Chapter IV: , VII (182)

"The growth of commerce, and in particular the establishment
of numerous joint-stock banks had given a dangerous impulse to
issues of paper money, which were not then restricted by law.
Even the Bank of England did not observe any fixed proportion
between the amount of notes which it issued and the amount of
bullion which it kept in reserve. When introducing this
subject to the House of Commons, Peel remarked that within the
last twenty years there had been four periods when a
contraction of issues had been necessary in order to maintain
the convertibility of paper, and that in none of these had the
Bank of England acted with vigour equal to the emergency. In
the latest of these periods, from June of 1838 to June of
1839, the amount of bullion in the Bank had fallen to little
more than £4,000,000, whilst the total of paper in circulation
had risen to little less than £30,000,000. … Peel was not
the first to devise the methods which he adopted. Mr. Jones
Loyd, afterwards Lord Overstone, who impressed the learned
with his tracts and the vulgar with his riches, had advised
the principal changes in the law relating to the issue of
paper money which Peel effected by the Bank Charter Act. These
changes were three in number. The first was to separate
totally the two departments of the Bank of England, the
banking department and the issue department. The banking
department was left to be managed as best the wisdom of the
directors could devise for the profit of the shareholders. The
issue department was placed under regulations which deprived
the Bank of any discretion in its management, and may almost
be said to have made it a department of the State. The second
innovation was to limit the issue of paper by the Bank of
England to an amount proportioned to the value of its assets.
The Bank was allowed to issue notes to the amount of
£14,000,000 against Government securities in its possession.
The Government owed the Bank a debt of £11,000,000, besides
which the Bank held Exchequer Bills. But the amount over
£14,000,000 which the Bank could issue was not, henceforwards,
to be more than the equivalent of the bullion in its
possession. By this means it was made certain that the Bank
would be able to give coin for any of its notes which might be
presented to it. The third innovation was to limit the issues
of the country banks. The power of issuing notes was denied to
any private or joint-stock banks founded after the date of the
Act. It was recognized in those banks which already possessed
it, but limited to a total sum of £8,500,000, the average
quantity of such notes which had been in circulation during
the years immediately preceding. It was provided that if any
of the banks which retained this privilege should cease to
exist or to issue notes, the Bank of England should be
entitled to increase its note circulation by a sum equal to
two-thirds of the amount of the former issues of the bank
which ceased to issue paper. The Bank of England was required
in this contingency to augment the reserve fund. By Acts
passed in the succeeding year, the principles of the English
Bank Charter Act were applied to Scotland and Ireland, with
such modifications as the peculiar circumstances of those
kingdoms required. The Bank Charter Act has ever since been
the subject of voluminous and contradictory criticism, both by
political economists and by men of business."

_F. C. Montague,
Life of Sir Robert Peel,
chapter 8._

ALSO IN:
_Bonamy Price,
The Bank Charter Act of 1844
(Fraser's Magazine, June, 1865)._

_W. C. Taylor,
Life and Times of Sir Robert Peel,
volume 3, chapter 7._

MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1848-1893.
Production of the Precious Metals
in the last half-century.
The Silver Question in the United States.

"The total (estimated) stock of gold in the world in 1848, was
£560,000,000. As for the annual production, it had varied
considerably since the beginning of the century [from
£3,000,000 to £8,000,000]. Such was the state of things
immediately preceding 1848. In that year the Californian
discoveries took place, and these were followed by the
discoveries in Australia in 1851.

See CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1848-1849;
and AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1839-1855.

For these three years the annual average production is set
down by the Economist at £9,000,000, but from this date the
production suddenly rose to, for 1852, £27,000.000, and
continued to rise till 1856, when it attained its maximum of
£32,250,000. At this stage a decline in the returns occurred,
the lowest point reached being in 1860, when they fell to
£18,683,000, but from this they rose again, and for the last
ten years [before 1873] have maintained an average of about
£20,500,000; the returns for the year 1871 being £20,811,000.
The total amount of gold added to the world's stock by this
twenty years' production has been about £500,000,000, an
amount nearly equal to that existing in the world at the date
of the discoveries: in other words, the stock of gold in the
world has been nearly doubled since that time."

_J. E. Cairnes,
Essays in Political Economy,
pages 160-161._

"The yearly average of gold production in the twenty-five
years from 1851-75 was $127,000,000. The yearly average
product of silver for the same period was $51,000,000. The
average annual product of gold for the fifteen years from
1876 to 1890 declined to $108,000,000; a minus of 15 per
cent. The average annual product of silver for the same
period increased to $116,000,000; a plus of 127 per cent.
There is the whole silver question."

_L. R. Ehrich,
The Question of Silver,
page 21._

"From 1793—the date of the first issue of silver coin by the
United States—to 1834 the silver and the gold dollar were
alike authorized to be received as legal tender in payment of
debt, but silver alone circulated. Subsequently, however,
silver was not used, except in fractional payments, or, since
1853, as a subsidiary coin. The silver coin, as a coin of
circulation, had become obsolete. The reason why, prior to
1834, payments were made exclusively in silver, and
subsequently to that date in gold, is found in the fact that
prior to the legislation of 1834 … the standard silver coins
were relatively the cheaper, and consequently circulated to
the exclusion of the gold; while during the later period the
standard gold coins were the cheaper, circulating to the
exclusion of the silver. The Coinage Act of 1873, by which the
coinage of the silver dollar was discontinued, became a law on
February 12th of that year. The act of February 28, 1878,
which passed Congress by a two-thirds vote over the veto of
President Hayes, again provided for the coinage of a silver
dollar of 412.5 grains, the silver bullion to be purchased at
the market price by the Government, and the amount so
purchased and coined not to be less than two millions of
dollars per month. During the debate on this bill the charge
was repeatedly made, in and out of Congress, that the previous
act of 1873, discontinuing the free coinage of the silver
dollar, was passed surreptitiously.
{2218}
This statement has no foundation in fact. The report of the
writer, who was then Deputy Comptroller of the Currency,
transmitted to Congress in 1870 by the Secretary, three times
distinctly stated that the bill accompanying it proposed to
discontinue the issue of the silver dollar-piece. Various
experts, to whom it had been submitted, approved this feature
of the bill, and their opinions were printed by order of
Congress."

