Chapter IV: Concerning the infallible teaching of the Roman (2)

"Nothing is more certain than that Paris never became the
capital of France until after the accession of the third
dynasty. Paris made the Capets, the Capets made Paris."

_Sir F. Palgrave,
History of Normandy and England,
volume 1, page 280._

PARIS: A. D. 1180-1199.
Improvement of the city by Philip Augustus.

"During the few short intervals of peace which had occurred in
the hitherto troubled reign of Philip [A. D. 1180-1199], he
had not been unmindful of the civil improvement of his people;
and the inhabitants of his capital are indebted to his
activity for the first attempts to rescue its foul, narrow,
and mud-embedded streets from the reproach which its Latin
name 'Lutetia' very justly implied. Philip expended much of
the treasure, hitherto devoted solely to the revels of the
court, in works of public utility, in the construction of
paved causeways and aqueducts, in founding colleges and
hospitals, in commencing a new city wall, and in the erection
of the Cathedral of Nôtre-Dame."

_E. Smedley,
History of France,
part 1, chapter 4._

PARIS: A. D. 1328.
The splendor and gaiety of the Court.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1328.

PARIS: A. D. 1356-1383.
The building of the Bastille.

See BASTILLE.

PARIS: A. D. 1357-1358.
The popular movement under Stephen Marcel.

See STATES GENERAL OF FRANCE IN THE 14TH CENTURY.

PARIS: A. D. 1381.
The Insurrection of the Maillotins.

At the beginning of the reign of Charles VI. a tumult broke
out in Paris, caused by the imposition of a general tax on
merchandise of all kinds. "The Parisians ran to the arsenal,
where they found mallets of lead intended for the defence of
the town, and under the blows from which the greater part of
the collectors of the new tax perished. From the weapons used
the insurgents took the name of Maillotins. Reims, Châlons,
Orleans, Blois, and Rouen rose at the example of the capital.
The States-General of the Langue d' Oil were then convoked at
Compiegne, and separated without having granted anything. The
Parisians were always in arms, and the dukes [regents during
the minority of the young king], powerless to make them
submit, treated with them, and contented themselves with the
offer of 100,000 livres. The chastisement was put off for a
time." The chastisement of Paris and of the other rebellious
towns was inflicted in 1382 (see FLANDERS: A. D. 1382) after
the king and his uncles had subdued the Flemings at
Rosebecque.

_E. de Bonnechose,
History of France,
epoch 2, book 2, chapter 5._

PARIS: A. D. 1410-1415.
The reign of the Cabochiens.
The civil war of Armagnacs and Burgundians.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1380-1415.

PARIS: A. D. 1418.
The massacre of Armagnacs.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1415-1419.

PARIS: A. D. 1420-1422.
King Henry V. of England and his court in the city.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1417-1422.

PARIS: A. D. 1429.
The repulse of the Maid of Orleans.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1429-1431.

PARIS: A. D. 1436.
Recovery from the English.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1431-1453.

PARIS: A. D. 1465.
Siege by the League of the Public Weal.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1461-1468.

PARIS: A. D. 1496.
Founding of the press of Henry Estienne.

See PRINTING: A. D. 1496-1598.

PARIS: A. D. 1567.
The Battle of St. Denis.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1563-1570.

PARIS: A. D. 1572.
The massacre of St. Bartholomew's Day.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1572 (AUGUST).

PARIS: A. D. 1588-1589.
Insurrection of the Catholic League.
The Day of Barricades.
Siege of the city by the king and Henry of Navarre.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1584-1589.

PARIS: A. D. 1590.
The siege by Henry IV.
Horrors of famine and disease.
Relief by the Duke of Parma.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1590.

PARIS: A. D. 1594.
Henry IV.'s entry.
Expulsion of Jesuits.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1593-1598.

PARIS: A. D. 1636.
Threatening invasion of Spaniards from the Netherlands.
The capital in peril.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1635-1638.

PARIS: A. D. 1648-1652.
In the wars of the Fronde.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1647-1648; 1649; 1650-1651;
and 1651-1653.

PARIS: A. D. 1652.
The Battle of Porte St. Antoine
and the massacre of the Hotel de Ville.

See FRANCE: .A. D. 1651-1653.

PARIS: A. D. 1789-1799.
Scenes of the Revolution.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1789 (JUNE), and after.

PARIS: A. D. 1814.
Surrender to the Allied armies.

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

PARIS: A. D. 1815.
The English and Prussian armies in the city.
Restoration of the art-spoils of Napoleon.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1815 (JULY-NOVEMBER).

PARIS: A. D. 1848 (February).
Revolution.
Abdication and flight of Louis Philippe.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1841-1848.

PARIS: A. D. 1848 (March-June).
Creation of the Ateliers Nationaux.
Insurrection consequent on closing them.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1848 (FEBRUARY-MAY), and (APRIL-DECEMBER).

PARIS: A. D. 1851.
The Coup d'Etat.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1851; and 1851-1852.

{2486}

PARIS: A. D. 1870-1871.
Siege by the Germans.
Capitulation.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1870 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER),
to 1871 (JANUARY-MAY).

PARIS: A. D. 1871 (March-May).
The insurgent Commune.
Its Reign of Terror.
Second Siege of the city.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1871 (MARCH-MAY).

----------PARIS: End--------

PARIS, Congress of (1856).

See RUSSIA: A. D. 1854-1856;
and DECLARATION OF PARIS.

PARIS, Declaration of.

See DECLARATION OF PARIS.

PARIS, The Parliament of.

See PARLIAMENT OF PARIS.

PARIS, Treaty of (1763).

See SEVEN YEARS WAR: THE TREATIES.

PARIS, Treaty of (1783).

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1783 (SEPTEMBER).

PARIS, Treaty of (1814).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (APRIL-JUNE).

PARIS, Treaty of (1815).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1815 (JULY-NOVEMBER).

PARIS, University of.

See EDUCATION: MEDIÆVAL.

PARISII, The.

See PARIS: THE BEGINNING;
and BRITAIN: CELTIC TRIBES.

----------Subject: Start--------

PARLIAMENT, The English:
Early stages of its evolution.

