text:
United Nations Millennium Declaration

The General Assembly

Adopts the following Declaration:

United Nations Millennium Declaration

Article 1
We, heads of State and Government, have gathered at United Nations Headquarters in New York from 6 to 8 September 2000, at the dawn of a new millennium, to reaffirm our faith in the Organization and its Charter as indispensable foundations of a more peaceful, prosperous and just world.

Article 2
We recognize that, in addition to our separate responsibilities to our individual societies, we have a collective responsibility to uphold the principles of human dignity, equality and equity at the global level. As leaders we have a duty therefore to all the world’s people, especially the most vulnerable and, in particular, the children of the world, to whom the future belongs.

Article 3
We reaffirm our commitment to the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, which have proved timeless and universal. Indeed, their relevance and capacity to inspire have increased, as nations and peoples have become increasingly interconnected and interdependent.

Article 4
We are determined to establish a just and lasting peace all over the world in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter. We rededicate ourselves to support all efforts to uphold the sovereign equality of all States, respect for their territorial integrity and political independence, resolution of disputes by peaceful means and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, the right to self-determination of peoples which remain under colonial domination and foreign occupation, non-interference in the internal affairs of States, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, respect for the equal rights of all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion and international cooperation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural or humanitarian character.

Article 5
We believe that the central challenge we face today is to ensure that globalization becomes a positive force for all the world’s people. For while globalization offers great opportunities, at present its benefits are very unevenly shared, while its costs are unevenly distributed. We recognize that developing countries and countries with economies in transition face special difficulties in responding to this central challenge. Thus, only through broad and sustained efforts to create a shared future, based upon our common humanity in all its diversity, can globalization be made fully inclusive and equitable. These efforts must include policies and measures, at the global level, which correspond to the needs of developing countries and economies in transition and are formulated and implemented with their effective participation.

Article 6
We consider certain fundamental values to be essential to international relations in the twenty-first century. These include:

 * Freedom. Men and women have the right to live their lives and raise their children in dignity, free from hunger and from the fear of violence, oppression or injustice. Democratic and participatory governance based on the will of the people best assures these rights.

 * Equality. No individual and no nation must be denied the opportunity to benefit from development. The equal rights and opportunities of women and men must be assured.

 * Solidarity. Global challenges must be managed in a way that distributes the costs and burdens fairly in accordance with basic principles of equity and social justice. Those who suffer or who benefit least deserve help from those who benefit most.

 * Tolerance. Human beings must respect one other, in all their diversity of belief, culture and language. Differences within and between societies should be neither feared nor repressed, but cherished as a precious asset of humanity. A culture of peace and dialogue among all civilizations should be actively promoted.

 * Respect for nature. Prudence must be shown in the management of all living species and natural resources, in accordance with the precepts of sustainable development. Only in this way can the immeasurable riches provided to us by nature be preserved and passed on to our descendants. The current unsustainable patterns of production and consumption must be changed in the interest of our future welfare and that of our descendants.

 * Shared responsibility. Responsibility for managing worldwide economic and social development, as well as threats to international peace and security, must be shared among the nations of the world and should be exercised multilaterally. As the most universal and most representative organization in the world, the United Nations must play the central role.

Article 7
In order to translate these shared values into actions, we have identified key objectives to which we assign special significance.

Article 8
We will spare no effort to free our peoples from the scourge of war, whether within or between States, which has claimed more than 5 million lives in the past decade. We will also seek to eliminate the dangers posed by weapons of mass destruction.

Article 9
We resolve therefore:

 * To strengthen respect for the rule of law in international as in national affairs and, in particular, to ensure compliance by Member States with the decisions of the International Court of Justice, in compliance with the Charter of the United Nations, in cases to which they are parties.

 * To make the United Nations more effective in maintaining peace and security by giving it the resources and tools it needs for conflict prevention, peaceful resolution of disputes, peacekeeping, post-conflict peace-building and reconstruction. In this context, we take note of the report of the Panel on United Nations Peace Operations and request the General Assembly to consider its recommendations expeditiously.

 * To strengthen cooperation between the United Nations and regional organizations, in accordance with the provisions of Chapter VIII of the Charter.

 * To ensure the implementation, by States Parties, of treaties in areas such as arms control and disarmament and of international humanitarian law and human rights law, and call upon all States to consider signing and ratifying the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

 * To take concerted action against international terrorism, and to accede as soon as possible to all the relevant international conventions.

 * To redouble our efforts to implement our commitment to counter the world drug problem.

 * To intensify our efforts to fight transnational crime in all its dimensions, including trafficking as well as smuggling in human beings and money laundering.

 * To minimize the adverse effects of United Nations economic sanctions on innocent populations, to subject such sanctions regimes to regular reviews and to eliminate the adverse effects of sanctions on third parties.

 * To strive for the elimination of weapons of mass destruction, particularly nuclear weapons, and to keep all options open for achieving this aim, including the possibility of convening an international conference to identify ways of eliminating nuclear dangers.

 * To take concerted action to end illicit traffic in small arms and light weapons, especially by making arms transfers more transparent and supporting regional disarmament measures, taking account of all the recommendations of the forthcoming United Nations Conference on Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons.

 * To call on all States to consider acceding to the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-personnel Mines and on Their Destruction, as well as the amended mines protocol to the Convention on conventional weapons.

Article 10
We urge Member States to observe the Olympic Truce, individually and collectively, now and in the future, and to support the International Olympic Committee in its efforts to promote peace and human understanding through sport and the Olympic Ideal.

Article 11
We will spare no effort to free our fellow men, women and children from the abject and dehumanizing conditions of extreme poverty, to which more than a billion of them are currently subjected. We are committed to making the right to development a reality for everyone and to freeing the entire human race from want.

Article 12
We resolve therefore to create an environment – at the national and global levels alike – which is conducive to development and to the elimination of poverty.

Article 13
Success in meeting these objectives depends, inter alia, on good governance within each country. It also depends on good governance at the international level and on transparency in the financial, monetary and trading systems. We are committed to an open, equitable, rule-based, predictable and non-discriminatory multilateral trading and financial system.

Article 14
We are concerned about the obstacles developing countries face in mobilizing the resources needed to finance their sustained development. We will therefore make every effort to ensure the success of the High-level International and Intergovernmental Event on Financing for Development, to be held in 2001.

Article 15
We also undertake to address the special needs of the least developed countries. In this context, we welcome the Third United Nations Conference on the Least Developed Countries to be held in May 2001 and will endeavour to ensure its success. We call on the industrialized countries:

 * To adopt, preferably by the time of that Conference, a policy of duty- and quota-free access for essentially all exports from the least developed countries;

 * To implement the enhanced programme of debt relief for the heavily indebted poor countries without further delay and to agree to cancel all official bilateral debts of those countries in return for their making demonstrable commitments to poverty reduction; and

 * To grant more generous development assistance, especially to countries that are genuinely making an effort to apply their resources to poverty reduction.

Article 16
We are also determined to deal comprehensively and effectively with the debt problems of low- and middle-income developing countries, through various national and international measures designed to make their debt sustainable in the long term.

Article 17
We also resolve to address the special needs of small island developing States, by implementing the Barbados Programme of Action and the outcome of the twenty-second special session of the General Assembly rapidly and in full. We urge the international community to ensure that, in the development of a vulnerability index, the special needs of small island developing States are taken into account.

Article 18
We recognize the special needs and problems of the landlocked developing countries, and urge both bilateral and multilateral donors to increase financial and technical assistance to this group of countries to meet their special development needs and to help them overcome the impediments of geography by improving their transit transport systems.

