Cavendish, Lord. See Devonshire, Duke of
Caya river, defeat of the Allies on, 426
Cayenne, French colony of, 448; 678
Ccnturioue, Paolo, Genoese traveller, 612
Cerkova, Charles XII at, 600
Cesi, Prince Federigo, and the Accadeinia

dei Lincei, 740
Cevennes, Protestant rising in the, 26
Ceylon, and French colonisation, 13; the

Dutch in, 107, 696 ; 146 ; 695
Gh&lons, House of, 669
Chamberlain, Hugh, and a national bank,

266; 271
Chamberlayne, William, poet, 136
Ohamillart, Michel de, French financier,

28 sq.; 417; 424
Champagne, customs of, 13
Champlain, Samuel de, founder of Quebec,

684
Chancellor, Bichard, in Bussia, 512 sq.
Ghandernagore, factory at, 703
Charenton, Synod of, 743
Charlemont, captured, 314
Charleroi, 43 ; restored to Spain, 45 ; 160 ;

taken by the French, 199; 450; 457 sq.
Charles the Great, Emperor, 617

IV, Emperor, 621; 633

V, Emperor, 34; 627

VI, Emperor (Archduke of Austria),

and the Spanish Succession, 384, 388,
390 sqq., 401 ; 412 ; and Spain, 416 sq.,
419 sq. ; 456 sq. ; 429 ; leaves Spain,
432 ; and the peace negotiations, ib. ;
elected Emperor, 434 ; and the Peace of
Utrecht, 434, 438 sqq., 450 sq. ; and the
Peace of Bastatt, 435 sq., 452 sqq. ; and
the Catalans, 445 sq. ; and the Peace of
Baden, 454 sq. ; and the Tsarevich, 539 ;
and Peter the Great, 542; 543; 704;
744

VII, Emperor. See Bavaria, Charles

Albert, Elector of

I, King of England, 92 ; and Ireland,

103 ; 105 ; 216 ; and Scotland, 279 sq.,
283 sq., 291; and the Puritans, 325;
326; 746

n. King of England, policy of

(1667-85), Chap. IX; and the govern-
ment of Scotland, Chap. X (2) ; in
Holland, 148; lands at Dover, 280;
and Portugal, 34, 105, 107, 148; and
Louis XIV, 37, 40, 42, 44 sqq., 105 sq.,
109, 154 ; and the United Provinces,
37, 43 sqq., 107, 178 sq. ; the restoration
and policy of, 92 sq. ; 94 ; 96 ; 98 ; and
religious toleration, 99 sqq., 329, 333 sq.;

936

Index.

and Clarendon, 101 sq., 114 ; and Spain,
104 sq. ; marriage of, 105 ; and the
Prince of Orange, 107, 158, 163 ; and
the Dutch war, 108 sq. ; financial
difSculties of, 110 sqq. ; and the peace
negotiations, 112 sq. ; and the army,
113, 265 ; and the Parliament, 114 sq. ;
124 ; Dryden and, 134 sqq. ; and the
Bishop of Miinster, 150, 182; and the
Triple Alliance, 154, 191; and the
Treaty of Dover, 154, 156; 177; and
the fleet, 178, 187 sq. ; declares war
against the Dutch (1665), 180; 187;
190; declares war against the Dutch
(1672), 191 ; 197 ; and Ireland, 301 sqq.,
310; religion of, 331; 359; and Dun-
kirk, 442; 650; and Brazil, 675; and
colonial affairs, 690 ; and the East India
Company, 697 ; and Hobbes, 751 ; death
of, 230, 288
Charles VIII, King of Prance, 483

II, King of Spain, character and

rule of, 34 sq. ; marriages of, ih. ; 45 ;
49; 62; and William of Orange, 244;
338 ; 349 ; accession of, 373 ; admini-
stration under, 374 sqq. ; 377 ; infirmity
of, 379 sq. ; 381 ; 383 ; and the succes-
sion, 384 sq., 391 sq. ; death of, 393
will of, 392 sqq., 401 ; 395 ; 459 ; 523
591 ; and the League of Augsburg, 655
659; 664

IX, King of Sweden, 578

X Gustavns, King of Sweden, and

the Baltic struggle, 146 sq. ; and Den-
mark, 344, 562 ; and Poland, 344, 349,
505 ; 558 ; and the succession, 563 ; and
the Hetman Chmielnicki, 699 ; 643 :
death of, 147, 344

XI, King of Sweden, 49 ; 527 ;

563 ; government of, 567 ; 568 ; and the
war of Scania, 569 sq. ; and the peace
treaties of 1679, 571; character of, 572;
and his advisers, 573 sq. ; and the
"Beduction" of 1680, 574 sq. ; domestic
policy of, 577 sq. ; and Gottorp, ib. ;
580 ; and Charles XII, 384 sq. ; and
Patkul, 586; and the League of Augsburg,
655 ; death of, 576, 579, 584

XII, King of Sweden, 417 ; 527 ; 572 ;

576; 579; and Denmark, 580 sqq.; in-
vades Norway, 583; character and train-
ing of, 684 sq. ; coronation of, 585; 586;
and the Duke of Gottorp, 680, 587; and
the great Northern War, 587 sqq.; at
Narva, 588 sq.; and Augustus II, 589,
592; invades Poland, 592; and Stanis-
laus Leszczynski, 693; treaty of, with
Augustus II, 595 ; and the Eussian peace
overtures, 596; enters Grodno, 697; at
Holowczyn, 598; and Mazepa, 699 sq.;
in the Ukraine, 600 ; defeated atPoltawa,
601; in Turkey, 602 sqq.; at Bender,
606; rejects the neutrality compact, 607;
680; and the "Stettin Sequestration,"
609; at Stralsund, 610 sq.; and the

third auti-Swedish league, 611; in Scania,
612 ; and the peace negotiations with
Bussia, 613 sq. ; 659; and Frederick I
of Prussia, 666 sq. ; death of, 583, 614
Charles the Bold, Duke of Burgundy, 488

Emmanuel III, King of Sardinia

(Prince of Piedmont), 432

Charlotte, Tsaritsa, 538
Charnock, Job, founder of Calcutta, 699
Charterhouse, James II and the, 335
Ch^teauneuf, Pierre-Antoine de Castag-

n^res. Marquis de, French Minister at

the Hague, 610
Chatham, 169 ; the Dutch attack on, 150

sq., 154, 188
Cherkasky, Alexander, Prince, 644

Alexis, Prince, 557

Chernaya Napa, Swedish reverse at, 598
Chernigoff, annexed by Ivan the Great,

479 sq.; 504

Prince of, 481

Chester, James II and Tyrconnol at, 307 ;

William III sails from, 313
Chesterfield, Philip Dormer Stanhope,

fourth Earl of, 70
Cheynell, Francis, and Chillingworth, 746
Chiabrera, Gabriello, Italian poet, 69
Chiari, Imperial army at, 402
Chicheley, Sir John, Eear-admiral, 196
Chichester, William Chillingworth at, 746
Chigi, Pabio. See Alexander VII, Pope
Child, Sir Francis, banker, 266

Sir John, Governor of Bombay, 698 sq.

Sir Josia, chairman of the East

India Company, 699 sqq.

Chili, the Spaniards in, 683
Chillingworth, William, 326; 332; 745 sqq.
China, route to, 612; Bussia and, 644
Chinsura, capitulation of, 697
Chios, attacked by the Venetians, 365
Chmielnicki, Bogdan, Hetman of Little

Bussia, 504 sq. ; 699
Chretien, Michael, and Gallioanism, 76
Christian Brothers, the, 79
IV, King of Denmark, 561

V, King of Denmark, 44; 561;

war of, with Sweden, 668, 570 ; and the
Treaty of Fontalnebleau, 671 ; 578 sq.

first bishop of Prussia, 629

Christiania, occupied by the Swedes, 583
Christiansborg, Slave Coast station, 691
Christina, Queen of Sweden, abdication of,

146; 564:; 744; and the Great Elector,

639, 641
Churchill, John, Duke of Marlborough. See

Marlborough
Ciampini, Giovanni Giustino, founder of

the Accademia fisico-matematica, 704 sq.
Gibber, CoUey, dramatist, 129
Cistercian Order, in Brandenburg, 619
Ciudad Bodrigo, captured, 416
Clarendon, Edward Hyde, first Earl of,

93 sq. ; and the religious settlement,

96; 97; 100; charged with high treason,

101 ; and Parliament, 102 ; opposes acta

Index.

937

against Irish trade, 104 ; foreign polioy
of, ih. ; and the marriage of Charles II,
105; 106; and the Dutch war, 108 ; 113;
the fall of, 114; exile of, 115; 136; 198;
polioy of, 190 ; 201 sq. ; 231 ; Scottish
Privy Councillor, 280; 305; 333; 745
Clarendon, Edward Hyde, third Earl of.
See Cornbury, Viscount

Henry Hyde, second Earl of. Lord

Lieutenant of Ireland, 234, 306; 247; and
the Bevolution settlement, 249 sq. ; 255 sq,

Claudia Felicitas, Empress, 211
Clement IX (Giulio Eospigliosi), Pope, and
Charles II, of England, 202, and Jan-
senism, 84, 89 sq.; 202; 420; and the
Peace of Baden, 454 sq. ; and the Prussian
monarchy, 665 sq.; 743
Clermont, county of, ceded to France, 33
Clermont-en-Auvergne, royal commission

at, 16
Oleves, the French in, 406, 650 ; 627 sq. ;
640 sq.; 649; 655; 668

Treaty of, 645

Duke of. See Frederick I, King of

Prussia
Clifford of Chudleigh, Thomas, Lord, 198 ;
201 sq. ; signs the Treaty of Dover, 204 ;
205; Lord Treasurer, 207; 209; and the
Test Act, 210 ; resigns, 333
Clive, Eobert, Lord Chve, in India, 697
Clonmel, captured by William HI, 315
Clusius, Carolus. See L'Eoluse
Cocceius (Koch), Johanu, theologian,

754 sq. ; 757
Cochins, Christian, Prussian Court preacher,

671
Code Louis, 16
Codrington, Christopher, Governor of the

Leeward Islands, 690
Coeverden, Dutch success at, 160
Coke, Sir Edward, Lord Coke, 252
Colbert, Ohailes, Marquis de Croissy,
French ambassador in England, 203 sq. ;
209; 211

Jean-Baptiste, Marquis de Seignelay,

French statesman, 1; 4sq.; andFouquet,
6 ; character and aims of, 6 sqq. ; and
taxation reforms, 8 sq. ; industrial and
commercial projects of, 10 sqq. ; and the
war with Holland, 10; and the French
colonies, 13, 684; and the internal cus-
toms of France, 13 ; and the improve-
ment of canals and roads, 14 ; and the
French navy, 14 ; creates five new Aca-
demies, 15; and the administration of
justice, 16; rivalry of, with Louvois,
16 sq. ; 22 ; 25 ; and the municipalities,
27 ; 39 ; and the dispute with the Papacy,
85; 200; and the African trade, 692;
and India, 702; and the Acadimie des
Sciences, 741; death of, 17, 28

Jean-Baptiste (the younfeer). See

Seignelay, Marquis de

Colchester, the plague in, 110
Coldstream Guards, 113

Coleman, Edward, and the Popish Plot,

220 sqq.
Coleraine, fugitives in, 307 sq.; 309
Coleridge, Samuel Taylor, 122
Coligny, Jean de, French general, 347
College, Stephen, conviction of, 228
Collier, Jeremy, 128; 130
Collins, Samuel, physician to the Tsar

Alexis, 513
Colmar, victory of Turenne at, 44
Cologne, treaty of, with Louis XIV, 42;
peace conference at, 43 ; election of arch-
bishop of, 54 sq., 63; war of, with the
United Provinces, 157 sq. ; 161 ; 435

Joseph Clement, Elector of, 53 sqq. ;

404; 455

Maximilian Henry, Elector of, 54

ColombuB, Bealdus, 725

Colson, John, mathematician, 718
Company of Boyal Adventurers trading to

Africa, 691
Compton, Henry, Bishop of London, 233 sq. ;

242; 255; suspended, 335
Oond6, taken by the French, 44; 45; 457 sq.
Henri-Jules de Bourbon, Prince de

(Duo d'Enghien), 349
Louis II de Bourbon, Prince de, at

Seneff, 44, 161; 45; in Franohe Comt^,

200, 373; 256; 340; and the Polish crown,

849 sq.; 411; 650
Congreve, William, dramatist, 128; 130;

132 sq. ; the Incognita of, 136
Coningsby, Thomas, Earl Coningsby, Irish

Lord Justice, 220
Conseil d'Etat, 3

des Depeches, 3

des Finances, 3

Prive, 3

Constance, Lake of, 408
Constantino I (the Great), Emperor of
Borne, 484

VIII, Emperor of Eome, 483

IX Monomakhos, Emperor of Eome,

483 sq.

Palaiologos, Emperor of Eome, 482

Constantinople, anarchy in,367;368;515

Treaty of (1724), 545

Conti, Fran(jois-Louis de Bourbon, Prince

of, 370 ; 449
Cooper, Anthony Ashley. See Shaftesbury,

first Earl of
Copenhagen, besieged by the Swedes, 147

658 ; the coup d'etat at, 559 sq. ; 561

581; the plague at, 682; 683; 610 sq.

Peter the Great at, 612

Treaty of (1727), 551

Copernicus, Nicolaus, 708; 713
Corbet, John, puritan author, 331

Miles, regicide, 149

Corinth, occupied by the Venetians, 365
Cork, 308; taken by Marlborough, 316
Cornbury, Edward Hyde, Viscount (after

wards third Earl of Clarendon), 255
Comeille, Pierre, 66 sqq. ; 125
Corocoro, si,lver mines at, 682

938

Index.

Coromanclel, the Great Elector and, 646;
the Dutch in, 695, 697

Corzana, Count, Imperial plenipotentiary
at Utrecht, 439

Cotes, Eoger, mathematician, 720

Oonrland, 494; S55; Charles XII in, 592;
594 ; Swedish occupation of, 666 ; Prussia
and, 667

Anne, Duchess of. See Anne, Em-
press of Eussia
Frederick William, Duke of, 550

Courtray, Spain and, 45, 63; 199; 416

Coventry, Henry, envoy to Sweden, 109;
and the Treaty of Breda, 112

Sir William, Secretary to the Duke

of York, 113; 183; 210; 216

Cowley, Abraham, 129; 132; and the
Philosophical College, 740; 745

Cowper, William, first Earl Cowper, 446;
465; 469

Cracow, 480; the Swedes in, 505; 592

Cradock, Erancis, and the scheme for a
national bank, 266

Crawford, William Lindsay, eighteenth
Earl of, 292

Cremona, raid on, by Prince Eugene, 403

Cr^quy de Blanohefort, Franfois, Marshal
of France, 44

Crete. See Candia

Crew, Nathaniel, Bishop of Durham, 234

Crimea, Bussia and, 343, 368, 479, 493
Khan of, 504; 506; 521; 599

Croatia, 352

Croft, Herbert, Bishop of Hereford, 331;
334

Cromwell, Oliver, and Portugal, 105, 107;
and Mazarin, 106; and the Dutch Be-
pubhc, 138, 140 sqq., and Nieuwpoort,
146; 178; 266; and Ireland, 315; and
the religious sects, 327 sq. ; 333; and
Spain, 372, 375, 378; 386; the Elector
Frederick William and, 648; 680; 697

Cronsbruch, Caspar Florenz, Baron von,
at Utrecht, 439

Crowne, John, dramatist, 126 sq. ; 132 ; 186

Croy, Prince Carl Eugene de, 369; 589

Crynssen, Abraham, captures Tobago, 152

Cuba, a Spanish possession, 687

Cudworth, Balph, Cambridge Flatonist, 750
sq.; 753

CuUoden, battle of, 326

Culmbach, 622

Culmlaud, the, and Poland, 629; and the
German Order, 630; 634

CulverweU, Nathanael, Cambridge Fla-
tonist, 752

Cumana, Dutch trade with, 688

Cumberland, Bichard, Bishop of Peter-
borough, 753

Ciistrin, the Great Elector at, 639

Curai;oa, contraband trade at, 684; 687

Cyprus, 342

Daghestan, Bussia and, 545

Dahlberg, Erik, Swedish general, 569; 587

Dalmatia, Venetian conquests in, 306, 371

Dalrymple. See Stair

Dalziel, Sir Thomas, at Bullion Green,

284; 288
Danby, Earl of. See Leeds, Duke of
Danckelmann, Eberhard von, Prussian

statesman, 647; 658; 662 sq.

Nicolas von, Brandenburg Minister

at Vienna, 663

Dangerfield, Thomas, perjurer, 231
Danzig, besieged by the Swedes, 146;
611; Brandenburg and, 620; 629; the
German Order and, 631 ; 634 ; and Poland,
636; 638

Treaty of, 611

Darien Expedition, the, 296
Dartmouth, George Legge, Lord, 262
Daun, Wirich Philipp Lorenz, Count,

captures Naples, 419; 425
Dauphinfi, invaded by the Duke of Savoy, 60
D'Avenant, Sir William, dramatist, 125 sq. ;

136; 745
Day, Francis, builder of Fort St George, 698
Deane, Sir Anthony, Commissioner of the

English navy, 170 sq. ; 177
Deccan, Auraugzeb and the, 699
Defoe, Daniel, 396; 467; 468 sq.
Delamere, Henry Booth, Lord, supports

the Prince of Orange, 246
Delhi, the interregnum at, 697 ; 701
Demoivre, Abraham, mathematician, 716
Denaiu, battle of, 433 sq.
Dendermonde, captured by Marlborough,

416; 457; 459
Denia, capture of, 426
Denmark, 1660-75, Chap. XVIII (1) ; 1679
-1720, Chap. XVIII (3) ; and France,
33, 41, 49, 54, 56; and the United
Provinces, 87, 142, 161, 164; and Sweden,
40, 45, 53, 562, 568 sq., 571, 614 sq. ;
at war with Sweden, 146 sq., 344, 403,
SCO ; joins the Emperor's coalition, 43 ;
58; and the Anglo-Dutch war, 109 ; joins
the Quadruple Alliance, ib.; treaty of,
with England, 269; and Bussia, 482; and
Livonia, 493 sq. ; and Schleswig, 550 ;
joins the Hanoverian Alliance, 551, 586 ;
and the great Northern War, 587 sq.;
and the anti-Swedish leagues, 602, 608,
610 sq. , 651 ; invaded by the Swedes, 609 ;
and Saxony, ih.; 612; and Coromandel,
646; and the Peace of Nymegen, 652; 6fl6
Deptford, Peter the Great at, 523
Derbent, Peter the Great at, 544; 545
Derby, Duke of Devonshire in arms at, 246
Dernei, Anton, printer, 531
Derry, revolt of, 307; 308; siege of, 309,

311 sq., 315
Desalliers, French Minister in Transylvania,

596
Desargues, Gerard, mathematician, 710
Descartes, Ben^, influence of, on French
literature, 64 sqq.; and Leibniz, 69; and
Catholicism, 72 sq. ; 82; and mathe-
matical science, 710 sqq.; 714 sq. ; 719;

Index.

939

723; 733 sq.; 739; 741; and Queen

Christina, 744; 750; 752; 75S
Desmarets, Nicolas, French financier, 28
Desna river, Lithuanian boundary, 481
Devonshire, William Cavendish, first Duke

(third Earl) of, 216; 240; 242; 246
Dias, Henrique, leader in the Brazilian

revolt, 674
Diderot, Denis, 70 sq.
Diego, St, of Alcaic, Charles II and, 379
Dieppe, the Duo de Beaufort's fleet at, 187
Digby, George, Barl of Bristol. See Bristol
Dijon, Parlement of, 4
DiUingen, Franco-Bavarian force at, 408;

410
Dimitri, son of Ivan IV, Tsar, 495 sq.; 499

the Bussian Pretender, 497 sqq.;

524; 548

Diodati, Charles, friend of Milton, 118
Dippel, Johann Conrad, pietist, 761
Dispositio Achillea, 624; 656
Dixmude, taken by the Allies, 62
Dnieper river, 505; Cossack fortress on, 601
Dodoeus, Biembert, botanist, 734
Dohna, Christophorus Delphicus, Count
van, Swedish envoy at the Hague, 152 sq.
Dolgoruki, Alexis, Prince, 555

Catherine, Princess, 555

George, founder of Moscow, 477

Vasily, Prince, Bussian ambassador

in Sweden, 551

Vasily Lukich, Prince, Bussian

statesman, 553 sq.

Vasily Vladimirovich, Prince, Bus-
sian general, 554

Dolman, Colonel, envoy in Holland, 140

Dominica, the French and, 687

Donauworth, battle of, 409

Dopping, Anthony, Bishop of Meath, 320

Doreslaer, Isaac, 138

Doroszenko, Cossack Hetman, 353 ; 355 ;

599 ,
Dorpat, 547; siege of, 591
Dorset, the "Bloody Assizes" in, 232
Dort, Synod of, 742; 744; 753
Dositheus, Bishop of Bostoff, 540
Douay, taken by the •French, 199; 434;

325 sq.; siege of, 428 sq.; 746
Douglas, Lt. -General, besieges Athlone, 315
James, Duke of Queensberry. See

Queensberry
William, Duke of Hamilton. See

Hamilton
WiUiam, Duke of Queensberry. See

Queensberry
Dover, Charles II lands at, 280
Treaty of, 40 sqq. ; 154 ; 156 ; 191 ;

203 sqq.; 207; 210; 212; 233
Down, County, Schomberg lands in, 312
Downing, Sir George, ambassador at the

Hague, 107; 148 sq.
Drente, invaded, 150, 157
Dresden, Patkul at, 586, 594; 602; 620
Drogheda, WUUam HI at, 261; 309; 314
Dromore, rout of Protestant force at, 307 sq.

Drucz river, Charles XII crosses, 598
Drumclog, Claverhouse defeated at, 285
Drummond, James, Earl of Perth. See
Perth
John, English merchant in Amster-
dam, 432
Dryden, John, 122 ; 125 ; heroic plays of,
i26 sq. ; comedies of, 129 sq. ; 131;
poems of, 132; prose writings of, 132 sq.;
satires of, 133 sqq.; and Shadwell, 134;
religious poems of, 135 ; conversion of,
135, 234; 228
Dublin, 261 ; Convention of Estates at,
301 ; James II at, 308, 315 ; 312 ; 314 ;
William HI at, 815
Dubois, Guillaume, Cardinal, 90
Ducasse, Jean-Baptiste, French seaman,

69; 691
Du Chayla, Abbfi, murder of, 26
Du Olerc, French seaman, 679
Dvinewald, Johann Heinrich, Count von,

Austrian general, 367
Diisseldorf, school of the Beformed Church

at, 757
Dnguay-Trouin, Ken 4, French admiral, 59;

679
Duisburg, University of, 656
Duma, in Bussia, 484 sq. ; 491 sq. ; 502
Dumfries, Treaty of Union burnt at, 299
Dumfriesshire, recusants in, 283
Dumont, Jean, the Letter to an Englishman

of, 451
Du Moulin, Peter, 743
Dun, ceded to France, 33
Dunamiinde, Swedish victory at, 593
Duncan, Major-General, defeated at

Fyllebro, 569
Duucannon, captured by William III, 315
Dundalk, Schomberg at, 312 sqq.
Dundee, John Graham of Claverhouse,
Viscount, 285 ; 288 ; 291 sqq. ; death of,
312
Dunkeld, Bishop of. See Bruce, Andrew
Dunkirk, 14 ; 104 ; transferred to France,
106; 113; 423; 433; 440; and the
Anglo-French treaty, 442
Dunnottar Castle, prisoners in, 289
Duquesne, Abraham, French seaman, 44;

162; 183
Du Eyer, Pierre, French dramatic poet, 68
Dussen, Bruno van der, Dutch diplomatist,

422; 427 sq.; 439
Dutch Bepublio. See United Provinces
Du Vair, Guillaume, Bishop of Liaieux, 72
Duvergier de Hauranue, Jean, Abb6 de

Saint-Cyran, 82 sq.
Dyevichesky monastery, 523
Dykvelt, Everhard van Weede, Heer van,
Dutch envoy in England, 235 ; 240 sq.

East African Company (Dutch), 647
East India Company (Brandenburg), 646

(Dutch), 138; 149; 693; 702

(English), 108; 138; 149; 178 sq. ;

274; 692; operations and policy of.

940

Index.

697 sqq. ; establishment of the new com-
pany, 700 ; union of the two companies,
701; 704 sq.

East India Company (French), 12 sq.