"There is no doubt that in the earliest Teutonic assemblies
every freeman had his place. … But how as to the great
assembly of all, the Assembly of the Wise, the Witenagemót of
the whole realm [of early England]? No ancient record gives us
any clear or formal account of the constitution of that body.
It is commonly spoken of in a vague way as a gathering of the
wise, the noble, the great men. But alongside of passages like
these, we find other passages which speak of it in a way which
implies a far more popular constitution. … It was in fact a
body, democratic in ancient theory, aristocratic in ordinary
practice, but to which any strong popular impulse could at any
time restore its ancient democratic character. … Out of this
body, whose constitution, by the time of the Norman Conquest,
had become not a little anomalous, and not a little
fluctuating, our Parliament directly grew. Of one House of
that Parliament we may say more; we may say, not that it grew
out of the ancient Assembly, but that it is absolutely the
same by personal identity. The House of Lords not only springs
out of, it actually is, the ancient Witenagemót. I can see no
break between the two. … An assembly in which at first every
freeman had a right to appear has, by the force of
circumstances, step by step, without any one moment of sudden
change, shrunk up into an Assembly wholly hereditary and
official, an Assembly to which the Crown may summon any man,
but to which, it is now strangely held, the Crown cannot
refuse to summon the representatives of any man whom it has
once summoned. As in most other things, the tendency to shrink
up into a body of this kind began to show itself before the
Norman Conquest, and was finally confirmed and established
through the results of the Norman Conquest. But the special
function of the body into which the old national Assembly has
changed, the function of 'another House,' an Upper House, a
House of Lords as opposed to a House of Commons, could not
show itself till a second House of a more popular constitution
had arisen by its side. Like everything else in our English
polity, both Houses in some sort came of themselves. Neither
of them was the creation of any ingenious theorist. … Our
Constitution has no founder; but there is one man to whom we
may give all but honours of a founder, one man to whose wisdom
and self-devotion we owe that English history has taken the
course which it has taken for the last 600 years. … That man,
the man who finally gave to English freedom its second and
more lasting shape, the hero and martyr of England in the
greatest of her constitutional struggles, was Simon of
Montfort, Earl of Leicester. If we may not call him the
founder of the English Constitution, we may at least call him
the founder of the House of Commons. … When we reach the 13th
century, we may look on the old Teutonic constitution as
having utterly passed away. Some faint traces of it indeed we
may find here and there in the course of the 12th century; …
but the regular Great Council, the lineal representatives of
the ancient Mycel Gemót or Witenagemót, was shrinking up into
a body not very unlike our House of Lords. … The Great Charter
secures the rights of the nation and of the national Assembly
as against arbitrary legislation and arbitrary taxation on the
part of the Crown. But it makes no change in the constitution
of the Assembly itself. … The Great Charter in short is a Bill
of Rights; it is not what, in modern phrase, we understand by
a Reform Bill. But, during the reigns of John and Henry III.,
a popular element was fast making its way into the national
Councils in a more practical form. The right of the ordinary
freeman to attend in person had long been a shadow; that of
the ordinary tenant-in-chief was becoming hardly more
practical; it now begins to be exchanged for what had by this
time become the more practical right of choosing
representatives to act in his name. Like all other things in
England, this right has grown up by degrees and as the result
of what we might almost call a series of happy accidents. Both
in the reign of John and in the former part of the reign of
Henry, we find several instances of knights from each county
being summoned. Here we have the beginning of our county
members and of the title which they still bear, of knights of
the Shire. Here is the beginning of popular representation, as
distinct from the gathering of the people in their own
persons; but we need not think that those who first summoned
them had any conscious theories of popular representation. The
earliest object for which they were called together was
probably a fiscal one; it was a safe and convenient way of
getting money. The notion of summoning a small number of men
to act on behalf of the whole was doubtless borrowed from the
practice in judicial proceedings and in inquests and
commissions of various kinds, in which it was usual for
certain select men to swear on behalf of the whole shire or
hundred. We must not forget … that our judicial and our
parliamentary institutions are closely connected. … But now we
come to that great change, that great measure of Parliamentary
Reform, which has left to all later reformers nothing to do
but to improve in detail. We come to that great act of the
patriot Earl which made our popular Chamber really a popular
Chamber. …
{2487}
When, after the fight of Lewes, Earl Simon, then master of the
kingdom with the King in his safe keeping, summoned his famous
Parliament [A. D. 1264-5], he summoned, not only two knights
from every county, but also two citizens from every city and
two burgesses from every borough. … Thus was formed that newly
developed Estate of the Realm which was, step by step, to grow
into the most powerful of all, the Commons' House of
Parliament."

_E. A. Freeman,
Growth of the English Constitution,
chapter 2._

ALSO IN:
_W. Stubbs,
Constitutional History of England,
chapters 6, 13-14._

_R. Gneist,
The English Parliament._

_T. P. Taswell-Langmead,
English Constitutional History,
chapter 7._

_A. Bissett,
Short History of English Parliament,
chapters 2-3._

See, also,
WITENAGEMOT; ENGLAND: A. D. 1216-1274;
and KNIGHTS OF THE SHIRE.

PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1244.
Earliest use of the name.

In 1244, "as had happened just one hundred years previously in
France, the name 'parliamentum' occurs for the first time [in
England] (Chron. Dunst., 1244; Matth. Paris, 1246), and
curiously enough, Henry III. himself, in a writ addressed to
the Sheriff of Northampton, designates with this term the
assembly which originated the Magna Charta: 'Parliamentum
Runemede, quod fuit inter Dom. Joh., Regem patrem nostrum et
barones suos Angliæ' (Rot. Claus., 28 Hen. III.). The name
'parliament' now occurs more frequently, but does not supplant
the more indefinite terms 'concilium,' 'colloquium,' etc."

_H. Gneist,
History of the English Constitution,
chapter 19, and foot-note, 2a (volume 1)._

"The name given to these sessions of Council [the national
councils of the 12th century] was often expressed by the Latin
'colloquium': and it is by no means unlikely that the name of
Parliament, which is used as early as 1175 by Jordan Fantosme,
may have been in common use. But of this we have no distinct
instance in the Latin Chroniclers for some years further,
although when the term comes into use it is applied
retrospectively."

