Chapter IV: Concerning the infallible teaching of the Roman (11)

"Poland, like Belgium and the Romagna, had felt the
invigorating influence of the Revolution of July [in France].
The partition of Poland had been accomplished in a dark period
of the preceding century. It was almost universally regarded
in Western Europe as a mistake and a crime. It was a mistake
to have removed the barrier which separated Russia from the
West; it was a crime to have sacrificed a free and brave
people to the ambition of a relentless autocrat. … The cause
of freedom was identified with the cause of Poland, 'and
freedom shrieked' when Poland's champion 'fell.' The
statesmen, however, who parcelled out Europe amongst the
victorious autocrats in 1815 were incapable of appreciating
the feelings which had inspired the Scotch poet. Castlereagh,
indeed, endeavoured to make terms for Poland. But he did not
lay much stress on his demands. He contented himself with
obtaining the forms of constitutional government for the
Poles. Poland, constituted a kingdom, whose crown was to pass
by hereditary succession to the Emperors of Russia, was to be
governed by a resident Viceroy, assisted by a Polish Diet.
Constantine, who had abdicated the crown of Russia in his
brother's favour, was Viceroy of Poland. … He was residing at
Warsaw when the news of the glorious days of July reached
Poland. The Poles were naturally affected by the tidings of a
revolution which had expelled autocracy from France.
Kosciusko—the hero of 1794—was their favourite patriot. The
cadets at the Military School in Warsaw, excited at the news,
drank to his memory. Constantine thought that young men who
dared to drink to Kosciusko deserved to be flogged. The
cadets, learning his decision, determined on resisting it.
Their determination precipitated a revolution which, perhaps,
under any circumstances, would have occurred. Every
circumstance which could justify revolt existed in Poland. The
Constitution provided for the regular assembly of the Diet:
the Diet had not been assembled for five years. The
Constitution declared that taxes should not be imposed on the
Poles without the consent of their representatives: for
fifteen years no budget had been submitted to the Diet. The
Constitution provided for the personal liberty of every Pole:
the Grand Duke seized and imprisoned the wretched Poles at his
pleasure. The Constitution had given Poland a representative
government; and Constantine, in defiance of it, had played the
part of an autocrat. The threat of punishment, which
Constantine pronounced against the military cadets, merely
lighted the torch which was already prepared. Eighteen young
men, armed to the teeth, entered the Grand Duke's palace and
forced their way into his apartments. Constantine had just
time to escape by a back staircase. His flight saved his life.
… The insurrection, commenced in the Archduke's palace, soon
spread. Some of the Polish regiments passed over to the
insurgents. Constantine, who displayed little courage or
ability, withdrew from the city; and, on the morning of the
30th of November [1830], the Poles were in complete possession
of Warsaw. They persuaded Chlopicki, a general who had served
with distinction under Suchet in Spain, to place himself at
their head. … Raised to the first position in the State, his
warmest counsellors urged him to attack the few thousand men
whom Constantine still commanded. Chlopicki preferred
negotiating with the Russians. The negotiation, of course,
failed. … Chlopicki—his own well-intentioned effort having
failed—resigned his office; and his fellow countrymen invested
Radziwil with the command of their army, and placed Adam
Czartoryski at the head of the Government. In the meanwhile
Nicholas was steadily preparing for the contest which was
before him. Diebitsch, who had brought the campaign of 1820 to
a victorious conclusion, was entrusted with the command of the
Russian army. … Three great military roads converge from the
east upon Warsaw.
{2558}
The most northerly of these enters Poland at Kovno, crosses
the Narew, a tributary of the Bug, at Ostrolenka, and runs
down the right bank of the first of these rivers; the central
road crosses the Bug at Brzesc and proceeds almost due west
upon Warsaw; the most southerly of the three enters Poland
from the Austrian frontier, crosses the Vistula at Gora, and
proceeds along its west bank to the capital. Diebitsch decided
on advancing by all three routes on Warsaw. … Diebitsch, on
the 20th of February, 1831, attacked the Poles; on the 25th he
renewed the attack. The battle on the 20th raged round the
village of Grochow; it raged on the 25th round the village of
Praga. Fought with extreme obstinacy, neither side was able to
claim any decided advantage. The Russians could boast that the
Poles had withdrawn across the Vistula. The Poles could
declare that their retreat had been conducted at leisure, and
that the Russians were unable or unwilling to renew the
attack. Diebitsch himself, seriously alarmed at the situation
into which he had fallen, remained for a month in inaction at
Grochow. Before the month was over Radziwil, who had proved
unequal to the duties of his post, was superseded in the
command of the Polish army by Skrzynecki. On the 30th of
March, Skrzynecki crossed the Vistula at Praga, and attacked
the division of the Russian army which occupied the forest of
Waver, near Grochow. The attack was made in the middle of the
night. The Russians were totally defeated; they experienced a
loss of 5,000 in killed and wounded, and 6,000 prisoners.
Crippled by this disaster, Diebitsch fell back before the
Polish army. Encouraged by his success, Skrzynecki pressed
forward in pursuit. The great central road by which Warsaw is
approached crosses the Kostczyn, a tributary of the Bug, near
the little village of Iganie, about half-way between Russia
and Warsaw. Eleven days after the victory of the 30th of March
the Russians were again attacked by the Poles at Iganie. The
Poles won a second victory. The Russians, disheartened at a
succession of reverses, scattered before the attack; and the
cause of Poland seemed to have been already won by the
gallantry of her children and the skill of their generals.
Diebitsch, however, defeated at Grochow and Iganie, was not
destroyed. … Foregoing his original intention of advancing by
three roads on Warsaw, he determined to concentrate his right
on the northern road at Ostrolenka, his left, on the direct
road at Siedlice. It was open to Skrzynecki to renew the
attack, where Diebitsch expected it, and throw himself on the
defeated remnants of the Russian army at Siedlice. Instead of
doing so he took advantage of his central situation to cross
the Bug and throw himself upon the Russian right at
Ostrolenka. … Skrzynecki had reason to hope that he might
obtain a complete success before Diebitsch could by any
possibility march to the rescue. He failed. Diebitsch
succeeded in concentrating his entire force before the
destruction of his right wing had been consummated. On the
26th of May, Skrzynecki found himself opposed to the whole
Russian army. Throughout the whole of that day the Polish
levies gallantly struggled for the victory. When evening came
they remained masters of the field which had been the scene of
the contest. A negative victory of this character, however,
was not the object of the great movement upon the Russian
right. The Polish general, his army weakened by heavy losses,
resolved on retiring upon Warsaw. Offensive operations were
over: the defensive campaign had begun. Victory with the Poles
had, in fact, proved as fatal as defeat. The Russians, relying
upon their almost illimitable resources, could afford to lose
two men for every one whom Poland could spare. … It happened,
too, that a more fatal enemy than even war fell upon Poland in
the hour of her necessity. The cholera, which had been rapidly
advancing through Russia during 1830, broke out in the Russian
army in the spring of 1831. The prisoners taken at Iganie
communicated the seeds of infection to the Polish troops. Both
armies suffered severely from the disease; but the effects of
it were much more serious to the cause of Poland than to the
cause of Russia. … A fortnight after the battle of Ostrolenka,
Diebitsch, who had advanced his head-quarters to Pultusk,
succumbed to the malady. In the same week Constantine, the
Viceroy of Poland, and his Polish wife, also died. … Diebitsch
was at once succeeded in the command by Paskievitsch, an
officer who had gained distinction in Asia Minor. … On the 7th
of July, Paskievitsch crossed the Vistula at Plock, and
threatened Warsaw from the rear. … Slowly and steadily he
advanced against the capital. On the 6th of September he
attacked the devoted city. Inch by inch the Russians made
their way over the earthworks which had been constructed in
its defence. On the evening of the 7th the town was at their
mercy; on the 8th it capitulated. … The news of its fall
reached Paris on the 15th of September. The news of Waterloo
had not created so much consternation in the French capital.
Business was suspended; the theatres were closed. The cause of
Poland was in every mind, the name of Poland on every tongue.
… On the 26th of February, 1832, Nicholas, promulgated a new
organic statute for the government of Poland, which he had the
insolence to claim for Russia by the right of conquest of
1815. A draft of the statute reached Western Europe in the
spring of 1832. About the same time stories were received of
the treatment which the Russians were systematically applying
to the ill-fated country. Her schools were closed; her
national libraries and public collections removed; the
children of the Poles were carried into Russia; their fathers
Were swept into the Russian army; whole families accused of
participation in the rebellion were marched into the interior
of the empire; columns of Poles, it was stated, could be seen
on the Russian roads linked man to man by bars of iron; and
little children, unable to bear the fatigues of a long
journey, were included among them; the dead bodies of those
who had perished on the way could be seen on the sides of the
Russian roads. The wail of their wretched mothers—"Oh, that
the Czar could be drowned in our tears!'—resounded throughout
Europe."