_J. J. Knox,
United States Notes,
chapter 10._

"The bill of 1878, generally spoken of as the 'Bland' bill,
directed the secretary of the treasury to purchase not less
than two million nor more than four million dollars' worth of
silver bullion per month, to coin it into silver dollars, said
silver dollars to be full legal tender at 'their nominal
value.' Also, that the holder of ten or more of these silver
dollars could exchange them for silver certificates, said
certificates being 'receivable for customs, taxes, and all
public dues.' The bill was pushed and passed by the efforts,
principally, of the greenback inflationists and the
representatives of the silver States. … Since 1878 [to
1891], 405,000,000 silver dollars have been coined. Of these
348,000,000 are still lying in the treasury vaults. No comment
is needed. The Bland-Allison act did not hold up silver. In
1870 it was worth $1.12 an ounce, in 1880 $1.14, '81 $1.13,
'82 $1.13, '83 $1.11, '86 99 cents, until in '89 it reached
93½ cents an ounce. That is, in 1880 the commercial ratio was
22:1 and the coin value of the Bland-Allison silver dollar was
72 cents. In March, 1800, a bill was reported to the House by
the committee of 'coinage, weights and measures,' based on a
plan proposed by Secretary Windom. … The bill passed the
House. The Senate passed it with an amendment making provision
for free and unlimited coinage. It finally went to a
conference committee which reported the bill that became a
law, July 14, 1890. This bill directs the secretary of the
treasury to purchase four and one-half million ounces of
silver a month at the market price, to give legal tender
treasury notes therefor, said notes being redeemable in gold
or silver coin at the option of the government, 'it being the
established policy of the United States to maintain the two
metals on a parity with each other upon the present legal
ratio.' It was believed that this bill would raise the price
of silver. … To-day [December 8, 1891] the silver in our
dollar is actually worth 73 cents."

_L. R. Ehrich,
The Question of Silver,
pages 21-25._

See, also,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1873, 1878, and 1890-1893.

In the summer of 1893, a financial crisis, produced in the
judgment of the best informed by the operation of the
silver-purchase law of 1890 (known commonly as the Sherman
Act) became so serious that President Cleveland called a
special session of Congress to deal with it. In his Message to
Congress, at the opening of its session, the President said:
"With plenteous crops, with abundant promise of remunerative
production and manufacture, with unusual invitation to safe
investment, and with satisfactory assurance to business
enterprise, suddenly financial fear and distrust have sprung
up on every side. Numerous moneyed institutions have suspended
because abundant assets were not immediately available to meet
the demands of the frightened depositors. Surviving
corporations and individuals are content to keep in hand the
money they are usually anxious to loan, and those engaged in
legitimate business are surprised to find that the securities
they offer for loans, though heretofore satisfactory, are no
longer accepted. Values supposed to be fixed are fast becoming
conjectural, and loss and failure have involved every branch
of business. I believe these things are principally chargeable
to congressional legislation touching the purchase and coinage
of silver by the General Government. This legislation is
embodied in a statute passed on the 14th day of July, 1890,
which was the culmination of much agitation on the subject
involved, and which may be considered a truce, after a long
struggle between the advocates of free silver coinage and
those intending to be more conservative." A bill to repeal the
act of July 14, 1890 (the Sherman law, so called), was passed
by both houses and received the President's signature, Nov. 1,
1893.

MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1853-1874.
The Latin Union and the Silver Question.

"The gold discoveries of California and Australia were
directly the cause of the Latin Union. … In 1853, when the
subsidiary silver of the United States had disappeared before
the cheapened gold, we reduced the quantity of silver in the
small coins sufficiently to keep them dollar for dollar below
the value of gold. Switzerland followed this example of the
United States in her law of January 31, 1860; but, instead of
distinctly reducing the weight of pure silver in her small
coins, she accomplished the same end by lowering the fineness
of standard for these coins to 800 thousandths fine. …
Meanwhile France and Italy had a higher standard for their
coins than Switzerland, and as the neighboring states, which
had the franc system of coinage in common, found each other's
coins in circulation within their own limits, it was clear
that the cheaper Swiss coins, according to Gresham's law, must
drive out the dearer French and Italian coins, which contained
more pure silver, but which passed current at the same nominal
value. The Swiss coins of 800 thousandths fine began to pass
the French frontier and to displace the French coins of a
similar denomination; and the French coins were exported,
melted, and recoined in Switzerland at a profit. This, of
course, brought forth a decree in France (April 14, 1864),
which prohibited the receipt of these Swiss coins at the
public offices of France, the customs-offices, etc., and they
were consequently refused in common trade among individuals.
Belgium also, as well as Switzerland, began to think it
necessary to deal with the questions affecting her silver
small coins, which were leaving that country for the same
reason that they were leaving Switzerland. Belgium then
undertook to make overtures to France, in order that some
concerted action might be undertaken by the four countries
using the franc system—Italy, Belgium, France, and
Switzerland—to remedy the evil to which all were exposed by
the disappearance of their silver coin needed in every-day
transactions. The discoveries of gold had forced a
reconsideration of their coinage systems. In consequence of
these overtures, a conference of delegates representing the
Latin states just mentioned assembled in Paris, November
20, 1865. … The Conference, fully realizing the effects of
the fall of gold in driving out their silver coins, agreed to
establish a uniform coinage in the four countries, on the
essential principles adopted by the United States in 1853.
{2219}
They lowered the silver pieces of two francs, one franc, fifty
centimes, and twenty centimes from a standard of 900
thousandths fine to a uniform fineness of 835 thousandths,
reducing these coins to the position of a subsidiary currency.
They retained for the countries of the Latin Union, however,
the system of bimetallism. Gold pieces of one hundred, fifty,
twenty, ten, and five francs were to be coined, together with
five-franc pieces of silver, and all at a standard of 900
thousandths fine. Free coinage at a ratio of 15½:1, was
thereby granted to any holder of either gold or silver bullion
who wanted silver coins of five francs, or gold coins from
five francs and upward. … The subsidiary silver coins (below
five francs) were made a legal tender between individuals of
the state which coined them to the amount of fifty francs. …
The treaty was ratified, and went into effect August 1, 1866,
to continue until January 1, 1880, or about fifteen years. …
The downward tendency of silver in 1873 led the Latin Union to
fear that the demonetized silver of Germany would flood their
own mints if they continued the free coinage of five-franc
silver pieces at a legal ratio of 15½:1. … This condition of
things led to the meeting of delegates from the countries of
the Latin Union at Paris, January 30, 1874, who there agreed
to a treaty supplementary to that originally formed in 1865,
and determined on withdrawing from individuals the full power
of free coinage by limiting to a moderate sum the amount of
silver five-franc pieces which should be coined by each state
of the Union during the year 1874. The date of this suspension
of coinage by the Latin Union is regarded by all authorities
as of great import in regard to the value of silver."

