Chapter 3: , page 89 (61)

"Hastings, Sandwich, Dover, Romney, Hythe—this is the order
in which the Cinque Ports were ranked in the times when they
formed a flourishing and important confederation. Winchelsea
and Rye were added to these five … soon after the Norman
Conquest. … The new comers were officially known as 'the two
Ancient Towns.' When therefore we wish to speak of this famous
corporation with strict accuracy we say, 'The five Cinque
Ports and two Ancient Towns.' The repetition of the number
'five' in this title probably never struck people so much as
we might expect, since it very soon came to be merely a
technical term, the French form of the word being pronounced,
and very often spelt 'Synke' or 'Sinke,' just as if it was the
English 'Sink.' … The difference between the Cinque Ports
and the rest of the English coast towns is plainly indicated
by mediæval custom, since they were generally spoken of
collectively as 'The Ports.' … Most writers upon this
subject … have been at pains to connect the Cinque Ports by
some sort of direct descent with the five Roman stations and
fortresses which, under the Comes Littoris Saxonici [see SAXON
SHORE, COUNT OF], guarded the south-eastern shores of
Britain."

_M. Burrows,
The Cinque Ports,
chapters 1-3._

"Our kings have thought them [the Cinque Ports] worthy a
peculiar regard; and, in order to secure them against
invasions, have granted them a particular form of government.
They are under a keeper, who has the title of Lord Warden of
the Cinque Ports (an officer first appointed by William the
Conqueror), who has the authority of an admiral among them,
and issues out writs in his own name. The privileges anciently
annexed to these ports and their dependents were [among
others]: An exemption from all taxes and tolls. … A power to
punish foreigners, as well as natives, for theft. … A power
to raise mounds or banks in any man's land against breaches of
the sea. … To convert to their own use such goods as they
found floating on the sea; those thrown out of ships in a
storm; and those driven ashore when no wreck or ship was to be
seen. To be a guild or fraternity, and to be allowed the
franchises of court-leet and court-baron. A power to assemble
and keep a portmote or parliament for the Cinque Ports.
{472}
… Their barons to have the privilege of supporting the
canopy over the king's head at his coronation. In return for
these privileges the Cinque Ports were required to fit out 57
ships, each manned with 21 men and a boy, with which they were
to attend the king's service for 15 days at their own expense;
but if the state of affairs required their assistance any
longer they were to be paid by the crown. … As the term
baron occurs continually throughout all the charters of the
Ports, it may not be improper to inform our readers that it is
of the same import as burgess or freeman. … The
representatives of the Ports in parliament are to this day
styled barons." The post of Warden of the Cinque Ports,
"formerly considered of so much honour and consequence, is now
converted into a patent sinecure place, for life, with a
salary of £4,000 a year."

_History of the Boroughs of Great Britain;
together with the Cinque Ports, volume 3._

The office of Warden of the Cinque Ports has been held during
the present century by Mr. Pitt, the Earl of Liverpool, the
Duke of Wellington, the Earl of Dalhousie, Viscount
Palmerston, and Earl Granville.

CINTRA, Convention of.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1808-1809 (AUGUST-JANUARY).

CIOMPI, Tumult of the.

See FLORENCE: A. D. 1378-1427.

CIRCARS, OR SIRKARS, The northern.

See INDIA: A. D. 1758-1761.

CIRCASSIANS.

See CAUCASUS.

CIRCLES OF GERMANY, The.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1493-1519.

CIRCUMCELLIONES, The.

See DONATISTS.

CIRCUMNAVIGATION OF THE WORLD: A. D. 1519-1522.
Magellan's voyage: the first in history.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1519-1524.

CIRCUMNAVIGATION OF THE WORLD: A. D. 1577-1580.
Drake's voyage.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1572-1580.

----------CIRCUMNAVIGATION: End----------

CIRCUS, Factions of the Roman.

"The race, in its first institution [among the Romans], was a
simple contest, of two chariots, whose drivers were
distinguished by white and red liveries: two additional
colours, a light green and a cerulian blue, were afterwards
introduced; and as the races were repeated twenty-five times,
one hundred chariots contributed in the same day to the pomp
of the circus. The four factions soon acquired a legal
establishment and a mysterious origin, and their fanciful
colours were derived from the various appearances of nature in
the four seasons of the year. … Another interpretation
preferred the elements to the seasons, and the struggle of the
green and blue was supposed to represent the conflict of the
earth and sea. Their respective victories announced either a
plentiful harvest or a prosperous navigation, and the
hostility of the husbandmen and mariners was somewhat less
absurd than the blind ardour of the Roman people, who devoted
their lives and fortunes to the colour which they had
espoused. … Constantinople adopted the follies, though not
the virtues, of ancient Rome; and the same factions which had
agitated the circus raged with redoubled fury in the
hippodrome. Under the reign of Anastasius [A. D. 491-518] this
popular frenzy was inflamed by religious zeal; and the greens,
who had treacherously concealed stones and daggers under
baskets of fruit, massacred, at a solemn festival, 3,000 of
their blue adversaries. From the capital this pestilence was
diffused into the provinces and cities of the East, and the
sportive distinction of two colours produced two strong and
irreconcilable factions, which shook the foundations of a
feeble government. … A sedition, which almost laid
Constantinople in ashes, was excited by the mutual hatred and
momentary reconciliation of the two factions." This fearful
tumult, which acquired the name of the Nika sedition, from the
cry, "Nika" (vanquish), adopted by the rioters, broke out in
connection with the celebration of the festival of the Ides of
January, A. D. 532. For five days the city was given up to the
mob and large districts in it were burned, including many
churches and other stately edifices. The emperor Justinian
would have abandoned his palace and throne, but for the heroic
opposition of his consort, Theodora. On the sixth day, the
imperial authority was re-established by the great soldier,
Belisarius, after 30,000 citizens had been slain in the
hippodrome and in the streets.

_E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 40.
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717_

CIRCUS MAXIMUS AT ROME, The.