_W. Stubbs,
Constitutional History of England,
chapter 13, section 159._

PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1258.
The Mad Parliament.

An English Parliament, or Great Council, assembled at Oxford
A. D. 1258, so-called by the party of King Henry III. from
whom it extorted an important reorganization of the
government, with much curtailment of the royal power.

_W. Stubbs,
Constitutional History of England,
chapter 14, section 176 (volume 2)._

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1216-1274.

PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1264.
Simon de Montfort's Parliament.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1216-1274;
and PARLIAMENT, THE ENGLISH: EARLY STAGES IN ITS EVOLUTION.

PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1275-1295.
Development under Edward I.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1275-1295.

PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1376.
The Good Parliament.

The English parliament of 1376 was called the Good Parliament;
although most of the good work it undertook to do was undone
by its successor.

_W. Stubbs,
Constitutional History of England,
chapter 16 (volume 2)._

PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1388.
The Wonderful Parliament.

In 1387, King Richard II. was compelled by a great armed
demonstration, headed by five powerful nobles, to discard his
obnoxious favorites and advisers, and to summon a Parliament
for dealing with the offenses alleged against them. "The
doings of this Parliament [which came together in February,
1388] are without a parallel in English history,—so much so
that the name 'Wonderful Parliament' came afterwards to be
applied to it. With equal truth it was also called 'the
Merciless Parliament.'" It was occupied for four months in the
impeachment and trial of ministers, judges, officers of the
courts, and other persons, bringing a large number to the
block.

_J. Gairdner,
Houses of Lancaster and York,
chapter 2, section 5._

ALSO IN:
_C. H. Pearson,
English History in the 14th Century,
chapter 11._

PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1404.
The Unlearned Parliament.

"This assembly [A. D. 1404, reign of Edward IV.] acquired its
ominous name from the fact that in the writ of summons the
king, acting upon the ordinance issued by Edward III in 1372,
directed that no lawyers should be returned as members. He had
complained more than once that the members of the House of
Commons spent more time on private suits than on public
business."

_W. Stubbs,
Constitutional History of England,
chapter 18, section 634 (volume 3)._

PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1413-1422.
First acquisition of Privilege.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1413-1422.

PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1425.
The Parliament of Bats.

The English Parliament of 1425-1426 was so-called because of
the quarrels in it between the parties of Duke Humfrey, of
Gloucester, and of his uncle, Bishop Beaufort.

PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1471-1485.
Depression under the Yorkist kings.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1471-1485.

PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1558-1603.
Under Queen Elizabeth.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1558-1603.

PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1614.
The Addled Parliament.

In 1614, James I. called a Parliament which certain obsequious
members promised to manage for him and make docile to his
royal will and pleasure. "They were spoken of at Court as the
Undertakers. Both the fact and the title became known, and the
attempt at indirect influence was not calculated to improve
the temper of the Commons. They at once proceeded to their old
grievances, especially discussing the legality of the
impositions (as the additions to the customs were called) and
of monopolies. In anger at the total failure of his scheme,
James hurriedly dissolved the Parliament before it had
completed a single piece of business. The humour of the time
christened this futile Parliament 'the Addled Parliament.'"

_J. F. Bright,
History of England,
period 2, page 599._

PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1640.
The Short Parliament.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1640.

PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1640.
The Long Parliament.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1640-1641.

PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1648.
The Rump.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1648 (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER).

PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1649.
Temporary abolition of the House of Peers.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1649 (FEBRUARY).

PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1653.
The Barebones or Little Parliament.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1653 (JUNE-DECEMBER).

PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1659.
The Rump restored.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1658-1660.

PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1660-1740.
Rise and development of the Cabinet
as an organ of Parliamentary government.

See CABINET, THE ENGLISH.

PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1693.
The Triennial Bill.

In 1693, a bill which passed both Houses, despite the
opposition of King William, provided that the Parliament then
sitting should cease to exist on the next Lady Day, and that
no future Parliament should last longer than three years. The
king refused his assent to the enactment; but when a similar
bill was passed the next year he suffered it to become a law.

_H. Hallam,
Constitutional History of England,
chapter 15 (volume 3)._

{2488}

PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1703.
The Aylesbury election case.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1703.

PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1707.
Becomes the Parliament of Great Britain.
Representation of Scotland.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1707.

PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1716.
The Septennial Act.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1716.

PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1771.
Last struggle against the Press.
Freedom of reporting secured.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1771.

PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1727.
Defeat of the first Reform measure.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1797.

PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1830.
State of the unreformed representation.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1830.

PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1832.
The first Reform of the Representation.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1830-1832.

PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1867.
The second Reform Bill.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1865-1868.

PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1883.
Act to prevent Corrupt and Illegal Practices at Elections.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1883.

PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1884-1885.
The third Reform Bill (text and comment).

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1884-1885.

----------PARLIAMENT: End--------

PARLIAMENT, New Houses of.

See WESTMINSTER PALACE.

PARLIAMENT, The Scottish.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1326-1603.

PARLIAMENT, The Drunken.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1660-1666.

PARLIAMENT OF FLORENCE.

See FLORENCE: A. D. 1250-1293.

PARLIAMENT OF ITALIAN FREE CITIES.

See ITALY: A. D. 1056-1152.

PARLIAMENT OF PARIS.

