Chapter LVI: Part 56

"There is no trace of the doctrine being put into practice in
England before the Reformation, although in the earliest
reported cases where it has been applied it is treated as a
well recognized rule, and as one owing its origin to the
traditional favour with which charities had always been
regarded. Much of the obscurity which covers the introduction
of the doctrine into our Law may perhaps be explained by the
fact that, in the earliest times, purely charitable gifts, as
they would now be understood, were almost unknown. The piety
of donors was most generally displayed in gifts to religious
houses, and the application of the subject matter of such
gifts was exclusively in the Superiors of the different
Orders, and entirely exempt from secular control. From the
religious houses the administration of charitable gifts passed
to the Chancellor, as keeper of the King's conscience, the
latter having as 'parens patriae' the general superintendence
of all infants, idiots, lunatics and charities. And it was not
until some time later that this jurisdiction became gradually
merged, and then only in cases where trusts were interposed,
in the general jurisdiction of the Chancery Courts. It is not
necessary to go into the long vexed question as to when that
actually took place. It is enough to say that it is now pretty
conclusively established that the jurisdiction of the Chancery
Courts over charitable trusts existed anterior to, and
independently of, the Statute of Charitable Uses, 43 Eliz., c.
4. As charitable gifts generally involved the existence of a
trust reposed in some one, it was natural that the Chancery
Court, which assumed jurisdiction over trusts, should have
gradually extended that jurisdiction over charities generally;
but the origin of the power, that it was one delegated by the
Crown to the Chancellor, must not be lost sight of, as in this
way, probably, can be best explained the curious distinct
jurisdictions vested in the Crown and the Chancery Courts
respectively to apply gifts Cy pres, the limits of which,
though long uncertain, were finally determined by Lord Eldon
in the celebrated case of Moggridge v. Thackwell, 7 ves. 69.
If we remember that the original jurisdiction in all
charitable matters was in the Crown, and that even after the
Chancery Courts acquired a jurisdiction over trusts, there was
still a class of cases untouched by such jurisdiction, we
shall better understand how the prerogative of the Crown still
remained in a certain class of cases, as we shall see
hereafter. However this may be, there is no doubt that when
the Chancery Courts obtained the jurisdiction over the
charities, which they have never lost, the liberal principles
of the Civil or Canon Law as to the carrying out of such gifts
were the sources and inspirations of their decisions. And
hence the Cy pres doctrine became gradually well recognised,
though the mode of its application has varied from time to
time. Perhaps the most striking instances of this liberal
construction are to be found in the series of cases which, by
a very strained interpretation of the Statute of Elizabeth
with regard to charitable uses, decided that gifts to such
uses in favour of corporations, which could not take by devise
under the old Wills Act, 32 Hen. VIII., c. 1, were good as
operating in the nature of an appointment of the trust in
equity, and that the intendment of the statute being in favour
of charitable gifts, all deficiencies of assurance were to be
supplied by the Courts. Although, historically, there may be
no connection between the power of the King over the
administration of charities, and the dispensing power reserved
to him by the earlier Mortmain Acts, the one being, as we have
seen, a right of Prerogative, the other a Feudal right in his
capacity as ultimate Lord of the fee, it is perhaps not wholly
out of place to allude shortly to the latter, particularly as
the two appear not to have been kept distinct in later times.
By the earlier Mortmain Acts, the dispensing power of the
King, as Lord Paramount, to waive forfeitures under these Acts
was recognised, and gifts of land to religious or charitable
corporations were made not 'ipso facto' void, but only
voidable at the instance of the immediate Lord, or, on his
default, of the King and after the statute 'quia emptores,'
which practically abolished mesne seignories, the Royal
license became in most cases sufficient to secure the validity
of the gift. The power of suspending statutes being declared
illegal at the Revolution, it was deemed prudent, seeing that
the grant of licenses in Mortmain imported an exercise of such
suspending power, to give these licenses a Parliamentary
sanction; and accordingly, by 7 and 8 William III., c. 37, it
was declared that the King might grant licenses to aliens in
Mortmain, and also to purchase, acquire, and hold lands in
Mortmain in perpetuity without pain of forfeiture. The right
of the mesne lord was thus passed over, and the dispensing
power of the Crown, from being originally a Feudal right,
became converted practically into one of Prerogative. The
celebrated Statute of 1 Edward VI., c. 14, against
superstitious uses, which is perhaps the earliest statutory
recognition of the Cy pres doctrine, points also strongly to
the original jurisdiction in these matters being in the King."
The author proceeds to trace at some length the subsequent
developments of the doctrine both judicial and statutory. The
doctrine is not generally recognised in the United States.

_H. L. Manby
in Law Magazine & Review, 4th ser.,
volume 15 (London, 1889-90), page 203._

EQUITY: A. D. 1603-1625.
Equity and the Construction of Wills.

"After a violent struggle between Lord Coke and Lord
Ellesmere, the jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery to stay
by injunction execution on judgments at law was finally
established. In this reign [James I.] the Court made another
attempt,—which was speedily abandoned,—to determine upon the
validity of wills,—and it has been long settled that the
validity of wills of real property shall be referred to courts
of law, and the validity of wills of personal property to the
Ecclesiastical Courts,—equity only putting a construction
upon them when their validity has been established."

_Lord Campbell,
Lives of the Chancellors,
volume 2, page 386._

EQUITY: A. D. 1612.
Right of Redemption.

The right to redeem after the day dates from the reign of
James I. From the time of Edward IV. (1461-83) a mortgagor
could redeem after the day if accident, or a collateral
agreement, or fraud by mortgagee, prevented payment.

_Kerly,
History of the Court of Chancery,
page 143._

{1992}

EQUITY: A. D. 1616.
Contest between Equity and Common-Law Courts.

"In the time of Lord Ellesmere (A. D. 1616) arose that notable
dispute between the courts of law and equity, set on foot by
Sir Edward Coke, then chief justice of the court of king's
bench; whether a court of equity could give relief after or
against a judgment at the common law? This contest was so
warmly carried on, that indictments were preferred against the
suitors, the solicitors, the counsel, and even a master in
chancery, for having incurred a 'praemunire,' by questioning
in a court of equity a judgment in the court of king's bench,
obtained by a gross fraud and imposition. This matter being
brought before the king, was by him referred to his learned
counsel for their advice and opinion; who reported so strongly
in favor of the courts of equity, that his majesty gave
judgment in their behalf."

_W. Blackstone,
Commentaries,
book 3, page 54._

EQUITY: A. D. 1616.
Relief against judgments at law.

