[Sidenote: The Hungarian War.]

The most important event connected with Austrian affairs, as distinct from those of France, England, and Holland, was the Hungarian war. Hungary was not a province of Austria, but was a distinct state. In 1526, the crowns of the two kingdoms were united, like those of England and Hanover under George I. But the Hungarians were always impatient of the rule of the Emperor of Germany, and, in the space of a century, arose five times in defence of their liberties.

In 1667, one of these insurrections took place, occasioned by the aggressive policy and government of Leopold. The Hungarians conspired to secure their liberties, but in vain. So soon as the emperor was aware of the conspiracy of his Hungarian subjects, he adopted vigorous measures, quartered thirty thousand additional troops in Hungary, loaded the people with taxes, occupied the principal fortresses, banished the chiefs, and changed the constitution of the country. He also attempted to suppress Protestantism, and committed all the excesses of a military despotism. These accumulated oppressions drove a brave but turbulent people to despair, and both Catholics and Protestants united for their common safety. The insurgents were assisted by the Prince of Transylvania, and were supplied with money and provisions by the French. They also found a noble defender in Emeric Tekeli, a young Hungarian noble, who hated Austria as intensely as Hannibal hated Rome, and who, at the head of twenty thousand men, defended his country against the emperor. Moreover, he successfully intrigued with the Turks, who invaded Hungary with two hundred thousand men, and advanced to lay siege to Vienna. This immense army was defeated by John Sobieski, to whom Leopold appealed in his necessities, and the Turks were driven out of Hungary. Tekeli was gradually insulated from those who had formed the great support of his cause, and, in consequence of jealousies which Leopold had fomented between him and the Turks, was arrested and sent in chains to Constantinople. New victories followed the imperial army, and Leopold succeeded in making the crown of Hungary, hitherto elective, hereditary in his family. He instituted in the conquered country a horrible inquisitorial tribunal, and perpetrated cruelties which scarcely find a parallel in the proscriptions of Marius and Sylla. His son Joseph, at the age of ten, was crowned king of Hungary with great magnificence, and with the usual solemnities.

When the Hungarian difficulties were settled, Leopold had more leisure to prosecute his war with the Turks, in which he gained signal successes. The Ottoman Porte was humbled and crippled, and a great source of discontent to the Christian powers of Europe was removed. By the peace of Carlovitz, (1697,) Leopold secured Hungary and Sclavonia, which had been so long occupied by the Turks, and consolidated his empire by the acquisition of Transylvania.

[Sidenote: The Emperor Joseph.]

Leopold I. lived only to witness the splendid victories of Marlborough and Eugene, by which the power of his great rival, Louis, was effectually reduced. He died in 1705, having reigned forty-six years; the longest reign in the Austrian annals, except that of Frederic III.

He was a man of great private virtues; pure in his morals, faithful to his wife, a good father, and a kind master. He was minute in his devotions, unbounded in his charities, and cultivated in his taste. But he was reserved, cold, and phlegmatic. His jealousy of Sobieski was unworthy of his station, and his severities in Hungary made him the object of execration. He was narrow, bigoted, and selfish. But he lived in an age of great activity, and his reign forms an era in the military and civil institutions of his country. The artillery had been gradually lightened, and received most of the improvements which at present are continued. Bayonets had been added to muskets, and the use of pikes abandoned. Armies were increased from twenty or thirty thousand men to one hundred thousand, more systematically formed. A police was established in the cities, and these were lighted and paved. Jurisprudence was improved, and numerous grievances were redressed.

Leopold was succeeded by his eldest son, Joseph, who had an energetic and aspiring mind. His reign is memorable for the continuation of the great War of the Spanish Succession, signalized by the victories of Marlborough and Eugene, the humiliation of the French, and the career of Charles XII. of Sweden. He also restored Bohemia to its electoral rights, rewarded the elector palatine with the honors and territories wrested from his family by the Thirty Years' War, and confirmed the house of Hanover in the possession of the ninth electorate. He had nearly restored tranquillity to his country, when he died (1711) of the small-pox—a victim to the ignorance of his physicians. He was a lover and patron of the arts, and spoke several languages with elegance and fluency. But he had the usual faults of absolute princes; was prodigal in his expenditures, irascible in his temper, fond of pageants and pleasure, and enslaved by women.

[Sidenote: Accession of Maria Theresa.]

He was succeeded by his brother, the Archduke Charles, under the title of Charles VI. Soon after his accession, the tranquillity of Europe was established by the peace of Utrecht, and Austria once more became the preponderating power in Europe. But Charles VI. was not capable of appreciating the greatness of his position, or the true sources of national power. He, however, devoted himself zealously to the affairs of his empire, and effected some useful reforms. As he had no male issue, he had drawn up a solemn law, called the Pragmatic Sanction, according to which he transferred to his daughter, Maria Theresa, his vast hereditary possessions. He found great difficulty in securing the assent of the European powers to this law; but, after a while, he effected his object. On his death, (1740,) Maria Theresa succeeded to all the dominions of the house of Austria.

No princess ever ascended a throne under circumstances of greater peril, or in a situation which demanded greater energy and fortitude. Her army had dwindled to thirty thousand; her treasury contained only one hundred thousand florins; a general scarcity of provisions distressed the people, and the vintage was cut off by the frost.

Under all these embarrassing circumstances, the Elector of Bavaria laid claim to her territory, and Frederic II. marched into Silesia. It has been already stated that England sympathized with her troubles, and lent a generous aid. Her appeal to her Hungarian subjects, and the enthusiasm they manifested in her cause, have also been described. The boldness of Frederic and the distress of Maria Theresa drew upon them the eyes of all Europe. Hostilities were prosecuted four years, which resulted in the acquisition of Silesia by the King of Prussia. The peace of Dresden (1745) gave a respite to Germany, and Frederic and Maria Theresa prepared for new conflicts.

The Seven Years' War has been briefly described, in connection with the reign of Frederic, and need not be further discussed. The war was only closed by the exhaustion of all the parties engaged in it.

In 1736, Maria Theresa was married to Francis Stephen, Grand Duke of Tuscany, and he was elected (1745) Emperor of Germany, under the title of Francis I. He died soon after the peace of Hubertsburg was signed, and his son Joseph succeeded to the throne of the empire, and was co-regent, as his father had been, with Maria Theresa. But the empress queen continued to be the real, as she was the legitimate, sovereign of Austria, and took an active part in all the affairs of Europe.

[Sidenote: Maria Theresa Institutes Reforms.]

When the tranquillity of her kingdom was restored, she founded various colleges, reformed the public schools, promoted agriculture and instituted many beneficial regulations for the prosperity of her subjects. She reformed the church, diminished the number of superfluous clergy, suppressed the Inquisition and the Jesuits, and formed a system of military economy which surpassed the boasted arrangements of Frederic II. "She combined private economy with public liberality, dignity with condescension, elevation of soul with humility of spirit, and the virtues of domestic life with the splendid qualities which grace a throne." Her death, in 1780, was felt as a general loss to the people, who adored her; and her reign is considered as one of the most illustrious in Austrian annals.

Her reign was, however, sullied by the partition of Poland, in which she was concerned with Frederic the Great and Catharine II. Before this is treated, we will consider the reign of the Russian empress.

* * * * *

The reign of Catharine II., like that of Maria Theresa, is interlinked with that of Frederic. But some remarks concerning her predecessors, after the death of Peter the Great, are first necessary.

[Sidenote: Successors of Peter the Great.]

Catharine, the wife of Peter, was crowned empress before his death. The first years of her reign were agreeable to the people, because she diminished the taxes, and introduced a mild policy in the government of her subjects. She intrusted to Prince Menzikoff an important share in the government of the realm.

But Catharine, who, during the reign of Peter I., had displayed so much enterprise and intrepidity, very soon disdained business, and abandoned herself to luxury and pleasure. She died in 1727, and Peter II. ascended her throne, chiefly in consequence of the intrigues of Menzikoff, who, like Richelieu, wished to make the emperor his puppet.

Peter II. was only thirteen years of age when he became emperor. He was the son of Alexis, and, consequently, grandson of Peter I. His youth did not permit him to assume the reins of government, and every thing was committed to the care of Menzikoff, who reigned, for a time, with absolute power. But he, at last, incurred the displeasure of his youthful master, and was exiled to Siberia. But Peter II. did not long survive the disgrace of his minister. He died of the small-pox, in 1730.

He was succeeded by Anne, Duchess of Holstein, and eldest daughter of Catharine I. But she lived but a few months after her accession to the throne, and the Princess Elizabeth succeeded her.

The Empress Elizabeth resembled her mother, the beautiful Catharine, but was voluptuous and weak. She abandoned herself to puerile amusements and degrading follies. And she was as superstitious as she was debauched. She would continue whole hours on her knees before an image, to which she spoke, and which she ever consulted; and then would turn from bigotry to infamous sensuality. She hated Frederic II., and assisted Maria Theresa in her struggles. Russia gained no advantage from the Seven Years' War, except that of accustoming the Russians to the tactics of modern warfare. She died in 1762, and was succeeded by the Grand Duke Peter Fedorowitz, son of the Duke of Holstein and Anne, daughter of Peter I. He assumed the title of Peter III.

[Sidenote: Murder of Peter III.]