"When the Carlovingian Monarchy had given place, first to
Anarchy and then to Feudalism, the mallums, and the Champs de
Mai, and (except in some southern cities) the municipal curiæ
also disappeared. But in their stead there came into existence
the feudal courts. Each tenant in capite of the crown held
within his fief a Parliament of his own free vassals. … There
was administered the seigneur's 'justice,' whether haute,
moyenne, or basse. There were discussed all questions
immediately affecting the seigneurie or the tenants of it.
There especially were adopted all general regulations which
the exigencies of the lordship were supposed to dictate, and
especially all such as related to the raising tailles or other
imposts. What was thus done on a small scale in a minor fief,
was also done, though on a larger scale, in each of the feudal
provinces, and on a scale yet more extensive in the court or
Parliament holden by the king as a seigneur of the royal
domain. … This royal court or Parliament was, however, not a
Legislature in our modern sense of that word. It was rather a
convention, in which, by a voluntary compact between the king
as supreme suzerain and the greater seigneurs as his
feudatories, an ordonnance or an impost was established,
either throughout the entire kingdom, or in some seigneuries
apart from the rest. From any such compact any seigneur might
dissent on behalf of himself and his immediate vassals or, by
simply absenting himself, might render the extension of it to
his own fief impossible. … Subject to the many corrections
which would be requisite to reduce to perfect accuracy this
slight sketch of the origin of the great council or Parliament
of the kings of France, such was, in substance, the
constitution of it at the time of the accession of Louis IX.
[A. D. 1226]. Before the close of his eventful reign, that
monarch had acquired the character and was in full exercise of
the powers of a law-giver, and was habitually making laws, not
with the advice and consent of his council or Parliament, but
in the exercise of the inherent prerogative which even now
they began to ascribe to the French crown. … With our English
prepossessions, it is impossible to repress the wonder, and
even the incredulity, with which we at first listen to the
statement that the supreme judicial tribunal of the kingdom
could be otherwise than the zealous and effectual antagonist
of so momentous an encroachment." The explanation is found in
a change which had taken place in the character of the
Parliament, through which its function and authority became
distinctly judicial and quite apart from those of a council or
a legislature. When Philip Augustus went to the Holy Land, he
provided for the decision of complaints against officers of
the crown by directing the queen-mother and the archbishop of
Rheims, who acted as regents, to hold an annual assembly of
the greater barons. "This practice had become habitual by the
time of Louis IX. For the confirmation and improvement of it,
that monarch ordered that, before the day of any such
assemblage, citations should be issued, commanding the
attendance, not, as before, of the greater barons exclusively,
but of twenty-four members of the royal council or Parliament.
Of those twenty-four, three only were to be great barons,
three were to be bishops, and the remaining eighteen were to
be knights. But as these members of the royal council did not
appear to St. Louis to possess all the qualifications
requisite for the right discharge of the judicial office, he
directed that thirty-seven other persons should be associated
to them. Of those associates, seventeen were to be clerks in
holy orders, and twenty légistes, that is, men bred to the
study of the law. The function assigned to the légistes was
that of drawing up in proper form the decrees and other
written acts of the collective body. To this body, when thus
constituted, was given the distinctive title of the Parliament
of Paris." By virtue of their superior education and training,
the légistes soon gathered the business of the Parliament into
their own hands; the knights and barons found attendance a
bore and an absurdity. "Ennui and ridicule … proved in the
Parliament of Paris a purge quite as effectual as that which
Colonel Pride administered to the English House of Commons.
The conseiller clercs were soon left to themselves, in due
time to found, and to enjoy, what began to be called 'La
Noblesse de la Robe.' Having thus assumed the government of
the court, the légistes next proceeded to enlarge its
jurisdiction. … By … astute constructions of the law, the
Parliament had, in the beginning of the 14th century, become
the supreme legal tribunal within the whole of that part of
France which was at that time attached to the crown." In the
reign of Philip the Long (1316-1322) the Parliament and the
royal council became practically distinct bodies; the former
became sedentary at Paris, meeting nowhere else, and its
members were required to be constantly resident in Paris.
{2489}
By 1345 the parliamentary counselors, as they were now called,
had acquired life appointments, and in the reign of Charles
VI. (1380-1422) the seats in the Parliament of Paris became
hereditary. "At the period when the Parliament of Paris was
acquiring its peculiar character as a court of justice, the
meetings of the great vassals of the crown, to co-operate with
the king in legislation, were falling into disuse. The king …
had begun to originate laws without their sanction; and the
Parliament, not without some show of reason, assumed that the
right of remonstrance, formerly enjoyed by the great vassals,
had now passed to themselves. … If their remonstrance was
disregarded, their next step was to request that the projected
law might be withdrawn. If that request was unheeded, they at
length formally declined to register it among their records.
Such refusals were sometimes but were not usually successful.
In most instances they provoked from the king a peremptory
order for the immediate registration of his ordinance. To such
orders the Parliament generally submitted."

_Sir J. Stephen,
Lectures on the History of France,
lecture 8._

"It appears that the opinion is unfounded which ascribes to
the States [the 'States-General'] and the Parliaments a
different origin. Both arose out of the National Assemblies
held at stated periods in the earliest times of the monarchy
[the 'Champs de Mars' and 'Champs de Mai']. … Certainly in the
earliest part of [the 13th] century there existed no longer
two bodies, but only one, which had then acquired the name of
Parliament. The stated meetings under the First race were
called by the name of Mallum or Mallus, sometimes Placitum
[also Plaid], sometimes Synod. Under the Second race they were
called Colloquium also. The translation of this term (and it
is said also of Mallum) into Parliament occurs not before the
time of Louis VI. (le Gros); but in that of Louis VIII., at
the beginning of the 13th century, it became the usual
appellation. There were then eleven Parliaments, besides that
of Paris, and all those bodies had become merely judicial,
that of Paris exercising a superintending power over the other
tribunals. … After [1334] … the Parliament was only called
upon to register the Ordinances. This gave a considerable
influence to the Parliament of Paris, which had a right of
remonstrance before registry; the Provincial Parliaments only
could remonstrate after registry. … The Parliament of Paris,
besides remonstrating, might refuse to register; and though
compellable by the King holding a Bed of Justice, which was a
more solemn meeting of the Parliament attended by the King's
Court in great state [see BED OF JUSTICE), yet it cannot be
doubted that many Ordinances were prevented and many modified
in consequence of this power of refusal."

_Lord Brougham,
History of England and France under the House of Lancaster,
note 66._

For an account of the conflict between the Parliament of Paris
and the crown which immediately preceded the French
Revolution.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1787-1789.

_ALSO IN: M. de la Rocheterie,
Marie Antoinette,
chapters 6-11._

PARMA, Alexander Farnese, Duke of, in the Netherlands.

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

----------PARMA: Start--------

PARMA:
Founding of.

See MUTINA.

PARMA: A. D. 1077-1115.
In the Dominions of the Countess Matilda.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1077-1102.

PARMA: A. D. 1339-1349.
Bought by the Visconti, of Milan.

See MILAN: A. D. 1277-1447.

PARMA: A. D. 1513.
Conquest by Pope Julius II.