"This was in 1616, the year of the memorable contest between
Lord Coke and Lord Ellesmere as to the power of equity to
restrain the execution of common-law judgment obtained by
fraud. … The right of equity to enforce specific
performance, where damages at law would be an inadequate
remedy, has never since been questioned."

_J. B. Ames,
Specific Performance of Contracts
(The Green Bag, volume 1, page 27)._

EQUITY: A. D. 1671.
The Doctrine of Tacking established.

"It is the established doctrine in the English law, that if
there be three mortgages in succession, and all duly
registered, or a mortgage, and then a judgment, and then a
second mortgage upon the estate, the junior mortgagee may
purchase in the first mortgage, and tack it to his mortgage,
and by that contrivance 'squeeze out' the middle mortgage, and
gain preference over it. The same rule would apply if the
first, as well as the second incumbrance, was a judgment; but
the incumbrancer who tacks must always be a mortgagee, for he
stands in the light of a bona fide purchaser, parting with his
money upon the security of the mortgage. … In the English
law, the rule is under some reasonable qualification. The last
mortgagee cannot tack, if, when he took his mortgage, he had
notice in fact … of the intervening incumbrance. … The
English doctrine of tacking was first solemnly established in
Marsh v. Lee [2 Vent. 337], under the assistance of Sir
Matthew Hale, who compared the operation to a plank in
shipwreck gained by the last mortgagee; and the subject was
afterwards very fully and accurately expounded by the Master
of the Rolls, in Brace v. Duchess of Marlborough [2 P. Wms.
491]."

_J. Kent,
Commentaries,
part 6, lecture 58._

EQUITY: A. D. 1702-1714.
Equitable conversion.

"He [Lord Harcourt] first established the important doctrine,
that if money is directed either by deed or will to be laid
out in land, the money shall be taken to be land, even as to
collateral heirs."

_Lord Campbell,
Lives of the Chancellors,
volume 4, page 374._

EQUITY: A. D. 1736-1756.
Lord Hardwicke developed System of Precedents.

It was under Lord Hardwicke that the jurisdiction of Equity
was fully developed. During the twenty years of his
chancellorship the great branches of equitable jurisdiction
were laid out, and his decisions were regularly cited as
authority until after Lord Eldon's time.

_Kerly,
History of the Court of Chancery,
pages 175-177._

EQUITY: A. D. 1742.
Control of Corporations.

"That the directors of a corporation shall manage its affairs
honestly and carefully is primarily a right of the corporation
itself rather than of the individual stockholders. … The
only authority before the present century is the case of the
Charitable Corporation v. Sutton, decided by Lord Hardwicke [2
Atk. 400]. But this case is the basis … of all subsequent
decisions on the point, and it is still quoted as containing
an accurate exposition of the law. The corporation was
charitable only in name, being a joint-stock corporation for
lending money on pledges. By the fraud of some of the
directors … , and by the negligence of the rest, loans were
made without proper security. The bill was against the
directors and other officers, 'to have a satisfaction for a
breach of trust, fraud, and mismanagement.' Lord Hardwicke
granted the relief prayed, and a part of his decision is well
worth quoting. He says: 'Committee-men are most properly
agents to those who employ them in this trust, and who empower
them to direct and superintend the affairs of the corporation.
In this respect they may be guilty of acts of commission or
omission, of malfeasance or nonfeasance. … Nor will I ever
determine that a court of equity cannot lay hold of every
breach of trust, let the person be guilty of it either in a
private or public capacity.'"

_S. Williston,
History of the Law of Business
(Harvard Law Review,
volume 2, page 158-159)._

EQUITY: A. D. 1782.
Demurrer to Bill of Discovery.

"Originally, it appears not to have been contemplated that a
demurrer or plea would lie to a bill for discovery, unless it
were a demurrer or plea to the nature of the discovery sought
or to the jurisdiction of the court, e. g., a plea of purchase
for value; and, though it was a result of this doctrine that
plaintiffs might compel discovery to which they were not
entitled, it seems to have been supposed that they were not
likely to do so to any injurious effect, since they must do it
at their own expense. But this view was afterwards abandoned,
and in 1782 it was decided that, if a bill of discovery in aid
of an action at law stated no good cause of action against the
defendant, it might be demurred to on that ground, i. e., that
it showed on its face no right to relief at law, and,
therefore, no right to discovery in equity. Three years later
in Hindman v. Taylor, the question was raised whether a
defendant could protect himself for answering a bill for
discovery by setting up an affirmative defence by plea; and,
though Lord Thurlow decided the question in the negative, his
decision has since been overruled; and it is now fully settled
that any defence may be set up to a bill for discovery by
demurrer or plea, the same as to a bill for relief; and, if
successful, it will protect the defendant from answering."

_C. C. Langdell,
Summary of Equity Pleading,
pages 204-205._

{1993}

EQUITY: A. D. 1786.
Injunction after Decree to pay Proceeds of Estate into Court.

"As soon as a decree is made … , under which the executor
will be required to pay the proceeds of the whole estate into
court, an injunction ought to be granted against the
enforcement of any claim against the estate by an action at
law; and accordingly such has been the established rule for
more than a hundred years. … The first injunction that was
granted expressly upon the ground above explained was that
granted by Lord Thurlow, in 1782, in the case of Brooks v.
Reynolds. … In the subsequent case of Kenyon v. Worthington,
… an application to Lord Thurlow for an injunction was
resisted by counsel of the greatest eminence. The resistance,
however, was unsuccessful, and the injunction was granted.
This was in 1786; and from that time the question was regarded
as settled."

_C. C. Langdell,
Equity Jurisdiction
(Harvard Law Review,
volume 5, pages 122-123)._

EQUITY: A. D. 1792.
Negative Pleas.

"In Gun v. Prior, Forrest, 88, note, 1 Cox, 197, 2 Dickens,
657, Cas. in Eq. Pl. 47, a negative plea was overruled by Lord
Thurlow after a full argument. This was in 1785. Two years
later, the question came before the same judge again, and,
after another full argument, was decided the same way. Newman
v. Wallis, 2 Bro. C. C. 143, Cas. in Eq. Pl. 52. But in 1792,
in the case of Hall v. Noyes, 3 Bro. C. C. 483, 489, Cas. in
Eq. Pl. 223, 227, Lord Thurlow took occasion to say that he
had changed his opinion upon the subject of negative pleas,
and that his former decisions were wrong; and since then the
right to plead a negative plea has not been questioned."

_C. C. Langdell,
Summary of Equity Pleading,
p. 114, note._

EQUITY: A. D. 1801-1827.
Lord Eldon settled Rules of Equity.

