Chapter IV: , VII (37)

It is greatly to the credit of Austria, long blinded and
stupefied by the narcotic of absolutism, that the lessons of
the war of 1866 sank deep into her mind and produced a very
genuine enlightenment. The whole policy of the court of Vienna
was changed, and with it the constitution of the Empire. The
statesmen of Hungary were called into consultation with the
statesmen of Austria, and the outcome of their discussions was
an agreement which swept away the old Austria, holding Hungary
in subjection, and created in its place a new power—a federal
Austria-Hungary—equalized in its two principal parts, and
united under the same sovereign with distinct constitutions.

The Franco-German War.

The surprising triumph of Prussia in the Seven Weeks War stung
Louis Napoleon with a jealousy which he could not conceal. He
was incapable of perceiving what it signified,—of perfection
in the organization of the Prussian kingdom and of power in
its resources. He was under illusions as to the strength of
his own Empire. It had been honeycombed by the rascalities
that attended and surrounded him, and he did not know it. He
imagined France to be capable of putting a check on Prussian
aggrandizement; and he began very early after Sadowa to pursue
King William with demands which were tolerably certain to end
in war. When the war came, in July, 1870, it was by his own
declaration; yet Prussia was prepared for it and France was
not. In six weeks time from the declaration of war,—in one
month from the first action,—Napoleon himself was a prisoner
of war in the hands of the Germans, surrendered at Sedan, with
the whole army which he personally commanded; the Empire was in
collapse, and a provisional government had taken the direction
of affairs. On the 20th of September Paris was invested; on
the 28th of October Baznine, with an army of 150,000 men,
capitulated at Metz. A hopeless attempt to rally the nation to
fresh efforts of defence in the interior, on the Loire, was
valiantly made under the lead of Gambetta; but it was too
late. When the year closed, besieged Paris was at the verge of
starvation and all attempts to relieve the city had failed. On
the 28th of January, 1871, an armistice was sought and
obtained; on the 30th, Paris was surrendered and the Germans
entered it. The treaty of peace negotiated subsequently ceded
Alsace to Germany, with a fifth of Lorraine, and bound France
to pay a war indemnity of five milliards of francs.

The Paris Commune.

In February, 1871, the provisional "Government of National
Defense" gave way to a National Assembly, duly elected under
the provisions of the armistice, and an executive was
instituted at Bordeaux, under the presidency of M. Thiers.
Early in March, the German forces were withdrawn from Paris,
and control of the city was immediately seized by that
dangerous element—Jacobinical, or Red Republican, or
Communistic, as it may be variously described—which always
shows itself with promptitude and power in the French capital,
at disorderly times. The Commune was proclaimed, and the
national government was defied. From the 2d of April until the
28th of May Paris was again under siege, this time by forces
of the French government, fighting to overcome the
revolutionists within. The proceedings of the latter were more
wantonly destructive than those of the Terrorists of the
Revolution, and scarcely less sanguinary. The Commune was
suppressed in the end with great severity.

The Third French Republic.

M. Thiers held the presidency of the Third Republic in France
until 1873, when he resigned and was succeeded by Marshal
MacMahon. In 1875 the constitution which has since remained,
with some amendments, in force, was framed and adopted. In
1878 Marshal MacMahon gave place to M. Jules Grévy, and the
latter to M. Sadi Carnot in 1887. Republican government seems
to be firmly and permanently established in France at last.
The country is in a prosperous state, and nothing but its
passionate desire to recover Alsace and to avenge Sedan
appears threatening to its future.

{1102}

The new German Empire.

While the army of the Germans was still besieging Paris, and
King William and Prince Bismarck were at Versailles, in
January, 1871, the last act which completed the unification
and nationalization of Germany was performed. This was the
assumption of the title of Emperor by King William, in
response to the prayer of the princes of Germany and of the
North German Parliament. On the 16th of the following April, a
constitution for the German Empire was proclaimed.

The long and extraordinary reign of the Emperor William I. was
ended by his death in 1888. His son, Frederick III., was dying
at the time of an incurable disease, and survived his father
only three months. The son of Frederick III., William II.,
signalized the beginning of his reign by dismissing, after a
few months, the great minister, Count Bismarck, on whom his
strong grandfather had leaned, and who had wrought such
marvels of statesmanship and diplomacy for the German race.
What may lie at the end of the reign which had this
self-sufficient beginning is not to be foretold.

The Russo-Turkish War.

Since the Franco-German War of 1870-1871, the peace of Europe
has been broken but once by hostilities within the European
boundary. In 1875 a rising against the unendurable misrule of
the Turks began in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and was imitated
the next year in Bulgaria. Servia and Montenegro declared war
against Turkey and were overcome. Russia then espoused the
cause of the struggling Slavs, and opened, in 1877, a most
formidable new attempt to crush the Ottoman power, and to
accomplish her coveted extension to the Mediterranean. From
May until the following January the storm of war raged
fiercely along the Balkans. The Turks fought stubbornly, but
they were beaten back, and nothing but a dangerous opposition
of feeling among the other powers in Europe stayed the hand of
the Czar from being laid upon Constantinople. The powers
required a settlement of the peace between Russia and Turkey
to be made by a general Congress, and it was held at Berlin in
June, 1878. Bulgaria was divided by the Congress into two
states, one tributary to the Turk, but freely governed, the
other subject to Turkey, but under a Christian governor. This
arrangement was set aside seven years later by a bloodless
revolution, which formed one Bulgaria in nominal relations of
dependence upon the Porte. This was the third important
nationalizing movement within a quarter of a century, and it
is likely to go farther in southeastern Europe, until it
settles, perhaps, "the Eastern question," so far as the
European side of it is concerned.

