Chapter CII: Section 2 (7)

"The Koran divides the world into two portions, the House of
Islam, Dar-ul-Islam, and the House of War, Dar-ul-harb. It has
generally been represented by Western writers on the
institutes of Mahometanism and on the habits of Mahometan
nations, that the Dar-ul-harb, the House of War, comprises all
lands of the misbelievers. … There is even a widely-spread
idea among superficial talkers and writers that the holy
hostility, the Jehad [or Dhihad] of Mussulmans against
non-Mussulmans is not limited to warfare between nation and
nation; but that 'it is a part of the religion of every
Mahometan to kill as many Christians as possible, and that by
counting up a certain number killed, they think themselves
secure of heaven.' But careful historical investigators, and
statesmen long practically conversant with Mahometan
populations have exposed the fallacy of such charges against
those who hold the creed of Islam. … A country which is
under Christian rulers, but in which Mahometans are allowed
free profession of their faith, and peaceable exercise of
their ritual, is not a portion of the House of War, of the
Dar-ul-harb; and there is no religious duty of warfare, no
Jehad, on the part of true Mussulmans against such a state.
This has been of late years formally determined by the chief
authorities in Mahometan law with respect to British India."

_Sir E. S. Creasy,
History of the Ottoman Turks,
chapter 6._

DASTAGERD.

The favorite residence of the last great Persian king and
conqueror, Chosroes (A. D. 590-628), was fixed at Dastagerd,
or Artemita, sixty miles north of Ctesiphon, and east of the
Tigris. His palaces and pleasure grounds were of extraordinary
magnificence.

_E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 46.
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717_

DASYUS.

See INDIA: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.

DAUPHINS OF FRANCE. DAUPHINE.

In 1349, Philip VI., or Philip de Valois, of France, acquired
by purchase from Humbert II., count of Vienne, the sovereignty
of the province of Dauphine. This principality became from
that time the appanage of the eldest sons of the kings of
France and gave them their peculiar name or title of the
Dauphins. The title in question had been borne by the counts
of Vienne (in Dauphiné), "on account of the dolphin which they
carried upon their helmets and on their armorial bearings."

_E. De Bonnechose,
History of France,
book 2, chapter 2, footnote._

ALSO IN:
_E. Smedley,
History of France,
part 1, chapter 9._

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

DAVENPORT, John, and the founding of New Haven Colony.

See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1638, and 1639.

DAVID, King of Israel and Judah.

See JEWS: THE KINGDOMS OF ISRAEL AND
JUDAH, and JERUSALEM: CONQUEST, &c.

DAVID I.,
King of Scotland, A. D. 1124-1153.
David II., 1329-1370.

DAVIS, Jefferson.
Election to the Presidency of the rebellious
"Confederate States."

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

Flight and capture.

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

DAVOUT, Marshal, Campaigns of.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1806 (OCTOBER);
1806-1807; 1807 (FEBRUARY-JUNE);
also RUSSIA: A. D. 1812;
and GERMANY: A. D. 1812-1813;
1813 (AUGUST), (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).

DAY OF BARRICADES, The.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1584-1589.

DAY OF DUPES, The.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1630-1632.

DAY OF THE SECTIONS, The.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1795 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).

DAYAKS, OR DYAKS, The.

See MALAYAN RACE.

DEAK, Francis, and the recovery of Hungarian nationality.

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1866-1867.

DEAN FOREST.

The "Royal Forest of Dean," situated in the southwestern angle
of the county of Gloucester, England, between the Severn and
the Wye, is still so extensive that it covers some 23,000
acres, though much reduced from its original dimensions. Its
oaks and its iron mines have played important parts in British
history. The latter were worked by the Romans and still give
employment to a large number of miners. The former were
thought to be so essential to the naval power of England that
the destruction of the Forest is said to have been one of the
special duties prescribed to the Spanish Armada.

_J. C. Brown,
Forests of England._

DEANE, Silas, and the American transactions with Beaumarchais in France.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776-1778.

DEARBORN, General Henry, and the War of 1812.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1812 (JUNE-OCTOBER),
(SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER);
A. D. 1813 (OCTOBER-NOVEMBER).

DEBRECZIN, Battle of (1849).

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848-1849.

DEBT, Laws concerning: Ancient Greek.

At Athens, in the time of Solon (6th century, B. C.) the
Thetes—"the cultivating tenants, metayers and small
proprietors of the country … are exhibited as weighed down
by debts and dependence, and driven in large numbers out of a
state of freedom into slavery—the whole mass of them (we are
told) being in debt to the rich, who were proprietors of the
greater part of the soil. They had either borrowed money for
their own necessities, or they tilled the lands of the rich as
dependent tenants, paying a stipulated portion of the produce,
and in this capacity they were largely in arrear.
{650}
All the calamitous effects were here seen of the old harsh law
of debtor and creditor—once prevalent in Greece, Italy, Asia,
and a large portion of the world—combined with the
recognition of slavery as a legitimate status, and of the
right of one man to sell himself as well as that of another
man to buy him. Every debtor unable to fulfil his contract was
liable to be adjudged as the slave of his creditor, until he
could find means either of paying it or working it out; and
not only he himself, but his minor sons and unmarried
daughters and sisters also, whom the law gave him the power of
selling. The poor man thus borrowed upon the security of his
body (to translate literally the Greek phrase) and upon that
of the persons in his family. So severely had these oppressive
contracts been enforced, that many debtors had been reduced
from freedom to slavery in Attica itself,—many others had
been sold for exportation,—and some had only hitherto
preserved their own freedom by selling their children. … To
their relief Solon's first measure, the memorable
Seisachtheia, shaking off of burthens, was directed. The
relief which it afforded was complete and immediate. It
cancelled at once all those contracts in which the debtor had
borrowed on the security either of his person or of his land:
it forbade all future loans or contracts in which the person
of the debtor was pledged as security: it deprived the
creditor in future of all power to imprison, or enslave, or
extort work from, his debtor, and confined him to an effective
judgment at law authorizing the seizure of the property of the
latter. It swept off all the numerous mortgage pillars from
the landed properties in Attica, leaving the land free from
all past claims. It liberated and restored to their full
rights all debtors actually in slavery under previous legal
adjudication; and it even provided the means (we do not know
how) of re-purchasing in foreign lands, and bringing back to a
renewed life of liberty in Attica, many insolvents who had
been sold for exportation. And while Solon forbad every
Athenian to pledge or sell his own person into slavery, he
took a step farther in the same direction by forbidding him to
pledge or sell his son, his daughter, or an unmarried sister
under his tutelage—excepting only the case in which either of
the latter might be detected in unchastity. … One thing is
never to be forgotten in regard to this measure, combined with
the concurrent amendments introduced by Solon in the law—it
settled finally the question to which it referred. Never again
do we hear of the law of debtor and creditor as disturbing
Athenian tranquility. The general sentiment which grew up at
Athens, under the Solonian money-law and under the
democratical government, was one of high respect for the
sanctity of contracts. … There can be little doubt that
under the Solonian law, which enabled the creditor to seize
the property of his debtor, but gave him no power over the
person, the system of money-lending assumed a more beneficial
character."