"'The doctrine of this Court,' he [Lord Eldon] said himself,
'ought to be as well settled and as uniform, almost, as those
of the common law, laying down fixed principles, but taking
care that they are to be applied according to the
circumstances of each case. I cannot agree that the doctrines
of this Court are to be changed by every succeeding judge.
Nothing would inflict on me greater pain than the recollection
that I had done any thing to justify the reproach that the
Equity of this Court varies like the Chancellor's foot.'
Certainly the reproach he dreaded cannot justly be inflicted
upon his memory. … From his time onward the development of
equity was effected ostensibly, and, in the great majority of
cases, actually, by strict deduction from the principles to be
discovered in decided cases, and the work of subsequent
Chancery judges has been, for the most part, confined, as Lord
Eldon's was, to tracing out these principles into detail, and
to rationalising them by repeated review and definition."

_D. M. Kerly,
History Court Chancery,
page 182._

EQUITY: A. D. 1812.
Judge Story.

"We are next to regard Story during his thirty-five years of
judicial service. He performed an amount of judicial labor
almost without parallel, either in quality or quantity, in the
history of jurisprudence. His judgments in the Circuit Court
comprehended thirteen volumes. His opinions in the Supreme
Court are found in thirty-five volumes. Most of these
decisions are on matters of grave difficulty, and many of them
of first impression. Story absolutely created a vast amount of
law for our country. Indeed, he was essentially a builder.
When he came to the bench, the law of admiralty was quite
vague and unformed; his genius formed it as exclusively as
Stowell's did in England. He also did much toward building up
the equity system which has become part of our jurisprudence.
In questions of international and constitutional law, the
breadth and variety of his legal learning enabled him to shine
with peculiar brilliancy. It is sufficient to say that there
is scarcely any branch of the law which he has not greatly
illustrated and enlarged,—prize, constitutional, admiralty,
patent, copyright, insurance, real estate, commercial law so
called, and equity,—all were gracefully familiar to him. The
most celebrated of his judgments are De Lovio v. Boit, in
which be investigates the jurisdiction of the Admiralty;
Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, which examines the appellate
jurisdiction of the United States Supreme Court; Dartmouth
College v. Woodward, in which the question was, whether the
charter of a college was a contract within the meaning of the
constitutional provision prohibiting the enactment, by any
State, of laws impairing the obligations of contracts; his
dissenting opinion in Charles River Bridge Company v. The
Warren Bridge; involving substantially the same question as
the last case; and the opinion in the Girard will case. These
are the most celebrated, but are scarcely superior to scores
of his opinions in cases never heard of beyond the legal
profession. His biographer is perhaps warranted in saying of
his father's judicial opinions: 'For closeness of texture and
compact logic, they are equal to the best judgments of
Marshall; for luminousness and method, they stand beside those
of Mansfield; in elegance of style, they yield the palm only
to the prize cases of Lord Stowell, but in fullness of
illustration and wealth and variety of learning, they stand
alone."

_Irving Browne,
Short Studies of Great Lawyers,
pages 293-295._

EQUITY: A. D. 1814-1823.
Chancellor Kent.

"In February, 1814, he was appointed chancellor. The powers
and jurisdiction of the court of chancery were not clearly
defined. There were scarcely any precedents of its decisions,
to which reference could be made in case of doubt. Without any
other guide, he felt at liberty to exercise such powers of the
English chancery as he deemed applicable under the
Constitution and laws of the State, subject to the correction
of the Court of Errors, on appeal. … On the 31st of July,
1823, having attained the age of sixty years, the period
limited by the Constitution for the tenure of his office, he
retired from the court, after hearing and deciding every case
that had been brought before him. On this occasion the members
of the bar residing in the City of New York, presented him an
address. After speaking of the inestimable benefits conferred
on the community by his judicial labors for five and twenty
years they say: 'During this long course of services, so
useful and honorable, and which will form the most brilliant
period in our judicial history, you have, by a series of
decisions in law and equity, distinguished alike for practical
wisdom, profound learning, deep research and accurate
discrimination, contributed to establish the fabric of our
jurisprudence on those sound principles that have been
sanctioned by the experience of mankind, and expounded by the
enlightened and venerable sages of the law. Though others may
hereafter enlarge and adorn the edifice whose deep and solid
foundations were laid by the wise and patriotic framers of our
government, in that common law which they claimed for the people
as their noblest inheritance, your labors on this magnificent
structure will forever remain eminently conspicuous, command
the applause of the present generation, and exciting the
admiration and gratitude of future ages.'"

_Charles B. Waite,
James Kent
(Chicago Law Times,
volume 3, pages 339-341)._

{1994}

EQUITY: A. D. 1821.
Negative Pleas to be supported by an Answer.

"The principle of negative pleas was first established by the
introduction of anomalous pleas; but it was not perceived at
first that anomalous pleas involved the admission of pure
negative pleas. It would often happen, however, that a
defendant would have no affirmative defence to a bill, and yet
the bill could not be supported because of the falsity of some
material allegation contained in it; and, if the defendant
could deny this false allegation by a negative plea, he would
thereby avoid giving discovery as to all other parts of the
bill. At length, therefore, the experiment of setting up such
a plea was tried; and, though unsuccessful at first, it
prevailed in the end, and negative pleas became fully
established. If they had been well understood, they might have
proved a moderate success, although they were wholly foreign
to the system into which they were incorporated; but, as it
was, their introduction was attended with infinite mischief
and trouble, and they did much to bring the system into
disrepute. For example, it was not clearly understood for a
long time that a pure negative plea required the support of an
answer; and there was no direct decision to that effect until
the case of Sanders v. King, 6 Madd. 61, Cas. in Eq. Pl. 74,
decided in 1821."

_C. C. Langdell,
Summary of Equity Pleading,
pages 113-114._

EQUITY: A. D. 1834.
First Statute of Limitations in Equity.

"None of the English statutes of limitation, prior to 3 & 4
Wm. IV., c. 27, had any application to suits in equity.
Indeed, they contained no general terms embracing all actions
at law, but named specifically all actions to which they
applied; and they made no mention whatever of suits in equity.
If a plaintiff sued in equity, when he might have brought an
action at law, and the time for bringing the action was
limited by statute, the statute might in a certain sense be
pleaded to the suit in equity; for the defendant might say
that, if the plaintiff had sued at law, his action would have
been barred; that the declared policy of the law therefore,
was against the plaintiff's recovering; and hence the cause
was not one of which a court of equity ought to take
cognizance. In strictness, however, the plea in such a case
would be to the jurisdiction of the court."

