"At the end of September [1814] the centre of European

interest passed to Vienna. The great council of the Powers, so

long delayed, was at length assembled. The Czar of Russia, the

Kings of Prussia, Denmark, Bavaria, and Würtemberg, and nearly

all the statesmen of eminence in Europe, gathered round the

Emperor Francis and his Minister, Metternich, to whom by

common consent the presidency of the Congress was offered.

Lord Castlereagh represented England, and Talleyrand France.

Rasumoffsky and other Russian diplomatists acted under the

immediate directions of their master, who on some occasions

even entered into personal correspondence with the Ministers

of the other Powers. Hardenberg stood in a somewhat freer

relation to King Frederick William: Stein was present, but

without official place. The subordinate envoys and attaches of

the greater Courts, added to a host of petty princes and the

representatives who came from the minor Powers, or from

communities which had ceased to possess any political

existence at all, crowded Vienna. In order to relieve the

antagonisms which had already come too clearly into view,

Metternich determined to entertain his visitors in the most

magnificent fashion; and although the Austrian State was

bankrupt, and in some districts the people were severely

suffering, a sum of about £10,000 a day was for some time

devoted to this purpose. The splendour and the gaieties of

Metternich were emulated by his guests. … The Congress had

need of its distractions, for the difficulties which faced it

were so great that, even after the arrival of the Sovereigns,

it was found necessary to postpone the opening of the regular

sittings until November. By the secret articles of the Peace

of Paris, the Allies had reserved to themselves the disposal

of all vacant territory, although their conclusions required

to be formally sanctioned by the Congress at large. The

Ministers of Austria, England, Prussia, and Russia accordingly

determined at the outset to decide upon all territorial

questions among themselves, and only after their decisions

were completely formed to submit them to France and the other

Powers. Talleyrand, on hearing of this arrangement, protested

that France itself was now one of the Allies, and demanded

that the whole body of European States should at once meet in

open Congress. The four Courts held to their determination,

and began their preliminary sittings without Talleyrand. But

the French statesman had, under the form of a paradox, really

stated the true political situation. The greater Powers were

so deeply divided in their aims that their old bond of common

interest, the interest of union against France, was now less

powerful than the impulse that made them seek the support of

France against one another.

{3625}

Two men had come to the Congress with a definite aim:

Alexander had resolved to gain the Duchy of Warsaw, and to

form it, with or without some part of Russian Poland, into a

Polish kingdom, attached to his own crown: Talleyrand had

determined, either on the question of Poland, or on the

question of Saxony, which arose out of it, to break allied

Europe into halves, and to range France by the side of two of

the great Powers against the two others. The course of events

favoured for a while the design of the Minister: Talleyrand

himself prosecuted his plan with an ability which, but for the

untimely return of Napoleon from Elba, would have left France,

without a war, the arbiter and the leading Power of Europe.

Since the Russian victories of 1812, the Emperor Alexander had

made no secret of his intention to restore a Polish Kingdom

and a Polish nationality. Like many other designs of this

prince, the project combined a keen desire for personal

glorification with a real generosity of feeling. Alexander was

thoroughly sincere in his wish not only to make the Poles

again a people, but to give them a Parliament and a free

Constitution. The King of Poland, however, was to be no

independent prince, but Alexander himself: although the Duchy

of Warsaw, the chief if not the sole component of the proposed

new kingdom, had belonged to Austria and Prussia after the

last partition of Poland, and extended into the heart of the

Prussian monarchy. Alexander insisted on his anxiety to atone

for the crime of Catherine in dismembering Poland: the

atonement, however, was to be made at the sole cost of those

whom Catherine had allowed to share the booty. Among the other

Governments, the Ministry of Great Britain would gladly have

seen a Polish State established in a really independent form;

failing this, it desired that the Duchy of Warsaw should be

divided, as formerly, between Austria and Prussia. Metternich

was anxious that the fortress of Cracow at any rate should not

fall into the hands of the Czar. Stein and Hardenberg, and

even Alexander's own Russian counsellors, earnestly opposed

the Czar's project, not only on account of the claims of

Prussia on Warsaw, but from dread of the agitation likely to

be produced by a Polish Parliament among all Poles outside the

new State. King Frederick William, however, was unaccustomed

to dispute the wishes of his ally; and the Czar's offer of

Saxony in substitution for Warsaw gave to the Prussian

Ministers, who were more in earnest than their master, at

least the prospect of receiving a valuable equivalent for what

they might surrender. By the treaty of Kalisch, made when

Prussia united its arms with those of Russia against Napoleon

(February 27th, 1813), the Czar had undertaken to restore the

Prussian monarchy to an extent equal to that which it had

possessed in 1805. It was known before the opening of the

Congress that the Czar proposed to do this by handing over to

King Frederick William the whole of Saxony, whose Sovereign,

unlike his colleagues in the Rhenish Confederacy, had

supported Napoleon up to his final overthrow at Leipzig. Since

that time the King of Saxony had been held a prisoner, and his

dominions had been occupied by the Allies. The Saxon question

had thus already gained the attention of all the European

Governments. … Talleyrand alone made the defence of the King

of Saxony the very centre of his policy, and subordinated all

other aims to this. His instructions, like those of

Castlereagh, gave priority to the Polish question; but

Talleyrand saw that Saxony, not Poland, was the lever by which

he could throw half of Europe on to the side of France; and

before the four Allied Courts had come to any single

conclusion, the French statesman had succeeded, on what at

first passed for a subordinate point, in breaking up their

concert. For a while the Ministers of Austria, Prussia, and

England appeared to be acting in harmony; and throughout the

month of October all three endeavoured to shake the purpose of

Alexander regarding Warsaw. Talleyrand, however, foresaw that

the efforts of Prussia in this direction would not last very

long, and he wrote to Louis XVIII. asking for his permission

to make a definite offer of armed assistance to Austria in

case of need. Events took the turn which Talleyrand expected.

… He had isolated Russia and Prussia, and had drawn to his own

side not only England and Austria but the whole body of the

minor German States. … On the 3rd of January, 1815, after a

rash threat of war uttered by Hardenberg, a secret treaty was

signed by the representatives of France, England, and Austria,

pledging these Powers to take the field, if necessary, against

Russia and Prussia in defence of the principles of the Peace

of Paris. The plan of the campaign was drawn up, the number of

the forces fixed. Bavaria had already armed; Piedmont,

Hanover, and even the Ottoman Porte, were named as future

members of the alliance. It would perhaps be unfair to the

French Minister to believe that he actually desired to kindle

a war on this gigantic scale. Talleyrand had not, like

Napoleon, a love for war for its own sake. His object was

rather to raise France from its position as a conquered and

isolated Power; to surround it with allies. … The conclusion

of the secret treaty of January 3rd marked the definite

success of his plans. France was forthwith admitted into the

council hitherto known as that of the Four Courts, and from

this time its influence visibly affected the action of Russia

and Prussia, reports of the secret treaty having reached the

Czar immediately after its signature. The spirit of compromise

now began to animate the Congress. Alexander had already won a

virtual decision in his favour on the Polish question, but he

abated something of his claims, and while gaining the lion's

share of the Duchy of Warsaw, he ultimately consented that

Cracow, which threatened the Austrian frontier, should be

formed into an independent Republic, and that Prussia should

receive the fortresses of Dantzic and Thorn on the Vistula,

with the district lying between Thorn and the border of

Silesia. This was little for Alexander to abandon; on the

Saxon question the allies of Talleyrand gained most that they

demanded. The King of Saxony was restored to his throne, and

permitted to retain Dresden and about half of his dominions.

Prussia received the remainder. In lieu of a further expansion

in Saxony, Prussia was awarded territory on the left bank of

the Rhine, which, with its recovered Westphalian provinces,

restored the monarchy to an area and population equal to that

which it had possessed in 1805. But the dominion given to

Prussia beyond the Rhine, though considered at the time to be

a poor equivalent for the second half of Saxony, was in

reality a gift of far greater value.

{3626}

It made Prussia, in defence of its own soil, the guardian and

bulwark of Germany against France. … It gave to Prussia

something more in common with Bavaria and the South, and

qualified it, as it had not been qualified before, for its

future task of uniting Germany under its own leadership. The

Polish and Saxon difficulties, which had threatened the peace

of Europe, were virtually settled before the end of the month

of January."

_C. A. Fyffe,

History of Modern Europe,

volume 2, chapter 1._

"Prussia obtained Posen with the town of Thorn in the east,

and in the west all that had been lost by the treaty of

Tilsit, the duchies of Jülich and Berg, the old electoral

territories of Cologne and Trier with the city of Aachen, and

parts of Luxemburg and Limburg. Russia received the whole of

the grand-duchy of Warsaw except Posen and Thorn, and

Alexander fulfilled his promises to the Poles by granting them

a liberal constitution. … Swedish Pomerania had been ceded by

the treaty of Kiel to Denmark, but had long been coveted by

Prussia. The Danish claims were bought off with two million

thalers and the duchy of Lauenburg, but Hanover had to be

compensated for the latter by the cession of the devotedly

loyal province of East Friesland, one of the acquisitions of

Frederick the Great. Hanover, which now assumed the rank of a

kingdom without opposition, was also aggrandised by the

acquisition of Hildesheim, Goslar, and other small districts.

Austria was naturally one of the great gainers by the

Congress. Eastern Galicia was restored by Russia, and the

Tyrol, Salzburg, and the Inn district by Bavaria. As

compensation for the Netherlands, Venetia and Lombardy became

Austrian provinces. Bavaria, in return for its losses in the

east, received Würzburg, Aschaffenburg, and its former

possessions in the Palatinate. Long discussions took place

about the constitution to be given to Germany, and here the

hopes of the national party were doomed to bitter

disappointment. … Finally a Confederation was formed which

secured the semblance of unity, but gave almost complete

independence to the separate states.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1814-1820.

The members numbered thirty-eight, and included the four

remaining free cities, Frankfort, Hamburg, Lübeck, and Bremen,

and the kings of Denmark and the Netherlands. … In Italy the

same process of restoration and subdivision was carried out.

Victor Emmanuel I. recovered his kingdom of Sardinia, with the

addition of Genoa as compensation for the portion of Savoy

which France retained. Modena was given to a Hapsburg prince,

Francis IV., son of the archduke Ferdinand, and Beatrice the

heiress of the house of Este. Tuscany was restored to

Ferdinand III., a brother of the Austrian Emperor. Charles

Louis, son of the Bourbon king of Etruria, was compensated

with Lucca and a promise of the succession in the duchy of

Parma, which was for the time given to Napoleon's wife, Maria

Louisa. Pius VII. had already returned to Rome, and the Papal

states now recovered their old extent. But Pius refused at

first to accept these terms because he was deprived of Avignon

and the Venaissin, and because Austrian garrisons were in

occupation of Ferrara and Comacchio. Naples was left for a

time in the hands of Joachim Murat, as a reward for his

desertion of Napoleon after the battle of Leipzig. Switzerland

was declared independent and neutral, but its feudal unity was

loosened by a new constitution (August, 1815). The number of

cantons were raised to twenty-two by the addition of Geneva,

Wallis (Vallais), and Neufchâtel the last under Prussian

suzerainty. The position of capital was to be enjoyed in

rotation by Berne, Zurich, and Lucerne. The kingdom of the

Netherlands was formed for the house of Orange by the union of

Holland and Belgium and the addition of Luxemburg, which made

the king a member of the German Confederation. The professed

object of this artificial union of Catholics and Protestants

was the erection of a strong bulwark against French

aggressions."

_R. Lodge,

History of Modern Europe,

chapter 24, section 52._

ALSO IN:

_E. Hertslet,

The Map of Europe by Treaty,

volume 1, number 27._

_Prince Talleyrand,

Memoirs,

part 8 (volume 2)._

_Prince Talleyrand,

Correspondence with Louis XVIII.

during the Congress of Vienna._

_Prince Metternich,

Memoirs,

volume 2, pages 553-599._

_J. R. Seeley,

Life and Times of Stein,

part 8 (volume 3)._

_Sir A. Alison,

History of Europe, 1789-1815,

chapter 92 (volume 19)._

VIENNA, Imperial Library of.

See LIBRARIES, MODERN: EUROPE.

VIENNA,

Treaty of (1725).

See SPAIN: A. D. 1713-1725.

Treaty of (1735).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1733-1735.

Treaty of (1864).

See GERMANY: A. D. 1861-1866.

VIENNE, OR VIENNA, on the Rhone.

Vienne, on the Rhone, was the chief town of the Allobroges in

ancient times,—subsequently made a Roman colony. It was from

Vienne that Lugdunum (Lyons) was originally colonized.

VIENNE on the Rhone: A. D. 500.

Under the Burgundians.

See BURGUNDIANS: A. D. 500.

VIENNE on the Rhone: 11th Century.

Founding of the Dauphiny.

See BURGUNDY: A. D. 1032.

VIENNE on the Rhone: A. D. 1349.

The appanage of the Dauphins of France.

See DAUPHINS;

also, BURGUNDY: A. D. 1127-1378.

VIGILANCE COMMITTEE OF SAN FRANCISCO, The.

See CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1856.

VIGO BAY, The Destruction of Spanish treasure ships in.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1702.

VIKINGS.

See NORMANS.—NORTHMEN: 8-9TH CENTURIES.

VILAGOS, Hungarian surrender at (1849).

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848-1849.

VILLA VICIOSA,

VILLA VIÇOSA, Battle of (1665).

See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1637-1668.

VILLA VICIOSA: Battle of (1710).

See SPAIN: A. D. 1707-1710.

VILLAFRANCA. Peace of.