Peter III. was a weak prince, but disposed to be beneficent. One of his first acts was to recall the numerous exiles whom the jealousy of Elizabeth had consigned to the deserts of Siberia. Among them was Biren, the haughty lover and barbarous minister of the Empress Anne and Marshal Munich, a veteran of eighty-two years of age. Peter also abolished the Inquisition, established by Alexis Michaelowitz, and promoted commerce, the arts, and sciences. He attempted to imitate the king of Prussia, for whom he had an extravagant admiration. He set at liberty the Prussian prisoners, and made peace with Frederic II. He had a great respect for Germany, but despised the country over which he was called to reign. But his partiality for the Germans, and his numerous reforms, alienated the affections of his subjects, and he was not sufficiently able to curb the spirit of discontent. He imitated his immediate predecessors in the vices of drunkenness and sensuality, and was guilty of great imprudences. He reigned but a few months, being dethroned and murdered. His wife, the Empress Catharine, was the chief of the conspirators; and she was urged to the bloody act by her own desperate circumstances. She was obnoxious to her husband, who probably would have destroyed her, had his life been prolonged. She, in view of his hostility, and prompted by an infernal ambition, sought to dethrone her husband. She was assisted by some of the most powerful nobles, and gained over most of the regiments of the imperial guard. The Archbishop of Novgorod and the clergy were friendly to her, because they detested the reforms which Peter had attempted to make. Catharine became mistress of St. Petersburg, and caused herself to be crowned Empress of Russia, in one of the principal churches. Peter had timely notice of the revolt, but not the energy to suppress it. He listened to the entreaties of women, rather than to the counsels of those veteran generals who still supported his throne. He was timid, irresolute, and vacillating. He was doomed. He was a weak and infatuated prince, and nothing could save him. He surrendered himself into the hands of Catharine, abdicated his empire, and, shortly after, died of poison. His wife seated herself, without further opposition, on his throne; and the principal nobles of the empire, the army, and the clergy, took the oath of allegiance, and the monarchs of Europe acknowledged her as the absolute sovereign of Russia. In 1763, she was firmly established in the power which had been before wielded by Catharine I. She had dethroned an imbecile prince, whom she abhorred; but the revolution was accomplished without bloodshed, and resulted in the prosperity of Russia.

Catharine was a woman of great moral defects; but she had many excellences to counterbalance them; and her rule was, on the whole, able and beneficent. She was no sooner established in the power which she had usurped, than she directed attention to the affairs of her empire, and sought to remedy the great evils which existed. She devoted herself to business, advanced commerce and the arts, regulated the finances, improved the jurisprudence of the realm, patronized all works of internal improvement, rewarded eminent merit, encouraged education, and exercised a liberal and enlightened policy in her intercourse with foreign powers. After engaging in business with her ministers, she would converse with scholars and philosophers. With some she studied politics, and with others literature. She tolerated all religions, abolished odious courts, and enacted mild laws. She held out great inducements for foreigners to settle in Russia, and founded colleges and hospitals in all parts of her empire.

[Sidenote: Assassination of Ivan.]

Beneficent as her reforms were, she nevertheless committed some great political crimes. One of these was the assassination of the dethroned Ivan, the great-grandson of the Czar Ivan Alexejewitsch, who was brother of Peter the Great. On the death of the Empress Anne, in 1731, he had been proclaimed emperor: but when Elizabeth was placed upon the throne, the infant was confined in the fortress of Schlussenburg. Here he was so closely guarded and confined, that he was never allowed access to the open air or the light of day. On the accession of Catharine, he was twenty-three years of age, and was extremely ignorant and weak. But a conspiracy was formed to liberate him, and place him on the throne. The attempt proved abortive, and the prince perished by the sword of his jailers, who were splendidly rewarded for their infamous services.

Her scheme of foreign aggrandizement, and especially her interference in the affairs of Poland, caused the Ottoman Porte to declare war against her, which war proved disastrous to Turkey, and contributed to aggrandize the empire of Russia. The Turks lost several battles on the Pruth, Dniester, and Danube; the provinces of Wallachia, and Moldavia, and Bessarabia submitted to the Russian arms; while a great naval victory, in the Mediterranean, was gained by Alexis Orloff, whose share in the late revolution had raised him from the rank of a simple soldier to that of a general of the empire, and a favorite of the empress. The naval defeat of the Turks at Tschesme, by Orloff and Elphinstone, was one of the most signal of that age, and greatly weakened the power of Turkey. The war was not terminated until 1774, when the Turks were compelled to make peace, by the conditions of which, Russia obtained a large accession of territory, a great sum of money, the free navigation of the Black Sea, and a passage through the Dardanelles.

In 1772 occurred the partition of Poland between Austria, Prussia, and Russia. Catharine and Frederic II. were the chief authors of this great political crime, which will be treated in the notice on Poland.

The reign of Catharine was not signalized by any other great political events which affected materially the interests of Europe, except the continuation of the war with the Turks, which broke out again in 1778, and which was concluded in 1792, by the treaty of Jassy. In this war, Prince Potemkin, the favorite and prime minister of Catharine, greatly distinguished himself; also General Suwarrow, afterwards noted for his Polish campaigns. In this war Russia lost two hundred thousand men, and the Turks three hundred and thirty thousand, besides expending two hundred and fifty millions of piasters. The most important political consequence was the aggrandizement of Russia, whose dominion was established on the Black Sea.

[Sidenote: Death of Catharine.]

Catharine, having acquired, either by arms or intrigues, almost half of Poland, the Crimea, and a part of the frontiers of Turkey, then turned her arms against Persia. But she died before she could realize her dreams of conquest. At her death, she was the most powerful sovereign that ever reigned in Russia. She was succeeded by her son, Paul I., (1796,) and her remains were deposited by the side of her murdered husband, while his chief murderers, Alexis Orloff and Prince Baratinski, were ordered to stand at her funeral, on each side of his coffin as chief mourners.

Catharine, though a woman of great energy and talent, was ruled by favorites; the most distinguished of whom were Gregory Orloff and Prince Potemkin. The former was a man of brutal manners and surprising audacity; the latter was more civilized, but was a man disgraced, like Orloff, by every vice. His memory, however, is still cherished in Russia on account of his military successes. He received more honors and rewards from his sovereign than is recorded of any favorite and minister of modern times. His power was equal to what Richelieu enjoyed, and his fortune was nearly as great as Mazarin's. He was knight of the principal orders of Prussia, Sweden, Poland, and Russia, field-marshal, commander-in-chief of the Russian armies, high admiral of the fleets, great hetman of the Cossacks, and chamberlain of the empress. He received from her a fortune of fifty millions of roubles; equal to nearly twenty-five millions of dollars. The Orloffs received also about seventeen millions in lands, and palaces, and money, with forty-five thousand peasants.

[Sidenote: Her Character.]

Catharine had two passions which never left her but with her last breath—the love of the other sex, which degenerated into the most unbounded licentiousness, and the love of glory, which sunk into vanity. She expended ninety millions of roubles on her favorites, the number of which is almost incredible; and she was induced to engage in wars, which increased the burdens of her subjects.

With the exception of these two passions, her character is interesting and commanding. Her reign was splendid, and her court magnificent. Her institutions and monuments were to Russia what the magnificence of Louis XIV. was to France. She was active and regular in her habits; was never hurried away by anger, and was never a prey to dejection; caprice and ill humor were never perceived in her conduct; she was humorous, gay, and affable; she appreciated literature, and encouraged good institutions; and, with all her faults, obtained the love and reverence of her subjects. She had not the virtues of Maria Theresa, but had, perhaps, greater energy of character. Her foulest act was her part in the dismemberment of Poland, which now claims a notice.

* * * * *

REFERENCES.—For the reign of Maria Theresa, see Archdeacon Coxe's Memoirs of the House of Austria, which is the most interesting and complete. See also Putter's Constitution of the Germanic Empire; Kolhrausch's History of Germany; Heeren's Modern History; Smyth's Lectures; also a history of Germany, in Dr. Lardner's Cyclopaedia. For a life of Catharine, see Castina's Life, translated by Hunter; Tooke's Life of Catharine II.; Segur's Vie de Catharine II.; Coxe's Travels; Heeren's and Russell's Modern History.



CHAPTER XXV.

CALAMITIES OF POLAND.

[Sidenote: Calamities of Poland.]

No kingdom in Europe has been subjected to so many misfortunes and changes, considering its former greatness, as the Polish monarchy. Most of the European states have retained their ancient limits, for several centuries, without material changes, but Poland has been conquered, dismembered, and plundered. Its ancient constitution has been completely subverted, and its extensive provinces are now annexed to the territories of Russia, Austria, and Prussia. The greatness of the national calamities has excited the sympathy of Christian nations, and its unfortunate fate is generally lamented.

In the sixteenth century, Poland was a greater state than Russia, and was the most powerful of the northern kingdoms of Europe. The Poles, as a nation, are not, however, of very ancient date. Prior to the ninth century, they were split up into numerous tribes, independent of each other, and governed by their respective chieftains. Christianity was introduced in the tenth century, and the earliest records of the people were preserved by the monks. We know but little, with certainty, until the time of Piast, who united the various states, and whose descendants reigned until 1386, when the dynasty of the Jagellons commenced, and continued till 1572. Under the princes of this line, the government was arbitrary and oppressive. War was the great business and amusement of the princes, and success in it brought the highest honors. The kings were, however, weak, cruel, and capricious, ignorant, fierce, and indolent. The records of their reigns are the records of drunkenness, extortion, cruelty, lust, and violence—the common history of all barbarous kings. There were some of the Polish princes who were benignant and merciful, but the great majority of them, like the Merovingian and Carlovingian princes of the Dark Ages, were unfit to reign, were the slaves of superstition, and the tools of designing priests. There is a melancholy gloom hanging over the annals of the Middle Ages, especially in reference to kings. And yet their reigns, though stained by revolting crimes, generally were to be preferred to the anarchy of an interregnum, or the overgrown power of nobles.

