Chapter DXIX: Section 2: The Congress shall have power to enforce this (9)

VI. That all elections ought to be free, and that all men
having sufficient evidence of permanent common interest with,
and attachment to the community, have the right of suffrage,
and cannot be taxed, or deprived of their property for public
uses, without their own consent, or that of their
representatives so elected, nor bound by any law to which they
have not in like manner assented, for the public good.

VII. That all power of suspending laws, or the execution of
laws, by any authority, without consent of the representatives
of the people, is injurious to their rights, and ought not to
be exercised.

VIII. That in all capital or criminal prosecutions, a man hath
a right to demand the cause and nature of his accusation, to
be confronted with the accusers and witnesses, to call for
evidence in his favor, and to a speedy trial by an impartial
jury of twelve men of his vicinage, without whose unanimous
consent he cannot be found guilty; nor can he be compelled to
give evidence against himself; that no man be deprived of his
liberty, except by the law of the land or the judgment of his
peers.

IX. That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor
excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments
inflicted.

X. That general warrants, whereby an officer or messenger may
be commanded to search suspected places without evidence of a
fact committed, or to seize any person or persons not named,
or whose offence is not particularly described and supported
by evidence, are grievous and oppressive, and ought not to be
granted.

XI. That in controversies respecting property, and in suits
between man and man, the ancient trial by jury of twelve men
is preferable to any other, and ought to be held sacred.

XII. That the freedom of the press is one of the great
bulwarks of liberty, and can never be restrained but by
despotic governments.

XIII. That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of
the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural and safe
defence of a free State; that standing armies in time of
peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in
all cases the military should be under strict subordination
to, and governed by, the civil power.

XIV. That the people have a right to uniform government; and
therefore, that no government separate from or independent of
the government of Virginia, ought to be erected or established
within the limits thereof.

XV. That no free government, or the blessing of liberty, can
be preserved to any people, but by a firm adherence to
justice, moderation, temperance, frugality and virtue, and by
a frequent recurrence to fundamental principles.

XVI. That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator,
and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by
reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore
all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion,
according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the
duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love and
charity towards each other.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1776-1779.
The war in the north.
The Articles of Confederation.
Alliance with France.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776, to 1779.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1776-1808.
Antislavery opinion and the causes of its disappearance.

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

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1778.
Suppression of the Transylvania Company in Kentucky.

See KENTUCKY: A. D. 1765-1778.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1778-1779.
Clark's conquest of the Northwest and its organization
under the jurisdiction of Virginia.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1778-1779 CLARK'S CONQUEST.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1779.
British coast raids, at Norfolk and elsewhere.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1778-1779 WASHINGTON GUARDING THE HUDSON.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1779-1786.
Settlement of boundaries with Pennsylvania.
The Pan-handle.

"In 1779 commissioners appointed by the two States met at
Baltimore to agree upon the common boundaries of Pennsylvania
and Virginia. … On both sides there was an evident desire to
end the dispute. Various lines were proposed and rejected. On
August 31 the commissioners signed this agreement: 'To extend
Mason and Dixon's line due west five degrees of longitude, to
be computed from the River Delaware, for the southern boundary
of Pennsylvania, and that a meridian line drawn from the
western extremity thereof to the northern limit of the said
State be the western boundary of Pennsylvania forever.' This
contract was duly ratified by the legislatures of the two
States. In 1785 Mason and Dixon's line was extended, and the
southwestern corner of Pennsylvania established. The
'Pan-handle' is what was left of Virginia east of the Ohio
River and north of Mason and Dixon's line, after the boundary
was run from this point to Lake Erie in 1786. … It received
its name in legislative debate from Honorable John McMillan,
delegate from Brooke County, to match the Accomac projection,
which he dubbed the Spoonhandle."

_B. A. Hinsdale,
The Old Northwest,
page 109 and foot-note._

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1780-1783.
The war in the South.
Arnold's ravages.
Lafayette's campaign.
Surrender of Cornwallis.
Peace with Great Britain.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1780, to 1783.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1784.
Cession of Western territorial claims to the United States.

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

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1787-1788.
The formation and adoption of the Federal Constitution.

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

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1791-1792.
Separation of Kentucky and its admission
to the Union as a State.

See KENTUCKY: A. D. 1789-1792.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1798.
The Nullifying Resolutions of Madison.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1798.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1808.
The Embargo and its effects.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1804-1809; and 1808.

{3638}

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1813.
The coasts raided by British naval parties.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1812-1813 INDIFFERENCE TO THE NAVY.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1831.
The Nat Turner insurrection of Slaves.

See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1828-1832.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1859.
John Brown's invasion at Harper's Ferry.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1859.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1861 (January-June).
Attempted peace-making.
The State carried into rebellion.
Separation of West Virginia, which adheres to the Union.

"Early in January, 1861, the Virginia Assembly met at Richmond
to determine the action of the Commonwealth in the approaching
struggle. It was plain that war was coming unless the
authorities of the United States and of the seceding States
would listen to reason; and the first proceedings of the
Assembly looked to peace and the restoration of fraternal
union. Virginia recommended to all the States to appoint
deputies to a Peace Convention. …

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1861 (FEBRUARY) THE PEACE CONVENTION].