_C. C. Langdell,
Summary of Equity Pleading,
pages 149-150._

EQUITY: A. D. 1836.
Personal Character of Shares of Stock first established in
England.

"The most accurate definition of the nature of the property
acquired by the purchase of a share of stock in a corporation
is that it is a fraction of all the rights and duties of the
stockholders composing the corporation. Such does not seem to
have been the clearly recognized view till after the beginning
of the present century. The old idea was rather that the
corporation held all its property strictly as a trustee, and
that the shareholders were, strictly speaking, 'cestuis que
trust,' being in equity co-owners of the corporate property.
… It was not until the decision of Bligh v. Brent [Y. & C.
268], in 1836, that the modern view was established in
England."

_S. Williston,
History of the Law of Business Corporations before 1800
(Harvard Law Review,
volume 2, pages 149-151)._

EQUITY: A. D. 1875.
Patents, Copyrights and Trade-Marks.

"In modern times the inventor of a new process obtains from
the State, by way of recompense for the benefit he has
conferred upon society, and in order to encourage others to
follow his example, not only an exclusive privilege of using
the new process for a fixed term of years, but also the right
of letting or selling his privilege to another. Such an
indulgence is called a patent-right, and a very similar
favour, known as copy-right, is granted to the authors of
books, and to painters, engravers, and sculptors, in the
productions of their genius. It has been a somewhat vexed
question whether a 'trade-mark' is to be added to the list of
intangible objects of ownership. It was at any rate so treated
in a series of judgments by Lord Westbury, which, it seems,
are still good law. He says, for instance, 'Imposition on the
public is indeed necessary for the plaintiff's title, but in
this way only, that it is the test of the invasion by the
defendant of the plaintiff's right of property.' [Citing 33 L.
J. Ch. 204; cf. 35 Ch. D. Oakley v. Dalton.] It was also so
described in the 'Trade Marks Registration Act,' 1875
[sections 3, 4, 5], as it was in the French law of 1857
relating to 'Marques de fabrique et de commerce.' The
extension of the idea of ownership to these three rights is of
comparatively recent date. Patent-right in England is older
than the Statute of Monopolies, 21 Jac. I. C. 3, and
copy-right is obscurely traceable previously to the Act of 8
Anne, C. 19, but trade-marks were first protected in the
present century."

_T. E. Holland,
Elements of Jurisprudence, 5th edition,
page 183._

ALSO IN:
_E. S. Drone,
Treatise on the Law of Property in Intellectual Productions._

----------EQUITY: End--------

Topics of law treated under other heads are indicated by the
following references:

Agrarian Laws.

See AGRARIAN.

Assize of Jerusalem.

See ASSIZE.

Brehon Laws.

See BREHON.

Canuleian Laws.

See ROME: B. C. 445.

Code Napoleon.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1804.

Common Law.

See COMMON LAW.

Constitutional Laws.

See CONSTITUTION.

Debt and Debtors.

See DEBT.

Dioklesian Laws.

See DIOKLES.

Dooms of Ihne.

See DOOMS.

Draconian Laws.

See ATHENS: B. C. 624.

Factory Laws.

See FACTORY.

Hortensian Laws.

See ROME: B. C. 286.

Institutes and Pandects of Justinian.

See CORPUS JURIS CIVILIS.

Licinian Laws.

See ROME: B. C. 376.

Lycurgan Laws.

See SPARTA.

Laws of Manu.

See MANU.

Navigation Laws.

See NAVIGATION LAWS.

Ogulnian Law.

See ROME: B. C. 300.

Laws of Oleron.

See OLERON.

Poor Laws.

See POOR LAWS.

Publilian Laws.

See ROME: B. C. 472-471, and 340.

Salic Laws.

See SALIC.

Slave Codes.

See SLAVERY.

Solonian Laws.

See ATHENS: B. C. 594.

Tariff Legislation.

See TARIFF.

Terentilian Law.

See ROME: B. C. 451-449.

The Twelve Tables.

See ROME: B. C. 451-449.

Valerian Law.

See ROME: B. C. 509.

Valero-Horatian Law.

See ROME: B. C. 449.

{1995}

LAWFELD, Battle of (1747).

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1746-1747.

LAWRENCE, Captain James:
In the War of 1812.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812-1813.

LAWRENCE, Lord, the Indian Administration of.

See INDIA: A. D. 1845-1849; 1857 (JUNE-SEPTEMBER);
and 1862-1876.

LAWRENCE, Kansas: A. D. 1863.
Sacking of the town by Quantrell's guerrillas.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1863 (AUGUST: MISSOURI-KANSAS).

LAYBACH, Congress of.

See VERONA, CONGRESS OF.

LAZARISTS, The.

"The Priests of the Missions, or the Lazarists ['sometimes
called the Vincentian Congregation'], … have not
unfrequently done very essential service to Christianity."
Their Society was founded in 1624 by St. Vincent de Paul, "at
the so-called Priory of St. Lazarus in Paris, whence the name
Lazarists. … Besides their mission-labours, they took
complete charge, in many instances, of ecclesiastical
seminaries, which, in obedience to the instruction of the
Council of Trent, had been established in the various
dioceses, and even at this day many of these institutions are
under their direction. In the year 1642 these devoted priests
were to be seen in Italy, and not long after were sent to
Algiers, to Tunis, to Madagascar, and to Poland."

_J. Alzog
Manual of Universal Church History,
volume 3, pages 463-465._

ALSO IN:
_H. L. S. Lear,
Priestly Life in France,
chapter 5._

LAZICA. LAZIC WAR.

"Lazica, the ancient Colchis and the modern Mingrelia and
Imeritia, bordered upon the Black Sea." From A. D. 522 to 541
the little kingdom was a dependency of Rome, its king, having
accepted Christianity, acknowledging himself a vassal of the
Roman or Byzantine emperor. But the Romans provoked a revolt
by their encroachments. "They seized and fortified a strong
post, called Petra, upon the coast, appointed a commandant who
claimed an authority as great as that of the Lazic king, and
established a commercial monopoly which pressed with great
severity upon the poorer classes of the Lazi." The Persians
were accordingly invited in to drive the Romans out, and did
so, reducing Lazica, for the time being, to the state of a
Persian province. But, in their turn, the Persians became
obnoxious, and the Lazi, making their peace with Rome, were
taken by the Emperor Justinian under his protection. "The
Lazic war, which commenced in consequence of this act of
Justinian's, continued almost without intermission for nine
years—from A. D. 549 to 557. Its details are related at great
length by Procopius and Agathias, who view the struggle as one
which vitally concerned the interests of their country.
According to them, Chosroës [the Persian king] was bent upon
holding Lazica in order to construct at the mouth of the
Phasis a great naval station and arsenal, from which his
fleets might issue to command the commerce or ravage the
shores of the Black Sea." The Persians in the end withdrew
from Lazica, but the Romans, by treaty, paid them an annual
tribute for their possession of the country.

