[1] Frederick was never actually created duke of Gloucester, and when
he was raised to the peerage in 1736 it was as duke of Edinburgh
only. See G. E. C(okayne), _Complete Peerage_, sub "Gloucester."
FREDERICK WILLIAM I. (1688-1740), king of Prussia, son of Frederick I.
by his second marriage was born on the 15th of August 1688. He spent a
considerable time in early youth at the court of his grandfather, the
elector Ernest Augustus of Hanover. On his return to Berlin he was
placed under General von Dohna and Count Finkenstein, who trained him to
the energetic and regular habits which ever afterwards characterized
him. He was soon imbued with a passion for military life, and this was
deepened by acquaintance with the duke of Marlborough (1709), Prince
Eugene, whom he visited during the siege of Tournai, and Prince Leopold
of Anhalt (the "Old Dessauer"). In nearly every respect he was the
opposite of his father, having frugal, simple tastes, a passionate
temper and a determined will. Throughout his life he was always the
protector of the church and of religion. But he detested religious
quarrels and was very tolerant towards his Catholic subjects, except the
Jesuits. His life was simple and puritanical, being founded on the
teaching of the Bible. He was, however, fond of hunting and somewhat
given to drinking. He intensely disliked the French, and highly
disapproved of the imitation of their manners by his father and his
court. When he came to the throne (February 25, 1713) his first act was
to dismiss from the palace every unnecessary official and to regulate
the royal household on principles of the strictest parsimony. The
greater part of the beautiful furniture was sold. His importance for
Prussia is twofold: in internal politics he laid down principles which
continued to be followed long after his death. This was a province
peculiarly suited to his genius; he was one of the greatest
administrators who have ever worn the Prussian crown. His foreign policy
was less successful, though under his rule the kingdom acquired some
extension of territory.
Thus at the peace of Utrecht (April 11, 1713), after the War of the
Spanish Succession, he acquired the greater part of the duchy of
Gelderland. By the treaty of Schwedt, concluded with Russia on the 6th
of October, he was assured of an important influence in the solution of
the Baltic question, which during the long absence of Charles XII. had
become burning; and Swedish Pomerania, as far as the Peene, was occupied
by Prussia. But Charles XII. on his return turned against the king,
though without success, for the Pomeranian campaign of 1715 ended in
favour of Prussia (fall of Stralsund, December 22). This enabled
Frederick William I. to maintain a more independent attitude towards the
tsar; he refused, for example, to provide him with troops for a campaign
(in Schonen) against the Swedes. When on the 28th of May 1718, in view
of the disturbances in Mecklenburg, he signed at Havelberg the alliance
with Russia, he confined himself to taking up a defensive attitude, and,
on the other hand, on the 14th of August 1719 he also entered into
relations with his former enemies, England and Hanover. And so, by the
treaty of Stockholm (February 1, 1720), Frederick William succeeded in
obtaining the consent of Sweden to the cession of that part of Pomerania
which he had occupied (Usedom, Wollin, Stettin, Hither Pomerania, east
of the Peene) in return for a payment of 2,000,000 thalers.
While Frederick William I. succeeded in carrying his wishes into effect
in this direction, he was unable to realize another project which he had
much at heart, namely, the Prussian succession to the Lower Rhine
duchies of Juelich and Berg. The treaty concluded in 1725 at Vienna
between the emperor and Spain brought the whole of this question up
again, for both sides had pledged themselves to support the
Palatinate-Sulzbach succession (in the event of the Palatinate-Neuberg
line becoming extinct). Frederick William turned for help to the western
powers, England and France, and secured it by the treaty of alliance
signed at Herrenhausen on the 3rd of September 1725 (League of Hanover).
But since the western powers soon sought to use the military strength of
Prussia for their own ends, Frederick again turned towards the east,
strengthened above all his relations with Russia, which had continued to
be good, and finally, by the treaty of Wuesterhausen (October 12, 1726;
ratified at Berlin, December 23, 1728), even allied himself with his
former adversary, the court of Vienna; though this treaty only
imperfectly safeguarded Prussian interests, inasmuch as Frederick
William consented to renounce his claims to Juelich. But as in the
following years the European situation became more and more favourable
to the house of Habsburg, the latter began to try to withdraw part of
the concessions which it had made to Frederick William. As early as 1728
Duesseldorf, the capital, was excluded from the guarantee of Berg.
Nevertheless, in the War of the Polish Succession against France
(1734-1735), Frederick William remained faithful to the emperor's cause,
and sent an auxiliary force of 10,000 men. The peace of Vienna, which
terminated the war, led to a reconciliation between France and Austria,
and so to a further estrangement between Frederick William and the
emperor. Moreover, in 1738 the western powers, together with the
emperor, insisted in identical notes on the recognition of the emperor's
right to decide the question of the succession in the Lower Rhine
duchies. A breach with the emperor was now inevitable, and this explains
why in a last treaty (April 5, 1739) Frederick William obtained from
France a guarantee of a part, at least, of Berg (excluding Duesseldorf).
But Frederick William's failures in foreign policy were more than
compensated for by his splendid services in the internal administration
of Prussia. He saw the necessity of rigid economy not only in his
private life but in the whole administration of the state. During his
reign Prussia obtained for the first time a centralized and uniform
financial administration. It was the king himself who composed and wrote
in the year 1722 the famous instruction for the general directory
(_Generaldirektorium_) of war, finance and domains. When he died the
income of the state was about seven million thalers (L1,050,000). The
consequence was that he paid off the debts incurred by his father, and
left to his successor a well filled treasury. In the administration of
the domains he made three innovations: (1) the private estates of the
king were turned into domains of the crown (August 13, 1713); (2) the
freeing of the serfs on the royal domains (March 22, 1719); (3) the
conversion of the hereditary lease into a short-term lease on the basis
of productiveness. His industrial policy was inspired by the mercantile
spirit. On this account he forbade the importation of foreign
manufactures and the export of raw materials from home, a policy which
had a very good effect on the growth of Prussian industries.
The work of internal colonization he carried on with especial zeal. Most
notable of all was his _retablissement_ of East Prussia, to which he
devoted six million thalers (c. L900,000). His policy in respect of the
towns was motived largely by fiscal considerations, but at the same time
he tried also to improve their municipal administration; for example, in
the matter of buildings, of the letting of domain lands and of the
collection of the excise in towns. Frederick William had many opponents
among the nobles because he pressed on the abolition of the old feudal
rights, introduced in East Prussia and Lithuania a general land tax (the
_Generalhufenschoss_), and finally in 1739 attacked in a special edict
the _Legen_, i.e. the expropriation of the peasant proprietors. He did
nothing for the higher learning, and even banished the philosopher
Christian Wolff at forty-eight hours' notice "on pain of the halter,"
for teaching, as he believed, fatalist doctrines. Afterwards he modified
his judgment in favour of Wolff, and even, in 1739, recommended the
study of his works. He established many village schools, which he often
visited in person; and after the year 1717 (October 23) all Prussian
parents were obliged to send their children to school (_Schulzwang_). He
was the especial friend of the _Franckische Stiftungen_ at Halle on the
Saale. Under him the people flourished; and although it stood in awe of
his vehement spirit it respected him for his firmness, his honesty of
purpose and his love of justice. He was devoted also to his army, the
number of which he raised from 38,000 to 83,500, so that under him
Prussia became the third military power in the world, coming next after
Russia and France. There was not a more thoroughly drilled or better
appointed force. The Potsdam guard, made up of giants collected from all
parts of Europe, sometimes kidnapped, was a sort of toy with which he
amused himself. The reviewing of his troops was his chief pleasure. But
he was also fond of meeting his friends in the evening in what he called
his Tobacco-College, where amid clouds of tobacco smoke he not only
discussed affairs of state but heard the newest "guard-room jokes." He
died on the 31st of May 1740, leaving behind him his widow, Sophia
Dorothea of Hanover, whom he had married on the 26th of November 1706.
His son was Frederick the Great, who was the opposite of Frederick
William. This opposition became so strong in 1730 that the crown prince
fled from the court, and was later arrested and brought before a
court-martial. A reconciliation was brought about, at first gradually.
In later years the relations between father and son came to be of the
best (see FREDERICK II., king of Prussia).
BIBLIOGRAPHY.--D. Fassmann, _Leben und Thaten Friedrich Wilhelms_ (2
vols., Hamburg and Breslau, 1735, 1741); F. Foerster, _Friedrich
Wilhelm I._ (3 vols., Potsdam, 1834 and 1835); C. v. Noorden,
_Historische Vortraege_ (Leipzig, 1884); O. Krauske, "Vom Hofe
Friedrich Wilhelms I.," _Hohenzollernjahrbuch_, v. (1902); R. Koser,
_Friedrich der Grosse als Kronprinz_ (2nd ed., Stuttgart, 1901); W.
Oncken, "Sir Charles Hotham und Friedrich Wilhelm I. im Jahre 1730,"
_Forschungen zur brandenburgischen Geschichte_, vol. vii. et seq.; J.
G. Droysen in the _Allgemeine deutsche Biographie_, vii. (1878), and
in _Geschichte der preussischen Politik_, section iv., vols. ii.-iv.
(2nd ed., 1868 et seq.); L. v. Ranke, _Zwoelf Buecher preussischer
Geschichte_ (1874 et seq.); Stenzel, _Geschichte des preussischen
Staates_, iii. (1841); F. Holke, "Strafrechtspflege unter Friedrich
Wilhelm I.," _Beitraege zur brandenburgischen Rechtsgeschichte_, iii.
(1894); V. Loewe, "Allodifikation der Leben unter Friedrich Wilhelm
I.," _Forschungen zur brandenburgischen Geschichte_, xi.; G.
Schmoller, "Epochen der preuss. Finanzpolitik," _Umrisse und
Untersuchungen_ (Leipzig, 1898), "Innere Verwaltung unter Friedrich
Wilhelm I.," _Preuss. Jahrbuecher_, xxvi., "Staedtewesen unter Friedrich
Wilhelm I.," _Zeitschrift fuer preussische Geschichte_, x. et seq.; B.
Reuter, "Koenig Friedrich Wilhelm I. und das General-Direktorium,"
_ibid._ xii.; V. Loewe, "Zur Grundungsgeschichte des
General-Direktoriums," _Forschungen_, &c., xiii.; R. Stadelmann,
_Preussens Koenige in ihrer Taetigkeit fuer die Landeskultur_, vol. i.
"Friedrich Wilhelm I." (1878); M. Beheim-Schwarzbach,
_Hohenzollern'sche Kolonizationen_ (Leipzig, 1874); W. Naude, "Die
merkantilistische Wirtschaftspolitik Friedrich Wilhelms I.,"
_Historische Zeitschrift_, xc.; M. Lehmann, "Werbung, &c., im Heere
Friedrich Wilhelms I.," _ibid._ lxvii.; Isaacson, "Erbpachtsystem in
der preussischen Domaenenverwaltung," _Zeitschrift fuer preuss. Gesch._
xi. Cf. also _Hohenzollernjahrbuch_, viii. (1905), for particulars of
his education and death; letters to Prince Leopold of Anhalt-Dessau in
the _Acta Borussica_ (1905). English readers will find a picturesque
account of him in Thomas Carlyle's _Frederick the Great_. (J. Hn.)