"The races and wild beast shows in the circi were among the
most ancient and most favourite Roman amusements, and the
buildings dedicated to these sports were numerous, and nearly
equal in magnificence to the amphitheatres. The Circus
Maximus, which was first provided with permanent seats for the
spectators as early as the time of Tarquinius Priscus, was
successively restored and ornamented by the republican
government in 327 and 174 B. C. and by Julius Cæsar, Augustus,
Claudius, Domitian and Trojan. The result was a building
which, in dimensions and magnificence, rivalled the Coliseum,
but has, unfortunately, proved far less durable, scarcely a
vestige of it now being left."

_R. Burn,
Rome and the Campagna,
introduction and chapter 12._

See, also, FORUM BOARIUM.

CIRENCESTER, Origin of.

See CORINIUM.

CIRRHA.

See DELPHI.

CIRRHÆAN, OR KIRRHÆAN WAR, THE.

See ATHENS: B. C. 610-586, and DELPHI.

CIRTA.

An ancient Numidian city. The modern town of Constantina in
Algeria is on its site.

See NUMIDIANS.

CISALPINE GAUL (GALLIA CISALPINA).

See ROME: B. C. 390-347.

CISALPINE REPUBLIC.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1796-1797 (OCTOBER-APRIL);
1797 (MAY-OCTOBER);
1799 (APRIL-SEPTEMBER); and 1801-1803.

CISLEITHANIA.

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1866-1867.

CISPADANE GAUL.
Cisalpine Gaul south of the Padus, or Po.

See PADUS.

CISPADANE REPUBLIC, The.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1796-1797 (OCTOBER-APRIL),
and 1797 (MAY-OCTOBER).

CISSIA (KISSIA).

See ELAM.

{473}

CISTERCIAN ORDER.
The Monastery of Citeaux.

"Harding was an Englishman who spent his boyhood in the
monastery of Sherborne in Dorset, till he was seized with a
passion for wandering and for study which led him first to
Scotland, then to Gaul, and at last to Rome. It chanced that
on his return thence, passing through the duchy of Burgundy,
he stopped at the abbey of Molêmes. As he saw the ways and
habits familiar to his childhood reproduced in those of the
monks, the wanderer's heart yearned for the peaceful life
which he had forsaken; he took the vows, and became a brother
of the house. But when, with the zeal of a convert, he began
to look more closely into his monastic obligations, he
perceived that the practice of Molêmes, and indeed of most
other monasteries, fell very far short of the strict rule of
S. Benedict. He remonstrated with his brethren till they had
no rest in their minds. At last after long and anxious debates
in the chapter, the abbot determined to go to the root of the
matter, and appointed two brethren, whose learning was
equalled by their piety, to examine diligently the original
rule and declare what they found in it. The result of their
investigations justified Harding's reproaches and caused a
schism in the convent. The majority refused to alter their
accustomed ways; finding they were not to be reformed, the
zealous minority, consisting of Robert the abbot, Harding
himself (or Stephen as he was called in religion) and sixteen
others equally 'stiff-necked in their holy obstinacy,' left
Molêmes, and sought a new abode in the wilderness. The site
which they chose—in the diocese of Chalon-sur-Saône, not far
from Dijon—was no happy valley, no 'green retreat' such as
the earlier Benedictine founders had been wont to select. It
was a dismal swamp overgrown with brushwood, a forlorn,
dreary, unhealthy spot, from whose marshy character the new
house took its name of 'the Cistern'—Cistellum, commonly
called Citeaux. There the little band set to work in 1098 to
carry into practice their views of monastic duty. …
Three-and-twenty daughter houses were brought to completion
during his [Harding's] life-time. One of the earliest was
Pontigny, founded in 1114, and destined in after-days to
become inseparably associated with the name of another English
saint. Next year there went forth another Cistercian colony,
whose glory was soon to eclipse that of the mother-house
itself. Its leader was a young monk called Bernard, and the
place of its settlement was named Clairvaux. From Burgundy and
Champagne the 'White Monks,' as the Cistercians were called
from the colour of their habit, soon spread over France and
Normandy. In 1128 they crossed the sea and made an entrance
into their founder's native land."

_K. Norgate,
England under the Angevin Kings,
volume 1, chapter 1._

ALSO IN: _S. R. Maitland, The Dark Ages, 21._

CITEAUX, The Monastery of.

See CISTERCIAN ORDER.

CITIES, Chartered.

See COMMUNE;
also BOROUGHS, and GUILDS.

CITIES, Free, of Italy.

See ITALY: A. D. 1056-1152, and after.

CITIES, Imperial and Free, of Germany

"The territorial disintegration of Germany [see GERMANY: 13TH
CENTURY] had introduced a new and beneficial element into the
national life, by allowing the rise and growth of the free
cities. These were of two classes: those which stood in
immediate connection with the Empire, and were practically
independent republics; and those which, while owning some
dependence upon spiritual or temporal princes, had yet
conquered for themselves a large measure of self-government.
The local distribution of the former, which is curiously
unequal, depended upon the circumstances which attended the
dissolution of the old tribal dukedoms. Wherever some powerful
house was able to seize upon the inheritance, free cities were
few: wherever the contrary was the case, they sprang up in
abundance. In Swabia and on the Rhine there were more than a
hundred: Franconia on the contrary counted only Nürnberg and
five smaller cities: Westphalia, Dortmund and Herford: while
in Bavaria, Regensburg stood alone. … The Imperial free
cities … were self-governed, under constitutions in which
the aristocratic and the democratic elements mingled in
various proportions: they provided for their own defence: they
were republics, in the midst of States where the personal will
of the ruler counted for more and more. … In these cities
the refined and luxurious civilization, to which the princes
were indifferent, and on which the knights waged predatory
war, found expression in the pursuit of letters and the
cultivation of the arts of life. There, too, the Imperial
feeling, which was elsewhere slowly dying out of the land,
retained much of its force. The cities held, so to speak,
directly of the Empire, to which they looked for protection
against powerful and lawless neighbours, and they felt that
their liberties and privileges were bound up with the
maintenance of the general order. … In them, too, as we
might naturally expect, religious life put on a freer aspect."