East Indies, 107 ; Dutch and English in,
108, 148 sq., 151, 154, 179

Eokeren, the Allies defeated at, 407

Edam, and the Act of Seclusion, 143

Edinburgh, Dutch naval demonstration
against, 188; 226; prisoners at, 286;
the Pope's effigy burnt at, 287 ; execu-
tions at, 287, 289 sq. ; 291 ; 299

Edward VI, King of England, 325 ; 513

Egypt, Leibniz and, 696

Ehrenberg, Philip Adolf von, Bishop of
Wiirzburg, 758

Elbe river, the Northern Mark and, 617;
618; 627; 646

Elbing, 146; acquired by Poland, 634;
638 ; 641 ; 667

Eleonora Magdalena, Empress, 35

Eleonora Maria, Queen of Poland, 41;
350; 354

Elizabeth, Princess Palatine. See Pala-
tinate

Queen of Bohemia, 639 sq.

Queen of England, and religious

toleration, 325, 330; Bull against, 326

Tsesarevna (afterwards Empress of

Eussia), 543; 547; 552 sq.

Christina (of Brunswick-Wolfen-

buttel), Empress, 432; 744

Elsaas. See Alsace

Enghien, Anne Benodicta (of Bavaria),
Duchesse de, 349

Duo de. See Cond^, Henri- Jules

de Bourbon, Prince de

England, the Stewart Eestoration in,
Chap. V; literature of the Bestoration
in', Chap. VI; and the United Provinces
(1651-88), Chap. VII passim; Naval
administration in (1660-88), Chap. VIII
(1) ; the wars of, with the Dutch (1664-
74), Chap. Vin (2); under Charles 11
and James II (1667-87), Chap. IX;
the Eevolution and the Eevolution
Settlement in (1687-1702), Chap. X (1) ;
religious toleration in. Chap. XI; party
government in, under Queen Anne,
Chap. XV; and India, Chap. XXII (2)
passim ; and chartered companies, 12 ;
and the Eevooation of the Edict of
Nantes, 25 ; and France, 32 sq., 46, 50
aq., 151; and the United Provinces, 36
sq., 43 sq; and the Triple Alliance, 38
aqq., 152, 273; and the French siege
of Luxemburg, 48 sq. ; European influ-
ence of the Eevolution in, 63 sq., 56
sq. ; projected French invasion of, 59,
62; and the Peace of Eyswyk, 63; French
influence on the literature of, 70 sq.;
and intervention between Sweden and
Denmark, 147; trade of, with Scotland,
288; and Irish trade, 322 sq. ; Irish
troops in (1688), 307; and the Treaty

of Limerick, 320; and the Union with
Scotland, 297 sqq. ; and Spain, 372,
447 sq., 555; and the Spanish Succes-
sion, 377 sqq., 401; commerce of, with
Spain, 378 sq. ; and the foreign policy
of William III, 386 sq., 397; attitude
of, towards Philip V of Spain, 396 sq.;
and the recognition of "James III" by
Louis XIV, 399 sq. ; and France, 403 sq. ;
and the Mediterranean, 411 sq. ; and
Portugal, 412 ; , peace negotiations with
France, 417, 422 sq., 427 sqq.; and the
Grand Alliance, 431; 436; and the Peace
of Utrecht, 437 sqq. ; maritime trade
of, 439; treaty of, with France (1713),
440 sqq. ; and the Brazilian trade, 448 ;
and the Peace of Baden, 454 sq. ; and
the Asiento, 455, 684; and Eusso-Turkish
affairs, 523, 527, 543; and Eussia, 543,
550 sq., 555; and the Hanoverian Alli-
ance, 550 sq.; and Sweden, 566, 568,
607, 615 ; and the Barrier Treaties, 457
sq. ; and the Treaty of Frederiksborg,
583 ; 595 ; anti-Eussian feeling in, 607 sq. ;
and Poland, 608; and the third anti-
Swedish league, 611 ; and Brandenburg,
649 sq., 653; and the French campaign
against the United Provinces, 650; and
the Peace of Nymegen, 652; and the
Second Partition Treaty, 664; colonies
of, in North America, 685 ; colonial policy
of, 686; and the West Indies, 687 sqq.;
and the West African settlements, 693;
maritime and commercial ascendancy of,
694; scientific societies in, 740; Latliu-
dinarianism in, 742, 744 eqq., 763 ;
Quakers in, 757
Enkhuizen, and the Act of Seclusion, 143
Enniskillen, revolt at, 307; 308 sq.; 311 sq.
Enzheim, victory of Turenne at, 44
Eperies, submits to Austria, 366; 367
Ephimiefi, Savva, Eussian anti-Polish

leader, 502
Episcopius, Simon, 744
Erlau, captured by the Austrians, 367
Erie, Thomas, English general, 421
Errestfer, battle of, 590
Erzerum, war stores at, 545
Erzgebirge, mines of the, 738
Escobar y Mendoza, Antonio, Jesuit, 81
Essek, 359; 863; taken by the Austrians,

367; 369
Essex, Arthur Capel, Earl of, 222; 224;
229 sq. ; Lord Lieutenant of ' Ireland,
BOS; 745
EsterMzy, Paul, Palatine of Hungary, 357
Esthonia, 614 ; ceded to Eussia, 615
Estrades, Oodefroi, Count de, French am-
bassador at the Hague, 106 sq. ; 149 ;
152
Estr6e9, Jean de, Vice-admiral,^ Marshal of

France, 165 ; 194 sqq. ; 688
Estremadura, the Allies in, 416, 426
Etherege, Sir George, dramatist, 129 sq.
Euclid, 707

Index.

941

Eudes de Mfezerai, Jean, Abb^, 79
Eudozia, Tsaritsa, 520, becomes "Sistei

Elena," 525 ; 537 ; trial of, 540 ; 553
Eugene Francis, Prince of Savoy-Oarignan,
61 ; 340 sq. ; 848 ; joins the Imperial
army, 360; 366; at Zenta, 370; 401;
in Italy, 402 sqq., 405, 407; 408; joins
Marlborough, 409 ; at Blenheim, 410 sq. ;
in Italy (1705-6), 414 sqq. ; at Vienna,
414 ; invades Provence, 418 sq. ; attacks
Toulon, 419 ; 420; at Oudenarde, 421 ;
423 sq.; at Malplaquet, 425 sq. ; 429;
431; mission of to London, 432 sq.,
439 ; success of TUlars against, 433 sq. ;
on the Bhine, 434 sq,, 451; and the
Peace of Bastatt, 435, 452; 436; 450;
458 ; and the Polish throne, 596

Eustatia, in possession of the Dutch, 687

Evelyn, John, 124 ; and the Boyal Society,
740

Evertsen, Cornells, Dutch vice-admiral,
183; death of, 186

Cornells (the younger), Dutch naval

officer, reconquers New Netherland, 161

Evora, Don John of Austria defeated at,
34

Evreimofi, Bussian geodesiat, 635

Examiner, The, newspaper, 469

Exeter, the Prince of Orange at, 246

Fabricius ab Aquapendente, Hieronymus,

anatomist, 724; 726; 728; 737
Fagel, Caspar, Pensionary of Holland, 156 ;
elected Grand Pensionary, 159; 164;
239; 245
Fagg, Sir John, M.P. for Steyning, 217
Falkland, Lucius Gary, second Viscount,

745 sq.; 753
Fallopius, Gabriello, anatomist, 724
Fanshawe, Sir Eichard, and Portugal, 105 ;

in Spain, 109
Farmer, Anthony, and Magdalen College,

238
Farquhar, George, dramatist, 128; 131
Faversham, James II at, 248
Fehrbellin, battle of, 44 sq., 568
Felixstowe, Dutch landing at, 189
Femem, naval battle off, 570
F^nelon, Francois de Salignac de la Mothe,

28 sq.; 78 sq. ; 88; 90
Fenestrelles, capture of, 425
Fenwick, Sir John, execution of, 262
Ferdinand I, Emperor (King of Hungary
and Bohemia), 339; 366; 625 sq.

II, Emperor, 338; 351

ni, Emperor, 338 ; 340 ; and Poland,

844; marriage of, 376; 640 sq., and the
Great Elector, 642 sq.

II, Grand Duke of Tuscany, 740

V, King of Spain, 483

Maria, Elector of Bavaria. See

Bavaria
Ferguson, Eobert, the "Plotter," 229
Fermat, Pierre de, mathematician, 711 sq. ;
715; 723

Feuqui^res, Isaac, French ambassador in

Sweden, 566; 568 sqq.; 573 sq.
Feversham, Louis Duras, Earl of, 232;

247 sq.
Fielding, Henry, 131
Fiennes, William, Viscount Saye and Sele.

See Saye
Filicaya, Vincenzo da, Italian poet, 69
Filmer, Sir Eobert, the Fatriarcha of,

228, 254
Finale, marquisate of, 384, 389
Finch, Daniel, Earl of Nottingham. See
Nottingham

Heneage, Earl of Nottingham. See

Nottingham
Finland, Peter the Great in, 538; 603;

609; 614 sq.
Firmian, Leopold A. E., Count von, Arch-
bishop of Salzburg, 743
Fisher, John, Jesuit, 746
Fitzgerald, Colonel, at Blackheath, 209
Fitzjames, James, Duke of Berwick. See

Berwick
Fitzroy, Henry, Duke of Grafton. See

Grafton
Flacourt, Etienne de, in Madagascar, 702
Flamsteed, John, astronomer, 721
Flanders, the French in, 62, 112, 199,
420 sqq.; French acquisitions in, 153,
373; Marlborough in, 416; 425; and
the Third Barrier Treaty, 459
Flfehier, Esprit, Bishop of Nimes, 16 ; 79
Fleoknoe, Eichard, poet, 134
Fleming, Klas, Swedish statesman, 573
sq.; 576

Paul, German poet, 68

Fletcher, Giles, envoy to Eussia, 514
Fleurus, battle of, 59, 261, 661
Fleury, Andr^ Hercule, Cardinal, 90; 543
Florence, John Milton in, 118 ; the Council

of, 482 sq. ; the Academies of, 739 sq.
Floriszoon, Pieter, Dutch vice-admiral, 147
Fontainebleau, Treaty of, 45, 571
Ford, John, dramatist, 126
Formosa, Chinese rising in, 696
Fort James, on the Gambia, 692
Fort St George, 697 sq.
Forth, Firth of, Dutch fleet in, 188
Poncault, Nicolas-Joseph, 24
Fouquet, Nicolas, Vioomte de Melun et

de Vaux, 6

Fourilles, French cavalry inspector, 18

Fowler, Edward, Bishop of Gloucester, 752

Fox, George, Quaker, 328

France {see also Louis XIV), under Louis

XIV (1661-1715), Chap. I ; foreign policy of

(1661-97), Chap. II; Seventeenth Century

Literature of, Chap. HI ; the Church in.

Chap. IV; and England, 105 sq., 112,

151, 440 sqq. ; and intervention between

Sweden and Denmark, 147 ; and the

United Provinces, 149, 152 sq., 157 sq.,

160 sqq., 443 sq., 446 sq.; aids the

Dutch against England, 182; regains

Nova Scotia, 189; English antipathy to

942

Index.

(1673), 197 ; Charles II of England and,
199, 359; the Triple Alliance and, 200;
and the Peace of Nymegen, 220, 652;
James II of England and, 241, 243,
247 sq., 315 ; and Ireland, 260 ; and La
Hogue, 261 ; and Austria, 338 ; and
Poland, 349 sq., 354 sqq., 359 sq. ; and
Turkey, 355 sq„ 369; the Emperor
Leopold and, 349, 368; and Spain, 872
sq., 555; and the Spanish Succession,
377 sqq. ; commerce of, with Spain, 378 ;
and the Grand Alliance, 398, 403, 666 ;
campaign of, against the Allies, 404 sqq.;
and peace negotiations, 417, 420 sqq.,
427, 430; and the Peace of Utrecht, 433,
437 sqq.; and the Peace of Bastatt, 435
sq.,452; treaties of with Savoy, Portugal,
and Prussia, 448; and the principality
of Orange, 450; and the Empire, 450,
543 ; and the Peace of Eyswyk, 453 ;
and the Peace of Baden, 454 sq. ; and
the Barrier Treaties, 456 sqq.; Boling-
broke in, 473 ; and Busso-Turkish affairs,
523, 527; and Bussia, 543, 596; and
the "Hanoverian Alliance," 650 sq. ;
Frederick III of Denmark and, 560; and
Sweden, 566, 571 sq., 591 ; and the Treaty
of Frederiksborg, 583; alliance of, with
Bussia and the United Provinces (1717),
613 ; and the Great Elector, 644, 649 sq.,
653 ; and Brunswick-Liineburg, 655 ; 661 ;
and the Second Partition Treaty, 664 ;
and South America, 679 ; colonies of, in
North America, 442, 684 ; and the West
Indies, 687 sq. ; and West Africa, 692 ;
rivalry of, with England in America,
694 sq. ; and India, 702 sqq.; scientific
societies in, 740 sq.
Franche GomtS, Estates of, 4; 36; 38
relinquished by France, 39, 153; 41; 43
ceded to France, 45, 165; 46; 164; 200
220; 373; 423; 449; Prussia and, 669
Francis I, Emperor, 354

King of France, 625

— ^ II E&k6ozy, Prince of Transylvania.
See Transylvania

Alban, Benedictine, 237 sq.

de Sales, Saint, 78

Fraucke, August Hermann, and the Halle

Pietists, 760
Frauconia, 622; 624
Frangipani, Francis, and the Hungarian

conspiracy, 351 sq.
Frankfort, Imperial election at, 431
Frankfort-on-the-Oder, University of, 624
Fraustadt, Swedish victory at, 594
Frederick I (Barbarossa), Emperor, 620 ; 630

II, Emperor, 630 ; 665

in. Emperor, 623 ; 634

I, King of Denmark, 635

— — ■ III, King of Denmark, 558; and
the coup d'etat of 1660, 659 sq. ; policy
of, 560 ; 561 ; and Sweden, 146 sq., 562;
579

lY, King of Denmark, accession of,

680 ; and the anti-Swedish leagues, 580,
687, 602; and the great Northern War,
580 sqq. ; and the Treaty of Frederiksborg,
583; 607; 611 sq. ; and Frederick 1 of
Prussia, 666
Frederick I, King of Prussia (Frederick HI,
Elector of Brandenburg), 55 ; supports
William of Orange, 244; 438; claims
Upper Gelders as Duke of Cleves, 448;
449 sq. ; 581; and the anti-Swedish leagues,
593 sq. ; 602 ; and the Schwiebus Circle,
655, 658 sq. ; iUness of, 656 ; and the
Great Elector's will, ib. ; Elector of
Brandenburg, 658; aspirations of, 660;
and the expedition of William of Orange,
ib. ; aids the Emperor against France and
the Turks, 661 ; and the Peace of Byswyk,
ib. ; negotiates as to a royal crown,
663 sqq. ; coronation of, 666 ; and the
Grand Alliance, 666 ; and the Northern
War, 666 sq. ; aUianoe of, with Sweden,

667 ; and Poland, ib. ; foreign policy of,

668 sq.; and the Orange inheritance, ib.;
and the Empire, 669 ; economic and
intellectual progress under, 669 sq. ;
religious views of, 671; results of his
reign, 672 ; and the Academy of Sciences,
741; and Christian Wolf, 760; death of,
668

n (the Great), King of Prussia, 643 ;

671

King of Sweden (Landgrave of Hesse-

Cassel), 408; 655

Augustus, Elector of Saxony. See

Augustus II, King of Poland

William, Elector of Brandenburg

(the Great Elector), and the persecution
of French Protestants, 22, 25 ; 37 ; and
Louis XIV, 41 sq., 47 ; and the United
Provinces, 42 ; and the Emperor Leopold,
43 ; at Colmar, 44 ; at Fehrbellin, ib. ;
treaty of, with Sweden, 45 ; and William
of Orange, 52, 107, 244 ; and the Dutch
war with England, 109; joins the
Quadruple Alliance, ib. ; and the Swedish-
Dutch war, 146 ; 344 ; and the Emperor
Leopold, 363, 359, 671; 354; and
Sweden, 563, 668 sqq.; 617; youth and
accession of, 639 sq. ; foreign policy of,
640 sq. ; marriage of, 641 ; administra-
tive reforms by, 642 ; and the army,
642 sq. ; and the Empire, 643 ; and the
duchy of Prussia, 643 sq. ; and the
Bhenish duchies, 645 ; encourages im-
migration and industries, 645 sq. ;
colonial and naval policy of, 646 sq.,
691 ; religious toleration by, 647 sqq. ;
and the Bishop of Miinster, 649; and
England, 649 sq., 653; and France,
649 sq. ; and the war with Sweden,
651 sq. ; and the treaties of Nymegen
and St Germain, 652 ; and the Emperor
Leopold, 652 sqq. ; alliance of, with
France, 663 ; with the United Provinces,
654; and the expedition of William of

Index.

943

Orange, 655; second marriage of, i6.;

death of, 54, 655; the wills of, 656;

character of, ib. ; significance of his reign,

657 ; 660 sq. ; 743
Frederick WiUiam I, King of Prussia, 448 ;

and Frederick IV, of Denmark, 582 sq. ;

and Peter the Great, 542, 612; 611;

647 ; and Danokelmann, 662 ; 668 ; 671
Frederick William Canal, the, 645
Frederikeborg, Danish Slave Coast station,

691

Treaty of, 583

Frederikshald, attacked by the Swedes, 583
Fredrikssten, death of Charles XII at, 614
Freiburg, 45 sq. ; ceded by France, 63;
retaken, 435 ; 436 ; restored, 454

Swiss canton, and NeuoMtel, 449

Fr6jus, Prince Eugene at, 419

Freyre de Andrade, Gomes, Portuguese

general, in Brazil, 678
Fridag, Baron, Imperial ambassador to

Brandenburg, 663
Friedland, Duke of (Albreoht von Wallen-

stein), 338; 372; 638
Friedlingen, Lewis of Baden at, 406
Friesland, and the Eternal Edict, 155 sq. ;

165

John William, Hereditary Stad-

holder of. See Orange, John William
Friso, Prince of

William Frederick, Hereditary Stad-

holder of. See Nassau-Dietz

Frisia, Brandenburg and, 647

Fronde, the, 1; 21; 76; 83

Fronteira, Marquis de, Portuguese general,

426
Fuchs, Iieonhard, botanist, 734

Paul von, Brandenburg statesman,

655; 663

Fiirstenberg, William von. Cardinal, and

the archbishopric of Cologne, 54 sqq.
Fulchi, marshes of, 604
Fumes, the Barrier Treaties and, 457, 459
Fyen, the Swedes expelled from, 147
Fyllebro, Swedish success at, 569

Gabel, Christopher, Danish statesman, 561
Gadebusoh, Swedish victory at, 582; 608
Gagarin, Prince, Governor of Siberia, 535
Galaghan, Colonel, Eussian officer, 601
Galen, Christoph Bernhard von, Bishop of
Munster, 37 ; and Charles II of England,
109, 111; invades the United Provinces,
109, 150 sq., 182; 187; 569; and Sweden,
571; and the Great Elector, 649, 651

Claudius, 723 sqq.; 737

GaUleo GaUlei, 118; 708; 712; the as-
tronomical work of, 713 sq. ; 715 ; 718 ;
723; at Padua, 726
Gahtsin, Demetrius Miohailovich, Prince,
553 sq.; 556

Michael, Prince, Russian general, 554

Tasili Vasilevich, Prince, 518; 521

Gallas, Johann Wenzel, Count von. Im-
perial envoy in London, 432 sq.

Galmoy, Pierce Butler, third Viscount, 309

Galway, 316 sqq.; Articles of, 321, 323

Henri de Massue de Euvigny, Earl of

(Marquis de Euvigny), 23 sq. ; 321; 323;
in Spain, 416, 419, 426

Gambia river, settlements on, 691 sq.

Garda, Lake, Marshal Catinat at, 402

Garth, Sir Samuel, poet, 70

Gascony, Landes of, rising in, 9

Gaultier, Abb6, in London, 430

Gay, John, poet, 70

Gayer, Sir John, Governor of Bombay,
700

Gedimin, Lithuanian chief, 480

Geislingen, Pass of, 409

Geistliche Fama, journal of the Pietists,
761

Gelderland, 148; and the Eternal Edict,
155 ; invaded by the French, 157 ; 161 ;
the Peace of Utrecht and, 447 sqq.

Gelders, 41 ; conquered by Louis XIV, 43 ;
Prussian garrison in, 435 ; 458 sq. ; 658

GeUert, Christian Furchtegott, 63

Gemaurhof, Swedish victory at, 594

Geneva, Milton at, 118; the bank of,
266 sqq.; 270; Labadie at, 756

Genoa, Spanish protectorate over, 50

George I, King of Great Britain (Elector of
Hanover and Duke of Brunswick-Liine-
burg), 359; 403; commander of the Im-
perial army, 418; 420; 425; 438; 450;
and the Whig leaders, 474 ; accession of,
as George I, 476; and Sweden, 550; and
the " Hanoverian Alliance," 550 ; and
Eussia, 543, 551, 555; and the great
Northern War, 580 ; and Frederick IV of
Sweden, 582 sq. ; and Peter the Great,
609, 613 ; forms the third anti-Swedish
league, 610 sq.

II, King of Great Britain (George

Augustus, Electoral Prince of Hanover),
469; 474; 555

Ill, King of Great Britain, 462

Prince of Denmark, 230; 247; 460;

death of, 428

Georgia, Eussia and, 545

Gerhardt, Paul, 648; 758

German Order of Knights, the, 621 ; 624 sq. ;
foundation and growth of, 630 sqq. ;
decline of, 632 sqq.; 665

Germany, French influence on the literature
of, 68 sq., 71; the Austrian Habsburgs
and, 338; Louis XIV and, 360; the
position of, in 1704, 411; 417; Sweden
and, 563, 570; the Swedish war in, 607,
609; Henry I and, 617; 618; the Hau-
seatic League in, 623; the Eeformation
in, 626; the German Order in, 630; the
Swedes expelled from, 652; scientific
societies in, 741; Pietism in, 742, 744,
753, 755, 757 sqq.

Gerona, taken by the French, 61; 428

Gertruydenberg, peace negotiations at, 427,
430, 452

Gesner, Conrad, naturalist, 734; 736; 738

944

Index.

Ghent, restored to Spain, 45 ; captured by
the French, 164, 219, 420; 416; 421 sq.;
457 sq.
Ghislieri, Miohele. See Pius V, Pope
Gibraltar, capture of, 413; 416; 444

Straits of, 180

Gilbert, WilUam, physician to Queen Eliza-
beth, 716

Gilyan, Bussia and, 544 sq.

Ginkel, Godert de, first Earl of Athloue.
See Athlone

Giovio, Paolo, 512

Girard, Albert, mathematician, 710

GlanviU, Joseph, divine, 752

Glasgow, 285 ; covenanting students at,
287; Union riots in, 299
Archbishop of. See OaimcrosB

Glauber, Johann iiudolf, chemist, 731

Glencoe, massacre of, 294

GUsson, Francis, anatomist, 729; 733

Glogau, 593; principality of, 654

Gloucester, siege of, 746
WUUam, Duke of, 275

Gnesen, shrine at, 629

Gobelins factory, 11

Godfrey, Sir Edmund Berry, murder of,
221 sq., 224, 334

Godolphin, Sidney Godolphin, first Earl
of, 247; and James II, 262; 271; 274;
298; 427; and Marlborough, 428 sq.,
460 sq.; 440; character of , 461 ; and party
government, 463 sqq. ; and Harley, 465 ;
466; dismissal of, 469; 595; 701

Sir William, English ambassador in

Spain, 220

Godunoff, Boris, Tsar. See Boris

Theodore, Tsarevich, 499

Goens, Byklof van, Dutch naval com-
mander, 695

Gortz, George Henrik, Baron, Swedish
statesman, 582; 609; 613 sq.

Goess, Count, Imperial envoy at the Hague,
432

Goethe, Johann Wolfgang von, 755; 763

Goito, French force at, 402

Golconda, war of, with Aurangzeb, 697 sq.

Gold Coast, settlement on, 691

Golden BuE of 1222, 367

Golden Horn, Eussian warship in, 527

Golovin, Theodore, Count, Eussian states-
man and field-marshal, 523 ; 527 ; 588

Golovkin, Gabriel Ivanovitoh, Count, Eus-
sian Grand Chancellor, 655

Enssian ambassador in Sweden, 555

Gondrin, Louis-Henri de Pardaillan de.

Archbishop of Sens, 22
Gordon riots, 337

George Gordon, first Duke of, 290 sq.