Article 19
We resolve further:

 * To halve, by the year 2015, the proportion of the world’s people whose income is less than one dollar a day and the proportion of people who suffer from hunger and, by the same date, to halve the proportion of people who are unable to reach or to afford safe drinking water.

 * To ensure that, by the same date, children everywhere, boys and girls alike, will be able to complete a full course of primary schooling and that girls and boys will have equal access to all levels of education.

 * By the same date, to have reduced maternal mortality by three quarters, and under-five child mortality by two thirds, of their current rates.

 * To have, by then, halted, and begun to reverse, the spread of HIV/AIDS, the scourge of malaria and other major diseases that afflict humanity.

 * To provide special assistance to children orphaned by HIV/AIDS.

 * By 2020, to have achieved a significant improvement in the lives of at least 100 million slum dwellers as proposed in the "Cities Without Slums" initiative.

Article 20
We also resolve:

 * To promote gender equality and the empowerment of women as effective ways to combat poverty, hunger and disease and to stimulate development that is truly sustainable.

 * To develop and implement strategies that give young people everywhere a real chance to find decent and productive work.

 * To encourage the pharmaceutical industry to make essential drugs more widely available and affordable by all who need them in developing countries.

 * To develop strong partnerships with the private sector and with civil society organizations in pursuit of development and poverty eradication.

 * To ensure that the benefits of new technologies, especially information and communication technologies, in conformity with recommendations contained in the ECOSOC 2000 Ministerial Declaration, are available to all.

Article 21
We must spare no effort to free all of humanity, and above all our children and grandchildren, from the threat of living on a planet irredeemably spoilt by human activities, and whose resources would no longer be sufficient for their needs.

Article 22
We reaffirm our support for the principles of sustainable development, including those set out in Agenda 21, agreed upon at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development.

Article 23
We resolve therefore to adopt in all our environmental actions a new ethic of conservation and stewardship and, as first steps, we resolve:

 * To make every effort to ensure the entry into force of the Kyoto Protocol, preferably by the tenth anniversary of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in 2002, and to embark on the required reduction in emissions of greenhouse gases.

 * To intensify our collective efforts for the management, conservation and sustainable development of all types of forests.

 * To press for the full implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Convention to Combat Desertification in those Countries Experiencing Serious Drought and/or Desertification, particularly in Africa.

 * To stop the unsustainable exploitation of water resources by developing water management strategies at the regional, national and local levels, which promote both equitable access and adequate supplies.

 * To intensify cooperation to reduce the number and effects of natural and man-made disasters.

 * To ensure free access to information on the human genome sequence.

Article 24
We will spare no effort to promote democracy and strengthen the rule of law, as well as respect for all internationally recognized human rights and fundamental freedoms, including the right to development.

Article 25
We resolve therefore:

 * To respect fully and uphold the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

 * To strive for the full protection and promotion in all our countries of civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights for all.

 * To strengthen the capacity of all our countries to implement the principles and practices of democracy and respect for human rights, including minority rights.

 * To combat all forms of violence against women and to implement the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women.

 * To take measures to ensure respect for and protection of the human rights of migrants, migrant workers and their families, to eliminate the increasing acts of racism and xenophobia in many societies and to promote greater harmony and tolerance in all societies.

 * To work collectively for more inclusive political processes, allowing genuine participation by all citizens in all our countries.

 * To ensure the freedom of the media to perform their essential role and the right of the public to have access to information.

Article 26
We will spare no effort to ensure that children and all civilian populations that suffer disproportionately the consequences of natural disasters, genocide, armed conflicts and other humanitarian emergencies are given every assistance and protection so that they can resume normal life as soon as possible.

We resolve therefore:

 * To expand and strengthen the protection of civilians in complex emergencies, in conformity with international humanitarian law.

 * To strengthen international cooperation, including burden sharing in, and the coordination of humanitarian assistance to, countries hosting refugees and to help all refugees and displaced persons to return voluntarily to their homes, in safety and dignity and to be smoothly reintegrated into their societies.

 * To encourage the ratification and full implementation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and its optional protocols on the involvement of children in armed conflict and on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography.

Article 27
We will support the consolidation of democracy in Africa and assist Africans in their struggle for lasting peace, poverty eradication and sustainable development, thereby bringing Africa into the mainstream of the world economy.

Article 28
We resolve therefore:

 * To give full support to the political and institutional structures of emerging democracies in Africa.

 * To encourage and sustain regional and subregional mechanisms for preventing conflict and promoting political stability, and to ensure a reliable flow of resources for peacekeeping operations on the continent.

 * To take special measures to address the challenges of poverty eradication and sustainable development in Africa, including debt cancellation, improved market access, enhanced Official Development Assistance and increased flows of Foreign Direct Investment, as well as transfers of technology.

 * To help Africa build up its capacity to tackle the spread of the HIV/AIDS pandemic and other infectious diseases.

Article 29
We will spare no effort to make the United Nations a more effective instrument for pursuing all of these priorities: the fight for development for all the peoples of the world, the fight against poverty, ignorance and disease; the fight against injustice; the fight against violence, terror and crime; and the fight against the degradation and destruction of our common home.

Article 30
We resolve therefore:

 * To reaffirm the central position of the General Assembly as the chief deliberative, policy-making and representative organ of the United Nations, and to enable it to play that role effectively.

 * To intensify our efforts to achieve a comprehensive reform of the Security Council in all its aspects.

 * To strengthen further the Economic and Social Council, building on its recent achievements, to help it fulfil the role ascribed to it in the Charter.

 * To strengthen the International Court of Justice, in order to ensure justice and the rule of law in international affairs.

 * To encourage regular consultations and coordination among the principal organs of the United Nations in pursuit of their functions.

 * To ensure that the Organization is provided on a timely and predictable basis with the resources it needs to carry out its mandates.

 * To urge the Secretariat to make the best use of those resources, in accordance with clear rules and procedures agreed by the General Assembly, in the interests of all Member States, by adopting the best management practices and technologies available and by concentrating on those tasks that reflect the agreed priorities of Member States.

 * To promote adherence to the Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel.

 * To ensure greater policy coherence and better cooperation between the United Nations, its agencies, the Bretton Woods Institutions and the World Trade Organization, as well as other multilateral bodies, with a view to achieving a fully coordinated approach to the problems of peace and development.

 * To strengthen further cooperation between the United Nations and national parliaments through their world organization, the Inter-Parliamentary Union, in various fields, including peace and security, economic and social development, international law and human rights and democracy and gender issues.

 * To give greater opportunities to the private sector, non-governmental organizations and civil society, in general, to contribute to the realization of the Organization’s goals and programmes.

Article 31
We request the General Assembly to review on a regular basis the progress made in implementing the provisions of this Declaration, and ask the Secretary-General to issue periodic reports for consideration by the General Assembly and as a basis for further action.

Article 32
We solemnly reaffirm, on this historic occasion, that the United Nations is the indispensable common house of the entire human family, through which we will seek to realize our universal aspirations for peace, cooperation and development. We therefore pledge our unstinting support for these common objectives and our determination to achieve them.

 * 8th plenary meeting
 * 8 September 2000

title: United Nations Millennium Declaration


text:
Page:A Picturesque Tour of the Island of Jamaica.djvu/65

, the principal town of the parish of St. Mary, on the north side of the island, is famous for having given, as it is supposed, an asylum to Columbus, when his ship was foundering; and somewhere hereabouts authors have placed the town of Melilla, the first which the Spaniards founded. The neighbouring port of Rio Nuevo is likewise remarkable for the decisive victory gained there by General D’Oyley over the Spaniards, which confirmed the English in the possession of the island. The coast differs greatly from that of the south side, being for the most part iron-bound, or protected from the fury of the north winds and the surges of the sea by a wall of rocks. The weather of this parish is extremely wet during great part of the year, and so cold that few if any of the houses are unfurnished with a chimney. The land in general, from its richness, bears a very luxuriant cane, some of which grow to an enormous size: but are unfit for making sugar, and are only grown for the still-house. The greater part of the land on which the town of Port Maria is built is the property of C. N. Bayly, Esq., as was likewise the ground on which the Court-house has lately been erected, but for which an exchange was made by the parish for other lands, which are now attached to Trinity Estate.