See ITALY: A. D. 1856-1859; and 1859-1861.

VILLALAR, Battle of (1521).

See SPAIN: A. D. 1518-1522.

VILLEIN TAX, OR TAILLE.

See TAILLE AND GABELLE.

VILLEINAGE. Tenure in.

See FEUDAL TENURES; and MANORS.

VILLEINS.

VILLANI.

See SLAVERY, MEDIÆVAL AND MODERN (ESPECIALLY UNDER ENGLAND);

also, DEDITITIUS.

VILLERSEXEL, Battle of (1871).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1870-1871.

VILLMERGEN, Battles of(1656, 1712, and 1841).

See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1652-1789: and 1803-1848.

{3627}

VIMIERO, Battle of (1808).

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

VIMINAL, The.

See SEVEN HILLS OF ROME.

VIMORY, Battle of (1587).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1584-1589.

VINCENNES, Indiana: A. D. 1735.

Founded by the French.

See CANADA: A. D. 1700-1735.

VINCENNES, Indiana: A. D. 1778-1779.

Taken and retaken from the British by

the Virginian General Clark.

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

CLARK'S CONQUEST.

VINCENTIAN CONGREGATION, The.

See LAZARISTS.

VINCI, Battle of (A. D. 717).

See FRANKS: A. D. 511-752.

VINDALIUM, Battle at (B. C. 121).

See ALLOBROGES, CONQUEST OF THE.

VINDELICIANS, The.

See RHÆTIA.

VINDOBONA.

Vindobona, modern Vienna, on the Danube, originally a town of

the Celts, in Pannonia, became a Roman military and naval

station and a frontier city of importance. Marcus Aurelius

died at Vindobona, A. D. 180.

VINEÆ.

The vineæ of Roman siege operations were "covered galleries,

constructed of wicker work (vimina) generally, and sometimes

of wood, for the purpose of covering the approach of the

besiegers."

_G. Long,

Decline of the Roman Republic,

volume 4, chapter 3, foot-note._

VINLAND.

See AMERICA: 10-11TH CENTURIES.

VIONVILLE, Battle of.

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

VIRCHOW, and Cellular Pathology.

See MEDICAL SCIENCE: 19TH CENTURY.

VIRGATE.

See HIDE OF LAND;

also, MANORS.

----------VIRGINIA: Start--------

VIRGINIA.

The aboriginal inhabitants.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES, POWHATAN CONFEDERACY,

ALGONQUIAN FAMILY, IROQUOIS TRIBES OF THE SOUTH,

and CHEROKEES.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1584.

The name given first to Raleigh's Roanoke settlement,

on the Carolina coast.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1584-1586.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1606-1607.

The Virginia Company of London and its charter.

The colony planted at Jamestown.

"The colonization of the North American coast had now become

part of the avowed policy of the British government. In 1606 a

great joint-stock company was formed for the establishment of

two colonies in America. The branch which was to take charge

of the proposed southern colony had its headquarters in

London; the management of the northern branch was at Plymouth

in Devonshire. Hence the two branches are commonly spoken of

as the London and Plymouth Companies. The former was also

called the Virginia Company, and the latter the North Virginia

Company, as the name of Virginia was then loosely applied to

the entire Atlantic coast north of Florida. The London Company

had jurisdiction from 34° to 38° north latitude; the Plymouth

Company had jurisdiction from 45° down to 41°; the intervening

territory, between 38° and 41° was to go to whichever company

should first plant a self-supporting colony."

_J. Fiske,

The Beginnings of New England,

chapter 2._

"The charter for colonizing the great central territory of the

North American continent, which was to be the chosen abode of

liberty, gave to the mercantile corporation nothing but a

wilderness, with the right of peopling and defending it. By an

extension of the prerogative, which was in itself illegal, the

monarch assumed absolute legislative as well as executive

powers. … The general superintendence was confided to a

council in England; the local administration of each colony to

a resident council. The members of the superior council in

England were appointed exclusively by the king, and were to

hold office at his good pleasure. Their authority extended to

both colonies, which jointly took the name of Virginia. Each

of the two was to have its own resident council, of which the

members were from time to time to be ordained and removed

according to the instructions of the king. To the king,

moreover, was reserved supreme legislative authority over the

several colonies, extending to their general condition and the

most minute regulation of their affairs. … The summer was

spent in preparations for planting the first colony, for which

the king found a grateful occupation in framing a code of

laws. The superior council in England was permitted to name

the colonial council, which was independent of the emigrants,

and had power to elect or remove its president, to remove any

of its members, and to supply its own vacancies. Not an

element of popular liberty or control was introduced. Religion

was established according to the doctrine and rites of the

church within the realm. … Then, on the 19th day of December,

in the year of our Lord 1606, one hundred and nine years after

the discovery of the American continent by Cabot, forty-one

years from the settlement of Florida, the squadron of three

vessels, the largest not exceeding 100 tons' burden, with the

favor of all England, stretched their sails for 'the dear

strand of Virginia, earth's only paradise.' … The enterprise

was ill concerted. Of the 105 on the list of emigrants, there

were but 12 laborers and few mechanics. They were going to a

wilderness, in which, as yet, not a house was standing; and

there were 48 gentlemen to 4 carpenters. Neither were there

any men with families. Newport, who commanded the ships, was

acquainted with the old passage, and sailed by way of the

Canaries and the West India Islands. As he turned to the

north, a severe storm, in April, 1607, carried his fleet

beyond the settlement of Raleigh, into the magnificent bay of

the Chesapeake. The headlands received and retain the names of

Cape Henry and Cape Charles, from the sons of King James; the

deep water for anchorage, 'putting the emigrants in good

Comfort,' gave a name to the northern point; and within the

capes a country opened which appeared to 'claim the

prerogative over the most pleasant places in the world.' … A

noble river was soon entered, which was named from the

monarch; and, after a search of seventeen days, … on the 13th

of May they reached a peninsula about 50 miles above the mouth

of the stream, where the water near the shore was so very deep

that the ships were moored to trees.

{3628}

Here the council, except Smith, who for no reason unless it

were jealousy of his superior energy was for nearly a month

kept out of his seat, took the oath of office, and the

majority elected Edward Maria Wingfield president for the

coming year. Contrary to the earnest and persistent advice of

Bartholomew Gosnold, the peninsula was selected for the site

of the colony, and took the name of Jamestown."

_G. Bancroft,

History of the United States,

part 1, chapter 6 (volume 1)._

ALSO IN:

_E. D. Neill,

History of the Virginia Company of London,

chapter 1,

and Virginia Vetusta,

chapters 1-2._

_J. Burk,

History of Virginia,

volume 1, chapter 3._

_E. M. Wingfield,

Discourse of Virginia,

edited by C. Deane (Archœologia Americana, volume 4)._

_H. W. Preston,

Documents Illustrative of American History,

page 1._

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1607-1610.

The settlement at Jamestown and the services

of Captain John Smith.

"Among the leaders of the expedition were Gosnold, the voyager

and discoverer, and a prime mover in the affair; Wingfield,

one of the first-named patentees, John Smith, Ratcliffe,

Martin, Kendall, and Percy. Of these men John Smith has become

famous. He has taken place among the founders of states, and a

romantic interest has attached itself to his name. For

centuries his character and deeds have been applauded, while

in late years they have become a theme for censure and

detraction. Modern investigation has relentlessly swept a way

the romance, and torn in pieces many of the long accepted

narratives in which Smith recorded his own achievements. Yet

it was not wholly by a false and fluent pen that Smith

obtained and held his reputation. He was something more than a

plausible writer of fiction. He was the strongest and most

representative man among the Virginian colonists. … With this

hopeful company Newport left the Downs on the 1st of January,

1607. The worthy Richard Hakluyt sent them a paper containing

much good advice and some ingenious geographical speculations,

and Drayton celebrated their departure in clumsy verses filled

with high-flown compliments. The advice of the priest and the

praise of the poet were alike wasted. By an arrangement

ingeniously contrived to promote discord, devised probably by

royal sagacity, the box containing the names of the council

was not to be opened until the voyagers reached their

destination. Dissension broke out almost immediately. Whatever

the merits of the differences, this much is certain, that

Smith was the object of the concentrated jealousy and hatred

of his companions. … On the 13th of May, 1607, the settlers

landed at Jamestown, sent out exploring parties, and began

fortifications. A fortnight later, under the command of

Wingfield, they repulsed an attack by the Indians; and on the

22d of June Newport sailed for England, and left them to their

own resources. The prospect must have been a dreary one:

nothing answered to their expectations. Instead of valuable

mines, the adventurers found only a most fertile soil; instead

of timid, trusting South American Indians, they encountered

wild tribes of hardy, crafty, and hostile savages; instead of

rich, defenceless, and barbarian cities, an easy and splendid

spoil, they found a wilderness, and the necessity of hard

work. From the miserable character of the settlers, dangerous

factions prevailed from the first, until Smith obtained

control, and maintained some sort of order—despotically,

perhaps, but still effectually. No one would work, and famine

and the Indians preyed upon them mercilessly. A small fort and

a few wretched huts, built after much quarrelling, represented

for many months all that was accomplished. The only relief

from this dark picture of incompetent men perishing, without

achievement, and by their own folly, on the threshold of a

great undertaking, is to be found in the conduct of Smith.

Despite almost insurmountable obstacles, Smith kept the colony

together for two years. He drilled the soldiers, compelled

labor, repaired the fort, traded with the Indians, outwitted

them and kept their friendship, and made long and daring

voyages of discovery. He failed to send home a lump of gold,

but he did send an excellent map of the Company's territory.

He did not discover the passage to the South Sea, but he

explored the great bays and rivers of Virginia. He did not

find Raleigh's lost colonists, but he managed to keep his own

from total destruction. The great result of all Smith's

efforts was the character of permanency he gave to the

settlement. Because he succeeded in maintaining an English

colony for two consecutive years in America, the London

Company had courage to proceed; and this is what constitutes

Smith's strongest claim to the admiration and gratitude of

posterity. To suppose that he had the qualities of a founder

of a state is a mistake, although in some measure he did the

work of one. … His veracity as a historian in the later years

of his life has been well-nigh destroyed. But little faith can

be placed in the 'Generall Historie,' and modern investigation

has conclusively relegated to the region of legend and of

fiction the dramatic story of Smith's rescue by Pocahontas.

The shadow of doubt rests upon all his unsupported statements;

but nothing can obscure his great services, to which the world

owes the foundation of the first English colony in America.

Yet, after all his struggles, Smith was severely blamed by the

Company, apparently because Virginia was not Peru. In a manly

letter he sets forth the defects of the colony, the need of

good men with families, industrious tradesmen and farmers, not

'poor gentlemen and libertines.' Before, however, the actual

orders came to supersede him, Smith resigned, or was forced

out of the government, and returned to England. The feeble

life of the colony wasted fast after his departure and during

the sickness of Percy, who succeeded to the command."

_H. C. Lodge,

Short History of the English Colonies in America,

chapter 1._

ALSO IN:

_Captain John Smith,

General Historie of Virginia,

books 2-3._

_J. Ashton,

Adventures and Discoveries of Captain John Smith,

newly ordered,

chapters 6-21._

_W. C. Bryant and S. H. Gay,

Popular History of the United States,

volume 1, chapter 11._

_E. Eggleston and L. E. Seelye,

Pocahontas._

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1609-1616.

The new Charter.

The colony taking root.

Introduction of Tobacco culture.

"The prospects of the colony were so discouraging at the

beginning of the year 1609, that, in the hope of improving

them, the Company applied for a new charter with enlarged

privileges. This was granted to them, on the 23d of May, under

the corporate name of 'The Treasurer and Company of Adventurers

and Planters of the City of London for the first Colony in

Virginia.'

{3629}

The new Association, which embraced representatives of every

rank, trade, and profession, included twenty-one peers, and

its list of names presents an imposing array of wealth and

influence. By this charter Virginia was greatly enlarged, and

made to comprise the coast-line and all islands within 100

miles of it,—200 miles north and 200 south of Point

Comfort,—with all the territory within parallel lines thus

distant and extending to the Pacific boundary; the Company was

empowered to choose the Supreme Council in England, and, under

the instructions and regulations of the last, the Governor was

invested with absolute civil and military authority. … Thomas

West (Lord Delaware), the descendant of a long line of noble

ancestry, received the appointment of Governor and

Captain-General of Virginia. The first expedition under the

second charter, which was on a grander scale than any

preceding it, and which consisted of nine vessels, sailed from

Plymouth on the 1st of June, 1609. Newport, the commander of

the fleet, Sir Thomas Gates, Lieutenant-General, and Sir

George Somers, Admiral of Virginia, were severally authorized,

whichever of them might first arrive at Jamestown, to

supersede the existing administration there until the arrival

of Lord Delaware, who was to embark some months later; but not

being able to settle the point of precedency among themselves,

they embarked together in the same vessel, which carried also

the wife and daughters of Gates. … On the 23d of July the

fleet was caught in a hurricane; a small vessel was lost,

others damaged, and the 'Sea Venture,' which carried Gates,

Somers, and Newport, with about 150 settlers, was cast ashore

on the Bermudas. … Early in August the 'Blessing,' Captain

Archer, and three other vessels of the delayed fleet sailed up

James River, and soon after the 'Diamond,' Captain Ratcliffe,

appeared, without her mainmast, and she was followed in a few

days by the 'Swallow,' in like condition. The Council being

all dead save Smith, he, obtaining the sympathy of the

sailors, refused to surrender the government of the colony;

and the newly arrived settlers elected Francis West, the

brother of Lord Delaware, as temporary president. The term of

Smith expiring soon after, George Percy—one of the original

settlers, a brother of the Earl of Northumberland, and a brave

and honorable man—was elected president. … Smith, about

Michaelmas (September 29), departed for England, or, as all

contemporary accounts other than his own state, was sent

thither 'to answer some misdemeanors.' These were doubtless of

a venial character; but the important services of Smith in the

sustenance of the colony appear not to have been as highly

esteemed by the Company as by Smith himself. He complains that

his several petitions for reward were disregarded, and he

never returned to Virginia. … At the time of his departure for

England he left at Jamestown three ships, seven boats, a good

stock of provisions, nearly 500 settlers, 20 pieces of cannon,

300 guns, with fishing-nets, working-tools, horses, cattle,

swine, etc. Jamestown was strongly fortified with palisades,

and contained between fifty and sixty houses. … No effort by

tillage being made to replenish their provisions, the stock

was soon consumed, and the horrors of famine were added to

other calamities. The intense sufferings of the colonists were

long remembered, and this period is referred to as 'the

starving time.' In six months their number was reduced to 60,

and such was the extremity of these that they must soon have

perished but for speedy succor. The passengers of the wrecked

'Sea Venture,' though mourned for as lost, had effected a safe

landing at the Bermudas, where, favored by the tropical

productions of the islands, they, under the direction of Gates

and Somers, constructed for their deliverance two vessels from

the materials of the wreck and cedar-wood, the largest of the

vessels being of 80 tons burden. … Six of the company,

including the wife of Sir Thomas Gates, died on the island.