Thus ended in failure the first attempt of Virginia to
preserve the national peace; and the crisis demanded that she
should promptly decide upon her course. On February 13 (1861)
a Convention assembled at Richmond, and a Committee was
appointed on Federal Relations. On March 10 (1861), this
Committee reported fourteen resolutions protesting against all
interference with slavery; declaring secession to be a right;
and defining the grounds on which the Commonwealth would feel
herself to be justified in exercising that right, namely: the
failure to obtain guarantees; the adoption of a warlike policy
by the Government of the United States; or the attempt to
exact the payment of duties from the seceded States, or to
reënforce or recapture the Southern forts. These resolves
clearly define the attitude of Virginia at this critical
moment. After prolonged discussion, all but the last had
passed the Convention when intelligence came that war had
begun. The thunder of cannon from Charleston harbor broke up
the political discussion. … Mr. Lincoln had expressed himself
in his inaugural with perfect plainness. Secession was
unlawful, and the Union remained unbroken; it was his duty to
execute the laws, and he should perform it. To execute the
laws it was necessary to have an army; and (April 15, 1861)
President Lincoln issued his proclamation calling for 75,000
troops from the States remaining in the Union. The direct
issue was thus presented, and Virginia was called upon to
decide the momentous question whether she would fight against
the South or against the North. … As late as the first week in
April the Convention had refused to secede by a vote of 89 to
45. Virginia was conscientiously following her old traditions
and would not move. Now the time had come at last. … On the
17th of April, two days after the Federal proclamation, the
Convention passed an ordinance of secession and adhesion to
the Southern Confederacy, by a vote of 88 to 55, which was
ratified by the people by a majority of 96,750 votes, out of a
total of 161,018. West Virginia refused to be bound by the
action of the Convention, and became a separate State, but the
Virginia of the Tidewater and Valley went with the South."

_J. E. Cooke,
Virginia,
part 3, chapter 22._

"Of the 46 delegates from the territory now comprising West
Virginia, 29 voted against [the ordinance of secession], 9 for
it, 7 were absent and one excused. Those who voted against it
hastened to leave the city," and, on reaching their homes,
became generally the leaders of a movement to separate their
section of the State from the Old Dominion. On the 13th of May
a convention of delegates from the counties of Northwestern
Virginia was held at Wheeling, by the action of which a more
general convention was called and held at the same place on
the 11th day of June. The latter convention assumed the power
to reorganize the government of the State of Virginia.

_V. A. Lewis,
History of West Virginia,
chapter 21-23._

ALSO IN: J. G. Nicolay and J. Hay,
_Abraham Lincoln,
volume 3, chapter 25,
and volume 4, chapter 19._

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1861 (April).
Governor Letcher's reply to President Lincoln's call for troops.

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

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1861 (April).
Seizure of Harper's Ferry and Norfolk Navy Yard.

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

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1861 (June-November).
The loyal State government organized in West Virginia.
Steps taken toward separation from the old State.

A Convention held on the 11th of June in West Virginia
declared the State offices of Virginia vacant by reason of the
treason of those who had been elected to hold them, and
proceeded to form a regular State organization, with Francis
H. Pierpont for the executive head. Maintaining that the loyal
people were entitled to speak for the whole State they
declared that their government was the government of Virginia.
They subsequently admitted delegates from Alexandria and
Fairfax Counties in Middle Virginia and from Accomac and
Northampton Counties on the eastern shore. Thus organized, the
government was acknowledged by Congress as the government of
Virginia and senators and representatives were admitted to
seats. The Pierpont Government, as it was called, then adopted
an ordinance on the 20th of August, 1861, providing "for the
formation of a new State out of a portion of the territory of
this State." The ordinance was approved by a vote of the
people, and on the 26th of November the Convention assembled
in Wheeling to frame a constitution for the new government.

_J. G. Blaine,
Twenty Years of Congress,
volume 1, chapter 21._

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1861 (July).
Richmond made the capital of the Southern Confederacy.

"The Conspiracy had no intention originally of establishing
its seat of government at Richmond. That was a part of the
price exacted by Virginia for her secession, and it was not
paid without reluctance. It is to be remembered that at that
time every thing seemed to turn on what the Border States
would do. … By establishing the seat of government at
Richmond, it became certain that the most powerful of the
Southern armies would always be present in Virginia. If
Virginia had been abandoned, all the Border States would have
gone with the North. … The Confederates having determined on
the transfer of their seat of government to Richmond, the
necessary preparations were completed, and their Congress
opened its first session in that city on the 20th of July,
1861."

_J. W. Draper,
History of the American Civil War,
chapter 39 (volume 2)._

{3639}

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1861-1865.
The Battleground of the Civil War.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1861 (MAY: VIRGINIA), and after.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1862 (April-November).
The separation of West Virginia consummated.

See WEST VIRGINIA: A. D. 1862 (APRIL-DECEMBER).

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1865.
The last meeting of the Secession Legislature.
President Lincoln's Permit.

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

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1865.
Recognition of the Pierpont State Government
by President Johnson.

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

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1865-1870.
Reconstruction.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1865 (MAY-JULY), to 1868-1870.

----------VIRGINIA: End--------

VIRGINIA, University of.

"In 1816 the Legislature of Virginia authorized the president
and directors of the Literary Fund to report a plan for a
university at the next session of the Assembly. The committee
made a full report as requested, but nothing was accomplished
beyond bringing the subject of education prominently before
the people. At the legislative session of 1817-18 that part of
the bill relating to a university and the education of the
poor was passed. … In the bill authorizing the establishment
of the university, it was provided that the sum of $45,000 per
annum should be given for the education of the poor, and
$15,000 to the university. The commissioners having reported
in favor of Central College as the most convenient place in
Albemarle County, the Legislature decided, after much
discussion, to locate the university at Charlottesville, and
to assume the property and site of Central College. The
commissioners embodied in their report an exhaustive plan for
a university, chiefly from the pen of Thomas Jefferson."

_F. W. Blackmar,
History of Federal and State Aid to Higher Education
in the United States,
(Bureau of Education, Circular of Information,
1890, number 1), pages 174-175._

ALSO IN:
_H. B. Adams,
Thomas Jefferson and the University of Virginia
(Bureau of Education, Circular of Information,
1888, number 1)._

VIRGINIA, West.

See WEST VIRGINIA.

VIROCONIUM.

See URICONIUM.

VISCONTI, The House of the.

See MILAN: A. D. 1277-1447.

VISIGOTHS.