_G. Grote,
History of Greece,
part 2, chapter 11 (volume 3)._

DEBT: Ancient Roman.

"The hold of the creditor was on the person of the debtor. The
obligation of a debt was a tying up or binding, or bondage, of
the person: the payment was a solution, a loosing or release
of the person from that bondage. The property of the debtor
was not a pledge for the debt. It could be made so by special
agreement, though in the earliest law only by transferring it
at once to the ownership of the creditor. Without such special
agreement, the creditor whose debtor failed to pay could not
touch his property. Even when the debtor had been prosecuted
and condemned to pay, if he still failed, the creditor could
not touch his property. He could seize his person—I speak
now of the early law, in the first centuries of the
republic—and after holding him in rigorous confinement for
sixty days, with opportunities, however, either to pay himself
or get somebody to pay for him, if payment still failed, he
could sell him as a slave, or put him to death; if there were
several creditors, they could cut his body into pieces and
divide it among them. This extreme severity was afterward
softened; but the principle remained long unchanged, that the
hold of the creditor was on the person of the debtor. If the
debtor obstinately and to the last refused to surrender his
property, the creditor could not touch it."

_J. Hadley,
Introduction to Roman Law,
lecture 10._

"During the first half of the Samnite war [B. C. 326-304], but
in what year is uncertain, there was passed that famous law
which prohibited personal slavery for debt. No creditor might
for the future attach the person of his debtor, but he might
only seize his property; and all those whose personal freedom
was pledged for their debts (nexi), were released from their
liability, if they could swear that they had property enough
to meet their creditor's demands. It does not appear that this
great alteration in the law was the work of any tribune, or
that it arose out of any general or deliberate desire to
soften the severity of the ancient practice. It was
occasioned, we are told, by one scandalous instance of abuse
of power on the part of a creditor. … But although personal
slavery for debt was thus done away with, yet the consequences
of insolvency were much more serious at Rome than they are in
modern Europe. He whose property had once been made over to
his creditors by the prætor's sentence, became, ipso facto,
infamous; he lost his tribe, and with it all his political
rights; and the forfeiture was irrevocable, even though he
might afterwards pay his debts to the full; nor was it even in
the power of the censors to replace him on the roll of
citizens. So sacred a thing did credit appear in the eyes of
the Romans."

_T. Arnold,
History of Rome,
chapter 32 (volume 2)._

DEBT: In England.

"Debt has been regarded as a crime by primitive society in
every part of the world. In Palestine, as in Rome, the
creditor had power over the person of the debtor, and
misfortune was commonly treated with a severity which was not
always awarded to crime."