_J. L. Laughlin,
The History of Bimetallism in the United States,
pages 146-155._

MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1861-1878.
The Legal-tender notes, or Greenbacks, the
National Bank System, of the American Civil War.

"In January, 1861, the paper currency of the United States was
furnished by 1,600 private corporations, organized under
thirty-four different State laws. The circulation of the banks
amounted to $202,000,000, of which only about $50,000,000 were
issued in the States which in April, 1861, undertook to set up
an independent government. About $150,000,000 were in
circulation in the loyal States, including West Virginia. When
Congress met in extraordinary session on the 4th of July, the
three-months volunteers, who had hastened to the defence of
the capital, were confronting the rebel army on the line of
the Potomac, and the first great battle at Bull Run was
impending. President Lincoln called upon Congress to provide
for the enlistment of 400,000 men, and Secretary Chase
submitted estimates for probable expenditures amounting to
$318,000,000. The treasury was empty, and the expenses of the
government were rapidly approaching a million dollars a day.
The ordinary expenses of the government, during the year
ending on the 30th of June, 1861, had been $62,000,000, and
even this sum had not been supplied by the revenue, which
amounted to only $41,000,000. The rest had been borrowed. It
was now necessary to provide for an expenditure increased
fivefold, and amounting to eight times the income of the
country, Secretary Chase advised that $80,000,000 be provided
by taxation, and $240,000,000 by loans; and that, in
anticipation of revenue, provision be made for the issue of
$50,000,000 of treasury notes, redeemable on demand in coin.
'The greatest care will, however, be requisite,' he said, 'to
prevent the degradation of such issues into an irredeemable
paper currency, than which no more certainly fatal expedient
for impoverishing the masses and discrediting the government
of any country can well be devised.' The desired authority was
granted by Congress. The Secretary was authorized to borrow,
on the credit of the United States, not exceeding
$250,000,000, and, 'as a part of the above loan,' to issue an
exchange for coin, or pay for salaries or other dues from the
United States, not over $50,000,000 of treasury notes, bearing
no interest, but payable on demand at Philadelphia, New York,
or Boston. The act does not say, 'payable in coin,' for nobody
had then imagined that any other form of payment was possible.
Congress adjourned on the 6th of August, after passing an act
to provide an increased revenue from imports, and laying a
direct tax of $20,000,000 upon the States, and a tax of 3 per
cent. upon the excess of all private incomes above $800. The
Secretary immediately invited the banks of Philadelphia, New
York, and Boston to assist in the negotiation of the proposed
loans, and they loyally responded. On the 19th of August they
took $50,000,000 of three years 7-30 bonds at par; on the 1st
of October, $50,000,000 more of the same securities at par;
and on the 16th of November, $50,000,000 of twenty years 6 per
cents., at a rate making the interest equivalent to 7 per
cent. These advances relieved the temporary necessities of the
treasury, and, when Congress reassembled in December,
Secretary Chase was prepared to recommend a permanent
financial policy. The solid basis of this policy was to be
taxation. … It was estimated, a revenue of $90,000,000 would
be needed; and to secure that sum, the Secretary advised that
the duties on tea, coffee, and sugar be increased; that a
direct tax of $20,000,000 be assessed on the States; that the
income tax be modified so as to produce $10,000,000, and that
duties be laid on liquors, tobacco, carriages, legacies,
bank-notes, bills payable, and conveyances. For the
extraordinary expenses of the war it was necessary to depend
upon loans, and the authority to be granted for this purpose
the Secretary left 'to the better judgment of Congress,' only
suggesting that the rate of interest should be regulated by
law, and that the time had come when the government might
properly claim a part, at least, of the advantage of the paper
circulation, then constituting a loan without interest from
the people to the banks. There were two ways, Secretary Chase
said, in which this advantage might be secured: 1. By
increasing the issue of United States notes, and taxing the
bank-notes out of existence. 2. By providing a national
currency, to be issued by the banks but secured by the pledge
of United States bonds. The former plan the Secretary did not
recommend, regarding the hazard of a depreciating and finally
worthless currency as far outweighing the probable benefits of
the measure. … Congress had hardly begun to consider these
recommendations, when the situation was completely changed by
the suspension of specie payments, on the 28th of December, by
the banks of New York, followed by the suspension of the other
banks in the country, and compelling the treasury also to
suspend.
{2220}
This suspension was the result of a panic occasioned by the
shadow of war with England. … To provide for the pressing
wants of the treasury, Congress, on the 12th of February,
1862, authorized the issue of $10,000,000 more of demand
notes. Before the end of the session further issues were
provided for, making the aggregate of United States notes
$300,000,000, besides fractional currency. There was a long
debate upon the propriety of making these notes a legal tender
for private debts, and it seemed for a time that the measure
would be defeated by this dispute. [The bill authorizing the
issue of legal tender notes known afterwards as 'Greenbacks'
was prepared by the Hon. E. G. Spaulding, who subsequently
wrote the history of the measure.] Secretary Chase finally
advised the concession of this point; nevertheless, 55 votes
in the House of Representatives … were recorded against the
provision making the notes a tender for private debts.
Congress also empowered the Secretary to borrow $500,000,000
on 5-20 year 6 per cent. bonds, besides a temporary loan of
$100,000,000, and provided that the interest on the bonds
should be paid in coin, and that the customs should be
collected in coin for that purpose. Nothing was said about the
principal, for it was taken for granted that specie payments
would be resumed before the payment of the principal of the
debt would be undertaken. … Congress had thus adopted the
plan which the Secretary of the Treasury did not recommend,
and neglected the proposition which he preferred. … When
Congress met in December, 1862, the magnitude of the war had
become fully apparent. … The enormous demands upon the
treasury … had exhausted the resources provided by Congress.
The disbursements in November amounted to $59,847,077—two
millions a day. Unpaid requisitions had accumulated amounting
to $46,000,000. The total receipts for the year then current,
ending June 30, 1863, were estimated at $511,000,000; the
expenditures at $788,000,000; leaving $277,000,000 to be
provided for. There were only two ways to obtain this sum—by
a fresh issue of United States notes, or by new
interest-bearing loans. But the gold premium had advanced in
October to 34; the notes were already at a discount of 25 per
cent. The consequences of an addition of $277,000,000 to the
volume of currency, the Secretary said, would be 'inflation of
prices, increase of expenditures, augmentation of debt, and,
ultimately, disastrous defeat of the very purposes sought to
be obtained by it.' He therefore recommended an increase in
the amount authorized to be borrowed on the 5-20 bonds. … In
order to create a market for the bonds, he again recommended
the creation of banking associations under a national law
requiring them to secure their circulation by a deposit of
government bonds. The suggestion thus renewed was not received
with favor by Congress. … On the 7th of January Mr. Hooper
offered again his bill to provide a national currency, secured
by a pledge of United States bonds, but the next day Mr.
Stevens, of Pennsylvania, submitted the bill with an adverse
report from the committee on ways and means. On the 14th of
January Mr. Stevens reported a resolution authorizing the
Secretary of the Treasury to issue $100,000,000 more of United
States notes for the immediate payment of the army and navy.
The resolution passed the House at once, and the Senate the
next day. … On the 19th of January President Lincoln sent a
special message to the House, announcing that he had signed
the joint resolution authorizing a new issue of United States
notes, but adding that he considered it his duty to express
his sincere regret that it had been found necessary to add
such a sum to an already redundant currency, while the
suspended banks were still left free to increase their
circulation at will. He warned Congress that such a policy
must soon produce disastrous consequences, and the warning was
effective. On the 25th of January Senator Sherman offered a
bill to provide a national currency, differing in some
respects from Mr. Hooper's in the House. The bill passed the
Senate on the 12th of February, 23 to 21, and the House on the
20th, 78 to 64. … It was signed by the President on the 25th
of February, 1863."