_G. Rawlinson,
Seventh Great Monarchy,
chapter 20._

ALSO IN:
_J. Bury,
Later Roman Empire,
book 4, chapter 9 (volume 1)._

See, also, PERSIA: A. D. 226-627.

LAZZI, The.

See LÆTI.

LEAGUE, The Achaian.

See GREECE: B.C. 280-146.

LEAGUE, The Anti-Corn-Law.

See TARIFF LEGISLATION (ENGLAND):
A. D. 1836-1839; and 1845-1846.

LEAGUE, The Borromean or Golden.

See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1579-1630.

LEAGUE, The Catholic, in France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1576-1585, and after.

LEAGUE, The first Catholic, in Germany.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1530-1531.

LEAGUE, The second Catholic, in Germany.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1608-1618.

LEAGUE, The Cobblers'.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1524-1525.

LEAGUE, The Delian.

See GREECE: B. C. 478-477.

LEAGUE, The Hanseatic.

See HANSA TOWNS.

LEAGUE, The Holy, of the Catholic party in the Religious Wars of France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1576-1585, to 1593-1598.

LEAGUE, The Holy, of German Catholic princes.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1533-1546.

LEAGUE, The Holy, of Pope Clement VII. against Charles V.

See ITALY: A. D. 1523-1527.

LEAGUE, The Holy, of Pope Innocent XI., the Emperor, Venice, Poland and Russia against the Turks.

See TURKS: A. D. 1684-1696.

LEAGUE, The Holy, of Pope Julius II. against Louis XII. of France.

See ITALY: A. D. 1510-1513.

LEAGUE, The Holy, of Spain, Venice and the Pope against the Turks.

See TURKS: A. D. 1566-1571.

LEAGUE, The Irish Land.

See IRELAND: A. D. 1873-1879; and 1881-1882.

LEAGUE, The Swabian.

See LANDFRIEDE, &c.

LEAGUE, The Union.

See UNION LEAGUE.

LEAGUE AND COVENANT, The solemn.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1643 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).

LEAGUE OF AUGSBURG.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1686.

LEAGUE OF CAMBRAI.

See VENICE: A. D. 1508-1509.

LEAGUE OF LOMBARDY.

See ITALY: A. D. 1166-1167.

LEAGUE OF POOR CONRAD, The.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1524-1525.

LEAGUE OF RATISBON.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1522-1525.

LEAGUE OF SMALKALDE, The.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1530-1532.

LEAGUE OF THE GUEUX.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1562-1566.

LEAGUE OF THE PRINCES.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1485-1487.

LEAGUE OF THE PUBLIC WEAL.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1461-1468; also, 1453-1461.

LEAGUE OF THE RHINE.

See RHINE LEAGUE.

LEAGUE OF TORGAU.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1525-1529.

LEAGUES, The Grey.

See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1396-1499.

LE BOURGET, Sortie of (1870).

See FRANCE: A. D.1870-1871.

LECHFELD, OR BATTLE ON THE LECH (A. D. 955).

See HUNGARIANS: A. D. 935-955.

{1996}

LECHFELD, OR BATTLE ON THE LECH (1632.)

See GERMANY: A. D. 1631-1632.

LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION, The.

See KANSAS: A. D. 1854-1859.

LEE, General Charles, and the War of the American Revolution.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1775 (MAY-AUGUST);
1776 (JUNE), (AUGUST); and 1778 (JUNE).

LEE, General Henry ("Light Horse Harry"), and the American Revolution.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: 1780-1781.

LEE, Richard Henry,
And the American Revolution.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1776 (JANUARY-JUNE), (JULY).

LEE, Richard Henry,
Opposition to the Federal Constitution.

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

LEE, General Robert E.
Campaign in West Virginia.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1861 (AUGUST-DECEMBER: WEST VIRGINIA).

LEE, General Robert E.,
Command on the Peninsula.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (JUNE: VIRGINIA),
and (JULY-AUGUST: VIRGINIA).

LEE, General Robert E.
Campaign against Pope.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (JULY-AUGUST: VIRGINIA);
(AUGUST: VIRGINIA); and (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER: VIRGINIA).

LEE, General Robert E.
First invasion of Maryland.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (SEPTEMBER: MARYLAND).

LEE, General Robert E.
Defeat of Hooker.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1863 (APRIL-MAY: VIRGINIA).

LEE, General Robert E.
The second movement of invasion.
Gettysburg and after.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1863 (JUNE: VIRGINIA),
and (JUNE-JULY: PENNSYLVANIA);
also (JULY-NOVEMBER: VIRGINIA).

LEE, General Robert E.
Last Campaigns.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1864 (MAY: VIRGINIA), to 1865 (APRIL: VIRGINIA).

LEEDS, Battle at (1643).

Leeds, occupied by the Royalists, under Sir William Savile,
was taken by Sir Thomas Fairfax, after hard fighting, on the
23d of January, 1643.

_C. R. Markham,
Life of the Great Lord Fairfax,
chapter 9._

LEESBURG, OR BALL'S BLUFF, Battle of.

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

LEEWARD ISLANDS, The.

See WEST INDIES.

LEFÈVRE, Jacques, and the Reformation in France.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1521-1535.

LEFT, The.
Left Center, The.

See RIGHT, &c.

LEGATE.

This was the title given to the lieutenant-general or
associate chosen by a Roman commander or provincial governor
to be his second-in-authority.

_W. Ramsay,
Manual of Roman Antiquity,
chapter 12._

LEGES JULIÆ, LEGES SEMPRONIÆ, &c.

See JULIAN LAWS; SEMPRONIAN LAWS, &c.

LEGION, The Roman.