See GOTHS.

VITALIAN, Pope, A. D. 657-672.

VITELLIAN CIVIL WAR.

See ROME: A. D. 69.

VITELLIUS, Roman Emperor, A. D. 69.

VITEPSK, Battle of.

See RUSSIA: A. D. 1812 (JUNE-SEPTEMBER).

VITTORIA, Battle of (1813).

See SPAIN: A. D. 1812-1814.

VIZIR, VIZIER.

"Like the Sassanian emperors, the Caliph was not only the
divinely appointed ruler, but the embodiment of the government
itself. His word was literally law, and his caprice might at
any moment overturn the most careful calculations of the
ministers, or deprive them of life, power, or liberty, during
the performance of their most active duties, or at a most
critical juncture. It was very seldom, however, that this
awful personage condescended to trouble himself about the
actual details of the executive government. The Vizier, as the
word implies [Vizier, in Arabic Wazir, means 'One who bears a
burden,'—Foot-note], was the one who bore the real burden of
the State, and it was both his interest and that of the people
at large to keep the Caliph himself as inactive as possible,
and to reduce him, in fact, to the position of a mere puppet."

_E. H. Palmer,
Haroun Alraschid, Caliph of Bagdad,
chapter. 1._

See, also, SUBLIME PORTE.

VLADIMIR I. (called The Great)
Duke of Kiev, A. D. 981-1015.

VLADIMIR II., Duke of Kiev, 1113-1126.

VOCATES, The.

See AQUITAINE: THE ANCIENT TRIBES.

VOCLAD, OR VOUGLÉ, Battle of.

See GOTHS (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 507-509.

VOCONIAN LAW.

The object of the Voconian Law, passed at Rome about 169 B. C.
under the auspices of Cato the censor, "was to limit the
social influence of women, by forbidding rich citizens to make
them heiresses of more than one half of their whole estate."

_W. Ihne,
History of Rome,
book 6, chapter 12 (volume 4)._

VODIÆ, The.

See IRELAND: TRIBES OF EARLY CELTIC INHABITANTS.

VOIVODES, WOIWODES.

See POLAND: A. D. 1578-1652;
also BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: A. D. 1341-1350 (SERVIA).

VOLATERRÆ, Siege of.

Some remnants of the armies defeated by Sulla, in the civil
war which ended in his mastery of Rome and the Roman state (B.
C. 82), took refuge in the strong Etruscan town of Volaterræ,
and only capitulated after a siege of two years.

_W. Ihne,
History of Rome,
book 7, chapter 19 (volume 5)._

VOLCÆ, The.

"When the Romans entered the south of France, two tribes
occupied the country west of the Rhone as far at least as
Tolosa (Toulouse) on the Garonne. The eastern people, named
the Volcae Arecomici, possessed the part between the Cebenna
or Cevenna range (Cevennes), the Rhone, and the Mediterranean,
and according to Strabo extended to Narbonne. The chief town
of these Volcae was Nemausus (Nismes). The Volcae Tectosages
had the upper basin of the Garonne: their chief town was
Tolosa."

_G. Long,
Decline of the Roman Republic,
volume 1, chapter 21._

VOLSCIAN WARS OF ROME.

See ROME: B. C. 489-450.

VOLSCIANS, The.

See OSCANS; also ITALY, ANCIENT; and LATIUM.

VOLTA, Battle of (1848).

See ITALY: A. D. 1848-1849.

VOLTURNO, Battle of the (1860).
See ITALY: A. D. 1859-1861.

VOLUNTII, The.

See BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES;
also, IRELAND: TRIBES OF EARLY CELTIC INHABITANTS.

VRACHOPHAGOS, Battle of (1352).

See CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 1348-1355.

VROEDSCHAP, The.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1584-1585
LIMITS OF THE UNITED PROVINCES.

VULCANAL AT ROME, The.

"The Vulcanal, or, as it is called by Livy, the Area Vulcani,
must have been close to the Senaculum [early meeting place of
the Senate], on the slope of the Capitol. It seems to have
been originally an open space of some extent, used for public
meetings, especially those of the Comitia Tributa, and
dedicated to Vulcan. Sacrifices of small fish were offered to
Vulcan here, and a temple dedicated to that god stood also
here in the earliest times, but it was afterwards, on the
enlargement of the pomœrium beyond the Palatine, removed for
religious reasons to the Circus Flaminius, and the Vulcanal
became simply a consecrated area."

_R. Burn,
Rome and the Campagna,
chapter 6, part 1._

_C. I. Hemans,
Historic and Monumental Rome,
page 209._

{3640}

VULGAR ERA.

See ERA, CHRISTIAN.

W.

WAARTGELDERS.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1603-1619.

WABASH RIVER:
Called the River St. Jerome by the French (1712).

See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1698-1712.

WABENAKIES, OR ABNAKIS.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ABNAKIS.

WACOS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.

WAGER OF BATTLE. TRIAL BY COMBAT. JUDICIAL COMBAT.