_[Leviticus 12 xxv., 39-41,
and 2 Kings iv., 1]_

{651}

"In this country [England] the same system was gradually
introduced in Plantagenet times. The creditor, who had been
previously entitled to seize the goods, or even the land of
the debtor, was at last authorised to seize his person. In one
sense, indeed, the English law was, in this respect, more
irrational than the cruel code of the Jews, or the awful
punishment [death and dismemberment or slavery—Gibbon, chapter
44] which the law of the Twelve Tables reserved for debtors.
In Palestine the creditor was, at least, entitled to the
service of the debtor or of his children, and the slave had
the prospect of an Insolvent Debtor's Relief Act in the
Sabbatical year. Even the law of the Twelve Tables allowed the
creditors to sell the debtor into slavery, instead of
resorting to the horrible alternative of partitioning his
body. But in England the creditors had no such choice. They
had nothing to do but to throw the debtor into prison; and by
his imprisonment deprive themselves of the only chance of his
earning money to pay their debts. A law of this kind was
intolerable to a commercial people. The debtor languished in
gaol, the creditor failed to obtain payment of his debt. When
trade increased in Tudor times, the wits of legislators were
exercised in devising some expedient for satisfying the
creditor without imprisoning the debtor. The Chancellor was
authorised to appoint commissioners empowered to divide the
debtor's property among the creditors. By an Act of Anne the
debtor who complied with the law was released from further
liability, and was practically enabled to commence life anew.
In 1826, a debtor was allowed to procure his own bankruptcy;
while in 1831, commissioners were appointed to carry out the
arrangements which had been previously conducted under the
Court of Chancery. The law of bankruptcy which was thus
gradually developed by the legislation of three centuries only
applied to persons in trade. No one who was not a trader could
become a bankrupt; the ordinary debtor became as a matter of
course an insolvent, and passed under the insolvent laws. The
statutes, moreover, omitted to give any very plain definition
of a trader. The distinction between trader and non-trader
which had been gradually drawn by the Courts was not based on
any very clear principle. A person who made bricks on his own
estate of his own clay was not a trader; but a person who
bought the clay and then made the bricks was a trader.
Farmers, again, were exempt from the bankruptcy law; but
farmers who purchased cattle for sale at a profit were liable
to it. The possibility, moreover, of a trader being made a
bankrupt depended on the size of his business. A petitioning
creditor in bankruptcy was required to be a person to whom at
least £100 was due; if two persons petitioned, their debts
were required to amount to £150; if more than two persons
petitioned, to £200. A small shopkeeper, therefore, who could
not hope to obtain credit for £200, £150, or £100, could not
become a bankrupt; he was forced to become an insolvent. The
treatment of the insolvent was wholly different from that of
the bankrupt. The bankruptcy law was founded on the principle
that the goods and not the person of the debtor should be
liable for the debt; the insolvency law enabled the person of
the debtor to be seized, but provided no machinery for
obtaining his goods. … Up to 1838 the first step in
insolvency was the arrest of the debtor. Any person who made a
deposition on oath that some other person was in debt to him,
could obtain his arrest on what was known as 'mesne process.'
The oath might possibly be untrue; the debt might not be due;
the warrant issued on the sworn deposition as a matter of
course. But, in addition to the imprisonment on mesne process,
the insolvent could be imprisoned for a further period on what
was known as 'final process.' Imprisonment on mesne process
was the course which the creditor took to prevent the flight
of the debtor; imprisonment on final process was the
punishment which the Court awarded to the crime of debt. Such
a system would have been bad enough if the debtors' prisons
had been well managed. The actual condition of these prisons
almost exceeds belief. Dickens, indeed, has made the story of
a debtor's imprisonment in the Marshalsea familiar to a world
of readers. … The Act of 1813 had done something to mitigate
the misery which the law occasioned. The Court which was
constituted by it released 50,000 debtors in 13 years. But
large numbers of persons were still detained in prison for
debt. In 1827 nearly 6,000 persons were committed in London
alone for debt. The Common Law Commissioners, reporting in
1830, declared that the loud and general complaints of the law
of insolvency were well founded; and Cottenham, in 1838,
introduced a bill to abolish imprisonment for debt in all
cases. The Lords were not prepared for so complete a remedy;
they declined to abolish imprisonment on final process, or to
exempt from imprisonment on mesne process, persons who owed
more than £20, and who were about to leave the country.
Cottenham, disappointed at these amendments, decided on
strengthening his own hands by instituting a fresh inquiry. He
appointed a commission in 1839, which reported in 1840, and
which recommended the abolition of imprisonment on final
process, and the union of bankruptcy and insolvency. In 1841,
in 1842, in 1843, and in 1844 Cottenham introduced bills to
carry out this report. The bills of 1841, 1842, and 1843 were
lost. The bill of 1844 was not much more successful. Brougham
declared that debtors who refused to disclose their property,
who refused to answer questions about it, who refused to give
it up, or who fraudulently made away with it, as well as
debtors who had been guilty of gross extravagance, deserved
imprisonment. He introduced an alternative bill giving the
Cou rt discretionary power to imprison them. The Lords,
bewildered by the contrary counsels of two such great lawyers
as Cottenham and Brougham, decided on referring both bills to
one Select Committee. The Committee preferred Brougham's bill,
amended it, and returned it to the House. This bill became
ultimately law. It enabled both private debtors and traders
whose debts amounted to less than the sums named in the
Bankruptcy Acts to become bankrupts; and it abolished
Imprisonment in all cases where the debt did not exceed £20."

_S. Walpole,
History of England from 1815,
chapter 17 (volume 4)._

DEBT: In the United States.

"In New York, by the act of April 26, 1831, c. 300, and which
went into operation on March 1st, 1832, arrest and
imprisonment on civil process at law, and on execution in
equity founded upon contract, were abolished. The provision
under the act was not to apply to any person who should have
been a non-resident of the state for a month preceding (and
even this exception was abolished by the act of April 25th,
1840); nor to proceedings as for a contempt to enforce civil
remedies; nor to actions for fines and penalties; nor to suits
founded in torts … nor on promises to marry; or for moneys
collected by any public officer; or for misconduct or neglect
in office, or in any professional employment.
{652}
The plaintiff, however, in any suit, or upon any judgment or
decree, may apply to a judge for a warrant to arrest the
defendant, upon affidavit stating a debt or demand due, to
more than $50; and that the defendant is about to remove
property out of the jurisdiction of the court, with intent to
defraud his creditors; or that he has property or rights in
action which he fraudulently conceals; or public or corporate
stock, money, or evidences of debt, which he unjustly refuses
to apply to the payment of the judgment or decree in favor of
the plaintiff; or that he has assigned, or is about to assign
or dispose of his property, with intent to defraud his
creditors; or has fraudulently contracted the debt, or
incurred the obligation respecting which the suit is brought.
If the judge shall be satisfied, on due examination, of the
truth of the charge, he is to commit the debtor to jail,
unless he complies with certain prescribed conditions or some
one of them, and which are calculated for the security of the
plaintiff's claim. Nor is any execution against the body to be
issued on justices' judgments, except in cases essentially the
same with those above stated. … By the New York act of 1846,
c. 150, the defendant is liable for imprisonment as in actions
for wrong, if he be sued and judgment pass against him in
actions on contracts for moneys received by him (and it
applies to all male persons) in a fiduciary character. The
legislature of Massachusetts, in 1834 and 1842, essentially
abolished arrest and imprisonment for debt, unless on proof
that the debtor was about to abscond. As early as 1790, the
constitution of Pennsylvania established, as a fundamental
principle, that debtors should not be continued in prison
after surrender of their estates in the mode to be prescribed
by law, unless in cases of a strong presumption of fraud. In
February, 1819, the legislature of that state exempted women
from arrest and imprisonment for debt; and this provision as
to women was afterwards applied in New York to all civil
actions founded upon contract. … Females were first exempted
from imprisonment for debt in Louisiana and Mississippi; and
imprisonment for debt, in all cases free from fraud, is now
abolished in each of those states. The commissioners in
Pennsylvania, in their report on the Civil Code, in January,
1835, recommended that there be no arrest of the body of the
debtor on mesne process, without an affidavit of the debt, and
that the defendant was a non-resident, or about to depart
without leaving sufficient property, except in cases of force,
fraud, or deceit, verified by affidavit. This suggestion was
carried into effect by the act of the legislature of
Pennsylvania of July 12th, 1842, entitled 'An Act to abolish
imprisonment for debt, and to punish fraudulent debtors.' In
New Hampshire, imprisonment on mesne process and execution for
debt existed under certain qualifications, until December 23,
1840, when it was abolished by statute, in cases of contract
and debts accruing after the first of March, 1841. In Vermont,
imprisonment for debt, on contracts made after first January,
1839, is abolished, as to resident citizens, unless there be
evidence that they are about to abscond with their property;
so, also, the exception in Mississippi applies to cases of
torts, frauds, and meditated concealment, or fraudulent
disposition of property."