Bosnia and Herzegovina were given to Austria by the Congress
of Berlin; the independence of Roumania, Servia, and
Montenegro was made more complete; the island of Cyprus was
turned over to Great Britain for administration.

Spain in the last half Century.

A few words will tell sufficiently the story of Spain since
the successor of Joseph Bonaparte quitted the scene. Ferdinand
VII. died in 1833, and his infant daughter was proclaimed
queen, as Isabella II., with her mother, Christina, regent.
Isabella's title was disputed by Don Carlos, the late king's
brother, and a civil war between Carlists and Christinos went
on for years. When Isabella came of age she proved to be a
dissolute woman, with strong proclivities toward arbitrary
government. A liberal party, and even a republican party, had
been steadily gaining ground in Spain, and the queen placed
herself in conflict with it. In 1868 a revolution drove her
into France. The revolutionists offered the crown to a prince
distantly related to the royal family of Prussia. It was this
incident that gave Louis Napoleon a pretext for quarreling
with the King of Prussia in 1870 and declaring war. Declined
by the Hohenzollern prince, the Spanish crown was then offered
to Amadeo, son of the King of Italy, who accepted it, but
resigned it again in 1873, after a reign of two years, in
disgust with the factions which troubled him. Castelar, the
distinguished republican orator, then formed a republican
government which held the reins for a few months, but could
not establish order in the troubled land. The monarchy was
restored in December, 1874, by the coronation of Alfonso XII.,
son of the exiled Isabella. Since that time Spain has
preserved a tolerably peaceful and contented state.

England and Ireland.

In recent years, the part which Great Britain has taken in
Continental affairs has been slight; and, indeed, there has
been little in those affairs to bring about important
international relations. In domestic politics, a single series
of questions, concerning Ireland and the connection of Ireland
with the British part of the United Kingdom, has mastered the
field, overriding all others and compelling the statesmen of
the day to take them in hand. The sudden imperiousness of
these questions affords a peculiar manifestation of the
political conscience in nations which the nineteenth century
has wakened and set astir. Through all the prior centuries of
their subjection, the treatment of the Irish people by the
English was as cruel and as heedless of justice and right as
the treatment of Poles by Russians or of Greeks by Turks. They
were trebly oppressed: as conquered subjects of an alien race,
as religious enemies, as possible rivals in production and
trade. They were deprived of political and civil rights; they
were denied the ministrations of their priests; the better
employments and more honorable professions were closed to
them; the industries which promised prosperity to their
country were suppressed. A small minority of Protestant
colonists became the recognized nation, so far as a
nationality in Ireland was recognized at all. When Ireland was
said to have a Parliament, it was the Parliament of the
minority alone. No Catholic sat in it; no Catholic was
represented in it. When Irishmen were permitted to bear arms,
they were Protestant Irishmen only who formed the privileged
militia. Seven-tenths of the inhabitants of the island were
politically as non-existent as actual serfdom could have made
them. For the most part they were peasants and their state as
such scarcely above the condition of serfs. They owned no
land; their leases were insecure; the laws protected them in
the least possible degree; their landlords were mostly of the
hostile creed and race. No country in Europe showed conditions
better calculated to distress and degrade a people.

{1103}

This was the state of things in Ireland until nearly the end
of the eighteenth century. In 1782 legislative independence
was conceded; but the independent legislature was still the
Parliament in which Protestants sat alone. In 1793 Catholics
were admitted to the franchise; but seats in Parliament were
still denied to them and they must elect Protestants to
represent them. In 1800 the Act of Union, creating the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, extinguished the
Parliament at Dublin and provided for the introduction of
Irish peers and members to represent Irish constituencies in
the greater Parliament at London; but still no Catholic could
take a seat in either House. Not until 1829, after eighteen
years of the fierce agitation which Daniel O'Connell stirred
up, were Catholic disabilities entirely removed and the people
of that faith placed on an equal footing with Protestants in
political and civil rights. O'Connell's agitation was not for
Catholic emancipation alone, but for the repeal of the Act of
Union and the restoration of legislative independence and
national distinctness to Ireland. That desire has been hot in
the Irish heart from the day the Union was accomplished. After
O'Connell's death, there was quiet on the subject for a time.
The fearful famine of 1845-7 deadened all political feeling.
Then there was a recurrence of the passionate animosity to
British rule which had kindled unfortunate rebellions in 1798
and 1803. It produced the Fenian conspiracies, which ran their
course from about 1858 to 1867. But soon after that time Irish
nationalism resumed a more politic temper, and doubled the
energy of its efforts by confining them to peaceful and lawful
ways. The Home Rule movement, which began in 1873, was aimed
at the organization of a compact and well-guided Irish party
in Parliament, to press the demand for legislative
independence and to act with united weight on lines of Irish
policy carefully laid down. This Home Rule party soon acquired
a powerful leader in Mr. Charles Parnell, and was successful
in carrying questions of reform in Ireland to the forefront of
English politics.