Patrick, in Eussia, 623

Thomas, Jacobite agent in Bussia,

543

Goree, 60; 179; ceded to the French, 692
Gotland, West, 509
Gottorp. See Holstein-Gottorp
Gottschod, Johann Christoph, 68

Graaf, Begnier de, anatomist, 731
Graefi, Cornells de, 145
Grafton, Henry Fitzroy, Duke of, 247
Graham, John, of Claverhouse, Viscount

Dundee. See Dundee
Grammont, West Indian buccaneer, 691
Gran, captured from the Turks, 363
Grave, in the possession of Louis XIY, 43
Gravel, Bobert de. Seigneur de, 38
Great Britain. See England
Greece, Venetian successes in, 365 sq.
Green Bibbon Club, 218; 228 sq.
Gregg, William, clerk to Bobert Harley, 463
Gregory XIII, Pope, 494

James, mathematician, 721

Greifswald, lost by the Swedes, 651
Gremonville, Nicolas Bretel, Sieurde, French

envoy at Vienna, 38; 349; 351 sq.
Grenada, the French in, 687
Grenoble, Parlement of, 4
Gresham College, 740
Grew, Nehemiah, botanist, 735 sq.
Griffenfeld, Peter Schumacher, Count of,

Danish statesman, 560 sqq. ; 571 ; 578
Grodno, Diet of, 555 ; 594 ; 597
Groningen, besieged, 43; and the Eternal

Edict, 155 sq. ; 160; 165
Groot, Pieter de, Pensionary of Botlerdam,

156 ; mission of, to Paris, 156 sqq.
Grossfriedrichsburg (Guinea Coast), 647;

691
Grosswardein, 61; surrenders to the Turks,

345; 348

Pasha of, and Tokolyi, 366

Qrotius, Hugo, 745 ; 754

Gryphius, Andreas, 68

Gnadaloupe, English attack on, 60 ; 687

Guancaveiica, quicksilver mines at, 682

Guararapes hills, Dutch defeat in, 675

Guastalla, Vincent, Duke of, 403

GuSnSgaud, Henri, Marquis de Flancy,

French Seoretajy of State, 5
Guericke, Otto von, and the air-pump, 715
Guidi, Carlo Alessandro, Italian poet, 69
Guilford, Francis North, Lord, 232
Guinea, 179; Brandenburg trade with,

647; 677; settlements in, 691 sqq.

Company (French), 445

Guipuzcoa, and the Spanish Succession,

384, 389
Gujerat, the Dutch in, 695
Gunfleet, English fleet at the, 181, 186; 183
Gunning, Peter, Bishop of Ely, 97
Gunter, Edmund, mathematician, 709
Gustavus I Vasa, King of Sweden, 578

II AdoIphuB, King of Sweden, 338 ;

562 sq.; 577 sq. ; 637; and the Elector
Frederick WiUiam, 639

Guthrie, James, Scottish "protester," 282
Guyon, Jeanne-Marie Bouvier de la Motte,

88; 761
Gwyn, Nell, 205; 266
Gyldenlove, Uhik Christian, Danish admiral,

580; 581

Uhik Frederik, 561; 569 sq.

Index.

945

Gyllenborg, Carl, Count, Swedish Minister

in London, 612
Gyllenatiema, Johan Goran ason, Swedish

statesman, 567; 569 sqq. ; death of, 571;

and Charles XI, 572 sq.

Haan, Jan de, Dutch vice-admiral, 162

Haarlem, and the Act of Seclusion, 143

Habsburg, the House of, 838 sqq.

Hadjach, Ukrainian fortress, 600

Hafis, the, 629; 652

Hague, the, coalition of, 43; the "Asso-
ciation " formed at, 49 ; 188 ; the Prince
of Orange at, 156 ; murder of the brothers
de Witt at, 159; the Grand Alliance
(1701) signed at, 397 sq., 403, 437;
Treaty of Partition signed at, 384 ; peace
negotiations at, 422 sq., 427, 432; Treaty
of Guarantee (1681), 577

Hainault, Louis XIV and, 36; 50; 200

Hal, taken by the French, 59

Halberstadt, bishopric of, 642

Hale, Sir Matthew, Lord Chief Justice, 96;
201

Hales, Sir Edward, Governor of Dover,
233

John, Canon of Windsor, 332; 744;

747

Halifax, Charles Montagu, first Earl of,
and the national finances, 265 sqq. ; and
the currency, 269; and the Bank of
England, 270; 274; impeachment of,
275 ; 461 sq. ; 466 sq. ; Earl of Oxford and,
470, 474; 700

George Savile, Marquis of, 136;

208 ; 210 ; 213 ; opposes the Non-
resisting Test, 216; 222; 224; and
Shaftesbury, 225; opposes the Exclu-
sion Bill, 226; 227 sq.; and the muni-
cipal charters, 229; 230; and James H,
231, 262; dismissal of, 232, 260; the
Letter to a Dissenter of, 235, 239, 335 ;
the ATiatomy of an Equivalent of, 336;
337; and Dykvelt, 240; and the invita-
tion to William of Orange, 242 ; at the
Council of Peers, 247; 249; and the
Bevolution settlement, 249 sq. ; 252 ;
255 sqq. ; Lord Privy Seal, 258 ; 277

HaUand, 569

Halle, League of, 626

University of, 670 ; 760

Halley, Edmund, astronomer, 719 ; 721 Bq[.

Halmstad, Diet at, 572

Hamburg, 630; trade of, 646

HameUn, West Indian buccaneer, 691

Hamilton, recusants at, 285

Anthony, and Charles II, 124

Lord George, Earl of Orkney. See

Orkney

James Douglas, fourth Duke of, 297

Bichard, in Ireland, 307 sqq.

William Douglas, third Duke of,

291 sq.
Hampden, John, the younger, 229; 259
Hampshire, the "Bloody Assizes" in, 232

0. M. H. V.

Hampton Court Conference, 743
Hanover, Louis XIV and, 42, 54; 432; and
Sweden, 607, 614 sq. ; and the third
anti-Swedish league, 610 sq.; 612; 666

Ernest Augustus, Elector of, 55; 244;

662

George Augustus, Electoral Prince of.

See George II, King of Great Britain

George Lewis, Elector of. See George

I, Xing of Great Britain

Sophia, Electress of, 251; and the

Act of Settlement, 275; 298; 474; 662;
and Leibniz, 670

Hanoverian Alliance (1725), 550 sq. ; 555

Hanseatio League, 623; 632 sqq. ; 646

Harbord, Sir William, and the Irish rebel-
lion, 311

Harcourt, Henri I, Duo de. Marshal of
France, ambassador in Spain, 382 sq. ;
384 sq.

Hare, Francis, Bishop of Chichester, 429;
431

Harkiny, defeat of the Turks at, 367

Harlay-Ohanvallon, Francois de, Archbishop
of Paris, 20, 24

Harley, Bobert, Earl of Oxford. See Oxford

Harman, Sir John, English admirai, 192 sq.

Harrach, Count, Imperial ambassador at
Madrid, 381 ; 391 sq.

Harrington, James, author of Oceana, and
the Bevolution settlement, 252 sq. ; 264

Harriot, Thomas, mathematician, 709 sq. ;
714

Harvey, William, physiologist, 725 sqq. ; 733

Harwich, dockyard at, 169

Hattem, Pontiaan van, and Spinoza, 754

Hauksbee, Francis, scientist, 722

Havelberg, 612; see of, 618

Havre, development of, 14

Hay, John, Marquis of Tweeddale. See
Tweeddale

Hedges, Sir Charles, Secretary of State, 465

Hedwig Eleonora, Queen of Sweden, 562;
564

Heidelberg, sacked, 56; University of, 628

Heilsburg, Charles XH at, 593

HeinsiuB, Anton, Grand Pensionary of
HoUand, 257 sq. ; 269 ; and the Spanish
Succession, 384 sqq., 432 ; and the acces-
sion of Philip V of Spain, 395 sq. ; and the
Grand AUiance (1701), 398; 403; and the
French overtures for peace, 417, 422 sq.,
427; and Sweden, 591
Daniel, Dutch poet, 68

Helen Glinskaia, consort of Vasili HI, 487

Helmfelt, Simon Grundel, Baron of, Swedish
general, 569 sq.

Helmont, Jeau-Baptiste van, chemist, 730;
733 sq.

Helmstedt, University of, 744

Helsingborg, recovered by Sweden, 570;
Danes defeated at, 581, 603

Helvoetsluys, Dutch fleet sails from, 245

Henrietta Maria, Queen of England, 93;
jointure of, 95 j 106; and France, 112

60

946

Index.

Henry I, German King, 617; 639
IV, King of Prance, 72; 702; 744

of Valoia, King of Poland (after-
wards Henry III, of France), 494

HerberBtein, Siegmund, Baron von, Imperial
ambassador at Moscow, 487 ; 512

Herbert, Arthur, Earl of Torrington. See
Torrington

Thomas, Earl of Pembroke. See

Pembroke

Hereford, surrenders its charter, 229
Herford, Labadie at, 7S6
Herigouns, Petms, mathematician, 710
Hermogenes, Patriarch of Moscow, 601 sq. ;

506
Herrenhatisen, Treaty of, 550
Herrnhut, Moravian community in, 762
Heselrige, Sir Arthur, 94
Hesse, Brandenburg and, 627
Hesse-Cassel, 414; 435

Charles, Landgrave of, 55; 244; 403

Frederick, Landgrave of. See

Frederick, King of Sweden

Louisa Dorothea Sophia, Hereditary

Princess of, 661

William VJ, Landgrave of, 748

Hesse-Darmstadt, Ernest Lewis, Landgrave

of, 403

"Highland Host," in Ayrshire, 285

Hispaniola, 687; 688; 690

Hobbes, Thomas, author of the Leviathan,
254; 331; 661; 761; 763; and Spinoza,
784

Hdchstiidt, Styrum defeated at, 408; 410

Hoffmann, Imperial Minister-resident in
England, 241; 243; 247 sq.

HohenzoUerus, the, and Prussia, 616, 643;
family of, 622

Hollabrunn, Austrian army at, 361

Holland (tee aleo United Provinces), ship-
ping and trade of, 11 sq. ; relations of,
with the States-General, 137 ; States of,
and the peace negotiations with England,
140; and the Act of Seclusion, 142 sqq.;
financial reforms in, 145; 146; and the
restoration of Charles II, 148; and the
young Prince of Orange, 148, 151; the
"Eternal Edict" passed by, 152; 157;
William elected Stadholder of, 167;
French Protestant refugees in, 166 ; and
the Spanish Succession, 275, 377 sq. ;
and Scotland, 288; 296; 378; and the
Peace of Utrecht, 439 ; the rise of Lati-
tndinarianism and Pietism in, 742, 744,
763 sqq., 757

Holies, Denzil, first Lord Holies, am-
bassador at Paris, 109; 112

Holmes, Sir Bobert, English admiral, 108 ;
African expedition of, 149, 179; 206

Holowczyn, battle of, 698

Holstein, Danish army in, 687; 609

Holstein-Oottorp, 403; Charles XII and,
688 ; 611 ; Denmark and, 560 sq. ; 679 sqq.

House of, and Sweden, 662

Anne, Duchess of, 647; 660; 662 sq.

Holstein-Gottorp, Charles Frederick, Duke
of, 550 sqq.; 614

Christian Albert, Duke of, 568

Frederick HI, Duke of, 513; 558

Frederick IV, Duke of, 579 sqq.;

marriage of, 581, 587; death of, 581, 692

Hedwig Sophia, Duchess of, 580; 687

Holstein-Sonderburg-Pl&n, John Adolphus,

Duke of, 569; 579
Holyrood, Chapel Boyal of, 290 sq. ; Catholic

press at, ib.
Honorius II, Pope, 629
Hooft, Dutch politician, 164
Hooghley, factory at, 698
Hooke, Bobert, physicist, 722 ; 728 ; 736 ;

739
Hop, Jacob, Dutch envoy at Vienna, 389 sq.
Hopton, Balph, Lord, 746
Horki, Charles XH at, 599
Horn, Arvid, Count, Swedish statesman,

642; 555; 693

Bengt, Swedish general, 570

Horrocks, Jeremiah, astronomer, 714
Hotel del Invalides, established, 19
Hough, John, President of Magdalen

College, Oxford, 238
Howard, Charles, Earl of Carlisle. See
Carlisle
Philip Thomas, Cardinal, 235

William, Baron Howard of Escrick,

213 ; 229 sq.

— - William, Viscount SlafEord. See

Stafford
Howe, John, divine, and the Declaration

of Indulgence, 233
John, ejected minister, 332; 335

John Grubham, 259

Hudde, Johan, opposes the Prince of
Orange, 165

Huddlestone, John, and Charles II, 230

Hudson's Bay Company, 63
settlements, 442

Hiiningen, French army at, 406; 425

Huguenots, persecution of, 21 sqq., 233 ;
74 ; 116 ; Bossuet and, 86 sq. ; in Den-
mark, 579; in Brandenburg, 646; 686

Hummelshof, battle of, 690

Hungary, revolt of, against the Emperor
Leopold, 36 ; and the Turks, 36, 40, 49 ;
the Habsburg rule in, 53, 339 sq. ;
frontier of, 342 ; 343 ; Turkish invasion
of, 346 sq, ; Austria and, 348 ; con-
spiracy in, 360 sqq.; 355 sq.; conciliatory
measures in, 357 sq. ; Austrian successes
in, 366 sq. ; 368 ; Turkish successes in
369; and the Peace of Carlowitz, 371
401 ; insurrection in, 407 ; 432 ; 485
and Bussia, 482; the Turks in, 626,
661 ; religious intolerance in, 743 sq.

Hus, John, reformer, 633

Hutchinson, Lucy, author of Life of
Colonel Sutchimon, 116

Huzelles, Nicolas da Bl^, Marquis d'.
Marshal of France, 427 ; 439

Huy, taken by the AUies, 62 ; 407 ; 414

Index.

947

Huyghens, Ohristian, 713 ; the Horolegiwm
Oscillatorium of, 7X8 ; 722 sq.

Constantine, and William of Orange,

167
Huyssens, tutor of the Xsarevich Alexis,

537; 695
Hyde, Anne. See York, Anne, Duchess of

Edward, Earl of Clarendon. See

Clarendon

Henry, Earl of Clarendon. See

Clarendon

Laurence, Earl of Boohester. See

Boohester

laroslav. Grand Duke of Bassia, the Code

of, 515
laroslavl, annexed by Ivan the Great, 479 ;

S02; 604
Iberville, de, French diplomat, 472
Ibrahim, Fasha of Buda, 362 sq.

Sultan of Turkey, 842 sq.

IgnatefE, Yakoff, confessor of the Tearevioh

Alexis, 538; 641

Ilbersheim, Convention of, 411

tie de France, customs of, 13

Ilgen, Heinrich Bildiger von, Brandenburg
Secretary of State, 602 ; 664 ; 667

Inchinnan, the Earl of Argyll at, 289

India, Chap. XXU (2); France and, 13
rivalry of England and France in, 57
Portuguese possessions in, 372; 384
Bussia and, 644

Ingolstadt, besieged, 410

Ingria, 503; Bussian invasion ol, 688,
590 sq.; 697; 614; ceded to Bussia,
615

Innocent X (Giovanni Battista Panfih),
Pope, 84
—^ XI (Benedetto Odescalchi), Pope,
supports the Emperor, 51 ; and Louis XIV,
52, 56; and the Cologne election, 54
and James 11 of England, 58, 235, 336
76; and the dispute with France, 85
and William of Orange, 244; and Hun'
gary, 356; assists Austria, 369; 364
and the Spanish Succession, 392

XII (Antonio Pignatelli), Pope, and

James II of England, 58; 88

Innsbruck, 407; Charles VI at, 432

Ireland (1660-1700), Chap. X {3) ; French
intervention in, 58; and the Eestoration,
103 sq.; restrictions on the trade of, 104;
260; WiUiam III in, 261; 265

Irtysh river, 495

Ispahan, Bussian Minister at, 544

Italy, neutralisation of (1696), 62; French
influence on the literature of, 69, 71;
Milton in, 118 ; the Grand Alliance and,
398; in 1701, 404; 405; 411; 414 sq. ;
and the Peace of Utrecht, 437, 440;
settlements of the German Order in, 630;
scientific societies in, 739

Ivan III (the Great), Tsar, 477 sqq. ; and
Lithuania, 481; relations of, with the
West, 481; marriage of, ib.; and the

title of Tsar, 483; 484 sq. ; policy of, 486;
493; 507; 515
Ivan rV (the Terrible), Tsar, annexes Kazan
and Astrakhan, 479, 493 ; 483 sq. ; acces-
sion and reign of, 487 sqq.; and the
Oprichnina, 490 sqq. ; and foreign affairs,
498; and Livonia, 493 sq. ; and Siberia,
494 sq. ; death of, 495; 498; 503; 506;
512; relations with England, 613, 516

V, Tear, 618 sq. ; 523; death of, 624 ,

647; 666

eldest son of Ivan IV, 495

Izmailofi, Lev, Bussian envoy to Pekin,

644

Jablonsky, Daniel Ernst, Bishop, 671
Jagerndorf, principality of, 625 ; 663 ; 659

George, Prince of. See Braudenbuig-

Ansbaoh

George Frederick, Prince of. See

Brandenburg-Ausbach

John George, Prince of. See Bran-
denburg
JageUo, Prince of Lithuania, 480
Jamaica, 34; Charles II and, 101, 104;
110; capture of, 680; contraband trade
in, 684 ; 687 sq. ; progress of, 689 sq. ;
691
James I, King of England, bis methods of
government in Scotland, 279 sqq. ; and
religious toleration, 325; 743

II, King of England (Duke of

York), and naval administration, Chap.
Vni (1) ; policy of. Chap. IX ; and the
French Protestants, 24 sq. ; 40 ; 49 ;
supports Louis XIV, 50 sqq.; flight of,
to France, 56 ; Louis XIV and, 57 sq.,
244 sq.; and the Papacy, 58; and the
battle of La Hogue, 59 ; marriage of,
93; and the Eoyal African Company,
108, 113 ; 149 ; Dryden and, 185 ; and
the West Indies, 149; 163; 166; at the
battle of Lowestoft, 181; at the battle
of Southwold Bay, 190, 192 sq. ; the
Declaration of Indulgence of, 235, 237
sqq. ; and the Universities, 237 sq. ; and
Parliament, 240 ; and the Prince of
Orange, 240 sq. ; and the Seven Bishops,
242; brings Irish troops into England,
243 ; concessions by, 245 ; and the land-
ing of William of Orange, 216 ; flight
of, 247 sqq.; 250 sq. ; the impolicy of,
255; in Ireland, 261; at St Germain,
262 sq. ; and the Crown of Poland, 263,
354; 264 sq.; 271 sq. ; 277; Scottish
High Commissioner, 286 sq. ; accession
of, 288, 334; rule of, in Scotland, 289
sq.; the Scottish Convention of Estates
and, 291; and the Highland chiefs, 294;
and Ireland, 306 sq. ; and Tyrconnel,
807; in Ireland, 307 sqq.; at the siege
of Derry, 308 sq.; at Dubhn, 310 sq.;
313 ; at the Boyne, 814 ; flight of, from
Ireland, 316 ; at Versailles, 316 ; 326 ;
conversion of, 333 ; and religious tolera-

60—2

948

Index.

tion, 335 sq.; Marlborough and, 460 sq.;
Godolphiu and, 461; and colonial affairs,
690; 757; death of, 275
James VI, Eing of Scotland. See James I,
King of England

VII, King of Scotland. See James

n, Eing of England

Duke of Tork. See James II, King

of England

Francis Edward Stewart, Prince of

Wales (the Old Pretender), birth of, 241
sq., 290; 246 sqq.; 250; 276 ; recognised
by Louis XIV, 399; 423; 441; and
Peter the Great, 472 ; 643

Jansen, CorneUus, and Jansenism, 82 sqq.

Jarmetz, ceded to France, 33

Jassy, Peter the Great at, 604

Jeannin, Pierre, French envoy to Holland,
702

Jefferson, Thomas, American statesman,
277

Jeffreys, George, Lord Chief Justice, 230
sqq.; 234

Jermyn, Henry, Earl of St Albana. See
St Albaus

Jersey, Edward Villiers, first Earl of, 430

Jesuits, the, Gui Patin and, 73; 76 ; methods
of, 80 sq.; and the Popish Plot, 220
sqq.; 331; and James H of England,
335; 336; and the Emperor Leopold I,
341; and the Eussian Pretender, 498
sq.; 504; in America, 676 sqq., 683
sq.; 743; at Oxford, 746; and Jean de
Labadie, 756 sq.

Jews, in England, 328; readmitted to
Brandenburg, 648

John II Gasimir, King of Poland, 344 ;
349 sq.; 604

Ill (Sobieski), King of Poland, 41;

49 ; 341 ; 350 sq. ; defeats the Turks,
353 sq. ; elected king, 345 ; 365 ; makes
peace with Turkey, 356 ; and Louis XIV,
356; and the Emperor, 356, 362 sq. ;
aids Austria against the Turks, 359,
361; 364 sq.; death of, 365, 370; 651

IV, King of Portugal, 105; 372;

674

XXII (Jacques d'Buse), Pope, 621

Don, of Austria (tl679), 34 sq. ; 45

Jones, Sir William, 228

Jongestal, Allard Pieter, Dutch enyoy to
England, 141

Jonson, Ben, 746

Jordan, Sir Joseph, English vice-admiral,
192 sq.

Joseph Clement. See Cologne, Joseph
Clement, Elector of

Joseph I, Emperor, 47; crowned King of
Hungary, 367; 401; and Charles XII,
417,597; 419; and the peace negotiations,
422 sqq., 427, 457; and Clement XI,
454; recognises Stanislaus Leszczynski,
696 ; and Augustus II, ib. ; treaty of,
with Sweden, 607 ; death of, 429, 431
• II, Emperor, 465; 516

Joye-Llanos, Gaspar Melchor de, Spanisli

dramatic poet, 69
Juel, Jens, Danish admiral, 571; 579

Niels, Danish admiral, 561; 570

Jiilich, acquired by the Duke of Neuburg.
33; 350; the Allies at, 409; 627 sq. ; 64£

and Berg, Duke of, 448

Cleves, and Berg, William, Duke of,

636

Jung, Joachim, naturalist, 734
Jungfernhof, Saxons defeated at, 587
Jureff, Kikita Bomanovich, 496
Jurieu, Pierre, 76; 87
Jussuf, Grand Vezir, 606
Jutland, 607; 609

Kaiserswerth, siege of, 406
Kalamata, captured by the Venetians, 36S
Ealisch, Swedes defeated at, 595
Kama river, Russian boundary, 481
Kameniec, taken by the Turks, 353 ; 364

sq. ; 365 ; restored to Poland, 371
Kamschatka, survey of, 535
Kara Ibrahim, Grand Vezir, 366 sq.

Mustafa, Grand Vezir, succeeds Ahmad

Kiuprili, 355 ; 368 ; marches against
Austria, 359 ; 360 ; besieges Vienna, 360
sqq. ; retreat of, 363 ; death of, 364
Karabnsa, retained by Venice, 349
Kardis, Peace of, 344 ; 505 ; 562 sq. ; 587
Karlshamn, recovered by Sweden, 670
Karlskrona, Swedish naval station, 678 ; 610
Karlsten, fortress of, 683
Kaschan, submits to the Emperor, 366
Kashirsk iron-works, 533
Kazan, annexed to Bnssia, 479 ; 502 ; 531
Kehl, captured by the French, 407 ; 408 ;

410; ceded by France, 436; 460; 454
Keigwin, Eiohard, revolt of, at Bombay, 698
Keksholm, province of, ceded to Bussia, 615
Eem^nyi, John, Prince of Transylvania.

See Transylvania
Kempis, Thomas i, 755
Kempthorne, Sir John, Vice-admiral, 192 sq.
Kepler, Johaun, astronomer, 708; 711;

713 sqq.; 719
Eeppel, Arnold Joost van. Earl of Albe-
marle. See Albemarle
E^oualle, Louise de. Duchess of Forts-
mouth. See Portsmouth
Kettler, Gottfried, High Master of the

Teutonic Order, 493 sq.
Khiva, Bussia and, 644
Khoczim, the Turks defeated at, 354; 364
Kieff, occupied by Eussia, 353; 358: 477
sq. ; and Lithuania, 480 ; 484 ; ceded to
Bussia, 605; 511; 616; 519; 531; Bussian
retreat to, 594; 595 sq.
KUliecrankie, battle of, 293
Kinsale, James II lands at, 308
Kircher, Athanasius, 739
Kirchner, von, Imperial envoy at the

Utrecht Congress, 439
Kirke, Percy, Lieutenant-General, 232; 243;
relieves Derry, 312

Index.

949

Kiuprili, Ahmad, Grand Vezir, 40 ; succeeds
his father, 346 ; invades Hungary, 346 sq.;
in Oandia, 348 ; 352; invades the Ukraine,
853 sq.; death of, 855; 366

Mohammad, Grand Vezir, 40; 343;

and Transylvania, 344 sq. ; death of, 346

Mustafa, Grand Vezir, 61 ; 368 sq.

Neuman-, Grand Vezir, 604

Kiuprilis, the, 83, 36

Kjoge, bay of, 570

Elausenburg, MontecuouU at, 345 ; 346
Elissow, battle of, 581; 592
EuiperlCTona, Swedish Minister at Moscow,

587
Knoque, the Barrier Treaties and, 457 sqq.
Konigsberg, foundation of, 630 sq. ; 634 sq. ;

the Great Elector at, 640 ; 644 ; 647 ; 658 ;

Frederick I crowned at, 665
Konigsmarck, Countess Marie Aurora von,

668

Count Otto Wilhelm von, 365 ; 569 sq.