_J. Kent,
Commentaries on American Law;
edited by O. W. Holmes, Jr.,
volume 2 (foot-note)._

"In many states the Constitution provides
(A) that there shall be no imprisonment for debt:
Indiana. C. 1, 22;
Minnesota. C. I, 12;
Kansas. C. B. Rts. 16;
Maryland. C. 3, 38;
North Carolina. C. 1, 16;
Missouri. C. 2. 16;
Texas. C. 1, 18;
Oregon. C. 1, 19;
Nevada. C. 1, 14;
South Carolina. C. 1, 20;
Georgia. C. 1, 1, 21;
Alabama. C. 1, 21;
Mississippi. C. 1, 11;
Florida. C. Decl'n Rts. 15.

(B) That there shall be no imprisonment for debt
(1) in any civil action on mesne or final process, in seven states:
Ohio. C. 1, 15;
Iowa. C. 1, 19;
Nebraska. C. 1, 20;
Tennessee. C. 1, 18;
Arkansas. C. 2, 16;
California. C. 1, 15;
Oregon. C. 1, 15;
Arizona. B. Uts. 18.

(2) In any action or judgment founded upon contract, in
three states:
New Jersey. C. 1, 17;
Michigan. C. 6, 33;
Wisconsin. C. 1, 16.

(C) In six, that there shall be no person imprisoned for debt
in any civil action when he has delivered up his property for
the benefit of his creditors in the manner prescribed by law;
Vermont. C. 2, 33;
Rhode Island. C. 1, 11;
Pennsylvania. C. 1, 16;
Illinois. C. 2, 12;
Kentucky. C. 13, 19;
Colorado. C. 2, 12.

… But the above principles are subject to the following
exceptions in the several states respectively:

(1) a debtor may be imprisoned in criminal actions: Tennessee.

So (2) for the non-payment of fines or penalties imposed by
law: Missouri.

So (3) generally, in civil or criminal actions, for fraud:
Vermont,
Rhode Island,
New Jersey,
Pennsylvania,
Ohio,
Indiana,
Illinois,
Michigan,
Iowa,
Minnesota,
Kansas,
Nebraska,
North Carolina,
Kentucky,
Arkansas,
California,
Oregon,
Nevada,
Colorado,
South Carolina,
Florida,
Arizona.

And so, in two, the legislature has power to provide for the
punishment of fraud and for reaching property of the debtor
concealed from his creditors:
Georgia. C. 1, 2, 6;
Louisiana. C. 223.

So (4) absconding debtors may be imprisoned: Oregon.
Or debtors (5) in cases of libel or slander: Nevada.
(6) In civil cases of tort generally: California, Colorado.
(7) In cases of malicious mischief: California.
(8) Or of breach of trust: Michigan, Arizona.
(9) Or of moneys collected by public officers,
or in any professional employment: Michigan, Arizona."

_F. J. Stimson, American Statute Law:
Digest of Constitutions and Civil Public
Statutes of all the States and Territories relating
to Persons and Property, in force January 1, 1886,
art. 8._

----------DEBT: End----------

DÉCADI OF THE FRENCH REPUBLICAN CALENDAR.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (OCTOBER).
The new republican calendar.

DECAMISADOS, The.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1814-1827.

DECATUR, Commodore Stephen.
Burning of the "Philadelphia."

See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1803-1805.

In the War of 1812.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1812-1813; 1814.

DECCAN, The.

See INDIA: THE NAME;
and IMMIGRATION AND CONQUESTS OF THE ARYAS.

DECELIAN WAR, The.

See GREECE: B. C. 413.

DECEMVIRS, The.

See ROME: B. C. 451-449.

DECIUS: Roman Emperor. A. D. 249-251.

DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE (American).

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1776 (JANUARY-JUNE),
and (JULY);
also, INDEPENDENCE HALL.

{653}

DECLARATION OF PARIS, The.

"At the Congress of Paris in 1856, subsequently to the
conclusion of the treaty, which ended the Crimean war [see
RUSSIA: A. D. 1854-1856], a declaration of principles was
signed on April 16th, by the plenipotentiaries of all the
powers represented there, which contained four articles:
'First. Privateering is and remains abolished. Second, The
neutral flag covers enemies' goods, with the exception of
contraband of war. Third, Neutral goods, except of contraband
of war, are not liable to capture under an enemy's flag.
Fourth, Blockades, to be binding, must be effective—that is
to say, maintained by a force really sufficient to prevent
access to the coast of the enemy.' The adherence of other
powers was requested to these principles," and all joined in
signing it except the United States, Spain, and Mexico. The
objection on the part of the United States was stated in a
circular letter by Mr. Marcy, then Secretary of State, who
"maintained that the right to resort to privateers is as
incontestable as any other right appertaining to belligerents;
and reasoned that the effect of the declaration would be to
increase the maritime preponderance of Great Britain and
France, without even benefiting the general cause of
civilization; while, if public ships retained the right of
capturing private property, the United States, which had at
that time a large mercantile marine and a comparatively small
navy, would be deprived of all means of retaliation. … The
President proposes, therefore [wrote Mr. Marcy] to add to the
first proposition contained in the declaration of the Congress
of Paris the following words: 'and that the private property
of the subjects and citizens of a belligerent on the high seas
shall be exempted from seizure by public armed vessels of the
other belligerent, except it be contraband.' … Among the
minor states of Europe there was complete unanimity and a
general readiness to accept our amendment to the rules"; but
England opposed, and the offered amendment was subsequently
withdrawn. "Events … have shown that … our refusal to
accept the Declaration of Paris has brought the world nearer
to the principles which we proposed, which became known as the
'Marcy amendment for the abolition of war against private
property on the seas.'"