See ITALY: A. D. 1510-1513.

PARMA: A. D. 1515.
Reannexed to Milanese and acquired by France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1515-1518.

PARMA: A. D. 1521.
Retaken by the Pope.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1520-1523.

PARMA: A. D. 1545-1592.
Alienation from the Holy See and erection, with Placentia,
into a duchy, for the House of Farnese.

"Paul III. was the last of those ambitious popes who rendered
the interests of the holy see subordinate to the
aggrandizement of their families. The designs of Paul, himself
the representative of the noble Roman house of Farnese, were
ultimately successful; since, although partially defeated
during his life, they led to the establishment of his
descendants on the throne of Parma and Placentia for nearly
200 years. … He gained the consent of the sacred college to
alienate those states from the holy see in 1545, that he might
erect them into a duchy for his natural son, Pietro Luigi
Farnese; and the Emperor Charles V. had already, some years
before, to secure the support of the papacy against France,
bestowed the hand of his natural daughter, Margaret, widow of
Alessandro de' Medici, upon Ottavio, son of Pietro Luigi, and
grandson of Paul III. Notwithstanding this measure, Charles V.
was not subsequently, however, the more disposed to confirm to
the house of Farnese the investiture of their new possessions,
which he claimed as part of the Milanese duchy; and he soon
evinced no friendly disposition towards his own son-in-law,
Ottavio. Pietro Luigi, the first duke of Parma, proved
himself, by his extortions, his cruelties, and his
debaucheries, scarcely less detestable than any of the ancient
tyrants of Lombardy. He thus provoked a conspiracy and
insurrection of the nobles of Placentia, where he resided; and
he was assassinated by them at that place in 1547, after a
reign of only two years. The city was immediately seized in
the imperial name by Gonzaga, governor of Milan. … To deter
the emperor from appropriating Parma also to himself, [Paul
III.] could devise no other expedient than altogether to
retract his grant from his family, and to reoccupy that city
for the holy see, whose rights he conceived that the emperor
would not venture to invade." But after the death of Paul
III., the Farnese party, commanding a majority in the
conclave. "by raising Julius III. to the tiara [1550],
obtained the restitution of Parma to Ottavio from the
gratitude of the new pope. The prosperity of the ducal house
of Farnese was not yet securely established. The emperor still
retained Placentia, and Julius III. soon forgot the services
of that family. In 1551, the pope leagued with Charles V. to
deprive the duke Ottavio of the fief which he had restored to
him. Farnese was thus reduced … to place himself under the
protection of the French; and this measure, and the indecisive
war which followed, became his salvation. He still preserved
his throne when Charles V. terminated his reign; and one of
the first acts of Philip II., when Italy was menaced by the
invasion of the duke de Guise [1556], was to win him over from
the French alliance, and to secure his gratitude, by yielding
Placentia again to him.
{2490}
But a Spanish garrison was still left in the citadel of that
place; and it was only the brilliant military career of
Alessandro Faroese, the celebrated prince of Parma, son of
duke Ottavio, which finally consummated the greatness of his
family. Entering the service of Philip II., Alessandro
gradually won the respect and favour of that gloomy monarch;
and at length, in 1585, as a reward for his achievements, the
Spanish troops were withdrawn from his father's territories.
The duke Ottavio closed his life in the following year; but
Alessandro never took possession of his throne. He died at the
head of the Spanish armies in the Low Countries in 1592; and
his son Ranuccio quietly commenced his reign over the duchy of
Parma and Placentia under the double protection of the holy
see and the monarchy of Spain."

_G. Procter,
History of Italy,
chapter 9._

PARMA: A. D. 1635.
Alliance with France against Spain.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639.

PARMA: A. D. 1635-1637.
Desolation of the duchy by the Spaniards.
The French alliance renounced.

See ITALY: A. D. 1635-1659.

PARMA: A. D. 1725.
Reversion of the duchy pledged to the Infant of Spain.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1713-1725.

PARMA: A. D. 1731.
Possession given to Don Carlos, the Infant of Spain.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1726-1731;
and ITALY: A. D. 1715-1735.

PARMA: A. D. 1735.
Restored to Austria.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1733-1735;
and ITALY: A. D. 1715-1735.

PARMA: A. D. 1745-1748.
Changes of masters.

In the War of the Austrian Succession, Parma was taken by
Spain in 1745; recovered by Austria in the following year (see
ITALY: A. D. 1746-1747); but surrendered by Maria Theresa to
the infant of Spain in 1748.

PARMA: A. D. 1767.
Expulsion of the Jesuits.
Papal excommunication of the Duke.

See JESUITS: A. D. 1761-1769.

PARMA: A. D. 1801.
The Duke's son made King of Etruria.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1801-1803.

PARMA: A. D. 1802.
The duchy declared a dependency of France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1802 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).

PARMA: A. D. 1814.
Duchy conferred on Marie Louise, the ex-empress of Napoleon.

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

PARMA: A. D. 1831.
Revolt and expulsion of Marie Louise.
Her restoration by Austria.

See ITALY: A. D. 1830-1832.

PARMA: A. D. 1848-1849.
Abortive revolution.

See ITALY: A. D. 1848-1849.

PARMA: A. D. 1859-1861.
End of the duchy.
Absorption in the new kingdom of Italy.

See ITALY: A. D. 1856-1859; and 1859-1861.

----------PARMA: End--------

PARMA, Battle of (1734).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1733-1735.

PARNASSUS.

See THESSALY; and DORIANS AND IONIANS.

PARNELL MOVEMENT, The.

See IRELAND: A. D. 1873-1879, to 1889-1891.

PARRIS, Samuel, and Salem Witchcraft.

See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1692.

PARSEES, The.

"On the western coast of India, from the Gulf of Cambay to
Bombay, we find from one hundred to one hundred and fifty
thousand families whose ancestors migrated thither from Iran.
The tradition among them is, that at the time when the Arabs,
after conquering Iran and becoming sovereigns there,
persecuted and eradicated the old religion [of the Avesta],
faithful adherents of the creed fled to the mountains of
Kerman. Driven from these by the Arabs (in Kerman and Yezd a
few hundred families are still found who maintain the ancient
faith), they retired to the island of Hormuz (a small island
close by the southern coast, at the entrance to the Persian
Gulf). From hence they migrated to Din (on the coast of
Guzerat), and then passed over to the opposite shore. In the
neighbourhood of Bombay and in the south of India inscriptions
have been found which prove that these settlers reached the
coast in the tenth century of our era. At the present time
their descendants form a considerable part of the population
of Surat, Bombay, and Ahmadabad; they call themselves, after
their ancient home, Parsees, and speak the later Middle
Persian."