FREDERICK WILLIAM II. (1744-1797), king of Prussia, son of Augustus
William, second son of King Frederick William I. and of Louise Amalie of
Brunswick, sister of the wife of Frederick the Great, was born at Berlin
on the 25th of September 1744, and became heir to the throne on his
father's death in 1757. The boy was of an easy-going and pleasure-loving
disposition, averse from sustained effort of any kind, and sensual by
nature. His marriage with Elisabeth Christine, daughter of Duke Charles
of Brunswick, contracted in 1765, was dissolved in 1769, and he soon
afterwards married Frederika Louisa, daughter of the landgrave Louis
IX. of Hesse-Darmstadt. Although he had a numerous family by his wife,
he was completely under the influence of his mistress, Wilhelmine Enke,
afterwards created Countess Lichtenau, a woman of strong intellect and
much ambition. He was a man of singularly handsome presence, not without
mental qualities of a high order; he was devoted to the arts--Beethoven
and Mozart enjoyed his patronage and his private orchestra had a
European reputation. But an artistic temperament was hardly that
required of a king of Prussia on the eve of the Revolution; and
Frederick the Great, who had employed him in various services--notably
in an abortive confidential mission to the court of Russia in
1780--openly expressed his misgivings as to the character of the prince
and his surroundings.
The misgivings were justified by the event. Frederick William's
accession to the throne (August 17, 1786) was, indeed, followed by a
series of measures for lightening the burdens of the people, reforming
the oppressive French system of tax-collecting introduced by Frederick,
and encouraging trade by the diminution of customs dues and the making
of roads and canals. This gave the new king much popularity with the
mass of the people; while the educated classes were pleased by his
removal of Frederick's ban on the German language by the admission of
German writers to the Prussian Academy, and by the active encouragement
given to schools and universities. But these reforms were vitiated in
their source. In 1781 Frederick William, then prince of Prussia,
inclined, like many sensual natures, to mysticism, had joined the
Rosicrucians, and had fallen under the influence of Johann Christof
Woellner (1732-1800), and by him the royal policy was inspired. Woellner,
whom Frederick the Great had described as a "treacherous and intriguing
priest," had started life as a poor tutor in the family of General von
Itzenplitz, a noble of the mark of Brandenburg, had, after the general's
death and to the scandal of king and nobility, married the general's
daughter, and with his mother-in-law's assistance settled down on a
small estate. By his practical experiments and by his writings he gained
a considerable reputation as an economist; but his ambition was not
content with this, and he sought to extend his influence by joining
first the Freemasons and afterwards (1779) the Rosicrucians. Woellner,
with his impressive personality and easy if superficial eloquence, was
just the man to lead a movement of this kind. Under his influence the
order spread rapidly, and he soon found himself the supreme director
(_Oberhauptdirektor_) of some 26 "circles," which included in their
membership princes, officers and high officials. As a Rosicrucian
Woellner dabbled in alchemy and other mystic arts, but he also affected
to be zealous for Christian orthodoxy, imperilled by Frederick II.'s
patronage of "enlightenment," and a few months before Frederick's death
wrote to his friend the Rosicrucian Johann Rudolph von Bischoffswerder
(1741-1803) that his highest ambition was to be placed at the head of
the religious department of the state "as an unworthy instrument in the
hand of Ormesus" (the prince of Prussia's Rosicrucian name) "for the
purpose of saving millions of souls from perdition and bringing back the
whole country to the faith of Jesus Christ."
Such was the man whom Frederick William II., immediately after his
accession, called to his counsels. On the 26th of August 1786 he was
appointed privy councillor for finance (_Geheimer Oberfinanzrath_), and on
the 2nd of October was ennobled. Though not in name, in fact he was prime
minister; in all internal affairs it was he who decided; and the fiscal
and economic reforms of the new reign were the application of his
theories. Bischoffswerder, too, still a simple major, was called into the
king's counsels; by 1789 he was already an adjutant-general. These were
the two men who enmeshed the king in a web of Rosicrucian mystery and
intrigue, which hampered whatever healthy development of his policy might
have been possible, and led ultimately to disaster. The opposition to
Woellner was, indeed, at the outset strong enough to prevent his being
entrusted with the department of religion; but this too in time was
overcome, and on the 3rd of July 1788 he was appointed active privy
councillor of state and of justice and head of the spiritual department
for Lutheran and Catholic affairs. War was at once declared on what--to
use a later term--we may call the "modernists." The king, so long as
Woellner was content to condone his immorality (which Bischoffswerder, to
do him justice, condemned), was eager to help the orthodox crusade. On the
9th of July was issued the famous religious edict, which forbade
Evangelical ministers to teach anything not contained in the letter of
their official books, proclaimed the necessity of protecting the Christian
religion against the "enlighteners" (_Aufklaerer_), and placed educational
establishments under the supervision of the orthodox clergy. On the 18th
of December a new censorship law was issued, to secure the orthodoxy of
all published books; and finally, in 1791, a sort of Protestant
Inquisition was established at Berlin (_Immediat-Examinations-commission_)
to watch over all ecclesiastical and scholastic appointments. In his zeal
for orthodoxy, indeed, Frederick William outstripped his minister; he even
blamed Woellner's "idleness and vanity" for the inevitable failure of the
attempt to regulate opinion from above, and in 1794 deprived him of one of
his secular offices in order that he might have more time "to devote
himself to the things of God"; in edict after edict the king continued to
the end of his reign to make regulations "in order to maintain in his
states a true and active Christianity, as the path to genuine fear of
God."
The effects of this policy of blind obscurantism far outweighed any good
that resulted from the king's well-meant efforts at economic and
financial reform; and even this reform was but spasmodic and partial,
and awoke ultimately more discontent than it allayed. But far more
fateful for Prussia was the king's attitude towards the army and foreign
policy. The army was the very foundation of the Prussian state, a truth
which both Frederick William I. and the great Frederick had fully
realized; the army had been their first care, and its efficiency had
been maintained by their constant personal supervision. Frederick
William, who had no taste for military matters, put his authority as
"War-Lord" into commission under a supreme college of war
(_Oberkriegs-Collegium_) under the duke of Brunswick and General von
Moellendorf. It was the beginning of the process that ended in 1806 at
Jena.
In the circumstances Frederick William's intervention in European
affairs was not likely to prove of benefit to Prussia. The Dutch
campaign of 1787, entered on for purely family reasons, was indeed
successful; but Prussia received not even the cost of her intervention.
An attempt to intervene in the war of Russia and Austria against Turkey
failed of its object; Prussia did not succeed in obtaining any
concessions of territory from the alarms of the Allies, and the
dismissal of Hertzberg in 1791 marked the final abandonment of the
anti-Austrian tradition of Frederick the Great. For, meanwhile, the
French Revolution had entered upon alarming phases, and in August 1791
Frederick William, at the meeting at Pillnitz, arranged with the emperor
Leopold to join in supporting the cause of Louis XVI. But neither the
king's character, nor the confusion of the Prussian finances due to his
extravagance, gave promise of any effective action. A formal alliance
was indeed signed on the 7th of February 1792, and Frederick William
took part personally in the campaigns of 1792 and 1793. He was hampered,
however, by want of funds, and his counsels were distracted by the
affairs of Poland, which promised a richer booty than was likely to be
gained by the anti-revolutionary crusade into France. A subsidy treaty
with the sea powers (April 19, 1794) filled his coffers; but the
insurrection in Poland that followed the partition of 1793, and the
threat of the isolated intervention of Russia, hurried him into the
separate treaty of Basel with the French Republic (April 5, 1795), which
was regarded by the great monarchies as a betrayal, and left Prussia
morally isolated in Europe on the eve of the titanic struggle between
the monarchical principle and the new political creed of the Revolution.
Prussia had paid a heavy price for the territories acquired at the
expense of Poland in 1793 and 1795, and when, on the 16th of November
1797, Frederick William died, he left the state in bankruptcy and
confusion, the army decayed and the monarchy discredited.
Frederick William II. was twice married: (1) in 1765 to Elizabeth of
Brunswick (d. 1841), by whom he had a daughter, Frederika, afterwards
duchess of York, and from whom he was divorced in 1769; (2) in 1769 to
Frederika Louisa of Hesse-Darmstadt, by whom he had four sons, Frederick
William III., Louis (d. 1796), Henry and William, and two daughters,
Wilhelmina, wife of William of Orange, afterwards William I., king of
the Netherlands, and Augusta, wife of William II., elector of Hesse.
Besides his relations with his _maitresse en titre_, the countess
Lichtenau, the king--who was a frank polygamist--contracted two
"marriages of the left hand" with Fraeulein von Voss and the countess
Doenhoff.
See article by von Hartmann in _Allgem. deutsche Biog._ (Leipzig,
1878); Stadelmann, _Preussens Koenige in ihrer Taetigkeit fuer die
Landeskultur_, vol. iii. "Friedrich Wilhelm II." (Leipzig, 1885);
Paulig, _Friedrich Wilhelm II., sein Privatleben u. seine Regierung_
(Frankfurt-an-der-Oder, 1896).
FREDERICK WILLIAM III. (1770-1840), king of Prussia, eldest son of King
Frederick William II., was born at Potsdam on the 3rd of August 1770.
His father, then prince of Prussia, was out of favour with Frederick the
Great and entirely under the influence of his mistress; and the boy,
handed over to tutors appointed by the king, lived a solitary and
repressed life which tended to increase the innate weakness of his
character. But though his natural defects of intellect and will-power
were not improved by the pedantic tutoring to which he was submitted, he
grew up pious, honest and well-meaning; and had fate cast him in any but
the most stormy times of his country's history he might well have left
the reputation of a model king. As a soldier he received the usual
training of a Prussian prince, obtained his lieutenancy in 1784, became
a colonel commanding in 1790, and took part in the campaigns of 1792-94.
In 1793 he married Louise, daughter of Prince Charles of
Mecklenburg-Strelitz, whom he had met and fallen in love with at
Frankfort (see LOUISE, queen of Prussia). He succeeded to the throne on
the 16th of November 1797 and at once gave earnest of his good
intentions by cutting down the expenses of the royal establishment,
dismissing his father's ministers, and reforming the most oppressive
abuses of the late reign. Unfortunately, however, he had all the
Hohenzollern tenacity of personal power without the Hohenzollern genius
for using it. Too distrustful to delegate his responsibility to his
ministers, he was too infirm of will to strike out and follow a
consistent course for himself.
The results of this infirmity of purpose are written large on the
history of Prussia from the treaty of Luneville in 1801 to the downfall
that followed the campaign of Jena in 1806. By the treaty of Tilsit
(July 9th, 1807) Frederick William had to surrender half his dominions,
and what remained to him was exhausted by French exactions and liable at
any moment to be crushed out of existence by some new whim of Napoleon.