_C. Beard,
Martin Luther and the Reformation,
page 16._

"Prior to the peace of Luneville [1801], Germany possessed 133
free cities, called Reichstädte. A Reichstadt ('civitas
imperii') was a town under the immediate authority of the
Emperor, who was represented by an imperial official called a
Vogt or Schultheis. The first mention of the term 'civitas
imperii' (imperial city) occurs in an edict of the emperor
Frederick II. [1214-1250], in which Lubeck was declared a
'civitas imperii' in perpetuity. In a later edict, of the year
1287, we find that King Rudolf termed the following places
'civitates regni' (royal cities), viz., Frankfort, Friedberg,
Wetzlar, Oppenheim, Wesel, and Boppart. All these royal cities
subsequently became imperial cities in consequence of the
Kings of Germany being again raised to the dignity of
Emperors. During the reign of Louis the Bavarian [1314-1347]
Latin ceased to be the official language, and the imperial
towns were designated in the vernacular 'Richstat.' In course
of time the imperial towns acquired, either by purchase or
conquest, their independence. Besides the Reichstädte, there
were Freistädte, or free towns, the principal being Cologne,
Basle, Mayence, Ratisbon, Spires, and Worms. The free towns
appear to have enjoyed the following immunities:—1. They were
exempt from the oath of allegiance to the Emperor. 2. They
were not bound to furnish a contingent for any expedition
beyond the Alps. 3. They were free from all imperial taxes and
duties. 4. They could not be pledged. 5. They were
distinguished from the imperial towns by not having the
imperial eagle emblazoned on the municipal escutcheon."
Subsequently "the free towns were placed on the same footing
as the Reichstädt, and the term 'Freistadt,' or free town, was
disused. The government of the imperial towns was in the hands
of a military and civil governor. … On the imperial towns
becoming independent, the administration of the town was
entrusted to a college of from four to twenty-four persons,
according to the population, and the members of this kind of
town council were called either Rathsmann, Rathsfreund, or
Rathsherr, which means councilman or adviser.
{474}
The town councillors appear to have selected one or more of
their number as presidents, with the title of Rathsmeister,
Burgermeister, or Stadtmeister. … Many of the imperial towns
gained their autonomy either by purchase or force of arms. In
like manner we find that others either lost their privileges
or voluntarily became subjects of some burgrave or
ecclesiastical prince, e. g., Cologne, Worms, and Spires
placed themselves under the jurisdiction of their respective
archbishops, whereas Altenburg, Chemnitz and Zwickau were
seized by Frederick the Quarrelsome in his war with the
Emperor; whilst others, like Hagenau, Colmar, Landau, and
Strasburg, were annexed or torn from the German Empire. As the
Imperial towns increased in wealth and power they extended the
circle of their authority over the surrounding districts, and,
in order to obtain a voice in the affairs of the empire, at
length demanded that the country under their jurisdiction
should be represented at the Reichstag (Imperial Diet). To
accomplish this, they formed themselves into Bunds or
confederations to assert their claims, and succeeded in
forcing the Emperor and the princes to allow their
representatives to take part in the deliberations of the Diet.
The principal confederations brought into existence by the
struggles going on in Germany were the Rhenish and Suabian
Bunds, and the Hansa. [See HANSA TOWNS.] … At the Diet held
at Augsburg in 1474, it appears that almost all the imperial
towns were represented, and in 1648, on the peace of
Westphalia, when their presence in the Diet was formally
recognized, they were formed into a separate college. … By
the peace of Luneville four of the imperial towns, viz.,
Aix-la-Chapelle, Cologne, Spires, and Worms, were ceded to
France. In 1803, all the imperial towns lost their autonomy
with the exception of the following six:—Augsburg, Nuremberg,
Frankfort, Lubeck, Hamburg, and Bremen; and in 1806 the first
three, and in 1810 the others, shared the same fate, but in
1815, on the fall of Napoleon, Bremen, Hamburg, Lubeck, and
Frankfort, recovered their freedom, and were admitted as
members of the German Bund, which they continued to be up to
the year 1866."

_W. J. Wyatt,
History of Prussia,
volume 2, pages 427-432._

"According to the German historians the period of the greatest
splendour of these towns was during the 14th and 15th
centuries. … In the 16th century they still enjoyed the same
prosperity, but the period of their decay was come. The
Thirty-Years War hastened their fall, and scarcely one of them
escaped destruction and ruin during that period. Nevertheless,
the treaty of Westphalia mentions them positively, and asserts
their position as immediate states, that is to say, states
which depended immediately upon the Emperor; but the
neighbouring Sovereigns, on the one hand, and on the other the
Emperor himself, the exercise of whose power, since the
Thirty-Years War, was limited to the lesser vassals of the
empire, restricted their sovereignty within narrower and
narrower limits. In the 18th century, 51 of them were still in
existence, they filled two benches at the diet, and had an
independent vote there; but, in fact, they no longer exercised
any influence upon the direction of general affairs. At home
they were all heavily burthened with debts, partly because
they continued to be charged for the Imperial taxes at a rate
suited to their former splendour, and partly because their own
administration was extremely bad. It is very remarkable that this
bad administration seemed to be the result of some secret
disease which was common to them all, whatever might be the
form of their constitution. … Their population decreased,
and distress prevailed in them. They were no longer the abodes
of German civilization; the arts left them, and went to shine
in the new towns created by the Sovereigns, and representing
modern society. Trade forsook them—their ancient energy and
patriotic vigour disappeared. Hamburg almost alone still
remained a great centre of wealth and intelligence, but this
was owing to causes quite peculiar to herself."

_A. de Tocqueville,
State of Society in France before 1789,
note C._

See, also, HANSA TOWNS.