_S. Walpole,
History of England,
chapter 16 (volume 3)._

ALSO IN:
_J. Hordynski,
History of the late Polish Revolution._

_A. Rambaud,
History of Russia,
volume 2, chapter 14._

_Sir A. Alison,
History of Europe, 1815-52,
chapter 26._

POLAND: A. D. 1846.
Insurrection in Galicia suppressed.
Extinction of the republic of Cracow.
Its annexation to Austria.

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1815-1846.

{2559}

POLAND: A. D. 1860-1864.
The last insurrection.

"In 1860 broke out the last great Polish insurrection, in all
respects a very ill–advised attempt. On the 29th of November
of that year, on the occasion of the 30th anniversary of the
revolution of 1830, national manifestations, taking a
religious form, took place in the Warsaw churches. … On the
25th of February, 1861, on the anniversary of the battle of
Grochow, the Agricultural Society of that city, presided over
by Count Zamojski, held a meeting for the purpose of
presenting a petition to the Emperor to grant a constitution.
Although the Tsar did not concede this demand, he decreed by
an ukase of the 26th of March a council of state for the
kingdom, elective councils in each government, and municipal
councils in Warsaw and the chief cities. Moreover, the Polish
language was to be adopted in all the schools of the kingdom.
… On the 8th of April the people appeared in crowds in front
of the castle of the Viceroy, and when they refused to
disperse, were fired upon by the soldiers. About 200 persons
were killed in this unfortunate affair, and many more wounded.
The viceroyalty of Count Lambert was not successful in
conciliating the people; he was succeeded by Count Lüders, who
was reactionary in his policy. An attempt was made in June,
1862, on the life of the Count in the Saxon Garden (Saksonski
Sad), and he was soon afterwards recalled; his place being
taken by the Grand Duke Constantine, who was chiefly guided by
the Marquis Wielopolski, an unpopular but able man. Two
attempts were made upon the life of the Grand Duke, the latter
of which was nearly successful; the life of Wielopolski was
also several times in danger. … On the night of June 15, 1863,
a secret conscription was held, and the persons considered to
be most hostile to the Government were taken in their beds and
forcibly enlisted. Out of a population of 180,000 the number
thus seized at Warsaw was 2,000; soon after this the
insurrection broke out. Its proceedings were directed by a
secret committee, styled Rzad (Government), and were as
mysterious as the movements of the celebrated Fehmgerichte.
The Poles fought under enormous difficulties. Most of the
bands consisted of undisciplined men, unfamiliar with military
tactics, and they had to contend with well–organised troops.
Few of them had muskets; the generality were armed only with
pikes, scythes, and sticks. … The bands of the insurgents were
chiefly composed of priests, the smaller landowners, lower
officials, and peasants who had no land, but those peasants
who possessed any land refused to join. Many showed but a
languid patriotism on account of the oppressive laws relating
to the poorer classes, formerly in vigour in Poland, of which
the tradition was still strong. The war was only guerilla
fighting, in which the dense forests surrounding the towns
were of great assistance to the insurgents. The secret
emissaries of the revolutionary Government were called
stiletcziki, from the daggers which they carried. They
succeeded in killing many persons who had made themselves
obnoxious to the national party. … No quarter was given to the
chiefs of the insurgents; when captured they were shot or
hanged. … When the Grand Duke Constantine resigned the
viceroyalty at Warsaw he was succeeded by Count Berg. … By
May, 1864, the insurrection was suppressed, but it had cost
Poland dear. All its old privileges were now taken away;
henceforth all teaching, both in the universities and schools,
must be in the Russian language. Russia was triumphant, and
paid no attention to the demands of the three Great Powers,
England, France, and Austria. Prussia had long been silently
and successfully carrying on her plan for the Germanisation of
Posen, and on the 8th of February, 1863, she had concluded a
convention with Russia with a view of putting a stop to the
insurrection. Her method throughout has been more drastic; she
has slowly eliminated or weakened the Polish element,
carefully avoiding any of those reprisals which would cause a
European scandal."