In the dark years that followed it was the indomitable courage of Queen
Louise that helped the weak king not to despair of the state. She
seconded the reforming efforts of Stein and the work of Scharnhorst and
Gneisenau in reorganizing the army, by which the resurrection of Prussia
became a possibility. When Stein was dismissed at the instance of
Napoleon, Hardenberg succeeded him as chancellor (June 1810). In the
following month Queen Louise died, and the king was left alone to deal
with circumstances of ever-increasing difficulty. He was forced to join
Napoleon in the war against Russia; and even when the disastrous
campaign of 1812 had for the time broken the French power, it was not
his own resolution, but the loyal disloyalty of General York in
concluding with Russia the convention of Tauroggen that forced him into
line with the patriotic fervour of his people.
Once committed to the Russian alliance, however, he became the faithful
henchman of the emperor Alexander, whose fascinating personality
exercised over him to the last a singular power, and began that
influence of Russia at the court of Berlin which was to last till
Frederick William IV.'s supposed Liberalism was to shatter the
cordiality of the _entente_. That during and after the settlement of
1815 Frederick William played a very secondary part in European affairs
is explicable as well by his character as by the absorbing character of
the internal problems of Prussia. He was one of the original
co-signatories of the Holy Alliance, though, in common with most, he
signed it with reluctance; and in the counsels of the Grand Alliance he
allowed himself to be practically subordinated to Alexander and later to
Metternich. In a ruler of his character it is not surprising that the
Revolution and its developments had produced an unconquerable suspicion
of constitutional principles and methods, which the Liberal agitations
in Germany tended to increase. At the various congresses, from
Aix-la-Chapelle (1818) to Verona (1822), therefore, he showed himself
heartily in sympathy with the repressive policy formulated in the
Troppau Protocol. The promise of a constitution, which in the excitement
of the War of Liberation he had made to his people, remained unfulfilled
partly owing to this mental attitude, partly, however, to the all but
insuperable difficulties in the way of its execution. But though
reluctant to play the part of a constitutional king, Frederick William
maintained to the full the traditional character of "first servant of
the state." Though he chastised Liberal professors and turbulent
students, it was in the spirit of a benevolent _Landesvater_; and he
laboured assiduously at the enormous task of administrative
reconstruction necessitated by the problem of welding the heterogeneous
elements of the new Prussian kingdom into a united whole. He was
sincerely religious; but his well-meant efforts to unite the Lutheran
and Reformed Churches, in celebration of the tercentenary of the
Reformation (1817), revealed the limits of his paternal power; eleven
years passed in vain attempts to devise common formulae; a stubborn
Lutheran minority had to be coerced by military force, the confiscation
of their churches and the imprisonment or exile of their pastors; not
till 1834 was outward union secured on the basis of common worship but
separate symbols, the opponents of the measure being forbidden to form
communities of their own. With the Roman Church, too, the king came into
conflict on the vexed question of "mixed marriages," a conflict in which
the Vatican gained an easy victory (see BUNSEN, C. C. J., BARON VON).
The revolutions of 1830 strengthened Frederick William in his
reactionary tendencies; the question of the constitution was
indefinitely shelved; and in 1831 Prussian troops concentrated on the
frontier helped the task of the Russians in reducing the military rising
in Poland. Yet, in spite of all, Frederick William was beloved by his
subjects, who valued him for the simplicity of his manners, the goodness
of his heart and the memories of the dark days after 1806. He died on
the 7th of June 1840. In 1824 he had contracted a morganatic marriage
with the countess Auguste von Harrach, whom he created Princess von
Liegnitz. He wrote _Luther in Bezug auf die Kirchenagenda von 1822 und
1823_ (Berlin, 1827), _Reminiszenzen aus der Kampagne 1792 in
Frankreich_, and _Journal meiner Brigade in der Kampagne am Rhein 1793_.
The correspondence (_Briefwechsel_) of King Frederick William III. and
Queen Louise with the emperor Alexander I. has been published
(Leipzig, 1900) and also that between the king and queen (ib. 1903),
both edited by P. Bailleu. See W. Hahn, _Friedrich Wilhelm III. und
Luise_ (3rd ed., Leipzig, 1877); M. W. Duncker, _Aus der Zeit
Friedrichs des Grossen und Friedrich Wilhelms III._ (Leipzig, 1876);
Bishop R. F. Eylert, _Charakterzuege aus dem Leben des Koenigs von
Preussen Friedrich Wilhelm III._ (3 vols., Magdeburg, 1843-1846).
FREDERICK WILLIAM IV. (1795-1861), king of Prussia, eldest son of
Frederick William III., was born on the 15th of October 1795. From his
first tutor, Johann Delbrueck, he imbibed a love of culture and art, and
possibly also the dash of Liberalism which formed an element of his
complex habit of mind. But after a time Delbrueck, suspected of inspiring
his charge with a dislike of the Prussian military caste and even of
belonging to a political secret society, was dismissed, his place being
taken by the pastor and historian Friedrich Ancillon, while a military
governor was also appointed. By Ancillon he was grounded in religion, in
history and political science, his natural taste for the antique and the
picturesque making it easy for his tutor to impress upon him his own
hatred of the Revolution and its principles. This hatred was confirmed
by the sufferings of his country and family in the terrible years after
1806, and his first experience of active soldiering was in the campaigns
that ended in the occupation of Paris by the Allies in 1814. In action
his reckless bravery had earned him rebuke, and in Paris he was remarked
for the exact performance of his military duties, though he found time
to whet his appetite for art in the matchless collections gathered by
Napoleon as the spoil of all Europe. On his return to Berlin he studied
art under the sculptor Christian Daniel Rauch and the painter and
architect Karl Friedrich Schinkel (1781-1841), proving himself in the
end a good draughtsman, a born architect and an excellent landscape
gardener. At the same time he was being tutored in law by Savigny and in
finance by a series of distinguished masters. In 1823 he married the
princess Elizabeth of Bavaria, who adopted the Lutheran creed. The
union, though childless, was very happy. A long tour in Italy in 1828
was the beginning of his intimacy with Bunsen and did much to develop
his knowledge of art and love of antiquity.
On his accession to the throne in 1840 much was expected of a prince so
variously gifted and of so amiable a temper, and his first acts did not
belie popular hopes. He reversed the unfortunate ecclesiastical policy
of his father, allowing a wide liberty of dissent, and releasing the
imprisoned archbishop of Cologne; he modified the strictness of the
press censorship; above all he undertook, in the presence of the
deputations of the provincial diets assembled to greet him on his
accession, to carry out the long-deferred project of creating a central
constitution, which he admitted to be required alike by the royal
promises, the needs of the country and the temper of the times. The
story of the evolution of the Prussian parliament belongs to the history
of Prussia. Here it must suffice to notice Frederick William's personal
share in the question, which was determined by his general attitude of
mind. He was an idealist; but his idealism was of a type the exact
reverse of that which the Revolution in arms had sought to impose upon
Europe. The idea of the sovereignty of the people was to him utterly
abhorrent, and even any delegation of sovereign power on his own part
would have seemed a betrayal of a God-given trust. "I will never," he
declared, "allow to come between Almighty God and this country a blotted
parchment, to rule us with paragraphs, and to replace the ancient,
sacred bond of loyalty." His vision of the ideal state was that of a
patriarchial monarchy, surrounded and advised by the traditional estates
of the realm--nobles, peasants, burghers--and cemented by the bonds of
evangelical religion; but in which there should be no question of the
sovereign power being vested in any other hands than those of the king
by divine right. In Prussia, with its traditional loyalty and its
old-world caste divisions, he believed that such a conception could be
realized, and he took up an attitude half-way between those who would
have rejected the proposal for a central diet altogether as a dangerous
"thin end of the wedge," and those who would have approximated it more
to the modern conception of a parliament. With a charter, or a
representative system based on population, he would have nothing to do.
The united diet which was opened on the 3rd of February 1847 was no more
than a congregation of the diets instituted by Frederick William III. in
the eight provinces of Prussia. Unrepresentative though it was--for the
industrial working-classes had no share in it--it at once gave voice to
the demand for a constitutional system.
This demand gained overwhelmingly in force with the revolutionary
outbreaks of 1848. To Frederick William these came as a complete
surprise, and, rudely awakened from his medieval dreamings, he even
allowed himself to be carried away for a while by the popular tide. The
loyalty of the Prussian army remained inviolate; but the king was too
tender-hearted to use military force against his "beloved Berliners,"
and when the victory of the populace was thus assured his impressionable
temper yielded to the general enthusiasm. He paraded the streets of
Berlin wrapped in a scarf of the German black and gold, symbol of his
intention to be the leader of the united Germany; and he even wrote to
the indignant tsar in praise of "the glorious German revolution." The
change of sentiment was, however, apparent rather than real. The shadow
of venerable institutions, past or passing, still darkened his
counsels. The united Germany which he was prepared to champion was not
the democratic state which the theorists of the Frankfort national
parliament were evolving on paper with interminable debate, but the old
Holy Roman Empire, the heritage of the house of Habsburg, of which he
was prepared to constitute himself the guardian so long as its lawful
possessors should not have mastered the forces of disorder by which they
were held captive. Finally, when Austria had been excluded from the new
empire, he replied to the parliamentary deputation that came to offer
him the imperial crown that he might have accepted it had it been freely
offered to him by the German princes, but that he would never stoop "to
pick up a crown out of the gutter."
Whatever may be thought of the manner of this refusal, or of its
immediate motives, it was in itself wise, for the German empire would
have lost immeasurably had it been the cause rather than the result of
the inevitable struggle with Austria, and Bismarck was probably right
when he said that, to weld the heterogeneous elements of Germany into a
united whole, what was needed was, not speeches and resolutions, but a
policy of "blood and iron." In any case Frederick William, uneasy enough
as a constitutional king, would have been impossible as a constitutional
emperor. As it was, his refusal to play this part gave the deathblow to
the parliament and to all hope of the immediate creation of a united
Germany. For Frederick William the position of leader of Germany now
meant the employment of the military force of Prussia to crush the
scattered elements of revolution that survived the collapse of the
national movement. His establishment of the northern confederacy was a
reversion to the traditional policy of Prussia in opposition to Austria,
which, after the emperor Nicholas had crushed the insurrection in
Hungary, was once more free to assert her claims to dominance in
Germany. But Prussia was not ripe for a struggle with Austria, even had
Frederick William found it in his conscience to turn his arms against
his ancient ally, and the result was the humiliating convention of
Olmuetz (November 29th, 1850), by which Prussia agreed to surrender her
separatist plans and to restore the old constitution of the
confederation. Yet Frederick William had so far profited by the lessons
of 1848 that he consented to establish (1850) a national parliament,
though with a restricted franchise and limited powers. The House of
Lords (_Herrenhaus_) justified the king's insistence in calling it into
being by its support of Bismarck against the more popular House during
the next reign.
In religious matters Frederick William was also largely swayed by his
love for the ancient and picturesque. In concert with his friend Bunsen
he laboured to bring about a rapprochement between the Lutheran and
Anglican churches, the first-fruits of which was the establishment of
the Jerusalem bishopric under the joint patronage of Great Britain and
Prussia; but the only result of his efforts was to precipitate the
secession of J. H. Newman and his followers to the Church of Rome. In
general it may be said that Frederick William, in spite of his talents
and his wide knowledge, lived in a dream-land of his own, out of touch
with actuality. The style of his letters reveals a mind enthusiastic and
ill-balanced. In the summer of 1857 he had a stroke of paralysis, and a
second in October. From this time, with the exception of brief
intervals, his mind was completely clouded, and the duties of government
were undertaken by his brother William (afterwards emperor), who on the
7th of October 1858 was formally recognized as regent. Frederick William
died on the 2nd of January 1861.