Of the 48 Free Cities of the Empire remaining in 1803, 42 were
then robbed of their franchises, under the exigencies of the
Treaty of Luneville (see GERMANY: A. D. 1801-1803). After the
Peace of Pressburg only three survived, namely, Hamburg,
Lubeck and Bremen (see GERMANY: A. D. 1805-1806). These were
annexed to France by Napoleon in 1810.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1810 (FEBRUARY-DECEMBER).

The Congress of Vienna, in 1815, restored freedom to them, and
to Frankfort, likewise, and they became members of the
Germanic Confederation then formed.

See VIENNA, THE CONGRESS of.

Lubeck gave up its privileges as a free city in 1866, joining
the Prussian Customs Union. Hamburg and Bremen did the same in
1888, being absorbed in the Empire. This extinguished the last
of the "free cities."

See GERMANY: A. D. 1888.

CITY.

See BOROUGH.

CITY OF THE VIOLET CROWN.

"Ancient poets called Athens 'The City of the Violet Crown,'
with an unmistakable play upon the name of the Ionian stock to
which it belonged, and which called to mind the Greek word for
violet."

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

CITY REPUBLICS, Italian.

See ITALY: A. D. 1056-1152.

CIUDAD RODRIDGO: A. D. 1810-1812.
Twice besieged and captured by the French and by the English.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1810-1812.

CIVES ROMANI AND PEREGRINI.

"Before the Social or Marsic war (B. C. 90) there were only
two classes within the Roman dominions who were designated by
a political name, Cives Romani, or Roman citizens, and
Peregrini, a term which comprehended the Latini, the Socii and
the Provinciales, such as the inhabitants of Sicily. The Cives
Romani were the citizens of Rome, the citizens of Roman
colonies and the inhabitants of the Municipia which had
received the Roman citizenship."

_G. Long,
Decline of the Roman Republic,
chapter 17._

See, also, ROME: B. C. 90-88.

CIVIL RIGHTS BILL,
The First.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1866 (April).-

The Second, and its declared unconstitutionality.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1875.

{475}

CIVIL-SERVICE REFORM IN ENGLAND.

"It was not till long after 1832 that the inherent mischief of
the partisan system [of appointments in the national civil
service] became manifest to the great body of thinking people.
When that result was attained, the final struggle with
patronage in the hands of members of Parliament began on a
large scale. It seems to have been, even then, foreseen by the
best informed that it could not be removed by any partisan
agency. They began to see the need of some method by which
fitness for the public service could be tested otherwise than
by the fiat of a member of Parliament or the vote of the
Cabinet or the Treasury. What that method should be was one of
the great problems of the future. No government had then
solved it. That there must be tests of fitness independent of
any political action, or mere official influence, became more
and more plain to thinking men. The leaders of the great
parties soon began to see that a public opinion in favor of
such tests was being rapidly developed, which seriously
threatened their power, unless the party system itself could
be made more acceptable to the people. … There was an
abundance of fine promises made. But no member gave up his
patronage—no way was opened by which a person of merit could
get into an office or a place except by the favor of the party
or the condescension of a member. The partisan blockade of
every port of entry to the public service, which made it
tenfold easier for a decayed butler or an incompetent cousin
of a member or a minister, than for the promising son of a
poor widow, to pass the barrier, was, after the Reform Bill as
before, rigidly maintained. Fealty to the party and work in
its ranks—subserviency to members and to ministers—and
electioneering on their behalf—these were the virtues before
which the ways to office and the doors of the Treasury were
opened. Year by year, the public discontent with the whole
system increased. … During the Melbourne administration,
between 1834 and 1841, a demand for examinations, as a
condition for admission to the service, came from two very
different quarters. One was the higher officials, who declared
that they could not do the public work with such poor servants
as the partisan system supplied. The other was the more
independent, thoughtful portion of the people, who held it to
be as unjust as it was demoralizing for members of Parliament
and other officers to monopolize the privilege of saying who
might enter the public service. Lord Melbourne then yielded so
far as to allow pass examinations to be instituted in some of
the larger offices; and he was inclined to favor competitive
examinations, but it was thought to be too great an innovation
to attempt at once. These examinations—several of them being
competitive—introduced by public officers in self-defence
many years previous to 1853, had before that time produced
striking results. In the Poor Law Commission, for example,
they had brought about a reform that arrested public
attention. Under the Committee on Education, they had caused
the selection of teachers so much superior 'that higher
salaries were bidden for them for private service.' … These
examinations were steadily extended from office to office down
to the radical change made in 1853. … It had been provided,
long before 1853, that those designed for the civil service of
India, should not only be subjected to a pass examination, but
should, before entering the service, be subjected to a course
of special instruction at Haileybury College, a sort of civil
West Point. This College was abolished in 1854, but equivalent
instruction was elsewhere provided for. The directors had the
patronage of nomination for such instruction. … If it seems
strange that a severe course of study, for two years in such a
college, was not sufficient to weed out the incompetents which
patronage forced into it, we must bear in mind that the same
influence which sent them there was used to keep them there.
… Both the Derby and the Aberdeen administrations, in 1852
and 1853, took notice that the civil service was in a
condition of peril to British India; and, without distinction
of party, it was agreed that radical reforms must be promptly
made. There was corruption, there was inefficiency, there was
disgraceful ignorance, there was a humiliating failure in the
government to command the respect of the more intelligent
portion of the people of India, and there was a still more
alarming failure to overawe the unruly classes. It was as bad
in the army as in the civil offices. … There was, in short,
a hotbed of abuses prolific of those influences which caused
the fearful outbreak of 1857. It was too late when reform was
decided upon, to prevent the outbreak, but not too late to
save British supremacy in India. A change of system was
entered upon in 1853. The 36th and 37th clauses of the India
act of that year provided 'that all powers, rights, and
privileges of the court of directors of the said India Company
to nominate or appoint persons to be admitted as students …
shall cease; and that, subject to such regulations as might be
made, any person, being a natural born subject of her Majesty,
who might be desirous of presenting himself, should be
admitted to be examined as a candidate.' Thus, it will be
seen, Indian patronage received its death-blow, and the same
blow opened the door of study for the civil service of India
to every British citizen. … In 1853, the British Government
had reached a final decision that the partisan system of
appointments could not be longer tolerated. Substantial
control of nominations by members of Parliament, however
guarded by restrictions and improved by mere pass
examinations, had continued to be demoralizing in its effect
upon elections, vicious in its influence upon legislation, and
fatal to economy and efficiency in the departments. … The
administration, with Lord Aberdeen at its head, promptly
decided to undertake a radical and systematic reform. … It
was decided that, in the outset, no application should be made
to Parliament. The reform should be undertaken by the English
Executive … for the time being. The first step decided upon
was an inquiry into the exact condition of the public service.
Sir Stafford Northcote (the present Chancellor of the
Exchequer) and Sir Charles Trevelyan were appointed in 1853 to
make such inquiry and a report. They submitted their report in
November of the same year. … A system of competitive
examinations … [was] recommended. … The report was
accompanied with a scheme for carrying the examinations into
effect, from which quote the following passages.
{476}
… 'Such a measure will exercise the happiest influence in
the education of the lower classes throughout England, acting
by the surest of all motives—the desire a man has of
bettering himself in life. … They will have attained their
situations in an independent manner through their own merits.
The sense of this conduct cannot but induce self-respect and
diffuse a wholesome respect among the lower no less than the
higher classes of official men. … The effect of it in giving
a stimulus to the education of the lower classes can hardly be
overestimated.' Such was the spirit of the report. This was
the theory of the merit system, then first approved by an
English administration for the home government. I hardly need
repeat that the examinations referred to as existing were
(with small exception) mere pass examinations, and that the
new examinations proposed were open, competitive examinations.
… But the great feature of the report, which made it really
a proposal for the introduction of a new system, was its
advocacy of open competition. Except the experiment just put
on trial in India, no nation had adopted that system. It was
as theoretical as it was radical. … A chorus of ridicule,
indignation, lamentation, and wrath arose from all the
official and partisan places of politics. The government saw
that a further struggle was at hand. It appeared more clear
than ever that Parliament was not a very hopeful place in
which to trust the tender years of such a reform. … The
executive caused the report to be spread broadcast among the
people, and also requested the written opinions of a large
number of persons of worth and distinction both in and out of
office. The report was sent to Parliament, but no action upon
it was requested. … About the time that English public
opinion had pronounced its first judgment upon the official
report, and before any final action had been taken upon it,
the Aberdeen administration went out. … Lord Palmerston came
into power early in 1855, than whom, this most practical of
nations never produced a more hard-headed, practical
statesman. … Upon his administration fell the duty of
deciding the fate of the new system advocated in the report.
… He had faith in his party, and believed it would gain more
by removing grave abuses than by any partisan use of
patronage. … Making no direct appeal to Parliament, and
trusting to the higher public opinion, Lord Palmerston's
administration advised that an order should be made by the
Queen in Council for carrying the reform into effect; and such
an order was made on the 21st of May, 1855."