Kopeniok, Treaty of, 638; 641

Eolbe, Johann Casimir. See Wartenberg,

Count von, 664
Kolberg, port of, 641
Eolozsvar. See Klausenburg
Eopienski, Ilia, printer, 529
Eoprili. See Eiuprili
Eoron, taken by the Venetians, 365
Eotoshikhin, Grigory Earpov, Bussian

traveller, 513
Erassow, Ernst Detlof von, Swedish general,

597; 601; 603; 607
Eremlin, at Moscow, 482 ; 493; 519 ; 557
Eristianopel, recovered by Sweden, 570
Eristianshavn, privileges of, 559
Eristianstad, taken by the Danes, 569 sq,
Erizhanich, luri, Servian scholar, 516
Eronstad (Eronslot), built, 590 sq.
Erossen, Peter the Great at, 607
Enban, Bussia and, 343; 527
Enngura, copper mines of, 553
Knrakin, Boris Ivanovich, Prince, Russian

ambassador, 543 ; 555 ; 611 sq.
Eurbatoff, Alexis, 526
Eurbski, Prince, 489 sq.
Eykduin, sea-fight at, 161

Labadie, Jean de, 755 sqq.

La Bruydre, Jean de, 67; 71; 79

La Chaise, Francois de, confessor of Louis

XIV, 24; 89; 221
La Cloche, James, mission of, to Bome,

202
Ladenbnrg, burnt by the French, 57 ; 409
Ladoga, canals of, 548 ; 590
La Fontaine, Jean de, 66 sqq. ; 70
La Gardie, Magnus Gabriel de, Count,

Swedish Chancellor, 565 sq. ; and Charles

XI, 567; 568; 572
Lagena, Charles XII at, 588
Lagrange d'Arquien. See Arquien
La Haye, de, French admiral, 696; 703
La Hogue, battle of, 59, 261, 263
Lakhta, Peter the Great at, 548

Lambert, John, imprisoned, 94

Lambeth Palace, 227

La Mothe, de, French general, 422

La Mothe de Canillao, Vioomte de, 16

Lampe, Friedrich Adolf, theologian, 757

Lanarkshire, insurgents in, 284

Landau, 63 ; sieges of, 406, 408, 411, 433 ;

ceded to France, 436, 454 ; 452
Landen. See Neerwinden
Landguard Fort, Dutch attack on, 189
Landreoies, invested by Prince Eugene, 433
Landskrona, 147; captured by Denmark,

569 sq.
Languedoo, Estates of, 4; canal of, 14
Lapland, Sir Hugh Willoughby in, 512
La Eeynie, Nicolas-Gabriel de. Lieutenant

of Police, 16
Las Casas, Bartolom6, de, 682
La Tortue, pirates' headquarters at, 691
Laud, William, Archbishop of Canterbury,

117; 326; 330; 746
Lauderdale, John Maitland, second Earl
and first Duke of, 198 ; 201 ; 204 sq. ;
created Duke, 207 ; 209 sq. ; 218 ; Secre-
tary for Scottish affairs, 280; and the
Earl of Middleton, 282; and the Earl of
Bothes, 282, 284 ; 283 ; and the Scottish
recusants, 284 sq. ; 286
Lauzun, Antonin Nompar de Caumont, Duo

de, in Ireland, 314 sqq.
La ValliSre, Fran^oise-Lonise, Duchesse de.

19; 73
La VriUi^re, French Secretary of State, 5
Law, John, financier, 705

William, mystic, 751; 759

Lawes, Henry, musician, 116
LawBon, Sir John, English admiral, 190
Leade, Jane, pietistic writer, 762
Leake, Sir John, Enghsh admiral, 413 ;

416; captures Minorca, 426, 444
Lebus, see of, 618

L'ficluse, Charles de, naturalist, 734

Lee, Nathaniel, dramatist, 127; 131

Leeds, Thomas Osborne, Duke of (first

Earl of Danby, Marquis of Caermarthen),

Lord Treasurer, 210; financial policy of,

214 sq. ; and the Non-resisting Test,

216 sq. ; 218 sq. ; 221 sq. ; fall of

(1678-9), 222 sq. ; 227 ; 230 ; and James

II, 231 ; and Dykvelt, 240 sq. ; signs

invitation to William of Orange, 242 ;

246 ; and the Eevolution settlement,

249 sq.; 255; President of the CouncU,

259; 260; and the Bank of England,

268; resignation of, 274; 334

Leeuwenhoek, Antony, naturalist, 727 ;

729 ; 735 ; 737
Leeward Islands, 442; 687 sq.; government

of, 690
LefSvre, Nicolas, chemist, 730
Lefort, FranQois, Swiss general, and Peter

the Great, 520; 522 sqq.; 530
Lehnin, foundation of, 620
Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm, 69; Bossuet
and, 87; and Peter the Great, 532; 648;

950

Index.

inflnence of, at the Prassian Court,
670 Bqq. ; the Oormlium Aegyptiacum of,
696 ; and mathematical science, 712, 718 ;
and Newton, 717 sq. ; 723; 739; and
Bcientifio societies, 741; 741; 758; 760
Leighton, Sir Ellis, secretary to the Lord
Lieutenant of Lreland, 805

Bofaert, Archbishop of Glasgow, 281

Leipzig, University of, 760

Leix, Act for the plantation of, 323

Le Maire, Isaac, Amsterdam merchant, 702

Lemberg, taken by the Turks, 853; 355;

364
Le Mdtre, French engineer, 601
Lemnos, taken by the Venetians, 342
Lemos, Count of, Spanish Viceroy in Peru,

681; 683
Leo the Philosopher, the Art of War of, 529
Leopold I, Emperor, and Louis XIV, Chap.
II passim, 364 ; relatives of, 34 sq., 41,
62, 850, 377, 381, 384; and the Turks,
40, 49, 51 sq., 60 sq., 868, 870; and the
coalition against France, 43 ; and the
Treaty of Nymegen, 45, 356, 571 ; the
German princes and, 46; and the Truce
of Batisbon, 49 sq. ; and the Augsburg
AUiance (1686), 52 ; and the Elector of
Bavaria, S2 sq. ; and the Cologne elec-
tion, 54; and the Bevolution in England,
55, 57 sq. ; captures Belgrade, 56 ; joins
the Grand Alliance (1689), 58 ; and the
neutralisation of Italy, 62 ; and the Peace
of Byswyk, 63 ; English mission to, 109 ;
and the United Provinces, 157, 161, 164,
166 ; and the English expedition of
William of Orange, 244; alliance of, with
Brandenburg, 353; and France, 357,
650 sq. ; and Hungary, 356 sq., 867, 369;
and the Elector of Saxony, 869 sq. ; and
the Turkish attack on Transylvania, 345 ;
illness of, 346; 347; marriage of, 349,
377; election of, 338, 644; jurisdiction
of, 339; assists the Dutch (1673), 340;
accession and character of, 340 sq. ; 343 ;
and Poland, 344, 349 sq., 854, 356; secret
treaty of, with France, 349, 353 ; goes to
Passau, 360 ; 361 ; and John in of
Poland, 362 sq. ; signs the Holy League
against the Turks, 364; and Queen Maria
Anna of Spain, 381 ; and the Spanish
Succession, 377, 387, 389 sqq., 664 ; and
the accession of Philip V of Spain, 895 sq.,
401 ; and the Grand Alliance, 397 sq.,
403; and the Duke of Savoy, 408, 448;
the Spanish claims of, 412 ; and the
Elector Frederick William, 652 sq., and
the Elector Frederick III, 661 sq. ; and
the crown of Prussia, 663 sqq. ; and the
Vienna Academia, 741; death of, 414

Prince of Florence, Cardinal, 740

Leopoldstadt, fortress of, 350; 359
Lepanto, battle of, 342
Le Peletier, Claude, French financier, 28
Le Pesant, PieiTe. See Boisguillebert
Leslie, John, Duke of Bothes. See Bothes

Lessines, Marlborough at, 420
Lessing, Gotthold Ephraim, 69; 71; 131
Lessius, Leonard, Jesuit, 82
L'Estrange, Sir Boger, 233 ; 290 ; 331
Le Tellier, Michel, Chancellor of France,
6 sq. ; 17 ; 24

Michel, confessor of Louis XIV, 90

Franijois-Michel. See Louvois,

Marquis de
Leuzen, Prussian force at, 666
Levant, French Company of, 12
Lewenhaupt, Adam, Swedish general, 594 ;

597 sqq. ; 603
Lewis, the Bavarian, Emperor, 620 sq.
H, King of Bohemia and Hungary,

625

Margrave of Baden-Baden. See

Baden-Baden

Leyden, and the Act of Seclusion, 143;

639 ; 734 ; University of, 753 sq.
L'Hospital, Guillaume-Franfois-Antoine,

Marquis de, mathematician, 718
Liaponofi, Prokopi, Bussian anti-Polish

leader, 501
Li^ge, taken by Marlborough, 406; 488
Liegnitz, principality of, 652 ; 659
LiUe, taken by the French, 38, 199;

captured by the Allies, 421 sq. ; 447;

457 sq.
LilUeroth, Baron, Swedish representative

at the Hague, 591
Lima, under Spanish rale, 681 ; 682 ; 684
Limburg, restored to Spain, 45; 447
Limerick, siege of, 58, 261, 315 sq. , 317 sqq.

Treaty of, 319 sqq.

Lindsay, William, Earl of Crawford. See

Crawford
Lingen, countship of, 668
Linz, 347 ; the Holy League signed at, 864
Lionne, Hugues de, Marquis de Berny,

French Secretary of State, 1; 5; 39;

102; 153
Lipski, iron-works at, 533
Lisola, Franz Paul, Baron von, Austrian

diplomatist, 112; 349; 648
Lit, van der, Bussian ambassador in

Loudon, 608
Lithuania, 480 ; and Ivan the Great, 481 ;

485 ; 498 ; Bussia and, 504 ; Charles XH

in, 692; 596; the German Order and,

632 sq.

Alexander, Great Prince of, 481

JageUo, Prince of, 480

Littleton, Sir Edward, in Bengal, 700

-; Sir Thomas, the elder, 216

Livonia, Enights of, and Lithuania, 480 sq.

Bussian conquest of, 493 sq. ;

surrendered to Poland, 494 ; and Bussia,
605, 612, 527; Swedish rule in, 677 1
Patkul and, 686 ; invaded by the Saxons,
687 ; Bussian invasion of, 690 sq. ; 602
610; 614; ceded to Bussia, 615; 630
652

Lizard, Knights of the, 633
L'Obel, Matthias de, botanist, 734

Index.

951

Lobkowitz, Wenceslaa, Prince von, Austrian

statesman, 341; 349; 352 sq.

Locke, John, philosopher, 125 ; and the

Bevolution settlement, 252 aqq. ; 264 ;

and the currency, 269; 271; the theory

of government of, 273; 275 sqq. ; 332;

334 ; 467 sq.

Lodenstein, Jodoous van, and Pietism, 755

Loscher, Valentin Ernst, and Pietism, 760

Loevenstein, Jacob de Witt imprisoned at,

138
Lofo, peace negotiations at, 613
Lois Castle, Charles XII at, 591
Lombardy, occupied by the French, 401 sq.
London, the plague in, 110; the Great
Fire of, 110, 303 ; loan by, to Charles II,
111; 222; deprived of its charter, 229;
captured by the Tories, ib.; 282; its
charter restored, 245; 247; Prince Eugene
in, 432 ; increase of shipping in, 439 ;
the "Invisible College" in, 740

Treaty of (1674), 197

Long Island, the Duke of York and, 108
Longueville, Anne-Genevi^ve de Bourbon,
Duchesse de, 89

Marie de. See Nemours, Duchess of

ducal House of, 449

Lopukhina, Eudoxia, Tsaritsa. See Endoxia
"Lorme, M. de" (Abb6 Gaultier), 430
Lorraine, 33, 47 ; ceded by France, 62 sq. ;

suzerainty of, 164; and the Spanish
Succession, 391

Charles HI (IV), Duke of, 43; 350;

354

Charles IV (V), Duke of, 45; 341;

348; and the Polish Crown, 350, 354 ;
marriage of, 354 ; campaign of against
the Turks, 360 ; at the siege of Vienna,
361; 363 sq.; successes of, against the
Turks, 366; and the Elector of Bavaria,
367 sq.; goes to the Bhine, 368; 661

Bleonora Maria, Duchess of (Queen

of Poland). See Eleonora Maria

Leopold Joseph Charles, Duke of,

389; 454
Lothar II, Emperor, 618
Louis XI, King of France, 623

Xin, King of France, 376

XIV, domestic policy of. Chap. I

patsim; foreign policy of (1661-97),
Chap. II; and Pope Alexander VII, 76;
the religion of, 77 ; the Court preachers
of, 79 sq. ; and the Jansenists, 84, 89,
sq.; and religious uniformity, 85; and
Portugal, 105 sq. ; and Charles II of
England, 106, 109, 201, 209, 223;
detaches Charles II from the Triple
Alliance, 154 ; subsidises Charles II,
212, 214, 217 sqq., 227, 230; aids the
Dutch against England, 109, 182 ; joins
England against the Dutch, 112; and
the United Provinces, 152 sq., 156 sqq.,
161, 180 ; makes proposals for peace,
162 ; 165 ; invades the Spanish Nether-
lands (1667), 199; the Triple Alliance

and, 200 ; and the Peace of Aachen,
200, 373; and the Treaty of Dover,
203 sq. ; 205 ; 208 ; and James II, 211,
217, 231, 235, 243 sqq., 260, 262 sq.,
275, 308, 399; and the EngUsh expe-
dition of the Prince of Orange, 244;
and Ireland, 307 sq., 314, 316 ; Boman-
ising policy of, 331; 339; and Austria,
344, 847 ; and the Emperor Leopold,
349, 353; and Hungary, 352 sq. ; and
Poland, 350, 354 sq. ; and the Queen
of Poland, 356; 359; and Turkey, 360;
368 ; and the Treaty of Eyswyk, 370 ;
and Spain, 200, 374; marriage of, 376
sq. ; and the Spanish Succession, 380
sqq., 401 ; and the accession of Philip V
of Spain, 394 sqq. ; the Grand Alliance
(1701) and, 398, 404 ; recognises "James
III," 399 ; and William III, i5. ; 403 ;
alliance of with German Princes, 404 ; 411;
and the Convention of Milan, 415 ; makes
overtures for peace (1706-10), 417, 422 sq.,
427 ; recognises the Protestant Succes-
sion in England, 422 ; appeals to France
against the Allies, 424; and the peace
negotiations (1711), 430 ; and the Peace
of Bastatt, 435 sq. , 452 ; and the Peace of
trtreoht, 434, 439; and the Treaty with
Great Britain (1713), 441 sqq. ; 444 ; and
the Princess Orsini, 447 ; and the Spanish
Netherlands, 447; and Sicily, 448; and
Neuchl,tel, 449 ; and the principality of
Orange, ib.; and the negotiations with
the Emperor (1713), 450 sq.; and the
Peace of Baden, 455 ; and Griffenfeld,
561; and Sweden, 566, 568, 570 sq.,
577; and Charles XI, 573; 596; and
the Elector Frederick William, 648 sq. ;
650 sq. ; 659; Leibniz and, 696; and
Brazil, 675 ; and the settlements in
America, 684; and the Indian Com-
pany, 702 sq. ; establishes the Academie
del Sciences, 741 ; 743
Louis XV, King of Prance, 31; 91; 441;
543

Dauphin of France, 30; 391; 434

Duke of Burgundy. See Burgundy

Louisiana, and French colonisation, 13
Louvain, Jansenism at, 82
Lonvois, FranQois-Michel le Tellier, Mar-
quis de, 1; 5; 7; rivalry of, with Col-
bert, 16 sq. ; character of, 17, 19 ; army
administration of, 18 sq.; 20; and the
persecution of the Protestants, 24; death
of, 28 ; 39 ; 43 sq. ; and the devastation
of the Palatinate, 56 sq. ; 59; 405
Lower, Eiohard, physician, 727 sq. ; 733 sq.
Lowestoft, battle of, 181
Lublin, the Union of, 480 ; 504
Lubomirski, Stanislas Heraclius, Polish

commander-in-chief, 350
Ludewig, Johan Peter von, 666
Ludlow, Edmund, at Amsterdam, 110
Lubeck, 579; and the German Order of
Knights, 630

952

Index.

Ludinghausen, Friedrich, Baron von. See
Wolff, Father

Lumley, Bichard, Earl of Scarborough.
See Scarborough

Lund, battle of, 670
Peace of, 579

Lunden, battle of, 44

Lnndy, Eobert, Governor of Derry, 308 sq.

Lnsatia, and Brandenburg, 620

Lnther, Martin, 635

Lutzingen, and the battle of Blenheim, 410

Luxembourg, Franijois-Henri de Mont-
morency, Duo de, Marshal of France,
45; at Fleurus, 59, 261; 60; death of,
62; 160; Dutch campaign of (1672),
164 sq.; 256; 262; 340; 405

Luxemburg, Louia XIV and, 36, 47, 165;
besieged, 48 sq., 230, 364; 62; restored
to Spain, 63; 889; 447; 450
Alliance, the (1682), 35

Luzan y Guerra, Ign'acio de, Spanish
writer, 69

Luzem, and NeuchS,tel, 449

Luzh, Russian geodesist, 635

Luzzara, battle of, 406

Lybecker, Qeorg, Swedish general, 597;
609

Lyesna, battle of, 598 sq.

Lyme Begis, Monmouth lands at, 232

Mabillon, Jean, French Benedictine, 79
Macassar, conquered by the Dutch, 146
Macdonald, Alexander, of Glencoe, 294
Mackay, Hugh, General, 246; at Killie-

crankie, 293
Maclaurin, Colin, mathematician, 718
Madagascar, the French in, 13, 702 sq.
Madras, 698 sq.; 704
Madrid, 376; occupied by the Allies, 416;

428; 447
Maestricht, 43; ceded by France, 45; 46;

56; 158; taken by the French, 161; 164;

455
Maffei, Annibale, Count, at the Utrecht

conference, 439
Francesco Scipione, Marquis, Italian

poet, 69
Magdeburg, archbishopric of, 623, 626 sq. ;

642, 644
Albert von Brandenburg, Archbishop

of, 625 sq.
Giinther II von Schwarzburg, Arch-
bishop of, 623

Ludoif, Archbishop of, 620

Magus Muir, Archbishop Sharp murdered

on, 285
Maine, customs of, 13
Louis-Auguste de Bourbon, Duke of,

31
Maintenon, Franpoise d'AubignS, Marquise

de, 19 sqq.; and the Eevooation of the

Edict of Nantes, 23 sq. ; 31; 77; 87;

and Pdre La Chaise, 89; 423; 447
Mainz, taken by the Germans, 57, 661 ;

409; 435

Mainz, Albert von Brandenburg, Cardinal,
Elector of, 625 sq.

Johann Philip von SohSnborn,

Elector of, 43

Lothar Franz von Schonborn,

Elector of, 403
Maitland, John, Duke of Lauderdale. See

Lauderdale
Majorca, 446

Malabar, Portuguese and Dutch in, 695 sq.
Malayan Ai'cMpelago, 696
Malebranohe, Nicolas de, 65; 78 sq.; 86
Malherbe, Francois, 64 sqq.; 69
Malmo, siege of, 570
Malpighi, Marcello, 727; 729; 734; bo-

tanical studies of, 735 sq.; 737
Malplaquet, battle of, 425 sq., 486, 6C8
Malta, Great Britain and, 444

Knights of, 342

Manchester, Edward Montagu, second Earl

of, 93 ; 100
Mauoini, Maria, and Louis XIV, 19

Hortense, Duehesse de Mazarin, 106

Mannheim, sacked, 56; 409; 435
Manso, Giovanni Battista, and Milton, 118
Manton, Thomas, Nonconformist divine,

201
Mantua, French force at, 402; 403; 415;
duchy of, 451

Charles di Gonzaga (Duke of Nevers),

Duke of, 349

Charles IV, Duke of, 401

Mar, John Erskine, Earl of, Scottish

Secretary of State, 299
Maracaibo, captured by Grammont, 691
Maranhao, revolt in, 678; 679
Marathas, treaty of with the English, 693
Marbella Point, naval engagement off, 413
Marchiennes, depot of the Allies, 433 sq.
Marderfeld, Arvid Axel, Swedish general,

595
Mardyk, harbour at, 442
Margaret, Empress, 349; 377
Margeret, Jacques, French officer in Bussia,

613
Maria Anna, Empress, 340; 376

of Bavaria, Dauphine, 41

Queen Consort of Charles II

of Spain, 34 sq. ; illness of, 379 ; and
the Spanish Succession, 381 ; 385 ; 391 sq.

Queen Consort of Philip IV of

Spain, 34 sq. ; 45 ; 373

Eleonora, Queen of Sweden, 639

Miloslavskala, Tsaritsa, 506

Nagaia, Tsaritsa, 495 sq.

Sophia, Queen of Portugal, 35

Teresa, Queen of France, 19 ; death

of, 20; 30; 33; and the Spanish Nether-
lands, 36, 152 ; 376 sq.

Theresa, Empress, 354; 543

Marialva y Menezes, Antonio Luis, Count

de Castanhede, Portuguese general, 84
Marie de' Medici, Queen of France, 72
Marie-Louise, Queen Consort of Charles II

of Spain, 84 sq.

Index.

953

Marie-Louise, Queen Consort of Philip V

o£ Spain, 445; 447
Marieubourg, ceded to France, 33
Marienburg, 632; siege of, C33; 634 sq.
Harillac, and the dragonnadea, 24
Mariotte, Edme, physicist, 715
Marlborough, John Churchill, Duke of,
envoy to Louis XIV, 231 ; at Sedgmoor,
232; and the Prince of Orange, 243,
247; 246; 255; and James II, 262;
266 ; in Ireland, 316 ; and the Grand
Alliance (1701), 398 ; character and
military genius of, 405, 436 sq., 460 sqq.;
in the Netherlands (1702), 406 sqq.;
march of, to the Danube, 409 ; at
Blenheim, 410 sq. ; 412 sq. ; returns to
the Netherlands, 414; designs of on
Toulon, 412, 414, 419, 426 ; at Eamilliea,
415 sq. ; and the peace negotiations, 417,
420, 422 sq., 427; visits Charles Xn,
417, 596 sq. ; in the Netherlands, 418 ;
at Oudenarde, 420 sq. ; 424 ; at Mal-
plaquet, 425; declining influence of, in
England, 428; 429; successes of, against
Villars,431; dismissal of, 431, 471; 432;
and religious toleration, 334 ; 440 ;
457 sq. ; and party government, 462 sqq. ;
created duke, 463 ; 465 sq. ; Earl of Ox-
ford and, 470 sq. ; Peter the Great and,
695 ; 609 ; missions of, to Berlin, 666 sq.

Sarah, Duchess of, 428; 460; 462;

565 sq.
Marsaglia, battle of, 61
Marsh, Francis, Archbishop of Dublin, and

the Committee on Irish affairs, 316
Marsin, Ferdinand, Comte de. Marshal of

France, 409 sqq. ; 414; 416
Marstrand, captured by Tordenskiold, 583
Martel, Bear-admiral de, 195 sq.
Martha, Tsarevna, imprisonment of, 525
Martin, Fran9oiB, founder of Pondicherry,

703
Martinet, French infantry inspector, 18
Martinique, English attack on, 60; 687 sq.
MarveU, Andrew, 132; 216; 218
Mary, Princess Boyal of England. See
Orange

II, Queen of England, 44; 46; 128;

211; proposed marriage of, 213 ; marriage
of, 168, 219; and WiUiam III, 167; coro-
nation of, ib.; 239; 243; 249 sq.; pro-
claimed Queen, 251; character and m-
fluence of, 258; death of, ib.; 261; and
the Scottish crown, 292; 315 „ , ,

of Modena, Queen of England,

marriage of, 211; 232; 234; gives birth
to a son, 241 sq. ; flight of, to France,

d'Arquien, Queen of Poland, 350;

364; 366; 365 ,„ , , o.q

di Gonzaga, Queen of Poland, 349

Maryland, Labadists in, 756
Masoaron, Jules, French preacher, / 9
Masham, Abigail, Lady Masham, 465 sq.
Masovia, Conrad, Duke of, 630

Massn, Isaac, Dutch writer on Bussia, 613

Massillon, Jean-Baptiste, Bishop of Cler-
mont, 80

Master, Sir Streynsham, in India, 698

Masnlipatam, factory at, 703

Matvieeff , Andrei, Bussian envoy in London,
596; 608

Artemon, Bussian statesman, 516

sqq. ; murder of, 519

Matyushkin, General, captures Baku, 545

Maubeuge, ceded to France, 45 ; 458

Maxim the Greek, 508

Maximihau I, Emperor, 487; 624; 635

Emanuel, Elector of Bavaria. See

Bavaria

Henry. See Cologne

Maynard, FranQois, French poet, 69

Sir John, and the Eevolutiou settle-
ment, 249 sq.