"Trial by combat does not seem to have established itself
completely in France till ordeals went into disuse, which
Charlemagne rather encouraged, and which, in his age, the
clergy for the most part approved. The former species of
decision may, however, be met with under the first Merovingian
kings (Greg. Turon, l. vii. c. 19, l. x. c. 10), and seems to
have prevailed in Burgundy. It is established by the laws of
the Alemanni or Suabians. Baluz. t. i. p. 80. It was always
popular in Lombardy. … Otho II. established it in al disputes
concerning real property. … God, as they deemed, was the
judge. The nobleman fought on horseback, with all his arms of
attack and defence; the plebeian on foot, with his club and
target. The same were the weapons of the champions to whom
women and ecclesiastics were permitted to intrust their
rights. If the combat was intended to ascertain a civil right,
the vanquished party, of course, forfeited his claim and paid
a fine. If he fought by proxy, the champion was liable to have
his hand struck off: a regulation necessary, perhaps, to
obviate the corruption of these hired defenders. In criminal
cases the appellant suffered, in the event of defeat, the same
punishment which the law awarded to the offence of which he
accused his adversary. Even where the cause was more peaceably
tried, and brought to a regular adjudication by the court, an
appeal for false judgment might indeed be made to the
suzerain, but it could only be tried by battle. And in this,
the appellant, if he would impeach the concurrent judgment of
the court below, was compelled to meet in combat everyone of
its members; unless he should vanquish them all within the
day, his life, if he escaped from so many hazards, was
forfeited to the law. If fortune or miracle should make him
conqueror in every contest, the judges were equally subject to
death, and their court forfeited their jurisdiction for ever.
… Such was the judicial system of France when St. Louis [A. D.
1226-1270] enacted that great code which bears the name of his
Establishments. The rules of civil and criminal procedure, as
well as the principles of legal decisions, are there laid down
with much detail. But that incomparable prince, unable to
overthrow the judicial combat, confined himself to discourage
it by the example of a wiser jurisprudence. It was abolished
throughout the royal domains." Trial by combat "was never
abolished by any positive law, either in France [at large] or
England. But instances of its occurrence are not frequent even
in the fourteenth century."

_H. Hallam,
The Middle Ages,
chapter 2, part 2 (volume 1)._

"Nor was the wager of battle confined to races of Celtic or
Teutonic origin. The Slavonic tribes, as they successively
emerge into the light of history, show the same tendency to
refer doubtful points of civil and criminal law to the
arbitrament of the sword. The earliest records of Hungary,
Bohemia, Poland, Servia, Silesia, Moravia, Pomerania,
Lithuania, and Russia, present evidences of the prevalence of
the system." The last recorded instance of the wager of battle
in France was in 1549. "In England, the resolute conservatism,
which resists innovation to the last, prolonged the existence
of the wager of battle until a period unknown in other
civilized nations. … It was not until the time of Elizabeth
that it was even abolished in civil cases. … Even in the 17th
century, instances of the battle ordeal between persons of
high station are on record." As late as 1818 the right was
claimed and conceded by the judges, in a criminal case which
caused much excitement. "The next year the act 59 Geo. III.
chap. 46, at length put an end for ever to this last remnant
of the age of chivalry."

_H. C. Lea,
Superstition and Force,
chapter 2._

See, also, LAW, CRIMINAL: A. D. 1818.

WAGER OF LAW.

"This was the remarkable custom which was subsequently known
as canonical compurgation, and which long remained a part of
English jurisprudence, under the name of the Wager of Law. The
defendant, when denying the allegation under oath, appeared
surrounded by a number of companions—'juratores,'
'conjuratores,' 'sacramentales,' 'collaudantes,'
'compurgatores,' as they were variously termed—who swore, not
to their knowledge of the facts, but as sharers and partakers
in the oath of denial. This curious form of procedure derives
importance from the fact that it is an expression of the
character, not of an isolated sept, but of nearly all the
races that have moulded the destinies of Europe. The
Ostrogoths in Italy, and the Wisigoths of the South of France
and Spain were the only nations in whose codes it occupies no
place, and they, … at an early period, yielded themselves
completely to the influence of the Roman civilization. … The
church, with the tact which distinguished her dealings with
her new converts, was not long in adopting a system which was
admirably suited for her defence in an age of brute force."

_H. C. Lea,
Superstition and Force,
chapter 1._

On the abolition of the Wager of Law.

See LAW, COMMON: A. D. 1833.

WAGNER, Fort,
The assault on, the siege, and the final reduction of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1863 (JULY: SOUTH CAROLINA),
and (AUGUST-DECEMBER: SOUTH CAROLINA).

WAGRAM, Battle of.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1809 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).

{3641}

WAHABEES, The.

"The Wahabees derive their name from Abdul Wahab, the father
of Sheikh Muhammad, their founder, who arose about the
beginning of the last century, in the province of Najd, in
Arabia. The object of the Wahabee movement was to sweep away
all later innovations, and to return to the original purity of
Islam, as based upon the exact teaching of the Koran and the
example of Mahomet. The principles of the sect rapidly spread
among the Arab tribes, and were adopted by the sovereign
princes of Darayeh, in Najd. Impelled by religious zeal and
political ambition, and allured by the prospect of plunder,
the Wahabees soon acquired nearly the whole of Arabia, and
menaced the neighbouring Pashaliks of Turkey and Egypt. Mecca
and Medina soon fell into their hands, the shrine was
despoiled of its rich ornaments, and the pilgrim route to the
Kaaba closed for some years. Early in this century (1811),
Muhammad Ali, the Pasha of Egypt, at the bidding of the
Sultan, set himself to check the progress of this aggressive
sect; and his son Ibrahim Pasha completed the work (1818). …
The following particulars of the Wahabee reform need only be
added. They reject the decisions of the 'four orthodox
doctors,' and the intercessions of saints; they condemn the
excessive reverence paid to Mahomet, and deny his mediation,
until the last day. They also disapprove of the ornamenting of
tombs, &c."

_J. W. H. Stobart,
Islam and its Founder,
chapter 10, with foot-note._

ALSO IN:
_W. C. Taylor,
History of Mohammedanism and its Sects,
chapter 11._

_T. Nöldeke,
Sketches from Eastern History,
page 103._

WAHLSTADT, Battle of (1241).

See MONGOLS: A. D. 1229-1294;
and LIEGNITZ, THE BATTLE OF.

WAHPETONS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY.

WAIILATPUAN FAMILY, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: WAIILATPUAN FAMILY.

WAIKAS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: CARIBS AND THEIR KINDRED.

WAITANGI, Treaty of.

See NEW ZEALAND: A. D. 1642-1856.

WAITZEN, Battles of(1849).

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848-1849.

WAIWODES, WOIWODES, VOIVODES.