_W. R. Morfill,
The Story of Poland,
chapter 12._

POLAND: A. D. 1868.
Complete incorporation with Russia.

By an imperial ukase, February 23, 1868, the government of
Poland was absolutely incorporated with that of Russia.

----------POLAND: End--------

POLAR STAR, The Order of the.

A Swedish order of knighthood, the date of the founding of
which is uncertain.

POLEMARCH.

See GREECE: FROM THE DORIAN MIGRATION TO B. C. 683.

POLETÆ. POLETERIUM.

"Every thing which the state (Athens) sold, or leased;
revenues, real property, mines, confiscated estates, in which
is to be included also the property of public debtors, who
were in arrear after the last term of respite, and the bodies
of the aliens under the protection of the state, who had not
paid the sum required for protection, and of foreigners who
had been guilty of assuming the rights of citizenship, or of
the crime called apostasion; all these, I say, together with
the making of contracts for the public works, at least in
certain cases and periods, were under the charge of the ten
poletæ, although not always without the coöperation of other
boards of officers. Each of the tribes appointed one of the
members of this branch of the government, and their sessions
were held in the edifice called the Poleterium."

_A. Boeckh,
Public Economy of Athens (Lamb's translation),
book 2, chapter 3._

POLITIQUES, The Party of the.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1573-1576.

POLK, James K.:
Presidential election and administration.

See UNITED STATES OF AM.:A. D. 1844, to 1848.

POLKOS, The.

See MEXICO: A. D. 1846-1847.

POLLENTIA, Battle of.

See GOTHS: A. D. 400-403.

POLLICES.

See FOOT, THE ROMAN.

POLO, Marco, The travels of.

"This celebrated personage was not, in the strict sense of the
word, a traveller. He was one of those professional
politicians of the Middle Ages who are familiar to the student
of Italian history. The son of a travelling Venetian merchant,
who had already passed many years in Tartary, and been
regarded with welcome and consideration by the Grand Khan
himself, he was taken at an early age to the Grand Khan's
court, and apprenticed, as it were, to the Grand Khan's
service. The young adventurer possessed in a high degree that
subtlety and versatility which opinion attributes to his
nation. Profiting by his opportunities, he soon succeeded in
transmuting himself into a Tartar.
{2560}
He adopted the Tartar dress, studied the Tartar manners, and
mastered the four languages spoken in the Grand Khan's
dominions. Kublai appears first to have employed him as a
secretary, and then to have sent him on confidential missions:
and during a service of seventeen years Marco was engaged in
this way, in journeys by land and sea, in every part of the
Grand Khan's empire and dependencies. More than this, he
travelled on his own account, everywhere, it would appear,
recording his notes and observations, partly for his own use,
and partly for the information or entertainment of his master.
These notes and observations were given to the world of Europe
under the following circumstances. After a residence of
seventeen years, Marco obtained permission to revisit Venice,
accompanied by his father and uncle. Not long after his
return, he was taken in a sea-fight with the Genoese, and
committed to prison. To relieve the ennui of his confinement,
he procured his rough notes from Venice, and dictated to a
fellow–prisoner the narrative which passes under his name.
This narrative soon became known to the world: and from its
publication may be dated that intense and active interest in
the East which has gone on steadily increasing ever since. The
rank and dignified character of this famous adventurer, the
romance of his career, the wealth which he amassed, the extent
of his observations, the long series of years they had
occupied, the strange and striking facts which he reported,
and the completeness and perspicuity of his narrative,
combined to produce a marked effect on the Italian world.
Marco Polo was the true predecessor of Columbus. From an early
time we find direct evidence of his influence on the process
of exploration. … Wherever the Italian captains went, the fame
of the great Venetian's explorations was noised abroad: and,
as we shall presently see, the Italian captains were the chief
directors of navigation and discovery in every seaport of
Western Europe. The work dictated by Marco Polo to his
fellow-captive, though based upon his travels both in form and
matter, is no mere journal or narrative of adventure. A brief
account of his career in the East is indeed prefixed, and the
route over which he carries his reader is substantially that
chronologically followed by himself; for he takes his reader
successively overland to China, by way of the Black Sea,
Armenia, and Tartary, backwards and forwards by land and sea,
throughout the vast dominions of the Grand Khan, and finally
homeward by the Indian Ocean, touching by the way at most of
those famous countries which bordered thereon. Yet the book is
no book of travels. It is rather a Handbook to the East for
the use of other European travellers, and was clearly compiled
as such and nothing more. Perhaps no compiler has ever laid
down a clearer or more practical plan, adopted a more
judicious selection of facts, or relieved it by a more
attractive embroidery of historical anecdote. … It is not here
to the purpose to dwell on his notices of Armenia, Turcomania,
and Persia: his descriptions of the cities of Bagdad, Ormus,
Tabriz, and many others, or to follow him to Kashmir,
Kashghar, and Samarkhand, and across the steppes of Tartary.
The main interest of Marco Polo lies in his description of the
Grand Khan's Empire, and of those wide-spread shores, all
washed by the Indian Ocean, which from Zanzibar to Japan went
by the general name of India. … The Pope alone, among European
potentates of the 15th century, could be ranked as approaching
in state and dignity to the Tartar sovereign of China. For any
fair parallel, recourse must be had to the Great Basileus of
Persia: and in the eyes of his Venetian secretary the Grand
Khan appeared much as Darius or Cyrus may have appeared to the
Greek adventurers who crowded his court, and competed for the
favour of a mighty barbarian whom they at once flattered and
despised."