The view before us embraces on the left the New Court-house, erected 1821, and Fort Haldane and the Barracks on the point, an eminence which commands the entrance of the harbour. The houses stretch along the seashore, at a short distance from which is Cabarita Island. On the right are the works and negro houses of Frontier Estate, the property of A. Stirling, Esq.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
The Civil Service and the Patronage/Chapter 02

Jefferson became president, he found nearly all the offices filled by his opponents. Was it right, when the people had expelled the Federalists from the elective offices and put Republicans in their places, that the old occupants of the appointive offices should be left in their positions merely because the people could not reach them? Should the government be administered, should the national salaries be enjoyed, by representatives of a minority of the population? Most of the Republicans agreed that it was not right, and that it should not be tolerated. Gideon Granger, Jefferson's postmaster-general, wrote: “Upon entering on the duties of this office, my mind was impressed with an unusual anxiety and solicitude. Knowing as I did that most of the officers under me, from their official stations, had been in the habit of associating and corresponding, as well on politics as on business, with those lately in authority, from whom the people had withdrawn their confidence; and elevated to office men whose political principles they believed better calculated to preserve the constitution and public prosperity, and having a general knowledge of the most pronounced recent events, it occurred to me that some removals would become necessary, as well to effect an equal participation and enjoyment of office by the two great classes of citizens who are designated by the terms Federalists and Republicans, as to maintain and preserve confidence in the Department.” The

bitterness of the preceding contest sharpened this call for action. The judiciary act was viewed in the worst possible light, the few removals made by Adams were magnified into a searching proscription, charges wholly false were fabricated, and cries for the punishment of the Federalists mingled with demands for a just recognition of the Republicans.

The Federalists foresaw the danger, and a story was circulated at the time, that some of their leaders attempted to ward off the blow by sowing dissension between Jefferson and his followers. Certainly during the early months of his term some of the well-known Federalist newspapers praised him and disparaged his party. The Columbian Centinel, August 12, 1801, told how, when a list of men to be appointed to office because of their services in the campaign of 1800 was presented to the president, he remarked, “Yes, yes, I have read that Rome was saved by geese; but I do not remember that these geese were made Revenue Officers or Marshals.” Jefferson was too clever to be caught by such chaff. Three days after his inauguration he wrote to Monroe: “I have firmly refused to follow the counsels of those who have advised the giving offices to some of their leaders, in order to reconcile [them]. I have given, and will give only to Republicans, under existing circumstances.”

The question of the patronage was of special importance to Jefferson because of his desire to win over the bulk of the Federalist party, and its delicacy was enhanced by the fact that his own party was not united; while the majority expected vigorous action, some desired that removals be made sparingly. He felt that efficiency was not the sole object to be kept in mind in administering the civil service; and wished so to

it as to bring about the best political results for country and for party. He wrote to Monroe, March 7, 1801, that he believed, as did others, “that deprivations of office, if made on the ground of political principles alone, would revolt our new converts, and give a body to leaders who now stand alone. Some, I know, must be made. They must be as few as possible, done gradually, and bottomed on some malversation or inherent disqualification. Where we shall draw the line between retaining all & none, is not yet settled, and will not be till we get our administration together; and perhaps even then, we shall proceed à talons, balancing our measures according to the impression we perceive them to make.” On the next day he wrote to Horatio Gates about the patronage, “If we can hit on the true line of conduct which may conciliate the honest part of those who were called federalists, & do justice to those who have so long been excluded from it, I shall hope to be able to obliterate, or rather to unite the names of federalists & republicans.”

With these ideas in mind, — of conciliation for the opposing party, and of justice for his own, — Jefferson sought out classes of officers for whose removal some special reason might be assigned. First, he treated as null and void all appointments about the validity of which there was any legal doubt. The best known of these cases was that of the justices of the peace for the newly organized District of Columbia, — the “midnight appointments.” Although the supreme court decided against the president in the famous case of Marbury vs. Madison, it declined to issue any writ; and the men whom he appointed to take the place of Adams's nominees retained office. The

eagerness with which Jefferson seized on every opportunity to get an opponent out of office without removing him is illustrated by an incident in Rhode Island. After the judiciary act of 1801 was passed, Adams had nominated Mr. Bourne for one of the new circuit judgeships and Mr. Ray Greene for the district judgeship that Mr. Bourne was to vacate. The latter did not resign his post until March 23, 1801; and Jefferson held that, as Mr. Greene had been nominated to a position which was not vacant, and which was held on the tenure of good behavior, his appointment was not valid, and he refused to recognize him. This action was violently attacked by the Federalists; and the president, in an apparent attempt to ward off their criticism, selected Mr. Barnes, a moderate Federalist, for the position of district judge thus made vacant.

The number of these so-called illegal appointments was small, and Jefferson was soon obliged to look beyond them for means to satisfy those of his followers who desired to serve their country in lucrative places. A class of officers subject to removal was soon discovered in those appointed by Adams after the Federalist defeat of 1800 became evident, on the ground that Adams should not have chosen men to positions in which he knew they would serve another president. The Federalists, of course, would not acknowledge that Adams was under any such obligations of law or courtesy; they saw no reason why customs officers need be in political sympathy with the president, and violently attacked this action, in which they foresaw the prelude to a promiscuous proscription. Jefferson was not the man to be silent under attack, and he spun out those persuasive arguments which always flowed so readily from his pen, and which provoked a full discussion of the problems of the civil service.

The particular case that called forth this discussion was the removal of Chauncy Goodrich from the collectorship at New

Haven. Connecticut, Jefferson considered as the fortress of the “monarchial party,” the one state whose conversion to republicanism was problematical. From the first the Connecticut Courant had led the press of the state in a fierce denunciation of every instance of proscription. With several other papers it followed the ingenious device of printing conciliatory sentences from the inaugural, and under them, in fancy type, the heading “Practice,” followed by all the instances of removals that could be accumulated. Jefferson was probably not sorry to have an opportunity to fight out the question in the home of the enemy: there was little to lose, and much might be learned of popular sentiment.

The collector at New Haven had died in February, 1801, and Adams, about a week before the inauguration of Jefferson, appointed Goodrich, who therefore fell under the ban which Jefferson had established. The president consulted his supporters in the state; and from them he received bitterly partisan letters calling for the removal of Goodrich and a clean sweep throughout the state. Gideon Granger urged that “The principle cannot be controverted, that it is just, fair and honorable that the friends of the Government should have at least as great a proportion of the honors and offices of the

as they are of the whole people. . . . The general depression of the Republicans in this State, who have suffered everything, combatting a Phalanx vastly superior to what can be found in any other part of the union forms a strong reason. Nothing can be lost here, and something may be gained: how far this applies to other parts of the union is not for me to judge. A knowledge that we had the real confidence of the Executive I think would have a happy effect, for already it is used as an argument to affect our elections that the President used the Democrats to ride into office, that now seated there he has evinced his contempt for them, and will rely solely on the federalists for support. . . . Lastly, the sacred rule that no man shall be persecuted for his opinions decently and reasonably maintained will not apply to any of our official Characters. I believe without a single exception All, and I know most have been bitter persecutors.” Pierrepont Edwards reiterated the charge that the Federalists expected Jefferson to look to them for support in Connecticut, and told stories of the violent hatred with which they nevertheless regarded him: how the “collector at Middletown. . . violent, irritable, priest-ridden, implacable, a ferocious federalist, and a most indecent enimy to you and your administration,” drank the toast “Thomas Jefferson may he receive from his fellow Citizens the reward of his merit,” adding, “a halter.” He suggested Samuel Bishop as the proper man to receive the New Haven collectorship, and the appointment was made.