_D. B. Eaton,
Civil Service in Great Britain._

CIVIL-SERVICE REFORM IN THE UNITED STATES.

"The question as to the Civil Service [in the United States]
arises from the fact that the president has the power of
appointing a vast number of petty officials, chiefly
postmasters and officials concerned with the collection of the
federal revenue. Such officials have properly nothing to do
with politics, they are simply the agents or clerks or
servants of the national government in conducting its
business; and if the business of the national government is to
be managed on such ordinary principles of prudence as prevail
in the management of private business, such servants ought to
be selected for personal merit and retained for life or during
good behaviour. It did not occur to our earlier presidents to
regard the management of the public business in any other
light than this. But as early as the beginning of the present
century a vicious system was growing up in New York and
Pennsylvania. In those states the appointive offices came to
be used as bribes or as rewards for partisan services. By
securing votes for a successful candidate, a man with little
in his pocket and nothing in particular to do could obtain
some office with a comfortable salary. It would be given to
him as a reward, and some other man, perhaps more competent
than himself, would have to be turned out in order to make
room for him. A more effective method of driving good citizens
'out of politics' could hardly be devised. It called to the
front a large class of men of coarse moral fibre. … The
civil service of these states was seriously damaged in
quality, politics degenerated into a wild scramble for
offices, salaries were paid to men who did little or no public
service in return, and the line which separates taxation from
robbery was often crossed. About the same time there grew up
an idea that there is something especially democratic, and
therefore meritorious, about 'rotation in office.'" On the
change of party which took place upon the election of Jackson
to the presidency in 1828, "the methods of New York and
Pennsylvania were applied on a national scale. Jackson
cherished the absurd belief that the administration of his
predecessor Adams had been corrupt, and he turned men out of
office with a keen zest. During the forty years between
Washington's first inauguration and Jackson's the total number
of removals from office was 74, and out of this number 5 were
defaulters. During the first year of Jackson's
administration the number of changes made in the civil service
was about 2,000. Such was the abrupt inauguration upon a
national scale of the so-called Spoils System. The phrase
originated with W. L. Marcy, of New York, who, in a speech in
the senate in 1831 declared that 'to the victors belong the
spoils.' … In the canvass of 1840 the Whigs promised to
reform the civil service, and the promise brought them many
Democratic votes; but after they had won the election they
followed Jackson's example. The Democrats followed in the same
way in 1845, and from that time down to 1885 it was customary
at each change of party to make a 'clean sweep' of the
offices. Soon after the Civil War the evils of the system
began to attract serious attention on the part of thoughtful
people."