_M. Duncker,
History of Antiquity,
book 7, chapter 2 (volume 5)._

See, also, ZOROASTRIANS.

PARSONS' CAUSE, The.

See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1763.

PARTHENII, The.

This name was given among the Spartans to a class of young
men, sons of Spartan women who had married outside the
exclusive circle of the Spartiatæ. The latter refused, even
when Sparta was most pressingly in need of soldiers, to admit
these "sons of maidens," as they stigmatized them, to the
military body. The Parthenii, becoming numerous, were finally
driven to emigrate, and found a home at Tarentum, Italy.

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

See TARENTUM.

----------PARTHENON: Start--------

PARTHENON AT ATHENS, The.

"Pericles had occasion to erect on the highest point of the
Acropolis, in place of the ancient Hecatompedon, a new festive
edifice and treasure-house, which, by blending intimately
together the fulfilment of political and religious ends, was
to serve to represent the piety and artistic culture, the
wealth and the festive splendour—in fine, all the glories
which Athens had achieved by her valour and her wisdom. …

See ATHENS: B. C. 445-431.

The architect from whose design, sanctioned by Pericles and
Phidias, the new Hecatompedon was erected, was Ictinus, who
was seconded by Callicrates, the experienced architect of the
double line of walls. It was not intended to build an edifice
which should attract attention by the colossal nature of its
proportions or the novelty of its style. The traditions of the
earlier building were followed, and its dimensions were not
exceeded by more than 50 feet. In a breadth of 100 feet the
edifice extended in the form of a temple, 226 feet from east
to west; and the height, from the lowest stair to the apex of
the pediment, amounted only to 65 feet. … The Hecatompedon, or
Parthenon (for it went by this name also as the house of
Athene Parthenos), was very closely connected with the
festival of the Panathenæa, whose splendour and dignity had
gradually risen by degrees together with those of the state. …
The festival commenced with the performances in the Odeum,
where the masters of song and recitation, and the either and
flute-players, exhibited their skill, the choral songs being
produced in the theatre. Hereupon followed the gymnastic
games, which, besides the usual contests in the stadium,
foot-race, wrestling-matches, &c., also included the
torch-race, which was held in the Ceramicus outside the
Dipylum, when no moon shone in the heavens; and which formed
one of the chief attractions of the whole festival."

_E. Curtius,
History of Greece,
book 3, chapter 3._

See, also, ACROPOLIS OF ATHENS.

{2491}

PARTHENON: A. D. 1687.
Destructive explosion during the siege of Athens
by the Venetians.

See TURKS: A. D. 1684-1696.

----------PARTHENON: End--------

PARTHENOPÉ.

See NEAPOLIS AND PALÆPOLIS.

PARTHENOPEIAN REPUBLIC, The.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1708-1799 (AUGUST-APRIL).

PARTHIA, AND THE PARTHIAN EMPIRE.

"The mountain chain, which running southward of the Caspian,
skirts the great plateau of Iran, or Persia, on the north,
broadens out after it passes the south-eastern corner of the
sea, into a valuable and productive mountain-region. Four or
five' distinct ranges here run parallel to one another, having
between them latitudinal valleys, with glens transverse to
their courses. The sides of the valleys are often well wooded;
the flat ground at the foot of the hills is fertile; water
abounds; and the streams gradually collect into rivers of a
considerable size. The fertile territory in this quarter is
further increased by the extension of cultivation to a
considerable distance from the base of the most southern of
the ranges, in the direction of the Great Iranic desert. … It
was undoubtedly in the region which has been thus briefly
described that the ancient home of the Parthians lay. …
Parthia Proper, however, was at no time coextensive with the
region described. A portion of that region formed the district
called Hyrcania; and it is not altogether easy to determine
what were the limits between the two. The evidence goes, on
the whole, to show that while Hyrcania lay towards the west
and north, the Parthian country was that towards the south and
east, the valleys of the Ettrek and Gurghan constituting the
main portions of the former, while the tracts east and south
of those valleys, as far as the sixty-first degree of E.
longitude, constituted the latter. If the limits of Parthia
Proper be thus defined, it will have nearly corresponded to
the modern Persian province of Khorasan. … The Turanian
character of the Parthians, though not absolutely proved,
appears to be in the highest degree probable. If it be
accepted, we must regard them as in race closely allied to the
vast hordes which from a remote antiquity have roamed over the
steppe region of Upper Asia, from time to time bursting upon
the south and harassing or subjugating the comparatively
unwarlike inhabitants of the warmer countries. We must view
them as the congeners of the Huns, Bulgarians and Comans of
the ancient world; of the Kalmucks, Ouigurs, Usbegs, Eleuts,
&c., of the present day. … The Parthians probably maintained
their independence from the time of their settlement in the
district called after their name until the sudden arrival in
their country of the great Persian conqueror, Cyrus, [about
554 B. C.]. … When the Persian empire was organised by Darius
Hystaspis into satrapies, Parthia was at first united in the
same government with Chorasmia, Sogdiana and Aria.
Subsequently, however, when satrapies were made more numerous,
it was detached from these extensive countries, and made to
form a distinct government, with the mere addition of the
comparatively small district of Hyrcania." The conquests of
Alexander included Parthia within their range, and, under the
new political arrangements which followed Alexander's death,
that country became for a time part of the wide empire of the
Seleucidæ, founded by Seleueus Nicator,—the kingdom of Syria
as it was called. But about 250 B. C. a successful revolt
occurred in Parthia, led by one Arsaces, who founded an
independent kingdom and a dynasty called the Arsacid.

See SELEUCIDÆ: B. C. 281-224, and 224-187.