At first Bishop's name was well received by the Federalist press, though the removal of Goodrich was condemned. New Haven Federalists, however, immediately raised a cry of indignation, the merchants sent a protest to Jefferson, and the party press rallied to their support. “The office,” they said, “while filled by Mr. Goodrich, was conducted with a promptness, integrity and ability. . . not to be found in his successor.” Jefferson

seized this opportunity to give expression to his views on the question of the patronage, embodying them in a reply (July 12, 1801) to the petition of the merchants. “The removal, as it is called, of Mr. Goodrich,” he writes, “forms another subject of complaint. Declarations by myself in favor of political tolerance, exhortations to harmony and affection in social intercourse, and to respect for the equal rights of the minority, have, on certain occasions, been quoted and misconstrued into assurances that the tenure of offices was to be undisturbed. But could candor apply such a construction?” He goes on to quote the usual arguments, that the Federalists had excluded from office those “not of a particular sect of politics,” and that, as a consequence, office was a monopoly in the hands of the minority. “Does it violate their equal rights” he continues, “to assert some rights in the majority also? Is it political intolerance to claim a proportionate share in the direction of the public affairs? . . . If the will of the nation, manifested by their various elections, calls for an administration of government according with the opinions of those elected; if, for the fulfilment of that will, displacements are necessary, with whom can they so justly begin as with persons appointed in the last moments of an administration, not for its own aid, but to begin a career at the same time with their successors?” Could the preference for another as successor to Mr. Austin be justly considered the removal of Mr. Goodrich? “If a due participation of office is a matter of right, how are vacancies to be obtained? Those by death are few; by resignation, none. Can any other mode than that of removal be proposed? This is a painful office; but it is made my duty, and I meet it as such. I proceed in the operation with deliberation and inquiry, that it may injure the best men least, and effect the purposes of justice and public utility with the least private distress; that it may be thrown, as much as possible, on delinquency, on oppression, on intolerance, on ante-revolutionary adherence to our enemies. It would have been to me a circumstance of great relief, had I found a moderate participation of office in the hands of the majority. I would gladly have left to time and accident to raise them to their just share. But their total exclusion calls for prompter corrections. I shall correct the

procedure; but that done, return with joy to that state of things, when the only questions concerning a candidate shall be, is he honest? Is he capable? Is he faithful to the Constitution?”

With a zest and an analytical keenness worthy of the New York Evening Post of to-day, its first editor, William Coleman, probably with the assistance of Alexander Hamilton, dissected this programme of proscription, enunciated the Federalist doctrine, and imagined the president, “Gazing round him with wild anxiety, he furiously enquires, ‘How are vacancies to be obtained?’ ” He pointed out the absurdity of the contention that Goodrich had not been removed, but was less convincing when he endeavored to show a distinction between refusing to appoint opponents, as the Federalists had done, and removing them; nevertheless he acutely remarked in this connection that, if the first were proscription, it could not be cured, as Jefferson was trying to do, by more proscription. Enunciating his own principles on the subject, he said: “Every man who accepts an office, takes it under an implicit contract from the Government, that he shall be continued in it, as long as he exercises it with fidelity and capacity. On this reliance he relinquishes his regular business,. . . and devotes his time and talents to his public employment.” In marked contrast with a later famous utterance is the following statement: “There are few offices, with the duties of which a person can, till after a considerable length of time, so far familiarize himself, as to perform with accuracy all the necessary details. . . if every change of a chief magistrate is to produce a similar change of subordinate officers. . . their places are to be supplied by a new set of men who have everything to learn. . .: the means of improvement being thus rejected, Government will be entirely deprived of all the benefits of experience, and the management of public offices, perpetually shifting from one tyro in office to another, will forever be kept in infancy and weakness.” He goes on to point out that in America most men have to support themselves, that it is difficult to resume a business once laid aside, and that consequently the best men will not take office unless its tenure is fairly stable. The latter part of the pamphlet is taken up chiefly

with a discussion of some of the intricate constitutional questions of the civil service, and with an exhortation to the Senate to review carefully all removals and appointments made during the recess.

This discussion has been treated at considerable length, because it illustrates the contemporary idea of the civil service. It is noticeable that Jefferson did not put forward the idea that long tenure of office is unrepublican; and that Coleman, in spite of his general sanity, fell into the fallacy of commending an appointment made in order that the recipient, a veteran, might “spend the evening of his days in ease and competence;” that is, he sanctioned the popular view that the civil service was a pension fund for meritorious public servants, a view mistaken and baneful.

Samuel Bishop was a man of repute, and so much respected that he was at this very time holding office under the Federalist legislature; and Jefferson doubtless hoped that he would reflect his respectability on the Republican party in his state. Yet it was an altogether bad appointment. Bishop was deacon in one of the established churches, mayor of New Haven, justice of the peace, chief judge of the court of probate. He was seventy-seven years of age, and so far as the collectorship was concerned merely a figurehead. The office was really given to his son Abraham, an active Republican leader and pamphleteer, who acted as his father's clerk in nearly all his

and performed the functions of the collectorship not without causing complaint. Samuel Bishop died in 1803, and Abraham was appointed to succeed him.

Although Jefferson, in his answer to the New Haven remonstrance, hinted at a more general proscription if he could not by other means bring about the desired equality in the civil service between the parties, he continued to seek for special classes that seemed peculiarly proper subjects for removal. Charles Pinckney was nominated minister plenipotentiary at Madrid, “vice David Humphreys, recalled on account of long absence from the United States.” William Jarvis, hearing while in Lisbon that Jefferson had said that any well-qualified citizen of the United States who desired a consulate held by a foreigner might have it for the asking, wrote to General Dearborn requesting the place in that city, and obtained it. The president found that, although in general “good men” of no undue political activity were not “proper subjects of removal,” the principle did not apply to attorneys and marshals. “The courts being so decidedly federal and irremovable,” he wrote to Giles, March 23, 1801, “it is believed that republican attorneys and marshals, being the doors of entrance into the courts, are indispensably necessary as a shield to the republican part of our fellow-citizens;” and he strengthened his case by preferring charges of partiality and jury-packing against the officers then holding.

Having thus proceeded carefully step by step, observing the effect of the removals made, and particularly watching the masses of the opposition, whom he wished to ween from their leaders, Jefferson felt encouraged by the end of the first year of his administration to go farther. He wrote to Elbridge Gerry, August 28, 1802: “After a twelve months' trial I have at length been induced to remove three or four more of those

most marked for their bitterness and active zeal in slandering and in electioneering. Whether we shall proceed any further will depend on themselves.” In fact, the policy of removing his opponents was a political success, and had alienated from the Republican administration none of the elements upon which it counted for support. The Federalists had, in the beginning, hoped that Jefferson's action might meet with popular resentment. So suicidal did it seem, that they imagined that Burr, while endeavoring to dissociate himself from the proscription, was urging it on the president with a view to rendering him unpopular. Yet before the end of 1801 all were forced to acknowledge that their prognostications were unwarranted.