Selections from the correspondence (_Briefwechsel_) of Frederick
William IV. and Bunsen were edited by Ranke (Leipzig, 1873); his
proclamations, speeches, &c., from the 6th of March 1848 to the 31st
of May 1851 have been published (Berlin, 1851); also his
correspondence with Bettina von Arnim, _Bettina von Arnim und
Friedrich Wilhelm IV., ungedruckte Briefe und Aktenstuecke_, ed. L.
Geiger (Frankfort-on-Main, 1902). See L. von Ranke, _Friedrich Wilhelm
IV., Koenig von Preussen_ (works 51, 52 also in _Allgem. deutsche
Biog._ vol. vii.), especially for the king's education and the inner
history of the debates leading up to the united diet of 1847; H. von
Petersdorff, _Koenig Friedrich Wilhelm IV._ (Stuttgart, 1900); F.
Rachfahl, _Deutschland, Koenig Friedrich Wilhelm IV. und die Berliner
Maerzrevolution_ (Halle, 1901); H. von Poschinger (ed.), _Unter
Friedrich Wilhelm IV. Denkwuerdigkeiten des Ministers Otto Frhr. von
Manteuffel_, 1848-1858 (3 vols., Berlin, 1900-1901); and _Preussens
auswaertige Politik_, 1850-1858 (3 vols., ib., 1902), documents
selected from those left by Manteuffel; E. Friedberg, _Die Grundlagen
der preussischen Kirchenpolitik unter Friedrich Wilhelm IV._ (Leipzig,
1882).
FREDERICK WILLIAM (1620-1688), elector of Brandenburg, usually called
the "Great Elector," was born in Berlin on the 16th of February 1620.
His father was the elector George William, and his mother was Elizabeth
Charlotte, daughter of Frederick IV., elector palatine of the Rhine.
Owing to the disorders which were prevalent in Brandenburg he passed
part of his youth in the Netherlands, studying at the university of
Leiden and learning something of war and statecraft under Frederick
Henry, prince of Orange. During his boyhood a marriage had been
suggested between him and Christina, afterwards queen of Sweden; but
although the idea was revived during the peace negotiations between
Sweden and Brandenburg, it came to nothing, and in 1646 he married
Louise Henriette (d. 1667), daughter of Frederick Henry of Orange, a
lady whose counsel was very helpful to him and who seconded his efforts
for the welfare of his country.
Having become ruler of Brandenburg and Prussia by his father's death in
December 1640, Frederick William set to work at once to repair the
extensive damage wrought during the Thirty Years' War, still in
progress. After some difficulty he secured his investiture as duke of
Prussia from Wladislaus, king of Poland, in October 1641, but was not
equally successful in crushing the independent tendencies of the estates
of Cleves. It was in Brandenburg, however, that he showed his supreme
skill as a diplomatist and administrator. His disorderly troops were
replaced by an efficient and disciplined force; his patience and
perseverance freed his dominions from the Swedish soldiers; and the
restoration of law and order was followed by a revival of trade and an
increase of material prosperity. After a tedious struggle he succeeded
in centralizing the administration, and controlling and increasing the
revenue, while no department of public life escaped his sedulous care
(see BRANDENBURG). The area of his dominions was largely increased at
the peace of Westphalia in 1648, and this treaty and the treaty of Oliva
in 1660 alike added to his power and prestige. By a clever but
unscrupulous use of his intermediate position between Sweden and Poland
he procured his recognition as independent duke of Prussia from both
powers, and eventually succeeded in crushing the stubborn and lengthened
opposition which was offered to his authority by the estates of the
duchy (see PRUSSIA). After two checks he made his position respected in
Cleves, and in 1666 his title to Cleves, Juelich and Ravensberg was
definitely recognized. His efforts, however, to annex the western part
of the duchy of Pomerania, which he had conquered from the Swedes,
failed owing to the insistence of Louis XIV. at the treaty of St
Germain-en-Laye in 1679, and he was unable to obtain the Silesian
duchies of Liegnitz, Brieg and Wohlau from the emperor Leopold I. after
they had been left without a ruler in 1675.
Frederick William played an important part in European politics.
Although found once or twice on the side of France, he was generally
loyal to the interests of the empire and the Habsburgs, probably because
his political acumen scented danger to Brandenburg from the aggressive
policy of Louis XIV. He was a Protestant in religion, but he supported
Protestant interests abroad on political rather than on religious
grounds, and sought, but without much success, to strengthen Brandenburg
by allaying the fierce hostility between Lutherans and Calvinists. His
success in founding and organizing the army of Brandenburg-Prussia was
amply demonstrated by the great victory which he gained over the Swedes
at Fehrbellin in June 1675, and by the eagerness with which foreign
powers sought his support. He was also the founder of the Prussian navy.
The elector assisted trade in every possible way. He made the canal
which still bears his name between the Oder and the Spree; established a
trading company; and founded colonies on the west coast of Africa. He
encouraged Flemings to settle in Brandenburg, and both before and after
the revocation of the edict of Nantes in 1685 welcomed large numbers of
Huguenots, who added greatly to the welfare of the country. Education
was not neglected; and if in this direction some of his plans were
abortive, it was from lack of means and opportunity rather than effort
and inclination. It is difficult to overestimate the services of the
great elector to Brandenburg and Prussia. They can only be properly
appreciated by those who compare the condition of his country in 1640
with its condition in 1688. Both actually and relatively its importance
had increased enormously; poverty had given place to comparative wealth,
and anarchy to a system of government which afterwards made Prussia the
most centralized state in Europe. He had scant sympathy with local
privileges, and in fighting them his conduct was doubtless despotic. His
aim was to make himself an absolute ruler, as he regarded this as the
best guarantee for the internal and external welfare of the state.
The great elector died at Potsdam from dropsy on the 9th of May 1688,
and was succeeded by his eldest surviving son, Frederick. His personal
appearance was imposing, and although he was absolutely without scruples
when working for the interests of Brandenburg, he did not lack a sense
of justice and generosity. At all events he deserves the eulogy passed
upon him by Frederick the Great, "_Messieurs; celui-ci a fait de grandes
choses_." His second wife, whom he married in 1668, was Dorothea (d.
1689), daughter of Philip, duke of Holstein-Gluecksburg, and widow of
Christian Louis, duke of Brunswick-Lueneburg; she bore him four sons and
three daughters. His concluding years were troubled by differences
between his wife and her step-son, Frederick; and influenced by Dorothea
he bequeathed portions of Brandenburg to her four sons, a bequest which
was annulled under his successor.
See S. de Pufendorf, _De rebus gestis Friderici Wilhelmi Magni_
(Leipzig and Berlin, 1733); L. von Orlich, _Friedrich Wilhelm der
grosse Kurfuerst_ (Berlin, 1836); K. H. S. Roedenbeck, _Zur Geschichte
Friedrich Wilhelms des grossen Kurfuersten_ (Berlin, 1851); B.
Erdmannsdoerffer, _Der grosse Kurfuerst_ (Leipzig, 1879); J. G. Droysen,
_Geschichte der preussischen Politik_ (Berlin, 1855-1886); M.
Philippson, _Der grosse Kurfuerst_ (Berlin, 1897-1903); E. Heyck, _Der
grosse Kurfuerst_ (Bielefeld, 1902); Spahn, _Der grosse Kurfuerst_
(Mainz, 1902); H. Landwehr, _Die Kirchenpolitik des grossen
Kurfuersten_ (Berlin, 1894); H. Prutz, _Aus des grossen Kurfuersten
letzten Jahren_ (Berlin, 1897). Also _Urkunden und Aktenstuecke zur
Geschichte des Kurfuersten Friedrich Wilhelm von Brandenburg_ (Berlin,
1864-1902); T. Carlyle, _History of Frederick the Great_, vol. i.
(London, 1858); and A. Waddington, _Le Grand Electeur et Louis XIV_
(Paris, 1905).
FREDERICK-LEMAITRE, ANTOINE LOUIS PROSPER (1800-1876) French actor, the
son of an architect, was born at Havre on the 28th of July 1800. He
spent two years at the Conservatoire, and made his first appearance at a
variety performance in one of the basement restaurants at the Palais
Royal. At the Ambigu on the 12th of July 1823 he played the part of
Robert Macaire in _L'Auberge des Adrets_. The melodrama was played
seriously on the first night and was received with little favour, but it
was changed on the second night to burlesque, and thanks to him had a
great success. All Paris came to see it, and from that day he was
famous. He created a number of parts that added to his popularity,
especially Cardillac, Cagliostro and Cartouche. His success in the last
led to an engagement at the Porte St Martin, where in 1827 he produced
_Trente ans, ou la vie d'un joueur_, in which his vivid acting made a
profound impression. Afterwards at the Odeon and other theatres he
passed from one success to another, until he put the final touch to his
reputation as an artist by creating the part of Ruy Blas in Victor
Hugo's play. On his return to the Porte St Martin he created the
title-role in Balzac's _Vautrin_, which was forbidden a second
presentation, on account, it is said, of the resemblance of the actor's
wig to the well-known _toupet_ worn by Louis Philippe. His last
appearance was at this theatre in 1873 as the old Jew in _Marie Tudor_,
and he died at Paris on the 26th of January 1876.
FREDERICKSBURG, a city of Spottsylvania county, Virginia, U.S.A., on the
Rappahannock river, at the head of tide-water navigation, about 60 m.
N. of Richmond and about 55 m. S.S.W. of Washington. Pop. (1890) 4528;
(1900) 5068 (1621 negroes); (1910) 5874. It is served by the Potomac,
Fredericksburg & Piedmont, and the Richmond, Fredericksburg & Potomac
railways, and by several coasting steamship lines. The city is built on
a series of terraces between the river and hills of considerable height.
The river is here spanned by iron bridges, and just above the city is a
dam 900 ft. long and 18 ft. high. By means of this dam and a canal good
water-power is furnished, and the city's manufactures include flour,
leather, shoes, woollens, silks, wagons, agricultural implements and
excelsior (fine wood-shavings for packing or stuffing). The water-works,
gas and electric-lighting plants are owned and operated by the
municipality. At Fredericksburg are Fredericksburg College (founded in
1893; co-educational), which includes the Kenmore school for girls and
the Saunders memorial school for boys (both preparatory); a Confederate
and a National cemetery (the latter on Marye's Heights), a monument
(erected in 1906) to General Hugh Mercer (c. 1720-1777), whose home for
several years was here and who fell in the battle of Princeton; and a
monument to the memory of Washington's mother, who died here in 1789 and
whose home is still standing. Other buildings of interest are the old
Rising Sun Hotel, a popular resort during Washington's time, and
"Kenmore," the home of Colonel Fielding Lewis, who married a sister of
Washington. The city was named in honour of Frederick, father of George
III., and was incorporated in 1727, long after its first settlement; in
1871 it was re-chartered by act of the General Assembly of Virginia.