_H. W. Richardson,
The National Banks,
chapter 2._

"One immediate effect of the Legal Tender Act was to destroy
our credit abroad. Stocks were sent home for sale, and, as
Bagebot shows, Lombard Street was closed to a nation which had
adopted legal tender paper money. … By August all specie had
disappeared from circulation, and postage-stamps and private
note-issues took its place. In July a bill was passed for
issuing stamps as fractional currency, but in March 1863,
another act was passed providing for an issue of 50,000,000 in
notes for fractional parts of a dollar—not legal tender. For
many years the actual issue was only 30,000,000, the amount of
silver fractional coins in circulation in the North, east of
the Rocky Mountains, when the war broke out. … Gold rose to
200-220 or above, making the paper worth 45 or 50 cts., at
which point the 5 per cent. ten-forties floated. The amount
sold up to October 31st, 1865, was $172,770,100. Mr. Spaulding
reckons up the paper issues which acted more or less as
currency, on January 30th, 1864, at $1,125,877,034;
812,000,000 bore no interest."

_W. G. Sumner,
History of American Currency,
pages 204-208._

The paper-money issues of the Civil War were not brought to
parity of value with gold until near the close of the year
1878. The 1st day of January, 1879, had been fixed for
resumption by an act passed in 1875; but that date was
generally anticipated in practical business by a few months.

_A. S. Bolles,
Financial History of the United States, 1861-1885,
book 1, chapters 4, 5, 8, and 11,
and book 2, chapter 2._

MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1871-1873.
Adoption of the Gold Standard by Germany.

"At the close of the Franco-Prussian war the new German Empire
found the opportunity … for the establishment of a uniform
coinage throughout its numerous small states, and was
essentially aided in its plan at this time by the receipt of
the enormous war-indemnity from France, of which $54,600,000
was paid to Germany in French gold coin. Besides this, Germany
received from France bills of exchange in payment of the
indemnity which gave Germany the title to gold in places, such
as London, on which the bills were drawn. Gold in this way
left London for Berlin. With a large stock of gold on hand,
Germany began a series of measures to change her circulation
from silver to gold.
{2221}
Her circulation in 1870, before the change was made, was
composed substantially of silver and paper money, with no more
than 4 per cent of the whole circulation in gold. … The
substitution of gold instead of silver in a country like
Germany which had a single silver medium was carried out by a
path which led first to temporary bimetallism and later to
gold monometallism. And for this purpose the preparatory
measures were passed December 4, 1871. … This law of 1871
created new gold coins, current equally with existing silver
coins, at rates of exchange which were based on a ratio
between the gold and silver coins of 1:15½. The silver coins
were not demonetized by this law; their coinage was for the
present only discontinued; but there was no doubt as to the
intention of the Government in the future. … The next and
decisive step toward a single gold standard was taken by the
act of July 9, 1873. … By this measure gold was established
as the monetary standard of the country, with the 'mark' as
the unit, and silver was used, as in the United States in
1853, in a subsidiary service. … Under the terms of this
legislation Germany began to withdraw her old silver coinage,
and to sell as bullion whatever silver was not recoined into
the new subsidiary currency."

_J. L. Laughlin,
History of Bimetallism in the United States,
pages 136-140._

MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1893.
Stoppage of the free Coinage of Silver in India.

The free coinage of silver in India was stopped by the
Government in June, 1893, thus taking the first step toward
the establishment of the gold standard in that country.