The Federalists, moreover, continued to give the administration some little ground for countercharges. June 13, 1801, the Columbian Centinel noted with satisfaction that after the election in New Hampshire “all the vacancies” were “filled by federal men.” The dismissal of the clerk of the court of common pleas in Massachusetts by Federalist superiors gave the Aurora an opportunity to speak of “tyranny.” The Columbian Centinel asserted that much of the material for the Republicans' countercharges was cleverly manufactured by their politicians; but, whether these allegations were genuine or not,

the unthinking reader of newspapers at that time must have believed that it was six of one party and half a dozen of the other. At the same time, some of the Republican elements were growing restive. The state committee of Republicans, appointed to correspond with the committees of the several counties in the state of Pennsylvania, signed an address in 1802 in which it referred to “the slow, but we trust, certain progress of the executive, to restore the Republicans to that share in the public patronage, of which they have been so long, and so unjustly deprived.”

These circumstances probably helped give Jefferson courage for bolder acts than any he had yet attempted. The repeal of the judiciary bill of 1801 involved much broader issues than we are concerned with in this monograph, but it involved the question of the patronage also. Jefferson at an early date expressed a determination to cut off the “excrescences from the judiciary”; and in the debate on the measure Mr. Thompson of Virginia denounced the act because it had created sinecures. Jefferson, much to the amusement of the Federalist press, divided the number of cases by the number of judges, and so arrived at the decision that the system provided for was too expensive for the country. Of course, as the offices were abolished, Republicans could not obtain what was taken from the Federalists; and while the enemy was punished, friends were not rewarded.

The debate on this proposition brought out some facts which neither side relished. In the Senate, Giles showed that, while none of the congressmen who had voted for the judiciary act could constitutionally be appointed to the offices created, two senators had been made district judges in the place of men promoted to the new circuit judgeships, and thus the intent of the constitutional clause was violated. Bayard pointed out that

every man who “had any distinguished means in the competition for the presidential office, of deciding the election,” received some valuable appointment. It is probable that neither of these particular facts revealed any conscious corruption; yet the very fact that, without dishonest intention, questionable action had been taken by both parties, forced many to the conclusion that under the most honest men unworthy motives inevitably enter into the distribution of the patronage, and that the hands of those dispensing it are almost sure to be soiled. Both parties had now held the reins, and the purity of neither was untouched. There was about this time an appreciable change of tone in speaking of the civil service; speakers and writers while evincing more comprehension are more despondent; for the first time they begin to doubt the ability of their own party to deal with the question in an altogether satisfactory manner.

The repeal of the judiciary act was effected March 9, 1802, and just about this time began an active proscription of postmasters. The New York Evening Post of March 4 contains a letter which Postmaster-general Granger, in accordance with the Jeffersonian penchant for explaining the motives of the administration, wrote to a postmaster to be removed. “From repeated complaints from the country, and from opinions which are entertained by persons who have been long in office, together with the reasons upon which those opinions are founded, I was soon convinced that as a general rule the printers of newspapers ought not to be employed as postmasters, because they have a special interest.” This interest lay in their opportunities for suppressing rival papers, and in the possibility of extending their won circulation by abusing the franking privilege, which enabled postmasters to send free of charge letters and packages not exceeding two ounces in weight. Armed with such reasons, Granger began what seems to have been a general sweep in his

branch of the service. It is not surprising to find complaint that the Republican editors were allowed to hold postoffices in spite of their special interests.

Jefferson, in the course of his administration, removed 109 out of a total of 433 officers of the presidential class. This does not by any means show the total changes in personnel. In July, 1803, Jefferson wrote to Duane that, of 316 officers in his appointment, 130 were still held by Federalists; probably he meant that there had been 186 changes. From March 4, 1801, to July 16, 1803, there were 59 changes in the 165 offices of the external revenue service; 8 were due to death, 4 to resignation, 9 to misbehavior, and the remaining 38 were doubtless cases of political removal. Except for the last item, this would be but a normal list of changes, though possibly there would not have been so many removals for misbehavior if all the officers had been supporters of the administration. During Jefferson's first term there were, in all, 164 changes in 334 offices.

These figures do not adequately represent the severity of the proscription. In some localities the sweep was much more complete than in others: Jefferson wrote to Governor McKean of Pennsylvania, who had just turned out his opponents in that state, “Some states require a different regimen from others.” In Massachusetts alone there were almost as many removals as in the whole South, and in general the proportion of changes was greater in the North. Jefferson told John Quincy Adams

that not one request for appointment involving a removal had come from Virginia. This extreme statement was probably due to a lapse of memory; but it is true that the southern states, particularly those south of the Potomac and east of the Alleghanies, did not take kindly to the proscriptive system, and that it never really flourished in that region until after the Civil War. The small number of removals there at this time is further explained by the fact that Jefferson found some supporters in office, and that his conciliatory programme was so successful that the Federalist party in the South almost ceased to exist.

In estimating the severity of this first proscription, as of all later epochs of removal, it must always be remembered that if the lists of removals were made out on the basis of salary, or of the influence which the various offices carried with them, the proportion of changes would be very much greater. Among the removals are always found the collectors of the great cities, the postmasters, the great territorial and foreign officers, and, under Jefferson, the supervisors of the revenue. These officers had subordinates under them and carried on minor proscriptions. It is difficult to secure information with regard to local and departmental removals at this period; there are no figures, and the policy was vacillating. July 25, 1801, Gallatin sent Jefferson the draft of a proposed circular to the collectors, particularly intended for those of them who were Federalists. In it they were ordered “no longer to shut the door to the offices under them to any man merely on account of his political opinions,” and were told that an electioneering collector was necessarily a bad one. Jefferson expressed qualified approval; he thought that the circular should be delayed until his answer to the New Haven remonstrance had been published, and said that he had

intended to have the collectors produce “an equilibrium” before the non-partisan regime went into effect. The circular was never sent. At Boston, Dearborn, the new collector, made removals. Jefferson wrote to John Burke that there was a “redundancy of applications” for departmental places; and Duane prepared lists of the clerks holding such positions, appending to each name reasons for removal. As the president, however, left to each head of a department much freedom of action, the treatment of the patronage differed in the various localities and in the various branches of government.

In the summer of 1803 Jefferson apparently decided that the desired equilibrium had been attained, and removals ceased. At that time the balance of office-holding weighed down considerably on the Republican side; but it should be borne in mind that the Federalists no longer constituted half the population, and were therefore, according to the Jeffersonian rule, not entitled to half the offices. If Jefferson had lived up to his principles, the attainment of the equilibrium should have been followed by the adoption of a non-partisan standard for appoint- ments. There was an abundant opportunity for this, as forty-six new appointments were made in the customs service alone; but the opportunity was neglected, and by 1806 the civil service must have been as strongly Republican as it had been Federalist in 1801.

This proscription is pleasantly distinguished from later ones by the fact that it was conducted with a certain degree of courtesy. Reasonable notice was given to the victims, who, in their turn, often initiated their successors into the mysteries of the craft. One letter of removal reads in part as follows: “Accept, Sir, my thanks for all the faithful services you have rendered while in office. With esteem and respect, Gideon Granger.”

Jefferson did not plan to fill all the offices thus vacated. During a long period of our history, our civil service has been hampered by the popular prejudice against large salaries. The Massachusetts Centinel of September 17, 1789, pointed out that to people accustomed to deal in pounds a fair salary in dollars looked large, and urged that cheap rogues and dunces would cheat and lose more than could be saved on the salary account; but this argument did not appeal to the democracy of the time, and the liberal schedule established for the federal officers caused opposition. Retrenchment, therefore, was a natural plank in the Republican platform. Not high salaries alone were attacked, but also the tendency to strengthen the central government, and particularly the executive, by creating an extensive patronage; and it was urged that the civil service must be reduced to the lowest terms.