The company of 140 men and women embarked on the completed

vessels—which were appropriately named the 'Patience' and the

'Deliverance'—on the 10th of May, 1610, and on the 23d they

landed at Jamestown. … So forlorn was the condition of the

settlement that Gates reluctantly resolved to abandon it." The

whole colony was accordingly embarked and was under sail down

the river, when it met a fleet of three vessels, bringing

supplies and new settlers from England, with Lord Delaware,

who had resolved to come out in person, as Governor and

Captain-General of Virginia. Gates and his disheartened

companions turned back with these new comers, and all were set

vigorously at work to restore the settlement. "The

administration of Delaware, though ludicrously ostentatious

for so insignificant a dominion, was yet highly wholesome, and

under his judicious discipline the settlement was restored to

order and contentment." His health failing, Lord Delaware

returned to England the following spring, whither Sir Thomas

Gates had gone. Sir Thomas Dale had already been sent out with

the appointment of high marshal, bearing a code of

extraordinary laws which practically placed the colony under

martial rule. Gates returned in June, 1611, with 300

additional settlers and a considerable stock of cows and other

cattle. During that year and the next several new settlements

were founded, at Dutch Gap, Henrico, and Bermuda Hundred,

individual grants of property began to be made, and many signs

of prosperity appeared. The year 1612 "was a marked one, in

the inauguration by John Rolfe [who married Pocahontas two

years later, having lost his first wife] of the systematic

culture of tobacco,—a staple destined to exert a controlling

influence in the future welfare and progress of the colony,

and soon, by the paramount profit yielded by its culture, to

subordinate all other interests, agricultural as well as

manufacturing." In the spring of 1613, Sir Thomas Gates left

the colony, finally, returning to England, and the government

fell to the hands of Dale, who remained at the head until

1616.

_R. A. Brock,

Virginia, 1606-1689

(Narrative and Critical History of America,

volume 3, chapter 5)._

ALSO IN:

_W. Stith,

History of Virginia,

book. 3._

_J. H. Lefroy,

Memorials of the Discovery and Early Settlement

of the Bermudas,

volume 1, chapter 1._

_J. E. Cooke,

Virginia,

chapters 13-16._

_H. W. Preston,

Documents Illustrative of American History,

page 14._

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1613.

The French settlements in Acadia destroyed by Argall

and the Dutch at New York forced to promise tribute.

See CANADA: A. D. 1610-1613;

and NEW YORK: A. D. 1610-1614.

{3630}

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1617-1619.

The evil days of Argall, and the better

administration that followed.

Meeting of the first provincial Assembly.

"A party of greedy and unprincipled adventurers headed by Lord

Rich, soon after the Earl of Warwick, acquired sufficient

influence in the Company to nominate a creature of their own

as Deputy-Governor. Their choice of Argall [Samuel Argall]

would in itself have tainted their policy with suspicion.

Whether dealing with the Indians, the French, or the Dutch, he

had shown himself able, resolute, and unscrupulous.

See CANADA: A. D. 1610-1613;

and NEW YORK: A. D. 1610-1614.

To do him justice, he seems at least to have understood the

principle of Tiberius, that a shepherd should shear his sheep,

not flay them. His first measure was to provide a sufficient

supply of corn for the maintenance of the colony. With that he

appeared to think that his duty to the settlers was at end. …

An event soon occurred which released Argall from the fear of

a superior, and probably emboldened him in his evil courses.

Lord Delaware, who had sailed in a large vessel with 200

emigrants," died on the voyage. "Argall now began to show that

his care for the well-being of the colony was no better than

the charity of the cannibal who feeds up his prisoner before

making a meal on him. Trade with the Indians was withheld from

individuals, but, instead of being turned to the benefit of

the Company, it was appropriated by Argall. The planters were

treated as a slave-gang working for the Deputy's own private

profit. The Company's cattle were sold, and the proceeds never

accounted for. During this time a great change had come over

the Company at home. An energetic and public-spirited party

had been formed, opposed alike to Sir Thomas Smith and to Lord

Rich. Their leader was Sir Edwin Sandys, a member of that

country party which was just beginning to take its stand

against the corruptions of the court policy. Side by side with

him stood one whose name has gained a wider though not a more

honourable repute, the follower of Essex, the idol of

Shakespeare, the brilliant, versatile Southampton. … The …

year 1619 was remarkable in the annals of the colony. It is

hardly an exaggeration to say that it witnessed the creation

of Virginia as an independent community. From the beginning of

that year we may date the definite ascendancy of Sandys and

his party, an ascendancy which was maintained till the

dissolution of the Company, and during which the affairs of

Virginia were administered with a degree of energy,

unselfishness, and statesmanlike wisdom, perhaps unparalleled

in the history of corporations. One of the first measures was

to send out Yeardley to supersede Argall. … When Yeardley

arrived he found that Argall had escaped. No further attempt

seems to have been made to bring him to justice. In the next

year he was commanding a ship against the Algerines." Soon

afterwards, Sir Edwin Sandys was placed officially at the head

of the Company, by his election to be Treasurer, in the place

of Sir Thomas Smith. "About the same time that these things

were doing in England, a step of the greatest importance was

being taken in Virginia. Yeardley, in obedience to

instructions from the Company, summoned an Assembly of

Burgesses from the various hundreds and plantations. At one

step Virginia, from being little better than a penal

settlement, ruled by martial law, became invested with

important, though not full, rights of self-government. Though

we have no direct evidence of the fact, there is every

probability that during the administrations of Yeardley and

Argall the number of independent planters possessing estates

of their own, with labourers employed in the service of their

masters, not of the Company, had increased. Unless such an

influence had been at work, it is scarcely possible that the

experiment of constitutional government should have succeeded,

or even have been tried. On the 30th of July, 1619, the first

Assembly met in the little church at Jamestown. … In England

the Company under its new government set to work with an

energy before unknown to it, to improve the condition of the

colony. … To check the over-production of tobacco a clause was

inserted in all fresh patents of land binding the holder to

cultivate a certain quantity of other commodities. Everything

was done to encourage permanent settlers rather than mere

traders. Apprentices, unmarried women, and neat cattle were

sent out. New forms of industry, too, were set on foot, such

as timber yards, silk manufactures, iron foundries, and

vineyards. … In the year 1619 alone over 1,200 persons were

sent out, half as private settlers or servants, half at the

expense of the Company."

_J. A. Doyle,

The English in America: Virginia, &c.,

chapter 6._

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1619.

Introduction of Negro Slavery.

"In the month of August, 1619, five years after the commons of

France had petitioned for the emancipation of every serf in

every fief, a Dutch man-of-war entered James River and landed

20 negroes for sale. This is the sad epoch of the introduction

of negro slavery; but the traffic would have been checked in

its infancy had it remained with the Dutch. Thirty years after

this first importation of Africans, Virginia to one black

contained fifty whites; and, after seventy years of its

colonial existence, the number of its negro slaves was

proportionably much less than in several of the northern

states at the time of the war of independence."

_G. Bancroft,

History of the United States (Author's last revision),

part 1, chapter 8 (volume 1)._

ALSO IN:

_G. W. Williams,

History of the Negro Race in America,

part 2, chapter 12 (volume 1)._

_G. P. Fisher,

The Colonial Era,

chapter 4._

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1622-1624.

Plot and Massacre by the Indians.

Arbitrary dissolution of the Virginia Company by King James.

"On the 22nd of March, 1622, a memorable massacre occurred in

the Colony. … On the evening before, and on that morning, the

savages as usual came unarmed into the houses of the planters,

with fruits, fish, turkies and venison to sell. In some places

they actually sate down to breakfast with the English. At

about the hour of noon, the savages rising suddenly and

everywhere at the same time, butchered the colonists with

their own implements, sparing neither age, sex, nor condition.

Three hundred and forty-seven men, women and children fell in

a few hours. … The destruction might have been universal but

for the disclosure of a converted Indian, named Chanco, who,

during the night before the massacre, revealed the plot to one

Richard Pace, with whom he lived.

{3631}

Pace … repaired before day to Jamestown and gave the alarm to

Sir Francis Wyatt, the Governor. His vigilance saved a large

part of the Colony. … The court of James I., jealous of the

growing power of the Virginia Company and of its too

republican spirit, seized upon the occasion of the massacre to

attribute all the calamities of the Colony to its

mismanagement and neglect, and thus to frame a pretext for

dissolving the charter." The Company, supported by the

colonists, resisted the high-handed proceedings of the King

and his officers, but vainly. In November, 1624, "James I.

dissolved the Virginia Company by a writ of Quo Warranto,

which was determined only upon a technicality in the

pleadings. The company had been obnoxious to the ill will of

the King on several grounds. The corporation had become a

theatre for rearing leaders of the opposition, many of its

members being also members of parliament. … Charles I.

succeeding [1625] to the crown and principles of his father,

took the government of Virginia into his own hands. The

company thus extinguished had expended £150,000 in

establishing the Colony, and transported 9,000 settlers

without the aid of government. The number of stockholders, or

adventurers, as they were styled, was about 1,000, and the

annual value of exports from Virginia was, at the period of

the dissolution of the charter, only £20,000. The company

embraced much of the rank, wealth, and talent of the kingdom.

… As the act provided no compensation for the enormous

expenditure incurred, it can be looked upon as little better

than confiscation effected by chicane and tyranny.

Nevertheless the result was undoubtedly favorable to the

Colony."

_C. Campbell,

Introduction to the History of the Colony

and Ancient Dominion of Virginia,

chapters 15-16._

ALSO IN:

_W. Stith,

History of Virginia,

books 4-5._

_E. D. Neill,

History of the Virginia Company of London,

chapters 14-17._

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1628.

Attempted settlement by Lord Baltimore.

See MARYLAND: A. D. 1632.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1635-1638.

The Clayborne quarrel with Lord Baltimore

and the Maryland colony.

See MARYLAND: A. D. 1635-1638.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1639-1652.

Loyalty to King Charles.

The Refuge of the Cavaliers.

"Under Charles I. little worthy of notice occurred in the

political history of Virginia. … Attempts were made to raise a

revenue on tobacco, and subsequently to establish a royal

monopoly of the tobacco trade. The attempts were averted, and

the king contented himself with the preemption of the

Virginian tobacco, and with enacting that no foreign vessel

should be allowed to trade with Virginia, or to carry

Virginian goods. In 1639 an attempt was made to re-establish

the authority of the company, but was strenuously and

successfully opposed by the assembly. That the royal

government sat lightly on Virginia may be inferred from the

loyal tone which had thus early become a characteristic of the

colony. After the establishment of the commonwealth, 'Virginia

was whole for monarchy and the last country belonging to

England that submitted to obedience to the commonwealth of

England,' and under Berkeley's government the plantation was a

safe refuge for the defeated cavaliers. … But as soon as two

or three parliamentary ships appeared [1652] all thoughts of

resistance were laid aside. Yet, whether from lenity or

caution, the parliament was satisfied with moderate terms. The

submission of the colonists was accepted as free and

voluntary."

_J. A. Doyle,

The American Colonies,

chapter 2._

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1644.

Fresh Indian outbreak and massacre of whites.

"After a peace of five or six years, the Indians, provoked by

continued encroachments on their lands, and instigated, it is

said, by the aged chief Opechancanough, formed a new scheme

for the extermination of the colonists. They were encouraged

by signs of discord among the English, having seen a fight in

James River between a London ship for the Parliament and a

Bristol ship for the king. Five hundred persons perished in

the first surprise, which took place, according to Winthrop,

the day before Good Friday, appointed by the governor, 'a

courtier, and very malignant toward the way of our churches,'

to be observed as a fast for the good success of the king. For

defense, the planters were concentrated in a few settlements;

… forts were built at the points most exposed; and a ship was

sent to Boston for powder, which, however, the General Court

declined to furnish. This occasion was taken by 'divers

godly-disposed persons' of Virginia to remove to New England.

… The Indians were presently driven from their fastnesses.

Opechancanough, decrepit and incapable of moving without

assistance, … was taken prisoner and carried to Jamestown,

where he was shot in the back by a vindictive soldier

appointed to guard him. The Indian towns were broken up, and

their 'clear lands possessed by the English to sow wheat in.'