"The original order of a Roman army was, as it seems, similar
to the phalanx: but the long unbroken line had been divided
into smaller detachments since, and perhaps by Camillus. The
long wars in the Samnite mountains naturally caused the Romans
to retain and to perfect this organisation, which made their
army more movable and pliable, without preventing the separate
bodies quickly combining and forming in one line. The legion
now [at the time of the war with Pyrrhus, B. C. 280] consisted
of thirty companies (called 'manipuli') of the average
strength of a hundred men, which were arranged in three lines
of ten manipuli each, like the black squares on a chessboard.
The manipuli of the first line consisted of the youngest
troops, called 'hastati'; those of the second line, called
'principes,' were men in the full vigour of life; those of the
third, the 'triarii,' formed a reserve of older soldiers, and
were numerically only half as strong as the other two lines.
The tactic order of the manipuli enabled the general to move
the 'principes' forward into the intervals of the 'hastati,'
or to withdraw the 'hastati' back into the intervals of the
'principes,' the 'triarii' being kept as a reserve. … The
light troops were armed with javelins, and retired behind the
solid mass of the manipuli as soon as they had discharged
their weapons in front of the line, at the beginning of the
combat."

_W. Ihne,
History of Rome,
book 3, chapter 16 (volume 1)._

"The legions, as they are described by Polybius, in the time
of the Punic wars, differed very materially from those which
achieved the victories of Cæsar, or defended the monarchy of
Hadrian and the Antonines. The constitution of the Imperial
legion may be described in a few words. The heavy-armed
infantry, which composed its principal strength, was divided
into ten cohorts, and fifty-five companies, under the orders
of a correspondent number of tribunes and centurions. The
first cohort, which always claimed the post of honour and the
custody of the eagle, was formed of 1,105 soldiers, the most
approved for valour and fidelity. The remaining nine cohorts
consisted each of 555; and the whole body of legionary
infantry amounted to 6,100 men. … The legion was usually
drawn up eight deep, and the regular distance of three feet
was left between the files as well as ranks. … The cavalry,
without which the force of the legion would have remained
imperfect, was divided into ten troops or squadrons; the
first, as the companion of the first cohort, consisted of 132
men; whilst each of the other nine amounted only to 66."

_E. Gibbon
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 1._

ALSO IN:
_W. Ramsay,
Manual of Roman Antiquity,
chapter 12._

LEGION OF HONOR, Institution of the.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1803.

LEGITIMISTS AND ORLEANISTS.

The partisans of Bourbon monarchy in France became divided
into two factions by the revolution of 1830, which deposed
Charles X. and raised Louis Philippe to the throne. Charles
X., brother of Louis XVI. and Louis XVIII., was in the direct
line of royal descent, from Louis XIV. Louis Philippe, Duke of
Orleans, who displaced him, belonged to a younger branch of
the Bourbon family, descending from the brother of Louis XIV.,
Philippe, Duke of Orleans, father of the Regent Orleans. Louis
Philippe, in his turn, was expelled from the throne in 1848,
and the crown, after that event, became an object of claim in
both families. The claim supported by the Legitimists was
extinguished in 1883 by the death of the childless Comte de
Chambord, grandson of Charles X. The Orleanist claim is still
maintained (1894) by the Comte de Paris, grandson of Louis
Philippe.

LEGNANO, Battle of (1176).

See ITALY: A. D. 1174-1183.

LEICESTER, The Earl of, in the Netherlands.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1585-1586; and 1587-1588.

LEINSTER TRIBUTE, The.

See BOARIAN TRIBUTE.

{1997}

----------LEIPSIC: Start----------

LEIPSIC: A. D. 1631.
Battle of Breitenfeld, before the city.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1631.

LEIPSIC: A. D. 1642.
Second Battle of Breitenfeld.
Surrender of the city to the Swedes.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1640-1645.

LEIPSIC: A. D. 1813.
Occupied by the Prussians and Russians.
Regained by the French.
The great "Battle of the Nations."

See GERMANY: A. D. 1812-1813;
1813 (APRIL-MAY), (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER), and (OCTOBER).

----------LEIPSIC: End----------

LEIPSIC, University of.

See EDUCATION, MEDIÆVAL: GERMANY.

LEISLER'S REVOLUTION.

See NEW YORK: A. D. 1689-1691.

LEITH, The Concordat of.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1572.

LEKHS, The.

See LYGIANS.

LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY.

See EDUCATION, MODERN: AMERICA: A. D. 1884-1891.

LELANTIAN FIELDS. LELANTIAN FEUD.

See CHALCIS AND ERETRIA; and EUBŒA.

LELEGES, The.

"The Greeks beyond the sea [Ionian Greeks of Asia Minor] were
however not merely designated in groups, according to the
countries out of which they came, but certain collective names
existed for them—such as that of Javan in the East. … Among
all these names the most widely spread was that of the
Leleges, which the ancients themselves designated as that of a
mixed people. In Lycia, in Miletus, and in the Troad these
Leleges had their home; in other words, on the whole extent of
coast in which we have recognized the primitive seats of the
people of Ionic Greeks."

_E. Curtius,
History of Greece,
book 1, chapter 2._

See, also, DORIANS AND IONIANS.

LELIAERDS.

In the mediæval annals of the Flemish people, the partisans of
the French are called "Leliaerds," from "lelie," the Flemish
for lily.

_J. Hutton,
James and Philip van Arteveld,
page 32, foot-note._

LE MANS: Defeat of the Vendéans.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JULY-DECEMBER).

LE MANS, Battle of (1871).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1870-1871.

LEMNOS.

One of the larger islands in the northern part of the Ægean
Sea, lying opposite the Trojan coast. It was anciently
associated with Samothrace and Imbros in the mysterious
worship of the Cabeiri.

LEMOVICES, The.

The Lemovices were a tribe of Gauls who occupied, in Cæsar's
time, the territory afterwards known as the Limousin
—department of Upper Vienne and parts adjoining.

_Napoleon III.,
History of Cæsar,
book 3, chapter 2, foot-note._

The city of Limoges derived its existence and its name from
the Lemovices.

LEMOVII, The.

A tribe in ancient Germany whose territory, on the Baltic
coast, probably in the neighborhood of Danzig, bordered on
that of the Gothones.

_Church and Brodribb,
Geographical Notes to the Germany of Tacitus._

LENAPE, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: DELAWARES.

LENS, Siege and battle (1647-1648).

See NETHERLANDS (SPANISH PROVINCES): A. D. 1647-1648.

LENTIENSES, The.

See ALEMANNI: A. D. 213.

LEO I., Roman Emperor (Eastern), A. D. 457-474.

Leo II., Pope, 682-683.

Leo II., Roman Emperor (Eastern), 474.

Leo III., Pope, 795-816.

Leo III. (called The Isaurian),
Emperor in the East (Byzantine, or Greek),717-741.

Leo IV., Pope, 847-855.

Leo IV., Emperor in the East
(Byzantine, or Greek), 775-780.

Leo V., Pope, 903, October to December.

Leo V., Emperor in the East
(Byzantine, or Greek), 813-820.