----------MONEY AND BANKING: End----------

----------MONGOLS: Start--------

MONGOLS:
Origin and earliest history.

"The name Mongol (according to Schmidt) is derived from the
word Mong, meaning brave, daring, bold, an etymology which is
acquiesced in by Dr. Schott. Ssanang Setzen says it was first
given to the race in the time of Jingis Khan, but it is of
much older date than his time, as we know from the Chinese
accounts. … They point further, as the statements of Raschid
do, to the Mongols having at first been merely one tribe of a
great confederacy, whose name was probably extended to the
whole when the prowess of the Imperial House which governed it
gained the supremacy. We learn lastly from them that the
generic name by which the race was known in early times to the
Chinese was Shi wei, the Mongols having, in fact, been a tribe
of the Shi wei. … The Shi wei were known to the Chinese from
the 7th century; they then consisted of various detached
hordes, subject to the Thu kiu, or Turks. … After the fall
of the Yuan-Yuan, the Turks, by whom they were overthrown,
acquired the supreme control of Eastern Asia. They had, under
the name of Hiong nu, been masters of the Mongolian desert and
its border land from a very early period, and under their new
name of Turks they merely reconquered a position from which
they had been driven some centuries before. Everywhere in
Mongol history we find evidence of their presence, the titles
Khakan, Khan, Bigui or Beg, Terkhan, &c., are common to both
races, while the same names occur among Mongol and Turkish
chiefs. … This fact of the former predominance of Turkish
influence in further Asia supports the traditions collected by
Raschid, Abulghazi, &c., … which trace the race of Mongol
Khans up to the old royal race of the Turks."

_H. H. Howorth,
History of the Mongols,
volume 1, pages 27-32._

"Here [in the eastern portion of Asia known as the desert of
Gobi], from time immemorial, the Mongols, a people nearly akin
to the Turks in language and physiognomy, had made their home,
leading a miserable nomadic life in the midst of a wild and
barren country, unrecognised by their neighbours, and their
very name unknown centuries after their kinsmen, the Turks,
had been exercising an all-powerful influence over the
destinies of Western Asia."

_A. Vámbéry,
History of Bokhara,
chapter 8._

_A. Vámbéry,
Travels in Central Asia
www.gutenberg.org #41751_

See also, TARTARS.

MONGOLS: A. D. 1153-1227.
Conquests of Jingiz Khan.

"Jingiz-Khan [or Genghis, or Zingis], whose original name was
Tamujin, the son of a Tatar chief, was born in the year 1153
A. D. In 1202, at the age of 49, he had defeated or
propitiated all his enemies, and in 1205 was proclaimed, by a
great assembly, Khakan or Emperor of Tartary. His capital, a
vast assemblage of tents, was at Kara-Korum, in a distant part
of Chinese Tartary; and from thence he sent forth mighty
armies to conquer the world. This extraordinary man, who could
neither read nor write, established laws for the regulation of
social life and for the chase; and adopted a religion of pure
Theism. His army was divided into Tumans of 10,000 men,
Hazarehs of 1,000, Sedehs of 100, and Dehehs of 10, each under
a Tatar officer, and they were armed with bows and arrows,
swords, and iron maces. Having brought the whole of Tartary
under his sway, he conquered China, while his sons, Oktai and
Jagatai, were sent [A. D. 1218] with a vast army against
Khuwarizm [whose prince had provoked the attack by murdering a
large number of merchants who were under the protection of
Jingiz]. The country was conquered, though bravely defended by
the king's son, Jalalu-'d-Din; 100,000 people were put to the
sword, the rest sold as slaves. … The sons of Jingiz-Khan
then returned in triumph to their father; but the brave young
prince, Jalalu-'d-Din, still held out against the conquerors
of his country. This opposition roused Jingiz-Khan to fury;
Balk was attacked for having harboured the fugitive prince in
1221, and, having surrendered, the people were all put to
death. Nishapur shared the same fate, and a horrible massacre
of all the inhabitants took place." Jalalu-'d-Din, pursued to
the banks of the Indus and defeated in a desperate battle
fought there, swam the liver on horseback, in the face of the
enemy, and escaped into India. "The Mongol hordes then overran
Kandahar and Multan, Azerbaijan and 'Irak; Fars was only saved
by the submission of its Ata-beg, and two Mongol generals
marched round the Caspian Sea. Jingiz-Khan returned to Tartary
in A. D. 1222, but in these terrible campaigns he lost no less
than 200,000 men. As soon as the great conqueror had retired
out of Persia, the indefatigable Jalalu-'d-Din recrossed the
Indus with 4,000 followers, and passing through Shiraz and
Isfaham drove the Mongols out of Tubriz. But he was defeated
by them in 1226; and though he kept up the war in Azerbaijan
for a short time longer, he was at length utterly routed, and
flying into Kurdistan was killed in the house of a friend
there, four years afterwards. … Jingiz-Khan died in the year
1227."

_C. R. Markham,
History of Persia,
chapter 7._

{2222}

In 1224 Jingiz "divided his gigantic empire amongst his sons
as follows: China and Mongolia were given to Oktai, whom he
nominated as his successor; Tchaghatai received a part of the
Uiguric passes as far as Khahrezm, including Turkestan and
Transoxania; Djudi had died in the meantime, so Batu was made
lord of Kharezm, Desht i-Kiptchak of the pass of Derbend and
Tuli was placed over Khorasan, Persia, and India."