Opechancanough's successor submitted; and a peace was made by

act of Assembly, the Indians ceding all the lands between

James and York Rivers. No Indian was to come south of York

River under pain of death. The Powhatan confederacy was

dissolved. The Indians of lower Virginia sunk into servile

dependence, and dwindled away, or, migrating to the south and

west, were mingled and confounded with other tribes."

_R. Hildreth,

History of the United States,

chapter 11 (volume 1)._

ALSO IN:

_J. E. Cooke,

Virginia,

part 2, chapter 5._

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1650-1660.

Under the Commonwealth and Cromwell, and the Stuart Restoration.

Two sides of the story.

Origin of the name of "The Old Dominion."

"After this, Sir William Berkeley [governor] made a new peace

with the Indians, which continued for a long time unviolated.

… But he himself did not long enjoy the benefit of this

profound peace; for the unhappy troubles of king Charles the

first increasing in England, proved a great disturbance to him

and to all the people. They, to prevent the infection from

reaching that country, made severe laws against the Puritans,

though there were as yet none among them. But all

correspondence with England was interrupted, supplies

lessened, and trade obstructed. … At last the king was

traitorously beheaded in England, and Oliver installed

Protector. However, his authority was not acknowledged in

Virginia for several years after, till they were forced to it

by the last necessity. For in the year 1651, by Cromwell's

command, Captain Dennis, with a squadron of men of war,

arrived there from the Carribbee islands, where they had been

subduing Bardoes. The country at first held out vigorously

against him, and Sir William Berkeley, by the assistance of

such Dutch vessels as were then there, made a brave

resistance.

{3632}

But at last Dennis contrived a stratagem which betrayed the

country. He had got a considerable parcel of goods aboard,

which belonged to two of the Council, and found a method of

informing them of it. By this means they were reduced to the

dilemma, either of submitting or losing their goods. This

occasioned factions among them; so that at last, after the

surrender of all the other English plantations, Sir William

was forced to submit to the usurper on the terms of a general

pardon. However, it ought to be remembered, to his praise, and

to the immortal honor of that colony, that it was the last of

all the king's dominions that submitted to the usurpation; and

afterwards the first that cast it off, and he never took any

post or office under the usurper. Oliver had no sooner subdued

the plantations, but he began to contrive how to keep them

under, that so they might never be able for the time to come

to give him farther trouble. To this end, he thought it

necessary to break off their correspondence with all other

nations, thereby to prevent their being furnished with arms,

ammunition, and other warlike provisions. According to this

design, he contrived a severe act of Parliament [1651],

whereby he prohibited the plantations from receiving or

exporting any European commodities but what should be carried

to them by Englishmen, and in English built ships. …

See NAVIGATION ACT, ENGLISH.

Notwithstanding this act of navigation, the Protector never

thought the plantations enough secured, but frequently changed

their governors, to prevent their intriguing with the people.

So that, during the time of the usurpation, they had no less

than three governors there, namely, Diggs, Bennet and Mathews.

The strange arbitrary curbs he put upon the plantations

exceedingly afflicted the people … and inspired them with a

desire to use the last remedy, to relieve themselves from this

lawless usurpation. In a short time afterwards a fair

opportunity happened; for Governor Mathews died, and no person

was substituted to succeed him in the government. Whereupon

the people applied themselves to Sir William Berkeley (who had

continued all this time upon his own plantation in a private

capacity) and unanimously chose him their governor again

[March, 1660]. Sir William … told the people … that if he

accepted the government it should be upon their solemn

promise, after his example, to venture their lives and

fortunes for the king, who was then in France. This was no

great obstacle to them, and therefore with an unanimous voice

they told him they were ready to hazard all for the king. …

Sir William Berkeley embraced their choice, and forthwith

proclaimed Charles II. king of England, Scotland, France,

Ireland and Virginia, and caused all process to be issued in

his name. Thus his majesty was actually king in Virginia

before he was so in England. But it pleased God to restore him

soon after to the throne of his ancestors."

_R. Beverley,

History of Virginia,

book 1, chapter 4._

"The government of Virginia, under the Commonwealth of

England, was mild and just. While Cromwell's sceptre commanded

the respect of the world, he exhibited generous and politic

leniency towards the infant and loyal colony. She enjoyed

during this interval free trade, legislative independence and

internal peace. The governors were men who by their virtues

and moderation won the confidence and affections of the

people. No extravagance, rapacity, or extortion, could be

alleged against the administration. Intolerance and

persecution were unknown, with the single exception of a

rigorous act banishing the Quakers. But rapine, extravagance,

extortion, intolerance and persecution were all soon to be

revived under the auspices of the Stuarts. … Richard Cromwell

resigned the protectorate in March, 1660. Matthews,

governor-elect, had died in the January previous. England was

without a monarch; Virginia without a governor. Here was a two

fold interregnum. The assembly, convening on the 13th of

March, 1660, declared by their first act that, as there was

then in England 'noe resident absolute and generall confessed

power,' therefore the supreme government of the colony should

rest in the assembly. By the second act, Sir William Berkeley

was appointed governor, and it was ordered that all writs

should issue in the name of the assembly. … No fact in our

history has been more misunderstood and misrepresented than

this reappointment of Sir William Berkeley, before the

restoration of Charles II. … Sir William was elected, not by a

tumultuary assemblage of the people, but by the assembly; the

royal standard was not raised upon the occasion, nor was the

king proclaimed. Sir William, however, made no secret of his

loyalty. … Sir William was elected on the 21st of the same

month, about two months before the restoration of Charles II.

Yet the word king, or majesty, occurs no where in the

legislative records, from the commencement of the Commonwealth

in England until the 11th of October, 1660—more than four

months after the restoration. Virginia was indeed loyal, but

she was too feeble to express her loyalty."

_C. Campbell,

Introduction to the History of the Colony

and Ancient Dominion of Virginia,

chapters 21-22._

"There is no doubt whatever that if the Virginians could have

restored the King earlier they would have done so; and

Berkeley, who is known to have been in close communication and

consultation with the leading Cavaliers, had sent word to

Charles II. in Holland, toward the end of the Commonwealth,

that he would raise his flag in Virginia if there was a

prospect of success. This incident has been called in

question. It is testified to by William Lee, Sheriff of

London, and a cousin of Richard Lee, Berkeley's emissary, as a

fact within his knowledge. Charles declined the offer, but was

always grateful to the Virginians. The country is said to have

derived from the incident the name of the 'Old Dominion,'

where the King was King, or might have been, before he was

King in England."

_J. E. Cooke,

Virginia,

part 2, chapter 10._

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1651-1672.

The English Navigation Acts and trade restrictions.

See NAVIGATION LAWS;

also UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1651-1672.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1660-1677.

The Restoration and its rewards to Virginia loyalty.

Oppression, discontent, and Bacon's Rebellion.

At the time of the restoration of the English monarchy, in the

person of Charles II., the colony of Virginia "numbered not

far from 50,000 souls, a large proportion of whom, especially,

we may suppose, those of middle life and most active habits,

were natives of the soil, bound to it by the strongest ties of

interest and affection, and by their hopes of what it was

destined to become in the opening future.

{3633}

Here was a state of things, comprising, in the apprehensions

of the people, many of the elements of the highest happiness

and prosperity. … But all this was totally and suddenly

changed, and universal distress brought upon the land, by the

new restrictive clauses added to the original Navigation Act,

by the first Parliament of Charles. By the act of the Long

Parliament it had been simply provided that foreign vessels

should import into England no other products than such as were

grown or manufactured in their own country; a shaft aimed

principally at the Dutch. … By Charles's Commons this first

hint was … expanded into a voluminous code of monopolizing

enactments, by which the trade of the world was regulated on

the principle of grasping for England every possible

commercial advantage, and inflicting upon all other nations

the greatest possible commercial injury. … Upon the colonies,

one and all, this cruel policy bore with a weight which almost

crushed them. … From 1660, when this monopolizing policy took

its beginning, the discontent of the people increased day by

day, as each new prohibition was proclaimed. Commerce lay

dead. Tobacco would no longer pay for its cultivation, much

less enrich the laborious planter; manufactures, as that of

silk, after being attempted, failed to bring the hoped-for

relief, and there seemed no prospect but starvation and ruin.

What wonder that mischief lay brewing in the hearts of a

people who, for their almost slavish loyalty, met only these

thankless returns of injury and injustice; for the Virginians

of that day were monarchists in the full meaning of the term.

… Other causes conspired with these purely political ones to

bring the public mind of Virginia into such a state of deep

exasperation as to find its relief only in insurrection. Of

these, one was particularly a source of irritation; namely,

the grants of vast tracts of territory, made by the wasteful

and profligate King to his needy and profligate favorites,

made wholly irrespective of present owners and occupiers, who

were transferred, like serfs of the soil, to any great

patentee to whom the caprice of Charles chose to consign

them." The discontent culminated in 1676, under the influence

of an excitement growing out of trouble with the Indians.

After more than thirty years of quiet, the natives became

hostile and threatening. "Various outrages were first

committed by the Indians, on whom the whites, as usual,

retaliated; murder answered to murder, burning to burning,

till, throughout the whole border country, were kindled the

flames of an exterminating Indian war, accompanied by all its

peculiar horrors. In the excited state of the public mind,

these new calamities were laid at the door of the government."

Governor Berkeley was accused of having an interest in the

profits of trade with the Indians which restrained him from

making war on them. Whether the charge was true or false, he

gave color to it by his conduct. He took no steps to protect

the colony. Nor would he authorize any self-defensive measures

on the part of the people themselves. They "went so far as to

engage that, if the Governor would only commission a general,

whomsoever he would, they would 'follow him at their own

charge.' Still they were not heard. Under such circumstances

of neglect and excessive irritation, they took the case into

their own hands." They chose for their leader Nathaniel Bacon,

a young Englishman of education, energy and talent, who had

been in the colony about three years, and who had already

attained a seat in the Governor's Council. Bacon accepted the

responsibility, "commission or no commission," and, in the

spring of 1676, put himself at the head of 500 men, with whom

he marched against the Indians. The governor, after formally

proclaiming him a rebel, raised another army and marched, not

against the Indians, but against Bacon. He was hardly out of

Jamestown, however, before the people of that neighborhood

rose and took possession of the capital. On learning of this

fresh revolt, he turned back, and found himself helpless to do

anything but submit. The result was the summoning of a new

Assembly, to which Bacon was elected from his county, and the

making of some progress, apparently, towards a curing of

abuses and the removing of causes of discontent. But something

occurred—exactly what has never been made clear—which led to

a sudden flight on Bacon's part from Jamestown, and the

gathering of his forces once more around him. Re-entering the

capital at their head, he extorted from Governor Berkeley a

commission which legalized his military office, and armed with

this authority he proceeded once more against the Indians.

"But as soon as he was sufficiently distant to relieve the

Governor and his friends from their fears, all that had been

granted was revoked; a proclamation was issued, again

denouncing Bacon as a rebel, setting a price upon his head,

and commanding his followers to disperse." Again, Bacon and

his army retraced their steps and took possession of

Jamestown, the governor flying to Accomac. A convention of the

inhabitants of the colony was then called together, which

adopted a Declaration, or Oath, in which they fully Identified

themselves with Bacon in his course, and swore to uphold him.

The latter then moved once more against the Indians; Berkeley

once more got possession of the seat of government, and, once

more, Bacon (who had fought the Indians meantime at Bloody Run

and beaten them) came back and drove him out. "The whole

country … was with Bacon, and merely a crowd of cowardly

adventurers about the Governor. Nothing would seem, at this

moment, to have stood between Bacon and the undisputed,

absolute control of the colony, had no unforeseen event

interposed, as it did, to change the whole aspect of affairs."

This unforeseen event was the sudden death of Bacon, which

occurred in January, 1677, at the house of a friend. "Some

mystery attaches to the manner of it," and there were, of

course, sinister whispers of foul play. "But, however and

wherever Bacon died, it could never be discovered where he was

buried, nor what disposition had been made of his body. … The

death of Bacon was, in effect, the restoration of Sir William

Berkeley to his lost authority, and the termination of the

war; there being not an individual, among either his

counsellors or officers, of capacity sufficient to make good

his place. … Berkeley, gradually subduing all opposition, and

making prisoners of many of the prime movers of the revolt, in

a short time saw the authority of his government completely

reestablished. … The historians of the period inform us that

no less than 25 persons were executed during the closing

period of the rebellion and the few next succeeding months."

_W. Ware,

Memoir of Nathaniel Baron

(Library of American Biographies, series 2, volume 3)._

ALSO IN:

_J. A. Doyle,

The English in America: Virginia, &c.,

chapter 9._

_J. Burk,

History of Virginia,

volume 2, chapter 4._

_G. Bancroft,

History of the United States (Author's last revision),

part 2, chapters 10-11._

_E. Eggleston,

Nathaniel Baron

(Century Magazine, July, 1890)._

{3634}

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1689-1690.

King William's War.

The first Colonial Congress.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1690;

and CANADA: A. D. 1689-1690.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1691.

The founding of William and Mary College.

See EDUCATION, MODERN: AMERICA: A. D. 1619-1819.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1696-1749.

Suppression of colonial manufactures.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1696-1749.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1710.

Colonization of Palatines.

See PALATINES.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1710-1716.

Crossing the Blue Ridge.

The Knights of the Golden Horseshoe.

Possession taken of the Shenandoah Valley.