_E. J. Payne,
History of the New World,
book 1._

ALSO IN:
_The Book of Ser Marco Polo;
edited by Colonel H. Yule._

_T. W. Knox,
Travels of Marco Polo for Boys and Girls._

_G. M. Towle,
Marco Polo._

See, also, CHINA: A. D. 1259-1294.

POLONNA, Battle of (1792).

See POLAND: A. D. 1791-1792.

POLYNESIANS, The.

See MALAYAN RACE.

POLYPOTAMIA, The proposed State of.

See NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1784.

POMERANIANS, The.

"Adam of Bremen first mentions these Pomeranians [east of the
Oder], and he mentions them as Slavonians, the Oder being
their boundary to the West. On the east they were conterminous
with the Prussians. Their name is Slavonic, 'po'='on' and
'more'='sea,'='coastmen.' All their antiquities and traditions
are equally so; in other words there is neither evidence, nor
shadow of evidence, of their ever having dispossessed an older
Germanic population. Nor are they wholly extinct at the
present moment. On the promontories which project into the
Gulf of Dantzig we find the Slavonic Kassub, Cassubitæ, or
Kaszeb. Their language approaches the Polish."

_R. G. Latham,
The Germania of Tacitus, Prolegomena,
section 7._

POMERIUM, The Roman.

"The pomerium was a hallowed space, along the whole circuit of
the city, behind the wall, where the city auspices were taken,
over which the augurs had full right, and which could never be
moved without their first consulting the will of the gods. The
pomerium which encircled the Palatine appears to have been the
space between the wall and the foot of the hill."

_H. M. Westropp,
Early and Imperial Rome,
page 40._

POMPADOUR, Madame de, Ascendancy of.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1723-1774.

POMPÆ.

The solemn processions of the ancient Athenians, on which they
expended great sums of money, were so called.

_A. Boeckh,
Public Economy of Athens,
book 2, chapter 12._

POMPEII.

"Pompeii was a maritime city at the mouth of the river Sarnus,
the most sheltered recess of the Neapolitan Crater. Its origin
was lost in antiquity, and the tradition that it was founded
by Hercules, together with the other spot [Herculaneum] which
bore the name of the demigod, was derived perhaps from the
warm springs with which the region abounded. The Greek
plantations on the Campanian coast had been overrun by the
Oscans and Samnites; nevertheless the graceful features of
Grecian civilization were still everywhere conspicuous, and
though Pompeii received a Latin name, and though Sulla,
Augustus, and Nero had successively endowed it with Roman
colonists, it retained the manners and to a great extent the
language of the settlers from beyond the sea."

_C. Merivale,
History of the Romans,
chapter 60._

{2561}

Pompeii, and the neighboring city of Herculaneum, were
overwhelmed by a volcanic eruption from Mount Vesuvius, on the
23rd of August, A. D. 79. They were buried, but did not
perish; they were death-stricken, but not destroyed; and by
excavations, which began at Pompeii A. D. 1748, they have been
extensively uncovered, and made to exhibit to modern times the
very privacies and secrets of life in a Roman city of the age
of Titus.

_Pliny the Younger, Letters,
book 6, epistles 16 and 20._

ALSO IN:
_T. H. Dyer,
Pompeii._

POMPEII AND HERCULANEUM, Exhumed Libraries of.

See LIBRARIES, ANCIENT: HERCULANEUM.

POMPEIUS, the Great, and the first Triumvirate.

See ROME: B. C. 78-68, to B. C. 48;
and ALEXANDRIA: B. C. 48-47.

PONCAS, PONKAS, PUNCAS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY,
and PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.

----------PONDICHERRY: Start--------

PONDICHERRY: A. D. 1674-1697.
Founded by the French.
Taken by the Dutch.
Restored to France.

See INDIA: A. D. 1665-1743.

PONDICHERRY: A. D. 1746.
Siege by the English.

See INDIA: A. D. 1743-1752.

PONDICHERRY: A. D. 1761.
Capture by the English.

See INDIA: A. D. 1758-1761.

----------PONDICHERRY: End--------

PONIATOWSKY, Stanislaus Augustus,
King of Poland, A. D. 1764-1795.