The brightest period in the history of Poland was during the reigns of the Jagellon princes, especially when Casimir I. held the sceptre of empire. During his reign, Lithuania, which then comprised Hungary, Bohemia, and Silesia, was added to his kingdom. The university of Cracow was founded, and Poland was the great resort of the Jews, to whom were committed the trade and commerce of the land. But the rigors of the feudal system, and the vast preponderance of the aristocracy, proved unfortunate for the prosperity of the kingdom. What in England was the foundation of constitutional liberty, proved in Poland to be subversive of all order and good government. In England, the representative of the nation was made an instrument in the hands of the king of humbling the great nobility. Absolutism was established upon the ruins of feudalism. But, in Poland, the Diet of the nation controlled the king, and, as the representatives of the nobility alone, perpetuated the worst evils of the feudal system.

[Sidenote: The Crown of Poland Made Elective.]

When Sigismund II., the last male heir of the house of Jagellon, died, in 1572, the nobles were sufficiently powerful to make the crown elective. From this period we date the decline of Poland. The Reformation, so beneficent in its effects, did not spread to this Sclavonic country; and the barbarism of the Middle Ages received no check. On the death of Sigismund, the nobles would not permit the new sovereign to be elected by the Diet, but only by the whole body of the nobility. The plain of Praga was the place selected for the election; and, at the time appointed, such a vast number of nobles arrived, that the plain, of twelve miles in circumference, was scarcely large enough to contain them and their retinues. There never was such a sight seen since the crusaders were marshalled on the field of Chalcedon, for all the nobles were gorgeously apparelled, and decked with ermine, gold, and jewels. The Polish horseman frequently invests half his fortune in his horse and dress. In the centre of the field was the tent of the late king, capable of accommodating eight thousand men. The candidates for the crown were Ernest Archduke of Austria; the Czar of Russia; a Swedish prince, and Henry of Valois, Duke of Anjou, and brother of Charles IX., king of France.

[Sidenote: Election of Henry, Duke of Anjou.]

The first candidate was rejected because the house of Austria was odious to the Polish nobles; the second, on account of his arrogance; and the third, because he was not powerful enough to bring advantage to the republic. The choice fell on the Duke of Anjou; and he, for the title of a king, agreed to the ignominious conditions which the Poles proposed, viz., that he should not attempt to influence the election of his successors, or assume the title of heir of the monarchy, or declare war without the consent of the Diet, or impose taxes of any description, or have power to appoint his ambassadors, or any foreigner to a benefice in the church; that he should convoke the Diet every two years; and that he should not marry without its permission. He also was required to furnish four thousand French troops, in case of war; to apply annually, for the sole benefit of the Polish state, a considerable part of his hereditary revenues; to pay the debts of the crown; and to educate, at his own expense, at Paris or Cracow, one hundred Polish nobles. He had scarcely been crowned when his brother died, and he was called to the throne of France. But he found it difficult to escape from his kingdom, the government of which he found to be burdensome and vexatious. No criminal ever longed to escape from a prison, more than this prince to break the fetters which bound him to his imperious subjects. He resolved to run away; concealed his intentions with great address; gave a great ball at his palace; and in the midst of the festivities, set out with full speed towards Silesia. He was pursued, but reached the territories of the emperor of Germany before he was overtaken. He reached Paris in safety, and was soon after crowned as king of France.

[Sidenote: Sobieski Assists the Emperor Leopold.]

He was succeeded by Stephen, Duke of Transylvania; and he, again, by Sigismund, Prince of Sweden. The two sons of Sigismund, successively, were elected kings of Poland, the last of whom, John II., was embroiled in constant war. It was during his disastrous reign that John Sobieski, with ten thousand Poles, defeated eighty thousand Cossacks, the hereditary enemies of Poland. On the death of Michael, who had succeeded John II., Sobieski was elected king, and he assumed the title of John III. He was a native noble, and was chosen for his military talents and successes. Indeed, Poland needed a strong arm to defend her. Her decline had already commenced, and Sobieski himself could not avert the ruin which impended. For some time, Poland enjoyed cessation from war, and the energies of the monarch were directed to repair the evils which had disgraced his country. But before he could prosecute successfully any useful reforms, the war between the Turks and the eastern powers of Europe broke out, and Vienna was besieged by an overwhelming army of two hundred thousand Mohammedans. The city was bravely defended, but its capture seemed inevitable. The emperor of Germany, Leopold, in his despair, implored the aid of Sobieski. He was invested with the command of the allied armies of Austrians, Bavarians, Saxons, and Poles, amounting to seventy thousand men. With this force he advanced to relieve Vienna. He did not hesitate to attack the vast forces encamped beneath the walls of the Austrian capital, and obtained one of the most signal victories in the history of war. Immense treasures fell into his hands, and Vienna and Christendom were saved.

But the mean-spirited emperor treated his deliverer with arrogance and chilling coldness. No gratitude was exhibited or felt. But the pope sent him the rarest of his gifts—"the dove of pearls." Sobieski, in spite of the ingratitude of Leopold, pursued his victories over the Turks; and, like Charles Martel, ten centuries before, freed Europe from the danger of a Mohammedan yoke. But he saved a serpent, when about to be crushed, which turned and stung him for his kindness. The dismemberment of his country soon followed the deliverance of Vienna.

He was succeeded, in 1696, by Frederic Augustus, Elector of Saxony, whose reign was a constant succession of disasters. During his reign, Poland was invaded and conquered by Charles XII. of Sweden. He was succeeded by his son, Frederic Augustus II., the most beautiful, extravagant, luxurious, and licentious monarch of his age. But he was a man of elegant tastes, and he filled Dresden with pictures and works of art, which are still the admiration of travellers. His reign, as king of Poland, was exceedingly disastrous. Muscovite and Prussian armies traversed the plains of Poland at pleasure, and extorted whatever they pleased. Faction was opposed by faction in the field and in the Diet. The national assembly was dissolved by the veto, the laws were disregarded, and brute force prevailed on every side. The miserable peasants in vain besought the protection of their brutal yet powerless lords. Bands of robbers infested the roads, and hunger invaded the cottages. The country rapidly declined in wealth, population, and public spirit.

Under the reign of Stanislaus II., who succeeded Frederic Augustus II., in 1764, the ambassadors of Prussia, Austria, and Russia, informed the miserable king that, in order to prevent further bloodshed, and restore peace to Poland, the three powers had determined to insist upon their claims to some of the provinces of the kingdom. This barefaced and iniquitous scheme for the dismemberment of Poland originated with Frederic the Great. So soon as the close of the Seven Years' War allowed him repose, he turned his eyes to Poland, with a view of seizing one of her richest provinces. Territories inhabited by four million eight hundred thousand people, were divided between Frederic, Maria Theresa, and Catharine II. There were no scruples of conscience in the breast of Frederic, or of Catharine, a woman of masculine energy, but disgraceful morals. The conscience of Maria Theresa, however, long resisted. "The fear of hell," said she, "restrains me from seizing another's possessions;" but sophistry was brought to bear upon her mind, and the lust of dominion asserted its powerful sway. This crime was regarded with detestation by the other powers of Europe; but they were too much occupied with their own troubles to interfere, except by expostulation. England was disturbed by difficulties in the colonies, and France was distracted by revolutionary tumults.

[Sidenote: The Liberum Veto.]

Stanislaus, robbed of one third of his dominions, now directed his attention to those reforms which had been so long imperatively needed. He intrusted to the celebrated Zamoyski the task of revising the constitution. The patriotic chancellor recommended the abolition of the "liberum veto," a fatal privilege, by which any one of the armed equestrians, who assembled on the plain of Praga to elect a king, or deliberate on state affairs, had power to nullify the most important acts, and even to dissolve the assembly. A single word, pronounced in the vehemence of domestic strife, or by the influence of external corruption, could plunge the nation into a lethargic sleep. And faction went so far as often to lead to the dissolution of the assembly. The treasury, the army, the civil authority then fell into a state of anarchy. Zamoyski also recommended the emancipation of serfs, the encouragement of commerce, the elevation of the trading classes, and the abolition of the fatal custom of electing a king. But the Polish nobles, infatuated and doomed, opposed these wholesome reforms. They even had the madness to invoke the aid of the Empress Catharine to protect them in their ancient privileges. She sent an army into Poland, and great disturbances resulted.

[Sidenote: The Fall of Poland.]

Too late, at last, the nobles perceived their folly, and adopted some of the proposed reforms. But these reforms gave a new pretence to the allied powers for a second dismemberment. An army of one hundred thousand men invaded Poland, to effect a new partition. The unhappy country, without fortified towns or mountains, abandoned by all the world, distracted by divisions, and destitute of fortresses and military stores, was crushed by the power of gigantic enemies. There were patriotism and bravery left, but no union or organized strength. The patriots made a desperate struggle under Kosciusko, a Lithuanian noble, but were forced to yield to inevitable necessity. Warsaw for a time held out against fifty thousand men; but the Polish hero was defeated in a decisive engagement, and unfortunately taken prisoner. His countrymen still rallied, and another bloody battle was fought at Praga, opposite Warsaw, on the other side of the Vistula, and ten thousand were slain; Praga was reduced to a heap of ruins; and twelve thousand citizens were slaughtered in cold blood. Warsaw soon after surrendered, Stanislaus was sent as a captive to Russia, and the final partition of the kingdom was made.