"Lord Orkney is made Governor, but as usual sends his deputy,

and in the year 1710 appears the stalwart soldier and ruler,

Sir Alexander Spotswood. Alexander Spotswood, or Spottiswoode,

as his family were called in Scotland, rises like a landmark

above the first years of the century. When he came to Virginia

he was only 34 and in the bloom of his manhood. But he had

already fought hard, and his faculties as a soldier and ruler

were fully developed. … The Virginians received Spotswood with

open arms. He was a man after their own heart, and brought

with him when he came (June 1710) the great writ of Habeas

corpus. The Virginia people had long claimed that this right

was guaranteed to them by Magna Charta, since they were

equally free Englishmen with the people of England. Now it was

conceded, and the great writ came,—Spotswood's letter of

introduction. It was plain that he was not a new Berkeley

looking to the King's good pleasure as his law, or a new

Nicholson ready to imprison people or put halters around their

necks; but a respecter of human freedom and defender of the

right. … In … 1716, Governor Alexander Spotswood set out on an

expedition which much delighted the Virginians. There was a

very great longing to visit the country beyond the Blue Ridge.

That beautiful unknown land held out arms of welcome, and the

Governor, who had in his character much of the spirit of the

hunter and adventurer, resolved to go and explore it. Having

assembled a party of good companions, he set out in the month

of August, and the gay company began their march toward the

Blue Ridge Mountains. The chronicler of the expedition

describes the picturesque cavalcade followed by the

pack-horses and servants,—'rangers, pioneers, and Indians';

how they stopped to hunt game; bivouacked 'under the canopy';

laughed, jested, and regaled themselves with 'Virginia wine,

white and red, Irish usquebaugh, brandy, shrub, two kinds of

rum, champagne, canary, cherry-punch, and cider.' In due time

they reached the Blue Ridge, probably near the present Swift

Run Gap, and saw, beyond, the wild valley of the Shenandoah.

On the summit of the mountain they drank the health of the

King, and named two neighboring peaks 'Mt. George' and 'Mt.

Alexander,' after his Majesty and the Governor; after which

they descended into the valley and gave the Shenandoah the

name of the 'Euphrates.' Here a bottle was buried—there were,

no doubt, a number of empty ones—containing a paper to testify

that the valley of the Euphrates was taken possession of in

the name of his Majesty, George I. Then the adventurers

reascended the mountain, crossed to the lowland, and returned

to Williamsburg. This picturesque incident of the time gave

rise to the order of the 'Knights of the Golden Horseshoe.'

The horses had been shod with iron, which was unusual, as a

protection against the mountain roads; and Spotswood sent to

London and had made for his companions small golden horseshoes

set with garnets and other jewels, and inscribed 'Sic juvat

transcendere montes.'"

_J. E. Cooke,

Virginia,

part 2, chapters 21-22._

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1744.

Treaty with the Six Nations and

purchase of the Shenandoah Valley.

"The Six Nations still retained the right to traverse the

great valley west of the Blue Ridge. Just at this inopportune

moment [1743], some of their parties came into bloody

collision with the backwoodsmen of Virginia, who had

penetrated into that valley. Hostilities with the Six Nations,

now that war was threatened with France, might prove very

dangerous, and Clinton [governor of New York] hastened to

secure the friendship of these ancient allies by liberal

presents; for which purpose, in conjunction with commissioners

from New England, he held a treaty at Albany. … The

difficulties between Virginia and the Six Nations were soon

after [1744] settled in a treaty held at Lancaster, to which

Pennsylvania and Maryland were also parties, and in which, in

consideration of £400, the Six Nations relinquished all their

title to the valley between the Blue Ridge and the central

chain of the Allegany Mountains."

_R. Hildreth,

History of the United States,

chapter 25 (volume 2)._

ALSO IN:

_B. A. Hinsdale,

The Old Northwest,

page 59._

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1748-1754.

First movements beyond the mountains to

dispute possession with the French.

See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1748-1754.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1754.

Opposing the French occupation of the Ohio Valley.

Washington's first service.

See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1754.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1755-1760.

The French and Indian War.

Braddock's defeat and after.

See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1748-1754, 1754, 1755;

CANADA: A. D. 1750-1753, to 1760;

NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1749-1755, 1755;

and CAPE BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1758-1760.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1756.

Number of Slaves.

See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1756.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1759-1761.

The Cherokee War.

See SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1759-1761.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1763.

The Parsons' Cause and Patrick Henry.

"In Virginia as well as in Pennsylvania, a vigorous opposition

to vested rights foreshadowed what was to come. A short crop

of tobacco having suddenly enhanced the price of that staple,

or, what is quite as like]y, the issue of paper money in

Virginia, first made that same year [1755], having depreciated

the currency, the Assembly had passed a temporary act,

authorizing the payment of all tobacco debts in money at

twopence per pound—the old rate, long established by usage.

Three years after, under pretence of an expected failure of

the crop, this tender act was renewed.

{3635}

Francis Fauquier, who had just succeeded Dinwiddie as

lieutenant governor, a man of more complying temper than his

predecessor, readily consented to it. The salaries of the

parish ministers, some sixty-five in number, were payable in

tobacco. They were likely to be considerable losers by this

tender law; and, not content with attacking it in pamphlets,

they sent an agent to England, and by the aid of Sherlock,

bishop of London, procured an order in council pronouncing the

law void. Suits were presently brought to recover the

difference between twopence per pound in the depreciated

currency and the tobacco to which by law the ministers were

entitled. In defending one of these suits [1763], the

remarkable popular eloquence of Patrick Henry displayed itself

for the first time. Henry was a young lawyer, unconnected with

the ruling aristocracy of the province, and as yet without

reputation or practice. The law was plainly against him, and

his case seemed to be hopeless. He had, however, a strong

support in the prevailing prejudice in favor of the tender

law, and in the dissatisfaction generally felt at the king's

veto upon it. Addressing the jury in a torrent of eloquence as

brilliant as it was unexpected, he prevailed upon them to give

him a verdict. The Assembly voted money to defend all suits

which the parsons might bring; and, notwithstanding their

clear legal right in the matter, they thought it best to

submit without further struggle."

_R. Hildreth,

History of the United States,

chapter 27 (volume 2)._

ALSO IN:

_W. Wirt,

Life of Patrick Henry,

chapter 1._

_M. C. Tyler,

Patrick Henry,

chapter 4._

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1763-1766.

The question of taxation by Parliament.

The Stamp Act and Patrick Henry's resolutions.

The First Continental Congress.

The repeal of the Stamp Act and the Declaratory Act.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1760-1775; 1763-1764; 1765; and 1766.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1766-1773.

Opening events of the Revolution.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1766-1767, to 1772-1773;

and BOSTON: A. D. 1770, to 1773.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1768.

The boundary treaty with the Six Nations at Fort Stanwix.

Pretended cession of lands south of the Ohio.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1765-1768.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1769.

Attempted prohibition of Slave Trade nullified by George III.

See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1713-1776.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1769-1772.

The first settlement of Tennessee.

The Watauga Association.

See TENNESSEE: A. D. 1769-1772.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1774.

Western territorial claims of the Old Dominion.

Lord Dunmore's War with the Indians.

See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1774;

and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1781-1786.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1774.

The Boston Port Bill, the Massachusetts Bill,

and the Quebec Act.

The First Continental Congress.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1774.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1775.

The beginning of the War of the American Revolution.

Lexington.

Concord.

The country in arms.

Ticonderoga.

The Siege of Boston.

Bunker Hill.

The Second Continental Congress.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1775.

The end of Royal Government.

Lord Dunmore's flight.

Not long after the excited demonstrations which followed

Governor Dunmore's removal of powder from the public magazine

at Williamsburg, the governor received Lord North's

"conciliatory proposition," and "he convened the House of

Burgesses, on the 1st of June, to take it into consideration.

This withdrew Peyton Randolph from Congress, as had been

anticipated, and Mr. Jefferson succeeded to the vacancy. But

the latter was not permitted to leave the Burgesses before an

answer to the ministerial proposition was framed. … How much

the answer was 'enfeebled' by the doubts and scruples of the

moderate members, we cannot say, but it rings true

revolutionary metal, and it was a noble lead off for the

Assemblies of the other Colonies. … The House, after the

customary expression of a desire for reconciliation, declare

that they have examined it (the Ministerial proposition)

minutely, viewed it in every light in which they are able, and

that, 'with pain and disappointment, they must ultimately

declare that it only changed the form of oppression without

lightening its burden.' … In the meantime events had

transpired which soon afterwards terminated the official

career of the Earl of Dunmore, and with it the royal

government in Virginia. On the 5th of June, three men who

entered the public magazine were wounded by a spring gun

placed there by the orders of the Governor, and on the 7th, a

committee of the House, appointed to inspect the magazine,

found the locks removed from the serviceable muskets, and they

also discovered the powder which had been placed in mine.

These things highly exasperated the multitude, and on a rumor

getting abroad that the same officer who had before carried

off the powder was again advancing towards the city with an

armed force, they rose in arms. The Governor's assurance that

the rumor was unfounded restored tranquillity. He, however,

left the city in the night with his family and went on board

the Fowey, lying at York, twelve miles distant. He left a

message declaring that he had taken this step for his safety,

and that thenceforth he should reside and transact business on

board of the man of war! An interchange of messages, acrid and

criminatory on his part, firm and spirited on the part of the

House, was kept up until the 24th of June; when, on his final

refusal to receive bills for signature except under the guns

of an armed vessel, the House declared it a high breach of

privilege, and adjourned to the 12th of October. But a quorum

never afterwards attended. … We soon find the Earl of Dunmore

carrying on a petty but barbarous predatory warfare against

the people he had so lately governed."

_H. S. Randall,

Life of Jefferson,

volume 1, chapter 3._

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1775-1776.

Lord Dunmore's warfare.

Norfolk destroyed.

"Having drawn together a considerable force, Dunmore ascended

Elizabeth River to the Great Bridge, the only pass by which

Norfolk can be approached from the land side; dispersed some

North Carolina militia collected there; made several

prisoners; and then, descending the river [November 1775],

took possession of Norfolk. The rise of that town had been

very rapid. Within a short time past it had become the

principal shipping port of Virginia.

{3636}

Its population amounted to several thousands, among whom were

many Scotch traders not well disposed to the American cause.

Fugitive slaves and others began now to flock to Dunmore's

standard. A movement was made in his favor on the east shore

of Maryland, which it required a thousand militia to suppress.

The Convention of Virginia, not a little alarmed, voted four

additional regiments, afterward increased to seven, all of

which were presently taken into continental pay. … Woodford,

with the second Virginia regiment, took possession of the

causeway leading to the Great Bridge, which was still held by

Dunmore's troops. An attempt to dislodge the Virginians having

failed, with loss, Dunmore abandoned the bridge and the town,

and again embarked. Norfolk was immediately occupied by

Woodford, who was promptly joined by Howe's regiment from

North Carolina. After a descent on the eastern shore of

Virginia [January, 1776], to whose aid marched two companies

of Maryland minute men, being re-enforced by the arrival of a

British frigate, Dunmore bombarded Norfolk. A party landed and

set it on fire. … The part which escaped was presently burned

by the provincials, to prevent it from becoming a shelter to

the enemy. Thus perished, a prey to civil war, the largest and

richest of the rising towns of Virginia. Dunmore continued,

during the whole summer, a predatory warfare along the rivers,

of which his naval superiority gave him the command, burning

houses and plundering plantations, from which he carried off

upward of 1,000 slaves. He was constantly changing his place

to elude attack; but watched, pursued, and harassed, he

finally found it necessary to retire to St. Augustine with his

adherents and his plunder."

_R. Hildreth,

History of the United States,

chapter 32 (volume 3)._

ALSO IN:

_C. Campbell,

Introduction to History of Virginia.,

chapter 33_.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1775-1784.

The exercise of sovereignty over Kentucky.

See KENTUCKY: A. D. 1775-1784.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1776.

Independence declared and a Constitution adopted.

Declaration of Rights.

"There was a sudden change in public sentiment; and the idea

of independence, said to be alarming to Virginians in March

[1776] was welcome to them in April. One writes on the 2d:

'Independence is now the talk here. … It will be very soon, if

not already, a favorite child.' Another, on the 12th, writes:

'I think almost every man, except the treasurer, is willing to

declare for independence.'" On the 23d, the Charlotte County

Committee charged its delegates in convention to use their

best endeavors "that the delegates which are sent to the

General Congress be instructed immediately to cast off the

British yoke." On the next day, a majority of the freeholders

of James City took similar action. "In May, the avowals for

independence were numerous. In this spirit and with such aims,

a new convention was chosen, and on the 6th of May met in

Williamsburg. It contained illustrious men,—among them, James

Madison, in the twenty-fifth year of his age; George Mason, in

the maturity of his great powers; Richard Bland, Edmund

Pendleton, and Patrick Henry, rich in Revolutionary fame. … On

the 14th of May the convention went into a committee of the

whole on the state of the colony, with Archibald Carey in the

chair; when Colonel Nelson submitted a preamble and

resolutions on independence, prepared by Pendleton. These were

discussed in two sittings of the committee, and then reported

to the House. They were opposed chiefly by delegates from the

Eastern District, but were advocated by Patrick Henry, and

passed unanimously when 112 members were present,—about 20

absenting themselves. This paper enumerated the wrongs done to

the colonies … and instructed the delegates appointed to

represent the colony in the General Congress 'to propose to

that respectable body to declare the United Colonies free and

independent States,' and to 'give the assent of the colony to

measures to form foreign alliances and a

confederation,—provided the power of forming government for

the internal regulations of each colony be left to the

colonial legislatures.' The same paper also provided for a

committee to form a plan of government for Virginia. This

action was transmitted by the President to the other

assemblies, accompanied by a brief circular. … It was hailed

by the patriots in other colonies with enthusiasm. … The

convention agreed (June 12) upon the famous Declaration of

Rights declaring all men equally free and independent, all

power vested in and derived from the people, and that

government ought to be for the common benefit; also that all

men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion

according to the dictates of conscience. It also complied with

the recommendation of Congress, by forming a constitution and

electing a governor and other officers."