The battle of Fredericksburg in the American Civil War was fought on the
13th of December 1862 between the Union forces (Army of the Potomac)
under Major-General A. E. Burnside and the Confederates (Army of
Northern Virginia) under General R. E. Lee. In the middle of November,
Burnside, newly appointed to command the Army of the Potomac, had
manoeuvred from the neighbourhood of Warrenton with a view to beginning
an offensive move from Fredericksburg and, as a preliminary, to seizing
a foothold beyond the Rappahannock at or near that place. On arriving
near Falmouth, however, he found that the means of crossing that he had
asked for had not been forwarded from Washington, and he sat down to
wait for them, while, on the other side, the Confederate army gradually
assembled south of the Rappahannock in a strong position with the left
on the river above Fredericksburg and the right near Hamilton's Crossing
on the Richmond railway. On the 10th of December Burnside, having by now
received his pontoons, prepared to cross the river and to attack the
Confederate entrenched position on the heights beyond the town. The
respective forces were Union 122,000, Confederate 79,000. Major-General
E. V. Sumner, commanding the Federal right wing (II. and IX. corps), was
to cross at Fredericksburg, Major-General W. B. Franklin with the left
(I. and VI. corps) some miles below, while the centre (III. and V.
corps) under Major-General Joseph Hooker was to connect the two attacks
and to reinforce either at need. The Union artillery took position along
the heights of the north bank to cover the crossing, and no opposition
was encountered opposite Franklin's command, which formed up on the
other side during the 11th and 12th. Opposite Sumner, however, the
Confederate riflemen, hidden in the gardens and houses of
Fredericksburg, caused much trouble and considerable losses to the Union
pioneers, and a forlorn hope of volunteers from the infantry had to be
rowed across under fire before the enemy's skirmishers could be
dislodged. Sumner's two corps crossed on the 12th. The battle took place
next morning.
Controversy has raged round Burnside's plan of action and in particular
round his orders to Franklin, as to which it can only be said that
whatever chance of success there was in so formidable an undertaking as
attacking the well-posted enemy was thrown away through
misunderstandings, and that nothing but misunderstandings could be
expected from the vague and bewildering orders issued by the general in
command. The actual battle can be described in a few words. Jackson held
the right of Lee's line, Longstreet the left, both entrenched. Franklin,
tied by his instructions, attacked with one division only, which a
little later he supported by two more (I. corps, Major-General J. F.
Reynolds) out of eight or nine available. His left flank was harassed by
the Confederate horse artillery under the young and brilliant Captain
John Pelham, and after breaking the first line of Stonewall Jackson's
corps the assailants were in the end driven back with heavy losses. On
the other flank, where part of Longstreet's corps held the low ridge
opposite Fredericksburg called Marye's Heights, Burnside ordered in the
II. corps under Major-General D. N. Couch about 11 A.M., and
thenceforward division after division, on a front of little more than
800 yds., was sent forward to assault with the bayonet. The "Stone Wall"
along the foot of Marye's was lined with every rifle of Longstreet's
corps that could find room to fire, and above them the Confederate guns
fired heavily on the assailants, whose artillery, on the height beyond
the river, was too far off to assist them. Not a man of the Federals
reached the wall, though the bravest were killed a few paces from it,
and Sumner's and most of Hooker's brigades were broken one after the
other as often as they tried to assault. At night the wrecks of the
right wing were withdrawn. Burnside proposed next day to lead the IX.
corps, which he had formerly commanded, in one mass to the assault of
the Stone Wall, but his subordinates dissuaded him, and on the night of
the 15th the Army of the Potomac withdrew to its camps about Falmouth.
The losses of the Federals were 12,650 men, those of the Confederates
4200, little more than a third of which fell on Longstreet's corps.
See F. W. Palfrey, _Antietam and Fredericksburg_ (New York, 1881); G.
W. Redway, _Fredericksburg_ (London, 1906); and G. F. R. Henderson,
_Fredericksburg_ (London, 1889).
FREDERICTON, a city and port of entry of New Brunswick, Canada, capital
of the province, situated on the St John river, 84 m. from its mouth,
and on the Canadian Pacific railway. It stands on a plain bounded on one
side by the river, which is here 3/4 m. broad, and on the other by a range
of hills which almost encircle the town. It is regularly built with long
and straight streets, and contains the parliament buildings, government
house, the Anglican cathedral, the provincial university and several
other educational establishments. Fredericton is the chief commercial
centre in the interior of the province, and has also a large trade in
lumber. Its industries include canneries, tanneries and wooden ware
factories. The river is navigable for large steamers up to the city, and
above it by vessels of lighter draught. Two bridges, passenger and
railway, unite the city with the towns of St Marye's and Gibson on the
east side of the river, at its junction with the Nashwaak. The city was
founded in 1785 by Sir Guy Carleton, and made the capital of the
province, in spite of the jealousy of St John, on account of its
superior strategical position. Pop. (1901) 7117.
FREDONIA, a village of Chautauqua county, New York, U.S.A., about 45 m.
S.W. of Buffalo, and 3 m. from Lake Erie. Pop. (1900) 4127; (1905, state
census) 5148; (1910 census) 5285. Fredonia is served by the Dunkirk,
Allegheny Valley & Pittsburg railway, which connects at Dunkirk, 3 m. to
the N., with the Erie, the Lake Shore & Michigan Southern, the New York,
Chicago & St Louis, and the Pennsylvania railways; and by electric
railway to Erie, Buffalo and Dunkirk. It is the seat of a State Normal
School. The Darwin R. Barker public library contained 9700 volumes in
1908. Fredonia is situated in the grape-growing region of western New
York, is an important shipping point for grapes, and has large
grape-vine and general nurseries. The making of wine and of unfermented
grape-juice are important industries of the village. Among other
manufactures are canned goods, coal dealers' supplies, and patent
medicines. The first settlement here was made in 1804, and the place was
called Canandaway until 1817, when the present name was adopted. The
village was incorporated in 1829. Fredonia was one of the first places
in the United States, if not the first, to make use of natural gas for
public purposes. Within the village limits, near a creek, whose waters
showed the presence of gas, a well was sunk in 1821, and the supply of
gas thus tapped was sufficient to light the streets of the village.
Another well was sunk within the village limits in 1858. About 1905
natural gas was again obtained by deep drilling near Fredonia and came
into general use for heat, light and power. In the Fredonia Baptist
church on the 14th of December 1873 a Woman's Temperance Union was
organized, and from this is sometimes dated the beginning of the Woman's
Christian Temperance Union movement.
FREDRIKSHALD (FREDERICKSHALD, FRIEDERICHSHALL), a seaport and garrison
town of Norway, in Smaalenene _amt_ (county), 85 m. by rail S. by E. of
Christiania. Pop. (1900) 11,948. It is picturesquely situated on both
banks of the Tistedal river at its outflow to the Ide fjord, surrounded
by several rocky eminences. The chief of these is occupied by the famous
fortress Fredriksten, protected on three sides by precipices, founded by
Frederick III. (1661), and mainly showing, in its present form, the
works of Frederick V. (1766) and Christian VII. (1808). Between it and
the smaller Gyldenloeve fort a monument marks the spot where Charles XII.
was shot in the trenches while besieging the town (1718). The siege,
which was then raised, is further commemorated by a monument to the
brave defence of the brothers Peter and Hans Kolbjoernsen. Fredrikshald
is close to the Swedish frontier, and had previously (1660) withstood
invasion, after which its name was changed from Halden to the present
form in 1665 in honour of Frederick III. The town was almost totally
destroyed by fire in 1759 and 1826. The castle surrendered to the
Swedish crown prince Bernadotte in 1814, and its capture was speedily
followed by the conquest of the kingdom and its union with Sweden.
Fredrikshald is one of the principal ports of the kingdom for the export
of timber. Marble of very fine quality and grain is extensively quarried
and exported for architectural ornamentation and for furniture-making.
Wood-pulp is also exported. The industries embrace granite quarries,
wood-pulp factories, and factories for sugar, tobacco, curtains,
travelling-bags, boots, &c. There are railway communications with
Gothenburg and all parts of Sweden and regular coastal and steamer
services.
FREDRIKSTAD (FREDERIKSTAD), a seaport and manufacturing town of Norway
in Smaalenene _amt_ (county), 58 m. S. by E. of Christiania by the
Christiania-Gothenburg railway. Pop. (1900) 14,553. It lies at the mouth
and on the eastern shore of Christiania fjord, occupying both banks of
the great river Glommen, which, descending from the richly-wooded
district of Oesterdal, floats down vast quantities of timber. The new
town on the right bank is therefore a centre of the timber export trade,
this place being the principal port in Norway for the export of
pit-props, planed boards, and other varieties of timber. There is also a
great industry in the making of red bricks, owing to the expansion of
Christiania, Gothenburg and other towns. Granite is quarried and
exported. Besides the large number of saw and planing mills, there are
shipbuilding yards, engine and boiler works, cotton and woollen mills,
and factories for acetic acid and naphtha. The harbour, which can be
entered by vessels drawing 14 ft., is kept open in winter by an
ice-breaker. In the vicinity is the island Hankoe, the most fashionable
Norwegian seaside resort. The old town on the left bank was founded by
Frederick II. in 1567. It was for a long time strongly fortified, and in
1716 Charles XII. of Sweden made a vain attempt to capture it.
FREE BAPTISTS, formerly called (but no longer officially) FREEWILL
BAPTISTS, an American denomination holding anti-paedobaptist and
anti-Calvinistic doctrines, and practically identical in creed with the
General Baptists of Great Britain. Many of the early Baptist churches in
Rhode Island and throughout the South were believers in "general
redemption" (hence called "general" Baptists); and there was a largely
attended conference of this Arminian branch of the church at Newport in
1729. But the denomination known as "Free-willers" had its rise in
1779-1780, when anti-Calvinists in Loudon, Barrington and Canterbury,
New Hampshire, seceded and were organized by Benjamin Randall
(1749-1808), a native of New Hampshire. Randall was an itinerant
missionary, who had been preaching for two years before his ordination
in 1780; in the same year he was censured for "heterodox" teaching. The
work of the church suffered a relapse after his death, and a movement to
join the Freewill Baptists with the "Christians," who were led by Elias
Smith (1769-1846) and had been bitterly opposed by Randall, was nearly
successful. Between 1820 and 1830 the denomination made considerable
progress, especially in New England and the Middle West. The Freewill
Baptists were joined in 1841 by many "open-communion Baptists"--those in
the Carolinas who did not join the larger body distinguishing themselves
by the name of Original Freewill Baptists--and soon afterwards by some
of the General Baptists of North Carolina and some of the Six Principle
Baptists of Rhode Island (who had added the "laying on of hands" to the
Five Principles hitherto held); and the abbreviation of the
denominational name to "Free Baptists" suggests their liberal
policy--indeed open communion is the main if not the only hindrance to
union with the "regular" Baptist Church.
Colleges founded by the denomination, all co-educational, are: Hillsdale
College, opened at Spring Harbor as Michigan Central College in 1844,
and established at Hillsdale, Michigan, in 1855; Bates College,
Lewiston, Maine, 1863, now non-sectarian; Rio Grande College, Rio
Grande, Ohio, 1876; and Parker College, Winnebago City, Minnesota,
opened in 1888. At the close of 1909 there were 1294 ministers, 1303
churches, and 73,536 members of the denomination in the United States.