Under the influence of its great leader, Mr. Gladstone, the
Liberal party had already, before the Home Rule party came
into the field, begun to adopt measures for the redress of
Irish wrongs. In 1869, the Irish branch of the Church of
England, calling itself the Church of Ireland, was
disestablished. The membership of that church was reckoned to
be one-tenth of the population; but it had been supported by
the taxation of the whole. The Catholics, the Presbyterians
and other dissenters were now released from this unjust
burden. In 1870, a Land Bill—the first of several, which
restrict the power of Irish landlords to oppress their
tenants, and which protect the latter, while opening
opportunities of land-ownership to them—was passed. The land
question became for a time more prominent than the Home Rule
question, and the party of Mr. Parnell was practically
absorbed in an Irish National Land League, formed to force
landlords to a reduction of rents. The methods of coercion
adopted brought the League into collision with the Liberal
Government, notwithstanding the general sympathy of the latter
with Irish complaints. For a time the Irish Nationalists went
into alliance with the English Conservatives; but in 1886 Mr.
Gladstone became convinced, and convinced the majority of his
party, that just and harmonious relations between Ireland and
Great Britain could never be established without the
concession of Home Rule to the former. A bill which he
introduced to that end was defeated in the House of Commons
and Mr. Gladstone resigned. In 1892 he was returned to power,
and in September of the following year he carried in the House
of Commons a bill for the transferring of Irish legislation to
a distinct Parliament at Dublin. It was defeated, however, in
the House of Lords, and the question now rests in an unsettled
state. Mr. Gladstone's retirement from the premiership and
from the leadership of his party, which occurred in March,
1894, may affect the prospects of the measure; but the English
Liberals are committed to its principle, and it appears to be
certain that the Irish question will attain some solution
within no very long time.

Conclusion.

The beginning of the year 1894, when this is written, finds
Europe at peace, as it has been for a number of years. But the
peace is not of friendship, nor of honorable confidence, nor
of good will. The greater nations are lying on their arms, so
to speak, watching one another with strained eyes and with
jealous hearts. France, Germany, Italy, Austria, Russia, are
marshaling armies in the season of peace that, not many years
ago, would have seemed monstrous for war. Exactions of
military service and taxation for military expenditure are
pressed upon their people to the point of last endurance. The
preparation for battle is so vast in its scale, so unceasing,
so increasing, so far in the lead over all other efforts among
men, that it seems like a new affirmation of belief that war
is the natural order of the world.

And yet, the dread of war is greater in the civilized world
than ever before. The interests and influences that work for
peace are more powerful than at any former time. The wealth
which war threatens, the commerce which it interrupts, the
industry which it disturbs, the intelligence which it offends,
the humanity which it shocks, the Christianity which it
grieves, grow stronger to resist it, year by year. The
statesman and the diplomatist are under checks of
responsibility which a generation no older than Palmerston's
never felt. The arbitrator and the tribunal of arbitration
have become familiar within a quarter of a century. The spirit
of the age opposes war with rising earnestness and increasing
force; while the circumstance and fact of the time seem
arranged for it as the chief business of mankind. It is a
singular and a critical situation; the outcome from it is
impenetrably hidden.

Within itself, too, each nation is troubled with hostilities
that the world has not known before. Democracy in politics is
bringing in, as was inevitable, democracy in the whole social
system; and the period of adjustment to it, which we are
passing through, could not fail to be a period of trial and of
many dangers. The Anarchist, the Nihilist, the Socialist in
his many variations—what are they going to do in the time
that lies before us?

Europe, at the present stage of its history, is in the thick
of many questions; and so we leave it.

{1104}

EURYMEDON, Battles of the (B. C. 466).

See ATHENS: B. C. 470-466.

EUSKALDUNAC.

See BASQUES.

EUTAW SPRINGS, Battle of(1781).

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1780-1781.

EUTHYNI, The.

See LOGISTÆ.

EUTYCHIAN HERESY.

See NESTORIAN AND MONOPHYSITE CONTROVERSY.

EUXINE, The.

Euxinus Pontus, or Pontus Euxinus, the Black Sea,
as named by the Greeks.

EVACUATION DAY.
The anniversary of the evacuation of New York by
the British, Nov. 25, 1783.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1783 (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER).

EVANGELICAL UNION OF GERMANY, The.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1608-1618.

EVER VICTORIOUS ARMY, The.

See CHINA: A. D. 1850-1864.

EVESHAM, Battle of (1265).

The battle which finished the civil war in England known as
the Barons' War. It was fought Aug. 3, 1265, and Earl Simon de
Montfort, the soul of the popular cause, was slain, with most
of his followers. Prince Edward, afterwards Edward I.,
commanded the royal forces.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1216-1274.

EVICTIONS, Irish.

See IRELAND: A. D. 1886.

EXARCHS OF RAVENNA.

See ROME: A. D. 554-800.

EXARCHS OF THE DIOCESE.

See PRIMATES.

EXCHEQUER. EXCHEQUER ROLLS. EXCHEQUER TALLIES.

"The Exchequer of the Norman kings was the court in which the
whole financial business of the country was transacted, and as
the whole administration of justice, and even the military
organisation, was dependent upon the fiscal officers, the
whole framework of society may be said to have passed annually
under its review. It derived its name from the chequered cloth
which covered the table at which the accounts were taken, a
name which suggested to the spectator the idea of a game at
chess between the receiver and the payer, the treasurer and
the sheriff. … The record of the business was preserved in
three great rolls; one kept by the Treasurer, another by the
Chancellor, and a third by an officer nominated by the king,
who registered the matters of legal and special importance.
The rolls of the Treasurer and Chancellor were duplicates;
that of the former was called from its shape the great roll of
the Pipe, and that of the latter the roll of the Chancery. These
documents are mostly still in existence. The Pipe Rolls are
complete from the second year of Henry II. and the
Chancellor's Rolls nearly so. Of the preceding period only one
roll, that of the thirty-first year of Henry I., is preserved,
and this with Domesday book is the most valuable store of
information which exists for the administrative history of the
age. The financial reports were made to the barons by the
sheriffs of the counties. At Easter and Michælmas each of
these magistrates produced his own accounts and paid in to the
Exchequer such an instalment or proffer as he could afford,
retaining in hand sufficient money for current expenses. In
token of receipt a tally was made; a long piece of wood in
which a number of notches were cut, marking the pounds,
shillings, and pence received; this stick was then split down
the middle, each half contained exactly the same number of
notches, and no alteration could of course be made without
certain detection. … The fire which destroyed the old Houses
of Parliament is said to have originated in the burning of the
old Exchequer tallies."