_R. Frothingham,

The Rise of the Republic,

chapter 11._

ALSO IN:

_H. B. Grigsby,

The Virginia Convention of 1776._

_W. C. Rives,

Life and Times of Madison,

volume 1, chapter 5._

_K. M. Rowland,

Life of George Mason,

volume 1, chapter 7._

See, also, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776-1779.

The following is the text of the Declaration of Rights:

"A Declaration of Rights, made by the Representatives of the

good People of Virginia, assembled in full and free

Convention, which rights do pertain to them and their

posterity as the basis and foundation of government.

I. That all men are by nature equally free and independent,

and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter

into a state of society, they cannot by any compact, deprive

or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and

liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property,

and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.

II. That all power is vested in, and consequently derived

from, the people; that magistrates are their trustees and

servants, and at all times amenable to them.

III. That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the

common benefit, protection and security of the people, nation

or community; of all the various modes and forms of

government, that is best which is capable of producing the

greatest degree of happiness and safety, and is most

effectually secured against the danger of maladministration;

and that, when a government shall be found inadequate or

contrary to these purposes, a majority of the community hath

an indubitable, unalienable and indefeasible right to reform,

alter or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most

conducive to the public weal.

{3637}

IV. That no man, or set of men, are entitled to exclusive or

separate emoluments or privileges from the community but in

consideration of public services, which not being descendible,

neither ought the offices of magistrate, legislator or judge

to be hereditary.

V. That the legislative, executive and judicial powers should

be separate and distinct; and that the members thereof may be

restrained from oppression, by feeling and participating the

burthens of the people, they should, at fixed periods, be

reduced to a private station, return into that body from which

they were originally taken, and the vacancies be supplied by

frequent, certain and regular elections, in which all, or any

part of the former members to be again eligible or ineligible,

as the laws shall direct.

VI. That all elections ought to be free, and that all men

having sufficient evidence of permanent common interest with,

and attachment to the community, have the right of suffrage,

and cannot be taxed, or deprived of their property for public

uses, without their own consent, or that of their

representatives so elected, nor bound by any law to which they

have not in like manner assented, for the public good.

VII. That all power of suspending laws, or the execution of

laws, by any authority, without consent of the representatives

of the people, is injurious to their rights, and ought not to

be exercised.

VIII. That in all capital or criminal prosecutions, a man hath

a right to demand the cause and nature of his accusation, to

be confronted with the accusers and witnesses, to call for

evidence in his favor, and to a speedy trial by an impartial

jury of twelve men of his vicinage, without whose unanimous

consent he cannot be found guilty; nor can he be compelled to

give evidence against himself; that no man be deprived of his

liberty, except by the law of the land or the judgment of his

peers.

IX. That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor

excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments

inflicted.

X. That general warrants, whereby an officer or messenger may

be commanded to search suspected places without evidence of a

fact committed, or to seize any person or persons not named,

or whose offence is not particularly described and supported

by evidence, are grievous and oppressive, and ought not to be

granted.

XI. That in controversies respecting property, and in suits

between man and man, the ancient trial by jury of twelve men

is preferable to any other, and ought to be held sacred.

XII. That the freedom of the press is one of the great

bulwarks of liberty, and can never be restrained but by

despotic governments.

XIII. That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of

the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural and safe

defence of a free State; that standing armies in time of

peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in

all cases the military should be under strict subordination

to, and governed by, the civil power.

XIV. That the people have a right to uniform government; and

therefore, that no government separate from or independent of

the government of Virginia, ought to be erected or established

within the limits thereof.

XV. That no free government, or the blessing of liberty, can

be preserved to any people, but by a firm adherence to

justice, moderation, temperance, frugality and virtue, and by

a frequent recurrence to fundamental principles.

XVI. That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator,

and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by

reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore

all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion,

according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the

duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love and

charity towards each other.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1776-1779.

The war in the north.

The Articles of Confederation.

Alliance with France.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776, to 1779.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1776-1808.

Antislavery opinion and the causes of its disappearance.

See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1776-1808.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1778.

Suppression of the Transylvania Company in Kentucky.

See KENTUCKY: A. D. 1765-1778.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1778-1779.

Clark's conquest of the Northwest and its organization

under the jurisdiction of Virginia.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1778-1779 CLARK'S CONQUEST.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1779.

British coast raids, at Norfolk and elsewhere.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1778-1779 WASHINGTON GUARDING THE HUDSON.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1779-1786.

Settlement of boundaries with Pennsylvania.

The Pan-handle.

"In 1779 commissioners appointed by the two States met at

Baltimore to agree upon the common boundaries of Pennsylvania

and Virginia. … On both sides there was an evident desire to

end the dispute. Various lines were proposed and rejected. On

August 31 the commissioners signed this agreement: 'To extend

Mason and Dixon's line due west five degrees of longitude, to

be computed from the River Delaware, for the southern boundary

of Pennsylvania, and that a meridian line drawn from the

western extremity thereof to the northern limit of the said

State be the western boundary of Pennsylvania forever.' This

contract was duly ratified by the legislatures of the two

States. In 1785 Mason and Dixon's line was extended, and the

southwestern corner of Pennsylvania established. The

'Pan-handle' is what was left of Virginia east of the Ohio

River and north of Mason and Dixon's line, after the boundary

was run from this point to Lake Erie in 1786. … It received

its name in legislative debate from Honorable John McMillan,

delegate from Brooke County, to match the Accomac projection,

which he dubbed the Spoonhandle."

_B. A. Hinsdale,

The Old Northwest,

page 109 and foot-note._

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1780-1783.

The war in the South.

Arnold's ravages.

Lafayette's campaign.

Surrender of Cornwallis.

Peace with Great Britain.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1780, to 1783.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1784.

Cession of Western territorial claims to the United States.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1781-1786.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1787-1788.

The formation and adoption of the Federal Constitution.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1787; and 1787-1789.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1791-1792.

Separation of Kentucky and its admission

to the Union as a State.

See KENTUCKY: A. D. 1789-1792.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1798.

The Nullifying Resolutions of Madison.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1798.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1808.

The Embargo and its effects.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1804-1809; and 1808.

{3638}

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1813.

The coasts raided by British naval parties.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1812-1813 INDIFFERENCE TO THE NAVY.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1831.

The Nat Turner insurrection of Slaves.

See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1828-1832.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1859.

John Brown's invasion at Harper's Ferry.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1859.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1861 (January-June).

Attempted peace-making.

The State carried into rebellion.

Separation of West Virginia, which adheres to the Union.

"Early in January, 1861, the Virginia Assembly met at Richmond

to determine the action of the Commonwealth in the approaching

struggle. It was plain that war was coming unless the

authorities of the United States and of the seceding States

would listen to reason; and the first proceedings of the

Assembly looked to peace and the restoration of fraternal

union. Virginia recommended to all the States to appoint

deputies to a Peace Convention. …

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1861 (FEBRUARY) THE PEACE CONVENTION].

Thus ended in failure the first attempt of Virginia to

preserve the national peace; and the crisis demanded that she

should promptly decide upon her course. On February 13 (1861)

a Convention assembled at Richmond, and a Committee was

appointed on Federal Relations. On March 10 (1861), this

Committee reported fourteen resolutions protesting against all

interference with slavery; declaring secession to be a right;

and defining the grounds on which the Commonwealth would feel

herself to be justified in exercising that right, namely: the

failure to obtain guarantees; the adoption of a warlike policy

by the Government of the United States; or the attempt to

exact the payment of duties from the seceded States, or to

reënforce or recapture the Southern forts. These resolves

clearly define the attitude of Virginia at this critical

moment. After prolonged discussion, all but the last had

passed the Convention when intelligence came that war had

begun. The thunder of cannon from Charleston harbor broke up

the political discussion. … Mr. Lincoln had expressed himself

in his inaugural with perfect plainness. Secession was

unlawful, and the Union remained unbroken; it was his duty to

execute the laws, and he should perform it. To execute the

laws it was necessary to have an army; and (April 15, 1861)

President Lincoln issued his proclamation calling for 75,000

troops from the States remaining in the Union. The direct

issue was thus presented, and Virginia was called upon to

decide the momentous question whether she would fight against

the South or against the North. … As late as the first week in

April the Convention had refused to secede by a vote of 89 to

45. Virginia was conscientiously following her old traditions

and would not move. Now the time had come at last. … On the

17th of April, two days after the Federal proclamation, the

Convention passed an ordinance of secession and adhesion to

the Southern Confederacy, by a vote of 88 to 55, which was

ratified by the people by a majority of 96,750 votes, out of a

total of 161,018. West Virginia refused to be bound by the

action of the Convention, and became a separate State, but the

Virginia of the Tidewater and Valley went with the South."

_J. E. Cooke,

Virginia,

part 3, chapter 22._

"Of the 46 delegates from the territory now comprising West

Virginia, 29 voted against [the ordinance of secession], 9 for

it, 7 were absent and one excused. Those who voted against it

hastened to leave the city," and, on reaching their homes,

became generally the leaders of a movement to separate their

section of the State from the Old Dominion. On the 13th of May

a convention of delegates from the counties of Northwestern

Virginia was held at Wheeling, by the action of which a more

general convention was called and held at the same place on

the 11th day of June. The latter convention assumed the power

to reorganize the government of the State of Virginia.

_V. A. Lewis,

History of West Virginia,

chapter 21-23._

ALSO IN: J. G. Nicolay and J. Hay,

_Abraham Lincoln,

volume 3, chapter 25,

and volume 4, chapter 19._

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1861 (April).

Governor Letcher's reply to President Lincoln's call for troops.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (APRIL).

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1861 (April).

Seizure of Harper's Ferry and Norfolk Navy Yard.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1861 (APRIL). ACTIVITY OF REBELLION.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1861 (June-November).

The loyal State government organized in West Virginia.

Steps taken toward separation from the old State.

A Convention held on the 11th of June in West Virginia

declared the State offices of Virginia vacant by reason of the

treason of those who had been elected to hold them, and

proceeded to form a regular State organization, with Francis

H. Pierpont for the executive head. Maintaining that the loyal

people were entitled to speak for the whole State they

declared that their government was the government of Virginia.

They subsequently admitted delegates from Alexandria and

Fairfax Counties in Middle Virginia and from Accomac and

Northampton Counties on the eastern shore. Thus organized, the

government was acknowledged by Congress as the government of

Virginia and senators and representatives were admitted to

seats. The Pierpont Government, as it was called, then adopted

an ordinance on the 20th of August, 1861, providing "for the

formation of a new State out of a portion of the territory of

this State." The ordinance was approved by a vote of the

people, and on the 26th of November the Convention assembled

in Wheeling to frame a constitution for the new government.

_J. G. Blaine,

Twenty Years of Congress,

volume 1, chapter 21._

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1861 (July).

Richmond made the capital of the Southern Confederacy.

"The Conspiracy had no intention originally of establishing

its seat of government at Richmond. That was a part of the

price exacted by Virginia for her secession, and it was not

paid without reluctance. It is to be remembered that at that

time every thing seemed to turn on what the Border States

would do. … By establishing the seat of government at

Richmond, it became certain that the most powerful of the

Southern armies would always be present in Virginia. If

Virginia had been abandoned, all the Border States would have

gone with the North. … The Confederates having determined on

the transfer of their seat of government to Richmond, the

necessary preparations were completed, and their Congress

opened its first session in that city on the 20th of July,

1861."

_J. W. Draper,

History of the American Civil War,

chapter 39 (volume 2)._

{3639}

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1861-1865.

The Battleground of the Civil War.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1861 (MAY: VIRGINIA), and after.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1862 (April-November).

The separation of West Virginia consummated.

See WEST VIRGINIA: A. D. 1862 (APRIL-DECEMBER).

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1865.

The last meeting of the Secession Legislature.

President Lincoln's Permit.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (APRIL: VIRGINIA).

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1865.

Recognition of the Pierpont State Government

by President Johnson.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (MAY-JULY).

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1865-1870.

Reconstruction.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1865 (MAY-JULY), to 1868-1870.

----------VIRGINIA: End--------

VIRGINIA, University of.

"In 1816 the Legislature of Virginia authorized the president

and directors of the Literary Fund to report a plan for a

university at the next session of the Assembly. The committee

made a full report as requested, but nothing was accomplished

beyond bringing the subject of education prominently before

the people. At the legislative session of 1817-18 that part of

the bill relating to a university and the education of the

poor was passed. … In the bill authorizing the establishment

of the university, it was provided that the sum of $45,000 per

annum should be given for the education of the poor, and

$15,000 to the university. The commissioners having reported

in favor of Central College as the most convenient place in

Albemarle County, the Legislature decided, after much

discussion, to locate the university at Charlottesville, and

to assume the property and site of Central College. The

commissioners embodied in their report an exhaustive plan for

a university, chiefly from the pen of Thomas Jefferson."

_F. W. Blackmar,

History of Federal and State Aid to Higher Education

in the United States,

(Bureau of Education, Circular of Information,

1890, number 1), pages 174-175._

ALSO IN:

_H. B. Adams,

Thomas Jefferson and the University of Virginia

(Bureau of Education, Circular of Information,

1888, number 1)._

VIRGINIA, West.

See WEST VIRGINIA.

VIROCONIUM.