_The Morning Star_ of Boston, established in 1826, is the most prominent
journal published by the church. In British North America, according to
a Canadian census bulletin of 1902, there were, in 1901, 24,229 Free
Baptists, of whom 15,502 were inhabitants of New Brunswick, 8355 of Nova
Scotia, 246 of Ontario, and 87 of Quebec. The United Societies of Free
Baptist Young People, an international organization founded in 1888, had
in 1907 about 15,000 members. At the close of 1907 the "Original
Freewill Baptists" had 120 ministers, 167 churches, and 12,000 members,
practically all in the Carolinas.
See I. D. Stewart, _History of the Free Will Baptists_ (Dover, N. H.,
1862) for 1780-1830, and his edition of the _Minutes of the General
Conference of the Free Will Baptist Connection_ (Boston, 1887); James
B. Taylor, _The Centennial Record of the Free Will Baptists_ (Dover,
1881); John Buzzell, _Memoir of Elder Benjamin Randall_ (Parsonfield,
Maine, 1827); and P. Richardson, "Randall and the Free Will Baptists,"
in _The Christian Review_, vol. xxiii. (Baltimore, 1858).
FREEBENCH, in English law, the interest which a widow has in the
copyhold lands of her husband, corresponding to dower in the case of
freeholds. It depends upon the custom of the manor, but as a general
rule the widow takes a third for her life of the lands of which her
husband dies seised, but it may be an estate greater or less than a
third. If the husband surrenders his copyhold and the surrenderee is
admitted, or if he contracts for a sale, it will defeat the widow's
freebench. As freebench is regarded as a continuation of the husband's
estate, the widow does not (except by special custom) require to be
admitted.
FREE CHURCH FEDERATION, a voluntary association of British Nonconformist
churches for co-operation in religious, social and civil work. It was
the outcome of a unifying tendency displayed during the latter part of
the 19th century. About 1890 the proposal that there should be a
Nonconformist Church Congress analogous to the Anglican Church Congress
was seriously considered, and the first was held in Manchester on the
7th of November 1892. In the following year it was resolved that the
basis of representation should be neither personal (as in the Anglican
Church Congress) nor denominational, but territorial. England and Wales
have since been completely covered with a network of local councils,
each of which elects its due proportion of representatives to the
national gathering. This territorial arrangement eliminated all
sectarian distinctions, and also the possibility of committing the
different churches as such to any particular policy. The representatives
of the local councils attend not as denominationalists but as
Evangelical Free Churchmen. The name of the organization was changed
from Congress to National Council as soon as the assembly ceased to be a
fortuitous concourse of atoms, and consisted of duly appointed
representatives from the local councils of every part of England. The
local councils consist of representatives of the Congregational and
Baptist Churches, the Methodist Churches, the Presbyterian Church of
England, the Free Episcopal Churches, the Society of Friends, and such
other Evangelical Churches as the National Council may at any time
admit. The constitution states the following as the objects of the
National Council: (a) To facilitate fraternal intercourse and
co-operation among the Evangelical Free Churches; (b) to assist in the
organization of local councils; (c) to encourage devotional fellowship
and mutual counsel concerning the spiritual life and religious
activities of the Churches; (d) to advocate the New Testament doctrine
of the Church, and to defend the rights of the associated Churches; (e)
to promote the application of the law of Christ in every relation of
human life. Although the objects of the Free Church councils are thus in
their nature and spirit religious rather than political, there are
occasions on which action is taken on great national affairs. Thus a
thorough-going opposition was offered to the Education Act of 1902, and
whole-hearted support accorded to candidates at the general election of
1906 who pledged themselves to altering that measure.
A striking feature of the movement is the adoption of the parochial
system for the purpose of local work. Each of the associated churches is
requested to look after a parish, not of course with any attempt to
exclude other churches, but as having a special responsibility for those
in that area who are not already connected with some existing church.
Throughout the United Kingdom local councils are formed into
federations, some fifty in number, which are intermediate between them
and the national council. The local councils do what is possible to
prevent overlapping and excessive competition between the churches. They
also combine the forces of the local churches for evangelistic and
general devotional work, open-air services, efforts on behalf of Sunday
observance, and the prevention of gambling. Services are arranged in
connexion with workhouses, hospitals and other public institutions.
Social work of a varied character forms a large part of the operations
of the local councils, and the Free Church Girls' Guild has a function
similar to that of the Anglican Girls' Friendly Society. The national
council engages in mission work on a large scale, and a considerable
number of periodicals, hymn-books for special occasions, and works of
different kinds explaining the history and ideals of the Evangelical
Free Churches have been published. The churches represented in the
National Council have 9966 ministers, 55,828 local preachers, 407,991
Sunday-school teachers, 3,416,377 Sunday scholars, 2,178,221
communicants, and sitting accommodation for 8,555,460.
A remarkable manifestation of this unprecedented reunion was the fact
that a committee of the associated churches prepared and published a
catechism expressing the positive and fundamental agreement of all the
Evangelical Free Churches on the essential doctrines of Christianity
(see _The Contemporary Review_, January 1899). The catechism represents
substantially the creed of not less than 80,000,000 Protestants. It has
been widely circulated throughout Great Britain, the British Colonies
and the United States of America, and has also been translated into
Welsh, French and Italian.
The movement has spread to all parts of Australia, New Zealand, South
Africa, Jamaica, the United States of America and India. It is perhaps
necessary to add that it differs essentially from the Evangelical
Alliance, inasmuch as its unit is not an individual, private Christian,
but a definitely organized and visible Church. The essential doctrine of
the movement is a particular doctrine of churchmanship which, as
explained in the catechism, regards the Lord Jesus Christ as the sole
and Divine Head of every branch of the Holy Catholic Church throughout
the world. For this reason those who do not accept the deity of Christ
are necessarily excluded from the national council and its local
constituent councils.
FREE CHURCH OF ENGLAND, a Protestant episcopal church "essentially one
with the established church of England, but free to go into any parish,
to use a revised edition of the Book of Common Prayer, to associate the
laity with the clergy in the government and work of the church, and to
hold communion with Christians of other denominations." It was founded
in 1844 in opposition to the Tractarian movement, and embodies the
distinctively evangelical elements of the Reformation. It preserves and
maintains to the letter all that is Protestant and evangelical in the
liturgy and services of the Anglican church, while its free constitution
and revised formularies meet the needs of members of that communion who
resent sacerdotal and ritualistic tendencies. There are two dioceses
(northern and southern) each with a bishop, about 30 churches and
ministers, and about 1300 members.
FREE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND. In one sense the Free Church of Scotland dated
its existence from the Disruption of 1843, in another it claimed to be
the rightful representative of the National Church of Scotland (see
SCOTLAND, CHURCH OF) as it was reformed in 1560.[1] In the
ecclesiastical history of Scotland the Free Churchman sees three great
reforming periods. In his view these deserve to be called reforming on
many accounts, but most especially because in them the independence of
the church, her inherent scriptural right to exercise a spiritual
jurisdiction in which she is responsible to her Divine Head alone, was
both earnestly asserted and practically maintained. The first
reformation extended from 1560, when the church freely held her first
General Assembly, and of her own authority acted on the First Book of
Discipline, to 1592, when her Presbyterian order was finally and fully
ratified by the parliament. The second period began in 1638, when, after
20 years of suspended animation, the Assembly once more shook off
Episcopacy, and terminated in 1649, when the parliament of Scotland
confirmed the church in her liberties in a larger and ampler sense than
before. The third period began in 1834, when the Assembly made use of
what the church believed to be her rights in passing the Veto and Chapel
Acts. It culminated in the Disruption of 1843.
The fact that the Church, as led first by John Knox and afterwards by
Andrew Melville, claimed an inherent right to exercise a spiritual
jurisdiction is notorious. More apt to be overlooked is the comparative
freedom with which that right was actually used by the church
irrespective of state recognition. That recognition was not given until
after the queen's resignation in 1567;[2] but, for several years before
it came, the church had been holding her Assemblies and settling all
questions of discipline, worship, and administration as they arose, in
accordance with the first book of polity or discipline which had been
drawn up in 1560. Further, in 1581 she, of her own motion, adopted a
second book of a similar character, in which she expressly claimed an
independent and exclusive jurisdiction or power in all matters
ecclesiastical, "which flows directly from God and the Mediator Jesus
Christ, and is spiritual, not having a temporal head on earth, but only
Christ, the only king and governor of his church"; and this claim,
though directly negatived in 1584 by the "Black Acts," which included an
Act of Supremacy over estates spiritual and temporal, continued to be
asserted by the Assemblies, until at last it also was practically
allowed in the act of 1592.[3] This legislation of 1592, however, did
not long remain in force. An act of parliament in 1606, which "reponed,
restored and reintegrated" the estate of bishops to their ancient
dignities, prerogatives and privileges, was followed by several acts of
various subservient assemblies, which, culminating in that of 1618,
practically amounted to a complete surrender of jurisdiction by the
church itself. For twenty years no Assemblies whatever were held. This
interval must necessarily be regarded from the Presbyterian point of
view as having been one of very deep depression. But a second
reformation, characterized by great energy and vigour, began in 1638.
The proceedings of the Assembly of that year, afterwards tardily and
reluctantly acquiesced in by the state, finally issued in the acts of
parliament of 1649, by which the Westminster standards were ratified,
lay-patronage was abolished, and the coronation oath itself framed in
accordance with the principles of Presbyterian church government.
Another period of intense reaction soon set in. No Assemblies were
permitted by Cromwell after 1653; and, soon after the Restoration,
Presbytery was temporarily overthrown by a series of rescissory acts.