_W. Stubbs,
Constitutional History of England,
chapter 11, section 126._

"The wooden 'tallies' on which a large notch represented
£1,000, and smaller notches other sums, while a halfpenny was
denoted by a small round hole, were actually in use at the
Exchequer until the year 1824."

_Sir J. Lubbock,
Preface to Hall's "Antiquities and
Curiosities of the Exchequer."_

ALSO IN: _E. F. Henderson,
Select Historical Documents of the Middle Ages,
book 1, number 5._

See, also, CURIA REGIS and CHESS.

EXCHEQUER, Chancellor of the.

In the reign of Henry III., of England, "was created the
office of Chancellor of the Exchequer, to whom the Exchequer
seal was entrusted, and who with the Treasurer took part in
the equitable jurisdiction of the Exchequer, although not in
the common law jurisdiction of the barons, which extended
itself as the legal fictions of pleading brought common pleas
into this court."

W. Stubbs, Constitutional History of England,
chapter 15, section 237.

EXCLUSION BILL, The.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1679-1681.

EXCOMMUNICATIONS AND INTERDICTS.

"Excommunication, whatever opinions may be entertained as to
its religious efficacy, was originally nothing more in
appearance than the exercise of a right which every society
claims, the expulsion of refractory members from its body. No
direct temporal disadvantages attended this penalty for
several ages; but as it was the most severe of spiritual
censures, and tended to exclude the object of it, not only
from a participation in religious rites, but in a considerable
degree from the intercourse of Christian society, it was used
sparingly and upon the gravest occasions. Gradually, as the
church became more powerful and more imperious,
excommunications were issued upon every provocation, rather as
a weapon of ecclesiastical warfare than with any regard to its
original intention. … Princes who felt the inadequacy of
their own laws to secure obedience called in the assistance of
more formidable sanctions. Several capitularies of Charlemagne
denounce the penalty of excommunication against incendiaries
or deserters from the army. Charles the Bald procured similar
censures against his revolted vassals. Thus the boundary
between temporal and spiritual offences grew every day less
distinct; and the clergy were encouraged to fresh
encroachments, as they discovered the secret of rendering them
successful. … The support due to church censures by temporal
judges is vaguely declared in the capitularies of Pepin and
Charlemagne. It became in later ages a more established
principle in France and England, and, I presume, in other
countries. By our common law an excommunicated person is
incapable of being a witness or of bringing an action; and he
may be detained in prison until he obtains absolution. By the
Establishments of St. Louis, his estate or person might be
attached by the magistrate. These actual penalties were
attended by marks of abhorrence and ignominy still more
calculated to make an impression on ordinary minds. They were
to be shunned, like men infected with leprosy, by their
servants, their friends, and their families. …
{1105}
But as excommunication, which attacked only one and perhaps a
hardened sinner, was not always efficacious, the church had
recourse to a more comprehensive punishment. For the offence
of a nobleman she put a county, for that of a prince his
entire kingdom, under an interdict or suspension of religious
offices. No stretch of her tyranny was perhaps so outrageous
as this. During an interdict the churches were closed, the
bells silent, the dead unburied, no rite but those of baptism
and extreme unction performed. The penalty fell upon those who
had neither partaken nor could have prevented the offence; and
the offence was often but a private dispute, in which the
pride of a pope or bishop had been wounded. Interdicts were so
rare before the time of Gregory VII., that some have referred
them to him as their author; instances may however be found of
an earlier date."

_H. Hallam,
The Middle Ages,
chapter 7, part 1._

ALSO IN:
_M. Gosselin,
The Power of the Pope in the Middle Ages,
part 2, chapter 1, article 3._

_H. C. Lea,
Studies in Church History,
part 3._

_P. Schaff,
History of the Christian Church,
volume 4, chapter 8, section 86._

EXECUTIVE SESSIONS.

See CONGRESS OF THE UNITED SESSIONS.

EXEGETÆ, The.

A board of three persons in ancient Athens "to whom
application might be made in all matters relating to sacred
law, and also, probably, with regard to the significance of
the Diosemia, or celestial phenomena and other signs by which
future events were foretold."

_G. F. Schömann,
Antiquities of Greece: The State,
part 3, chapter 3._

EXETER, Origin of.

"Isca Damnoniorum, Caer Wisc, Exanceaster, Exeter, keeping
essentially the same name under all changes, stands
distinguished as the one great English city which has, in a
more marked way than any other, kept its unbroken being and
its unbroken position throughout all ages. The City on the
Exe, in all ages and in all tongues keeping its name as the
City on the Exe, allows of an easy definition. … It is the
one city [of England] in which we can feel sure that human
habitation and city life have never ceased from the days of
the early Cæsars to our own." At the Norman conquest, Exeter
did not submit to William until after a siege of 18 days, in
1068.

_E. A. Freeman,
Exeter,
chapters 1-2._

EXILARCH, The.

See JEWS: 7TH CENTURY.

EXODUS FROM EGYPT, The.

See JEWS: THE ROUTE OF THE EXODUS.

EYLAU, Battle of (1807).

See GERMANY: A. D. 1806-1807.

EYRE, Governor, and the Jamaica insurrection.

See JAMAICA: A. D. 1865.