See POLAND: A. D. 1578-1652;
and BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: A. D. 1341-1356 (SERVIA).

WAKASHAN FAMILY, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: WAKASHAN FAMILY.

WAKEFIELD, Battle of (1460).

Queen Margaret, rallying the loyal Lancastrians of the north
of England, met her enemy, the Duke of York, and the enemies
of her party, on Wakefield Green, December 30, 1460, and
defeated them with great slaughter, the Duke of York being
found among the slain. But her fruitless victory was soon
reversed by young Edward, Earl of March, eldest son of the
deceased Duke of York, who deposed King Henry VI. and planted
himself on the throne, before the same winter had passed.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1455-1471.

WAKEFIELD SYSTEM, The.

See AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1800-1840.

WALCHEREN EXPEDITION, The.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1809 (JULY-DECEMBER).

WALDEMAR.

See VALDEMAR.

WALDENSES, VAUDOIS, The.

"Let me at the outset express my conviction that the whole
attempt to ascribe to the Waldenses an earlier date than the
latter half of the 12th century, to throw back their origin
some two hundred years, or sometimes much more than this, even
to the times of Claudius of Turin (d. 839), is one which will
not stand the test of historical criticism; while the
endeavour to vindicate for them this remote antiquity has
introduced infinite confusion into their whole history. The
date of Waldo, who, as I cannot doubt, is rightly recognized
as their founder, we certainly know. When it is sought to get
rid of their relation to him as embodied in the very name
which they bear, and to change this name into Vallenses, the
Men of the Valleys or the Dalesmen, it is a transformation
which has no likelihood, philological or historic, to
recommend it. … Peter Waldo,—for we will not withhold from him
this Christian name, although there is no authority for it
anterior to the beginning of the 15th century,—was a rich
citizen and merchant of Lyons [in the later half of the 12th
century]. Not satisfied with those scanty portions of
Scripture doled out to the laity in divine services, and
yearning above all for a larger knowledge of the Gospels, he
obtained from two friends among the priesthood a copy of these
last and of some other portions of Scripture translated into
the Romance language; a collection also of sayings from the
Fathers. The whole movement remained to the end true to this
its first motive—the desire namely for a fuller acquaintance
with the Word of God. That Word he now resolved to make the
rule of his life. … He …, as a first step, sells all that he
has, and bestows it upon the poor. In the name which he adopts
for himself and for the companions whom he presently
associates with him, the same fact of a voluntary poverty, as
that which above all they should embody in their lives, speaks
out. On this side of the Alps they are Poor Men of Lyons; on
the Italian, Poor Men of Lombardy. … And now he and his began
to preach in the streets of Lyons, to find their way into
houses, to itinerate the country round. Waldo had no intention
herein of putting himself in opposition to the Church, of
being a Reformer in any other sense than St. Francis or St.
Bernard was a Reformer, a quickener, that is, and reviver of
the Church's spiritual life. His protest was against practical
mischiefs, against negligences and omissions on the part of
those who should have taught the people, and did not.
Doctrinal protest at this time there was none. But for Rome
all forms of religious earnestness were suspicious which did
not spring directly from herself. … In 1178 the Archbishop of
Lyons forbade their preaching or expounding any more. Such as
did not submit had no choice but to quit Lyons, and betake
themselves elsewhere. And thus it came to pass that not the
city, already so illustrious in ecclesiastical story, where
Irenæus taught and Blandina suffered, … but the Alpine
mountains must shelter these outcasts, and in turn be made
famous by their presence." In 1209, Pope Innocent III. made an
attempt to absorb Waldo's society in an "Order of Poor
Catholics," which he instituted. "Failing this, he repeated, a
few years later, at the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), the
Church's sentence against the Waldenses, including them under
a common ban with the Cathari and the whole rabble rout of
Manichæans and others with whom they have so often since been
confounded. …
{3642}
Enemies have sought to confound, that so there might be
imputed to the Waldenses any evil which had been brought home
to the Albigenses. … Friends have sought to identify them out
of the wish to recruit the scanty number of witnesses for
Scriptural and Apostolical truth in the dark ages of the
Church; as certainly it would prove no small numerical
addition if the Albigenses might be counted among these." It
seems to be certain that the Waldenses were not spared by the
crusaders who exterminated the Albigenses of southern France
between 1209 and 1229. They fled before that storm into the
recesses of the Alps. "But they were numerous in North Italy
as well; and far more widely scattered over the whole of
central Europe than their present dwelling place and numbers
would at all suggest. They had congregations in Florence, in
Genoa, in Venice, above all in Milan; there were Waldensian
communities as far south as Calabria; they were not unknown in
Arragon; still less in Switzerland; at a later day they found
their way to Bohemia, and joined hands with the Hussites
there."

_R. C. Trench,
Lectures on Mediæval Church History,
lecture 17._

"The valleys which the Vaudois have raised into celebrity lie
to the west of Piemont, between the province of Pignerol and
Briançon, and adjoining on the other side to the ancient
Marquisate of Susa, and that of the Saluces. The capital, La
Tour, being about 36 miles from Turin, and 14 from Pignerol.
The extent of the valleys is about 12 Italian miles, making a
square of about 24 French leagues. The valleys are three in
number, Luzern, Perouse, and St. Martin. The former (in which
the chief town is now Catholic) is the most beautiful and
extensive."

_J. Bresse,
History of the Vaudois,
part 1, chapter i._

The Waldenses are sometimes confused, mistakenly, with the
Albigenses, who belonged to an earlier time.

See ALBIGENSES.

ALSO IN:
_A. Muston,
The Israel of the Alps._

_E. Comba,
History of the Waldenses of Italy._.

WALDENSES: A. D. 1526-1561.
Identification with the Calvinists.
Persecuting war of the Duke of Savoy.
The tolerant treaty of Cavour.

See SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1559-1580.