Leo VI., Pope, 928-929.

Leo VI., Emperor in the East
(Byzantine, or Greek), 886-911.

Leo VII., Pope, 936-939.

Leo VIII., Anti-pope, 963-965.

Leo IX., Pope, 1049-1054.

Leo X., Pope, 1513-1521.

Leo XI., Pope, 1605, April 2-27.

Leo XII., Pope, 1823-1829.

Leo XIII., Pope, 1878.

LEOBEN, Preliminary treaty of (1797).

See FRANCE: A.D. 1796-1797 (OCTOBER-APRIL).

LEODIS (WEREGILD).

See GRAF.

LEON, Ponce de, and his quest.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1512.

----------LEON: Start--------

LEON,
Origin of the name of the city and kingdom.

"This name Legio or Leon, so long borne by a province and by
its chief city in Spain, is derived from the old Roman 'Regnum
Legionis' (Kingdom of the Legion)."

_H. Coppée,
Conquest of Spain by the Arab-Moors,
book 5, chapter 1 (volume 1)._

LEON:
Origin of the kingdom.

See SPAIN: A. D. 713-910.

LEON:
Union of the kingdom with Castile.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1026-1230; and 1212-1238.

----------LEON: End--------

LEONIDAS AT THERMOPYLÆ.

See GREECE: B. C. 480;
and ATHENS: B. C. 480-479.

LEONINE CITY, The

See VATICAN.

LEONTINI.
The Leontine War.

See SYRACUSE: B. C. 415-413.

LEONTIUS, Roman Emperor (Eastern), A. D. 695-698.

LEOPOLD I.,
Germanic Emperor, A. D. 1658-1705;
King of Hungary, 1655-1705:
King of Bohemia, 1657-1705.

Leopold I., King of Belgium, 1831-1865.

Leopold II., Germanic Emperor, and King of Hungary and
Bohemia, 1790-1792.

Leopold II., King of Belgium, 1865.

LEPANTO, Naval Battle of (1571).

See TURKS: A. D. 1566-1571.

LEPERS AND JEWS, Persecution of.

See JEWS: A. D. 1321.

LIPIDUS, Revolutionary attempt of.

See ROME: B. C. 78-68.

LEPTA.

See TALENT.

LEPTIS MAGNA.

"The city of Leptis Magna, originally a Phœnician colony, was
the capital of this part of the province [the tract of
north-African coast between the Lesser and the Greater
Syrtes], and held much the same prominent position as that of
Tripoli at the present day. The only other towns in the region
of the Syrtes, as it was sometimes called, were Œa, on the
site of the modern Tripoli, and Sabrata, the ruins of which
are still visible at a place called Tripoli Vecchio. The three
together gave the name of the Tripolis of Africa to this
region, as distinguished from the Pentapolis of Cyrenaïca.
Hence the modern appellation."

_E. H. Bunbury,
History of Ancient Geography,
chapter 20, section 1, footnote (volume 2)._

See, also, CARTHAGE, THE DOMINION OF.

{1998}

LERIDA: B. C. 49.
Cæsar's success against the Pompeians.

See ROME: B. C. 49.

LERIDA: A. D. 1644-1646,
Sieges and battle.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1644-1646.

LERIDA: A. D. 1707.
Stormed and sacked by the French and Spaniards.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1707.

----------LESBOS: Start--------

LESBOS.

The largest of the islands of the Ægean, lying south of the
Troad, great part of which it once controlled, was
particularly distinguished in the early literary history of
ancient Greece, having produced what is called "the Æolian
school" of lyric poetry. Alcæus, Sappho, Terpander and Arion
were poets who sprang from Lesbos. The island was one of the
important colonies of what was known as the Æolic migration,
but became subject to Athens after the Persian War. In the
fourth year of the Peloponnesian War its chief city, Mitylene
(which afterwards gave its name to the entire island), seized
the opportunity to revolt. The siege and reduction of Mytilene
by the Athenians was one of the exciting incidents of that
struggle.

_Thucydides,
History,
book 3._

ALSO IN:
_G. Grote,
History of Greece,
part 2, chapters 14 and 50._

See, also, ASIA MINOR: THE GREEK COLONIES;
and GREECE: B. C. 429-427.

LESBOS: B. C. 412.
Revolt from Athens.

See GREECE: B. C. 413-412.

----------LESBOS: End--------

LESCHE, The.

The clubs of Sparta and Athens formed an important feature of
the life of Greece. In every Grecian community there was a
place of resort called the Lesche. In Sparta it was peculiarly
the resort of old men, who assembled round a blazing fire in
winter, and were listened to with profound respect by their
juniors. These retreats were numerous in Athens.

_C. O. Müller,
History and Antiquities of the Doric race,
volume 2, page 396._

"The proper home of the Spartan art of speech, the original
source of so many Spartan jokes current over all Greece, was
the Lesche, the place of meeting for men at leisure, near the
public drilling-grounds, where they met in small bands, and
exchanged merry talk."

_E. Curtius,
History of Greece,
volume 1, page 220 (American edition)._

LESCO V.,
Duke of Poland, A. D. 1194-1227.

Lesco VI., Duke of Poland, 1279-1289.

LESE-MAJESTY.

A term in English law signifying treason, borrowed from the
Romans. The contriving, or counselling or consenting to the
king's death, or sedition against the king, are included in
the crime of "lese-majesty."

_W. Stubbs,
Constitutional History of England,
chapter 21, section 786._

LE TELLIER, and the suppression of Port Royal.

See PORT ROYAL AND THE JANSENISTS: A. D. 1702-1715.

LETTER OF MAJESTY, The.

See BOHEMIA. A. D. 1611-1618.

LETTERS OF MARQUE.

See PRIVATEERS.

LETTRE DE CACHET.

"In French history, a letter or order under seal; a private
letter of state: a name given especially to a written order
proceeding from and signed by the king, and countersigned by a
secretary of state, and used at first as an occasional means
of delaying the course of justice, but later, in the 17th and
18th centuries, as a warrant for the imprisonment without
trial of a person obnoxious for any reason to the government,
often for life or for a long period, and on frivolous
pretexts. Lettres de cachet were abolished at the Revolution."