EYSTEIN I., King of Norway, A. D. 1116-1122.
Eystein II., 1155-1157.

EZZELINO, OR ECCELINO DI ROMANO,
The tyranny of, and the crusade against.

See VERONA: A. D. 1236-1259.

F.

FABIAN POLICY.-FABIAN TACTICS.

The policy pursued by Q. Fabius Maximus, the Roman Dictator,
called "the Cunctator" or Lingerer, in his campaigns against
Hannibal.

See PUNIC WAR, THE SECOND.

FACTORY LEGISLATION, English.

"During the 17th and 18th centuries, when the skill of the
workmen had greatly improved, and the productiveness of labour
had increased, various methods were resorted to for the
purpose of prolonging the working day. The noontide nap was
first dispensed with, then other intervals of rest were
curtailed, and ultimately artificial light was introduced,
which had the effect of abolishing the difference between the
short days of winter and the long days of summer, thus
equalising, the working day throughout the year. The opening
of the 19th century was signalised by a new cry, namely, for a
reduction in the hours of labour; this was in consequence of
the introduction of female and child labour into the
factories, and the deterioration of the workers as a result of
excessive overwork. … The overwork of the young, and
particularly the excessive hours in the factories, became such
crying evils that in 1801 the first Act was passed to restrict
the hours of labour for apprentices, who were prohibited from
working more than 12 hours a day, between six A. M. and nine
P. M., and that provision should be made for teaching them to
read and write, and other educational exercises. This Act
further provided that the mills should be whitewashed at least
once a year; and that doors and windows should be made to
admit fresh air. This Act was followed by a series of
commissions and committees of inquiry, the result being that
it was several times amended. The details of the evidence
given before the several commissions and committees of inquiry
are sickening in the extreme; the medical testimony was
unanimous in its verdict that the children were physically
ruined by overwork; those who escaped with their lives were so
crippled and maimed that they were unable to maintain
themselves in after life, and became paupers. It was proven
that out of 4,000 who entered the factory before they were 30
years of age, only 600 were to be found in the mills after
that age. By Sir Robert Peel's Bill in 1819 it was proposed to
limit the hours to 11 per day with one and a half for meals,
for those under 16 years of age. But the mill-owners
prophesied the ruin of the manufacturers of the country—they
could not compete with the foreign markets, it was an
interference with the freedom of labour, the spare time given
would be spent in debauchery and riot, and that if passed,
other trades would require the same provisions. The Bill was
defeated, and the hours fixed at 72 per week; the justices,
that is to say the manufacturers, were entrusted with the
enforcement of the law. In 1825 a new law was passed defining
the time when breakfast and dinner was to be taken, and fixing
the time to half an hour for the first repast, and a full hour
for dinner; the traditional term of apprentices was dropped
and the modern classification of children and young persons
was substituted, and children were once more prohibited from
working more than 12 hours a day. But every means was adopted
to evade the law. … After thousands of petitions, and
numerous angry debates in Parliament, the Act of 1833 was
passed, which limited the working hours of children to 48
hours per week, and provided that each child should have a
certain amount of schooling, and with it factory inspectors
were appointed to enforce the law.
{1106}
But the law was not to come into operation until March 1,
1836, during which time it had to be explained and defended in
one session, amended in a second, and made binding in a third.
After several Royal Commissions and inquiries by select
committees, this Act has been eight times amended, until the
working hours of children are now limited to six per day, and
for young persons and women to 56 per week; these provisions
with certain modifications are now extended to workshops, and
the whole law is being consolidated and amended. … The whole
series of the Factory Acts, dating from 42 George III., c. 73,
to the 37 and 38 Victoria 1874, forms a code of legislation,
in regard to working people, unexampled in any age and
unequalled in any country in the world. … Outside
Parliament efforts have been constantly made to further reduce
the working hours."

_G. Howell,
The Conflicts of Capital and Labour,
pages 298-301._

"The continental governments, of course, have been obliged to
make regulations covering kindred subjects, but rarely have
they kept pace with English legislation. America has enacted
progressive laws so far as the condition of factory workers
has warranted. It should be remembered that the abuses which
crept into the system in England never existed in this country
in any such degree as we know they did in the old country. Yet
there are few States in America where manufactures predominate
or hold an important position in which law has not stepped in
and restricted either the hours of labor, or the conditions of
labor, and insisted upon the education of factory children,
although the laws are usually silent as to children of
agricultural laborers. It is is not wholly in the passage of
purely factory acts that the factory system has influenced the
legislation of the world. England may have suffered
temporarily from the effects of some of her factory
legislation, and the recent reduction of the hours of labor to
nine and one-half per day, less than in any other country, has
had the effect of placing her works at a disadvantage; but, in
the long run, England will be the gainer on account of all the
work she has done in the way of legislative restrictions upon
labor. In this she has changed her whole policy. Formerly
trade must be restricted and labor allowed to demoralize
itself under the specious plea of being free; now, trade must
be free and labor restricted in the interests of society,
which means in the interest of good morals. The factory system
has not only wrought this change, but has compelled the
economists to recognize the distinction between commodities
and services. There has been greater and greater freedom of
contract in respect to commodities, but the contracts which
involve labor have become more and more completely under the
authority and supervision of the State. 'Seventy-five years
ago scarcely a single law existed in any country for
regulating the contract for services in the interest of the
laboring classes. At the same time the contract for
commodities was everywhere subject to minute and incessant
regulations' [Hon. F. A. Walker]. Factory legislation in
England, as elsewhere, has had for its chief object the
regulation of the labor of children and women; but its scope
has constantly increased by successive and progressive
amendments until they have attempted to secure the physical
and moral well-being of the working-man in all trades, and to
give him every condition of salubrity and of personal safety
in the workshops. The excellent effect of factory legislation
has been made manifest throughout the whole of Great Britain.
'Physically, the factory child can bear fair comparison with
the child brought up in the fields,' and, intellectually,
progress is far greater with the former than with the latter.
Public opinion, struck by these results, has demanded the
extension of protective measures for children to every kind of
industrial labor, until parliament has brought under the
influence of these laws the most powerful industries. To carry
the factory regulations and those relative to schooling into
effect, England has an efficient corps of factory inspectors.
The manufacturers of England are unanimous in acknowledging
that to the activity, to the sense of impartiality, displayed
by these inspectors, is due the fact that an entire
application of the law has been possible without individual
interests being thereby jeopardized to a very serious extent.
… In no other country is there so elaborate a code of
factory laws as the 'British factory and workshop act' of 1878
(41 Vict., chapter 16), it being an act consolidating all the
factory acts since Sir Robert Peel's act of 1802."