_E. Schuyler,
American Diplomacy,
chapter 7._

ALSO IN:
_F. Wharton,
Digest of the International law of the United States,
chapter 17, section 342 (volume 3)._

_H. Adams,
Historical Essays,
chapter 6._

See, also, PRIVATEERS.

DECLARATION OF RIGHTS.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1689 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY).

DECLARATION OF THE RIGHTS OF MAN,
French Revolutionary.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1789 (AUGUST-OCTOBER).

DECLARATORY ACT, The.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1766.

DECRETA, Roman imperial.

See CORPUS JURIS CIVILIS.

DECRETALS, The False.

See PAPACY: A. D. 829-847.

DECUMÆ.

See VECTIGAL.

DECUMATES LAND.

See AGRI DECUMATES,
also ALEMANNI;
and SUEVI.

DECURIONES.

See CURIA, MUNICIPAL, OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE.

DEDITITIUS. COLONUS. SERVUS.

"The poor Provincial [of the provinces of the Roman empire at
the time of the breaking up in the fifth century] who could
not fly to the Goths because his whole property was in land,
hunted to despair by the tax-gatherer, would transfer that
land to some wealthy neighbour, apparently on condition of
receiving a small life annuity out of it. He was then called
the Dedititius (or Surrenderer) of the new owner, towards whom
he stood in a position of a certain degree of dependence. Not
yet, however, were his sorrows or those of his family at an
end, for the tax-gatherer still regarded him as responsible
for his land. … On his death his sons, who had utterly lost
their paternal inheritance, and still found themselves
confronted with the claim for taxes, were obviously without
resource. The next stage of the process accordingly was that
they abdicated the position of free citizens and implored the
great man to accept them as Coloni, a class of labourers,
half-free, half-enslaved, who may perhaps with sufficient
accuracy be compared to the serfs 'adscripti glebæ' of the
middle ages. … Before long they became mere slaves (Servi)
without a shadow of right or claim against their new lords."

_T. Hodgkin,
Italy and her Invaders,
book 1, chapter 10._

With the "increase of great estates and simultaneous increase
in the number of slaves (so many Goths were made slaves by
Claudius [A. D. 268-270], to give one instance, that there was
not a district without them), the small proprietors could no
longer maintain the fruitless struggle, and, as a class,
wholly disappeared. Some, no doubt, became soldiers; others
crowded into the already overflowing towns; while others
voluntarily resigned their freedom, attached themselves to the
land of some rich proprietor, and became his villeins, or
coloni. But this was not the chief means by which this class
was formed and increased. … After a successful war these
serfs were given … to landed proprietors without payment;
and in this way not only was the class of free peasants
diminished or altogether destroyed—a happier result—the
slave system was directly attacked. The coloni themselves were
not slaves. The codes directly distinguish them from slaves,
and in several imperial constitutions they are caned
'ingenui.' They could contract a legal marriage and could hold
property. … On the other hand, the coloni were like slaves
in that they were liable to personal punishment. … A colonus
was indissolubly attached to the land, and could not get quit
of the tie, even by enlisting as a soldier. The proprietor
could sell him with the estate, but had no power whatever of
selling him without it; and if he sold the estate, he was
compelled to sell the coloni along with it. … The position
of these villeins was a very miserable one. … These coloni
in Gaul, combined together, were joined by the free peasants
still left [A. D. 287], whose lot was not less wretched than
their own, and forming into numerous bands, spread themselves
over the country to pillage and destroy. They were called
Bagaudæ, from a Celtic word meaning a mob or riotous assembly;
and under this name recur often in the course of the next
century both in Gaul and Spain."

_W. T. Arnold,
The Roman System of Provincial Administration,
chapter 4._

DEEMSTERS.

See MANX KINGDOM, THE.

DEFENDERS.

See IRELAND: A. D. 1784.

DEFENESTRATION AT PRAGUE, The.

See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1611-1618.

DEFTERDARS.

See SUBLIME PORTE.

DEICOLÆ, The.

See CULDEES.

DEIRA, The kingdom of.

One of the kingdoms of the Angles, covering what is now called
the East Riding of Yorkshire, with some territory beyond it.
Sometimes it was united with the kingdom of Bernicia, north of
it, to form the greater kingdom of Northumbria.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 547-633.

{654}

DEKARCHIES.

See SPARTA: B. C. 404-403.

DEKELEIA. DEKELEIAN WAR.

See GREECE: B. C. 413.

DELATION. DELATORS.

Under the empire, there was soon bred at Rome an infamous
class of men who bore a certain resemblance—with significant
contrasts likewise—to the sycophants of Athens. They were
known as delators, and their occupation was delation. "The
delator was properly one who gave notice to the fiscal
officers of moneys that had become due to the treasury of the
state, or more strictly to the emperor's fiscus." But the
title was extended to informers generally, who dragged their
fellow-citizens before the tribunals for alleged violations of
law. Augustus made delation a profession by attaching rewards
to the information given against transgressors of his marriage
laws. Under the successor of Augustus, the sullen and
suspicious Tiberius, delation received its greatest
encouragement and development. "According to the spirit of
Roman criminal procedure, the informer and the pleader were
one and the same person. There was no public accuser, … but
the spy who discovered the delinquency was himself the man to
demand of the senate, the prætor or the judge, an opportunity
of proving it by his own eloquence and ingenuity. The odium of
prosecution was thus removed from the government to the
private delator."

_C. Merivale,
History of the Romans,
chapter 44._

See, also, ROME: A. D. 14-37.

DELAWARE BAY: A. D. 1609.
Discovered by Henry Hudson.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1609.

DELAWARE BAY:
The error perpetuated in its name.