_Century Dictionary._

"The minister used to give generously blank lettres-de-cachet
to the intendants, the bishops, and people in the
administration. Saint-Florentin, alone, gave away as many as
50,000. Never had man's dearest treasure, liberty, been more
lavishly squandered. These letters were the object of a
profitable traffic; they were sold to fathers who wanted to
get rid of their sons, and given to pretty women who were
inconvenienced by their husbands. This last cause of
imprisonment was one of the most prominent. And all through
good-nature. The king [Louis XV.] was too good to refuse a
lettre-de-cachet to a great lord. The intendant was too
good-natured not to grant one at a lady's request. The
government clerks, the mistresses of the clerks, and the
friends of these mistresses, through good-nature, civility, or
mere politeness, obtained, gave, or lent, those terrible
orders by which a man was buried alive. Buried;—for such was
the carelessness and levity of those amiable clerks,—almost
all nobles, fashionable men, all occupied with their
pleasures,—that they never had the time, when once the poor
fellow was shut up, to think of his position."

_J. Michelet,
Historical View of the French Revolution,
introduction, part 2, section 9._

LETTS.

See LITHUANIANS.

LEUCADIA, LEUCAS.

Originally a peninsula of Acarnania, on the western coast of
Greece, but converted into an island by the Corinthians, who
cut a canal across its narrow neck. Its chief town, of the
same name, was at one time the meeting place of the Acarnanian
League. The high promontory at the south-western extremity of
the island was celebrated for the temple of Apollo which
crowned it, and as being the scene of the story of Sappho's
suicidal leap from the Leucadian rock.

LEUCÆ, Battle of.

The kingdom of Pergamum having been bequeathed to the Romans
by its last king, Attalus, a certain Aristonicus attempted to
resist their possession of it, and Crassus, one of the consuls
of B. C. 131 was sent against him. But Crassus had no success
and was finally defeated and slain, near Leucæ. Aristonicus
surrendered soon afterwards to M. Perperna and the war in
Pergamum was ended.

_G. Long,
Decline of the Roman Republic,
volume 1, chapter 14._

LEUCATE, Siege and Battle (1637).

See SPAIN: A. D. 1637-1640.

LEUCI, The.

A tribe in Belgic Gaul which occupied the southern part of the
modern department of the Meuse, the greater part of the
Meurthe, and the department of the Vosges.

_Napoleon III.,
History of Cæsar,
book 3, chapter 2, footnote (volume 2)._

LEUCTRA, Battle of (B. C. 371).

See GREECE: B. C. 379-371.

LEUD, OR LIDUS, The.

See SLAVERY, MEDIÆVAL: GERMANY.

LEUDES.

"The Frankish warriors, but particularly the leaders, were
called 'leudes,' from the Teutonic word 'leude,' 'liude,'
'leute,' people, as some think (Thierry, Lettres sur l'Hist.
de Franc, p. 130). In the Scandinavian dialects, 'lide' means
a warrior … ; and in the Kymric also 'lwydd' means an army
or war-band. … It was not a title of dignity, as every free
fighter among the Franks was a leud, but in process of time
the term seems to have been restricted to the most prominent
and powerful warriors alone."

_P. Godwin,
History of France: Ancient Gaul,
book 3, chapter 12, foot-note._

{1999}

LEUGA, The.

"The roads in the whole Roman empire were measured and marked
according to the unit of the Roman mile (1.48 kilometer), and
up to the end of the second century this applied also to those
[the Gallic] provinces. But from Severus onward its place was
taken in the three Gauls and the two Germanies by a mile
correlated no doubt to the Roman, but yet different and with a
Gallic name, the 'leuga' (2.222 kilomètres), equal to one and
a half Roman miles. … The double 'leuga,' the German
'rasta,' … corresponds to the French 'lieue.'"

_T. Mommsen,
History of the Romans,
book 8, chapter 3._

LEUKAS.

See KORKYRA.

LEUKOPETRA, Battle of (B. C. 146).

See GREECE: B. C. 280-146.

LEUTHEN, Battle of.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1757 (JULY-DECEMBER).

LEVELLERS, The.

"Especially popular among the soldiers [of the Parliamentary
Army, England, A. D. 1647-48], and keeping up their excitement
more particularly against the House of Lords, were the
pamphlets that came from John Lilburne, and an associate of
his named Richard Overton. … These were the pamphlets …
which … were popular with the common soldiers of the
Parliamentary Army, and nursed that especial form of the
democratic passion among them which longed to sweep away the
House of Lords and see England governed by a single
Representative House. Baxter, who reports this growth of
democratic opinion in the Army from his own observation,
distinctly recognises in it the beginnings of that rough
ultra-Republican party which afterwards became formidable
under the name of The Levellers."

_D. Masson,
Life of John Milton,
volume 3, book 4, chapter 1._

"They [the Levellers] had a vision of a pure and patriotic
Parliament, accurately representing the people, yet carrying
out a political programme incomprehensible to nine-tenths of
the nation. This Parliament was to represent all legitimate
varieties of thought, and was yet to act together as one man.
The necessity for a Council of State they therefore entirely
denied; and they denounced it as a new tyranny. The excise
they condemned as an obstruction to trade. They would have no
man compelled to fight, unless he felt free in his own
conscience to do so. They appealed to the law of nature, and
found their interpretation of it carrying them further and
further away from English traditions and habits, whether of
Church or State." A mutiny of the Levellers in the army, which
broke out in April and May, 1640, was put down with stern
vigor by Cromwell and Fairfax, several of the leaders being
executed.

_J. A. Picton,
Oliver Cromwell,
chapter 17._

LEWES, Battle of.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1216-1274.

LEWIS AND CLARK'S EXPEDITION.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1804-1801.

LEXINGTON, Massachusetts: A. D. 1775.
The beginning of the War of the American Revolution.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775 (APRIL).

----------LEXINGTON: Start--------

LEXINGTON, MISSOURI, Siege of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1861 (JULY-SEPTEMBER: MISSOURI).

LEXINGTON, MISSOURI: Battle at.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1864 (MARCH-OCTOBER: ARKANSAS-MISSOURI).

----------LEXINGTON: End--------

LEXOVII, The.

The Lexovii were one of the tribes of northwestern Gaul, in
the time of Cæsar. Their position is indicated and their name,
in a modified form, preserved by the town of Lisieux between
Caen and Evreux.

_G. Long,
Decline of the Roman Republic,
volume 4, chapter 6._

----------LEYDEN: Start--------

LEYDEN: A. D. 1574.
Siege by the Spaniards.
Relief by the flooding of the land.
The founding of the University.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1573-1574;
and EDUCATION, RENAISSANCE: NETHERLANDS.

LEYDEN: A. D. 1609-1620.
The Sojourn of the Pilgrim Fathers.

See INDEPENDENTS: A. D. 1604-1617.

----------LEYDEN: End--------

LHASSA, the seat of the Grand Lama.

See LAMAS.

LIA-FAIL, The.