_C. D. Wright,
Factory Legislation
(Tenth Census of the United States, volume 2)._

ALSO IN:
_First annual Report of the Factory Inspectors of
the State of New York, 1886, appendix._

_C. Knight,
Popular History of England,
volume 8, chapters 22 and 27._

_H. Martineau,
History of the Thirty Years' Peace,
volume 2, pages 512-515._

See, also, ENGLAND: A. D. 1832-1833.

FADDILEY, Battle of.

Fought successfully by the Britons with the West Saxons, on
the border of Cheshire, A. D. 583.

_J. R. Green,
The Making of England,
page 206._

FAENZA, Battle of (A. D. 542).

See ROME: A. D. 535-553.

FÆSULÆ.

See FLORENCE, ORIGIN AND NAME.

FAGGING.

See EDUCATION, MODERN: EUROPEAN COUNTRIES.
ENGLAND.—THE GREAT PUBLIC SCHOOLS.

FAGGIOLA, Battle of (1425).

See ITALY: A. D. 1412-1447.

FAINÉANT KINGS.

See FRANKS: A. D. 511-752.

FAIR OAKS, Battle of.

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

FAIRFAX AND THE PARLIAMENTARY ARMY.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1645 (JANUARY-APRIL),
and (JUNE); 1647 (APRIL-AUGUST);
1648 (NOVEMBER); 1649 (FEBRUARY).

FALAISE.

"The Castle [in Normandy] where legend fixes the birth of
William of Normandy, and where history fixes the famous homage
of William of Scotland, is a vast donjon of the eleventh or
twelfth century. One of the grandest of those massive square
keeps which I have already spoken of as distinguishing the
earliest military architecture of Normandy crowns the summit
of a precipitous rock, fronted by another mass of rock, wilder
still, on which the cannon of England were planted during
Henry's siege. To these rocks, these 'felsen,' the spot owes
its name of Falaise. … Between these two rugged heights lies
a narrow dell. … The den is crowded with mills and
tanneries, but the mills and tanneries of Falaise have their
share in the historic interest of the place. … In every from
which the story has taken in history or legend, the mother of
the Conqueror appears as the daughter of a tanner of Falaise."

_E. A. Freeman,
Norman Conquest,
chapter 8, section 1._

{1107}

FALAISE, Peace of (1175).

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1174-1189.

FALK LAWS, The.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1873-1887.

FALKIRK, Battles of (1298 and 1746).

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1290-1305;
and 1745-1746.

FAMAGOSTA: A. D. 1571. Taken by the Turks.

See TURKS: A. D. 1566-1571.

FAMILIA.

The slaves belonging to a master were collectively called
familia among the Romans.

_E. Guhl and W. Koner,
Life of the Greeks and Romans,
section 100._

FAMILY COMPACT.

The First Bourbon.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1733.

The Second.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1743 (OCTOBER).

The Third.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1761 (AUGUST).

FAMILY COMPACT IN CANADA, The.

See CANADA: A. D.1820-1837.

FAMINE, The Cotton.

See, ENGLAND: A. D. 1861-1865.

FAMINE, The Irish.

See IRELAND: A. D. 1845-1847.

FANARIOTS.

See PHANARIOTS.

FANEUIL HALL.

"The fame of Faneuil Hall [Boston, Mass.] is as wide as the
country itself. It has been called the 'Cradle of Liberty,'
because dedicated by that early apostle of freedom, James
Otis, to the cause of liberty, in a speech delivered in the
hall in March, 1763. … Its walls have echoed to the voices
of the great departed in times gone by, and in every great
public exigency the people, with one accord, assembled
together to take counsel within its hallowed precincts. …
The Old Market-house … existing in Dock Square in 1734, was
demolished by a mob in 1736-37. There was contention among the
people as to whether they would be served at their houses in
the old way, or resort to fixed localities, and one set of
disputants took this summary method of settling the question.
… In 1740, the question of the Market-house being revived,
Peter Faneuil proposed to build one at his own cost on the
town's land in Dock Square, upon condition that the town
should legally authorize it, enact proper regulations, and
maintain it for the purpose named. Mr. Faneuil's noble offer
was courteously received, but such was the division of opinion
on the subject that it was accepted by a majority of only
seven votes, out of 727 persons voting. The building was
completed in September, 1742, and three days after, at a
meeting of citizens, the hall was formally accepted and a vote
of thanks passed to the donor. … The town voted that the
hall should be called Faneuil Hall forever. … The original
size of the building was 40 by 100 feet, just half the present
width; the hall would contain 1,000 persons. At the fire of
January 13, 1763, the whole interior was destroyed, but the
town voted to rebuild in March, and the State authorized a
lottery in aid of the design. The first meeting after the
rebuilding was held on the 14th March, 1763, when James Otis
delivered the dedicatory address. In 1806 the Hull was
enlarged in width to 80 feet, and by the addition of a third
story."