PONKAS.

See PONCAS.

PONS ÆLII.

A Roman bridge and military station on the Tyne, where
Newcastle is now situated.

_H. M. Scarth,
Roman Britain,
chapter 8._

PONS SUBLICIUS, The.

See SUBLICIAN BRIDGE.

PONT ACHIN, Battle of.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1794 (MARCH-JULY).

PONTCHARRA, Battle of (1591).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1591-1593.

PONTE NUOVO, Battle of (1769).

See CORSICA: A. D. 1729-1769.

PONTIAC'S WAR (A. D. 1763-1764).

"With the conquest of Canada and the expulsion of France as a
military power from the continent, the English colonists were
abounding in loyalty to the mother country, were exultant in
the expectation of peace, and in the assurance of immunity
from Indian wars in the future; for it did not seem possible
that, with the loose system of organization and government
common to the Indians, they could plan and execute a general
campaign without the co–operation of the French as leaders.
This feeling of security among the English settlements was of
short duration. A general discontent pervaded all the Indian
tribes from the frontier settlements to the Mississippi, and
from the great lakes to the Gulf of Mexico. The extent of this
disquietude was not suspected, and hence no attempt was made
to gain the goodwill of the Indians. There were many real
causes for this discontent. The French had been politic and
sagacious in their intercourse with the Indian. They gained
his friendship by treating him with respect and justice. They
came to him with presents, and, as a rule, dealt with him
fairly in trade. They came with missionaries, unarmed, heroic,
self-denying men. … Many Frenchmen married Indian wives, dwelt
with the native tribes, and adopted their customs. To the
average Englishman, on the other hand, Indians were disgusting
objects; he would show them no respect, nor treat them with
justice except under compulsion. … The French had shown little
disposition to make permanent settlements; but the English,
when they appeared, came to stay, and they occupied large
tracts of the best land for agricultural purposes. The French
hunters and traders, who were widely dispersed among the
native tribes, kept the Indians in a state of disquietude by
misrepresenting the English, exaggerating their faults, and
making the prediction that the French would soon recapture
Canada and expel the English from the Western territories.
Pontiac, the chief of the Ottawas [see CANADA: A. D. 1760],
was the Indian who had the motive, the ambition, and capacity
for organization which enabled him to concentrate and use all
these elements of discontent for his own malignant and selfish
purposes. After the defeat of the French, be professed for a
time to be friendly with the English, expecting that, under
the acknowledged supremacy of Great Britain, he would be
recognized as a mighty Indian prince, and be assigned to rule
over his own, and perhaps a confederacy of other tribes.
Finding that the English government had no use for him, he was
indignant, and he devoted all the energies of his vigorous
mind to a secret conspiracy of uniting the tribes west of the
Alleghanies to engage in a general war against the English
settlements ['The tribes thus banded together against the
English comprised, with a few unimportant exceptions, the
whole Algonquin stock, to whom were united the Wyandots, the
Senecas, and several tribes of the lower Mississippi. The
Senecas were the only members of the Iroquois confederacy who
joined in the league, the rest being kept quiet by the
influence of Sir William Johnson.'