Nor was the Revolution Settlement of 1690 so entirely favourable to the
freedom of the church as the legislation of 1649 had been. Prelacy was
abolished, and various obnoxious statutes were repealed, but the acts
rescissory were not cancelled; presbyterianism was re-established, but
the statutory recognition of the Confession of Faith took no notice of
certain qualifications under which that document had originally been
approved by the Assembly of 1647;[4] the old rights of patrons were
again discontinued, but the large powers which had been conferred on
congregations by the act of 1649 were not wholly restored. Nevertheless
the great principle of a distinct ecclesiastical jurisdiction, embodied
in the Confession of Faith, was accepted without reservation, and a
Presbyterian polity effectively confirmed both then and at the
ratification of the treaty of Union. This settlement, however, did not
long subsist unimpaired. In 1712 the act of Queen Anne, restoring
patronage to its ancient footing, was passed in spite of the earnest
remonstrances of the Scottish people. For many years afterwards (until
1784) the Assembly continued to instruct each succeeding commission to
make application to the king and the parliament for redress of the
grievance. But meanwhile a new phase of Scottish ecclesiastical politics
commonly known as Moderatism had been inaugurated, during the prevalence
of which the church became even more indifferent than the lay patrons
themselves to the rights of her congregations with regard to the
"calling" of ministers. From the Free Church point of view, the period
from which the secessions under Ebenezer Erskine and Thomas Gillespie
are dated was also characterized by numerous other abuses on the
Church's part which amounted to a practical surrender of the most
important and distinctive principles of her ancient Presbyterian
polity.[5] Towards the beginning of the present century there were many
circumstances, both within and without the church, which conspired to
bring about an evangelical and popular reaction against this reign of
"Moderatism." The result was a protracted struggle, which is commonly
referred to as the Ten Years' Conflict, and which has been aptly
described as the last battle in the long war which for nearly 300 years
had been waged within the church itself, between the friends and the
foes of the doctrine of an exclusive ecclesiastical jurisdiction. That
final struggle may be said to have begun with the passing in 1834 of the
"Veto" Act, by which it was declared to be a fundamental law of the
church that no pastor should be intruded on a congregation contrary to
the will of the people,[6] and by which it was provided that the simple
dissent of a majority of heads of families in a parish should be enough
to warrant a presbytery in rejecting a presentee. The question of the
legality of this measure soon came to be tried in the civil courts; and
it was ultimately answered in a sense unfavourable to the church by the
decision (1838) of the court of session in the Auchterarder case, to the
effect that a presbytery had no right to reject a presentee simply
because the parishioners protested against his settlement, but was bound
to disregard the veto (see CHALMERS, THOMAS). This decision elicited
from the Assembly of that year a new declaration of the doctrine of the
spiritual independence of the church. The "exclusive jurisdiction of the
civil courts in regard to the civil rights and emoluments secured by law
to the church and the ministers thereof" was acknowledged without
qualification; and continued implicit obedience to their decisions with
reference to these rights and emoluments was pledged. At the same time
it was insisted on "that, as is declared in the Confession of Faith of
this National Established Church, 'the Lord Jesus Christ, as King and
Head of the church, hath therein appointed a government in the hand of
church officers distinct from the civil magistrate'; and that in all
matters touching the doctrine, discipline and government of the church
her judicatories possess an exclusive jurisdiction, founded on the Word
of God, which power ecclesiastical" (in the words of the Second Book of
Discipline) "flows immediately from God and the Mediator the Lord Jesus
Christ, and is spiritual, not having a temporal head on earth, but only
Christ, the only spiritual King and Governor of His Kirk." And it was
resolved to assert, and at all hazards defend, this spiritual
jurisdiction, and firmly to enforce obedience to the same upon the
office-bearers and members of the church. The decision of the court of
session having been confirmed by the House of Lords early in 1839, it
was decided in the Assembly of that year that the church, while
acquiescing in the loss of the temporalities at Auchterarder, should
reaffirm the principle of non-intrusion as an integral part of the
constitution of the Reformed Church of Scotland, and that a committee
should be appointed to confer with the government with a view to the
prevention, if possible, of any further collision between the civil and
ecclesiastical authorities. While the conference with the government had
no better result than an unsuccessful attempt at compromise by means of
Lord Aberdeen's Bill, which embodied the principle of a dissent with
reasons, still graver complications were arising out of the Marnoch and
other cases.[7] In the circumstances it was resolved by the Assembly of
1842 to transmit to the queen, by the hands of the lord high
commissioner, a "claim, declaration, and protest," complaining of the
encroachments of the court of session,[8] and also an address praying
for the abolition of patronage. The home secretary's answer (received in
January 1843) gave no hope of redress. Meanwhile the position of the
evangelical party had been further hampered by the decision of the
court of session declaring the ministers of chapels of ease to be
unqualified to sit in any church court. A final appeal to parliament by
petition was made in March 1843, when, by a majority of 135 (211 against
76), the House of Commons declined to attempt any redress of the
grievances of the Scottish Church.[9] At the first session of the
following General Assembly (18th May 1843) the reply of the
non-intrusion party was made in a protest, signed by upwards of 200
commissioners, to the effect that since, in their opinion, the recent
decisions of the civil courts, and the still more recent sanction of
these decisions by the legislature, had made it impossible at that time
to hold a free Assembly of the church as by law established, they
therefore "protest that it shall be lawful for us, and such other
commissioners as may concur with us, to withdraw to a separate place of
meeting, for the purpose of taking steps for ourselves and all who
adhere to us--maintaining with us the Confession of Faith and standards
of the Church of Scotland as heretofore understood--for separating in an
orderly way from the Establishment, and thereupon adopting such measures
as may be competent to us, in humble dependence on God's grace and the
aid of His Holy Spirit, for the advancement of His glory, the extension
of the gospel of our Lord and Saviour, and the administration of the
affairs of Christ's house according to His holy word." The reading of
this document was followed by the withdrawal of the entire non-intrusion
party to another place of meeting, where the first Assembly of the Free
Church was constituted, with Dr Thomas Chalmers as moderator. This
Assembly sat from the 18th to the 30th of May, and transacted a large
amount of important business. On Tuesday the 23rd, 396[10] ministers and
professors publicly adhibited their names to the Act of Separation and
deed of demission by which they renounced all claim to the benefices
they had held in connexion with the Establishment, declaring them to be
vacant, and consenting to their being dealt with as such. By this
impressive proceeding the signatories voluntarily surrendered an annual
income amounting to fully L100,000.
The first care of the voluntarily disestablished church was to provide
incomes for her clergy and places of worship for her people. As early as
1841 indeed the leading principle of a "sustentation fund" for the
support of the ministry had been announced by Dr Robert Smith Candlish;
and at "Convocation," a private unofficial meeting of the members of the
evangelical or non-intrusion party held in November 1842, Dr Chalmers
was prepared with a carefully matured scheme according to which "each
congregation should do its part in sustaining the whole, and the whole
should sustain each congregation." Between November 1842 and May 1843,
647 associations had been formed; and at the first Assembly it was
announced that upwards of L17,000 had already been contributed. At the
close of the first financial year (1843-1844) it was reported that the
fund had exceeded L61,000. It was participated in by 583 ministers; and
470 drew the full equal dividend of L105. Each successive year showed a
steady increase in the gross amount of the fund; but owing to an almost
equally rapid increase of the number of new ministerial charges
participating in its benefits, the stipend payable to each minister did
not for many years reach the sum of L150 which had been aimed at as a
minimum. Thus in 1844-1845 the fund had risen to L76,180, but the
ministers had also increased to 627, and the equal dividend therefore
was only L122. During the first ten years the annual income averaged
L84,057; during the next decade L108,643; and during the third L130,246.
The minimum of L150 was reached at last in 1868; and subsequently the
balance remaining after that minimum had been provided was treated as a
surplus fund, and distributed among those ministers whose congregations
have contributed at certain specified rates per member. In 1878 the
total amount received for this fund was upwards of L177,000; in this
1075 ministers participated. The full equal dividend of L157 was paid to
766 ministers; and additional grants of L36 and L18 were paid out of
the surplus fund to 632 and 129 ministers respectively.
To provide for the erection of the buildings which, it was foreseen,
would be necessary, a general building fund, in which all should share
alike, was also organized, and local building funds were as far as
possible established in each parish, with the result that at the first
Assembly a sum of L104,776 was reported as already available. By May
1844 a further sum of L123,060 had been collected, and 470 churches were
reported as completed or nearly so. In the following year L131,737 was
raised and 60 additional churches were built. At the end of four years
considerably more than 700 churches had been provided.
During the winter session 1843-1844 the divinity students who had joined
the Free Church continued their studies under Dr Chalmers and Dr David
Welsh (1793-1845); and at the Assembly of 1844 arrangements were made
for the erection of suitable collegiate buildings. The New College,
Edinburgh, was built in 1847 at a cost of L46,506; and divinity halls
were subsequently set up also in Glasgow and Aberdeen. In 1878 there
were 13 professors of theology, with an aggregate of 230 students,--the
numbers at Edinburgh, Glasgow and Aberdeen respectively being 129, 69
and 32.
A somewhat unforeseen result of the Disruption was the necessity for a
duplicate system of elementary schools. At the 1843 Assembly it was for
the first time announced by Dr Welsh that "schools to a certain extent
must be opened to afford a suitable sphere of occupation for parochial
and still more for private teachers of schools, who are threatened with
deprivation of their present office on account of their opinions upon
the church question." The suggestion was taken up with very great
energy, with the result that in May 1845, 280 schools had been set up,
while in May 1847 this number had risen to 513, with an attendance of
upwards of 44,000 scholars. In 1869 it was stated in an authoritative
document laid before members of parliament that at that time there were
connected with and supported by the Free Church 598 schools (including
two normal schools), with 633 teachers and 64,115 scholars. The school
buildings had been erected at a cost of L220,000, of which the committee
of privy council had contributed L35,000, while the remainder had been
raised by voluntary effort. Annual payments made to teachers, &c., as at
1869, amounted to L16,000. In accordance with certain provisions of the
Education Act of 1872 most of the schools of the Free Church were
voluntarily transferred, without compensation, to the local school
boards. The normal schools are now transferred to the state.
It has been seen already that during the period of the Ten Years'
Conflict the non-intrusion party strenuously denied that in any one
respect it was departing from acknowledged principles of the National
Church. It continued to do so after the Disruption. In 1846, however, it
was found to have become necessary, "in consequence of the late change
in the outward condition of the church," to amend the "questions and
formula" to be used at the licensing of probationers and the ordination
of office-bearers. These were amended accordingly; and at the same time
it was declared that, "while the church firmly maintains the same
scriptural principles as to the duties of nations and their rulers in
reference to true religion and the Church of Christ for which she has
hitherto contended, she disclaims intolerant or persecuting principles,
and does not regard her Confession of Faith, or any portion thereof when
fairly interpreted, as favouring intolerance or persecution, or consider
that her office-bearers by subscribing it profess any principles
inconsistent with liberty of conscience and the right of private
judgment." The main difference between the "formula" of the Free Church
and that of the Established Church (as at the year 1900) was that the
former referred to the Confession of Faith simply as "approven by
General Assemblies of this Church," while the latter described it as
"approven by the General Assemblies of this National Church, and
ratified by law in the year 1690, and frequently confirmed by divers
Acts of Parliament since that time." The former inserted an additional
clause,--"I also approve of the general principles respecting the
jurisdiction of the church, and her subjection to Christ as her only
Head, which are contained in the Claim of Right and in the Protest
referred to in the questions already put to me"; and also added the
words which are here distinguished by italics,--"And I promise that
through the grace of God I shall firmly and constantly adhere to the
same, and to the utmost of my power shall in my station assert,
maintain, and defend the said doctrine, worship, discipline and
government of this church by kirk-sessions, presbyteries, provincial
synods, and general assemblies, _together with the liberty and exclusive
jurisdiction thereof_; and that I shall, in my practice, conform myself
to the said worship and submit to the said discipline [and] government,
_and exclusive jurisdiction_, and not endeavour directly or indirectly
the prejudice or subversion of the same." In the year 1851 an act and
declaration anent the publication of the subordinate standards and other
authoritative documents of the Free Church of Scotland was passed, in
which the historical fact is recalled that the Church of Scotland had
formally consented to adopt the Confession of Faith, catechisms,
directory of public worship, and form of church government agreed upon
by the Westminster Assembly; and it is declared that "these several
formularies, as ratified, with certain explanations, by divers Acts of
Assembly in the years 1645, 1646, and particularly in 1647, this church
continues till this day to acknowledge as her subordinate standards of
doctrine, worship and government."[11]
In 1858 circumstances arose which, in the opinion of many, seemed fitted
to demonstrate to the Free Church that her freedom was an illusion, and
that all her sacrifices had been made in vain. John Macmillan, minister
of Cardross, accused of immorality, had been tried and found guilty by
the Free Presbytery of Dumbarton. Appeal having been taken to the synod,
an attempt was there made to revive one particular charge, of which he
had been finally acquitted by the presbytery; and this attempt was
successful in the General Assembly. That ultimate court of review did
not confine itself to the points appealed, but went into the merits of
the whole case as it had originally come before the presbytery. The
result was a sentence of suspension. Macmillan, believing that the
Assembly had acted with some irregularity, applied to the court of
session for an interdict against the execution of that sentence; and for
this act he was summoned to the bar of the Assembly to say whether or
not it was the case that he had thus appealed. Having answered in the
affirmative, he was deposed on the spot. Forthwith he raised a new
action (his previous application for an interdict had been refused)
concluding for reduction of the spiritual sentence of deposition and for
substantial damages. The defences lodged by the Free Church were to the
effect that the civil courts had no right to review and reduce spiritual
sentences, or to decide whether the General Assembly of the Free Church
had acted irregularly or not. Judgments adverse to the defenders were
delivered on these points; and appeals were taken to the House of Lords.