_S. A. Drake,
Old Landmarks of Boston,
chapter 4._

FANNIAN LAW, The.

See ORCHIAN, FANNIAN, DIDIAN LAWS.

FARM.

See FERM.

FARMERS' ALLIANCE.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1877-1891.

FARMER'S LETTERS, The.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1767-1768.

FARNESE, Alexander, Duke of Parma, in the Netherlands.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1577-1581, to 1588-1593.

FARNESE, The House of.

See PARMA: A. D. 1545-1592.

FARRAGUT, Admiral David G.
Capture of New Orleans.

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

Attack on Vicksburg.

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

Victory in Mobile Bay.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D.1864 (AUGUST: ALABAMA).

FARSAKH, OR FARSANG, The.

See PARASANG.

FASCES.

See LICTORS.

FASTI.

"Dies Fasti were the days upon which the Courts of Justice [in
ancient Rome] were open, and legal business could be
transacted before the Praetor; the Dies Nefasti were those
upon which the Courts were closed. … All days consecrated to
the worship of the Gods by sacrifices, feasts or games, were
named Festi. … For nearly four centuries and a-half after
the foundation of the city the knowledge of the Calendar was
confined to the Pontifices alone. … These secrets which
might be, and doubtless often were, employed for political
ends, were at length divulged in the year B. C. 314, by Cn.
Flavius, who drew up tables embracing all this
carefully-treasured information, and hung them up in the Forum
for the inspection of the public. From this time forward
documents of this description were known by the name of Fasti.
… These Fasti, in fact, corresponded very closely to a
modern Almanac. … The Fasti just described have, to prevent
confusion, been called Calendaria, or Fasti Calendares, and
must be carefully distinguished from certain compositions also
named Fasti by the ancients. These were regular chronicles in
which were recorded each year the names of the Consuls and
other magistrates, together with the remarkable events, and
the days on which they occurred. The most important were the
Annales Maximi, kept by the Pontifex Maximus."

_W. Ramsay,
Manual of Roman Antiquities,
chapter 11._

FATIMITE CALIPHS, The.

See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST AND EMPIRE: A. D. 908-1171;

Also, ASSASSINS.

FAVILA, King of Leon and the Asturias, or Oviedo, A. D. 737-739.

FEAST OF LIBERTY.

See GREECE: B. C. 479:
PERSIAN WARS.
PLATÆA.

FEAST OF REASON, The.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (NOVEMBER).

FEAST OF THE FEDERATION, The.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1789-1791.

FEAST OF THE SUPREME BEING, The.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1793-1794 (NOVEMBER-JUNE).

FECIALES. FETIALES.

See FETIALES.

FEDELI.

See CATTANI.

FEDERAL CITY, The.

See WASHINGTON (CITY): A. D. 1791.

FEDERAL CONSTITUTION OF SWITZERLAND.

See CONSTITUTION OF THE SWISS CONFEDERATION.

{1108}

FEDERAL CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

See CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. FEDERATIONS.

"Two requisites seem necessary to constitute a Federal
Government in … its most perfect form. On the one hand, each
of the members of the Union must be wholly independent in
those matters which concern each member only. On the other
hand, all must be subject to a common power in those matters
which concern the whole body of members collectively. Thus
each member will fix for itself the laws of its criminal
jurisprudence, and even the details of its political
constitution. And it will do this, not as a matter of
privilege or concession from any higher power, but as a matter
of absolute right, by virtue of its inherent powers as an
independent commonwealth. But in all matters which concern the
general body, the sovereignty of the several members will
cease. Each member is perfectly independent within its own
sphere; but there is another sphere in which its independence,
or rather its separate existence, vanishes. It is invested
with every right of sovereignty on one class of subjects, but
there is another class of subjects on which it is as incapable
of separate political action as any province or city of a
monarchy or of an indivisible republic. … Four Federal
Commonwealths … stand out, in four different ages of the
world, as commanding, above all others, the attention of
students of political history. Of these four, one belongs to
what is usually known as 'ancient,' another to what is
commonly called 'mediæval' history; a third arose in the
period of transition between mediæval and modern history; the
creation of the fourth may have been witnessed by some few of
those who are still counted among living men, … These four
Commonwealths are, First, the Achaian League [see GREECE: B.
C. 280-146] in the later days of Ancient Greece, whose most
flourishing period comes within the third century before our
era. Second, the Confederation of the Swiss Cantons [see
CONSTITUTION OF THE SWISS CONFEDERATION], which, with many
changes in its extent and constitution, has lasted from the
thirteenth century to our own day. Third, the Seven United
Provinces of the Netherlands [see NETHERLANDS: A. D.
1577-1581, and after], whose Union arose in the War of
Independence against Spain, and lasted, in a republican form,
till the war of the French Revolution. Fourth, the United
States of North America [see CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES
OF AMERICA], which formed a Federal Union after their revolt
from the British Crown under George the Third, and whose
destiny forms one of the most important, and certainly the
most interesting, of the political problems of our own time.
Of these four, three come sufficiently near to the full
realization of the Federal idea to be entitled to rank among
perfect Federal Governments. The Achaian League, and the
United States since the adoption of the present Constitution,
are indeed the most perfect developments of the Federal
principle which the world has ever seen. The Swiss
Confederation, in its origin a Union of the loosest kind, has
gradually drawn the Federal bond tighter and tighter, till,
within our own times, it has assumed a form which fairly
entitles it to rank beside Achaia and America. The claim of
the United Provinces is more doubtful; their union was at no
period of their republican being so close as that of Achaia,
America, and modern Switzerland."