Both of these objects had been in mind when the judiciary act was repealed, and Jefferson struck a popular chord when he lopped off two missions and saved about twenty thousand dollars a year in the diplomatic service. More important was Gallatin's plan for the abolition of the internal taxes. Throughout the discussion of this measure, particularly in the House of Representatives, the Republican members repeatedly asserted that one of its main objects was the reduction of the patronage. The Federalists argued that, if this was the end desired, the taxes might be collected by the customs officers and the postmasters. There were, of course, other motives for passing the bill; but there seems little doubt that the majority of the Republicans were sincerely pleased at the reduction of the civil service thus entailed. The actual annual saving effected seems to have been about one hundred and fifteen thousand dollars. The only important offices abolished were sixteen supervisorships and

inspectorships, together with the post of commissioner of the revenue. These officers could not be spared at once, as there were taxes already due that must be collected; but a year later provision was made that the president be authorized to attach their duties to those of any other officer in the district. It was proposed also to discontinue the mint, but the measure was never adopted.

In addition to the actual retrenchments, a number of useful regulative acts were passed. One of these fixed the maximum compensation for customs officials; it did not save much money, but was a step toward the correct principle of fixed salaries as opposed to fees. While these measures tended to show the good faith of the Republicans, the sum total of the economies was not very great. One bill, the judiciary act of 1802, actually increased the patronage of the president by transferring to him, from the district judges, the appointment of commissioners of bankruptcy, thus giving Jefferson the opportunity to do the ungracious act of displacing John Quincy Adams. What little reduction was made in the patronage of the president was soon offset by the increases made necessary by the growth of the country, and particularly by the annexation of Louisiana.

Jefferson had, therefore, more offices to fill than had Washington, and he devoted himself to the task with great energy. The Federalist press represented him as overwhelmed by “strange beings continually. . . crying More, More, Give, Give.” Some cases presented little difficulty; he accepted as an axiom that all officers removed by Adams for political reasons should receive appointments, preferably to their old

Gardner and Whipple went back to their posts, and Tench Coxe became supervisor for Pennsylvania. Two clerks claimed appointments as martyrs of the previous regime: one had been removed by Adams, the other had apparently been forced to resign. These men, in plain violation of good faith and actual legal regulation, had given Duane information which enabled him to bring charges of defalcation against Timothy Pickering and Jonathan Dayton. Gallatin wrote: “Whatever impropriety there might be in their conduct, I have reason to believe Gardner to be a man of honor. Campbell is very impudent, but as enthusiastic as his friends (the United Irishmen, I mean) commonly are.” Gardner was made consul at Demarara; and Campbell, as the new auditor refused to restore him to his old position, was made an ensign in the army.

Where no such special claim existed, the decision called for more consideration, and a procedure developed much like the old Federalist machinery. Members of Congress continued to be the main purveyors of information. The New Yorkers, already becoming adept at businesslike politics, agreed upon a slate, to be submitted to the president by Burr in the name of the whole delegation in Congress. This was accepted, but with a few changes. Although this form was not always followed, the successful candidate seems generally to have been the one who had the support of his state delegation; and if congressmen did not take the initiative, the president usually consulted some of them in regard to names presented. It was natural,

considering the democratic principles of the party, that petitions should be numerous. The Massachusetts Spy, under Pennsylvania news, told how “A secret committee of accusation, established for the blackest purposes, in a neighboring commercial town, lately forwarded a memorial to President Jefferson against their Collector, a worthy citizen,. . . praying that he should be removed from office.” While petitions of unconnected individuals doubtless had full weight, Jefferson refused to be influenced even by those from organized bodies. Certain prominent men, incipient political bosses, exercised much influence. In New York the Livingstons, the Clintons, and Burr, in Pennsylvania, Duane and Dallas, struggled to gain advantage from the distribution of the patronage; Dearborn seemed to control that of Maine without struggle, and Caesar Rodney that of Delaware. Burr fared ill in the conflict. Davis, his candidate for naval officer at New York, was not appointed, though he pressed the nomination on Jefferson in a personal interview, and wrote a most abject letter to Gallatin. Perhaps with a view of keeping up his hopes and so preventing a break in the administration no change was made in the office for two years, although the Federalist incumbent was guilty of “ante-revolutionary adherence to enemies.” The post-office was given to a friend, but not the one selected by the vice-president; nor could the latter secure the withdrawal of the printing from Cheetham, who was abusing him. On the other hand, he was highly favored in the Louisiana appointments. Jefferson apparently endeavored so to treat him as to

avoid the danger of making him too powerful on the one hand, and of causing a premature break with him on the other. Although these men and many more exercised influence, there is no hint in the correspondence of the period that the administration felt itself in the least dependent on any individual or organization: no matter what its position or power, no dictation was allowed. To Mr. Larkin Smith, who presumed to dictate on the ground that he was a presidential elector, Jefferson replied in a letter of admirable dignity and self-restraint, utterly dismissing the claim.

It was Jefferson, therefore, who outlined the qualifications for office, although he did not as rigorously adhere to a fixed rule as had Washington. Fitness continued to be considered essential; and while careful character studies are lacking, such as Henry Marchant sent to Hamilton and the latter to Wolcott, Jefferson and Gallatin sought out suitable candidates, not confining their choice to those who offered their services. That these efforts were genuine is evinced by the many declinations they received; Jefferson wrote to Gouverneur Morris that he feared he should have to advertise for a secretary of the navy. The majority of the appointees came from the same class of the population as those under the Federalists. The president wrote to Gallatin in regard to a man proposed for a New England position, “His family has been among the most respectable on that shore for many generations.” Some selections were even commented on by the Federalist newspapers as “judicious and proper.” The Jefferson Democracy, however,

brought new classes into politics, and, to the dismay of the conservative, these received some recognition. Especially the appointment of the foreign-born — “wild Irishmen” and French refugees — called out such voluble criticism as to drown the occasional faint praise.

Among the elements of selection, geographical distribution may be regarded as permanent; but under Jefferson we find a markedly greater stress laid on politics than previously. Not only was the general political effect of appointments anxiously discussed, but party services were vigorously urged as paramount reason for receiving office, and very often were given recognition. There were some complaints that the new Republican office-holders engaged actively in politics; General Lincoln, for example, was accused of causing an expense of three thousand dollars for extra clerk hire while he was electioneering in Massachusetts. Such complaints, however, were not numerous, and there is no indication that such activity was required or expected.

Jefferson professed to be, and apparently was, free from nepotism; it was opposed to his character, and, moreover, he understood full well its political danger. To do a favor for a friend, however, was second nature to him, and his administration of the civil service is marred by favoritism. July 3, 1806, he wrote to John Page that, having consulted “the best medical judge” on the subject, he expected the early demise of the commissioner of loans for the Richmond district. “The office is a perfect sinecure,” he wrote. “The introduction of one of your sons into the office [as clerk], besides adding the benefit of the additional thousand dollars to the family, would, by placing him as it were in possession of the office, secure his succeeding to it in that event which you and I ought now to consider as not

very remote.” The appointment was made; but Page's health failed, and Jefferson, solicitous lest he should overexert himself, wrote, “Would it be a relief to transfer the office to your son Francis. . . for the benefit of the family?” Francis did not succeed his father, but was later appointed by Madison as collector of Yorktown. Freneau, while editing the leading administration paper of Charleston, South Carolina, held one of these sinecures until 1810, when financial disaster forced him to relinquish paper and position.