"Sarmatia fell," but not "unwept," or "without a crime." "She fell," says Alison, "a victim of her own dissensions, of the chimera of equality falsely pursued, and the rigor of aristocracy unceasingly maintained. The eldest born of the European family was the first to perish, because she had thwarted all the ends of the social union; because she united the turbulence of democratic to the exclusion of aristocratic societies; because she had the vacillation of a republic without its energy, and the oppression of a monarchy without its stability. The Poles obstinately refused to march with other nations in the only road to civilization; they had valor, but it could not enforce obedience to the laws; it could not preserve domestic tranquillity; it could not restrain the violence of petty feuds and intestine commotions; it could not preserve the proud nobles from unbounded dissipation and corruption; it could not prevent foreign powers from interfering in the affairs of the kingdom; it could not dissolve the union of these powers with discontented parties at home; it could not inspire the slowly-moving machine of government with vigor, when the humblest partisan, corrupted with foreign money, could arrest it with a word; it could not avert the entrance of foreign armies to support the factious and rebellious; it could not uphold, in a divided country, the national independence against the combined effects of foreign and domestic treason; finally, it could not effect impossibilities, nor turn aside the destroying sword which had so long impended over it."

But this great crime was attended with retribution. Prussia, in her efforts to destroy Poland, paralyzed her armies on the Rhine. Suwarrow entered Warsaw when its spires were reddened by the fires of Praga; but the sack of the fallen capital was forgotten in the conflagration of Moscow. The remains of the soldiers of Kosciusko sought a refuge in republican France, and served with distinction, in the armies of Napoleon, against the powers that had dismembered their country.

The ruin of Poland, as an independent state, was not fully accomplished until the year 1832, when it was incorporated into the great empire of Russia. But the history of the late revolution, with all its melancholy results, cannot be well presented in this connection.

* * * * *

REFERENCES.—Fletcher's History of Poland. Rulhiere's Histoire de l'Anarchie de Pologne. Coyer's Vie de Sobieski. Parthenay's History of Augustus II. Hordynski's History of the late Polish Revolution. Also see Lives of Frederic II., Maria Theresa, and Catharine II.; contemporaneous histories of Prussia, Russia, and Austria; Alison's History of Europe; Smyth's Lectures; Russell's Modern Europe; Heeren's Modern History.



CHAPTER XXVI.

THE DECLINE OF THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE.

[Sidenote: Saracenic Empire.]

While the great monarchies of Western Europe were struggling for preeminence, and were developing resources greater than had ever before been exhibited since the fall of the Roman empire, that great power which had alarmed and astonished Christendom in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, began to show the signs of weakness and decay. Nothing, in the history of society, is more marvellous than the rise of Mohammedan kingdoms. The victories of the Saracens and Turks were rapid and complete; and in the tenth century, they were the most successful warriors on the globe, and threatened to subvert the world. They had planted the standard of the Prophet on the walls of Eastern capitals, and had extended their conquests to India on the east, and to Spain on the west. Powerful Mohammedan states had arisen in Asia, Africa, and Europe, and the Crusaders alone arrested the progress of these triumphant armies. The enthusiasm which the doctrines of Mohammed had kindled, cannot easily be explained; but it was fresh, impetuous, and self-sacrificing. Successive armies of Mohammedan invaders overwhelmed the ancient realms of civilization, and reduced the people whom they conquered and converted to a despotic yoke. But success enervated the victorious conquerors of the East, the empire of the Caliphs was broken up, and great changes took place even in those lands where the doctrines of the Koran prevailed. Mohammed perpetuated a religion, but not an empire. Different Saracenic chieftains revolted from the "Father of the Faithful," and established separate kingdoms, or viceroyalties, nearly independent of the acknowledged successors of Mohammed. The Saracenic empire was early dismembered, and the sultans of Egypt, Spain, and Syria contested for preeminence.

[Sidenote: Rise of the Turks.]

But a new power arose on the ruins of the Saracen empire, and became the enthusiastic defenders of the religion of Islam. The Turks were an obscure tribe of barbarians when Bagdad was the seat of a powerful monarchy. Their origin has been traced to the wilds of Scythia; but they early deserted their native forests in search of more fruitful regions. When Apulia and Sicily were subdued by the Norman pirates, a swarm of these Scythian shepherds settled in Armenia, probably in the ninth century, and, by their valor and simplicity, soon became a powerful tribe. Not long after they were settled in their new abode, the Sultan of Persia invoked their aid to assist him in his wars against the Caliph of Bagdad, his great rival. The Turks complied with his request, and their arms were successful. The sultan then refused to part with such useful auxiliaries, and moreover, fearing their strength, designed to employ them in his wars against the Hindoos, and to shut them up in the centre of his dominions. The Turkmans rebelled, withdrew into a mountainous part of the country, became robbers, and devastated the adjacent countries. The band of robbers gradually swelled into a powerful army, gained a great victory over the troops of the Sultan Mohammed, and placed their chieftain upon the Persian throne, (1038.) According to Gibbon, the new monarch was chosen by lot, and Seljuk had the fortune to win the prize of conquest, and became the founder of the dynasty of the Shepherd kings. During the reign of his grandson Togrul, the ancient Persian princes were expelled, and the Turks embraced the religion of the conquered. In 1055, the Turkish sultan delivered the Caliph of Bagdad from the arms of the Caliph of Egypt, who disputed with him the title of Commander of the Faithful. For this service he was magnificently rewarded by the grateful successor of the Prophet, who, at that time, banqueted in his palace at Bagdad—a venerable phantom of power. The victorious sultan was publicly commissioned as lieutenant of the caliph, and he was virtually seated on the throne of the Abbassides. Shortly after, the Turkish conqueror invaded the falling empire of the Greeks, and its Asiatic provinces were irretrievably lost. In the latter part of the eleventh century, the Turkish power was established in Asia Minor, and Jerusalem itself had fallen into the hands of the sultan. He exacted two pieces of gold from the Christian pilgrim, and treated him, moreover, with greater cruelty than the Saracens had ever exercised. The extortion and oppression of the Turkish masters of the Sacred City led to the Crusades and the final possession of Western Asia by the followers of the Prophet. The Turkish power constantly increased with the decline of the Saracenic and Greek empires, but the Seljukian dynasty, like that of Abbassides at Bagdad, at last run out, and Othman, a soldier of fortune, became sultan of the Turks. He is regarded as the founder of the Ottoman empire, and under his reign, from 1299 to 1326, the Moslems made rapid strides in the progress of aggrandizement.

[Sidenote: Turkish Conquerors.]

Orkham, his son, instituted the force of the Janizaries, completed the conquest of Bithynia, and laid the foundation of Turkish power in Europe. Under his successor, Amurath I., Adrianople became the capital of the Ottoman empire, and the rival of Constantinople. Bajazet succeeded Amurath, and his conquests extended from the Euphrates to the Danube. In 1396, he defeated, at Nicopolis, a confederate army of one hundred thousand Christians; and, in the intoxication of victory, declared that he would feed his horse with a bushel of oats on the altar of St. Peter, at Rome. Had it not been for the victories of Tamerlane, Constantinople, which contained within its walls the feeble fragments of a great empire, would also have fallen into his hands. He was unsuccessful in his war with the great conqueror of Asia, and was defeated at the battle of Angora, (1402,) and taken captive, and carried to Samarcand, by Tamerlane, in an iron cage.

The great Bajazet died in captivity, and Mohammed I. succeeded to his throne. He restored, on a firmer basis, the fabric of the Ottoman monarchy, and devoted himself to the arts of peace. His successor, Amurath II., continued hostilities with the Greeks, and laid siege to Constantinople. But this magnificent city, the last monument of Roman greatness, resisted the Turkish arms only for a while. In 1453, it fell before an irresistible force of three hundred thousand men, supported by a fleet of three hundred sail. The Emperor Constantine succeeded in maintaining a siege of fifty-three days; and the religion and empire of the Christians were trodden to the dust by the Moslem conquerors. The city was sacked, the people were enslaved, and the Church of St. Sophia was despoiled of the oblations of ages, and converted into a Mohammedan mosque. One hundred and twenty thousand manuscripts perished in the sack of Constantinople, and the palaces and treasure of the Greeks were transferred to semi-barbarians.

[Sidenote: Progress of the Turks.]

From that time, the Byzantine capital became the seat of the Ottoman empire; and, for more than two centuries, Turkish armies excited the fears and disturbed the peace of the world. They gradually subdued and annexed Macedonia, the Peloponnesus, Epirus, Bulgaria, Servia, Bosnia, Armenia, Cyprus, Syria, Egypt, India, Tunis, Algiers, Media, Mesopotamia, and a part of Hungary, to the dominions of the sultan. In the sixteenth century, the Ottoman empire was the most powerful in the world. Nor should we be surprised, in view of the great success of the Turks, when we remember their singular bravery, their absorbing ambition, their almost incredible obedience to the commands of the sultan, and the unity which pervaded the national councils. They also fought to extend their religion, to which they were blind devotees. After the capture of Constantinople, a succession of great princes sat on the most absolute throne known in modern times; men disgraced by many crimes, but still singularly adapted to extend their dominion.

The progress of the Turks justly alarmed the Emperor Charles V., and he exerted all his energies to unite the German princes against them, but unsuccessfully. The Sultan Solyman, called the Magnificent, maintained his supremacy over Transylvania, Wallachia, and Moldavia, ravaged Hungary, wrested Rhodes from the Knights of St. John, conquered the whole of Arabia, and attacked the Portuguese dominion in India. He raised the Turkish empire to the highest pitch of its greatness, and died while besieging Sigeth, as he was completing the conquest of Hungary. His empire was one vast camp, and his decrees were dated from the imperial stirrup. The iron sceptre which he and his successors wielded was imbrued in blood; and discipline alone was the politics of his soldiers, and rapine their resources.