_E. A. Freeman,
History of Federal Government,
volume 1, pages 3-6._

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT:
Classification of Federal Governments.

"To the classification of federal governments publicists have
given great attention with unsatisfactory results. History
shows a great variety of forms, ranging from the lowest
possible organization, like that of the Amphictyonic Council
[see AMPHIKTYONIC COUNCIL] to the highly centralized and
powerful German Empire. Many writers deny that any fixed
boundaries can be described. The usual classification is,
however, into three divisions,—the Staatenstaat, or state
founded on states; the Staatenbund, or union of states—to
which the term Confederacy nearly corresponds; and the
Bundesstaat, or united state, which answers substantially to
the term federation as usually employed. The Staatenstaat is
defined to be a state in which the units are not individuals,
but states, and which, therefore, has no operation directly on
individuals, but deals with and legislates for its corporate
members; they preserve undisturbed their powers of government
over their own subjects. The usual example of a Staatenstaat
is the Holy Roman Empire [see ROMAN EMPIRE, THE HOLY]. This
conception … is, however, illogical in theory, and never has
been carried out in practice. … Historically, also, the
distinction is untenable. The Holy Roman Empire had courts,
taxes, and even subjects not connected with the states. In
theory it had superior claims upon all the individuals within
the Empire; in practice it abandoned control over the states.
The second category is better established. Jellinek says:
"When states form a permanent political alliance, of which
common defence is at the very least the purpose, with
permanent federal organs, there arises a Staatenbund.' This
form of government is distinguished from an alliance by the
fact that it has permanent federal organs; from a commercial
league by its political purpose; from a Bundesstaat by its
limited purpose. In other words, under Staatenbund are
included the weaker forms of true federal government, in which
there is independence from other powers, and, within the
purposes of the union, independence from the constituent
states. … The Staatenbund form includes most of the federal
governments which have existed. The Greek confederations
(except perhaps the Lycian and Achæan) and all the mediæval
leagues were of this type: even the strong modern unions of
the United States, Germany, and Switzerland, have gone through
the Staatenbund stage in their earlier history. Between the
Staatenbund and the more highly developed form, the
Bundesstaat, no writer has described an accurate boundary.
There are certain governments, notably those of Canada,
Germany, Switzerland, and the United States, in which is found
an elaborate and powerful central organism, including federal
courts; to this organism is assigned all or nearly all the
common concerns of the nation; within its exclusive control
are war, foreign affairs, commerce, colonies, and national
finances; and there is an efficient power of enforcement
against states. Such governments undoubtedly are
Bundesstaaten."

_A. B. Hart,
Introduction to the Study of Federal Government
(Harvard Historical Monographs, number 2),
chapter 1._

{1109}

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT:
Greek Federations.

"Under the conditions of the Græco-Roman civic life there were
but two practicable methods of forming a great state and
diminishing the quantity of warfare. The one method was
conquest with incorporation, the other method was federation.
… Neither method was adopted by the Greeks in their day of
greatness. The Spartan method of extending its power was
conquest without incorporation: when Sparta conquered another
Greek city, she sent a harmost to govern it like a tyrant; in
other words she virtually enslaved the subject city. The
efforts of Athens tended more in the direction of a peaceful
federalism. In the great Delian confederacy [see GREECE: B. C.
478-477, and ATHENS: B. C. 466-454], which developed into the
maritime empire of Athens, the Ægean cities were treated as
allies rather than subjects. As regards their local affairs
they were in no way interfered with, and could they have been
represented in some kind of a federal council at Athens, the
course of Grecian history might have been wonderfully altered.
As it was, they were all deprived of one essential element of
sovereignty,—the power of controlling their own military
forces. … In the century following the death of Alexander,
in the closing age of Hellenic independence, the federal idea
appears in a much more advanced stage of elaboration, though
in a part of Greece which had been held of little account in
the great days of Athens and Sparta. Between the Achaian
federation, framed in 274 B. C., and the United States of
America, there are some interesting points of resemblance
which have been elaborately discussed by Mr. Freeman, in his
'History of Federal Government.' About the same time the
Ætolian League [see ÆTOLIAN LEAGUE] came into prominence in
the north. Both these leagues were instances of true federal
government, and were not mere confederations; that is, the
central government acted directly upon all the citizens and
not merely upon the local governments. Each of these leagues
had for its chief executive officer a General elected for one
year, with powers similar to those of an American President.
In each the supreme assembly was a primary assembly at which
every citizen from every city of the league had a right to be
present, to speak, and to vote; but as a natural consequence
these assemblies shrank into comparatively aristocratic
bodies. In Ætolia, which was a group of mountain cantons
similar to Switzerland, the federal union was more complete
than in Achaia, which was a group of cities. … In so far as
Greece contributed anything towards the formation of great and
pacific political aggregates, she did it through attempts at
federation. But in so low a state of political development as
that which prevailed throughout the Mediterranean world in
pre-Christian times, the more barbarous method of conquest
with incorporation was more likely to be successful on a great
scale. This was well illustrated in the history of Rome,—a civic
community of the same generic type with Sparta and Athens, but
presenting specific differences of the highest importance. …
Rome early succeeded in freeing itself from that insuperable
prejudice which elsewhere prevented the ancient city from
admitting aliens to a share in its franchise. And in this
victory over primeval political ideas lay the whole secret of
Rome's mighty career."

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT:
Mediæval Leagues in Germany.