It is evident that, in spite of favoritism and politics, Jefferson succeeded in the main object which he placed before himself in dealing with the patronage, — that of satisfying the people. In this, as in many other cases, his sympathetic response to popular desire gave him unexpected victory; to satisfy his own followers, and at the same time not to alienate the masses of the opposition, was indeed a wonderful feat. So cleverly did Jefferson steer his bark that the patronage had ceased to be an issue by 1809. Technically one must assign to Jefferson the introduction of the spoils system into the national service, for party service was recognized as a reason for appointment to office, and party dissent as a cause for removal. It was not, however, the sole reason required; and, as has been shown, the character of the civil service was really not much changed. The natural question, why this proscription, proportionately as extensive as that of Jackson, affected the civil service and subsequent politics so much less, can best be answered in the discussion of Jackson's administration.


text:
Author:Carl Russell Fish

Works

 * The Civil Service and the Patronage (1905)

title: Author:Carl Russell Fish


text:
The Encyclopedia Americana (1920)/Hungerford, Margaret Hamilton Wolfe Argles

HUNGERFORD, Margaret Hamilton Wolfe Argles (“”), Irish novelist: b. Ross, Ireland, about 1855; d. Bandon, County Cork, 24 Jan, 1897. She was the daughter of a vicar choral of Cork Cathedral and the death of her first husband, Edward Argles, left her with a young family to support, whereupon she took to writing novels, using the pseudonym “.” Later she was married to T. H. Hungerford. Her more than 30 novels were widely popular both in America and England and without possessing a large amount of literary value are cleverly written, entertaining fictions. Among them may he cited ‘Phyllis’ (1877); ‘Molly Bawn’ (1878); ‘Airy Fairy Lillian’ (1879); ‘Beauty's Daughters’ (1880); ‘Mrs. Geoffrey’ (1881); ‘Portia’ (1882); ‘O Tender Dolores’ (1885); ‘Green Pastures and Gray Grief’ (1886); ‘A Modern Circe’ (1887); ‘The Duchess’ (1887); ‘Undercurrents’ (1888); ‘Hon. Mrs. Vereker’

(1888). Consult Taisin, A., ‘Best Sellers of Yesterday’ (in Bookman, Vol. XXXVIII, p. 645, New York 1914).


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Hamilton, John (1761-1814)


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Hamilton, John (1755-1835)


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Hamilton, Malcolm


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Hamilton, Mary


text:
Page:Life among the Apaches.djvu/12

6

title: Page:Life among the Apaches.djvu/12


text:
User:Hendrawd

Hendra Wijaya Djiono is an entrepreneur from Cepu, Central Java. He graduated from a well-known university: Bina Nusantara University, located in Jakarta, Indonesia on 19th November 2011. He graduated with Bachelor Degree of Computer Science. Now, he started contributing in proofreading Kamus bahasa Sunda-Inggris.

Links

 * Hendra Wijaya Djiono on Facebook

title: User:Hendrawd


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Hamilton, Patrick


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Hamilton, Richard (fl.1688)


text:
Page:A Life of Matthew Fontaine Maury.pdf/123

 Rh

the progress of the narrative, we now come to what was to Maury perhaps the most painful and mortifying episode in his career. Although restitution was made, and he was restored to the service and promoted by special Act of Congress, yet the iron entered into his soul.

On February 28th, 1855, was passed, by the Senate and House of Representatives, an Act to promote the efficiency of the Navy, by which it was provided that the President of the United States shall cause a Board of Naval Officers to be assembled, to consist of five captains, five commanders, and five lieutenants, who shall make a careful examination into the efficiency of the officers of the grades hereinafter mentioned, and shall report to the Secretary of the Navy the name and rank of all officers of said grades who in the judgment of said Board shall be incapable of performing efficiently all their duty both ashore and afloat.

The following is the official announcement, and the first intimation that Maury received that the Board had placed him on the Retired List:—

The Board of Naval Officers assembled under the Act to promote the efficiency of the Navy, approved Feb. 28th,


text: Page:A dictionary of the Sunda language of Java.djvu/560


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Hamilton, Richard Winter


text:
Page:Life among the Apaches.djvu/13

Rh

title: Page:Life among the Apaches.djvu/13


text:
Page:Life among the Apaches.djvu/14

CHAPTER XV.

CHAPTER XVI.

CHAPTER XVII.

title: Page:Life among the Apaches.djvu/14


text:
Page:Weird Tales volume 30 number 04.djvu/21

404, "Look at me, mon beau.' Her eyes were closed, her lips were slightly parted, and beneath the arc of her long lashes I could see the glimmer of fast-forming tears. 'Embrasse moi', she commanded in a trembling breath. 'Kiss me and go quickly, but O mon chèr, do not forget poor little foolish Julie d'Ayen who has put her trust in you. Come to me again tomorrow night!"

"I was reeling as from vertigo as I walked back to the Greenwald, and the bartender looked at me suspiciously when I ordered a sazarac. They've a strict rule against serving drunken men at that hotel. The liquor stung my lips like liquid flame, and I put the cocktail down half finished. When I set the fan to going and switched the light on in my room I looked into the mirror and saw two little beads of fresh, bright blood upon my lips. 'Good Lord!' I murmured stupidly as I brushed the blood away; 'she bit me!'

"It all seemed so incredible that if I had not seen the blood upon my mouth I'd have thought I suffered from some lunatic hallucination, or one too many f rappes at the Absinthe House. Julie was as quaint and out of time as a Directoire print, even in a city where time stands still as it does in old New Orleans. Her costume, her half-shy boldness, her—this was simply madness, nothing less!—her conversation with that snake!

"What was it she had said? My French was none too good, and in the circumstances it was hardly possible to pay attention to her words, but if I'd understood her, she'd declared, 'He's mine; he has dedicated himself to me!' And she'd aaddressed that crawling horror as grand'tante—great-aunt!'

"'Feller, you're as crazy as a cockroach!' I admonished my reflection in the mirror, 'But I know what'll cure you. You're taking the first train north tomorrow morning, and if I ever catch you in the Vieux Carré again, I'll——'

"A sibilating hiss, no louder than the noise made by steam escaping from a kettle-spout, sounded close beside my foot. There on the rug, coiled in readiness to strike, was a three-foot cottonmouth, head swaying viciously from side to side, wicked eyes shining in the bright light from the chandelier. I saw the muscles in the creature's fore-part swell, and in a sort of horror-trance I watched its head dart forward, but, miraculously, it stopped its stroke half-way, and drew its head back, turning to glance menacingly at me first from one eye, then the other. Somehow, it seemed to me, the thing was playing with me as a cat might play a mouse, threatening, intimidating, letting me know it was master of the situation and could kill me any time it wished, but deliberately refraining from the death-stroke.

"With one leap I was in the middle of my bed, and when a squad of bellboys came running in response to the frantic call for help I telephoned, they found me crouched against the headboard, almost wild with fear.

"They turned the room completely inside out, rolling back the rugs, probing into chairs and sofa, emptying the bureau drawers, even taking down the towels from the bathroom rack, but nowhere was there any sign of the water moccasin that had terrified me. At the end of fifteen minutes' search they accepted half a dollar each and went grinning from the room. I knew it would be useless to appeal for help again, for I heard one whisper to another as they paused outside my door: 'It ain't right to let them Yankees loose in N'Orleans; they don't know how to hold their licker.'