"Almost every writer on American history that I have met with
appears to have taken pains to perpetuate the stereotyped
error that 'Lord Delawarr touched at this bay in his passage
to Virginia in 1610.' … Lord Delawarr himself, in his letter
of the 7th of July, 1610, giving an account of his voyage to
Virginia, not only makes no mention of that bay, or of his
approaching it, but expressly speaks of his first reaching the
American coast on the '6th of June, at what time we made land
to the southward of our harbor, the Chesiopiock Bay.' The
first European who is really known to have entered the bay,
after Hudson, was Capt. Samuel Argall [July 1610]. … The
name of Lord Delawarr, however, seems to have been given to
the bay soon afterwards by the Virginians."

_J. R. Brodhead,
History of the State of New York,
volume 1, appendix, note D._

----------DELAWARE BAY: End----------

DELAWARE: A. D. 1629-1631.
The Dutch occupancy and first settlement.

The first attempt at settlement on the Delaware was made by
the Dutch, who claimed the country in right of Hudson's
discovery and Mey's exploration of the Bay, notwithstanding
the broad English claim, which covered the whole of it as part
of an indefinite Virginia. In 1629, pursuant to the patroon
ordinance of the Dutch West India Company, which opened New
Netherland territory to private purchasers, "Samuel Godyn and
Samuel Blommaert, both directors of the Amsterdam Chamber,
bargained with the natives for the soil from Cape Henlopen to
the mouth of Delaware river; in July, 1630, this purchase of
an estate more than thirty miles long was ratified at Fort
Amsterdam by Minuit [then Governor of New Netherland] and his
council. It is the oldest deed for land in Delaware, and
comprises the water-line of the two southern counties of that
state. … A company was soon formed to colonize the tract
acquired by Godyn and Blommaert. The first settlement in
Delaware, older than any in Pennsylvania, was undertaken by a
company, of which Godyn, Van Rensselaer, Blommaert, the
historian De Laet, and a new partner, David Petersen de Vries,
were members. By joint enterprise, in December, 1630, a ship
of 18 guns, commanded by Pieter Heyes, and laden with
emigrants, store of seeds, cattle and agricultural implements,
embarked from the Texel, partly to cover the southern shore of
Delaware Bay with fields of wheat and tobacco, and partly for
a whale fishery on the coast. … Early in the spring of 1631,
the … vessel reached its destination, and just within Cape
Henlopen, on Lewes Creek, planted a colony of more than thirty
souls. The superintendence of the settlement was intrusted to
Gillis Hosset. A little fort was built and well beset with
palisades: the arms of Holland were affixed to a pillar; the
country received the name Swaanendael; the water that of
Godyn's Bay. The voyage of Heyes was the cradling of a state.
That Delaware exists as a separate commonwealth is due to this
colony. According to English rule, occupancy was necessary to
complete a title to the wilderness; and the Dutch now occupied
Delaware. On the 5th of May, Heyes and Hosset, in behalf of
Godyn and Blommaert, made a further purchase from Indian
chiefs of the opposite coast of Cape May, for twelve miles on
the bay, on the sea, and in the interior; and, in June, this
sale of a tract twelve miles square was formally attested at
Manhattan. Animated by the courage of Godyn, the patroons of
Swaanendael fitted out a second expedition under the command
of De Vries. But, before he set sail, news was received of the
destruction of the fort, and the murder of its people. Hasset,
the commandant, had caused the death of an Indian chief; and
the revenge of the savages was not appeased till not one of
the emigrants remained alive. De Vries, on his arrival, found
only the ruins of the house and its palisades, half consumed
by fire, and here and there the bones of the colonists."

_G. Bancroft,
History of the United States,
part 2, chapter 13 (volume 1)._

ALSO IN:
_J. R. Brodhead,
History of the State of New York,
volume 1, chapter 7._

DELAWARE: A. D. 1632.
Embraced in the Maryland grant to Lord Baltimore.

See MARYLAND: A. D. 1632.

DELAWARE: A. D. 1634.
Embraced in the Palatine grant of New Albion.

See NEW ALBION.

DELAWARE: A. D. 1638-1640.
The planting of the Swedish colony.

"William Usselinx, a distinguished merchant in Stockholm, was
the first to propose to the Swedish government a scheme for
planting a colony in America. He was a native of Antwerp, and
had resided in Spain, Portugal and the Azores, at a time when
the spirit of foreign adventure pervaded every class of
society. … In the year 1624 he proposed to the Swedish
monarch, Gustavus Adolphus, a plan for the organization of a
trading company, to extend its operations to Asia, Africa,
America and Terra Magellanica. …
{655}
Whether Usselinx had ever been in America is uncertain, but he
had, soon after the organization of the Dutch West India
Company, some connection with it, and by this and other means
was able to give ample information in relation to the country
bordering on the Delaware, its soil, climate, and productions.
… His plan and contract were translated into the Swedish
language by Schrader, the royal interpreter, and published to
the nation, with an address strongly appealing both to their
piety and their love of gain. The king recommended it to the
States, and an edict dated at Stockholm, July 2d, 1626, was
issued by royal authority, in which people of all ranks were
invited to encourage the project and support the Company.
Books were opened for subscription to the stock … and
Gustavus pledged the royal treasure for its support to the
amount of 400,000 dollars. … The work was ripe for
execution, when the German war [the Thirty Years War], and
afterwards the king's death, prevented it, and rendered the
fair prospect fruitless. … The next attempt on the part of
the Swedes to plant a colony in America was more successful.
But there has been much difference among historians in
relation to the period when that settlement was made. … It
is owing to the preservation, among the Dutch records at
Albany, of an official protest issued by Kieft, the Governor
at New Amsterdam, that we do certainly know the Swedes were
here in the spring of 1638. Peter Minuit, who conducted to our
shore the first Swedish colony, had been Commercial Agent, and
Director General of the Dutch West India Company, and Governor
of the New Netherlands. … At this time Christina, the infant
daughter of Gustavus Adolphus, had ascended the throne of
Sweden. … Under the direction of Oxenstiern, the celebrated
chancellor of Sweden, whose wisdom and virtue have shed a
glory on the age in which he lived, the patent which had been
granted in the reign of Gustavus to the company formed under
the influence of Usselinx was renewed, and its privileges
extended to the citizens of Germany. Minuit, being now out of
employment, and probably deeming himself injured by the
conduct of the Dutch Company [which had displaced him from the
governorship of the New Netherlands, through the influence of
the patroons, and appointed Wouter Van Twiller, a clerk, to
succeed him], had determined to offer his services to the
crown of Sweden. … Minuit laid before the chancellor a plan
of procedure, urged a settlement on the Delaware, and offered
to conduct the enterprise. Oxenstiern represented the case to
the queen … and Minuit was commissioned to command and
direct the expedition."