WALDENSES: A. D. 1546.
Massacre of the remnant in Provence and Venaissin.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1532-1547.

WALDENSES: A. D. 1655.
The second Persecution and Massacre.
Cromwell's intervention.

"They [the Vaudois, or Waldenses] had experienced persecutions
through their whole history, and especially after the
Reformation; but, on the whole, the two last Dukes of Savoy,
and also Christine, daughter of Henry IV. of France, and
Duchess-Regent through the minority of her son, the present
Duke, had protected them in their privileges, even while
extirpating Protestantism in the rest of the Piedmontese
dominions. Latterly, however, there had been a passion at
Turin and at Rome for their conversion to the Catholic faith,
and priests had been traversing their valleys for the purpose.
The murder of one such priest, and some open insults to the
Catholic worship, about Christmas 1654, are said to have
occasioned what followed. On the 25th of January, 1654-5, an
edict was issued, under the authority of the Duke of Savoy,
'commanding and enjoining every head of a family, with its
members, of the pretended Reformed Religion, of what rank,
degree, or condition soever, none excepted, inhabiting and
possessing estates in the places of Luserna … &c., within
three days, to withdraw and depart, and be, with their
families, withdrawn out of the said places, and transported
into the places and limits marked out for toleration by his
Royal Highness during his good pleasure,' … unless they gave
evidence within 20 days of having become Catholics.
Furthermore it was commanded that in every one even of the
tolerated places there should be regular celebration of the
Holy Mass, and that there should be no interference therewith,
nor any dissuasion of anyone from turning a Catholic, also on
pain of death. All the places named are in the Valley of
Luserna, and the object was a wholesale shifting of the
Protestants of that valley out of nine of its communes and
their concentration into five higher up. In vain were there
remonstrances at Turin from those immediately concerned. On
the 17th of April, 1655, the Marquis di Pianezza, entered the
doomed region with a body of troops mainly Piedmontese, but
with French and Irish among them. There was resistance,
fighting, burning, pillaging, flight to the mountains, and
chasing and murdering for eight days, Saturday, April 24,
being the climax. The names of about 300 of those murdered
individually are on record, with the ways of the deaths of
many of them. Women were ripped open, or carried about impaled
on spikes; men, women, and children, were flung from
precipices, hacked, tortured, roasted alive; the heads of some
of the dead were boiled and the brains eaten; there are forty
printed pages, and twenty-six ghastly engravings, by way of
Protestant tradition of the ascertained variety of the
devilry. The massacre was chiefly in the Valley of Luserna,
but extended also into the other two valleys. The fugitives
were huddled in crowds high among the mountains, moaning and
starving; and not a few, women and infants especially,
perished amid the snows. … There was a shudder of abhorrence
through Protestant Europe, but no one was so much roused as
Cromwell. … On Thursday the 17th of May, and for many days
more, the business of the Savoy Protestants was the chief
occupation of the Council. Letters, all in Milton's Latin, but
signed by the Lord Protector in his own name, were despatched
(May 25) to the Duke of Savoy himself, to the French King, to
the States General of the United Provinces, to the Protestant
Swiss Cantons, to the King of Sweden, to the King of Denmark,
and to Ragotski, Prince of Transylvania. A day of humiliation
was appointed for the Cities of London and Westminster, and
another for all England." A collection of money for the
sufferers was made, which amounted, in England and Wales, to
£38,000—equal to about £137,000 now. Cromwell's personal
contribution was £2,000—equivalent to £7,500 in money of the
present day. The Protector despatched a special envoy to the
court of Turin, who addressed very plain and bold words to the
Duke. Meanwhile Blake with his fleet was in the Mediterranean,
and there were inquiries made as to the best place for landing
troops to invade the Duke's dominions. "All which being known
to Mazarin, that wily statesman saw that no time was to be
lost.
{3643}
While Mr. Downing [second commissioner sent by Cromwell] was
still only on his way to Geneva through France, Mazarin had
instructed M. Servien, the French minister at Turin, to
insist, in the French King's name, on an immediate settlement
of the Vaudois business. The result was a 'Patente di Gratia e
Perdono,' or 'Patent of Grace and Pardon,' granted by Charles
Emanuel to the Vaudois Protestants, August 19, in terms of a
Treaty at Pignerol, in which the French Minister appeared as
the real mediating party and certain Envoys from the Swiss
Cantons as more or less assenting. As the Patent substantially
retracted the Persecuting Edict and restored the Vaudois to
all their former privileges, nothing more was to be done."
These events in Piedmont drew from Milton his immortal sonnet,
beginning: "Avenge, O Lord, thy slaughtered saints."

_D. Masson,
Life of John Milton,
volume 5, book 1, chapter 1, section 2._

ALSO IN:
_J. B. Perkins,
France under Mazarin,
chapter 16 (volume 2)._

_A. Muston,
The Israel of the Alps,
volume 1, part 2, chapters 6-9._

WALDENSES: A. D. 1691.
Toleration obtained by William of Orange.

"In the spring of 1691, the Waldensian shepherds, long and
cruelly persecuted, and weary of their lives, were surprised
by glad tidings. Those who had been in prison for heresy
returned to their homes. Children, who had been taken from
their parents to be educated by priests, were sent back.
Congregations, which had hitherto met only by stealth and with
extreme peril, now worshipped God without molestation in the
face of day. Those simple mountaineers probably never knew
that their fate had been a subject of discussion at the Hague,
and that they owed the happiness of their firesides and the
security of their humble temples to the ascendency which
William [of Orange] exercised over the Duke of Savoy," who had
lately joined the Grand Alliance against Louis XIV. of France.

_Lord Macaulay,
History of England,
chapter 17._

----------WALDENSES: End--------

WALDSHUT: Capture by Duke Bernhard (1637).

See GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639.

----------WALES: Start--------

WALES:
Origin of the name.

See WELSH.