But before the case could be heard there, the lord president took an
opportunity in the court of session to point out to the pursuer that,
inasmuch as the particular General Assembly against which the action was
brought had ceased to exist, it could not therefore be made in any
circumstances to pay damages, and that the action of reduction of the
spiritual sentence, being only auxiliary to the claim of damages, ought
therefore to be dismissed. He further pointed out that Macmillan might
obtain redress in another way, should he be able to prove malice against
individuals. Very soon after this deliverance of the lord president, the
case as it had stood against the Free Church was withdrawn, and
Macmillan gave notice of an action of a wholly different kind. But this
last was not persevered in. The appeals which had been taken to the
House of Lords were, in these circumstances, also departed from by the
Free Church. The case did not advance sufficiently to show how far the
courts of law would be prepared to go in the direction of recognizing
voluntary tribunals and a kind of secondary exclusive jurisdiction
founded on contract.[12] But, whether recognized or not, the church for
her part continued to believe that she had an inherent spiritual
jurisdiction, and remained unmoved in her determination to act in
accordance with that resolution "notwithstanding of whatsoever trouble
or persecution may arise."[13]
In 1863 a motion was made and unanimously carried in the Free Church
Assembly for the appointment of a committee to confer with a
corresponding committee of the United Presbyterian Synod, and with the
representatives of such other disestablished churches as might be
willing to meet and deliberate with a view to an incorporating union.
Formal negotiations between the representatives of these two churches
were begun shortly afterwards, which resulted in a report laid before
the following Assembly. From this document it appeared that the
committees of the two churches were not at one on the question as to the
relation of the civil magistrate to the church. While on the part of the
Free Church it was maintained that he "may lawfully acknowledge, as
being in accordance with the Word of God, the creed and jurisdiction of
the church," and that "it is his duty, when necessary and expedient, to
employ the national resources in aid of the church, provided always that
in doing so, while reserving to himself full control over the
temporalities which are his own gift, he abstain from all authoritative
interference in the internal government of the church," it was declared
by the committee of the United Presbyterian Church that, "inasmuch as
the civil magistrate has no authority in spiritual things, and as the
employment of force in such matters is opposed to the spirit and
precepts of Christianity, it is not within his province to legislate as
to what is true in religion, to prescribe a creed or form of worship to
his subjects, or to endow the church from national resources." In other
words, while the Free Church maintained that in certain circumstances it
was lawful and even incumbent on the magistrate to endow the church and
on the church to accept his endowment, the United Presbyterians
maintained that in no case was this lawful either for the one party or
for the other. Thus in a very short time it had been made perfectly
evident that a union between the two bodies, if accomplished at all,
could only be brought about on the understanding that the question as to
the lawfulness of state endowments should be an open one. The Free
Church Assembly, by increasing majorities, manifested a readiness for
union, even although unanimity had not been attained on that theoretical
point. But there was a minority which did not sympathize in this
readiness, and after ten years of fruitless effort it was in 1873 found
to be expedient that the idea of union with the United Presbyterians
should for the time be abandoned. Other negotiations, however, which had
been entered upon with the Reformed Presbyterian Church at a somewhat
later date proved more successful; and a majority of the ministers of
that church with their congregations were united with the Free Church in
1876. (J. S. Bl.)
In the last quarter of the 19th century the Free Church continued to be
the most active, theologically, of the Scottish Churches. The College
chairs were almost uniformly filled by advanced critics or theologians,
inspired more or less by Professor A. B. Davidson. Dr A. B. Bruce,
author of _The Training of the Twelve_, &c., was appointed to the chair
of apologetics and New Testament exegesis in the Glasgow College in
1875; Henry Drummond (author of _Natural Law in the Spiritual World_,
&c.) was made lecturer in natural science in the same college in 1877
and became professor in 1884; and Dr George Adam Smith (author of _The
Twelve Prophets_, &c.) was called to the Hebrew chair in 1892. Attempts
were made between 1890 and 1895 to bring all these professors except
Davidson (similar attacks were also made on Dr Marcus Dods, afterwards
principal of the New College, Edinburgh) to the bar of the Assembly for
unsound teaching or writing; but in every case these were abortive, the
Assembly never taking any step beyond warning the accused that their
primary duty was to teach and defend the church's faith as embodied in
the confession. In 1892 the Free Church, following the example of the
United Presbyterian Church and the Church of Scotland (1889), passed a
Declaratory Act relaxing the stringency of subscription to the
confession, with the result that a small number of ministers and
congregations, mostly in the Highlands, severed their connexion with the
church and formed the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland, on strictly
and straitly orthodox lines. In 1907 this body had twenty congregations
and twelve ministers.
The Free Church always regarded herself as a National Church, and during
this period she sought actively to be true to that character by
providing church ordinances for the increasing population of Scotland
and applying herself to the new problems of non-church-going, and of the
changing habits of the people. Her Assembly's committee on religion and
morals worked toward the same ends as the similar organization of the
Established Church, and in her, as in the other churches, the standard
of parochial and congregational activity was raised and new methods of
operation devised. She passed legislation on the difficult problem of
ridding the church of inefficient ministers. The use of instrumental
music was sanctioned in Free Churches during this period. An association
was formed in 1891 to promote the ends of edification, order and
reverence in the public services of the church, and published in 1898 _A
New Directory for Public Worship_ which does not provide set forms of
prayer, but directions as to the matter of prayer in the various
services. The Free Church took a large share in the study of hymnology
and church music, which led to the production of _The Church Hymnary_.
From 1885 to 1895 much of the energy of all the Presbyterian churches
was absorbed by the disestablishment agitation. In the former year the
Free Church, having almost entirely shed the establishment principle on
which it was founded, began to rival the United Presbyterian Church in
its resolutions calling for the disestablishment of the Church of
Scotland. In spite of the offers of the Establishment Assembly to confer
with the dissenting churches about union, the assaults upon its status
waxed in vigour, till in 1893 the Free Church hailed the result of the
general election as a verdict of the constituencies in favour of
disestablishment, and insisted upon the government of the day taking up
Sir Charles Cameron's bill.
During the last four or five years of the century the Free and United
Presbyterian churches, which after the failure of their union
negotiations in 1873 had been connected together by a Mutual Eligibility
Act enabling a congregation of one church to call a minister from the
other, devoted their energy to the arrangement of an incorporating
union. The Synod of the United Presbyterian Church resolved in 1896 to
"take steps towards union," and in the following year the Free Assembly
responded by appointing a committee to confer with a committee of the
other church. The joint committee discovered a "remarkable and happy
agreement" between the doctrinal standards, rules and methods of the two
bodies, and with very little concessions on either side a common
constitution and common "questions and formula" for the admission of
ministers and office-bearers were arranged. A minority, always growing
smaller, of the Free Church Assembly, protested against the proposed
union, and threatened if it were carried through to test its legality in
the courts. To meet this opposition, the suggestion is understood to
have been made that an act of parliament should be applied for to
legalize the union; but this was not done, and the union was carried
through on the understanding that the question of the lawfulness of
church establishments should be an open one.
The supreme courts of the churches met for the last time in their
respective places of meeting on the 30th of October 1900, and on the
following day the joint meeting took place at which the union was
completed, and the United Free Church of Scotland (q.v.) entered on its
career. The protesting and dissenting minority at once claimed to be
the Free Church. They met outside the Free Assembly Hall on the 31st of
October, and, failing to gain admission to it, withdrew to another hall,
where they elected Mr Colin Bannatyne their moderator and held the
remaining sittings of the Assembly. It was reported that between 16,000
and 17,000 names had been received of persons adhering to the
anti-unionist principle. At the Assembly of 1901 it was stated that the
Free Church had twenty-five ministers and at least sixty-three
congregations. The character of the church is indicated by the fact that
its office-bearers were the faithful survivors of the decreasing
minority of the Old Free Church, which had protested against the
disestablishment resolutions, against the relaxation of subscription,
against toleration of the teaching of the Glasgow professors, and
against the use in worship of organs or of human hymns. Her
congregations were mostly in the Gaelic-speaking districts of Scotland.
She was confronted with a very arduous undertaking; her congregations
grew in number, but were far from each other and there were not nearly
enough ministers. The Highlands were filled, by the Union, with
exasperation and dispeace which could not soon subside. The church met
with no sympathy or assistance at the hands of the United Free Church,
and her work was conducted at first under considerable hardships, nor
was her position one to appeal to the general popular sentiment of
Scotland. But the little church continued her course with indomitable
courage and without any compromise of principle. The Declaratory Act of
1892 was repealed after a consultation of presbyteries, and the old
principles as to worship were declared. A professor was obliged to
withdraw a book he had written, in which the results of criticism, with
regard to the Synoptic Gospels, had been accepted and applied. The
desire of the Church of Scotland to obtain relaxation of her formula was
declared to make union with her impossible. Along with this unbending
attitude, signs of material growth were not wanting. The revenue of the
church increased; the grant from the sustentation fund was in 1901 only
L75, but from 1903 onwards it was L167.
The decision of the House of Lords in 1904 did not bring the trials of
the Free Church to an end. In the absence of any arrangement with the
United Free Church, she could only gain possession of the property
declared to belong to her by an application in each particular case to
the Court of Session, and a series of law-suits began which were trying
to all parties. In the year 1905 the Free Church Assembly met in the
historic Free Church Assembly Hall, but it did not meet there again.
Having been left by the awards of the commission without any station in
the foreign mission field, the Free Church resolved to start a foreign
mission of her own. The urgent task confronting the church was that of
supplying ordinances to her congregations. The latter numbered 200 in
1907, and the church had as yet only 74 ordained ministers, so that many
of the manses allocated to her by the commissioners were not yet
occupied, and catechists and elders were called to conduct services
where possible. The gallant stand this little church had made for
principles which were no longer represented by any Presbyterian church
outside the establishment attracted to her much interest and many hopes
that she might be successful in her endeavours to do something for the
religious life of Scotland.