Selim II. succeeded Solyman, and set the ruinous example of not going himself to the wars, and of carrying them on by his lieutenants. His son, Murad III., penetrated into Russia and Poland, and made war on the Emperor of Germany. Mohammed III., who died in 1604, murdered all his brothers, nineteen in number, and executed his own son. It was usual, when an emperor mounted the throne, for him to put to death his brothers and nephews. Indeed, the characters of the sultans were marked by unusual ferocity and jealousy, and they were unscrupulous in the means they took to advance their power. The world has never seen more suspicious tyrants; and it ever must excite our wonder that they were so unhesitatingly obeyed. But they were, however, sometimes dethroned by the Janizaries, who constituted a sort of imperial guard. Osman II., fearing their power, and disgusted with their degeneracy, resolved to destroy them, as dangerous to the state. But his design was discovered, and he himself lost his life, (1622.) Several monsters of tyranny and iniquity succeeded him, whose reigns were disgraced by every excess of debauchery and cruelty. Their subjects, however, had not, as yet, lost vigor, temperance, and ambition, and still continued to furnish troops unexampled for discipline and bravery, and bent on conquest and dominion.

The Turkish power received no great checks until the reign of Mohammed IV., during which Sobieski defeated an immense army, which had laid siege to Vienna. By the peace of Carlovitz, in 1699, Transylvania was ceded to the Emperor of Germany, and a barrier was raised against Mohammedan invasion.

The Russians, from the time of Peter the Great, looked with great jealousy on the power of the sultan, and several wars were the result. No Russian sovereign desired the humiliation of the Porte more than Catharine II. A bloody contest ensued, signalized by the victories of Galitzin, Suwarrow, Romanzoff, and Orloff, by which Turkey became a second class power, no longer feared by the European states.

[Sidenote: Decline of Turkish Power.]

From the peace of Carlovitz, the decline of the Ottoman empire has been gradual, but marked, owing to the indifference of the Turks to all modern improvements, and a sluggish, conservative policy, hostile to progress, and sceptical of civilization. The Turks have ever been bigoted Mohammedans, and hostile to European influences. The Oriental dress has been preserved in Constantinople, and all the manners and customs of the people are similar to what they were in Asia several centuries ago.

[Sidenote: Turkish Institutions.]

One of the peculiarities of the Turkish government, in the most flourishing period of its history, was the institution of the Janizaries—a guard of soldiers, to whom was intrusted the guardianship of the sultan, and the protection of his capital. When warlike and able princes were seated on the throne, this institution proved a great support to the government; but when the reins were held by effeminate princes, the Janizaries, like the Praetorian Guards of Rome, acquired an undue ascendency, and even deposed the monarchs whom they were bound to obey. They were insolent, extortionate, and extravagant, and became a great burden to the state. At first they were brave and resolute; but they gradually lost their skill and their courage, were uniformly beaten in the later wars with the Russians, and retained nothing of the soldier but the name. Mahmoud II., in our own time, succeeded in dissolving this dangerous body, and in introducing European tactics into his army.

[Sidenote: Turkish Character.]

The Turkish institutions have reference chiefly to the military character of the nation. All Mussulmans, in the eye of the law, are soldiers, to whom the extension of the empire and the propagation of their faith were the avowed objects of warfare. They may be regarded, wherever they have conquered, as military colonists, exercising great tyranny, and treating all vanquished subjects with contempt. The government has ever been a pure despotism, and both the executive and legislative authorities have been vested in the sultan. He is the sole fountain of honor; for, in Turkey, birth confers no privilege. His actions are regarded as prescribed by an inevitable fate, and his subjects suffer with resignation. The evils of despotism are aggravated by the ignorance and effeminacy of those to whom power is intrusted, although the grand vizier, who is the prime minister of the empire, is generally a man of great experience and talent. All the laws of the country are founded upon the precepts of the Koran, the example of Mohammed, the precepts of the four first caliphs, and the decision of learned doctors upon disputed cases. Justice is administered promptly, but without much regard to equity or mercy; and the course of the grand vizier is generally marked with blood. The character of the people partakes of the nature of their government, religion, and climate. They are arrogant, ignorant, and austere; passing from devotion to obscenity; fastidiously abstemious in some things, and grossly sensual in others. They have cherished the virtues of hospitality, and are fond of conversation but their domestic life is spent in voluptuous idleness, and is dull and insipid compared with that of Europeans. But the Turks have degenerated. In the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, they were simple, brave, and religious. They founded an immense empire on the ruins of Asiatic monarchies, and filled the world with the terror of their arms. For two hundred years their power has been retrograding, and there is much reason now to believe that a total eclipse of their glory is soon to take place.

* * * * *

REFERENCES.—See Knolle's History of Turkey. Eton's Survey of the Turkish Empire. Upham's History of the Ottoman Empire. Encyclopaedia Britannica. Heeren's Modern History. Madden's Travels in Turkey. Russell's Modern Europe. Life of Catharine II.



CHAPTER XXVII.

REIGN OF GEORGE III. TO THE ADMINISTRATION OF WILLIAM PITT.

Great subjects were discussed in England, and great events happened in America, during the latter years of the reigns of Frederic II., Catharine II., and Maria Theresa. These now demand attention.

[Sidenote: Military Successes in America.]

George III. ascended the throne of Great Britain at a period of unparalleled prosperity, when the English arms were victorious in all parts of the world, and when commerce and the arts had greatly enriched his country and strengthened its political importance. By the peace of Paris, (1763,) the dominions of George III. were enlarged, and the country over which he reigned was the most powerful in Europe.

Mr. George Grenville succeeded the Earl of Bute as the prime minister of the king, and he was chiefly assisted by the Earls of Egremont and Halifax. His administration was signalized by the prosecution of Wilkes, and by schemes for the taxation of the American colonies.

Mr. Wilkes was a member of parliament, but a man of ruined fortunes and profligate morals. As his circumstances were desperate, he applied to the ministry for some post of emolument; but his application was rejected. Failure enraged him, and he swore revenge, and resolved to libel the ministers, under the pretext of exercising the liberty of the press. He was editor of the North Briton, a periodical publication of some talent, but more bitterness. In the forty-fifth number, he assailed the king, charging him with a direct falsehood. The charge should have been dismissed with contempt; for it was against the dignity of the government to refute an infamous slander. But, in an evil hour, it was thought expedient to vindicate the honor of the sovereign; and a warrant was therefore issued against the editor, publisher, and printer of the publication. The officers of the law entered Wilkes's house late one evening, seized his papers, and committed him to the Tower. He sued out a writ of habeas corpus, in consequence of which he was brought up to Westminster Hall. Being a member of parliament, and a man of considerable abilities and influence, his case attracted attention. The judges decided that his arrest was illegal, since a member of parliament could not be imprisoned except for treason, felony, or breach of the peace. He had not committed any of these crimes, for a libel had only a tendency to disturb the peace. Still, had he been a private person, his imprisonment would have been legal; but being unconstitutional, he was discharged. Lord Chief Justice Pratt gained great popularity by his charge in favor of the liberation of Wilkes, and ever nobly defended constitutional liberty. He is better known as Lord Camden, the able lord chancellor and statesman during a succeeding administration, and one of the greatest lawyers England has produced, ranking with Lord Hardwicke, Lord Ellenborough, and Lord Eldon.

[Sidenote: Prosecution of Wilkes.]

After the discharge of Wilkes, the attorney-general was then ordered to commence a state prosecution, and he was arraigned at the bar of the House of Commons. It was voted, by a great majority, that the forty-fifth number of the North Briton was a scandalous and seditious libel, and tending to excite traitorous insurrections. It was further voted that the paper should be burned by the common hangman. Wilkes then complained to the House of a breach of privilege, which complaint, being regular, was considered. But the Commons decided that the privilege of parliament does not extend to a libel, which resolution was against the decision of the Court of Common Pleas, and the precedents upon record in their own journals. However scandalous and vulgar the vituperation of Wilkes, and especially disgraceful in a member of parliament, still his prosecution was an attack on the constitution. Wilkes was arrested on what is called a general warrant, which, if often resorted to, would be fatal to the liberties of the people. Many, who strongly disliked the libeller, still defended him in this instance, among whom were Pitt, Beckford, Legge, Yorke, and Sir George Saville. But party spirit and detestation of Wilkes triumphed over the constitution, and the liberties of members of parliament were abridged even by themselves. But Wilkes was not discouraged, and immediately brought an action, in Westminster Hall, against the Earl of Halifax, the secretary of state, for seizing his papers, and, after a hearing of fifteen hours, before Lord Chief Justice Pratt and a special jury, obtained a verdict in his favor of one thousand pounds damages and costs.

While the Commons were prosecuting Wilkes for a libel, the Lords also continued the prosecution. Wilkes, in conjunction with Potter, a dissipated son of Archbishop Potter, during some of their bacchanalian revels, had written a blasphemous and obscene poem, after the model of Pope's Essay on Man, called An Essay on Woman. The satire was not published, but a few copies of it were printed privately for the authors. Lord Sandwich had contrived to secure a copy of it, and read it before the House; and the Lords, indignant and disgusted, voted an address to the king to institute a prosecution against the author. The Lords, by so doing, departed from the dignity of their order, and their ordinary functions, and their persecution served to strengthen, instead of weaken, the cause of Wilkes.

[Sidenote: Churchill.]