Mayow, John, chemist, 728 ; 732
Mazandevan, ceded to Bussia, 545
Mazarin, Jules, Cardinal, and Louis XIV,

1; 5; and Fouquet, 6; 14; and the

marriage of Louis XIV, 19 ; policy of, 32 ;

106; and Clarendon, 199; and Leopold I,

338; 756
Duohesse de. See Manoini, Hor-

tense
Mazepa, Ivan, Cossack Hetman, 596 sqq. ;

and Charles XII, 599; and Peter the

Great, 599 sqq. ; 601 sqq.
Mecca, pilgrim route to, 699
Mecklenburg, 435 ; Swedish army in, 608 ;

610 sq.; 667

Dukes, and the Kurmark, 618

Meeklenburg-Gustrow, Gustavus Adolphus,

Duke of, 663
Mecklenburg-Schwerin, Catharine, Duchess

of, 550

Charles Leopold, Duke of, 550; 611 sq.

M6dard, St, miracles of, 91

Medici, Cosimo de', 739

Medina-Celi, Duke of, Spanish statesman,

35
Mediterranean Sea, French supremacy in,

44, 63, 61 ; English fleet in, 61 sq., 426 ;

Dutch fleet in, 161; England and, 262,

419, 694 ; the Turks in, 349 ; France and,

404 ; the AlUes in, 411 sqq.
Medway, the Dutch in the, 113, 150 sq.,

172, 188 sq.
Meerman, John, embassy of, to England,

152
Meinders, Franz von, Brandenburg Privy

Councillor, 663
Melfort, John Drummond, Earl of, 289; 308
Melgar, Count de. Admiral of Castile, 35
Mello, Francisco de, Portuguese ambassador

to England, 105
Memel, 630; dues of, 638, 641
Menin, 63; 416; the Barrier Treaties and,

457 sqq.
Menshikofl, Alexander Danilovich, Bussian

statesman and general, 525 ; 547 ; 549 ;

and the succession to Catharine 1, 551 sq.;

954

Index.

administiation of, 554 ; banishment and
death of, 553; 694 sq.; 597 eqq.

HenehikoS, Maria, 552; 554

Menzini, Benedetto, Italian poet, 69

Meroator, Gerard, 716

Mercy, Claudius Florimund, Count, Aus-
trian field-marshal, 435

Mereozko, Peter the Great at, 596

Mesuager, Nicolas, French diplomatist, 420 ;
430; 432; 439

Messina, naval battle off, 162

Methuen, John, ambassador extraordinary
to Portugal, 412

Sir Paul, English ambassador to

Spain, 378; 412

Treaty, the, 412

Metz, Parlement of, 4; 48; 413
Meuse river, campaign on, 406 sq.
Mexico, 375; Spanish rule in, 681 sqq.

688; Indian slavery in, 692
Michael, King of Poland, election of, 41

350 sq. ; 353 ; death of, 354

Eomanoff, Tsar, election of, 502

503; 506; 516 sq.

Michanowich, Charles XII at, 598
Middelburg, Prince William III of Orange

at, 155 ; 756
Middleton, John, first Earl of Middleton,

281 sqq.
Milan, and the Spanish Succession, 383 sq. ;

388 sqq.; 398; 402; 407

Convention of, 415; 417; 450

Milaslovski, Ivan, and the conspiracy

against Peter the Great, 522
Milton, John, Spanish translations of, 69;

81; 116; early poems of, 117; travels

of, 118; prose works of, 119 sq.; later

poems of, 120 sqq. ; Dryden and, 125 ;

132; 253; 263; 271
Minas Geraes, created a captaincy, 678
Mincio river, crossed by Prince Eugene, 402
Minden, bishopric of, 642
Minin, Kuzma, Bussian anti-Polish leader,

502
Minorca, 411; capture of, 426; 444
Minszka, Maria, consort of the Pretender

Dimitri, 548
Mirandola, duchy of, 451
Mittau, 556; captured by the Bussians, 594
Mniszech, Marina, betrothed to the Bussian

Pretender, 497; 499
Modeua, Francis II, Duke of, 403
Mors, countship of, 668
Mohios, battle of, 62, 357
Mohammad n. Sultan of Turkey, 361
IV, Sultan of Turkey, 36 ; 343 ; makes

war on Poland, 363; and France, 355;

and Austria, 369; 364; 367; 369
MohilefE, Charles XH at, 598
Moldavia, 339; Turkey and, 344

Hospodar of, 604

MoliSre, Jean-Baptiste Poquelin de, 65 ;

67 sq. ; 128 sq.
Molina, Oonde de, Spanish ambassador in

England, 214

Molinos, Michael de, and Quietism, 88

Moluccas, the, revolt in, 696

Molyneuz, William, 320; and the Dublin

Philosophical Society, 740
Monck, George, Duke of Albemarle. See

Albemarle
Mondelheim, Marlborough at, 409
Mondevergue, Marquis de, in Madagascar,

703
Monemvasia, surrender of, 365
Monjuich, capture of, 416
Monmouth, James Scott, Duke of, 101 ;

134; 207; 212; banished to Holland, 225;

226; and the Green Eibbon Club, 229;

exiled, 229; 230; invades England, 232;

execution of, ib. ; at BothweU Bridge,

285 sq. ; and Argyll's invasion of Scot-
land, 289; 306; 334; 654
Mons, besieged by the French, 45, 164 sq. ;

59; 63; 422; captured by the AUies,

426 sq.; the Barrier Treaties and, 458
Montagu, Charles, Earl of Halifax. See

Halifax
Edward, Earl of Sandwich. See

Sandwich
Balph, English ambassador in Paris,

223
Montaigne, Michel Eyquem de, influence

of, on French literature, 64 sqq.
Montauban, de, in Madagascar, 703
Montcassel, battle at, 162 sq.
Montecuouli, Baimondo, Count, Imperialist

general, 44 ; 341 ; defeats B&k6czy, 344 ;

campaign of against the Turks, 845 sqq. ;

353 ; death of, 360 ; 366 ; 369
Monies Glares, battle of, 34; 105
Moniespan, Franfoise-Ath^naia, Marquise

de, 19 sq.; 23; 31
Montesquieu, Charles de Secondat, Baron

de la Br^de et de, 2; 275
Montezuma, 380
Montmollin, George de. Chancellor ol

Neuchdtel, 449
Montpensier, Anne-Marie-Louise d'Orl^ans,

Duchesse de (la Grande Mademoiselle),

650
Montrevel, Nicolas-Auguste de la Baume,

Marquis de. Marshal of France, 26
Montserrat, 110; the English in, 687
Moratin, Nicolas Fernandez de, Spanish

dramatic poet, 69
Moravia, Jodocus, Margrave of; 621 sq.

Procopins, Margrave of, 621

Moray, Alexander Stewart, fifth Earl of,

Scottish Secretary of State, 290
Mordaunt, Charles, Earl of Peterborough.

See Peterborough
More, Henry, Cambridge Platonist, 750 sq.;

754

Sir Thomas, the Utopia of, 325

Korea, Venetian conquests in, 365, 371
Moreton, William, Bishop of Kildare, 320
Morgan, Sir Henry, buccaneer, 691
Morisoos, expelled from Spain, 376
MorisoB, Bobert, botanist, 734

Index.

955

Morley, George, Bishop of Winchester,

834 sq.
Moroslni, Francesco, Venetian general, 348;

365
Morozofl, Boris, and the Tsar Alexis, 517
Morton, Thomas, Bishop of Durham, 328
Moscow, origin and growth of, 477 sqq. ;
480 sq. ; 483 ; Patriarchate of, 484, 506 ;
487; and the Oprichnina, 490; 492;
burnt (1571), 493; 499; besieged, 500 sq. ;
Poles driven out of, 502 ; Polish attack
on, 504 ; 508 ; foreigners in, 511, 513,
517 ; rising in, 515 ; 516 ; education in,
529 ; improvements in, 530 sq. ; 534 ;
Catharine crowned at, 548; Peter II
crowned at, 554; 556; 587; the Academy
of Sciences at, 741
Moser, Johann Jacob, 762
Mosheim, Johann Lorenz von, 760
Mountcashel, Justin MaoCarthy, Viscount,

312
Mountjoy, William Stewart, first Viscount,

309
Mstislavski, Prince Ivan, 491 ; 496 sqq.
Miinster, 42 ; war of, with the United
Provinces, 157 sq. ; 161

Treaty of, 52, 166, 675

Bishop of. See Galea

Sebastian, 493

Muggleton, Lodowick, 330
Mullingar, Ginkel at, 317
Mondinus, physician, 724
Munkacs, 366; surrender of, 367
Murcia, lost by the Allies, 419
Murray, Eobert, and a national bank, 266
Muscovy Company of England, 513
Musin-Pushkin, Ivan, Count, 630
Mustafa II, Sultan, 369 sq.

Myngs, Sir Christopher, English vice-
admiral, 190

Naarden, capture of, 161

Nadasdy, Francis, and the Hungarian

conspiracy, 351 sq.
Namur, captured by the French, 60, 261 ;

taken by WUliam III, 62, 661; 63;

263; 422; 450; the Barrier Treaties

and, 457 sqq.
Nansen, Hans, Burgomaster of Copen-
hagen, 559
Nantes, Eevocation of the Edict of, 18;

21 sqq. ; England and, 60; 61 sqq.; 57;

87; 166; James II and, 233; 654
Napier of Merchiston, John, 708 sqq.
Naples, liouis XIV and, 53; Milton in,

118; 402; insurrection in, 403; 417;

captured by the Imperialists, 419; 422;

450; the Tsarevioh at, 539 ; the Academia

Secretorwm Naturae of, 740
and Sicily, kingdom of, and the

Spanish Succession, 383 sq., 389; and

the Grand Alliance (1701), 398
Napoli, death of Morosini at, 365
Narbrough, Sir John, BngUsh admiral,

17X

Naruishkin, Alexis, founder of iron-works

in Kussia, 533
Narva, siege of, 537, 591; 547; battle of,

588 sq., 666 ; 631
Nassau, Prince Maurice of. See Orange
Nassau-Dietz, Albertina Agnes, Countess of,

daughter of Frederick Henry, Prince of

Orange, 668

Henry Casimir, Prince of, Hereditary

Stadholder of Friesland, 150; 164 sq.

John William, Prince of . See Orange,

John William Friso, Prince of

William Frederick, Prince of. Heredi-
tary Stadholder of Friesland, 143 sq. ; 150

Nassau-Orange, House of, 449
Nassau-Siegen, Prince Joan Maurice of,

150; 153; 674 sq.
Natalia, Grand Duchess of Eussia, 553 ; 555

Tsaritsa, 516 sq. ; 519

Nauplia, taken by the Venetians, 365
Neander, Joachim, pietist, 757

Nebel river, and the battle of Blenheim, 410
Neerwinden (Landen), WiUiam III defeated

at, 61
Negreiros, Vidal de, leader in the Brazilian

revolt, 674
Negropont, attacked by the Venetians, 365
Nemours, Marie de Longueville, Duchess of,

449
Nepluyeff, Ivan Ivanoviteh, Eussian am-
bassador to the Porte, 545
Nerchinsk, silver mines of, 533
Nes, Jan Jaoobse van, Dutch admiral, 190
Nestoroff, Alexis, Eussian upper -fiscal,

535; 546
Nethenus, Samuel, pietist, 757
Netherlands. See United Provinces

Spanish (afterwards Austrian), Louis

XIV and, 36 sq., 180, 182, 199; the
French in, 37 sq., 60, 152, |164 sq., 373,
404, 407; acquisitions of France in, 46;
the Peace of Eyswyk and, 63; and the
Spanish Succession, 384, 389 sq.; and
the Barrier Treaties, 424, 457 sqq. ; 436 ;
and the Peace of Utrecht, 438, 447 ; 450 ;
455 sq.; and the Indian trade, 704

Neuburg, John William, Duke of. See Pala-
tinate, John William, Elector Palatine
Philip William, Duke of. See Pala-
tinate, Philip William, Elector Palatine

Wolfgang William, Duke of, 643

Neuoh&tel (Neuenburg), the sovereignty of,

449; 669; 671
Nengebauer, Martin, tutor of the Tsarevich

Alexis, 537; in the Swedish service, 603
Neuhausel, captured by the Turks, 346,
348; 355; 359 sq.; captured by the
Austrians, 366
Neva river, and St Petersburg, 529; 552;

590; Charles XII and, 596
Nevers, Duke of. See Mantua
Nevis, colonised by the English, 687
New Amsterdam. See New Tork
Newcastle, seized by the Scots, 209 ; 238

WiUiam Cavendish, Duke of, 95

956

Index.

Newfoundland, England and, 60, 422, 427,

443
New France, 684 gq.

Granada, vioeroyalty of, 683

Netherland, seized by the English,

149 ; 151 ; 161

Newton Butler, defeat of James' army

at, 312
Newton, Sir Isaac, 237 ; and the currency,

269; 712 sqq.; 716; and Leibniz, 717

sq. ; the theory of gravitation of, 719 ;

the Prmcipia of, 720, 722; 721 sqq.
New York (New Amsterdam), seized by the

English, 149, 179 sq., 685 ; 189 ; 197
Nice, 389 ; restored to Savoy, 437, 448
Nicholas, Sir Edward, 93
NicoUs, Bichard, Governor of New York,

108; 180
Nieroth, Carl Gustaf, Swedish general, 593
Nieuport, the First Barrier Treaty and, 457
Nieuwpoort, William, Dutch envoy to

England, 141; 143; 145 sq.
Nikon, Patriarch of Moscow, 508 ; 506

sq. ; ecclesiastical reforms by, 508 sq. ;

617 sq.
Nil Sorski, Bussian monk, 507 sq.
Nithard, Johann Everard, Cardinal, con-
fessor of the Queen of Spain, 35
Nivernais, the, customs of, 13
Nizhni-Novgorod, and the anti-Polish

movement, 501 sq.
Nizza, 368; recaptured by the Turks, 369
Noailles, Anne-Jules, Due de. Marshal of

France, 59; 61; 428

Louis-Antoine, Abp of Paris, 89 sq.

Nordlingen, conference of Circles at, 403
Noteborg, taken by Peter the Great, 590
Nogara, French retreat to, 402
Nogent river, Prussian boundary, 634
Normandy, customs of, 13 ; 25
Norris, Sir William, envoy to India, 701
North, Francis. See Guilford, Lord
Norway, Denmark and, 558, 560 sq., 581

sq. ; and Sweden, 562 ; 569 ; Swedish

invasion of, 583 ; 613
Nottingham, surrenders its charter, 229
Daniel Pinch, second Earl of, 243 ;

247 ; Secretary of State, 258 ; dismissal

of, 274; 277; 336 sq. ; and the " tack,"

464; 471
— - Heneage Finch, first Earl of, 210:

233
Nova Colonia, established, 680

Scotia, restored to France, 63 ; 189

Novgorod, 477 sq. ; annexed by Ivan the

Great, 479 sq. ; 484 ; massacre at, 488 ;

occupied by Sweden, 501 ; 502 ; 588
Novgorod-Sieverski, annexed to Bussia, 479
Novion, Nicolas Potier, Sieur de, 16
Nuruberg, Bavaria and, 51 ; 610 ; 635

Conrad II, Burgrave of, 622

Frederick III, Burgrave of, 622

Frederick VI, Burgrave of. See

Brandenburg, Frederick I, Elector of
Nyborg, captured by the Dutch, 147

Nyenskans, captured by the Bussians, 590
Nymegen, the Allies at, 406
Peace of, 23, 36, 45 sqq., 49, S2, 63,

162, 165 sq., 220, 356, 454, 670 sq., 677,

662, 688
Nystad, Peace of, 524, 61S

Oates, Titus, 220 sqq.; 224; 227; sentence
on, 231; 306; 334

Obdam de Wassenaer. See Wassenaer

Oberglauheim, and the battle of Blenheim,
410 sq.

Oder river, 618 ; 627 ; 646

Odescalchi, Benedetto. See Innocent XI

Odoevsky, Prince, 534

Odyk, Wiliiam Adrian, Lord of, 166

Oedenburg, Diet at, 357 ; 367

Oetinger, Friedrich Christoph, 762

Ofen. See Buda

Offaly, Act for the plantation of, 323

Offu^ and the battle of Bamillies, 415

Ogilvie, General, at Narva, 591 ; 594

Ogilvy, James, Earl of Seafield. See
Seafleld

Oglio river, French force at, 402

Okey, John, regicide, 149

Oland, sea-fight at, 162

Oldenbarneveldt, Johan van. Grand Pen-
sionary of Holland, 139 ; 702

Oldenburg, Stenbock capitulates at, 609

Henry, Secretary of the Eoyal

Society, 754

Oldensworth, Stenbock capitulates at, 582,

609
Oldham, John, poet, 135
Olearius, Adam, 511 ; 613
Olier, Jean-Jacques, Abb6, 78 sq.
Olinda, rivalry of, with EecifE, 678
Oliva, Cistercian convent of, 629; 632

Peace o^ 344; 349; 563; 593; 643:

649

Olonets iron-works, 533; 648
Opitz, Martin, German poet, 68
Oppeln, principality of, 626
Oppenheim, burnt by the French, 57
Opressa, Charles XU at, 600
Oprichnina, the, in Bussia, 490 sqq., 499

sq. ; 502
Orange, principality of, 449 sq.
Amalia von Solms, Princess of, 107 ;

144; 151
Frederick Henry of Nassau, Prince

of, 137 ; 622 ; 640 sq. ; 668

John William Friso, Prince of, 425 ;

668

Mary, Princess of (Princess Eoyal of

England), 107; 144; 148; 151

Maurice of Nassau, Prince of, 137

Eeui of Nassau, Prince of, 449

WilUam I, Prince of, 137; 449; 628

WUliam II, Prince of, 137 sq. ; 642

William III Henry, Prince of. See

William lU, King of England
Oranienburg, castle, 622
Oratory, the French, 78 gq.

Index.

957

Ordin-Nashohokin, Athanaeins, BuBsian

statesman, 516 sqq.
Orford, Edward EuBsell, Earl of, Admiral,

59 ; 61 ; 241 ; at La Hogue, 261 ; 262 ;

274; impeaohed, 275; 461

Sir Eobert Walpole, Earl of. See

Walpole

Orkney, Elizabeth Villiers, Countess of,
257 ; 274

Lord George Hamilton, Earl of,

410; 425

Orl^anais, the capitation in the, 28
Orleans, Charlotte Elizabeth, Duchess of,

65; 63
Henrietta, Duchess of, 106 ; 198 ;

203 sq.

Philippe I, Duke of, 55 eq.; 106; 162

Philippe II, Duke of, Begent of

Prance, 31 ; 90 ; 419 ; 441
Ormond, James Butler, first Duke of, 93;

105 ; 280 ; Lord Lieutenant of Ireland,

302 ; 304 ; recalled, 305 ; reappointed

Lord Lieutenant, 305 sq. ; 310
James Butler, second Duke of, 247 ;

412 ; in Flanders, 433 ; 440 ; 458

Mary, Duchess of, 475

Oropesa, Count de, Spanish statesman,

35 ; 58 ; 376
Orrery, Soger Boyle, Earl of, 136
Orsini (des Ursins), Anne Marie de la

Trtoouille, Princess, 447 ; 455
Oruba, the Dutch in, 687
Oruro, silver mines at, 682
Osborne, Thomas, Duke of Leeds. See

Leeds
Osiander, Andreas, 635
Osnabriick, and Louis XIV, 42

Treaty of, 696, 641

Ossory, Thomas Butler, Earl of, 196 ; 213
Ostend, captured, 416; 422; 457

Company, 703 sq.

Osterman, Andrei Ivanovich, Eussian Vioe-

ChanceUor, 551 sq. ; and Peter II, 553 ;

and foreign affairs, ib. ; 554 sqq. ; 613 sq.
OtrepiefE, Grishka, and the false Dimitri,

497, 499
Ottoboni, Pietro. See Alexander VIII, Pope
Otto I (the Great), Emperor, 617 sq.; 639
Ottokar II, King of Bohemia, 631
Ottomond, tomb of, 416
Otway, Thomas, dramatist, 127 ; 130 sq.
Oudenarde, restored to Spain, 45; 416;

battle of, 420 sq., 668
Overmaas, France and, 164
Overyssel, invaded by the Enghsh, 37 ; 43 ;

150 ; 155 ; French invasion of, 157 ; Ibi
Oxenden, Sir George, Governor of Bombay,

fiQft

Oxenstiema, Axel, Count, Swedish states-

man, 562 sq. ,. , ^ ^ „». k.'ju.
Bengt, Swedish statesman, 570 ; 573;

676 sq. ; and Charles XII, 585 ; 591
Oxford, Parliament at, 227 ; 740 ; 746; 760

Christ Church College, ii^

Magdalen College, 238

Oxford, University College, 238

University of, 238; 245 ; 254; 334

Eobert Harley, first Earl of, 429 sq. ;

462 sq. ; Secretary of State, 464 ; intrigues
and dismissal of, 465 ; 466 ; forms a
ministry, 469 sq. ; created earl, 470 ;
character of, ib. ; and the fall of Marl-
borough, 471 ; and the Old Pretender,
472; 473; 474; dismissal of (1714), 475;
695

Paderbom, Friedrich von Spee at, 758
Padilla, Juan de, report of, on the Indians

in Peru, 683
Padua, 726; botanic garden at, 734
Paget, William, Lord Paget, 371
Paisios, Patriarch of Jerusalem, 508
Palaiologos, Andrew, 483

Zoe (Sophia), Tsaritsa, 482 sq.

Thomas, 482

Palamos, captured by the French, 61
Palatinate, the French in, 44, 56 sq., 418,

453 ; 63 ; 414 ; persecution of Calvinists

in, 664; 672; 743

Adolphus John, Count Palatine of

Zweybrucken, 563

Charles Lewis, Elector Palatine, 648 ;

755

Elizabeth, Princess Palatine, 640 ;

765 sq.

John William (Duke of Neuburg),

Elector Palatine, 381; and the Grand
Alliance, 403 ; 435 ; 438 ; 448 ; and the
Peace of Utrecht, 450; 660; 664

Louisa Juliana, Eleotress Palatine,

628

Philip Lewis (Duke of Neuburg),

Count Palatine, 628

Philip William (Duke of Neuburg),

Elector Palatine, 33; 41; 48; and the
PoUsh crown, 350, 854; 645

Palermo, the Dutch defeated at, 162
Palissy, Bernard, " the Potter," 738
Palma, autoi de fe at, 375
Palmairas, on the San Francisco river, 677
Palmer, Eoger, Earl of Castlemaine. See

Gastlemaine
Panama, attack on, 691
PanfiU, Giovanni Battista. See Innocent X
Panshino, Eussian army at, 521
Papacy, the, and Eussia, 482; and the

Prussian crown, 663
Papillon, Thomas, and the East India

Company, 700
Para, commercial monopoly in, 678; 679
Paracelsus, alchemist, 730
Parana river, the Indians of, 683
Paris, disorders in, 16 ; 740 sq.

Peace of (1763), 443

Park4ny, defeat of the Poles at, 363
Parker, Samuel, Bishop of Oxford, 331
Parma, Prince Eugene in, 403
Pascal, Blaise, and Montaigne, 64 sq. ; 73;

84 sq. ; and mathematical science, 710,

712; 716; 744; 748

958

Index.

Fassan, Leopold I at, 360

Faterson, James, and the Darien soheme,

296
William, founder of the Bank of

England, 267; 271
Fatln, Qui, and Oartesianism, 73 ; 86
Patkul, Johann Eeiuhold von, Swedish

statesman, 577 ; 580 ; and Charles XI

and Augustus II, 586; and the league

against Sweden, 586 sq. ; at Moscow, 587 ;

590 ; 592 sqq. ; execution of, 595
Fatras, Turkish defeat at, 365
Patrick, Simon, Bishop of Ely, 753
Pau, Parlement of, i
Paul IV (Giovanni Pietro Oaraffa), Pope,

118
Fauw, Adrian, Grand Pensionary of Hol-
land, 139
Pavilion, Nicolas, Bishop of Alet, 84 sq.
Pays de Gex, persecution in, 22, 25
Peaehell, John, Vice-Chanoellor of the

University of Cambridge, 237 eq,
Pecquet, Jean, anatomist, 727
Fedro II, King of Portugal, 35
Feipus, Lake, 591
Peitz, Danckelmann at, 662
Pekin, Bussian envoy to, 544
F^lisson, Paul, and the Huguenots, 22
Pembroke, Thomas Herbert, eighth Earl of,

250
Penn, William, qnaker, 234 sq. ; 237; 238;

255; 262; 336; 692; 756

Sir William, English admiral, 190

Pennsylvania, foundation of, 685

Pentland rising, 110 ; 284

Peplin, convent of, 632

Fepys, Samuel, 124 sq. ; 168 sq. ; secretary

to the Admiralty Commission, 170 sq. ;

and naval administration, 172 sqq. ; 183 ;

190; 195; 248; 266
Perche, customs of, 13
Pereira, oommissaiy-general in Ireland, 314
Ferevolohna, Swedish surrender at, 602
Pereyaslavl, Lake of, Peter the Great at, 520
Femambuco, 146 ; civil war in, 678
Fernau, Charles XH at, 588; 590; 603
Perre, Paulus van der. Pensionary of

Middelburg, 139; 141
Perrinohief, Eiohard, royalist divine, 331
Persia, Bussia and, 544 sq.
Perth, James Drummond, fourth Earl of.