_J. Fiske,
Civil Government in the United States,
pages 261-264._

"It was not until 1867 that any important move was made
[toward a reform]. … This was by Mr. Jencks, of Rhode
Island, who introduced a bill, made an able report and several
speeches in its behalf. Unfortunately, death soon put an end
to his labors and deprived the cause of an able advocate. But
the seed he had sown bore good fruit. Attention was so
awakened to the necessity of reform, that President Grant, in
his message in 1870, called the attention of Congress to it,
and that body passed an act in March, 1871, which authorized
the President to prescribe, for admission to the Civil
Service, such regulations as would best promote its
efficiency, and ascertain the fitness of each candidate for
the position he sought. For this purpose, it says, he may
'employ suitable persons to conduct such inquiries, and may
prescribe their duties, and establish regulations for the
conduct of persons who may receive appointments in the Civil
Service.'
{477}
In accordance with this act, President Grant appointed a Civil
Service Commission, of which George William Curtis was made
chairman, afterwards succeeded by Dorman B. Eaton, and an
appropriation of $25,000 was made by Congress to defray its
expenses. A like sum was voted next year; but after that
nothing was granted until June, 1882, when, instead of $25,000
asked for by the President, $15,000 was grudgingly
appropriated. It is due to Mr. Silas W. Burt, Naval Officer in
New York, who had long been greatly interested in the subject
of Reform, to say that he deserves the credit of having been
the first to introduce open competitive examinations. Before
the appointment of Grant's committee, he had held such an
examination in his office. … Under Grant's commission, open
competitive examinations were introduced in the departments at
Washington, and Customs Service at New York, and in part in
the New York Post office. Although this commission labored
under many disadvantages in trying a new experiment, it was
able to make a very satisfactory report, which was approved by
the President and his cabinet. … The rules adopted by
Grant's commission were prepared by the chairman, Mr. Curtis.
They were admirably adapted for their purpose, and have served
as the basis of similar rules since then. The great interest
taken by Mr. Curtis at that time, and the practical value of
his work, entitled him to be regarded as the leader of the
Reform. … Other able men took an active part in the
movement, but the times were not propitious, public sentiment
did not sustain them, and Congress refused any further
appropriation, although the President asked for it. As a
consequence, Competitive Examinations were everywhere
suspended, and a return made to 'pass examinations.' And this
method continued in use at Washington until July, 1883, after
the passage of the Civil Service Reform Act. … President
Hayes favored reform of the Civil Service, and strongly urged
it in his messages to Congress; yet he did things not
consistent with his professions, and Congress paid little
attention to his recommendations, and gave him no effectual
aid. But we owe it to him that an order was passed in March,
1879, enforcing the use of competitive examinations in the New
York Custom House. The entire charge of this work was given to
Mr. Burt by the Collector. … In 1880, Postmaster James
revived the competitive methods in some parts of his office.
… When the President, desiring that these examinations
should be more general and uniform, asked Congress for an
appropriation, it was refused. But, notwithstanding this,
competitive examinations continued to be held in the New York
Custom House and Post office until the passage of the Reform
Act of 1883. Feeling that more light was needed upon the
methods and progress of reform in other countries, President
Hayes had formally requested Mr. Dorman B. Eaton to visit
England for the purpose of making such inquiries. Mr. Eaton
spent several months in a careful, thorough examination; and
his report was transmitted to Congress in December, 1879, by
the President, in a message which described it as an elaborate
and comprehensive history of the whole subject. This report
was afterwards embodied in Mr. Eaton's 'Civil Service in Great
Britain.' … For this invaluable service Mr. Eaton received
no compensation from the Government, not even his personal
expenses to England having been paid. And to Mr. Eaton is due,
also, the credit of originating Civil Service Reform
Associations."

_H. Lambert,
The Progress of Civil Service Reform in the United States,
pages 6-10._

"The National Civil Service Reform League was organized at
Newport, R. I., on the 11th of August, 1881. It was the result
of a conference among members of civil service reform
associations that had spontaneously arisen in various parts of
the country for the purpose of awakening public interest in
the question, like the clubs of the Sons of Liberty among our
fathers, and the anti-slavery societies among their children.
The first act of the League was a resolution of hearty
approval of the bill then pending in Congress, known as the
Pendleton bill. Within less than two years afterward the Civil
Service law was passed in Congress by a vote in the Senate of
38 yeas to 5 nays, 33 Senators being absent, and in the House
only a week later, by a vote of 155 yeas to 47 nays, 87
members not voting. In the House the bill was put upon its
passage at once, the Speaker permitting only thirty minutes
for debate. This swift enactment of righteous law was due,
undoubtedly, to the panic of the party of administration, a
panic which saw in the disastrous result of the recent
election a demand of the country for honest politics; and it
was due also to the exulting belief of the party of opposition
that the law would essentially weaken the dominant party by
reducing its patronage. The sudden and overwhelming vote was
that of a Congress of which probably the members had very
little individual knowledge or conviction upon the subject.
But the instinct in regard to intelligent public opinion was
undoubtedly sure, and it is intelligent public opinion which
always commands the future. … The passage of the law was the
first great victory of the ten years of the reform movement.
The second is the demonstration of the complete practicability
of reform attested by the heads of the largest offices of
administration in the country. In the Treasury and Navy
departments, the New York Custom House and Post Office, and
other important custom houses and post offices, without the
least regard to the wishes or the wrath of that remarkable
class of our fellow-citizens, known as political bosses, it is
conceded by officers, wholly beyond suspicion of party
independence, that, in these chief branches of the public
service, reform is perfectly practicable and the reformed
system a great public benefit. And, although as yet these
offices are by no means thoroughly reorganized upon reform
principles, yet a quarter of the whole number of places in the
public service to which the reformed methods apply are now
included within those methods."

_G. W. Curtis,
Address at Annual Meeting of the National
Civil-Service Reform League. 1891._

CIVILIS, Revolt of.

See BATAVIANS: A. D. 69.

CIVITA-CASTELLAN A, Battle of (1798).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1798-1799(AUGUST-APRIL).

CIVITELLA, Siege of (1557).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1547-1559.