Associated with him, in his writings and his revels, was the poet Churchill, a clergyman of the Establishment, but as open a contemner of decency as Wilkes himself. For some years, his poetry had proved as bad as his sermons, his time being spent in low dissipation. An ill-natured criticism on his writings called forth his energies, and he started, all at once, a giant in numbers, with all the fire of Dryden and all the harmony of Pope. Imagination, wit, strength, and sense, were crowded into his compositions; but he was careless of both matter and manner, and wrote just what came in his way. "This bacchanalian priest," says Horace Walpole, "now mouthing patriotism, and now venting libertinism, the scourge of bad men, and scarce better than the worst, debauching wives, and protecting his gown by the weight of his fist, engaged with Wilkes in his war on the Scots, and set himself up as the Hercules that was to cleanse the state and punish its oppressors. And true it is, the storm that saved us was raised in taverns and night-cellars; so much more effectual were the orgies of Churchill and Wilkes than the dagger of Cato and Brutus. Earl Temple joined them in mischief and dissipation, and whispered where they might find torches, though he took care never to be seen to light one himself. This triumvirate has even made me reflect that nations are most commonly saved by the worst men in them. The virtuous are too scrupulous to go the lengths which are necessary to rouse the people against their tyrants."

[Sidenote: Grafton's Administration.]

The ferment created by the prosecution of Wilkes led to the resignation of Mr. Grenville, in 1765, and the Marquis of Rockingham succeeded him as head of the administration. He continued, however, the prosecution. He retained his place but a few months, and was succeeded by the Duke of Grafton, the object of such virulent invective in the Letters of Junius, a work without elevation of sentiment, without any appeal to generous principle, without recognition of the eternal laws of justice, and without truthfulness, and yet a work which produced a great sensation, and is to this day regarded as a masterpiece of savage and unscrupulous sarcasm. The Duke of Grafton had the same views as his predecessor respecting Wilkes, who had the audacity, notwithstanding the sentence of outlawry which had been passed against him, to return from Paris, to which he had, for a time, retired, and to appear publicly at Guildhall, and offer himself as a candidate for the city of London. He was contemptuously rejected, but succeeded in being elected as member for Middlesex county.

Mr. Wilkes, however, recognizing the outlawry that had been passed against him, surrendered himself to the jurisdiction of the Court of the King's Bench, which was then presided over by Lord Mansfield. This great lawyer and jurist confirmed the verdicts against him, and sentenced him to pay a fine of one thousand pounds, to suffer two years' imprisonment, and to find security for good behavior for seven years. This sentence was odious and severe, and the more unjustifiable in view of the arbitrary and unprecedented alteration of the records on the very night preceding the trial.

[Sidenote: Popularity of Wilkes.]

The multitude, enraged, rescued their idol from the officers of the law, as they were conducting him to prison, and carried him with triumph through the city; but, through his entreaties, they were prevailed upon to abstain from further acts of outrage. Mr. Wilkes again surrendered himself, and was confined in prison. When the Commons met, Wilkes was again expelled, in order to satisfy the vengeance of the court. But the electors of Middlesex again returned him to parliament, and the Commons voted that, being once expelled, he was incapable of sitting, even if elected, in the same parliament. The electors of Middlesex, equally determined with the Commons, chose him, for a third time, their representative; and the election, for the third time, was declared void by the commons. In order to terminate the contest, Colonel Lutterell, a member of the House, vacated his seat, and offered himself a candidate for Middlesex. He received two hundred and ninety-six votes, and Wilkes twelve hundred and forty-three, but Lutterell was declared duly elected by the Commons, and took his seat for Middlesex.

This decision threw the whole nation into a ferment, and was plainly an outrage on the freedom of elections; and it was so considered by some of the most eminent men in England, even by those who despised the character of Wilkes. Lord Chatham, from his seat, declared "that the laws were despised, trampled upon, destroyed; those laws which had been made by the stern virtues of our ancestors, those iron barons of old, to whose spirit in the hour of contest, and to whose fortitude in the triumph of victory, the silken barons of this day owe all their honors and security."

Mr. Wilkes subsequently triumphed; the Commons grew weary of a contest which brought no advantage and much ignominy, and the prosecution was dropped; but not until the subject of it had been made Lord Mayor of London. From 1768 to 1772, he was the sole unrivalled political idol of the people, who lavished on him all in their power to bestow. They subscribed twenty thousand pounds for the payment of his debts, besides gifts of plate, wine, and household goods. Every wall bore his name and every window his picture. In china, bronze, or marble, he stood upon the chimney-pieces of half the houses in London, and he swung from the sign-board of every village, and every great road in the environs of the metropolis. In 1770 he was discharged from his imprisonment, in 1771 was permitted to take his seat, and elected mayor. From 1776, his popularity declined, and he became involved in pecuniary difficulties. He, however, emerged from them, and enjoyed a quiet office until his death (1797.) He was a patriot from accident, and not from principle, and corrupt in his morals; but he was a gentleman of elegant manners and cultivated taste. He was the most popular political character ever known in England; and his name, at one time, was sufficient to blow up the flames of sedition, and excite the lower orders to acts of violence bordering on madness.

[Sidenote: Taxation of the Colonies.]

During his prosecution, important events occurred, of greater moment to the world. The disputes about the taxation of America led to the establishment of a new republic, whose extent and grandeur have never been equalled, and whose future greatness cannot well be exaggerated.

These disputes commenced during the administration of George Grenville. The proposal to tax the American colonies had been before proposed to Sir Robert Walpole, but this prudent and sagacious minister dared not run the risk. Mr. Grenville was not, however, daunted by the difficulties and dangers which the more able Walpole regarded. In order to lighten the burden which resulted from the ruinous wars of Pitt, the minister proposed to raise a revenue from the colonies. The project pleased the house, and the Stamp Duties were imposed. It is true that the tax was a light one, and was so regarded by Mr. Grenville; but he intended it as a precedent; he was resolved to raise a revenue from the colonies sufficiently great to lighten the public burden. He regarded the colonists as subjects of the King of Great Britain, in every sense of the word; and, since they received protection from the government, they were bound to contribute to its support.

[Sidenote: Indignation of the Colonies.]

But the colonists, now scattered along the coast from Maine to Georgia, took other views. They maintained that, though subject in some degree to English legislation, they could not be taxed, any more than other subjects of Great Britain, without their consent. They were willing to be ruled in accordance with those royal charters which had, at different times, been given them. They were even willing to assist the mother country, which they loved and revered, and with which were connected their brightest and most cherished associations, in expelling its enemies from adjoining territories, and to fight battles in its defence. They were willing to receive the literature, the religion, the fashions, and the opinions of their brethren in England. But they looked upon the soil which they cultivated in the wilderness with so many difficulties, hardships, and dangers, as their own, and believed that they were bound to raise taxes only to defend the soil, and promote good government, religion, and morality in their midst. But they could not understand why they were bound to pay taxes to support English wars on the continent of Europe. It was for their children, and for the sacred privilege of religious liberty, that they had originally left the mother country. It was only for themselves and their children that they felt bound to labor. They sought no political influence in England. They did not wish to control elections, or regulate the finances, or interfere with the projects of military aggrandizement. They were not represented in the English parliament, and they composed, politically speaking, no part of the English nation. Great, therefore, was their indignation, when they learned that the English government was interfering with their chartered rights, and designed to raise a revenue from them to lighten taxes at home, merely to support the government in foolish wars. If they could be taxed, without their consent, in any thing, they could be taxed without limit; and they would be in danger of becoming mere slaves of the mother country, and be bound to labor for English aggrandizement. On one point they insisted with peculiar earnestness—that taxation, in a free country, without a representation of interests in parliament, was an outrage. It was on account of this arbitrary taxation that Charles I. lost his crown, and the second revolution was effected, which placed the house of Hanover on the throne. The colonies felt that, if the subjects of the king at home were justified in resisting unlawful taxes, they surely, on another continent, and without a representation, had a right to do so also; that, if they were to be taxed without their consent, they would be in a worse condition than even the people of Ireland; would be in the condition of a conquered people, without the protection which even a conquered country enjoyed. Hence they remonstrated, and prepared themselves for resistance.

[Sidenote: The Stamp Act.]

The English government was so blinded as not to perceive or feel the force of the reasoning of the colonists, and obstinately resolved to resort to measures which, with a free and spirited people, must necessarily lead to violence and strife. The House of Commons would not even hear the reports of the colonial agents, but proceeded, with strange infatuation and obstinate bigotry, to impose the Stamp Act, (1765.) There were some, however, who perceived its folly and injustice. General Conway protested against the assumed right of the government, and Colonel Barre, a speaker of great eminence, exclaimed, in reply to the speech of Charles Townshend, who styled the colonies "children planted by our care, and nourished by our indulgence,"—"They planted by your care!—No! your oppressions planted them in America; they fled from your tyranny to a then uncultivated wilderness, exposed to all the hardships to which human nature is liable! They nourished by your indulgence!—No! they grew by your neglect; your care of them was displayed in sending persons to govern them who were the deputies of deputies of ministers—men whose behavior, on many occasions, has caused the blood of those sons of liberty to recoil within them; men who have been promoted to the highest seats of justice in a foreign country, in order to escape being brought to the bar of a court of justice in their own." Mr. Pitt opposed the fatal policy of Grenville with singular eloquence; by arguments which went beyond acts of parliament; by an appeal to the natural reason; and by recognition of the great, inalienable principles of liberty. He maintained that the House had no right to lay an internal tax upon America, that country not being represented. Burke, too, then a new speaker, raised his voice against the folly and injustice of taxing the colonies; but it was in vain. The commons were bent on imposing the Stamp Act.

But the passage of this act created great disturbances in America, and was every where regarded as the beginning of great calamities. Throughout the colonies there was a general combination to resist the stamp duty; and it was resolved to purchase no English manufactures, and to prevent the adoption of stamped paper.