_F. Parkman,
Conspiracy of Pontiac,
volume 1, page 187._

… His scheme was to make a simultaneous attack on all the
Western posts in the month of May, 1763; and each attack was
assigned to the neighboring tribes. His summer home was on a
small island at the entrance of Lake St. Clair; and being near
Detroit, he was to conduct in person the capture of that fort.
On the 6th of May, 1763, Major Gladwin, in command at Detroit,
had warning from an Indian girl that the next day an attempt
would be made to capture the fort by treachery. When Pontiac,
on the appointed morning, accompanied by 60 of his chiefs,
with short guns concealed under their blankets, appeared at
the fort, and, as usual, asked for admission, he was startled
at seeing the whole garrison under arms, and that his scheme
of treachery had miscarried. For two months the savages
assailed the fort, and the sleepless garrison gallantly
defended it, when they were relieved by the arrival of a
schooner from Fort Niagara, with 60 men, provisions, and
ammunition. Fort Pitt, on the present site of Pittsburg,
Pennsylvania, was in command of Captain Ecuyer, another
trained soldier, who had been warned of the Indian conspiracy
by Major Gladwin in a letter written May 5th. Captain Ecuyer,
having a garrison of 330 soldiers and backwoodsmen,
immediately made every preparation for defence. On May 27th, a
party of Indians appeared at the fort under the pretence of
wishing to trade, and were treated as spies.
{2562}
Active operations against Fort Pitt were postponed until the
smaller forts had been taken. Fort Sandusky was captured May
16th; Fort St. Joseph (on the St. Joseph River, Michigan), May
25th; Fort Ouatanon (now Lafayette, Indiana), May 31st; Fort
Michillimaekinac (now Mackinaw, Michigan), June 2d; Fort
Presqu' Isle (now Erie, Pennsylvania), June 17th; Fort Le Bœuf
(Erie County, Pennsylvania), June 18th; Fort Venango (Venango
County, Pennsylvania), June 18th; and the posts at Carlisle
and Bedford, Pennsylvania, on the same day. No garrison except
that at Presqu' Is]e had warning of danger. The same method of
capture was adopted in each instance. A small party of Indians
came to the fort with the pretence of friendship, and were
admitted. Others soon joined them, when the visitors rose upon
the small garrisons, butchered them, or took them captive. At
Presqu' Isle the Indians laid siege to the fort for two days,
when they set it on fire. At Venango no one of the garrison
survived to give an account of the capture. On June 22d, a
large body of Indians surrounded Fort Pitt and opened fire on
all sides, but were easily repulsed. … The Indians departed
next day and did not return until July 26th," when they laid
siege to the fort for five days and nights, with more loss to
themselves than to the garrison. They "then disappeared, in
order to intercept the expedition of Colonel Bouquet, which
was approaching from the east with a convoy of provisions for
the relief of Fort Pitt. It was fortunate for the country that
there was an officer stationed at Philadelphia who fully
understood the meaning of the alarming reports which were
coming in from the Western posts. Colonel Henry Bouquet was a
gallant Swiss officer who had been trained in war from his
youth, and whose personal accomplishments gave an additional
charm to his bravery and heroic energy. He had served seven
years in fighting American Indians, and was more cunning than
they in the practice of their own artifices. General Amherst,
the commander-in–chief, was slow in appreciating the
importance and extent of the Western conspiracy; yet he did
good service in directing Colonel Bouquet to organize an
expedition for the relief of Fort Pitt. The promptness and
energy with which this duty was performed, under the most
embarrassing conditions, make the expedition one of the most
brilliant episodes in American warfare. The only troops
available for the service were about 500 regulars recently
arrived from the siege of Havana, broken in health." At Bushy
Run, 25 miles east of Fort Pitt, Bouquet fought a desperate
battle with the savages, and defeated them by the stratagem of
a pretended retreat, which drew them into an ambuscade. Fort
Pitt was then reached in safety. "On the 29th of July Detroit
was reinforced by 280 men under Captain Dalzell, who in June
had left Fort Niagara in 22 barges, with several cannon and a
supply of provisions and ammunition. The day after his
arrival, Captain Dalzell proposed, with 250 men, to make a
night attack on Pontiac's camp and capture him. Major Gladwin
discouraged the attempt, but finally, against his judgment,
consented. Some Canadians obtained the secret and carried it
to Pontiac, who waylaid the party in an ambuscade [at a place
called Bloody Bridge ever since]. Twenty of the English were
killed and 39 wounded. Among the killed was Captain Dalzell
himself. Pontiac could make no use of this success, as the
fort was strongly garrisoned and well supplied. … Elsewhere
there was nothing to encourage him." His confederation begun
to break, and in November he was forced to raise the siege of
Detroit. "There was quietness on the frontiers during the
winter of 1763-64. In the spring of 1764 scattered war parties
were again ravaging the borders. Colonel Bouquet was
recruiting in Pennsylvania, and preparing an outfit for his
march into the valley of the Ohio. In June, Colonel
Bradstreet, with a force of 1,200 men, was sent up the great
lakes," where he made an absurd and unauthorized treaty with
some of the Ohio Indians. He arrived at Detroit on the 26th of
August. "Pontiac had departed, and sent messages of defiance
from the banks of the Maumee." Colonel Bouquet had experienced
great difficulty in raising troops and supplies and it was not
until September, 1764, that he again reached Fort Pitt. But
before two months passed he had brought the Delawares and
Shawanees to submission and had delivered some 200 white
captives from their hands. Meantime, Sir William Johnson, in
conjunction with Bradstreet, had held conferences with a great
council of 2,000 warriors at Fort Niagara, representing
Iroquois, Ottawas, Ojibways, Wyandots and others, and had
concluded several treaties of peace. By one of these, with the
Senecas, a strip of land four miles wide on each side of
Niagara River, from Erie to Ontario, was ceded to the British
government. "The Pontiac War, so far as battles and campaigns
were concerned, was ended; but Pontiac was still at large and
as untamed as ever. His last hope was the Illinois country,
where the foot of an English soldier had never trod;" and
there he schemed and plotted without avail until 1765. In 1769
he was assassinated, near St. Louis.

_W. F. Poole,
The West, 1763-1783
(Narrative and Critical History of America,
volume 6, chapter 9)._

ALSO IN:
_F. Parkman,
Conspiracy of Pontiac._

_S. Farmer,
History of Detroit and Michigan,
chapter 38._

_Historical Account of Bouquet's Expedition._

_A. Henry,
Travels and Adventures in Canada,
part 1, chapters 9-23._

_W. L. Stone,
Life and Times of Sir William Johnson,
volume 2, chapters 9-12._

_J. R. Brodhead,
Documents Relative to Colonial History New York,
volume 7._

PONTIFEX MAXIMUS. PONTIFICES, Roman.

See AUGURS.

PONTIFF, The Roman.

The Pope is often alluded to as the Roman Pontiff, the term
implying an analogy between his office and that of the
Pontifex Maximus of the ancient Romans.

PONTIFICAL INDICTIONS.

See INDICTIONS.

PONTUS.

See MITHRIDATIC WARS.

PONTUS EUXINUS, EUXINUS PONTUS.

The Black Sea, as named by the Greeks.

PONZA, Naval Battle of (1435).

See ITALY: A. D. 1412-1447.

POOR LAWS, The English.