_A. Vámbéry,
History of Bokhara,
chapter 8._

"Popularly he [Jingis-Khan] is mentioned with Attila and with
Timur as one of the 'Scourges of God.' … But he was far more
than a conqueror. … In every detail of social and political
economy he was a creator; his laws and his administrative
rules are equally admirable and astounding to the student. …
He may fairly claim to have conquered the greatest area of the
world's surface that was ever subdued by one hand. … Jingis
organised a system of intelligence and espionage by which he
generally knew well the internal condition of the country he
was about to attack. He intrigued with the discontented and
seduced them by fair promises. … The Mongols ravaged and
laid waste the country all round the bigger towns, and they
generally tried to entice a portion of the garrison into an
ambuscade. They built regular siege-works armed with
catapults; the captives and peasants were forced to take part
in the assault; the attack never ceased night or day; relief
of troops keeping the garrison in perpetual terror. They
employed Chinese and Persians to make their war engines. …
They rarely abandoned the siege of a place altogether, and
would sometimes continue a blockade for years. They were bound
by no oath, and however solemn their promise to the
inhabitants who would surrender, it was broken, and a general
massacre ensued. It was their policy to leave behind them no
body of people, however submissive, who might inconvenience
their communications. … His [Jingis'] creed was to sweep
away all cities, as the haunts of slaves and of luxury; that
his herds might freely feed upon grass whose green was free
from dusty feet. It does make one hide one's face in terror to
read that from 1211 to 1223, 18,470,000 human beings perished
in China and Tangut alone, at the hands of Jingis and his
followers."

_H. H. Howorth,
History of the Mongols,
volume 1, pages 49, 108-113._

"He [Jingiz-Khan] was … a military genius of the very first
order, and it may be questioned whether either Cæsar or
Napoleon can, as commanders, be placed on a par with him. The
manner in which he moved large bodies of men over vast
distances without an apparent effort, the judgment he showed
in the conduct of several wars in countries far apart from
each other, his strategy in unknown regions, always on the
alert yet never allowing hesitation or over-caution to
interfere with his enterprises, the sieges which he brought to
a successful termination, his brilliant victories … —all
combined, make up the picture of a career to which Europe can
offer nothing that will surpass, if indeed she has anything to
bear comparison with it."

_D. C. Boulger,
History of China,
volume 1, chapter 21._

See, also,
CHINA: A. D. 1205-1234;
KHORASSAN;
BOKHARA: A. D. 1219;
SAMARKAND;
MERV;
BALKH;
KHUAREZM.

MONGOLS: A. D. 1202.
Overthrow of the Keraït, or the kingdom of Prester John.

See PRESTER JOHN, THE KINGDOM OF.

MONGOLS: A. D. 1229-1294.
Conquests of the successors of Jingiz Khan.

"Okkodai [or Ogotai or Oktai], the son and successor of
Chinghiz, followed up the subjugation of China, extinguished
the Kin finally in 1234 and consolidated with his empire all
the provinces north of the Great Kiang. … After establishing
his power over so much of China as we have said, Okkodai
raised a vast army and set it in motion towards the west. One
portion was directed against Armenia, Georgia, and Asia Minor,
whilst another great host under Batu, the nephew of the Great
Khan, conquered the countries north of Caucasus, overran
Russia making it tributary, and still continued to carry fire
and slaughter westward. One great detachment under a
lieutenant of Batu's entered Poland, burned Cracow, found
Breslaw in ashes and abandoned by its people, and defeated
with great slaughter at Wahlstadt near Lignitz (April 12th,
1241) the troops of Poland, Moravia and Silesia, who had
gathered under Duke Henry of the latter province to make head
against this astounding flood of heathen. Batu himself with
the main body of his army was ravaging Hungary. …

See HUNGARY: A. D. 1114-1301].

Pesth was now taken and burnt and all its people put to
the sword. The rumours of the Tartars and their frightful
devastations had scattered fear through Europe, which the
defeat at Lignitz raised to a climax. Indeed weak and
disunited Christendom seemed to lie at the foot of the
barbarians. The Pope to be sure proclaimed crusade, and wrote
circular letters, but the enmity between him and the Emperor
Frederic II. was allowed to prevent any co-operation, and
neither of them responded by anything better than words to the
earnest calls for help which came from the King of Hungary. No
human aid merited thanks when Europe was relieved by hearing
that the Tartar host had suddenly retreated eastward. The
Great Khan Okkodai was dead [A. D. 1241] in the depths of
Asia, and a courier had come to recall the army from Europe.
In 1255 a new wave of conquest rolled westward from Mongolia,
this time directed against the Ismaelians or 'Assassins' on
the south of the Caspian, and then successively against the
Khalif of Baghdad and Syria. The conclusion of this expedition
under Hulagu may be considered to mark the climax of the
Mongol power. Mangu Khan, the emperor then reigning, and who
died on a campaign in China in 1259, was the last who
exercised a sovereignty so nearly universal. His successor
Kublai extended indeed largely the frontiers of the Mongol
power in China [see CHINA: A. D. 1259-1294], which he brought
entirely under the yoke, besides gaining conquests rather
nominal than real on its southern and southeastern borders,
but he ruled effectively only in the eastern regions of the
great empire, which had now broken up into four. (1) The
immediate Empire of the Great Khan, seated eventually at
Khanbalik or Peking, embraced China, Corea, Mongolia, and
Manchuria, Tibet, and claims at least over Tunking and
countries on the Ava frontier; (2), the Chagatai Khanate, or
Middle Empire of the Tartars, with its capital at Almalik,
included the modern Dsungaria, part of Chinese Turkestan,
Transoxiana, and Afghanistan; (3), the Empire of Kipchak, or
the Northern Tartars, founded on the conquests of Batu, and
with its chief seat at Sarai, on the Wolga, covered a large
part of Russia, the country north of Caucasus, Khwarizm, and a
part of the modern Siberia; (4), Persia, with its capital
eventually at Tabriz, embraced Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan
and part of Asia Minor, all Persia, Arabian Irak, and
Khorasan."

_H. Yule,
Cathay and the way Thither: Preliminary Essay,
sections 92-94 (volume 1)._

ALSO IN:
_H. H. Howorth,
History of the Mongols,
chapters 4-5._

{2223}

[Image: Map of the Mongol Empire, A. D. 1300. ]

{2224}

MONGOLS: A. D. 1238-1391.
The Kipchak empire.
The Golden Horde.