Under succeeding kings, especially under the sixth of the
line, Mithridates I. (not to be confused with the Mithridatic
dynasty in Pontus), the kingdom of Parthia was swollen by
conquest to a great empire, covering almost the whole
territory of the earlier Persian empire, excepting in Asia
Minor and Syria. On the rise of the Roman power, the Parthians
successfully disputed with it the domination of the east, in
several wars (see ROME: B. C. 57-52), none of which were
advantageous to the Romans, until the time of Trajan.

_G. Rawlinson,
Sixth Great Oriental Monarchy: Parthia._

Trajan (A. D. 115-117—see ROME: A. D. 96-138) "undertook an
expedition against the nations of the East. … The success of
Trajan, however transient, was rapid and specious. The
degenerate Parthians, broken by intestine discord, fled before
his arms. He descended the river Tigris in triumph, from the
mountains of Armenia to the Persian gulf. He enjoyed the
honour of being the first, as he was the last, of the Roman
generals who ever navigated that remote sea. His fleets
ravaged the coasts of Arabia. … Every day the astonished
senate received the intelligence of new names and new nations
that acknowledged his sway. … But the death of Trajan soon
clouded the splendid prospect. … The resignation of all the
eastern conquests of Trajan was the first measure of his
[successor Hadrian's] reign. He [Hadrian] restored to the
Parthians the election of an independent sovereign, withdrew
the Roman garrisons from the provinces of Armenia, Mesopotamia
and Assyria; and, in compliance with the precept of Augustus,
once more established the Euphrates as the frontier of the
empire."

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

In the reign of Marcus Aurelius Antoninus at Rome, the
Parthian king Vologeses III. (or Arsaces XXVII.) provoked the
Roman power anew by invading Armenia and Syria. In the war
which followed, the Parthians were driven from Syria and
Armenia; Mesopotamia was occupied; Seleucia, Ctesiphon and
Babylon taken; and the royal palace at Ctesiphon burned (A. D.
165). Parthia then sued for peace, and obtained it by ceding
Mesopotamia, and allowing Armenia to return to the position of
a Roman dependency. Half a century later the final conflict of
Rome and Parthia occurred. "The battle of Nisibis [A. D. 217],
which terminated the long contest between Rome and Parthia,
was the fiercest and best contested which was ever fought
between the rival powers. It lasted for the space of three
days. … Macrinus [the Roman emperor, who commanded] took to
flight among the first; and his hasty retreat discouraged his
troops, who soon afterwards acknowledged themselves beaten and
retired within the lines of their camp.
{2492}
Both armies had suffered severely. Herodian describes the
heaps of dead as piled to such a height that the manœuvres of
the troops were impeded by them, and at last the two
contending hosts could scarcely see one another. Both armies,
therefore, desired peace." But the peace was purchased by Rome
at a heavy price. After this, the Parthian monarchy was
rapidly undermined by internal dissensions and corruptions,
and in A. D. 226 it was overthrown by a revolt of the
Persians, who claimed and secured again, after five centuries
and a half of subjugation, their ancient leadership among the
races of the East. The new Persian Empire, or Sassanian
monarchy, was founded by Artaxerxes I. on the ruins of the
Parthian throne.

_G. Rawlinson,
The Sixth Great Oriental Monarchy,
chapters 3-21._

ALSO IN:
_G. Rawlinson,
Story of Parthia._

PARTHIAN HORSE. PARTHIAN ARROWS.

"Fleet and active coursers, with scarcely any caparison but a
headstall and a single rein, were mounted by riders clad only
in a tunic and trousers, and armed with nothing but a strong
bow and a quiver full of arrows. A training begun in early
boyhood made the rider almost one with his steed; and he could
use his weapons with equal ease and effect whether his horse
was stationary or at full gallop, and whether he was advancing
towards or hurriedly retreating from his enemy. … It was his
ordinary plan to keep constantly in motion when in the
presence of an enemy, to gallop backwards and forwards, or
round and round his square or column, never charging it, but
at a moderate interval plying it with his keen and barbed
shafts."

_G. Rawlinson,
Sixth Great Oriental Monarchy,
chapter 11._

----------PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Start--------

PARTIES AND FACTIONS, POLITICAL AND POLITICO-RELIGIOUS.
Abolitionists.

See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1828-1832; and 1840-1847.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Adullamites.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1865-1868.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Aggraviados.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1814-1827.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
American.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1852.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Ammoniti.

See FLORENCE: A. D. 1358.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Anarchists.

See ANARCHISTS.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Anilleros.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1814-1827.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Anti-Corn-Law League.

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

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Anti-Federalists.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1789-1792.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Anti-Masonic.

See NEW YORK: A. D. 1826-1832;
and MEXICO: A. D. 1822-1828.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Anti-Renters.

See LIVINGSTON MANOR.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Anti-Slavery.

See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1688-1780; 1776-1808;
1828-1832; 1840-1847.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Armagnacs.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1380-1415; and 1415-1419.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Arrabiati.

See FLORENCE: A. D. 1490-1498.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Assideans.

See CHASIDIM.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Barnburners.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1845-1846.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Beggars.

See PARTIES AND FACTIONS: GUEUX.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Bianchi.

See FLORENCE: A. D. 1295-1300; and 1301-1313.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Bigi, or Greys.

See BIGI.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Blacks, or Black Guelfs.

See FLORENCE: A. D. 1295-1300; and 1301-1313.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Blue-Light Federalists.

See BLUE-LIGHT FEDERALISTS.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Blues.

See CIRCUS, FACTIONS OF THE ROMAN;
and VENEZUELA: 1829-1886.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Border Ruffians.

See KANSAS: A. D. 1854-1859.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Boys in Blue.

See BOYS IN BLUE.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Bucktails.

See NEW YORK A. D. 1817-1819.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Bundschuh.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1492-1514.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Burgundians.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1385-1415;
and 1415-1419.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Burschenschaft.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1817-1820.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Butternuts.

See Boys IN BLUE.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Cabochiens.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1380-1415.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Calixtines, or Utraquists.

See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1419-1434; and 1434-1457.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Camisards.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1702-1710.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Caps and Hats.

See PARTIES AND FACTIONS: HATS AND CAPS.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Carbonari.