See URICONIUM.

VISCONTI, The House of the.

See MILAN: A. D. 1277-1447.

VISIGOTHS.

See GOTHS.

VITALIAN, Pope, A. D. 657-672.

VITELLIAN CIVIL WAR.

See ROME: A. D. 69.

VITELLIUS, Roman Emperor, A. D. 69.

VITEPSK, Battle of.

See RUSSIA: A. D. 1812 (JUNE-SEPTEMBER).

VITTORIA, Battle of (1813).

See SPAIN: A. D. 1812-1814.

VIZIR,

VIZIER.

"Like the Sassanian emperors, the Caliph was not only the

divinely appointed ruler, but the embodiment of the government

itself. His word was literally law, and his caprice might at

any moment overturn the most careful calculations of the

ministers, or deprive them of life, power, or liberty, during

the performance of their most active duties, or at a most

critical juncture. It was very seldom, however, that this

awful personage condescended to trouble himself about the

actual details of the executive government. The Vizier, as the

word implies [Vizier, in Arabic Wazir, means 'One who bears a

burden,'—Foot-note], was the one who bore the real burden of

the State, and it was both his interest and that of the people

at large to keep the Caliph himself as inactive as possible,

and to reduce him, in fact, to the position of a mere puppet."

_E. H. Palmer,

Haroun Alraschid, Caliph of Bagdad,

chapter. 1._

See, also, SUBLIME PORTE.

VLADIMIR I. (called The Great)

Duke of Kiev, A. D. 981-1015.

VLADIMIR II., Duke of Kiev, 1113-1126.

VOCATES, The.

See AQUITAINE: THE ANCIENT TRIBES.

VOCLAD, OR VOUGLÉ, Battle of.

See GOTHS (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 507-509.

VOCONIAN LAW.

The object of the Voconian Law, passed at Rome about 169 B. C.

under the auspices of Cato the censor, "was to limit the

social influence of women, by forbidding rich citizens to make

them heiresses of more than one half of their whole estate."

_W. Ihne,

History of Rome,

book 6, chapter 12 (volume 4)._

VODIÆ, The.

See IRELAND: TRIBES OF EARLY CELTIC INHABITANTS.

VOIVODES,

WOIWODES.

See POLAND: A. D. 1578-1652;

also BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: A. D. 1341-1350 (SERVIA).

VOLATERRÆ, Siege of.

Some remnants of the armies defeated by Sulla, in the civil

war which ended in his mastery of Rome and the Roman state (B.

C. 82), took refuge in the strong Etruscan town of Volaterræ,

and only capitulated after a siege of two years.

_W. Ihne,

History of Rome,

book 7, chapter 19 (volume 5)._

VOLCÆ, The.

"When the Romans entered the south of France, two tribes

occupied the country west of the Rhone as far at least as

Tolosa (Toulouse) on the Garonne. The eastern people, named

the Volcae Arecomici, possessed the part between the Cebenna

or Cevenna range (Cevennes), the Rhone, and the Mediterranean,

and according to Strabo extended to Narbonne. The chief town

of these Volcae was Nemausus (Nismes). The Volcae Tectosages

had the upper basin of the Garonne: their chief town was

Tolosa."

_G. Long,

Decline of the Roman Republic,

volume 1, chapter 21._

VOLSCIAN WARS OF ROME.

See ROME: B. C. 489-450.

VOLSCIANS, The.

See OSCANS; also ITALY, ANCIENT; and LATIUM.

VOLTA, Battle of (1848).

See ITALY: A. D. 1848-1849.

VOLTURNO, Battle of the (1860).

See ITALY: A. D. 1859-1861.

VOLUNTII, The.

See BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES;

also, IRELAND: TRIBES OF EARLY CELTIC INHABITANTS.

VRACHOPHAGOS, Battle of (1352).

See CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 1348-1355.

VROEDSCHAP, The.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1584-1585

LIMITS OF THE UNITED PROVINCES.

VULCANAL AT ROME, The.

"The Vulcanal, or, as it is called by Livy, the Area Vulcani,

must have been close to the Senaculum [early meeting place of

the Senate], on the slope of the Capitol. It seems to have

been originally an open space of some extent, used for public

meetings, especially those of the Comitia Tributa, and

dedicated to Vulcan. Sacrifices of small fish were offered to

Vulcan here, and a temple dedicated to that god stood also

here in the earliest times, but it was afterwards, on the

enlargement of the pomœrium beyond the Palatine, removed for

religious reasons to the Circus Flaminius, and the Vulcanal

became simply a consecrated area."

_R. Burn,

Rome and the Campagna,

chapter 6, part 1._

_C. I. Hemans,

Historic and Monumental Rome,

page 209._

{3640}

VULGAR ERA.

See ERA, CHRISTIAN.

W.

WAARTGELDERS.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1603-1619.

WABASH RIVER:

Called the River St. Jerome by the French (1712).

See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1698-1712.

WABENAKIES, OR ABNAKIS.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ABNAKIS.

WACOS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.

WAGER OF BATTLE.

TRIAL BY COMBAT.

JUDICIAL COMBAT.

"Trial by combat does not seem to have established itself

completely in France till ordeals went into disuse, which

Charlemagne rather encouraged, and which, in his age, the

clergy for the most part approved. The former species of

decision may, however, be met with under the first Merovingian

kings (Greg. Turon, l. vii. c. 19, l. x. c. 10), and seems to

have prevailed in Burgundy. It is established by the laws of

the Alemanni or Suabians. Baluz. t. i. p. 80. It was always

popular in Lombardy. … Otho II. established it in al disputes

concerning real property. … God, as they deemed, was the

judge. The nobleman fought on horseback, with all his arms of

attack and defence; the plebeian on foot, with his club and

target. The same were the weapons of the champions to whom

women and ecclesiastics were permitted to intrust their

rights. If the combat was intended to ascertain a civil right,

the vanquished party, of course, forfeited his claim and paid

a fine. If he fought by proxy, the champion was liable to have

his hand struck off: a regulation necessary, perhaps, to

obviate the corruption of these hired defenders. In criminal

cases the appellant suffered, in the event of defeat, the same

punishment which the law awarded to the offence of which he

accused his adversary. Even where the cause was more peaceably

tried, and brought to a regular adjudication by the court, an

appeal for false judgment might indeed be made to the

suzerain, but it could only be tried by battle. And in this,

the appellant, if he would impeach the concurrent judgment of

the court below, was compelled to meet in combat everyone of

its members; unless he should vanquish them all within the

day, his life, if he escaped from so many hazards, was

forfeited to the law. If fortune or miracle should make him

conqueror in every contest, the judges were equally subject to

death, and their court forfeited their jurisdiction for ever.

… Such was the judicial system of France when St. Louis [A. D.

1226-1270] enacted that great code which bears the name of his

Establishments. The rules of civil and criminal procedure, as

well as the principles of legal decisions, are there laid down

with much detail. But that incomparable prince, unable to

overthrow the judicial combat, confined himself to discourage

it by the example of a wiser jurisprudence. It was abolished

throughout the royal domains." Trial by combat "was never

abolished by any positive law, either in France [at large] or

England. But instances of its occurrence are not frequent even

in the fourteenth century."

_H. Hallam,

The Middle Ages,

chapter 2, part 2 (volume 1)._

"Nor was the wager of battle confined to races of Celtic or

Teutonic origin. The Slavonic tribes, as they successively

emerge into the light of history, show the same tendency to

refer doubtful points of civil and criminal law to the

arbitrament of the sword. The earliest records of Hungary,

Bohemia, Poland, Servia, Silesia, Moravia, Pomerania,

Lithuania, and Russia, present evidences of the prevalence of

the system." The last recorded instance of the wager of battle

in France was in 1549. "In England, the resolute conservatism,

which resists innovation to the last, prolonged the existence

of the wager of battle until a period unknown in other

civilized nations. … It was not until the time of Elizabeth

that it was even abolished in civil cases. … Even in the 17th

century, instances of the battle ordeal between persons of

high station are on record." As late as 1818 the right was

claimed and conceded by the judges, in a criminal case which

caused much excitement. "The next year the act 59 Geo. III.

chap. 46, at length put an end for ever to this last remnant

of the age of chivalry."

_H. C. Lea,

Superstition and Force,

chapter 2._

See, also, LAW, CRIMINAL: A. D. 1818.

WAGER OF LAW.

"This was the remarkable custom which was subsequently known

as canonical compurgation, and which long remained a part of

English jurisprudence, under the name of the Wager of Law. The

defendant, when denying the allegation under oath, appeared

surrounded by a number of companions—'juratores,'

'conjuratores,' 'sacramentales,' 'collaudantes,'

'compurgatores,' as they were variously termed—who swore, not

to their knowledge of the facts, but as sharers and partakers

in the oath of denial. This curious form of procedure derives

importance from the fact that it is an expression of the

character, not of an isolated sept, but of nearly all the

races that have moulded the destinies of Europe. The

Ostrogoths in Italy, and the Wisigoths of the South of France

and Spain were the only nations in whose codes it occupies no

place, and they, … at an early period, yielded themselves

completely to the influence of the Roman civilization. … The

church, with the tact which distinguished her dealings with

her new converts, was not long in adopting a system which was

admirably suited for her defence in an age of brute force."

_H. C. Lea,

Superstition and Force,

chapter 1._

On the abolition of the Wager of Law.

See LAW, COMMON: A. D. 1833.

WAGNER, Fort,

The assault on, the siege, and the final reduction of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1863 (JULY: SOUTH CAROLINA),

and (AUGUST-DECEMBER: SOUTH CAROLINA).

WAGRAM, Battle of.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1809 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).

{3641}

WAHABEES, The.

"The Wahabees derive their name from Abdul Wahab, the father

of Sheikh Muhammad, their founder, who arose about the

beginning of the last century, in the province of Najd, in

Arabia. The object of the Wahabee movement was to sweep away

all later innovations, and to return to the original purity of

Islam, as based upon the exact teaching of the Koran and the

example of Mahomet. The principles of the sect rapidly spread

among the Arab tribes, and were adopted by the sovereign

princes of Darayeh, in Najd. Impelled by religious zeal and

political ambition, and allured by the prospect of plunder,

the Wahabees soon acquired nearly the whole of Arabia, and

menaced the neighbouring Pashaliks of Turkey and Egypt. Mecca

and Medina soon fell into their hands, the shrine was

despoiled of its rich ornaments, and the pilgrim route to the

Kaaba closed for some years. Early in this century (1811),

Muhammad Ali, the Pasha of Egypt, at the bidding of the

Sultan, set himself to check the progress of this aggressive

sect; and his son Ibrahim Pasha completed the work (1818). …

The following particulars of the Wahabee reform need only be

added. They reject the decisions of the 'four orthodox

doctors,' and the intercessions of saints; they condemn the

excessive reverence paid to Mahomet, and deny his mediation,

until the last day. They also disapprove of the ornamenting of

tombs, &c."

_J. W. H. Stobart,

Islam and its Founder,

chapter 10, with foot-note._

ALSO IN:

_W. C. Taylor,

History of Mohammedanism and its Sects,

chapter 11._

_T. Nöldeke,

Sketches from Eastern History,

page 103._

WAHLSTADT, Battle of (1241).

See MONGOLS: A. D. 1229-1294;

and LIEGNITZ, THE BATTLE OF.

WAHPETONS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY.

WAIILATPUAN FAMILY, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: WAIILATPUAN FAMILY.

WAIKAS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: CARIBS AND THEIR KINDRED.

WAITANGI, Treaty of.

See NEW ZEALAND: A. D. 1642-1856.

WAITZEN, Battles of(1849).

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848-1849.

WAIWODES,

WOIWODES,

VOIVODES.

See POLAND: A. D. 1578-1652;

and BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: A. D. 1341-1356 (SERVIA).

WAKASHAN FAMILY, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: WAKASHAN FAMILY.

WAKEFIELD, Battle of (1460).

Queen Margaret, rallying the loyal Lancastrians of the north

of England, met her enemy, the Duke of York, and the enemies

of her party, on Wakefield Green, December 30, 1460, and

defeated them with great slaughter, the Duke of York being

found among the slain. But her fruitless victory was soon

reversed by young Edward, Earl of March, eldest son of the

deceased Duke of York, who deposed King Henry VI. and planted

himself on the throne, before the same winter had passed.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1455-1471.

WAKEFIELD SYSTEM, The.

See AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1800-1840.

WALCHEREN EXPEDITION, The.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1809 (JULY-DECEMBER).

WALDEMAR.

See VALDEMAR.

WALDENSES,

VAUDOIS, The.

"Let me at the outset express my conviction that the whole

attempt to ascribe to the Waldenses an earlier date than the

latter half of the 12th century, to throw back their origin

some two hundred years, or sometimes much more than this, even

to the times of Claudius of Turin (d. 839), is one which will

not stand the test of historical criticism; while the

endeavour to vindicate for them this remote antiquity has

introduced infinite confusion into their whole history. The

date of Waldo, who, as I cannot doubt, is rightly recognized

as their founder, we certainly know. When it is sought to get

rid of their relation to him as embodied in the very name

which they bear, and to change this name into Vallenses, the

Men of the Valleys or the Dalesmen, it is a transformation

which has no likelihood, philological or historic, to

recommend it. … Peter Waldo,—for we will not withhold from him

this Christian name, although there is no authority for it

anterior to the beginning of the 15th century,—was a rich

citizen and merchant of Lyons [in the later half of the 12th

century]. Not satisfied with those scanty portions of

Scripture doled out to the laity in divine services, and

yearning above all for a larger knowledge of the Gospels, he

obtained from two friends among the priesthood a copy of these

last and of some other portions of Scripture translated into

the Romance language; a collection also of sayings from the

Fathers. The whole movement remained to the end true to this

its first motive—the desire namely for a fuller acquaintance

with the Word of God. That Word he now resolved to make the

rule of his life. … He …, as a first step, sells all that he

has, and bestows it upon the poor. In the name which he adopts

for himself and for the companions whom he presently

associates with him, the same fact of a voluntary poverty, as

that which above all they should embody in their lives, speaks

out. On this side of the Alps they are Poor Men of Lyons; on

the Italian, Poor Men of Lombardy. … And now he and his began

to preach in the streets of Lyons, to find their way into

houses, to itinerate the country round. Waldo had no intention

herein of putting himself in opposition to the Church, of

being a Reformer in any other sense than St. Francis or St.