"It was under Toushi [or Juchi], son of Tschingis, that the
great migration of the Moguls effected an abiding settlement
in Russia. … Toushi, with half a million of Moguls, entered
Europe close by the Sea of Azof. On the banks of the river
Kalka he encountered the united forces of the Russian princes.
The death of Toushi for awhile arrested the progress of the
Tatar arms. But in 1236, Batu, the son of Toushi, took the
command, and all the principalities and cities of Russia, with
the exception of Novogorod, were desolated by fire and sword
and occupied by the enemy. For two centuries Russia was held
cabined, cribbed, confined by this encampment or horde. The
Golden Horde of the Deshti Kipzak, or Steppe of the Hollow
Tree. Between the Volga and the Don, and beyond the Volga,
spreads this limitless region the Deshti Kipzak. It was
occupied in the first instance, most probably, by Hun-Turks,
who first attracted and then were absorbed by fresh
immigrants. From this region an empire took its name. By the
river Akhtuba, a branch of the lower Volga, at Great Serai,
Batu erected his golden tent; and here it was he received the
Russian princes whom he had reduced to vassalage. Here he
entertained a king of Armenia; and here, too, he received the
ambassadors of S. Louis. … With the exception of Novogorod,
which had joined the Hanseatic League in 1276, and rose
rapidly in commercial prosperity, all Russia continued to
endure, till the extinction of the house of Batu, a degrading
and hopeless bondage. When the direct race came to an end, the
collateral branches became involved in very serious conflicts;
and in 1380, Temnik-Mami was overthrown near the river Don by
Demetrius IV., who, with the victory, won a title of honour,
Donski, which outlasted the benefits of the victory; although
it is from this conflict that Russian writers date the
commencement of their freedom. … After an existence of more
than 250 years the Golden Horde was finally dissolved in 1480.
Already, in 1468, the khanate of Kusan [or Kazan] was
conquered and absorbed by the Grand Duke Ivan; and, after the
extinction of the horde, Europeans for the first time exacted
tribute of the Tatar, and ambassadors found their way
unobstructed to Moscow. But the breaking up of the Golden
Horde did not carry with it the collapse of all Tatar power in
Russia. Rather the effect was to create a concentration of all
their residuary resources in the Crimea."

_C. I. Black,
The Proselytes of Ishmael,
part 3, chapter 4._

"The Mongol word yurt meant originally the domestic fireplace,
and, according to Van Hammer, the word is identical with the
German herde and the English hearth, and thence came in a
secondary sense to mean house or home, the chief's house being
known as Ulugh Yurt or the Great House. An assemblage of
several yurts formed an ordu or orda, equivalent to the German
hort and the English horde, which really means a camp. The
chief camp where the ruler of the nation lived was called the
Sir Orda, i. e., the Golden Horde. … It came about that
eventually the whole nation was known as the Golden Horde."
The power of the Golden Horde was broken by the conquests of
Timour (A. D. 1389-1391). It was finally broken into several
fragments, the chief of which, the Khanates of Kazan, of
Astrakhan, and of Krim, or the Crimea, maintained a long
struggle with Russia, and were successively overpowered and
absorbed in the empire of the Muscovite.

_H. H. Howorth,
History of the Mongols,
part 2, pages 1 and x._

See, also, above: A. D. 1229-1294;

KIPCHAKS; and RUSSIA: A. D. 1237-1480.

MONGOLS: A. D. 1257-1258.
Khulagu's overthrow of the Caliphate.

See BAGDAD: A. D. 1258.

MONGOLS: A. D. 1258-1393.
The empire of the Ilkhans.

See PERSIA: A. D. 1258-1393.

MONGOLS: A. D. 1371-1405.
The conquests of Timour.

See TIMOUR.

MONGOLS: A. D. 1526-1605.
Founding of the Mogul (Mongol) empire in India.

See INDIA.: A. D. 1399-1605.

----------MONGOLS: End----------

MONITOR AND MERRIMAC, Battle of the.

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

MONKS.

See
AUSTIN CANONS;
BENEDICTINE ORDERS;
CAPUCHINS;
CARMELITE FRIARS;
CARTHUSIAN ORDER;
CISTERCIAN ORDER;
CLAIRVAUX;
CLUGNY;
MENDICANT ORDERS;
RECOLLECTS;
SERVITES;
THEATINES;
TRAPPISTS.

MONMOUTH, Battle of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778 (JUNE).

MONMOUTH'S REBELLION.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1685 (MAY-JULY).

MONOCACY, Battle of the.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1864 (JULY: VIRGINIA-MARYLAND).

MONOPHYSITE CONTROVERSY.

See NESTORIAN AND MONOPHYSITE CONTROVERSY;
also, JACOBITE CHURCH.

MONOTHELITE CONTROVERSY, The.

"The Council of Chalcedon having decided that our Lord
possessed two natures, united but not confused, the Eutychian
error condemned by it is supposed to have been virtually
reproduced by the Monothelites, who maintained that the two
natures were so united as to have but one will. This heresy is
ascribed to Heraclius the Greek emperor, who adopted it as a
political project for reconciling and reclaiming the
Monophysites to the Church, and thus to the empire. The
Armenians as a body had held, for a long time, the Monophysite
(a form of the Eutychian) heresy, and were then in danger of
breaking their allegiance to the emperor, as they had done to
the Church; and it was chiefly to prevent the threatened
rupture that Heraclius made a secret compromise with some of
their principal men. … Neither … the strenuous efforts of
the Greek emperors Heraclius and Constans, nor the concession
of Honorius the Roman pontiff to the soundness of the
Monothelite doctrine, could introduce it into the Church.
Heraclius published in A. D. 639 an Ecthesis, or a formula, in
which Monotheism was covertly introduced. The sixth general
council, held in Constantinople A. D. 680, condemned both the
heresy and Honorius, the Roman pontiff who had countenanced it.
{2225}
'The doctrine of the Monothelites, thus condemned and exploded
by the Council of Constantinople, found a place of refuge
among the Mardaites, a people who inhabited the mountains of
Libanus and Anti-Libanus, and who, about the conclusion of
this century, received the name of Maronites from John Maro,
their first bishop-a name which they still retain.' … In the
time of the Crusaders, the Maronites united with them in their
wars against the Saracens, and subsequently (A. D. 1182) in
their faith. After the evacuation of Syria by the Crusaders,
the Maronites, as their former allies, had to bear the
vengeance of the Saracenic kings; and for a long time they
defended themselves as they could, sometimes inflicting
serious injury on the Moslem army, and at others suffering the
revengeful fury of their enemies. They ultimately submitted to
the rule of their Mohammedan masters, and are now good
subjects of the sultan. … The Maronites now … are entirely
free from the Monothelite heresy, which they doubtless
followed in their earlier history; nor, indeed, does there
appear a single vestige of it in their histories, theological
books, or liturgies. Their faith in the person of Christ and
in all the articles of religion is now, as it has been for a
long time past, in exact uniformity with the doctrines of the
Roman Church."