"It has been often said and often denied that the monasteries
supplied the want which the poor law, two generations after
the dissolution of these bodies, enforced. That the
monasteries were renowned for their almsgiving is certain. The
duty of aiding the needy was universal. Themselves the
creatures of charity, they could not deny to others that on
which they subsisted. …
{2563}
It is possible that these institutions created the mendicancy
which they relieved, but it cannot be doubted that they
assisted much which needed their help. The guilds which
existed in the towns were also found in the country villages.
… They were convenient instruments for charity before the
establishment of a poor law, and they employed no
inconsiderable part of their revenues, collected from
subscriptions and from lands and tenements, in relieving the
indigent and treating poor strangers hospitably. … Before the
dissolution of the monasteries, but when this issue was fairly
in view, in 1536, an attempt was made to secure some legal
provision for destitution. The Act of this year provides that
the authorities in the cities and boroughs should collect alms
on Sundays and holy days, that the ministers should on all
occasions, public and private, stir up the people to
contribute to a common fund, that the custom of giving doles
by private persons should be forbidden under penalty, and that
the church-wardens should distribute the alms when collected.
The Act, however, is strictly limited to free gifts, and the
obligations of monasteries, almshouses, hospitals, and
brotherhoods are expressly maintained. … There was a
considerable party in England which was willing enough to see
the monasteries destroyed, root and branch, and one of the
most obvious means by which this result could be attained
would be to allege that all which could be needed for the
relief of destitution would be derived from the voluntary
offerings of those who contributed so handsomely to the
maintenance of indolent and dissolute friars. The public was
reconciled to the Dissolution by the promise made that the
monastic estates should not be converted to the king's private
use, but be devoted towards the maintenance of a military
force, and that therefore no more demands should be made on
the nation for subsidies and aids. Similarly when the guild
lands and chantry lands were confiscated at the beginning of
Edward's reign, a promise was made that the estates of these
foundations should be devoted to good and proper uses, for
erecting grammar schools, for the further augmentation of the
universities, and the better provision for the poor and needy.
They were swept into the hands of Seymour and Somerset, of the
Dudleys and Cecils, and the rest of the crew who surrounded
the throne of Edward. It cannot, therefore, I think, be
doubted that this violent change of ownership, apart from any
considerations of previous practice in these several
institutions, must have aggravated whatever evils already
existed. … The guardians of Edward attempted, in a savage
statute passed in the first year of his reign, to restrain
pauperism and vagabondage by reducing the landless and
destitute poor to slavery, by branding them, and making them
work in chains. The Act, however, only endured for two years.
In the last year of Edward's reign two collectors were to be
appointed in every parish, who were to wait on every person of
substance and inquire what sums he will give weekly to the
relief of the poor. The promises are to be entered in a book,
and the collectors were authorized to employ the poor in such
work as they could perform, paying them from the fund. Those
who refused to aid were to be first exhorted by the ministers
and church wardens, and if they continued obstinate were to be
denounced to the bishop, who is to remonstrate with such
uncharitable folk. … In the beginning of Elizabeth's reign (5,
cap. 3) the unwilling giver, after being exhorted by the
bishop, is to be bound to appear before the justices, in
quarter sessions, where, if he be still obdurate to
exhortation, the justices are empowered to tax him in a weekly
sum, and commit him to prison till he pays. … There was only a
step from the process under which a reluctant subscriber to
the poor law was assessed by the justices and imprisoned on
refusal, to the assessment of all property under the
celebrated Act of 43 Elizabeth [1601], cap. 3. The law had
provided for the regular appointment of assessors for the levy
of rates, for supplying work to the able-bodied, for giving
relief to the infirm and old, and for binding apprentices. It
now consolidates the experience of the whole reign, defines
the kind of property on which the rate is to be levied,
prescribes the manner in which the assessors shall be
appointed, and inflicts penalties on parties who infringe its
provisions. It is singular that the Act was only temporary. It
was, by the last clause, only to continue to the end of the
next session of parliament. It was, however, renewed, and
finally made perpetual by 16 Car. I., cap. 4. The economical
history of labour in England is henceforward intimately
associated with this remarkable Act. … The Act was to be
tentative, indeed, but in its general principles it lasted
till 1835. … The effect of poor law relief on the wages of
labour was to keep them hopelessly low, to hinder a rise even
under the most urgent circumstances."

_J. E. Thorold Rogers,
Six Centuries of Work and Wages,
chapter 15 (volume 2)._

"In February 1834 was published perhaps the most remarkable
and startling document to be found in the whole range of
English, perhaps, indeed, of all, social history. It was the
Report upon the administration and practical operation of the
Poor Laws by the Commissioners who had been appointed to
investigate the subject. … It was their rare good fortune not
only to lay bare the existence of abuses and trace them to
their roots, but also to propound and enforce the remedies by
which they might be cured."