See ITALY: A. D. 1808-1809.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Carlists.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1833-1846; and 1873-1885.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Carpet-baggers.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1866-1871.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Cavaliers and Roundheads.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1641 (OCTOBER);
also, ROUNDHEADS.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Center.

See RIGHT, LEFT, AND CENTER.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Charcoals.

See CLAYBANKS AND CHARCOALS.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Chartists.

See ENGLAND: A.D. 1838-1842; and 1848.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Chasidim.

See CHASIDIM.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Chouans.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1794-1796.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Christinos.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1833-1846; and 1873-1885.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Claybanks and Charcoals.

See CLAYBANKS AND CHARCOALS.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Clear Grits.

See CANADA: A. D. 1840-1867.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Clichyans.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1797 (SEPTEMBER).

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Clintonians.

See NEW YORK: A. D. 1817-1819.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Cods.

See PARTIES AND FACTIONS: HOOKS AND CODS.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Communeros.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1814-1827.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Communists.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1871 (MARCH-MAY).

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Conservative (English).

See CONSERVATIVE PARTY.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Constitutional Union.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1860 (APRIL-NOVEMBER).

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Copperheads.

See COPPERHEADS.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Cordeliers.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1790.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Country Party.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1672-1673.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Covenanters.

See COVENANTERS;
also SCOTLAND: A. D. 1557, 1581, 1638, 1644-1645,
and 1660-1661, to 1681-1689.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Crêtois.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1795 (APRIL).

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Decamisados.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1814-1827.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Democrats.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1789-1792;
1825-1828; 1845-1846.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Doughfaces.

See DOUGHFACES.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Douglas Democrats.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1860 (APRIL-NOVEMBER).

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Equal Rights Party.

See NEW YORK: A. D. 1835-1837.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Escocés.

See MEXICO: A. D. 1822-1828.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Essex Junto.

See ESSEX JUNTO.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Farmers' Alliance.

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

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Federalists.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1789-1792; 1812;
and 1814 (DECEMBER) THE HARTFORD CONVENTION.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Feds.

See BOYS IN BLUE.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Fenians.

See IRELAND: A. D. 1858-1867;
and CANADA: A. D. 1866-1871.

Feuillants. See FRANCE: A. D. 1790.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Free Soilers.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1848.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Free Traders.

See TARIFF LEGISLATION.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
The Fronde.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1649, to 1651-1653.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Gachupines.

See GACHUPINES.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Girondists.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1791 (OCTOBER),
to 1793-1794 (OCTOBER-APRIL).

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Gomerists.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1603-1619.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Grangers.

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

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Graybacks.

See Boys IN BLUE.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Greenbackers.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1880.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Greens.

See CIRCUS, FACTIONS OF THE ROMAN.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Greys.

See BIGI.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Guadalupes.

See GACHUPINES.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Guelfs and Ghibellines.

See GUELFS.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Gueux, or Beggars.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1562-1566.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Half-breeds.

See STALWARTS.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Hard-Shell Democrats.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1845-1846.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Hats and Caps.

See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1720-1792.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Home Rulers or Nationalists.

See IRELAND: A. D. 1873-1879;
also ENGLAND: A. D. 1885-1886, and 1892-1893.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Hooks and Cods, or Kabeljauws.

See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1345-1354;
and 1482-1493.

{2493}

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Huguenots.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1559-1561, to 1598-1599;
1620-1622, to 1627-1628;
1661-1680; 1681-1698; 1702-1710.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Hunkers.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1845-1846.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Iconoclasts of the 8th century.

See ICONOCLASTIC CONTROVERSY.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Iconoclasts of the 16th century.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1566-1568.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Importants.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1642-1643.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Independent Republicans.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1884.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Independents, or Separatists.

See INDEPENDENTS.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Intransigentists.

See INTRANSIGENTISTS.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Irredentists.

See IRREDENTISTS.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Jacobins.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1790, to 1794-1795 (JULY-APRIL).

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Jacobites.

See JACOBITES.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Jacquerie.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1358.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Jingoes.

See TURKS: A. D. 1878.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Kabeljauws.

See PARTIES AND FACTIONS: HOOKS AND CODS.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Kharejites.

See KHAREJITES.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Know Nothing.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1852.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Ku Klux Klan.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1866-1871.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Land Leaguers.

See IRELAND: A. D. 1873-1879.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Left.
Left Center.

See RIGHT, LEFT, AND CENTER.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Legitimists.

See LEGITIMISTS.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Leliaerds.

See LELIAERDS.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Levellers.

See LEVELLERS.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Liberal Republicans.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1872.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Liberal Unionists.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1885-1886.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Libertines.

See LIBERTINES OF GENEVA.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Liberty Boys.

See PARTIES AND FACTIONS: SONS OF LIBERTY.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Liberty Party.

See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D.1840-1847.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Locofocos.

See LOCOFOCOS;
and NEW YORK: A.D. 1835-1837.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Lollards.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1360-1414.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Malignants.

See MALIGNANTS.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
The Marais, or Plain.

See FRANCE A. D. 1792 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER).

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Marians.

See ROME: B. C. 88-78.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Martling Men.

See MARTLING MEN.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Melchites.

See MELCHITES.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
The Mountain.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1791 (OCTOBER);
1792 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER);
and after, to 1794-1705 (JULY-APRIL).

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Mugwumps.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1884.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Muscadins.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1794-1795 (JULY-APRIL).

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Nationalists, Irish.

See ENGLAND: A.D. 1885-1886.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Neri.

See FLORENCE: A. D. 1295-1300; and 1301-1313.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Nihilists.

See NIHILISTS.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Oak Boys.

See IRELAND: A. D. 1760-1708.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Opportunists.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1893.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Orangemen.

See IRELAND: A. D. 1705-1706.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Orleanists.

See LEGITIMISTS.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
The Ormée.

See BORDEAUX: A. D. 1652-1653.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Orphans.

See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1419-1434.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Ottimati.

See FLORENCE: A. D. 1498-1500.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Palleschi.

See FLORENCE: A. D. 1498-1500.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Patrons of Husbandry.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1877-1801.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Peep-o'-Day Boys.

See IRELAND: A. D. 1760-1798, and 1784.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Pelucones.

See PELUCONES.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
Petits Maîtres.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1650-1651.