Such violent and unexpected opposition embarrassed the English ministry; which, in addition to the difficulties attending the prosecution of Wilkes, led to the retirement of Grenville, who was succeeded by the Marquis of Rockingham. During his short administration, the Stamp Act was repealed, although the Commons still insisted on their right to tax America. The joy which this repeal created in the colonies was unbounded; and the speech of Pitt, who proposed the repeal, and defended it with unprecedented eloquence, was every where read with enthusiasm, and served to strengthen the conviction, among the leading men in the colonies, that their cause was right. Lord Rockingham did not long remain at the head of the government, and was succeeded by the Duke of Grafton; although Mr. Pitt, recently created Earl of Chatham, was virtually the prime minister. Lord Rockingham retired from office with a high character for pure and disinterested patriotism, and without securing place, pension, or reversion, to himself or to any of his adherents.

[Sidenote: Lord Chatham.]

The elevation of Lord Chatham to the peerage destroyed his popularity and weakened his power. No man ever made a greater mistake than he did in consenting to an apparent elevation. He had long been known and designated as the Great Commoner. The people were proud of him and, as a commoner, he could have ruled the nation, in spite of all opposition. No other man could have averted the national calamities. But, as a peer, he no longer belonged to the people, and the people lost confidence in him, and abandoned him. What he gained in dignity he lost in power and popularity. The people now compared him with Lord Bath, and he became the object of universal calumny.

And Chatham felt the change which had taken place in the nation. He had ever loved and courted popularity, and that was the source of his power. He now lost his spirits, and interested himself but little in public affairs. He relapsed into a state of indolence and apathy. He remained only the shadow of a mighty name; and, sequestered in the groves of his family residence, ceased to be mentioned by the public. He became melancholy, nervous, and unfit for business. Nor could he be induced to attend a cabinet council, even on the most pressing occasions. He pretended to be ill, and would not hold conference with his colleagues. Nor did he have the influence with the king which he had a right to expect. Being no longer beloved by the people, he was no longer feared by the king. He was like Samson when deprived of his locks—without strength; for his strength lay in the confidence and affections of the nation. He opposed his colleagues in their resolution to impose new taxes on America, but his counsels were disregarded.

These taxes were in the shape of duties on glass, paper, lead, and painters' colors, from which no considerable revenue could be gained, and much discontent would inevitably result. When the news of this new taxation reached the colonies, it destroyed all the cheerfulness which the repeal of the Stamp Act had caused. Sullenness and gloom returned. Trust in parliament was diminished. New combinations of opposition were organized, and the newspapers teemed with invective.

In the midst of these disturbances, Lord Chatham resigned the Privy Seal, the office he had selected, and retired from the administration, (1768.)

[Sidenote: Administration of Lord North.]

In 1770, the Duke of Grafton also resigned his office as first lord of the treasury, chiefly in consequence of the increasing difficulties with America; and Lord North, who had been two years chancellor of the exchequer, took his place. He was an amiable and accomplished nobleman, and had many personal friends, and few personal enemies; but he was unfit to manage the helm of state in the approaching storm.

It was his misfortune to be minister in the most unsettled and revolutionary times, and to misunderstand not merely the spirit of the age, but the character and circumstances of the American colonies. George III., with singular obstinacy and blindness, sustained the minister against all opposition; and under his administration the American war was carried on, which ended so disastrously to the mother country.

As this great and eventful war will be the subject of the next chapter, the remaining events of interest, connected with the domestic history of England, will be first presented.

The most important of these were the discontents of the Irish.

As early as 1762, associations of the peasantry were formed with a view to political reforms and changes, and these popular demonstrations of the discontented have ever since marked the history of the Irish nation—ever poor, ever oppressed, ever on the eve of rebellion.

[Sidenote: Functions of the Parliament.]

The first circumstance, however, after the accession of George III., which claims particular notice, was the passing of the Octennial Bill, in 1788. The Irish parliament, unlike the English, continued in existence during the life of the sovereign. In 1761, an attempt had been made by the patriotic party to limit its duration, and to place it upon the same footing as the parliament of England; but this did not succeed. Lord Townshend, at this period, was lord lieutenant, and it was the great object of his government to break the power of the Irish aristocracy, and to take out of their hands the distribution of pensions and places, which hitherto had, from motives of policy, been allowed them. He succeeded in his object, though by unjustifiable means, and the British government became the source of all honor and emolument. During his administration, some disturbances broke out in Ulster, in consequence of the system which then prevailed of letting land on fines. As a great majority of the peasantry and small farmers were unable to pay these fines, and were consequently deprived of their farms, they became desperate, and committed violent outrages on those who had taken their lands. Government was obliged to resort to military force, and many distressed people were driven to America for subsistence. To Ireland there appeared no chance of breaking the thraldom which England in other respects also exercised, when the American war broke out. This immediately changed the language and current of the British government in reference to Ireland; proposals were made favorable to Irish commerce; and some penal statutes against Catholics were annulled. Still the patriots of Ireland aimed at much greater privileges than had as yet been granted, and the means to secure these were apparent. England had drawn from Ireland nearly all the regular forces, in order to send them to America, and the sea-coast of Ireland was exposed to invasion. In consequence of the defenceless state of the country, the inhabitants of the town of Belfast, in 1779, entered into armed associations to defend themselves in case of necessity. This gave rise to a system of volunteers, which soon was extended over the island. The Irish now began to feel their strength; and even Lord North admitted, in the House of Commons, the necessity of granting to them still greater privileges, and carried a bill through parliament, which removed some grievous commercial restrictions. But the Irish looked to greater objects, and especially since Lord North, in order to carry his bill, represented it as a boon resumable at pleasure, rather than as a right to which the Irish were properly entitled. This bill, therefore, instead of quieting the patriots, led to a desire for an independent parliament of their own. A union was formed of volunteers to secure this end, not composed of the ignorant peasantry, but of all classes, at the head of which was the Duke of Leinster himself. In 1781, this association of volunteers had a force of fifty thousand disciplined men; and it moreover formed committees of correspondence, which naturally alarmed the British government.

These and other disturbances, added to the disasters in America, induced the House of Commons to pass censure on Lord North and his colleague, as incapable of managing the helm of state. The king, therefore, was compelled to dismiss his ministers, whose administration had proved the most disastrous in British annals. Lord North, however, had uncommon difficulties to contend with, and might have governed the nation with honor in ordinary times. He resigned in 1782, four years after the death of Chatham, and the Marquis of Buckingham, a second time, was placed at the head of the government. Mr. Fox and Mr. Burke also obtained places, and the Whigs were once more triumphant.

[Sidenote: Irish Discontents.]

The attention of the new ministry was imperatively demanded by the discontents in Ireland, and important concessions were made. Mr. Grattan moved an address to the king, which was unanimously carried in both Houses, in which it was declared that "the crown of Ireland was inseparably annexed to the crown of Great Britain; but that the kingdom of Ireland was a distinct kingdom, with a parliament of her own, the sole legislature thereof; that in this right they conceived the very essence of their liberty to exist; that in behalf of all the people of Ireland, they claimed this as their birthright, and could not relinquish it but with their lives; that they had a high veneration for the British character; and that, in sharing the freedom of England, it was their determination to share also her fate, and to stand and fall with the British nation." The new lord lieutenant, the Duke of Portland, assured the Irish parliament that the British legislature had resolved to remove the cause of discontent, and a law was actually passed which placed the Irish parliament on the same footing as that of England. Acts were also passed for the right of habeas corpus, and for the independence of the judges.

The volunteers, having accomplished the objects which they originally contemplated, did not, however, disband, but now directed their efforts to a reform in parliament. But the House of Commons rejected the proposition offered by Mr. Flood, and the convention, appointed by the volunteers, indefinitely adjourned without persevering, as it should have done. The volunteer system soon after declined.

The cause of parliamentary reform, though no longer supported by the volunteers in their associate character, was not deserted by the people, or by their advocates in parliament. Among these advocates was William Pitt himself. But in 1783, he became prime minister, and changed his opinions.

[Sidenote: Protestant Association.]

But before the administration of Pitt can be presented, an event in the domestic history of England must be alluded to, which took place during the administration of Lord North. This was the Protestant Association, headed by Lord George Gordon, and the riots to which it led.

[Sidenote: Lord George Gordon's Riots.]