WALES:
Ancient tribes.

See BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES.

WALES: 6th Century.
The British states embraced in it.

See BRITAIN: 6TH CENTURY.

WALES: A. D. 1066-1135.
The Norman Conquest.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1087-1135.

WALES: A. D. 1282-1284.
The final conquest.

"All the other races had combined on the soil of Britain, the
Welsh would not. The demands of feudal homage made by the
kings of England were evaded or repudiated; the intermarriages
by which Henry II. and John had tried to help on a national
agreement had in every case failed. In every internal
difficulty of English politics the Welsh princes had done
their best to embarrass the action of the kings; they had
intrigued with every aspirant for power, had been in league
with every rebel. … The necessity of guarding the Welsh border
had caused the English kings to found on the March a number of
feudal lordships, which were privileged to exercise almost
sovereign jurisdictions, and exempted from the common
operation of the English law. The Mortimers at Chirk and
Wigmore, the Bohuns at Hereford and Brecon, the Marshalls at
Pembroke, and the Clares in Glamorgan, were out of the reach
of the King, and often turned against one another the arms
which had been given them to overawe the Welsh. … So long as
the Welsh were left free to rebel the Marchers must be left
free to fight. … Llewelyn, the prince of North Wales, had, by
the assistance given to Simon de Montfort, earned as his
reward a recognition of his independence, subject only to the
ancient feudal obligations. All the advantages won during the
early years of Henry III. had been thus surrendered. When the
tide turned Llewelyn had done homage to Henry; but when he was
invited, in 1273, to perform the usual service to the new
king, he refused; and again, in 1274 and 1275, he evaded the
royal summons. In 1276, under the joint pressure of
excommunication and a great army which Edward brought against
him, he made a formal submission; performed the homage, and
received, as a pledge of amity, the hand of Eleanor de
Montfort in marriage. But Eleanor, although she was Edward's
cousin, was Earl Simon's daughter, and scarcely qualified to
be a peacemaker. Another adviser of rebellion was found in
Llewelyn's brother David, who had hitherto taken part with the
English, and had received special favours and promotion from
Edward himself. … The peace made in 1277 lasted about four
years. In 1282 the brothers rose, seized the border castles of
Hawarden, Flint, and Rhuddlan, and captured the Justiciar of
Wales, Roger Clifford. Edward saw then that his time was come.
He marched into North Wales, carrying with him the courts of
law and the exchequer, and transferring the seat of government
for the time to Shrewsbury. He left nothing undone that might
give the expedition the character of a national effort. He
collected forces on all sides; he assembled the estates of the
realm, clergy, lords, and commons, and prevailed on them to
furnish liberal supplies; he obtained sentence of
excommunication from the Archbishop of Canterbury. The Welsh
made a brave defence, and, had it not been for the almost
accidental capture and murder of Llewelyn in December, England
might have found the task too hard for her. The death of
Llewelyn, however, and the capture of David in the following
June, deprived the Welsh of their leaders, and they submitted.
Edward began forthwith his work of consolidation. … In 1284 he
published at Rhuddlan a statute, called the Statute of Wales,
which was intended to introduce the laws and customs of
England, and to reform the administration of that country
altogether on the English system. The process was a slow one;
the Welsh retained their ancient common law and their national
spirit; the administrative powers were weak and not
far-reaching; the sway of the lords Marchers was suffered to
continue; and, although assimilated, Wales was not
incorporated with England. It was not until the reign of Henry
VIII. that the principality was represented in the English
Parliament, and the sovereignty, which from 1300 onwards was
generally although not invariably bestowed on the king's
eldest son, conferred under the most favourable circumstances
little more than a high-sounding title and some slight and
ideal claim to the affection of a portion of the Welsh people.
The task, however, which the energies of his predecessors had
failed to accomplish was achieved by Edward. All Britain south
of the Tweed recognised his direct and supreme authority, and
the power of the Welsh nationality was so far broken that it
could never more thwart the determined and united action of
England."

_W. Stubbs,
The Early Plantagenets,
chapter 10._

ALSO IN:
_D. Hume,
History of England,
chapter 13._

_J. Lingard,
History of England,
volume 3, chapter 3._

_C. Knight,
Popular History of England,
chapter 25._

_C. H. Pearson,
History of England during the Early and Middle Ages._

{3644}

WALES: A. D. 1402-1413.
Owen Glendower's Rebellion.

"Since the day when it was conquered by Edward I. Wales had
given the kings of England very little trouble. The Welsh
remained loyal to the son and grandson of their conqueror, and
were the most devoted friends of Richard II., even when he had
lost the hearts of his English subjects. But on the usurpation
of Henry [IV.] their allegiance seems to have been shaken: and
Owen Glendower, who was descended from Llewelyn, the last
native prince of Wales, laid claim to the sovereignty of the
country [A. D. 1402]. He ravaged the territory of Lord Grey of
Ruthin, and took him prisoner near Snowdon; then, turning
southwards, overran Herefordshire and defeated and took
prisoner Sir Edmund Mortimer, uncle to that young Earl of
March, who should have been heir to the crown after Richard
according to the true order of descent. In this battle upwards
of a thousand Englishmen were slain, and such was the fierce
barbarity of the victors that even the women of Wales
mutilated the dead bodies in a manner too gross to be
described, and left them unburied upon the field till heavy
sums were paid for their interment. It was necessary to put
down this revolt of Glendower, and the King collected an army
and went against him in person. It was the beginning of
September; but owing, as the people thought, to magical arts
and enchantments practised by the Welshman, the army suffered
dreadfully from tempests of wind, rain, snow, and hail before
it could reach the enemy. In one night the King's tent was
blown down, and he himself would have been killed if he had
not retired to rest with his armour on. Finally the enterprise
had to be abandoned. … Glendower continued as troublesome as
ever, and the King was unable from various causes to make much
progress against him. At one time money could not easily be
raised for the expedition. At another time, when he actually
marched into the borders of Wales [A. D. 1405], his advance
was again impeded by the elements. The rivers swelled to an
unusual extent, and the army lost a great part of its baggage
by the suddenness of the inundation. The French, too, sent
assistance to Glendower, and took Carmarthen Castle. Some time
afterwards [A. D. 1407] the King's son, Henry Prince of Wales,
succeeded in taking the castle of Aberystwith; but very soon
after Owen Glendower recovered it by stealth. In short, the
Welsh succeeded in maintaining their independence of England
during this whole reign, and Owen Glendower ultimately got
leave to die in peace." On the accession of Henry V. (A. D.
1413), "the Welsh, who had been so troublesome to his father,
admired his valour and claimed him as a true prince of Wales,
remembering that he had been born at Monmouth, which place was
at that time within the principality. They discovered that
there was an ancient prophecy that a prince would be born
among themselves who should rule the whole realm of England;
and they saw its fulfilment in King Henry V."