CLAIR-ON-EPTE, Treaty of.

See NORMANS: A. D. 876-911.

{478}

CLAIRVAUX, The Monastery of.

St. Bernard, "the greatest reformer of the abuses of the
monastic life, if not the greatest monk in history [A. D.
1091-1153] … revived the practice in the monastery of
Citeaux, which he first entered, and in that of Clairvaux,
which he afterwards founded, of the sternest discipline which
had been enjoined by St. Benedict. He became the ideal type of
the perfect monk. … He was not a Pope, but he was greater
than any Pope of his day, and for nearly half a century the
history of the Christian Church is the history of the
influence of one monk, the Abbot of Clairvaux."

_C. J. Stillé,
Studies in Mediæval History,
chapter 12._

"The convent of Citeaux was found too small for the number of
persons who desired to join the society which could boast of
so eminent a saint. Finding his influence beneficial, Bernard
proceeded to found a new monastery. The spot which he chose
for his purpose was in a wild and gloomy vale, formerly known
as the Valley of Wormwood. … The district pertained to the
bishopric of Langres; and here Bernard raised his far famed
abbey of Clairvaux."

_H. Stebbing,
History of Christ's Universal Church,
chapter 26._

ALSO IN:
_A. Butler,
Lives of the Saints,
volume 8._

_W. F. Hook,
Ecclesiastical Biographies,
volume 2._

_J. C. Morison,
Life and Times of St. Bernard._

See, also, CISTERCIAN ORDER.

CLANS, Highland.

"The word Clan signifies simply children or descendants, and
the clan name thus implies that the members of it are or were
supposed to be descended from a common ancestor or eponymus,
and they were distinguished from each other by their
patronymics, the use of surnames in the proper sense being
unknown among them. [See GENS, ROMAN.] … In considering the
genealogies of the Highland clans we must bear in mind that in
the early state of the tribal organisation the pedigree of the
sept or clan, and of each member of the tribe, had a very
important meaning. Their rights were derived through the
common ancestor, and their relation to him, and through him to
each other, indicated their position in the succession, as
well as their place in the allocation of the tribe land. In
such a state of society the pedigree occupied the same
position as the title-deed of the feudal system, and the
Sennachies were as much the custodiers of the rights of
families as the mere panegyrists of the clan. … During the
16th century the clans were brought into direct contact with
the Crown, and in the latter part of it serious efforts were
made by the Legislature to establish an efficient control over
them. These gave rise to the Acts of 1587 and 1594; … but
they were followed in a few years by an important Statute,
which had a powerful effect upon the position of the clans,
and led to another great change in the theory of their
descent. … The chiefs of the clans thus found themselves
compelled to defend their rights upon grounds which could
compete with the claims of their eager opponents, and to
maintain an equality of rank and prestige with them in the
Heralds' Office, which must drive them to every device
necessary to effect their purpose; and they would not hesitate
to manufacture titles to the land when they did not exist, and
to put forward spurious pedigrees better calculated to
maintain their position when a native descent had lost its
value and was too weak to serve their purpose. From this
period MS. histories of the leading Highland families began to
be compiled, in which these pretensions were advanced and
spurious charters inserted. … The form which these
pretentious genealogies took was that of making the eponymus
or male ancestor of the clan a Norwegian, Dane, or Norman, or
a cadet of some distinguished family, who succeeded to the
chiefship and to the territory of the clan by marriage with
the daughter and heiress of the last of the old Celtic line,
thus combining the advantage of a descent which could compete
with that of the great Norman families with a feudal
succession to their lands; and the new form of the clan
genealogy would have the greater tendency to assume this form
where the clan name was derived not from a personal name or
patronymic but from a personal epithet of its founder. … The
conclusion, then, to which [an] analysis of the clan pedigrees
which have been popularly accepted at different times has
brought us, is that, so far as they profess to show the origin
of the different clans, they are entirely artificial and
untrustworthy, but that the older genealogies may be accepted
as showing the descent of the clan from its eponymus or
founder, and within reasonable limits for some generations
beyond him, while the later spurious pedigrees must be
rejected altogether. It may seem surprising that such spurious
pedigrees and fabulous origins should be so readily credited
by the Clan families as genuine traditions, and receive such
prompt acceptance as the true fount from which they sprung;
but we must recollect that the fabulous history of Hector
Boece was as rapidly and universally adopted as the genuine
annals of the national history, and became rooted in those
parts of the country to which its fictitious events related as
local traditions. When Hector Boece invested the obscure
usurper Grig with the name and attributes of a fictitious
king, Gregory the Great, and connected him with the royal line
of kings, the Clan Gregor at once recognised him as their
eponymous ancestor, and their descent from him is now
implicitly believed in by all the MacGregors. It is possible,
however, from these genealogies, and from other indications,
to distribute the clans in certain groups, as having
apparently a closer connection with each other, and these
groups we hold in the main to represent the great tribes into
which the Gaelic population was divided before they became
broken up into clans. The two great tribes which possessed the
greater part of the Highlands were the Gallgaidheal or Gael in
the west, who had been under the power of the Norwegians, and
the great tribe of the Moravians, or Men of Moray, in the
Central and Eastern Highlands. To the former belong all the
clans descended of the Lords of the Isles, the Campbells and
Macleods probably representing the older inhabitants of their
respective districts; to the latter belong in the main the
clans brought in the old Irish genealogies from the kings of
Dalriada of the tribe of Lorn, among whom the old Mormaers of
Moray appear. The group containing the Clan Andres or old
Rosses, the Mackenzies and Mathesons, belong to the tribe of
Ross, the Clan Donnachy to Athole, the Clan Lawren to
Stratherne, and the Clan Pharlane to Lennox, while the group
containing the MacNabs, Clan Gregor, and Mackinnons, appear to
have emerged from Glendochart, at least to be connected with
the old Columban monasteries. The Clans, properly so called,
were thus of native origin; the surnames partly of native and
partly of foreign descent."