In 1780, parliament had passed an act relieving Roman Catholics from some of the heavy penalties inflicted on them in the preceding century. It relieved bishops, priests, and schoolmasters from prosecution and imprisonment, gave security to the rights of inheritance, and permission to purchase lands on fee simple. This act of toleration was generally opposed in England; but the fanatical spirit of Presbyterianism in Scotland was excited in view of this reasonable indulgence, to a large body of men, of the rights of conscience and civil liberty. On the bare rumor of the intended indulgence, great tumults took place in Edinburgh and Glasgow; the Roman Catholic chapel was destroyed, and the houses of the principal Catholics were attacked and plundered. Nor did the magistracy check or punish these disorders with any spirit, but secretly favored the rioters. Encouraged by the indifference of the magistrates, the fanatics formed themselves into a society called the Protestant Association, to oppose any remission of the present unjust laws; and of this association Lord George Gordon was chosen president. He was the son of the Duke of Gordon, belonging to one of the most ancient of the Scottish nobility, but a man in the highest degree wild and fanatical. He was also a member of parliament, and opposed the views of the most enlightened statesmen of his time, and with an extravagance which led to the belief that he was insane. He calumniated the king, defied the parliament, and boasted of the number of his adherents. He pretended that he had, in Scotland, one hundred and sixty thousand men at his command, who would cut off the king's head, if he did not keep his coronation oath. The enthusiasm of the Scotch soon spread to the English; and, throughout the country, associations were affiliated with the parent societies in London and Edinburgh, of both of which Lord Gordon was president. At Coachmakers' Hall he assembled his adherents; and, in an incendiary harangue, inflamed the minds of an immense audience in regard to the Church of Rome, with the usual invectives respecting its idolatry and corruption. He urged them to violent courses, as the only way to stop the torrent of Catholicism which was desolating the land. Soon after, this association assembled at St. George's Fields, to the astonishing number of fifty thousand people, marshalled in separate bands, with blue cockades; and this immense rabble proceeded through the city of London to the House of Parliament, preceded by a man carrying a petition signed by twelve hundred thousand names. The rabble took possession of the lobby of the house, making the old palace ring with their passionate cries of "No popery! no popery!" This mob was harangued by Lord Gordon himself, in the lobby of the house, while the matter was discussed among the members. The military were drawn out, and the mob was dispersed for a time, but soon assembled again, and became still more alarming. Houses were plundered, churches were entered, and the city set on fire in thirty-six different places. The people were obliged to chalk on their houses "No popery," and pay contributions to prevent their being sacked. The prisons were emptied of both felons and debtors. Lord Mansfield's splendid residence was destroyed, together with his pictures, furniture, and invaluable law library. Martial law was finally proclaimed—the last resort in cases of rebellion, and never resorted to but in extreme cases; and the military did what magistrates could not do—restored order and law. Had not the city been decreed to be in a state of rebellion, the rioters would have taken the bank, which they had already attacked. Five hundred persons were killed in the riot, and Lord George Gordon was committed to the Tower. He, however, escaped conviction, through the extraordinary talents of his counsel, Mr. Erskine and Mr. Kenyon; but one hundred others were capitally convicted. This disgraceful riot opened the eyes of the people to the horrors of popular insurrection, and perhaps prevented a revolution in England, when other questions, of more practical importance, agitated the nation.

But no reform of importance took place until the administration of William Pitt. Mr. Burke attempted to secure some economical retrenchments, which were strongly opposed. But what was a retrenchment of two hundred thousand pounds a year, when compared with the vast expenditures of the British armies in America and in India? But though the reforms which Burke projected were not radical or important, they contributed to raise his popularity with the people, who were more annoyed by the useless offices connected with the king's household, than by the expenditure of millions in war. At first, his scheme received considerable attention, and the members listened to his propositions so long as they were abstract and general. But when he proceeded to specific reforms, they no longer regarded his voice, and he was obliged to abandon his task as hopeless. William Pitt made his first speech in the debate which Burke had excited, and argued in favor of retrenchment with the eloquence of his father, but with more method and clearness. The bill was lost, but Burke finally succeeded in carrying his measures; and the offices of the master of the harriers, the master of the staghounds, the clerk of the green cloth, and some other unimportant sinecures, were abolished.

[Sidenote: Parliamentary Reforms.]

[Sidenote: Reform Questions.]

The first attempt at that great representative reform which afterwards convulsed the nation, was made by William Pitt. He brought forward two resolutions, to prevent bribery at elections, and secure a more equitable representation. But he did not succeed; and Pitt himself, when his cause was advocated by men of a different spirit,—men inflamed by revolutionary principles,—changed his course, and opposed parliamentary reform with more ardor than he had at first advocated it. But parliamentary reform did not become an object of absorbing interest until the times of Henry Brougham and Lord John Russell.

No other great events were sufficiently prominent to be here alluded to, until the ministry of William Pitt. The American Revolution first demands attention.

* * * * *

REFERENCES.—Belsham's History of the Reign of George III. Walpole's Memoir of the same reign. Holt's Private and Domestic Life of George III. Lord Brougham's Statesmen of the Reign of George III. Smyth's Lectures. Thackeray's Life of the Earl of Chatham. Correspondence of the Earl of Chatham. Annual Register, from 1765 to 1775. Debret's Parliamentary Debates. Stephens' Life of Horne Tooke. Campbell's Lives of the Lord Chancellors. Macaulay's Essay on Chatham. Burke's Thoughts on the Present Discontents.



CHAPTER XXVIII.

THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION.

[Sidenote: The American Revolution.]

The American Revolution, if contemplated in view of its ultimate as well as immediate consequences, is doubtless the greatest event of modern times. Its importance was not fully appreciated when it took place, but still excited a great interest throughout the civilized world. It was the main subject which engrossed the attention and called out the energies of British statesmen, during the administration of Lord North. In America, of course, all other subjects were trivial in comparison with it. The contest is memorable for the struggles of heroes, for the development of unknown energies, for the establishment of a new western empire, for the triumph of the cause of liberty, and for the moral effects which resulted, even in other countries, from the examples of patriots who preferred the glory and honor of their country to their own aggrandizement.

The causes of the struggle have been already alluded to in the selfishness and folly of British statesmen, who sought to relieve the burdens of the English people by taxing the colonies. The colonies were doubtless regarded by the British parliament without proper affection or consideration; somewhat in the light of a conquered nation, from which England might derive mercantile advantage. The colonies were not ruled in a spirit of conciliation, nor were the American people fully appreciated. Some, perhaps, like Chatham and Burke, may have known the virtues and the power of the colonial population, and may have had some glimpse of the glory and greatness to which America was destined. But they composed but a small minority of the nation, and their advice and remonstrances were generally disregarded.

[Sidenote: Causes of the Revolution.]

Serious disturbances did not take place until Lord North commenced his unfortunate administration, (1770.) Although the colonies were then resolved not to submit to unlawful taxation, and to an oppressive government, independence was not contemplated. Conciliatory measures, if they had been at that time adopted, probably would have deferred the Revolution. But the contest must have occurred, at a later date; for nothing, in the ordinary course of events, could have prevented the ultimate independence of the colonies. Their rapid growth, the extent of the country in which settlements were made, its distance from England, the spirit of liberty which animated the people, their general impatience under foreign restraint, and the splendid prospects of future greatness which were open to their eyes, must have led to a rupture with the mother country at no distant time.

The colonies, at the commencement of their difficulties, may have exaggerated their means of resistance, but not their future greatness. All of them, from New Hampshire to Georgia, were animated by a spirit of liberty which no misfortunes could crush. A large majority of the people were willing to incur the dangers incident to revolution, not for themselves merely, but for the sake of their posterity, and for the sacred cause of liberty. They felt that their cause was just, and that Providence would protect and aid them in their defence.

A minute detail of the events of the American Revolution, of course, cannot be expected in a history like this. Only the more prominent events can be alluded to. The student is supposed to be familiar with the details of the conflict, which are to be read in the works of numerous American authors.

Lord North, at the commencement of his administration, repealed the obnoxious duties which had been imposed in 1767, but still retained the duty on tea, with a view chiefly to assert the supremacy of Great Britain, and her right to tax the colonies. This course of the minister cannot be regarded in any other light than that of the blindest infatuation.

The imposition of the port duties, by Grenville, had fomented innumerable disturbances, and had led to universal discussion as to the nature and extent of parliamentary power. A distinction, at first, had been admitted between internal and external taxes; but it was soon asserted that Great Britain had no right to tax the colonies, either internally or externally. It was stated that the colonies had received charters, under the great seal, which had given them all the rights and privileges of Englishmen at home and therefore that they could not be taxed, except by their own consent; that this consent had never been asked or granted; that they were unrepresented in the imperial parliament; and that the taxes which had been imposed by their own respective legislatures were, in many instances, greater than what were paid by the people of England—taxes too, incurred, to a great degree, to preserve the jurisdiction of Great Britain on the American continent. The colonies were every where exceedingly indignant with the course the mother country had pursued with reference to them. Patrick Henry, a Virginian, supported the cause of liberty with unrivalled eloquence and power, as did John Adams, Josiah Quincy, Jr., James Otis, and other patriots in Massachusetts. Riots took place in Boston, Newport, and New York, and assemblies of citizens in various parts expressed an indignant and revolutionary spirit.

[Sidenote: Riots and Disturbances.]

The residence of the military at Boston was, moreover, the occasion of perpetual tumult. The people abused the soldiers, vilified them in newspapers, and insulted them in the street. Mutual animosity was the result. Rancor and insults produced riot, and the troops fired upon the people. So great was the disturbances, that the governor was reluctantly obliged to remove the military from the town. The General Court was then removed to Cambridge, but refused to enter upon business unless it were convened in Boston. Fresh disturbances followed. The governor quarrelled with the legislature, and a complete anarchy began to prevail. The public mind was inflamed by effigies, paintings, and incendiary articles in the newspapers. The parliament was represented as corrupt, the ministry as venal, the king as a tyrant, and England itself as a rotten, old, aristocratic structure, crumbling to pieces. The tide was so overwhelming in favor of resistance, that even moderate men were borne along in the current; and those who kept aloof from the excitement were stigmatized as timid and selfish, and the enemies of their country. The courts of justice were virtually silenced, since juries disregarded the charges of the judges. Libels were unnoticed, and the rioters were unpunished. Smuggling was carried on to a great extent, and revenue officers were insulted in the discharge of their duties. Obnoxious persons were tarred and feathered, and exposed to public derision and scorn. In Providence, they burnt the revenue cutter, and committees were formed in the principal towns who fanned the flame of sedition. The committee in Boston, in 1773, framed a celebrated document, called the Bill of Rights, in which the authority of parliament to legislate for the colonies, in any respect, was denied, and in which the salaries decreed by the crown to the governor and judges were considered as a systematic attempt to enslave the land.