_B. Ferris,
History of the Original Settlements on the Delaware,
part 1, chapters 2-3._

"With two ships laden with provisions and other supplies
requisite for the settlement of emigrants in a new country,
and with fifty colonists, Minuit sailed from Sweden late in
1637, and entered Delaware Bay in April, 1638. He found the
country as he had left it, without white inhabitants. Minqua
Kill, now Wilmington, was selected as the place for the first
settlement, where he bought a few acres of land of the
natives, landed his colonists and stores, erected a fort, and
began a small plantation. He had conducted his enterprise with
some secrecy, that he might avoid collision with the Dutch;
but the watchful eyes of their agents soon discovered him, and
reported his presence to the director at New Amsterdam. Kieft
[successor to Van Twiller] had just arrived, and it became one
of his first duties to notify a man who had preceded him in
office that he was a trespasser and warn him off. Minuit,
knowing that Kieft was powerless to enforce his protest, being
without troops or money, paid no attention to his missive, and
kept on with his work. … He erected a fort of considerable
strength, named Christina, for the Swedish queen, and
garrisoned it with 24 soldiers. Understanding the character of
the Indians, he conciliated their sachems by liberal presents
and secured the trade. In a few months he was enabled to load
his ships with peltries and despatch them to his patrons. …
The colony had to all appearance a promising future. …
Within two years, however, their prospects were clouded. The
Company had failed to send out another ship with supplies and
merchandise for the Indian trade. Provisions failed, trade
fell off, and sickness began to prevail. … They resolved to
remove to Manhattan, where they could at least have 'enough to
eat.' On the eve of 'breaking up' to carry their resolution
into effect, succor came from an unexpected quarter. The fame
of New Sweden, as the colony was called, of its fertile lands
and profitable trade, had reached other nations of Europe. In
Holland itself a company was formed to establish a settlement
under the patronage of the Swedish Company." This Dutch
company "freighted a ship with colonists and supplies, which
fortunately arrived when the Swedish colony was about to be
broken up and the country abandoned. The spirits of the Swedes
were revived. … Their projected removal was indefinitely
deferred and they continued their work with fresh vigor. The
Dutch colonists were located in a settlement by themselves,
only a few miles from Fort Christina. They were loyal to the
Swedes. … In the autumn of the same year, 1640, Peter
Hollaendare, who had been appointed deputy governor of the
colony, and Moens Kling, arrived from Sweden with three ships
laden with provisions and merchandise for the straitened
colonists. They also brought out a considerable company of new
emigrants. New Sweden was now well established and prosperous.
More lands were bought, and new settlements were made. Peter
Minuit died the following year."

_G. W. Schuyler,
Colonial New York,
volume 1, introduction, section 2._

ALSO IN:
_I. Acrelius,
History of New Sweden
(Pennsylvania Historical Society Mem., volume 11)
chapter 1._

_Documents relative to Colonial History of New York,
volume 12._

_G. B. Keen,
New Sweden
(Narrative and Critical History of America,
volume 4, chapter 9)._

_J. F. Jameson,
Willem Usselinx
(Papers of the American Historical Association,
volume 2, number 3)._

DELAWARE: A. D. 1640-1643.
Intrusions of the English from New Haven.

See NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1640-1655.

DELAWARE. A. D. 1640-1656.
The struggle between the Swedes and the Dutch and the final
victory of the latter.

"The [Swedish] colony grew to such importance that John
Printz, a lieutenant-colonel of cavalry, was sent out in 1642
as governor, with orders for developing industry and trade. He
took pains to command the mouth of the river, although the
Dutch had established Fort Nassau on its eastern bank, and the
Swedish settlements were on the western bank exclusively.
{656}
Collisions arose between the Dutch and the Swedes, and when
the former put up the arms of the States General on the
completion of a purchase of lands from the Indians, Printz in
a passion ordered them to be torn down. The Swedes gained in
strength while the Dutch lost ground in the vicinity. In 1648
the Dutch attempted to build a trading post on the Schuylkill,
when they were repulsed by force by the Swedes. Individuals
seeking to erect houses were treated in the same way. The
Swedes in turn set up a stockade on the disputed ground.
Director Stuyvesant found it necessary in 1651 to go to confer
with Printz with a view to holding the country against the
aggressive English. The Indians were called into council and
confirmed the Dutch title, allowing the Swedes little more
than the site of Fort Christina. Fort Casimir was erected
lower down the river, to protect Dutch interests. The two
rulers agreed to be friends and allies, and so continued for
three years. The distress of the Swedish colony led to appeals
for aid from the home country whither Governor Printz had
returned. In 1654 help was given, and a new governor, John
Claude Rysingh, marked his coming by the capture of Fort
Casimir, pretending that the Dutch West India Company
authorized the act. The only revenge the Dutch could take was
the seizure of a Swedish vessel which by mistake ran into
Manhattan Bay. But the next year orders came from Holland
exposing the fraud of Rysingh, and directing the expulsion of
the Swedes from the South River. A fleet was organized and
Director Stuyvesant recovered Fort Casimir without firing a
gun. After some parley Fort Christina was also surrendered.
Such Swedes as would not take the oath of allegiance to the
Dutch authorities were sent to the home country. Only twenty
persons accepted the oath, and of three clergymen two were
expelled, and the third escaped like treatment by the sudden
outbreak of Indian troubles. In 1656 the States General and
Sweden made these transactions [a] matter of international
discussion. The Swedes presented a protest against the action
of the Dutch, and it was talked over, but the matter was
finally dropped. In the same year the West India Company sold
its interests on the South River to the city of Amsterdam, and
the colony of New Amstel was erected, so that the authority of
New Netherland was extinguished."