_J. Gairdner,
The Houses of Lancaster and York,
chapter. 4, section 3;
and chapter 5, section 1._

ALSO IN:
_J. H. Wylie,
History of England under Henry IV.,
volume 1, chapter 14._

----------WALES: End--------

WALES, Prince of.

"When Edward I. subdued Wales, he is said to have promised the
people of that country a native prince who could not speak
English, and taking advantage of the fact that his queen,
Eleanor, was delivered of a child at Carnarvon Castle, in
North Wales, he conferred the principality upon his infant son
Edward, who was yet unable to speak. By the death of his
eldest brother Alphonso, Edward became heir to the throne, to
which he afterwards succeeded as Edward II.; but from this
time forward, the principality has been appropriated solely to
the eldest sons of the kings of England, who previous to this
period had only borne the title of 'Lord Prince.' In 1841, for
the first time, the dukedom of Saxony was introduced among the
reputed titles of the Prince of Wales. This dignity his Royal
Highness derives merely in right of his own paternal descent.
… Without any new creation, and previous to his acquiring the
title of Prince of Wales, the heir-apparent of the sovereign
is Duke of Cornwall, the most ancient title of its degree in
England. Edward the Black Prince … was created the first Duke
of Cornwall in 1337. … The dukedom merges in the Crown when
there is no heir apparent, and is immediately inherited by the
prince on his birth, or by the accession of his father to the
throne, as the case may be. … The earldom of Chester is one of
the titles conferred by patent, but it was formerly a
principality, into which it had been erected by the 21st of
Richard II. In the reign of Henry IV., however, the act of
parliament by which it had been constituted was repealed, and
it has ever since been granted in the same patent which
confers the title of Prince of Wales. As the eldest sons of
the kings of Scotland have enjoyed the titles of Duke of
Rothsay, Earl of Carrick, Baron Renfrew, and Hereditary Great
Steward of Scotland, those dignities are also invariably
attributed to the Prince of Wales."

_C. R. Dodd,
Manual of Dignities,
part 2._

WALI.

An Arabian title, given to certain governors of extensive
provinces under the caliphate. It seems to have had a
viceroyal significance, marking the bearer of it as an
immediate representative of the caliph.

_T. P. Hughes,
Dictionary of Islam._

WALID I., Caliph, A. D. 705-715.

Walid II., Caliph, 743-744.

WALKER, William:
Filibustering in Nicaragua.

See NICARAGUA: A. D. 1855-1860.

WALL IN BRITAIN, Roman.

See ROMAN WALLS IN BRITAIN.

WALL OF CHINA, The Great.

See CHINA: THE ORIGIN OF THE PEOPLE.

WALL OF PROBUS.

See GERMANY: A. D. 277.

WALLACE, William, and the Scottish struggle for independence.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1290-1305.

{3645}

WALLACHS, WALLACHIANS. WALLACHIA: The name.

This is one of the forms of a name which the ancient Germanic
peoples seem to have given to non-Germanic nations whom they
associated in any wise with the Roman empire.

See WELSH.

For an account of the Wallachians of southeastern Europe, and
their country.

See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES.

WALLENSTEIN, Campaigns of.

See GERMANY:
A. D. 1624-1626; 1627-1629; 1630; 1631-1632; and 1632-1634.

WALLHOF, Battle of (1626).

See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1611-1629.

WALLINGFORD, Treaty of.

A treaty concluded, A. D. 1153, between King Stephen and
Matilda, who claimed the English crown as the heir of her
father, Henry I. By the treaty Stephen was recognized as king
and Matilda's son Henry (who became Henry II.) was made his
heir.

WALLOONS, The.

"In Namur, Liege, and Luxembourg, the speech is what is called
Walloon, the same word as Welsh, and derived from the German
root 'wealh,' a foreigner. By this designation the Germans of
the Flemish tongue denoted the Romano-Belgic population whose
language was akin to the French, and whom a hilly and
impracticable country (the forest districts of the Ardennes)
had more or less protected from their own arms. Now the
Walloon is a form of the Romano-Keltic so peculiar and
independent that it must be of great antiquity, i. e., as old
as the oldest dialect of the French, and no extension of the
dialects of Lorraine, or Champagne, from which it differs
materially. It is also a language which must have been formed
on a Keltic basis. … The Walloons, then, are Romano-Keltic;
whereas the Flemings are Germans, in speech and in blood."

_R. G. Latham,
Ethnology of Europe,
chapter 3._

See, also, NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1494-1519.

WALPOLE, The administration of.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1714-1721, and 1727-1741.

WALPOLE COMPANY, The.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1765-1768.

WÄLSCH, The.

See VENEDI.

WALTER, the Penniless, Crusade of.

See CRUSADES: A. D. 1096-1099.

WAMPANOAGS, POKANOKETS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY;
also, NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1674-1675, 1675, 1676-1678.

WAMPUM.