Lord Chancellor of Scotland, 290
Peru, 375; 681; silver mines in, 682; 683;

Spanish trade with, 684; 688; 692
Peschiera, Prince Eugene at, 402
Peter the Great, Tsar, the Turks and, 370;

371 ; and Denmark, 580 sqq. ; and Patkul,

586; and the league against Sweden, 587;

and the great Northern War, 588 sqq. ;

aids Augustus II of Poland, 693 ; seeks

the mediation of the Powers, 695 sq.;

and Mazepa, 599 sq. ; at Poltawa, 601 sq. ;

and the second anti-Swedish league, 602;

captures Eiga, 603; and the war with

Turkey, 604 sqq.; at Krossen, 607; in

Holstein, 609; conquers Finland, ib.;
and the third anti- Swedish league, 610 sq.;
and the Mecklenburg compact, 611 sq. ;
abandons the Scanian expedition, 612 ;
alliance of, with the King of Prussia, ib. ;
and George I, 613 ; alliance of, with
France and the United Provinces (1717),
613; and Sweden, 613 sq.; and the Peace
of Nystad, 615; 477; 484; SIO; 515 sq. ;
proclaimed Tsar, 517; early years of,
518 sqq. ; marriage of, 520 ; the AzofE
expeditious of, 521 sq. ; conspiracy
against, 622; embassy of, to the West,
523 ; and the revolt of the Strieltzy, 523 ;
524; and the Tsaritsa, 525; in Amster-
dam, ib. ; reforms by, 526, 52S, 631 sq.,
636, 645 sqq. ; task.m peace with the
Forte, 526 sq. ; and the war with Sweden,
628 ; religious toleration by, 529 ; pro-
motes education, ib, ; abolishes the
Patriarchate, 606, 530; and the develop-
ment of trade, 533 sq. ; measures by,
against peculation, 634 sq. ; and his son
Alexis, 637 sqq.; proclaimed Emperor,
542; alliances of with Sweden, France,
and England, 642 sq. ; operations of, in
Asia, 544 sq. ; and the succession, 647 ;
crowns Catharine Empress, 547 sq. ;
death of, 548; 649 sq.; and Peter II,
553 ; and Frederick I of Prussia, 667 ; 741

Peter H, Tsar (Grand Duke), 538; 547;
549 ; accession of, 552 ; education of,
553 ; 554 ; and the Dolgorukis, 664 sq. ;
death of, 655

Peterborough, Charles Mordaunt, third
Earl, of, 211; 416; 432

Feterhof, Peter H at, 654

Petersen, Johann Wilhehn, pietist, 762

Johanna Eleonora, pietist, 762

Peterwardein, capture of, 367; 368 sqq.
Petre, Edward, Jesuit, 233; 235; 253

William, Lord Fetre, 220

Petrik6w, Augustus II at, 595
Pett, Sir Phineas, English navy commis-
sioner, 171
Petty, Sir William, political economist,

266; 303
Fhilaret, Patriarch of Moscow. See Eo-

manofl, Theodore
Philip II, King of Spain, 372; 516; 740

HI, King of Spain, 376

IV, King of Spain, loses Portugal,

34 ; 36 ; and Charles II of England, 104 ;

372 sq.; 376; and the succession, 377;

death of, 34, 37, 109, 182; testament

of, 379, 385; 675

V, King of Spain (Duke of Anjou),

30 sq.; accession of, 275, 393 sqq.; 340;
392; the Grand Alliance (1701) and, 398 ;
the Emperor and, 401; reception of, in
Spain, 404; in Italy, 406; 412; 416;
417; and the peace negotiations, 420,
422 sq. ; 427 ; position of in Spain, 426,
428; renounces his claims on France,
434, 441; 436; and the Peace of Utrecht,

Index.

969

440; and the treaty vrith Great Britain
(1718), 444 sq.; and SicUy, 445, 448;
and the Catalans, 445 sq.; the Princess
Orsini and, 447, 455; and the Spanish
Netherlands, ib.; 450; 452; and the Peace
of Baden, 455; 591

PhilippeTille, ceded to France, 33

Philippsburg, lost by France, 44, 45 ; taken
by the French, 55; 63; the Allies at, 411

Philothei, monk of Pskoff, 483

Fiauhi, conqaest of, 679

Pioard, Jean, astronomer, 722

Pioardy, customs of, 13

Piedmont, 61; the Buke of Savoy in, 411;
414 ; evacuated by the French, 415; 425

Prince of. Bee Charles Emmanuel

ni. Ring of Sardinia

Pignatelli, Antonio. See Innocent XII
PiUan, tolls of, 638, 641; 647
Pinerolo, Fouquet imprisoned at, 6; 415
Piper, Carl, Count, Swedish statesman, 600
Pisa, botanic gardens at, 734
Pitt, John, in Madras, 700

Thomas, Governor of Madras, 699 sq.

Pius V (Miohele Ghislieri), Pope, 325
Plato, study of, at Florence, 739 ; 749
Planen, Henry of. High Master of the

German Order, 633

Pleissenberg, fortress of, 593

Flon, Duke of. See Holstein-Sonderburg-
Plon

Plunkett, Oliver, Catholic Archbishop of
Armagh, 228; 306

Podolia, ceded to the Turks, 353; 355; 365 j
restored to Poland, 371

Fointis, Jean-Bemard-LouisDesjean, Baron
de, French seaman, 59; 307; 413

Poiret, Pierre, pietist, 762

Poisseuille, Jean-Louis-Marie, 727

Poitou, customs of, IB; 24

Pokrovsky monastery, 525

Poland, Chap. XII ; invaded by the Turks,
36; 41; Louis XIV and, 49; Swedish
invasion of, 146. 505 ; James II of England
and, 268; and Lithuania, 480; 485 sq.;
Bussian refugees in, 490; and Livonia,
493 sq.; Eussia and, 494, 503 sqq. ; the
Bussian Pretender in, 497 sq. ; 555;
Sweden and, 562 sq., 638; 581;
Charles XH in, 592 sqq.; 596 sq.; 599;
and the second anti- Swedish league, 602;
the BuBSO-Turkish treaty and, 606 sq. ;
€18 ; and Prussia, 629 sq., 635, 641, 657,
666 sq.; and Pomerelia, 631; and the
German Order, 632; under the JageUo
dynasty, 633; and the Baltic, 688; 643;
the Elector Frederick William and, 660;
the Great Elector and, 660

Polianovka, Treaty of, 504
Polignac, MelcMor de, Cardinal, 427; 439
Poloct, Peter the Great at, 594
Polotski, Bussian monk. See Sitianovioh,

Po?t^^r,°battle of, 536, 581, 601 sq., 607,
667

Pomerania, the Swedes in, 359, 607;
Sweden and, 562, 568, 570 sq., 640;
Denmark and, 682 ; 603 ; 611 ; Bran-
denburg and, 620; 626 sq.; 643; 651
sq. ; the Treaty of St Germain and,
652 ; the Tsarevich Alexis in, 638 ;
619

Swedish, 40; 569; 666

Bogislav XIV, Duke of, 637 ; 641

Pomerania-Stettin, Brandenburg and, 624

Otto in, Duke of, 624

Fomerania-Wolgast, Dukes of, 631
Pomerelia, the German Order and, 631
Pomore, the, loyalty of, 500
Pomponne, Simon Amauld, Marquis de,

French ambassador in Sweden, 566
Pondioherry, restored to France, 63 ; cap-
tured by the Dutch, 696; 703
Foniatowski, Stanislaus, Count, 603 sq. ;

606
Pontchartrain, Louia Fhelypeauz, Comte

de, 28; 30
Fontogllo, Prince Eugene at, 402
Pope, Alexander, 70; 467
Foperinge, ceded to France, 45
Pordage, Samuel, poet, 132
Fort Mahon, 426 ; 444
Porta, Giovanni Battista della, 716 ; 740
Porter, Sir Charles, Lord Chancellor of
Ireland, 317 ; 820 sq.

George, and the plot against

William IH, 262
Portland, William Bentinck, Earl of, 163 ;
167 ; 276 ; ambassador in France, 381 sq. ;
397 ; 422 ; 665
Fortobello, and the Peruvian trade, 684
Porto- Oarrero, Cardinal, 383; 392 sq.
Porto Bioo, a Spanish possession, 687
Port-Eoyal, convent of, 83 sq. ; 89
Portsmouth, dockyard at, 169

Louise de E^roualle, Duchesg of,

205 ; 215 ; 226
Portugal, and Spain, 34, 37 sq., 372, 428,
456 ; Louis XIV and, 37, 106, 404 ; inde-
pendence of, 105, 338 ; and England,
105, 107, 412, 694; and the United
Provinces, 107, 146 sq.; 148; colonies of,
872; and the Spanish Succession, 388;
joins the Grand Alliance, 412 ; 426 ; and
the Peace of Utrecht, 440; treaty with
France, 448; 673; and Brazil, 107,
674 sqq.; and India, 695 sqq.
Posen, seized by the Swedes, 505 ; 594
Possevino, Antonio, Jesuit, negotiates

Eusso-Polish treaty, 494 ; 498
Potosi, lawlessness in, 681 ; 682
Potsdam, Edict of, 646 ; 667
Povyenets, state mines at, 529
Powell, Mary, wife of John Milton, 123
Powis, William Herbert, first Marquis of,

220
Powle, Henry, opposes the Non-resistmg

Test, 216
Foynings' Law, 320 ; 690
Pozharski, Dimitri, Prince, 502

960

Index.

Fraemonstratensian Order, in Branden-
burg, 619
Prague, Peace of, 637
Pregel river, 629
Fregnani, Abb6, in London, 203
Freobrazhenskoe, Peter the Great at, 519;

S20 sq.; 524; 587
Pressburg, 339 ; 346 sq.; 352; attacked by

TokSlyi, 361; 363; Diet at, 367
Fretoriua, Stephan, Lutheran divine, 758
Prevesa, captured by the Venetians, 365
Prior, Matthew, in Paris, 430; 467
Prokqpovich, Theophan, Bishop of Pleskow,

536
Fronis, coloniser of Madagascar, 702
Provence, Estates of, 4; invasion of, 418 sq.
Prussia, Origins of the Kingdom of. Chap.
XX ; under the Elector Frederick Wil-
liam and Frederick I, Chap. XXI ; 344 ;
and Poland, 354, 555 ; and the Grand
Alliance (1701), 403; 420; 435; and
Gelderland, 447 ; treaty of, with France
(1713), .448, sq.; and the principality of
Orange, 449; 542; joins the " Hanoverian
Alliance,"- 550 ; 596 ; and Sweden, 607,
610 sq., 614 sqj ;, 608 sq.; 743

Albert, first Duke of. Margrave of

Brandenburg-Artsbach, High Master of
the German Order, 625 sq.; 635 sq.

Albert Frederick, second Duke of,

636 sqq.'

Dorothea, Duchess of, 635

. John Sigistonnd, Duke of. See

Brandenburg, John Sigismund, Elector
of

—. — ■■ Maria Bleonora, Duchess of, 636
Pruth, river,: Campaign of the, 604 sq.
Prynne, William, the Hiatriomaftix of, 128
Pskofi, 478; annexed to Russia; 479 sq. ;

484; besieged, 494; 500; 590
Ptolemy,' astropomer, 707 6q. i
Pufendorf, Samuel, historian, 648; 655; 670
PngacheS, .Tentelian,' ini^urrection of, 505
Pularoon, English and Dutch . claims in,
108; 112; 149; 151; 179 > retained by
the .Dutch, ,189 , , !
Pultusk, Swedish, victory at, 592
Punitz, battle at, : 693 . '
Putivl, rebellion at, 500
Pyhajoggi,. Pass of,' 588 i
Fyren^s, ^timber trade of,, 12
Peace of the, 33 eq., 105, 373, 446

Quebec, French colony at^ 6S4
Quedlinbnrg, abbey of, 668 i
Qaeensber^y, James Douglas, second Dnke
of, 298 sq. ' ■■

William Douglas, first Duke of, 289

Qttesnel, Pasquier, the Befiexions of, 89 sq.

Quesnoy, siege of, 433; 434

Quito, 679; 683

Quitzows, family of the, ,622

Eaab, Turkish fugitives at, 362 ; 363 '
river, battle on, 847 sq.

Babenhanpt, Earel, Baron de Sucha, 160
Babutin, Austrian ambassador in Bussia,

552
Baby, Lord. See Strafford, third Earl of
Bacan, Honorat de Bueil, Marquis de,

French poet, 69
Bacine, Jean, 65 ; 68 ; 125
Badnor, Sir John Bobartes, first Earl of

(Lord Bobartes), 93 ; 101 ; 305
Badziejowski, Cardinal, Polish Primate, 592
B&k6czy, House of, 339
Prince of Transylvania. See Tran-
sylvania
BamiUies, battle of, 415 sq., 668
BancS, Armand-Jeau le Bouthillier de,

Abbot of La Trappe, 262 sq.
Bangoni, papal Nuncio at Moscow, 498
Eanke, Leopold von, 373 ; 384 ; 639 ; 602
Bantzau, Count, 744
Baskol, the, in Bussia, 509 sqq.
Bastatt, Peace of, 435 sq. ; 447; 449;

452 sq.
Eathenow, Swedes expelled from, 651
Batisbon, Bavaria and, 52; 407; Diet at,

347, 451, 651, 743

Truce of, 49 sqq., 66, 61, 658

Eaule, Benjamin, and the Brandenburg

navy, 646 sq.

Jacob, and the Brandenburg navy, 647

Eavensberg, the Great Elector and, 645
Eawa, Peter the Great at, 526
Bawdon, Sir Arthur, at Dromore, 307
Eawitz, Charles XII at, 593

Bay, John, naturalist, 734 sqq.
Eazin, Stenka, Cossack leader, 505
Eeciff, lost by the Dutch, 146, 675 ; 678
Bedei, Francis, Prince of Transylvania.

See Transylvania
Bedi, Francesco, naturalist, 737 "^
Behnskjold, Carl Gustaf, Swedish general,

593 sq.; 598; at Poltawa, 601; 603
Bennefort, Urbain Souchn de, in Mada-
gascar, 703
Eennes, Parlement of, 4
Beuwick, James, Scottish covenanter, 290
Eepnin, Prince Nikita Ivanovitoh, Eussian

field-marshal, 612
Bescht, seized by the Bussians, 545
Eetusaari, island of, 591
Beuss, Princes of, 633
Eeval, 534; 647; British fleet at, 551;

690; captured by the Bussians, 603
Eeventlow, Count, Danish general, 581
Beynolds, Edward, Bishop of Norwich, 96
Eheinberg, captured by the Allies, 406
Bhine, campaigns on, 406, 408 sq., 418,

451 ; and the Peace of Utrecht, 438

League of, 38, 42, 46, 331, 351, 644

Ehode Island, tolerant policy in, 101
Biazan, annexed to Bussia, 479 ; 500 sq.
Bichelieu, Armand-Jeau du Plessis, Duo

de, Cardinal, 3 sqq. ; 14 ; 19 ; policy

of, 32 ; 72 ; and the Church, 75 ; 831 ;

338; 373; and Canada, 442; colonial

policy of, 702 sq. ; 743

Index.

961

Bioher, Edmond, French theologian, 75 sq.
Biebeok, Jan van, and the Cape of Good

Hope, 695
Eiga, 570; attacked by the Saxons, 587 sq.;

590 ; 594 ; 597 ; captured by Peter the

Great, 603
Binhuber, Laurence, writer on BuBsia, 51S
Bio de Janeiro, French attacks on, 679
Bipoli, taken by the French, 59
Biquet, Pierre-Paul, Baron de Bonrepos, 14
Bivoli, Marshal Catinat at, 402
Bobartes, Sir John, Earl of Badnor. See

Badnor
Bobinson, John, Bishop of Bristol (and

afterwards London), at tJtrecht, 438;

in Sweden, 586
Bochefort, development of, 14
Bochester, James 11 at, 248
Laurence Hyde, first Earl of, 231 ;

dismissal of, 234; 235: and William

m, 275; 464

John Wilmot, second Earl of, 124;

182

Bocroi, battle of, 411
Boe, Sir Thomas, 698
Bomer, Olaus, astronomer, 715
Boeskilde, Treaty of, 147, 558
Boland, CamUavd leader, 26
Bomanofi, Michael, Tsar. See Michael

Theodore (the Patriarch Philoret),

497; 500; 502 sq.; 506; 516

Borne, Milton in, 118; 740

Bomney, Heniy Sidney, Earl of, Lord

Lieutenant of Ireland, 242 ; 320
Bondeau, Claudius, English political agent

in Bussia, 555 sq.
Bonquillo, Don Pedro, Spanish ambassador

in England, 217
Bonsard, Pierre de, and Malherbe, 65;

68
Books, Sir George, admiral, 411 sqq.
Boos, Lord (John Manners, first Duke of

Butland), 212
Bosenkrans, Olaf, author of Apologia vobU

litatis Daniae, 579
Bospigliosi, Giulio. See Clement IX
Bostofl, annexed by Ivan the Great, 479
Bothes, John Leslie, seventh Earl and

first Duke of, 282 ; 284
Botrou, Jean, French dramatic poet, 68
Bouen, Parlement of, 4
Eous, Francis, Provost of Eton, 753
BouBseau, Jean-Jacques, 70 sq. ; 277
BoussiUon, acquired by France, 33; 66
Boyal African Company, formation of,

108 ; 149 ; 178 sq. ; 689 ; 692 sq.
Society of London, 124; 132; 740 sq.;

752; 754
Budbeok, Olaus, 576 ; 728
Eudiszeze, Charles XII at, 600
EudolJ I (of Habsburg), Emperor, 622

mathematician, 709

Eugen, defence of, 569 ; 670 ; 679 ; 608 }

611 ; lost by the Swedes, 652
Bullion Green, 110; 284

c. M. H. V.

Eumbold, Eichard, and Bye House plot,

229 sq.
Bumsey, John, Colonel, and Bye House

plot, 229
Bumyantsefi, Alexander, Bussian captain,

539
Eupert, Prince, at the battle of Lowestoft,

181; in the naval campaign of 1666,

183 sqq. ; 190 ; in the naval campaign

of 1672-3, 194 sqq. ; 210
Euremonde, taken by Marlborough, 406
Bussell, Edward, Earl of Orford, admiral.

See Orford

William, Lord Bussell, 216; 222;

and the Exclusion Bill, 226 ; 239 ; execu-
tion of, 230; 259

Bussia {see also Peter the Great), 1462 —
1682, Chap. XYE; 1689—1730, Chap.
XVn ; and the Peace of Carlowitz, 371 ;
and the Ukraine, 349, 353 ; and Sweden,
344, 562 sq.; and Turkey, 343, 356, 868;
invades the Crimea, 868 ; and Turkey
(1709-13), 603 sqq. ; and the Peace of
Adrianople, 606 ; and the third anti-
Swedish league, 611; and the Peace of
Nystad, 615; 666; 741

Little, 504 sq. ; 696

White, 504 sq.

Euiherglen, rising of recusants at, 265
Euvigny, Henri de Massue, first Marquis de,

French ambassador in England, 211;

217 sq.

Henri de Massue, second Marquis

de. Earl of Galway. See Galway

Buysch, Frederik, anatomist, 738
Nicolas, Secretary to the States-
General, 145

Bayter, Michael Adriaanzoon de, Dutch
admiral, 43; on the coast of Guinea, 108,
149, 179; in the Medway, 113, 150 sq.,
188; blockades the Swedish fleet, 147; at
Southwold Bay, 158, 192 sq.; at
Schooneveld, 161 ; in the Mediterranean,
161 sq. ; 178; 181 ; at Bergen, 182 ; in
the naval campaign of 1666, 183 sq. ;
186 sq. ; 189; in the naval campaign of
1672-3, 194 sqq. ; death of, 44, 162

Bye House plot, 229 sq.; 259

Byer. See Du Eyer

Bymer, Thomas, author, 133

Byswyk, Peace of, 32 sq. ; 45; 62 sq. ; 274 ;
370; 374; and the Spanish Succession,
379 sq.; 382; 397; 399; 450; 463;
Sweden and, 684; and Hispaniola, 688;
691 ; 703

Saardam, Peter the Great at, 523
Saarlouis, retained by France, 63
Saba, in possession of the Dutch, 687
Sacheverell riots, 337

Henry, 429; 467 sqq.

WiUiam, 216; 222

St Albans, Henry Jermyn, Earl of, 112
St Bartholomew, Massacre of, 326
St Christopher's. See St Eitt's

61

962

Index.

Saint-Cyran, AbbS de. See Duvergier de

Eaaraune
St DeuyB, battle of, 45, 165
St Domingo, attack on, 60; 684; 687
St Elmo, fortress, the Tsarevioh at, 639
Si Eustatia, captured by the English, 110
Saint-^vremond, Charles de Marguetel de

Saint-Denis, Seigneur de, 70; 74; 126

sq. ; the letters of, 132 sq. ; 136
Saint-Fremont, General, defeat of, 402
Saint Germain-en-Laye, Treaty of, 45, 571,

647, 652, 660 ; peace conference at, 153
St Gothard, battle of, 40, 347 sq., 350
St Helena, mutiny at, 698
St Helen's, Prince Bnpert at, 184
St John, Henry, Viscount Bolingbroke.

See Bolingbroke
St John, Oliver, envoy at the Hague, 138
St Kitt's (St Christopher's), 110 ; ceded to

England, 442 sq. ; 687 sq.
St Lawrence river, the French on, 684 sq.
St Lucia, the French in, 687
St Malo, English attack on, 261
St Martin, French and Dutch in, 687
St Maur, Congregation of, 79
St Omer, France and, 39, 44; 45; 162;

220; Dutch claims on, 422
St Petersburg, origin of, 529; 531; 533 sqq.;

542 ; death of Peter the Great at, 548 ;

Peter II and, 555 ; the rise of, 590; 591 ;

595; Charles XH and, 696; 597; 605;

609; the Academy of Science at, 741
St Buth, General, in Ireland, 316 sqq.
St Sacrament, Colony of, 456
Saint-Simon, Louis de Eouvroi, Duo de,

25; 86
Saint- Sulpice, seminary of, 78 sq.
St Thomas, the Danes in, 688
St Thom^, captured by the Dutch, 696
St Tenant, captured by the Allies, 429
St Vincent, claimed by the French, 687
Salamanca, Vendome at, 428
Salisfiury, the royal army at, 246

James Cecil, third Earl of, 218

Salza, Hermann von. High Master of the

German Order, 630
Salzburg, religious intolerance in, 743
Samogitia, the German Order and, 633
Sanoroft, William, Archbishop of Canter-
bury, 234; 242; deposed, 259; 330; 836
Sandvrich, Edward Montagu, first Earl of,

93 ; 105 sq. ; 181 ; in command of the
. English fleet, 182 ; 183 ; 192
San Francisco river, 677 sq.
San Paulo, 676 ; discovery of gold in,

678 sq.
Sanquhar, the Cameronians at, 286
Santa Catarina, retaken by the French, 419

Cruz, in French occupation, 687

Maura, capture of, 365

Saba, captured by the English, 110

Santiago de Cuba, taken by the English, 105
Saragossa, battle at, 428

Sardinia, Victor Amadeus 11 and, 437, 445 ;
450

Sarsfield, Patrick, titular Earl of Lucan,
813; 315 sq. ; 318

Sasbach, death of Turenne, at, 44

Satanovski, Arsenius, translator of the
Bussiau Bible, 516

Sauveur, Joseph, scientist, 722

Savile, Sir George, Marquis of Halifax.
See Halifax

Savonarola, Girolamo, 508

Savoy, invaded by the French, 59 ; and the
Spanish Succession, 389; 422; 429; the>
peace negotiations and, 430 ; and the
Peace of TTtrecht, 439 sq.; 448

Conference, 97; 330

Charles Emmanuel HI, Duke of

(Prince of Piedmont). See Charles Em-
manuel III

Victor Amadeus H, Duke of. See

Victor Amadeus

Savoy-Carignan, Eugene Francis, Prince of.