_T. W. Fowle,
The Poor Law,
chapter 4._

"The poor-rate had become public spoil. The ignorant believed
it an inexhaustible fund which belonged to them. To obtain
their share, the brutal bullied the administrators, the
profligate exhibited their bastards which must be fed, the
idle folded their arms and waited till they got it; ignorant
boys and girls married upon it; poachers, thieves, and
prostitutes extorted it by intimidation; country justices
lavished it for popularity, and guardians for convenience.
This was the way the fund went. As for whence it arose—it
came, more and more every year, out of the capital of the
shopkeeper and the farmer, and the diminishing resources of
the country gentleman. … Instead of the proper number of
labourers to till his lands—labourers paid by himself—the
farmer was compelled to take double the number, whose wages
were paid partly out of the rates; and these men, being
employed by compulsion on him, were beyond his control—worked
or not as they chose —let down the quality of his land, and
disabled him from employing the better men who would have
toiled hard for independence. These better men sank down among
the worse; the rate-paying cottager, after a vain struggle,
went to the pay-table to seek relief; the modest girl might
starve, while her bolder neighbour received 1s. 6d. per week
for every illegitimate child.
{2564}
Industry, probity, purity, prudence– all heart and spirit—the
whole soul of goodness —were melting down into depravity and
social ruin, like snow under the foul internal fires which
precede the earthquake. There were clergymen in the
commission, as well as politicians and economists; and they
took these things to heart, and laboured diligently to frame
suggestions for a measure which should heal and recreate the
moral spirit as well as the economical condition of society in
England. To thoughtful observers it is clear that the … grave
aristocratic error … of confounding in one all ranks below a
certain level of wealth was at the bottom of much poor-law
abuse, as it has been of the opposition to its amendment. …
Except the distinction between sovereign and subject, there is
no social difference in England so wide as that between the
independent labourer and the pauper; and it is equally
ignorant, immoral, and impolitic to confound the two. This
truth was so apparent to the commissioners, and they conveyed
it so fully to the framers of the new poor-law, that it forms
the very foundation of the measure. … Enlightened by a
prodigious accumulation of evidence, the commissioners offered
their suggestions to government; and a bill to amend the
poor-law was prepared and proposed to the consideration of
parliament early in 1834. … If one main object of the reform
was to encourage industry, it was clearly desirable to remove
the impediments to the circulation of labour. Settlement by
hiring and service was to exist no longer; labour could freely
enter any parish where it was wanted, and leave it for another
parish which might, in its turn, want hands. In observance of
the great principle that the independent labourer was not to
be sacrificed to the pauper, all administration of relief to
the able-bodied at their own homes was to be discontinued as
soon as possible; and the allowance system was put an end to
entirely. … Henceforth, the indigent must come into the
workhouse for relief, if he must have it. … The able-bodied
should work—should do a certain amount of work for every meal.
They might go out after the expiration of twenty-four hours;
but while in the house they must work. The men, women, and
children must be separated; and the able-bodied and infirm. …
In order to a complete and economical classification in the
workhouses, and for other obvious reasons, the new act
provided for unions of parishes. … To afford the necessary
control over such a system … a central board was
indispensable, by whose orders, and through whose
assistant-commissioners, everything was to be arranged, and to
whom all appeals were to be directed. … Of the changes
proposed by the new law, none was more important to morals
than that which threw the charge of the maintenance of
illegitimate children upon the mother. … The decrease of
illegitimate births was what many called wonderful, but only
what the framers of the law had anticipated from the removal
of direct pecuniary inducement to profligacy, and from the
awakening of proper care in parents of daughters, and of
reflection in the women themselves. … On the 14th of August
1834, the royal assent was given to the Poor–law Amendment
Act, amidst prognostications of utter failure from the timid,
and some misgivings among those who were most confident of the
absolute necessity of the measure. … Before two years were
out, wages were rising and rates were falling in the whole
series of country parishes; farmers were employing more
labourers; surplus labour was absorbed; bullying paupers were
transformed into steady working-men; the decrease of
illegitimate births, chargeable to the parish, throughout
England, was nearly 10,000, or nearly 13 per cent.; … and,
finally, the rates, which had risen nearly a million in their
annual amount during the five years before the poor-law
commission was issued, sank down, in the course of the five
years after it, from being upwards of seven millions to very
little above four."

_H. Martineau,
A History of the Thirty Years Peace,
book 4, chapter 7 (volume 2)._

In 1838 the Act was extended to Ireland, and in 1845 to
Scotland.

_T. W. Fowle,
The Poor Law,
chapter 4._

"The new Poor Law was passed by Parliament in 1834; and the
oversight of its administration was placed in the hands of a
special board of commissioners, then known as the Central Poor
Law Board. This board, which was not represented in
Parliament, was continued until 1847. In that year it was
reconstructed and placed under the presidency of a minister
with a seat in the House of Commons—a reconstruction putting
it on a political level with the Home Office and the other
important Government Departments at Whitehall. The Department
was henceforward known as the Poor Law Board, and continued to
be so named until 1871, when there was another reconstruction.
This time the Poor Law Board took over from the Home Office
various duties in respect of municipal government and public
health, and from the Privy Council the oversight of the
administration of the vaccination laws and other powers, and
its title was changed to that of the Local Government Board.
Since then hardly a session of Parliament has passed in which
its duties and responsibilities have not been added to, until
at the present time the Local Government Board is more
directly in touch with the people of England and Wales than
any other Government Department. There is not a village in the
land which its inspectors do not visit or to which the
official communications of the Board are not addressed."

_E. Porritt,
The Englishman at Home,
chapter 2._

ALSO IN:
_Sir G. Nicholls,
History of the English Poor-Law._

_F. Peek,
Social Wreckage._

POOR MEN OF LYONS. POOR MEN OF LOMBARDY.

See WALDENSES.

POOR PRIESTS OF LOLLARDY, The.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1360-1414.

POPE, General John.
Capture of New Madrid and Island Number Ten.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (MARCH-APRIL: ON THE .MISSISSIPPI).

Command of the Army of the Mississippi.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (APRIL-MAY: TENNESSEE-MISSISSIPPI).

Virginia campaign.

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

POPE, The.

See PAPACY.

POPHAM COLONY, The.

See MAINE: A. D. 1607-1608.

POPISH PLOT, The.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1678-1679.

POPOL VUH, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: QUICHES.

{2565}

POPOLOCAS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: CHONTALS.

POPULARES.

See OPTIMATES.

PORNOCRACY AT ROME.

See ROME: A. D. 903-964.

PORT GIBSON, Battle of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1863 (APRIL-JULY: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).

PORT HUDSON, Siege and capture of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1863 (MAY-JULY: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).

PORT JACKSON: A. D. 1770-1788.
The discovery.
The naming.
The first settlement.

See AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1601-1800.

PORT MAHON.

See MINORCA.

PORT PHILLIP DISTRICT.

See AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1800-1840, and 1839-1855.

PORT REPUBLIC, Battle of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 MAY-JUNE: VIRGINIA).

----------PORT ROYAL: Start--------

PORT ROYAL,
The Jansenists: A. D. 1602-1660.
The monastery under Mère Angelique
and the hermits of the Port Royal Valley.
Their acceptance of the doctrines of Jansenius.
Their conflict with the Jesuits.