_J. Wortabet,
Researches into the Religions of Syria,
pages 103-111; with foot-note._

ALSO IN:
_H. F. Tozer,
The Church and the Eastern Empire,
chapter 5._

_E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 47._

_P. Schaff,
History of the Christian Church,
volume 4, chapter 11, sections 109-111._

MONROE, James,
Opposition to the Federal Constitution.

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

Presidential election and administration.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1816, to 1825.

MONROE DOCTRINE, The.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1823.

MONROVIA.

See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1816-1847.

----------MONS: Start--------

MONS: A. D. 1572.
Capture by Louis of Nassau, recovery by the Spaniards,
and massacre.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1572-1573.

MONS: A. D. 1691.
Siege and surrender to Louis XIV.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1689-1691.

MONS: A. D. 1697.
Restored to Spain.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1697.

MONS: A. D. 1709.
Siege and reduction by Marlborough and Prince Eugene.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1708-1709.

MONS: A. D. 1713.
Transferred to Holland.

See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

MONS: A. D 1746-1748.
Taken by the French and restored to Austria.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1746-1747;
and AIX-LA-CHAPELLE, THE CONGRESS.

----------MONS: End--------

MONS GRAMPIUS, Battle of.

See GRAMPIANS.

MONS SACER, Secession of the Roman Plebeians to.

See ROME: B. C. 494-492.

MONS TARPEIUS.

See CAPITOLINE HILL.

MONSIEUR.

Under the old regime, in France, this was the special
designation of the elder among the king's brothers.

MONT ST. JEAN, Battle of.

The battle of Waterloo—
is sometimes so called by the French.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1815 (JUNE).

MONTAGNAIS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY,
and ATHAPASCAN FAMILY.

MONTAGNARDS, OR THE MOUNTAIN.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1791 (OCTOBER);
1792 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER);
and after, to 1794-1795 (JULY-APRIL).

MONTAGNE NOIRE, Battle of (1794).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1794-1795 (OCTOBER-MAY).

----------MONTANA: Start--------

MONTANA: A. D. 1803,
Partly or wholly embraced in the Louisiana Purchase.
The question.

See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1798-1803.

MONTANA: A. D. 1864-1889.
Organization as a Territory and admission as a State.

Montana received its Territorial organization in 1864, and was
admitted to the Union as a State in 1889.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1889-1890.

----------MONTANA: End--------

MONTANISTS.

A name given to the followers of Montanus, who appeared in the
2d century, among the Christians of Phrygia, claiming that the
Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, "had, by divine appointment,
descended upon him for the purpose of foretelling things of
the greatest moment that were about to happen, and
promulgating a better and more perfect discipline of life and
morals. … This sect continued to flourish down to the 5th
century."

_J. L. von Mosheim,
Historical Commentaries, 2d Century,
section. 66._

MONTAPERTI, Battle of (1260).

See FLORENCE: A. D. 1248-1278.

MONTAUBAN, Siege of (1621).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1620-1622.

MONTAUKS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

MONTBÉLIARD, Battle of (1871).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1870-1871.

MONTCALM, and the defense of Canada.

See CANADA: A. D. 1756, to 1759.

MONTE CASEROS, Battle of (1852).

See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1819-1874.

MONTE CASINO, The Monastery of.

See BENEDICTINE ORDERS.

MONTE ROTUNDO, Battle of (1867).

See ITALY: A. D. 1867-1870.

MONTE SAN GIOVANNI, Battle and massacre (1495).

See ITALY: A. D. 1494-1496.

MONTEBELLO,
Battle of (1800).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1800-1801 (MAY-FEBRUARY).

Battle of (1859.)

See ITALY: A. D. 1856-1859.

MONTECATINI, Battle of (1315).

See ITALY: A. D. 1313-1330.

MONTENEGRO.

See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES.

MONTENOTTE, Battles at (1796).

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

MONTEREAU, Battle of.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (JANUARY-MARCH).

MONTEREAU, The Bridge of (1419).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1415-1419.

MONTEREY, California:
Possession taken by the American fleet (1846).

See CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1846-1847.

MONTEREY, Mexico:
Siege by the Americans (1846).

See MEXICO: A. D. 1846-1847.

MONTEREY, Pennsylvania, The Battle of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1863 (JUNE-JULY: PENNSYLVANIA).

MONTEVIDEO: Founding of the city.

See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1580-1777.

{2226}

MONTEZUMA, The so-called Empire of.

See MEXICO: A. D. 1325-1502.

MONTFORT, Simon de (the elder), The Crusade of.

See CRUSADES: A. D.1201-1203.

MONTFORT, Simon de (the younger),
The English Parliament and the Barons' war.

See PARLIAMENT, THE ENGLISH: EARLY STAGES IN ITS EVOLUTION;
and ENGLAND: A. D. 1216-1274.

MONTGOMERY, General Richard, and his expedition against Quebec.

See CANADA: A. D. 1775-1776.

MONTGOMERY CONSTITUTION and Government.

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

MONTI OF SIENA, The.

See SIENA.

MONTLEHERY, Battle of (1465).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1461-1468.

----------MONTMÉDY: Start--------

MONTMÉDY: A. D. 1657.
Siege and capture by the French and English.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1655-1658.

MONTMÉDY: A. D. 1659.
Cession to France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1659-1661.

----------MONTMÉDY: End--------

MONTMIRAIL, Battle of.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (JANUARY-MARCH).

MONTPELIER, Treaty of.