See Eugene
Saxe-Gotha, 414

Saxony, alliance of, with France, 33 ;
Swedish army in, 417; 420; 586; Den-
mark and, 609; and the third anti-
Swedish league, 611 ; and Brandenburg,
618 sq., 623, 627; 666; 748

Augustus, Duke of. Administrator of

Magdeburg, 644

Augustus, Elector of, 627

Frederic]^ Duke of, 634

Frederick 'Augustus I, Elector of.

See Augustus II, King of Poland
Henry the Lion, Duke of, 618

Henry the Proud, Duke of, 618

John George HI, Elector of, 65;

244; 359; in Vienna, 362

Maurice, Count of. Marshal of

France, 555

Maurice, Elector of, 627

Saye and Sele, VT'illiam Fiennes, first Vis-
count, 93

Scania, war of, 662, 569 sq., 678 sq. ; under
Swedish rule, 577 ; 583 ; Danish invasidn
of, 603 ; 610 ; 612

Scarborough, Biohard Lumley, Earl of, 242

Scarron, Madame. See Maintenon, Mar-
quise de

Paul, 20

Schaep, Gerard, Dutch envoy no England,

139
Scharding, Austrians defeated at, 407
Scheuchzer, Jean-Jacques, naturalist, 738
Scheveningen, Charles U sails from, 148
Schleswig, Denmark and, 550 sq., 582 sq.
Schleswig-Holstein, Denmark and, 53 sq.,

679; 681; 610
Schhck, General, defeated at Scharding, 407
Schlippenbach, General, defeat of, 590
Sohliisselburg, 563 ; capture of, 690
Schmalkaldic War, 626
Schmettau, Privy Councillor von, 661
SohSnborn. See Mainz, Elector of
Sohomberg, Frederick Herman, Duke of.

Marshal of France, 34; in England, 209;

Index.

963

244 ; 246 ; in Ireland, 312 sqq. ; death of,

314; 655; 660
Sohooneveld, sea-fight at, 161, 194; 195
Sohooten, Franciscus van, 711
Schulenbarg, Matthias Johaun, Count yon,

General, in Poland, S94
Schulz, Oeneial, defeats Tokolyi, 366
Schumacher, Peter. See Griftenfeld
Schntt, island of, Mouteonouli in, 346
Sohuurman, Anna Maria von, 756
Schwarzenberg, Adam von. Count, Prussian

Minister, 637 ; 640 ; 642
Sohwerin, Preiherr Otto von, Brandenburg

statesman, 642; 655

Count Otto von, 649 sq.

Schwiebus Circle, the Elector of Branden-
burg and the, 654; 655; 658 sq.

Scotland, 1660-1707, Chap. X (2) ; and the
Bestoration, 108; effect of the Dutch
war in, 110 ; risings in, 187, S25 ; James
Hand, 312; 465; 474; 612

Scroggs, Sir William, Lord Chief Justice, 22S

Seafield, James Ogilvy, first Earl of, Lord
Chancellor of Scotland, 299

Sedaine, Michel-Jean, French dramatic
poet, 70

Sedginoor, battle of, 232

Segovia, depopulation of, 376

Seignelay, Jean-Baptiste Colbert (the young-
er), Marquis de, French Minister of
Marine, 59

Senefi, battle of, 44, 161

Senegal, reconquered by France, 60
river, French settlements on, 691 sq.

Servetus, Michael, physician, 725 sq.

Servia, reconquered by the Turks, 61; 367;
Austrian invasion of, 368 sq.

Settle, Elkanah, poet, 134

Severia, Swedish army in, 598

S§vign6, Marie de Babutin-Chantal, Mar-
quise de, 7; 9

Seville, depopulation of, 376; 684

Treaty of, 555

Seymour, Charles, Duke of Somerset. 8u
Somerset

Shadwell, Thomas, dramatist, 127; 130;
133 sq.

Shafiroff, Peter Pavlovitdi, Baron, Eussian
Vice-ChanceUor, 546 ; negotiates with the
Porte, 605 sqq.; 612 sq.

Shaftesbury, Anthony Ashley Cooper, first
Earl of (Lord Ashley), 93 ; 101 ; Otway's
caricature of, 131 ; Dryden's satire on,
134 ; and the French Alliance, 191 ; 198;
201; Lord Chancellor, 207; 208 sq. ; and
the Test Act, 210 ; dismissal of, ib. ; and
the Prince of Orange, 213 ; opposes the
Non-resisting Test, 216 sq. ; as leader of
the Opposition, 218; sent to the Tower,
ib. ; opposes the Duke of York, 222 sq. ;
President of the Privy Council, 224;
225 sqq. ; accused of high treason, 228 ;
229 ; Locke and, 253 ; 274 ; 306 ; and the
Treaty of Dover, 333; and the succession,
334; 336; death of , 230

Shales, Henry, Commissary-general in Ire-
land, 313 sq.

Sharp, James, Archbishop of St Andrews,

281 sqq.; 284; murder of, 285
John, Dean of Norwich, 234

Sheemess, fortification of, 112 ; de Euyter
at, 188 ; flight of James II to, 247

Shein, Alexei, Bussian general, 522 sq. ;
525

Sheldon, Gilbert, Archbishop of Canter-
bury, 100; 331; 753

Sbemak, Russian agent at, 544; 545

Sheremetiefl, Boris Petrovich, Boiar, Eus-
sian field-marshal, 524 ; suppresses the
revolt at Astrakhan, 531 ; 588 ; defeats
the Swedes, 590; captures Dorpat, 591;
594 ; 698 ; campaign of, against the
Turks, 604 sq.

Shipoff, Colonel, captures Eescht, 545

Shirley, Dr, Chancery action by, 217

Shovell, Sir Clowdisley, admiral, 412; 416;
419 ,,

Shrewsbury, Charles Talbot, Duke of, 240
sq. ; and the invitation to William of
Orange, 242; 255; Secretary of State,
258; 259; and James U, 262; 274; 430;
and the Peace of Utrecht, 440; Lord
Chamberlain, 469 ; influence of in 1714,
475; Lord Treasurer, 476

Shuiski, Andrew, murder of, 487

Prmce, 491 ; 496

Prince Skopin, 500 sq.

Vasili. See Vasili IV, Tsar

Siberia, Eussian acquisitions in, 494 sq.;

531; banishments to, 552, 554; 595
Sibir, Tartar capital, 494 sq.
Sicily, Louis XIV and, 53, 417, 422 ; Dutch

fleet at, 161; 427; and the Peace of

Utrecht, 437; ceded to the Duke of

Savoy, 445, 448
Sidney, Algernon, at Amsterdam, 110 ; 229 ;

execution of, 230; 259
Henry, Earl of Eomney (Viscount

Sidney). See Eomney

Sir PhUip, 116

Sieverski, 500; retained by Poland, 504
Sigismund, Emperor, 621; 623; 632

I, King of Poland, 635

II Augustus, King of Poland, 354;

494; 636

in Vasa, King of Poland (and of

Sweden), 343; 498; invades Eussia, 500;
501; death of, 504; 636
Silesia, Brandenburg and, 359, 624; Bo-
hemia and, 621 ; 625 ; 644 ; the Great
Elector and, 664

George William, Duke of, 652

Silvester I, Pope, 484

monk, favourite of Ivan IV, 489 ; 515

Simon, Biohard, French theologian, 79 ; 87
Sinsheim, victory of Turenne at, 44
Sinzendorf, Philipp Ludwig, Count von.
Imperial ambassador at the Hague, 439
sqq. ; 432 ; and the Utrecht negotia-
tions, 460; 451; 467

964

Index.

Sitianovich, Simeon (Poloiski), BuBsiau

monk, 516 sq.
Sivaji, Maratha leader, 698
Skovronskaya, Martha (Catharine I). See

Catharine I
Skyite, Benedict, 656
Slave Coast, settlements on, 691
Slavinetski, Epifauy, translator of the

Bussian Bible, 516
Blavonia, 352; Austrians in, 366
Slavs, in Germany, 617
SUgo, Bobert Lundy and, 309 ; 312 sq.
Slingelandt, Govert van, Pensionary of

Dort, 145
Slottburg, captured by the Bussians, 590
Smith, Adam, political economist, 689

John, Cambridge Platonist, 750

Smolensk, annexed to Bussia, 479 sq. ;

481 ; 493 ; 504 ; restored to Bussia, 505 ;

531
Smorgonie, Charles ZII at, 597 sq.
Smyrna, Anglo-Dutch convoy from, 262
Smyth, Sir Jeremy, Engligh naval officer,

183; 186
Snell, WUlebrod, geometrician, 715
Soanen, Jean, Bishop of Senez, 90
Sobieski, James, and the Polish crown, 370

John. See John III, King of Poland

Sobor, The, Bussian assembly, 492 sq,;

497; 601 sqq.
Solari, Fietro Antonio, architect, 482
Solms, Heinrioh Maastricht, Count of

Solms-Braunfels, 315
Solothum, and Neuchatel, 449
Solovetski monastery, 509, 511
Solyman I, the Magnificent, Sultan, 341 ; 347

n, Sultan, 367 ; death of, 369

Somers, John, Lord, and the Bevolution

settlement, 249 sq. ; 253 ; 255 ; and the

currency, 269 ; 271 ; Lord Keeper, 274 ;

impeachment of, 275, 397 ; 277 ; Lord

President of the Council, 465 ; 466 sq. ;

469 ; the Earl of Oxford and, 470, 474
Somerset, the ' ' Bloody Assizes " in, 232

Charles Seymour, sixth Duke of,

476

Sonnenstein, fortress of, 594

Sophia, Tsarevna, Begent of Bussia, 518

sqq.; and the conspiracy against Peter

the Great, 622; 523; 625

Tsaritsa, 482 sq.

Charlotte, Queen of Prussia, 662 sq.;

665 ; 670 sq. ; death of, 667 ; 741

Souches, Ludwig Baduit de, Austrian field-
marshal, 347

Sourdis, Henri d'Escoublean de. Arch-
bishop of Bordeaux, 755

South Sea Company, 445

Southampton, Thomas Wriothesley, fourth
Earl of, 93 ; 106

Southwell, Sir Bobert, EngUsh envoy in
Portugal, 105, 109

Southwold Bay, battle of, 43, 110, 158,
192 sq.

Sozh river, Lithuanian boundary, 481

Spain, the Treaties of Partition and the
Spanish Succession, Chap. XIII; the
War of the Spanish Succession, Chap.
XIV; decadence of, 33 sqq., 46, 338,
374 sqq.; and Portugal, 34, 37 sq., 372,
4S6 ; joins the Augsburg Alliance (1686),
35, 235; and Louis XIV, 36, 53, 58,
874 ; and France, 38, 42, 45, 47 ; 41 ;
alliance of, with the United Provinces,
43, 157, 161, 166 ; joins the Emperor's
coalition, 43 ; at war with France, 49
sq., 61, 373; and the Peace of Byswyk,
63 ; French influence on the literature
of, 69 sq. ; and Charles II of England,
104 sq. ; and England, 109, 471, 444
sq., 550 sq.; and the peace negotiations
with France, 164 sq. ; and Tangier, 178 ;
the Triple Alliance and, 200 ; and the
Peace of Aachen, ib. ; and the Peace of
Nymegen, 220 ; Protestantism in, 324 ;
and Austria, 359 ; and the Emperor Leo-
pold, 868, 644; European position of,
372 ; finances of, 375 ; the Inquisition
in, ih. ; the Grand Alliance (1701) and,
398, 403 ; 411 ; the Allies in, 416 sq. ;
and the peace proposals, 417, 427 ; the
war in (1708-9), 426 ; and the Peace of
Utrecht, 434, 437 ; and Savoy, 448 ; and
Gelderland, ib. ; and the Peace of Baden,
464 sq.; treaty of, with the United
Provinces (1714), 456 sq. ; joins the
Hanoverian Alliance, 555 ; and Sweden,
671 ; 673 ; and Brazil, 676 ; colonial
policy of, 680 sqq. ; and the West Indies,
684, 687 sq., 691; 702

Spangenberg, August Gottlieb, 762

Spanheim, Ezechiel, Brandenburg am-
bassador at Paris, 654

Spanish Netherlands. See Netherlands,
Spanish

Spee, Friedrich von, Jesuit, 758

Speier, 56; occupied by the French, 435

Spencer. See Sunderland

Spener, Fhilipp Jacob, founder of the
Pietists, 671 ; 759 sq. ; 762

Speyerbach, French victory at, 408

Spice Archipelago, the Dutch in, 695 sq.

Spinalonga, retained by Venice, 349

Spinoza, Benedict, 744; 754 sq.

Spiring family, the Great Elector and the,
641

Spithead, French fleet at, 177

Spragg, Sir Edward, admiral, 189; 192 sq.;
and Prince Eupert, 194, 197; 195 sq.

Sprat, Thomas, Bishop of Eoohester, 126;
132 sq.; 234

Spree district, acquired by Brandenburg,
620

Stade, captured by the Danes, 582, 607

Stafford, William Howard, Viscount, 220;
execution of, 227; 231

Stahl, George Ernest, physician, 732; 734

Stair, Sir James Dalrymple, Viscount, 287

Sir John Dalrymple, first Earl of,

Lord Advocate, 292 ; 294 sq.

Index.

965

stanhope, Alexander, English envoy to
Madiid, 374 sq.; 380; 384

James, first Barl Stanhope, in

Spain, 876 ; captuies Minorca, 426, 444 ;
466 ...

Stanislaus Leszezynski, King of Poland,
598; 695 sqq.; and Mazepa, 600; 601;
603; 605; recognised by Great Britain,
608; recognised by Prussia, 667

Stapleton, Colonel, Governor of the Lee-
ward Islands, 690

Starhemberg, Guidobald, Count von,
Austrian field-marshal, 408; in Spain,
426, 428; 484; 435; 446

Eudiger, Count, Governor of Vienna,

361

Stayner, Sir Biohard, English admiral, 372

Steele, Sir Eiohard, 128 ; 467 ; 474

SteinMrke, battle of, 60, 261, 263

Stenay, ceded to France, 33

Stenboek, Magnus, Count, Swedish general,
581 sq.; 603; 608 sq.

Stensen, Nieolaus, 729 ; 731 sqq.; 738 sqq.

Stephen Bithory, King of Poland (Prince
of Transylvania), 344 ; 494 ; 498 ; 604

Stepney, George, envoy to Brandenburg,
662

Stettin, restored to Sweden, 45, 652; siege
of, 569 sq., 652; the "sequestration" of,
609; 610 sq.; ceded to Prussia, 615

Stevinus, Simon, mathematician, 709 sq. ;
712

Stewart, Alexander, Earl of Moray. See
Moray

William, Viscount Mountjoy. See

Mountjoy

StiUingfleet, Edward, Bishop of Worcester,
749

Stockholm, bank of, 268 ; 566 ; the Estates
at, 573; Diet at, 576; the Biksdag at,
585; Patkul at, 686; 691; Treaties of,
542, 614 sq. ; Truce of (1641), 641

Stolbova, Peace of, 503, 610

Stolhofen, 407 sq. ; taken by the French, 418

Storkyro, battle of the, 609

Stradella, Prince Eugene at, 415

Strafford, Thomas Wentworth, third Earl
of (Lord Baby), 481 sq.; 438 sq.

Stralsnnd, restored to Sweden, 45 ; 569 ;
582 ; 603 ; besieged, 607 ; 608 ; Charles XII
at, 610 sq. ; lost by the Swedes, 652

Strassburg, occupied by the French, 48;
50; 63; seized by Louis XIV, 230, 367;
364; 422; 450; Villars at, 435, 452;
retained by France, 436 ; 653 ; Univer-
sity of, 628

Strickland, Walter, at the Hague, 138

Strieltzy, the, 484; 618 sq.; 521; Peter
the Great and, 522 sqq.

Stroganoff, Gregory, Eussian colonist, 494

Stromboli, naval battle off, 44, 162

Stryeshnefl, Peter, uncle of Peter the Great,
521

Stuhmsdorf, truce of, 638

Sturm, Beata, Pietist, 762

Stuttgart, Prince Eugene at, 452; 762
Styrum, Hermann Otto, Count of Limburg-
Styrum, Imperial field-marshal, 407 sq.
SnoMing, Sir John, 746; 747
Suda, retained by Venice, 349
gniva river, Eussian fleet built on, 691
Sunderland, Eobert Spencer, second Earl
of. Secretary of State, 224; 226; 230
and James H, 231 ; 238 sqq. ; and
William of Orange, 243; dismissal of,
245; 256; 271; 273; and WilUam HI
274; 307; 461

Charles Spencer, third Earl of, 461

Secretary of State, 465; 466; 469
Surat, the Dutch in, 697; 698; 703
Surinam, the Dutch in, 110, 151, 161, 688

154; 189
Surman, embassy of, to Delhi, 701
Suso, Heinrich, mystic, 758
Suzdal, Pokrovsky monastery at, 625
Svane, Hans, Bishop of Zealand, 559
Swabia, French invasion of, 418; 622

Frederick, Duke of, 630

Swammerdam, John, naturalist, 727; 737
Sweden, 1660-97, Chap. XVIH (2);
1697—1720, Chap. XIX; joins the Augs-
burg Alliance, 36, 285; and England,
37; and the Triple Alliance, 38 sqq.,
152 sqq., 200, 373 ; Louis XIV and, 40.Bq.,
49 ; treaties of, with Brandenburg and
Deimiark, 40, 45, 53; and the peace
negotiations, 62; and the Anglo-Dutch
war, 109 ; and the Baltic, 146 sq., 620,
638 ; relations of, with the United
Provinces, 146; at war with Denmark,
146 sq., 403; 164; alliance of, with the
United Provinces, 166; France and,
338; and Eussia, 343 sq., 371, 603, 605,
628, 542; and Poland, 343 sq., 371, 506,
638; and Denmark, 344; and Livonia,
493 sq. ; Sigismund III of Poland and,
498; 601; joins the Hanoverian Alliance,
551 ; and the Peace of Nystad, 615 ; and
Brandenburg, 637, 641, 646, 649; and
Pomerania, 640; 643; and the Franco-
Dutch war, 650; invades Brandenburg,
651 ; and the Treaties of Nymegen and
St Germain, 652 ; the Great Elector and,
657; and Mecklenburg-Giistrow, 663;
and Prussia, 666 sq.
Swift, Jonathan, 70; 458; 467; 469; 471
Swiss Confederation, and Neuobfitel, 449
Switzerland, and the Great Elector, 654
Sword, Knights of the Order of the, 630
Sydney, Henry, Earl of Eomney. See

Eoinney
Sylvius (de La Bo^), Francis, physiologist,

730 sqq.; 734
Szalankemen, battle of, 61, 369

Taaffe, Theobald, Earl of Carlipgfoid. See

Carlingford
Tachenius, Otto, chemist, 731
Taganrog, founded, 622 ; 527 ; 605 ; razed

by Peter the Great, 606

61—3

Index.

Talavera, Yenddme at, 428
Talbot, Charles, Dnke of Shrewsbury' See
Shrewsbury

Sir GUbert, envoy to Denmark, 109

Peter, titular Abp of Dublin, a05

- Eiohard, Earl of Tyroonnel. See
lyrconnel

Tallard, Camille d'Hostnn, Comte de.
Marshal of ^France, Ambassador in
London, 382, 385 sqq., 430 ; in the
campaign against the Allies, 407 sqq.

Tabnash, Thomas, Lleutenant-Oeneral, 246

Tanaro, the Allies on the, 408

Tangier, 61 ; ceded to England, 105 ; 106
sq.; 113; 178

Tannenberg, Polish victory at, 633

Tartars, Bussia and the, 477 sqq., 484;
invade Lithuania, 481

Tatarsk, Charles XII at, 598

Tate, Nahum, dramatist, 184

Tattenbach, Hanns Erasmus, Count von,
351 sq.

Tauler, Johann, mystic, 755

TaviSres, and the battle of Bamillies, 415

Taylor, Brook, mathematician, 717 ; 722

Jeremy, Bishop of Down and Connor,

119 ; 304 ; 321 ; 326 ; 328 ; the Liberty
of Prophesying of, 329 , 332 ; 748 sq.

TecMenbnfg, countship of, 668

Teelinck, Wilhelm, mystic, 754

Teignmonth, burnt by the French, 261

Teleki, Michael, leader of the Hungarian
rebels, 353; 355; 358

Temesvar, congress at, 346 ; 370 sq.

Templars, Order of the, 630; abolished, 631

Temple, Sir William, and the Triple
Alliance, 119 sq., 153, 191; 201; and
the Prince of Orange, 213 ; 224 ; 265

Tenedos, taken by the Venetians, 342

Tenison, Thomas, Archbishop of Canter-
bury, 753

Tennhart, Johann, Pietist, 761

Tess4, Mans- Jean-Baptiste-Eeme de Froulay,
Comte de. Marshal of France, 402 ; 416 ;
419

Testi, Fulvio, Count, Italian poet, 69

Tezel, 181 ; battle off, 195 sq.
Thames, de Euyter's fleet in, 37, 113 ;
Dutch fleet off the, 182, 189 ; the Great
Seal recovered froru, 247
Theodore I, Tsar, 495 sq, ; death pf , 497 ;
514

in. Tsar, 486; 516 sqq.; death of,

519; 524; 741

Godunoff, Tsareyich, 499

Theodosia, daughter of Theodore I, Tsar,

496
Theophrastus, and sexuality in plants, 736
Thevenot, Melchisedec, tzaveller, 740
Thirty Years' War, the, 339 ; 341 : 348 ;

372; 637 sq.; 645; 657
ThomasiuB, Christian, philosopher, 758;

760
Thorn, S38 ; siege of, 592; the Prussian

League and, 634; 743

Thorn, Peace of (1411), 633 ; the Second
Peace of (1466), 634

Treaty of, 602, 604

Thorndike, Herbert, Anglican divine, 331
Thouars, cnetoms of, 13
Thiingen, Genera], at Speyerbach, 408
Thurloe, John, Secretary of State, 146
Tichelaer, Willem, and the murder of the

brothers de Witt, 159
Tillotson, John, Archbishop of Canterbury,

332 ; 334 ; 752 sq.
Tilly, Claude, Count van, 159
Timmerman, Franz, in Eussia, 520
Timotheevicb, Ermak, Cossack chief, 495
Timur, Mongol conqueror, 479
Tirlemont, engagement near, 414
Tobago, captured by the English, 110 ; the

Dutch in, 151, 687 ; 688
Tobolsk, 494; iron mines of, 533
Tokolyi, Count Emeric, leader of the

Hungarian revolt, 35 ; 352 ; 355 sqq. ;

marriage of, 358; revolt by, i6. ; 359;

attacks Pressburg, 361 ; 363 ; visits the

Sultan, 364; in Transylvania, 369; defeat

of, 366 ; 371

Stephen, 351 sq.

Tonning, 580; 582; Stenbock in, 609
Tokay, submits to the Emperor, 366
Tokmash, Shah of Persia, 544
Toledo, depopulation of, 376; 381
Tolstoi, Peter Andryevich, Count, and the

Tsarevich, 539 sq. ; 549 ; 552 sq. ;

at Stambul, 598 ; 603 sq. ; 612
Tomkins, Thomas, chaplain to Archbishop

Sheldon, 331
Torbay, William of Orange lands at,

246
Torcy, Jean-Baptiste Colbert, Marquis de,

French Secretary of State, 394 ; and the

peace negotiations, 417, 422 sq., 427,

430, 440; 472 h . ,

Tordenskiojd, Peter, Danish admiral, 583
Torricelli, Evangelista, physicist, 715
Torrington, Arthur Herbert, Earl of,

admiral, 242 sq. ; 245 ; 261
Torstensson, Lennart, Count of Ortala,

Swedish general, 609
Tortosa, capture of, 426
Toulon, development of, 14; Tourville at,

61 sq. ; 183; Marlborough's designs on,

412, 414; 413; attacked by Prince

Eugene, 419; 426
Toulouse, Parlemera of, 4
Touraine, customs of, 13
Tournay, Parlement of, 4; 48; taken by

the French, 199; siege of, 424 sq.; 428;

434 ; the Barrier Treaties and, 467 sqq.
Tours, tax collectors imprisoned in, 8
TourvlUe, Anne-Hilarion de Costentin,

Comte de, French admiral. 68 so. ■ 61

sq. ; 261; 412 sq. ' 4 . o^

Towushend, Charles, second Viscount
Townshend, 422 sq. ; signs the first
Barrier Treaty. 424; 427; 432; and the
Whig party, 466

Index.

967

Transylvania, attacked by the Turks, 36 ;
40; 63; independence of, 339; 340; and
Turkey, 344 sqq. ; 352 ; the Duke of
Lorraine in, 367; Tokolyi in, 369; 371;
the German Order in, 630 ; 744

Aohatius Barczai, Prince of, 346

Bethlen Gabor, Prince of, 339

Francis H B&k6ozT, Prince of,

351 sq.; 358; 596

Francis Bedei, Prince of, 344

George B4k6ozy I, Prince of, 339;

344
George E4k6czy II, Prince of, 339;

344 sq.; 351
John Eemdnyi, Prince of, 345 sq.