_E. H. Roberts,
New York,
volume 1, chapter 7._

ALSO IN:
_E. Armstrong,
Introduction to the Record of Upland
(Historical Society of Pennsylvania Memoirs, volume 7)._

_B. Ferris,
History of the Original Settlements on the Delaware,
part 1, chapter 6-7._

_S. Hazard,
Annals of Pennsylvania,
pages 62-228._

_Report of the Amsterdam Chamber of the W. I. Co.
(Documents relative to Colonial History of New York,
volume 1, pages 587-646)._

DELAWARE: A. D. 1664.
Conquest by the English, and annexation to New York.

"Five days after the capitulation of New Amsterdam
[surrendered by the Dutch to the English, Aug. 29, 1664 see
NEW YORK: A. D. 1664] Nicolls, with Cartwright and Maverick
… commissioned their colleague, Sir Robert Carr, to go,"
with three ships and an adequate military force, "and reduce
the Delaware settlements. Carr was instructed to promise the
Dutch the possession of all their property and all their
present privileges, 'only that they change their masters.' To
the Swedes he was to 'remonstrate their happy return under a
monarchical government, and his majesty's good inclination to
that nation.' To Lord Baltimore's officers in Maryland, he was
to declare that their proprietor's pretended right to the
Delaware being 'a doubtful case,' possession would be kept for
the king 'till his majesty is informed and satisfied
otherwise.' … The Swedes were soon made friends," but the
Dutch attempted [October] some resistance, and yielded only
after a couple of broadsides from the ships had killed three
and wounded ten of their garrison. "Carr now landed … and
claimed the pillage for himself as 'won by the sword.'
Assuming an authority independent of Nicolls, he claimed to be
the 'sole and chief commander and disposer' of all affairs on
the Delaware." His acts of rapacity and violence, when
reported to his fellow commissioners, at New York, were
condemned and repudiated, and Nicolls, the presiding
commissioner, went to the Delaware in person to displace him.
"Carr was severely rebuked, and obliged to give up much of his
ill-gotten spoil. Nevertheless, he could not be persuaded to
leave the place for some time. The name of New Amstel was now
changed to New Castle, and an infantry garrison established
there. … Captain John Carr was appointed commander of the
Delaware, in subordination to the government of New York, to
which it was annexed 'as an appendage'; and thus affairs
remained for several years."

_J. R. Brodhead,
History of the State of New York,
volume 2, chapter 2._

DELAWARE: A. D. 1673.
The Dutch reconquest.

See NEW YORK: A. D. 1673.

DELAWARE: A. D. 1674.
Final recovery by the English.

See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1674.

DELAWARE: A. D. 1674-1760.
In dispute between the Duke of York and the
Proprietary of Maryland.
Grant by the Duke to William Penn:

See PENNSYLVANIA; A. D. 1682; 1685; and 1760-1767.

DELAWARE: A. D. 1691-1702.
The practical independence of Penn's "lower counties" acquired.

"In April, 1691, with the reluctant consent of William Penn,
the 'territories,' or 'lower counties,' now known as the State
of Delaware, became for two years a government by themselves
under Markham. … The disturbance by Keith [see PENNSYLVANIA;
A. D. 1692-1696] creating questions as to the administration
of justice, confirmed the disposition of the English
government to subject Pennsylvania to a royal commission; and
in April 1693, Benjamin Fletcher, appointed governor by
William and Mary, once more united Delaware to Pennsylvania."
But Penn, restored to his authority in 1694, could not resist
the jealousies which tended so strongly to divide the Delaware
territories from Pennsylvania proper. "In 1702, Pennsylvania
convened its legislature apart, and the two colonies were
never again united. The lower counties became almost an
independent republic; for, as they were not included in the
charter, the authority of the proprietary over them was by
sufferance only, and the executive power intrusted to the
governor of Pennsylvania was too feeble to restrain the power
of their people. The legislature, the tribunals, the
subordinate executive officers of Delaware knew little of
external control."

_G. Bancroft, History of the United States.
(author's last revision),
part 3, chapter 2 (volume 2)._

The question of jurisdiction over Delaware was involved
throughout in the boundary dispute between the proprietaries
of Pennsylvania and Maryland.

See PENNSYLVANIA; A. D. 1685; and 1760-1767.

{657}

DELAWARE: A. D. 1760-1766.
The question of taxation by Parliament.
The Stamp Act and its repeal.
The Declaratory Act.
The First Continental Congress.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1760-1775; 1763-1764; 1765; and 1766.

DELAWARE: A. D. 1766-1774
Opening events of the Revolution.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1766-1767 to 1774;
and BOSTON: A. D. 1768 to 1773.

DELAWARE: A. D. 1775.
The beginning of the war of the American Revolution.
Lexington.
Concord.
Action taken on the news.
Ticonderoga.
The siege of Boston.
Bunker Hill.
The Second Continental Congress.

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

DELAWARE: A. D. 1776.
Further introduction of slaves prohibited.

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

DELAWARE: A. D. 1776-1783.
The War of Independence.
Peace with Great Britain.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 to 1783.

DELAWARE: A. D. 1777-1779.
Withholding ratification from the Articles of Confederation.

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

DELAWARE: A. D. 1787.
The adoption and ratification of the Federal Constitution.

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

DELAWARE: A. D. 1861 (April).
Refusal of troops on the call of President Lincoln.

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

----------DELAWARE: End----------

DELAWARE RIVER,
Washington's passage of the.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776-1777.

DELAWARES, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: DELAWARES.

DELFT: Assassination of the Prince of Orange (1584).

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1581-1584.

DELHI: 11th Century.
Capture by Mahmoud of Gazna.

See TURKS: A. D. 999-1183.

DELHI: A. D. 1192-1290.
The capital of the Mameluke or Slave dynasty.

See INDIA: A. D. 977-1290.

DELHI: A. D. 1399.
Sack and massacre by Timour.

See TIMOUR.