_W. F. Skene,
Celtic Scotland,
book 3, chapter 9 (volume 3)._

{479}

CLARENDON, The Constitutions and the Assize of.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1162-1170.

CLARIAN ORACLE, The.

See ORACLES OF THE GREEKS.

CLARK, George Rogers, and the conquest of the Northwest.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778-1779.

CLAUDIUS, Roman Emperor, A. D. 41-54.
Claudius II., A. D. 268-270.

CLAVERHOUSE AND THE COVENANTERS.

See SCOTLAND: A. D.1679; 1681-1689, and 1689 (JULY).

CLAY, Henry,
The war of 1812.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1810-1812.

Negotiation of the Treaty of Ghent.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1814 (DECEMBER).

The Tariff question.

See TARIFF LEGISLATION (UNITED STATES): A. D. 1816-1824,
and 1832; and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1828-1833.

The Missouri Compromise.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1818-1821.

In the Cabinet of President John Quincy Adams.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1825-1828.

Defeat in the Presidential election.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1844.

The Compromise Measures of 1850.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1850.

CLAYBANKS AND CHARCOALS.

During the American civil war the Conservative and Radical
factions in Missouri were sometimes called Claybanks and
Charcoals.

_J. G. Nicolay and J. Hay,
Abraham Lincoln,
volume 8, page 204._

CLAYTON-BULWER TREATY, The.

See NICARAGUA: A. D. 1850.

CLEAR GRITS.

See CANADA: A. D. 1840-1867.

CLEISTHENES, Constitution of.

See ATHENS: B. C. 510-507.

CLEMENT II., Pope, A. D. 1046-1047.
Clement III., Pope, A. D. 1187-1191.
Clement IV., Pope, A. D. 1265-1268.
Clement V., Pope, A. D. 1305-1314.
Clement VI., Pope, A. D. 1342-1352.
Clement VII., Pope, A. D. 1378-1394 (Antipope at Avignon).
Clement VII., Pope, A. D. 1523-1534.
Clement VIII., Pope, A. D. 1591-1605.
Clement IX., Pope, A. D. 1667-1669.
Clement X., Pope, A. D. 1670-1676.
Clement XI., Pope, A. D. 1700-1721.
Clement XII., Pope, A. D. 1730-1740.
Clement XIII., Pope, A. D. 1758-1769.
Clement XIV., Pope, A. D. 1769-1774.

CLEOMENIC (KLEOMENIC) WAR, The.

See GREECE: B. C. 280-146.

CLEOPATRA AND CÆSAR.

See ALEXANDRIA: B. C. 48-47.

And Mark Antony.

See ROME: B. C. 31.

CLEOPATRA'S NEEDLES.

"The two obelisks known as Cleopatra's Needles were originally
set up by Thothmes III. at Heliopolis. Augustus transferred
them to Alexandria, where they remained until recently. At
present (July, 1880) one ornaments the Thames Embankment
[London] while the other is on its way to the United States of
America."

_G. Rawlinson,
History of Ancient Egypt,
chapter 20, note._

The obelisk last mentioned now stands in Central Park, New
York, having been brought over and erected by Commander
Gorringe, at the expense of the late William H. Vanderbilt.

_H. H. Gorringe,
Egyptian Obelisks._

See, also, EGYPT: ABOUT B. C. 1700-1400.

CLEPHES, King of the Lombards, A. D. 573-586.

CLERGY, Benefit of.

See BENEFIT OF CLERGY.

CLERGY RESERVES.

See CANADA: A. D. 1837.

CLERMONT.

See GERGOVIA OF THE ARVERNI.

CLERMONT, The Council of.

Speech of Pope Urban.

See CRUSADES: A. D. 1094.

CLERUCHI.

See KLERUCHS.

CLEVELAND, Grover:
First Presidential election and administration.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1884 to 1889.

Defeat in Presidential election.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1888.

Second Presidential election.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1892.

CLEVELAND:

The founding and naming of the City (1796).

See OHIO: A. D. 1786-1796.

CLICHY CLUB. CLICHYANS, The.

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

CLIENTES, Roman.

"To [the Roman] family or household united under the control
of a living master, and the clan which originated out of the
breaking up of such households, there further belonged the
dependents or 'listeners' (clientes, from 'cluere'). This term
denoted not the guests, that is, the members of similar
circles who were temporarily sojourning in another household
than their own, and still less the slaves who were looked upon
in law as the property of the household and not as members of
it, but those individuals who, while they were not free
burgesses of any commonwealth, yet lived within one in a
condition of protected freedom. The class included refugees
who had found a reception with a foreign protector, and those
slaves in respect to whom their master had for the time being
waived the exercise of his rights, and so conferred on them
practical freedom. This relation had not properly the
character of a relation 'de jure,' like the relation of a man
to his guest or to his slave: the client remained non-free,
although good faith and use and wont alleviated in his case
the condition of non-freedom. Hence the 'listeners' of the
household (clientes) together with the slaves strictly
so-called formed the 'body of servants' ('familia') dependent
on the will of the 'burgess' ('patronus,' like 'patricius')."

_T. Mommsen,
History of Rome,
book 1, chapter 5._

ALSO IN:
_Fustel De Coulanges,
The Ancient City,
book 4, chapters 1 and 6._

CLINTON, Dewitt, and the Erie Canal.

See NEW YORK: A. D. 1817-1825.

CLINTON, George, The first Governor of New York.

See NEW YORK: A. D. 1777.

CLINTON, General Sir Henry,
and the war of the American Revolution.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1775 (APRIL-MAY); 1776 (JUNE), (AUGUST);
1778 (JUNE); 1778-1779; 1780 (FEBRUARY-AUGUST);
1781 (JANUARY).

CLINTONIANS AND BUCKTAILS.

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

CLISSAU OR CLISSOW, Battle of (1702).

See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1701-1707.

CLIVE'S CONQUESTS AND RULE IN INDIA.