Bernard was a Reformer, a quickener, that is, and reviver of

the Church's spiritual life. His protest was against practical

mischiefs, against negligences and omissions on the part of

those who should have taught the people, and did not.

Doctrinal protest at this time there was none. But for Rome

all forms of religious earnestness were suspicious which did

not spring directly from herself. … In 1178 the Archbishop of

Lyons forbade their preaching or expounding any more. Such as

did not submit had no choice but to quit Lyons, and betake

themselves elsewhere. And thus it came to pass that not the

city, already so illustrious in ecclesiastical story, where

Irenæus taught and Blandina suffered, … but the Alpine

mountains must shelter these outcasts, and in turn be made

famous by their presence." In 1209, Pope Innocent III. made an

attempt to absorb Waldo's society in an "Order of Poor

Catholics," which he instituted. "Failing this, he repeated, a

few years later, at the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), the

Church's sentence against the Waldenses, including them under

a common ban with the Cathari and the whole rabble rout of

Manichæans and others with whom they have so often since been

confounded. …

{3642}

Enemies have sought to confound, that so there might be

imputed to the Waldenses any evil which had been brought home

to the Albigenses. … Friends have sought to identify them out

of the wish to recruit the scanty number of witnesses for

Scriptural and Apostolical truth in the dark ages of the

Church; as certainly it would prove no small numerical

addition if the Albigenses might be counted among these." It

seems to be certain that the Waldenses were not spared by the

crusaders who exterminated the Albigenses of southern France

between 1209 and 1229. They fled before that storm into the

recesses of the Alps. "But they were numerous in North Italy

as well; and far more widely scattered over the whole of

central Europe than their present dwelling place and numbers

would at all suggest. They had congregations in Florence, in

Genoa, in Venice, above all in Milan; there were Waldensian

communities as far south as Calabria; they were not unknown in

Arragon; still less in Switzerland; at a later day they found

their way to Bohemia, and joined hands with the Hussites

there."

_R. C. Trench,

Lectures on Mediæval Church History,

lecture 17._

"The valleys which the Vaudois have raised into celebrity lie

to the west of Piemont, between the province of Pignerol and

Briançon, and adjoining on the other side to the ancient

Marquisate of Susa, and that of the Saluces. The capital, La

Tour, being about 36 miles from Turin, and 14 from Pignerol.

The extent of the valleys is about 12 Italian miles, making a

square of about 24 French leagues. The valleys are three in

number, Luzern, Perouse, and St. Martin. The former (in which

the chief town is now Catholic) is the most beautiful and

extensive."

_J. Bresse,

History of the Vaudois,

part 1, chapter i._

The Waldenses are sometimes confused, mistakenly, with the

Albigenses, who belonged to an earlier time.

See ALBIGENSES.

ALSO IN:

_A. Muston,

The Israel of the Alps._

_E. Comba,

History of the Waldenses of Italy._.

WALDENSES: A. D. 1526-1561.

Identification with the Calvinists.

Persecuting war of the Duke of Savoy.

The tolerant treaty of Cavour.

See SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1559-1580.

WALDENSES: A. D. 1546.

Massacre of the remnant in Provence and Venaissin.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1532-1547.

WALDENSES: A. D. 1655.

The second Persecution and Massacre.

Cromwell's intervention.

"They [the Vaudois, or Waldenses] had experienced persecutions

through their whole history, and especially after the

Reformation; but, on the whole, the two last Dukes of Savoy,

and also Christine, daughter of Henry IV. of France, and

Duchess-Regent through the minority of her son, the present

Duke, had protected them in their privileges, even while

extirpating Protestantism in the rest of the Piedmontese

dominions. Latterly, however, there had been a passion at

Turin and at Rome for their conversion to the Catholic faith,

and priests had been traversing their valleys for the purpose.

The murder of one such priest, and some open insults to the

Catholic worship, about Christmas 1654, are said to have

occasioned what followed. On the 25th of January, 1654-5, an

edict was issued, under the authority of the Duke of Savoy,

'commanding and enjoining every head of a family, with its

members, of the pretended Reformed Religion, of what rank,

degree, or condition soever, none excepted, inhabiting and

possessing estates in the places of Luserna … &c., within

three days, to withdraw and depart, and be, with their

families, withdrawn out of the said places, and transported

into the places and limits marked out for toleration by his

Royal Highness during his good pleasure,' … unless they gave

evidence within 20 days of having become Catholics.

Furthermore it was commanded that in every one even of the

tolerated places there should be regular celebration of the

Holy Mass, and that there should be no interference therewith,

nor any dissuasion of anyone from turning a Catholic, also on

pain of death. All the places named are in the Valley of

Luserna, and the object was a wholesale shifting of the

Protestants of that valley out of nine of its communes and

their concentration into five higher up. In vain were there

remonstrances at Turin from those immediately concerned. On

the 17th of April, 1655, the Marquis di Pianezza, entered the

doomed region with a body of troops mainly Piedmontese, but

with French and Irish among them. There was resistance,

fighting, burning, pillaging, flight to the mountains, and

chasing and murdering for eight days, Saturday, April 24,

being the climax. The names of about 300 of those murdered

individually are on record, with the ways of the deaths of

many of them. Women were ripped open, or carried about impaled

on spikes; men, women, and children, were flung from

precipices, hacked, tortured, roasted alive; the heads of some

of the dead were boiled and the brains eaten; there are forty

printed pages, and twenty-six ghastly engravings, by way of

Protestant tradition of the ascertained variety of the

devilry. The massacre was chiefly in the Valley of Luserna,

but extended also into the other two valleys. The fugitives

were huddled in crowds high among the mountains, moaning and

starving; and not a few, women and infants especially,

perished amid the snows. … There was a shudder of abhorrence

through Protestant Europe, but no one was so much roused as

Cromwell. … On Thursday the 17th of May, and for many days

more, the business of the Savoy Protestants was the chief

occupation of the Council. Letters, all in Milton's Latin, but

signed by the Lord Protector in his own name, were despatched

(May 25) to the Duke of Savoy himself, to the French King, to

the States General of the United Provinces, to the Protestant

Swiss Cantons, to the King of Sweden, to the King of Denmark,

and to Ragotski, Prince of Transylvania. A day of humiliation

was appointed for the Cities of London and Westminster, and

another for all England." A collection of money for the

sufferers was made, which amounted, in England and Wales, to

£38,000—equal to about £137,000 now. Cromwell's personal

contribution was £2,000—equivalent to £7,500 in money of the

present day. The Protector despatched a special envoy to the

court of Turin, who addressed very plain and bold words to the

Duke. Meanwhile Blake with his fleet was in the Mediterranean,

and there were inquiries made as to the best place for landing

troops to invade the Duke's dominions. "All which being known

to Mazarin, that wily statesman saw that no time was to be

lost.

{3643}

While Mr. Downing [second commissioner sent by Cromwell] was

still only on his way to Geneva through France, Mazarin had

instructed M. Servien, the French minister at Turin, to

insist, in the French King's name, on an immediate settlement

of the Vaudois business. The result was a 'Patente di Gratia e

Perdono,' or 'Patent of Grace and Pardon,' granted by Charles

Emanuel to the Vaudois Protestants, August 19, in terms of a

Treaty at Pignerol, in which the French Minister appeared as

the real mediating party and certain Envoys from the Swiss

Cantons as more or less assenting. As the Patent substantially

retracted the Persecuting Edict and restored the Vaudois to

all their former privileges, nothing more was to be done."

These events in Piedmont drew from Milton his immortal sonnet,

beginning: "Avenge, O Lord, thy slaughtered saints."

_D. Masson,

Life of John Milton,

volume 5, book 1, chapter 1, section 2._

ALSO IN:

_J. B. Perkins,

France under Mazarin,

chapter 16 (volume 2)._

_A. Muston,

The Israel of the Alps,

volume 1, part 2, chapters 6-9._

WALDENSES: A. D. 1691.

Toleration obtained by William of Orange.

"In the spring of 1691, the Waldensian shepherds, long and

cruelly persecuted, and weary of their lives, were surprised

by glad tidings. Those who had been in prison for heresy

returned to their homes. Children, who had been taken from

their parents to be educated by priests, were sent back.

Congregations, which had hitherto met only by stealth and with

extreme peril, now worshipped God without molestation in the

face of day. Those simple mountaineers probably never knew

that their fate had been a subject of discussion at the Hague,

and that they owed the happiness of their firesides and the

security of their humble temples to the ascendency which

William [of Orange] exercised over the Duke of Savoy," who had

lately joined the Grand Alliance against Louis XIV. of France.

_Lord Macaulay,

History of England,

chapter 17._

----------WALDENSES: End--------

WALDSHUT: Capture by Duke Bernhard (1637).

See GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639.

----------WALES: Start--------

WALES:

Origin of the name.

See WELSH.

WALES:

Ancient tribes.

See BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES.

WALES: 6th Century.

The British states embraced in it.

See BRITAIN: 6TH CENTURY.

WALES: A. D. 1066-1135.

The Norman Conquest.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1087-1135.

WALES: A. D. 1282-1284.

The final conquest.

"All the other races had combined on the soil of Britain, the

Welsh would not. The demands of feudal homage made by the

kings of England were evaded or repudiated; the intermarriages

by which Henry II. and John had tried to help on a national

agreement had in every case failed. In every internal

difficulty of English politics the Welsh princes had done

their best to embarrass the action of the kings; they had

intrigued with every aspirant for power, had been in league

with every rebel. … The necessity of guarding the Welsh border

had caused the English kings to found on the March a number of

feudal lordships, which were privileged to exercise almost

sovereign jurisdictions, and exempted from the common

operation of the English law. The Mortimers at Chirk and

Wigmore, the Bohuns at Hereford and Brecon, the Marshalls at

Pembroke, and the Clares in Glamorgan, were out of the reach

of the King, and often turned against one another the arms

which had been given them to overawe the Welsh. … So long as

the Welsh were left free to rebel the Marchers must be left

free to fight. … Llewelyn, the prince of North Wales, had, by

the assistance given to Simon de Montfort, earned as his

reward a recognition of his independence, subject only to the

ancient feudal obligations. All the advantages won during the

early years of Henry III. had been thus surrendered. When the

tide turned Llewelyn had done homage to Henry; but when he was

invited, in 1273, to perform the usual service to the new

king, he refused; and again, in 1274 and 1275, he evaded the

royal summons. In 1276, under the joint pressure of

excommunication and a great army which Edward brought against

him, he made a formal submission; performed the homage, and

received, as a pledge of amity, the hand of Eleanor de

Montfort in marriage. But Eleanor, although she was Edward's

cousin, was Earl Simon's daughter, and scarcely qualified to

be a peacemaker. Another adviser of rebellion was found in

Llewelyn's brother David, who had hitherto taken part with the

English, and had received special favours and promotion from

Edward himself. … The peace made in 1277 lasted about four

years. In 1282 the brothers rose, seized the border castles of

Hawarden, Flint, and Rhuddlan, and captured the Justiciar of

Wales, Roger Clifford. Edward saw then that his time was come.

He marched into North Wales, carrying with him the courts of

law and the exchequer, and transferring the seat of government

for the time to Shrewsbury. He left nothing undone that might

give the expedition the character of a national effort. He

collected forces on all sides; he assembled the estates of the

realm, clergy, lords, and commons, and prevailed on them to

furnish liberal supplies; he obtained sentence of

excommunication from the Archbishop of Canterbury. The Welsh

made a brave defence, and, had it not been for the almost

accidental capture and murder of Llewelyn in December, England

might have found the task too hard for her. The death of

Llewelyn, however, and the capture of David in the following

June, deprived the Welsh of their leaders, and they submitted.

Edward began forthwith his work of consolidation. … In 1284 he

published at Rhuddlan a statute, called the Statute of Wales,

which was intended to introduce the laws and customs of

England, and to reform the administration of that country

altogether on the English system. The process was a slow one;

the Welsh retained their ancient common law and their national

spirit; the administrative powers were weak and not

far-reaching; the sway of the lords Marchers was suffered to

continue; and, although assimilated, Wales was not

incorporated with England. It was not until the reign of Henry

VIII. that the principality was represented in the English

Parliament, and the sovereignty, which from 1300 onwards was

generally although not invariably bestowed on the king's

eldest son, conferred under the most favourable circumstances

little more than a high-sounding title and some slight and

ideal claim to the affection of a portion of the Welsh people.

The task, however, which the energies of his predecessors had

failed to accomplish was achieved by Edward. All Britain south

of the Tweed recognised his direct and supreme authority, and

the power of the Welsh nationality was so far broken that it

could never more thwart the determined and united action of

England."

_W. Stubbs,

The Early Plantagenets,

chapter 10._

ALSO IN:

_D. Hume,

History of England,

chapter 13._

_J. Lingard,

History of England,

volume 3, chapter 3._