Michael ApaSy, Prince of, 345 sq. ;

348.; and the Hungarian conspiracy, 351 ;
353; treaty of, with France, 354; 355;
367 ; death of, 368

Stephen B&thory, Prince of. See

Stephen

Traqnair, Earl of, 290

Trarbach, captured by Marlborough, 411

Traventhal, Peace of, 581; 588

Trelawny, Charles, Major-General, 243

Trent, Yendome at, 407 sq.
Council of, 742

Treuenbrietzen, and the False Waldemar,
621

Trevor, Sir John, diplomatist, 153

Trier, lost by France, 44; 411

John Hugo von Orsbeck, Elector of,

403

Trincomali, captured by the Dutch, 696

Trinidad, the Spaniards in, 687

Troitsa monastery, 501; 508

Tromp, Comelis,.. Dutch admiral, 161;
victory of at Oland, 162; in the Four
Days' Battle, 183 sq. ; 186 sq. ; 190 ;
195 sq.

Marten Harpertzoon, Dutch admiral,

engagement of, with Blake, 139; 140

Tmbetskoi, Prince, 491

Tuekney, Anthony, and Whichcote, 750

Tubingen, Bpener at, 762

Turkheim, fight at, 651

Tula, revolutionaries at, 500; 533

Tulu, aUied army at, 361 ; 362

Tnrenne, Henri de La Tour d'Auvergne,
Vieomte de, Marshal of France; con-
version of, 22 ; 43 sq. ; Bossuet and,
86; 160; 199; death of, 217; 232;
340; 372; 651

Turin, 408; 414; relief of, 415; 668

Peace of, 448

Turkey, Chap. XII; 33; war of, with
Austria, 36, 49, 60 sq.; rise of the
power of, 40; and Poland, 41, 505; and
Eussia, 603, 521 sqq., 527 ; and Eussian
influence in Asia, 544 sq. ; and Bussia
(1709-13), 603 sqq.; and the Peace of
Adrianople, 607; 610

Company, complaints of, against

the Dutch, 108

Turner, Sir James, in Scotland, 284

Tuscany, and the Spanish Succession, 384,

389
Tushino, the Eussian Pretender at, 500
Tver, annexed by Ivan the Great, 479
Tweeddale, John Hay, second Marquis of,

298
Tyrconnel, Eichard Talbot, Earl of,

233 sq. ; 305 ; Viceroy of Ireland, 306 sq.;

and James H, 308 ; 310 sqq. ; and the

siege of Limerick, 315 sq.; visits France,

316; death of, 318
Tyrol, 401 sq.; the Elector of Bavaria in,

407 ; the French in, 408 ; 414
Ferdinand Charles, Archduke of, 211

Uglich, the Tsarevich Dimitri sent to, 496
Ukraine, 349; the Turks in, 353; 355;
abandoned by Turkey, 358; 504 sqq.;
596 sq.; Swedish army in, 598, 600;
Mazepa and, 699 sq.
Ukraintseff, Emelyan, Eussian plenipoten-
tiary in Turkey, 527
Ulfeld, Eorfits, Count, Danish statesman,

558; 560
Ulm, capture of, 406; 407; 409
Ulrica Eleonora, Queen of Sweden, 571 sq.

Leonora, Queen of Sweden, 595; 614

Ulster, restoration of Episcopacy in, 304
Unigenitus, Bull of Clement XI, 90 sq.
United Provinces of the Netherlands, the
{see also Witt, John de; William IK),
under John de Witt and William III of
Orange (1651-88), Chap. VII; wars of
vrith England (1664-74), Chap. Vni (2);
at war with France, 10, 12 ; Louis XIV
and, 36; at war with England (1665),
37; and the Quadruple Alliance, 37,
109 ; and the Triple Alliance, 38, 200 sq.,
373; 39; invaded by Louis XIV, 40;
42 sqq.; and the French siege of Luxem-
burg, 48 sq.; and the Truce of Batisbon,
60 ; position of in 1688, 53 ; and the
Grand Alliance, 58, 398, 431; and the
Peace of Eyswyk, 63; 107; treaty of,
with England (1662), 108 ; at war with
England (1665-7), 108 sqq.; aUianoe of
with Louis XIV (1662), 108; financial
position of, 111; 112; Charles II of
England and, 199 ; the Treaty of Dover
and, 203 sq., 333; at war with England
(1672), 206 sq. ; alliance of with England
(1678), 219; and the Peace of Nymegen,
220; and the expedition to England,
244 sq.; and the Spanish Succession,
388, 390, 401; invaded by the French
(1701), 397; 404; 412; and the peace
negotiations, 417, 422 sq., 427 sq.,
430 sqq.; and the first Barrier Treaty,
424; and the Peace of Utrecht, 434,
438 sqq. ; treaty of with France (1713),
443 sq., 446 sq.; treaty of with Spain
(1714), 455 sq. ; and the Barrier Treaties,
456 sqq. ; 527 ; and Peter the Great, 542 ;
Sweden and, 666 sqq., 571, 607; and
this Hague Treaty of Guarantee, 577 ;

968

Index.

alliance of, with France and Bussia
(1717), 613; 649; the Great Elector
and, 642; and Brandenburg, 42, 650,
652, 654 sq. ; 660; and the Second
Partition Treaty, 664; and Brazil,
675 sq. ; 680 ; 694 ; and Spain, 702 ;
and the American and West Indian
colonies, Chap. XXII (1) passim; and
India, Chap. XXII (2) passim
United States of America, constitution of,

276
TJntereyk, Theodor, Pietist, 757
Upsala, the Estates at, 568
Ursek Ujvar. See Neuhausel
TJrsins, Prinoesse des. See Orsini
Uruguay, Portugal and, 456, 680
Uspensky Cathedral, 604
Ussher, JameSj Abp of Armagh, 238 ; 745
Usson, de, French officer, in Ireland, 316

sqq.
Usupofi, General, and Empress Anne, 557
Utrecht, 43 ; and the Eternal Edict, 155 ;
invaded by the French, 157 ; 161 ; 458 ;
Gisbert Voet at, 753

Peace of. Chap. XIV (2); 30; 399;

431 ; 432 sqq. ; Brandenburg and, 658 ;
Prussia and, 668 ; and Brazil, 679 ; and
Spanish America, 684; and the West
Indies, 688; 693

Union of (1579), 448

Valckenier, Gillia, opposes de Witt, 154,

156 ; 164 ; death of, 165
Valencia, the Allies in, 416 ; 419 ; 426
Valenciennes, taken by the French, 44 ;

45 ; 422 ; 457 sq.
Valengiu, Prussia and, 449, 669
Valentine, Basil, alchemist, 730 sq.
Valeuza, taken by the Allies, 416
Valenzuela, Fernando de, Spanish states-
man, 35 ; 45
Valladolid, 220 ; rising in, 376 ; 428
Vanbrugh, Sir John, 128 ; 130 sq.
Vane, Sir Henry, execution of, 94

Sir Walter, at Berhn, 109

Varignon, Peter, mathematician, 718
VasUi ni. Tsar, 479 ; 481 ; reign of, 487

IV, Tsar, election of, 499 ; SOD sq.

Vasily Island, Peter 11 at, 554
Vassian, pupil of Nil Sorski, 508
Vasvar, Truce of, 40, 848, 850, 358
Vauban, S^bastien le Prestre, Seigneur de,
Marshal of France, 15 ; 25 ; 29 sq. ; 429
Vaughan, Bichard, Earl of Carbery. See

Carbery
Velez Malaga, naval fight off, 413
Venaissiu, the, 449

Venddme, Louis-Joseph, Duo de, French
general, captures Barcelona, 62; in Italy,
405 sqq. ; 414 ; replaces Villeroi in the
Netherlands, 416 ; 418 ; 420 ; defeated at
Oudenarde, 421 ; 422 ; in Spain, 428

Philippe de. Grand Prior of France,

414

Venice, at war with Turkey, 40 ; bank of,

266, 268, 270 ; and the Peace of Carlo,
witz, 371 ; and the Turks, 342 ; 368
supports Austria against the Turks, 359
joins the Holy League, 864; 365; 402
and Bussia, 482; GaUleo at, 713
Venloo, 406; ceded to the United Pro-
vinces, 459
Venner, Thomas, Fifth Monarchy preacher,

100; 113; 329
Vera Cruz, and the Spanish trade, 684
Verden, Sweden and, 562 ; 569; 582 ; 603;
occupied by the Danes, 607; 610 sq.;
613 ; 615 ; 652 ; George I and, 550
YerhoefF, Hendrik, and the murder of the

de Witts, 159
Versailles, 15 ; 17 ; James H at, 316
Vershoor, Jacob, and Spinoza, 754 ,
Vesalius, Andreas, anatomist, 723 sqq.
VesseUnyi, Francis, Palatine of Hungary,

351 sq.
Viana, Manoel Nunes, leader of the Foras-

teiros, 679
Viatka, annexed by Ivan the Great, 479
Viborg, 603; 614; ceded to Bussia, 615
Victor Amadeus II, Duke of Savoy (after-
wards King of Sardinia), 58; 60 sqq.;
and the Grand Alliance, 870, 408; and
the Spanish Succession, 380, 388, 898;
401 ; and Louis XIV, 404 ; and the war
of the Spanish Succession, 411; 412;
414 sq. ; 419; 425; and Sicily, 427, 445,
448; meeting of the Emperor with, 432;
434 ; and the Peace of Utrecht, 487
Vieira, Fernandes, leader of the Fortugnese

revolt in Brazil, 674 sq.
Vieima, besieged by the Turks, 41, 49,
340 sq., 306 sqq., 866; 347; 858; Prince
Eugene at, 870, 414; 407 sqq.; 411; 417;
the plague at, 451 ; flight of the Tsarevich
to, 539 ; 658 ; scientific societies at, 741

■ Peace of (1788), 487

Treaties of (1815), 620

Vienne, Council of, 631
Vieta, Francis, mathematician, 709 sq.
Vigo, French fleet destroyed at, 412
Villa Vioiosa, besieged, 34; 428
Villadariaa, Marquis of, at Gibraltar, 413
Villars, Claude-Louis-Hector, Due de, Mar-
shal of France, 26; 52; 57; threatens
Vienna, 407 sq. ; recall of, 408; 414
416; captures Stolhofen, 418; 423 sq.
defeated at Malplaquet, 425 sq.; 428
success of Marlborough against, 431; at
Deuain, 483 sq.; on the Bhine, 485; and
the Peace of Bastatt, 435, 451 sq.
Villastellona, Prince Eugene at, 415
Villeroi, Francois de Neufville, Due de.
Marshal of France, 262; in Italy, 402 sq. ;
in the Netherlands, 408 ; joins Tallard in
Alsace, 410; 411; opposed by Marl-
borough, 414 ; at Bamillies, 415 sq.
Villiers, Edward, Earl of Jersey. See
Jersey

Elizabeth, Countess of Orkney. See

Orkney

Index.

969

Villingen, 407; attacked by Tallard, 410

Vilna, capital of Lithuania, 480

Vinoent de Paul, Saint, 78; 80

Vinci, Leonardo da, 724; 738 sq.

Yinins, Andrei, 525

Virginia, Charles II and, 101

Vistula river, 597; meeting of the Tsar

and Augustus II on, 602; 629; 631; 634
Vitry, Nioolas-Marie de I'Hospital, Marquis

de, French envoy in Poland, 359 sq.
Vivarais, revolt in, 9
Vivien, Nioolaas, Pensionary of Dort, 145;

155
Vizthum, Count, chamberlain to Augustus II,

602
Vladimir I (the Saint), Tsar, 477; 483 sq.
— n Monomakhos, Tsar, 484
Vlie, Dutch vessels destroyed in the, 187
Voet, Crisbert (Voetins), theologian, 82 ;

753 sqq. ; 757
Voiture, Vincent, French writer, 70
Volga, river, Bashkir rising on, 597
Volhynia, Swedish army in, 594
Vologda, military centre at, 500
Voltaire, Francjois-Marie Arouet de, 69 sq.
Voluinsky, Artamon, Bussian Minister at

IspaJian, 544
Voronezh, fleet built at, 521 sq. ; 600
Vossem, Peace of, 650
Vota, Charles Maurice, Italian Jesuit, 663
Voysin, Daniel-Franfois, French Secretary

of State, 2
Vuyst, Dutch Governor of Ceylon, 696

Waag river. Imperial fortress on, 348, 350
Wachtmeister, Hans, Swedish statesman

and officer, 573 sq. ; 578 ; 582
Wager, Sir Charles, British admiral, 551
Waite, Sir Nicholas, at Bombay, 700 sq.
Wakeman, Sir George, physician, 220

224 sq.
Waloheren, the Treaty of Dover and, 154

204
Waldeck, George Frederick, Count of, 59,

151 ; 160 ; 167 ; and Brandenburg, 642

sq., 655; 661
Waldemar II, King of Denmark, 620

The False. See Brandenburg

Wallachia, 339; Turkey and, 344

Hospodar of, 601

WaUenstein, Count Albrecht von. See

Friedland, Duke of
WaUer, Edmund, poet, 70 ; 132 ; 210
Wallis, John, mathematician, 710 sq.; 713
Walpole, Sir Eobert, first Earl of Orford,

and party government, 463 ; Secretary at

War, 465 ; 466 ; 469 ; 474
Horace, Lord Walpole of Wolterton,

English ambassador at Paris, 555
Walsh, Peter, Irish Franciscan, 304
Walters, Lucy, 226 _

Warmia, bishopric of, 634; Prussia and,

667
Wamemunde, Peter the Great and, 611
Warneton, ceded to France, 45 ; 459

Warsaw, 505 ; 692 ; 593 sq.
Wartenberg, Johann Casimir Eolbe, Count

Ton, 664 sq. ; 671
Warthe river, and the New Mark, 618
Wassenaer, Jacob, Baron van (of Obdam),

Dutch admiral, 146 sq. ; 181

Jacob van (of Obdam), Dutch

general, 382 ; 407

Waterford, captured by WUliam HI, 815
Webb, John Biehmond, General, 422
Webster, John, dramatist, 126
Weigel, Valentin, theologian, 759
Weissenburg, captured by the French, 414
Wends, subjugation of, 617 ; 618 sq.
Wentworth, Thomas, Earl of Straflord.

See Strafford
Wemburg, Charles XH at, 588
Wesley, Charles, 759 sq.

John, 759 sq.

West India Company (Dutch), 146, 674 sq.,
691 ; (French), 692

West Indies, the French in, 12 sq. ; 104
sq. ; English, French, and Dutch in, 110;
112; 149; 151; 179 ; EngUsh and French
in, 189, 442 ; 378 sq. ; the Grand Alliance
(1701) and, 398 ; 679 sq. ; decline of
Spanish power in, 684 ; English policy
in, 686 ; European competition in, 687
sqq. ; EngUsh government in, 690 ; piracy
in, 691; 694

Westminster, Peace of, 162

WestphaUa, and the Old Mark, 619

Peace of, 46 sqq. ; 338 ; 373 ; 450 ;

453 sq.; 577; Brandenburg and, 641,
643 sq.; 652; 659; 743

Wettin, House of, 660

Wexford, captured by WiUiam HI, 315

Wharton, Philip, Lord Wharton, 218

Thomas, first Marquis of Wharton,

243 ; 274 ; 466

Thomas, physician, 729; 731

Whiohcote, Benjamin, and the Cambridge

Platoniats, 750
Whig Examiner, The, newspaper, 469
White Lake, monastery of the, 507

Sea, 512 ; visited by Peter the

Great, 520 ; 552

Wiapoc river, France and, 679
Wiclif, John, reformer, 633
Widdin, the Turks and, 61, 369; 368
Wieuwerd, the Labadists at, 756
Wight, Isle of, Dutch fleet at, 206
Wigtownshire, recusants in, 883
Wildman, Sir John, and Bye House plot,

229
WUkins, John, Bishop of Chester, 332 sqq.
William III, King of England, Scotland,
and Ireland, and Prince of Orange :

(1) Prince of Orange : proclaimed Stad-
holder of Holland and Zeeland, 43,
157 ; 44 ; at the battle of St Denys, 45;
46 ; and the French siege of Luzem-
burg, 48 sq; ; alliance of, with the Great
Elector, 52; 63 sq.; guardianship of,
107, 148, 151 ; the Act of Seclusion and,

970

Index.

141 sqci.; 1S3; character of, 1S4 sq., 166
sq.; and the States of Zeeland, 195 Bq. ;
157 ; policy of, 158, 162 ; and the down-
fall of de Witt, 169 sq.; successes of
against the French, 160 sq. ; increased
power of, 161 ; at Seneff, ih. ; relations
of with England, 162 sq. ; marriage of,
163, 213 sq., 219; relieves Mons, 164
sq. ; opposition to, 165 ; forms an alU-
ance against France, 166 ; and Queen
Mary, 167, 258 ; 197 sq. ; and the Treaty
of Dover, 204; 208; and Charles H,
230 ; and the Duke of Monmouth, 232 ;
and James II, 235, 238 sqq. ; attitude
of, towards England (1687-8), 241;
and the invitation &om England, 242
sq. ; attitude of the Powers to, 244 ; sails
for England, 55, 245 ; landing of, 246 ;
247 ; and the flight of James 11, 248 ;
opposition of to Louis XIV, 349 ; and
Austria, 359

(2) King of England, Scotland, and
Irelwnd: accession of, 56 sq.; coronation
of, 167 ; recognised by the Emperor, 58 ;
59; and the Bevolutiou settlement, 249
sq. ; proclaimed King, 251 ; 252 sq. ;
cautious policy of, 255 ; character and
aims of, 266 sqq. ; Parliament and, 259 ;
and the Act of Grace, 260; at SteinJdrke,
60; at Keerwinden, 61,262; and France,
62 sq. ; in Ireland, 260 sq. ; plot to assas-
sinate, 262 ; and the war with France, 262
sq. ; and the BngUsh attitude towards the
war, 263; 264 sqq.; and the currency,
269 sq.; and the executive government,
272 sq. ; and the legislature, 273;
and the Whigs, 274; 275 sq.; political
action of, in England, 276 sq.; influ-
ence of, upon European polity, 277 ;
and Scotland, 290 sqq. ; and Tyrconnel,
307 ; and Louis XIT, 308 ; 399 ; and the
Grand Alliance, 311, 398 sq. ; 403 ; in
Ireland, 313 sqq.; and the capture of
Athlone, 317; and Ireland, 320 sqq.;
and religious toleration, 336 sq.; 340;
and the Emperor, 368 sq. ; and Spain,
374, 437 ; and the Spanish Succession,
379, 381 sqq. ; difficulties of, in England,
386 sq.; and the accession of Philip T of
Spain, 395 sqq. ; supported in England,
397, 400; and the Partition Treaties,
384, 389 sq. ; and Philip V, 401 ; and
Marlborough, 405; and the Mediterra-
nean, 411 ; 429 ; foreign policy of, 440 ;
449 ; 461 ; sends a fleet to the Baltic,
688 ; and Sweden, 591 ; 654 ; and the
Elector Frederick HI, 660 sqq.; 688;
and colonial affairs, 691 ; and East
India Companies, 701; death of, 276,
668

Williamson, Sir Joseph, Secretary of State,
210

Willis, Thomas, physician, 733 aq.

Willoughby, Sir Hugh, and the north-east
passage, 512

Willoughby, Francis, fifth Baron Willoughby
of Parhani, Governor of Barbados, 189;
688

William, sixth Baron Willoughby of

Parham, Governor of Barbados, 690

WiUughby, Francis, naturalist, 736 sq.

Wilmot, John, Earl of Bochester. See
Bochester

Wilson, John, playwright, 130

Winchester, Charles Powlett, seventh Mar-
quis of (and second Duke of Bolton), 321

Windsor, Charles II at, 225; 227 sq.

Windward Islands, 687 sq. ; government of,
690

Wirsung, Johann Georg, anatomist, 729

Wishart, Sir James, English admiral, 446

Wismar, taken by the Danes, 569; 579;
603; Swedish army at, 608; 610 sq.;
capitulates, 612

Wisniowieoki, Michael Korybut. See Mi-
chael, King of Poland

Withers, Major-General, at Malplaquet, 425

Witsen, Nioolaes, opposes the Mnce of
Orange, 165

Witt, Cornells de, 138 ; 145 ; 158 ; murder
of, 43, 159, 208

Jacob de, 137 sq. ; 145

John de. Grand Pensionary of Hol-
land, 36 sq. ; 110 ; Pensionary of Dort,
138 ; Grand Pensionary of Holland, 139 ;
and the negotiations with England, 113,
140 sqq. ; marriage of, 144 sq. ; financial
reforms by, 145 ; and Portugal, 146, 148
and the struggle in the Baltic, 146 sq.
and the restoration of Charles H, 148
and the young Prince of Orange, ib.
149 ; and the war with England, 150
and the Peace of Breda, 151 ; forms a
coalition against France, 152 sq. ; and
the Peace of Aachen, 153 sq. ; opposition
to, 154, 156; simplicity of the life of,
155; and the Eternal Edict, 165 sq. ;
and the designs of Louis XIY, 156 sq.;
popular hatred of, 158 ; resigns the office
of Grand Pensionary, 159 ; 179 sq. ; 185 ;
and the war with England, 187 sqq.,
191 sq. ; 197 ; and the Triple Alliance,
200 sq. ; 206 ; murder of, 43, 159, 208

Witte de With, Witte Oomeliszoon, Dutch

vice-admiral, 147
Wittelsbaoh, House of, 621
Wittenberg, University of, 624; 670
Witzleben, Job von, Prussian general, 850
Wladislaw, Tsar (afterwards King of Po-
land), elected Tsar, 601 ; 504 ; and the
duchy of Prussia, 638, 641 ; 743
Woerden, attack on, 160
Wohlau, principality of, 652; 659
Wolff, Christian, expelled from Halle, 760

Father, Jesuit, 663 ; 665 ; 671

Wolgast, 611; the Great Elector at, 639
Wolseley, WiUiam, Brigadier-general, 313
Wood, William, the Survey of Trade of, 378
Woodward, John, geologist, 738
Woolwich, defence of, 189

index.

971

Wordsworth, William, 122

Worms, Backed, 56

Wotton, Sir Henry, 118

Wrangel, Karl Gustaf, Count, Swedish

commander, 147; 568
Wratislaw, Johaim Wenzel, Connt, Austrian

ambassador at the Hague, 398 ; 432
Wren, Sir Christopher, 713
Wriothesley, Thomas, Barl of Southampton.

See Southampton
Wiirgen, Charles XII at, 592
Wurtemberg, French invasion of, 418; 762
Frederick William, Duke of, in

Ireland, 314, 316
Wiirzburg, Bishop of. See Ehrenberg,

Philip Adolf von
WulCEen, Luben von, and peasant tenures

in Prussia, 670
Wyoherley, William, dramatist, 128; 130
Wyndham, Sir William, 475
Wynendael, French defeated at, 422

Xanten, compact of, 637

Yagnzhinsky, Paul Ivanovich, Bnssian
Procurator-General, 546 ; 549 ; 556

Tamuish, lake, Bussian expedition to, 644

Tanza river, hospital on, 531

Yarmouth, troops at, 194 sqq.

Yavorsky, Stephen, Ajrohbisbop of Biazan,
530 ; 535 sqq. ; 547

York, 229; taken by the Earl of Danby, 246

York, Anne, Duchess of, 211 ; 233
James, Duke of. See James II, King

of England
Ypres, ceded to France, 45 ; 63 ; captured

by the French, 164, 219; the Barrier

Treaties and, 457 sqq.
Ystad, Danish force lands at, 569
Yucatan, peninsula of, 687

Zaikonnospasky monastery, 519

Zaluski, Andrew Chrysostom, Bishop of

Warmia, 663
Zapolya, John, and the independence of

Transylvania, 839
Zaporogia, Bussia and, 506
Zarntski, Cossack leader, 502
Zeeland, 148; and the Eternal Edict, 155

sq. ; the Prince of Orange and the States

of, 156 sq. ; 581 ; 612
Zeuo, Tenetian commander in Greece, 365
Zenta, battle of, 61, 370
Zinzendorf, Nicolas Ludwig, Count von,

762
Zollern, Counts of, 622
Zrinyi, Countess Helen, marriage of, 351,

358; 367
' Count Niklas, Ban of Croatia, 347 ;

351 sq.
Zsitva-Torok, Treaty of, 342
Zurawna, Treaty of, 41, 45, 355 sq.
Zweybriicken, Adolphns John, Count Pala-
tine of. See Palatinate, the

OAMBKIDGB : JBINTED BY JOHN OLAY, M.A. AT THE UNIVEBSITY PKESS.