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Carleton, William (1794-1869)


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Hamilton, Robert (1650-1701)


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Hamilton, Robert (1721-1793)


text:
Page:Schools of Charles the Great.djvu/19

Rh


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Hamilton, Robert (1743-1829)


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Hamilton, Robert (1749-1830)


text:
The Encyclopedia Americana (1920)/Hunkers

HUNKERS (supposably from Dutch honk, “post” or “station”; “stick-in-the-muds”), in American politics, at present a contemptuous nickname, like “moss-backs,” for the unprogressive elements of a party, which detest change. Originally, a name given about 1844 to the section of the New York State Democrats which opposed new issues; the points for which it then stood, however, had become party tenets from about 1835. Thence till 1840 the Hunker faction was in opposition to the ../Locofoco/ wing (q.v.) which opposed bank charters; but was obliged to yield in 1838. From 1840 to 1846 they opposed the Radicals, who wished a revised State constitution, elective judges and cessation of State canal building. Thence till 1852 they opposed the ../Barnburners/ (q.v.), who, at first separately and then in alliance with the Free-Soil party (q.v.) fought the National Democratic party for recognition of its State power. After the election of Pierce in 1852, it divided into “hards” and “softs”; the first under Daniel S. Dickinson opposed the administration, the second under William L. Marcy supported it. The former made up the bulk of the “War Democrats” after 1861. Besides those named, Horatio Seymour is the best remembered Hunker leader; while the opposition has the familiar names of Martin Van Buren, Silas Wright and John A. Dix, besides others remembered by the older generation.


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Hamilton, Robert (1750?-1831)


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Hamilton, Robert North Collie


text:
User:Dede2008/common.js

mw.loader.load('//meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Dede2008/global.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript');

title: User:Dede2008/common.js


text:
The Encyclopedia Americana (1920)/Barnay, Ludwig

BARNAY, Ludwig, German actor: b. Pesth 1842. He made his first stage appearance at Trautenau in 1860, and thereafter appeared at Pesth, Gratz, Mainz, Vienna, Prague, Riga Leipzig and Weimar. From 1870 to 1875 he was at the Stadt-Theater of Frankfort-on-the-Main, and from 1875 to 1880 at the Stadt-Theater of Hamburg. He visited London in 1881 as leading actor of the Meiningen Court Company, and came to the United States in 1882 where he had a very successful tour. He managed the Berliner Theater in Berlin 1887-94, and then took up his residence at Wiesbaden. He excels as a tragedian. His principal roles are Essex, Uriel Acosta, Othello, Antony, Tell and Egmont. He helped organize the stage congress at Weimar in 1871, which led to the formation of the Bühnengenossenschaft, which has been of great service to members of the German theatrical profession.


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Hamilton, Thomas (1563-1637)


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Hamilton, Thomas (1600-1640)


text:
The Encyclopedia Americana (1920)/Barnburners

BARNBURNERS, a nickname for the progressive section of the New York State Democracy from about 1844 to 1852, which retaliated by calling the other party “Hunkers.” They were essentially the same party which from 1835 onward had favored extension of the canal system, while their opponents were the same who wished it restricted to immediately profitable canals; but under these names the division was on the slavery question (see ), in which the Barnburners were the Van Buren or Free-Soil wing. They also stood for the local control by the “Albany Regency,” as against the Polk “machine” which the new administration was trying to build up in New York, and which favored the extension of slavery into the Territories. About 1852 the nicknames changed into “Softs” and “Hards,” corresponding with new issues to the later “Half-breeds” and “Stalwarts.” The origin of the name is usually derived from the familiar campaign story of the man who burned his barn to free it from rats.


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Hamilton, Thomas (1680-1735)


text:
Page:A Picturesque Tour of the Island of Jamaica.djvu/74

 At this period, when the whole system of colonial slavery is so grossly misrepresented, it will only be an act of justice to state, that Mr. Blagrove was always considered by his slaves as a most kind and humane master. They amounted in number to about 1,500, and are a fine people, and unquestionable specimens of the happiness and comfort to which a slave population may attain, however melancholy it may be to contemplate the risks to which the late discussions are daily exposing them. Mr. Blagrove has given a legacy by his will, which marks at once a feeling for his slaves, that few men would bestow on the free labourers of England. We give his bequest in his own words:—

“And lastly, to my loving people, denominated and recognized by law as, and being in fact my slaves in Jamaica, but more estimated and considered by me and my family as tenants for life attached to the soil, I bequeath a dollar for every man, woman, and child, as a small token of my regard for their faithful and affectionate service and willing labours to myself and family, being reciprocally bound in one general tie of master and servant in the prosperity of the land, from which we draw our mutual comforts and subsistence in our several relations (a tie and interest not practised on by the hired labourer of the day in the United Kingdom), the contrary of which doctrine is held only by the visionists of the puritanical order against the common feeling of mankind.”

The annexed view is taken from the great interior road, and represents, seen through the Pimento Grove, the south or entrance front of the house. On the right is the barbecure, or plaister floor, on which the pimento is spread out to dry. The excellence of the house, the delightful variety of the grounds, and the contiguity to the sea, render Cardiff Hall one of the most desirable residences in the Island of Jamaica.


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Hamilton, Thomas (1789-1842)


text:
The New International Encyclopædia/Barnay, Ludwig

BARNAY, bär'nḯ, (1842—). A German actor, born at Pesth. He made his début in 1860 at Trautenau, and appeared in his native city the following year, after which he had engagements of varying length in Gratz, Mainz,

Vienna, Prague, Riga, Mainz again, Leipzig, and Weimar. From 1870 to 1875 he was at the Stadt-Theater of Frankfort-on-the-Main, and for the next five years at that of Hamburg, where he acted as director. For several years thereafter he traveled as a ‘star,’ visiting London with the Meiningen Court Company in 1881, and in 1882 making a successful tour in the United States. From 1887 to 1894 he managed his Berliner Theater in Berlin. He has since made his home in Wiesbaden. Barnay's greatest talents have been shown in tragedy. Among his most noted rôles are Essex, Uriel Acosta, Othello, Antony, Tell, and Egmont. He was the leader in the movement which assembled the stage congress at Weimar in 1871, thus being founder of the ‘Association’ (Bühnengenossenschaft), which has proved of such value to the German theatrical profession.


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Hamilton, Thomas (1780-1858)


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Hamilton, Thomas (1784-1858)


text:
Page:EB1911 - Volume 02.djvu/27

 1667. This same year his naval accounts were subjected to an examination in consequence of his indignant refusal to take part in the attack upon Ormonde; and he was suspended from his office in 1668, no charge, however, against him being substantiated. He took a prominent part in the dispute in 1671 between the two Houses concerning the right of the Lords to amend money bills, and wrote a learned pamphlet on the question entitled The Privileges of the House of Lords and Commons (1702), in which the right of the Lords was asserted. In April 1673 he was appointed lord privy seal, and was disappointed at not obtaining the great seal the same year on the removal of Shaftesbury. In 1679 he was included in Sir W. Temple’s new-modelled council.

In the bitter religious controversies of the time Anglesey showed great moderation and toleration. In 1674 he is mentioned as endeavouring to prevent the justices putting into force the laws against the Roman Catholics and Nonconformists. In the panic of the “Popish Plot” in 1678 he exhibited a saner judgment than most of his contemporaries and a conspicuous courage. On the 6th of December he protested with three other peers against the measure sent up from the Commons enforcing the disarming of all convicted recusants and taking bail from them to keep the peace; he was the only peer to dissent from the motion declaring the existence of an Irish plot; and though believing in the guilt and voting for the death of Lord Stafford, he interceded, according to his own account, with the king for him as well as for Langhorne and Plunket. His independent attitude drew upon him an attack by Dangerfield, and in the Commons by the attorney-general, Sir W. Jones, who accused him of endeavouring to stifle the evidence against the Romanists. In March 1679 he protested against the second reading of the bill for disabling Danby. In 1681 Anglesey wrote A Letter from a Person of Honour in the Country, as a rejoinder to the earl of Castlehaven, who had published memoirs on the Irish rebellion defending the action of the Irish and the Roman Catholics. In so doing Anglesey was held by Ormonde to have censured his conduct and that of Charles I. in concluding the “Cessation,” and the duke brought the matter before the council. In 1682 he wrote The Account of Arthur, Earl of Anglesey of the true state of Your Majesty’s Government and Kingdom, which was addressed to the king in a tone of censure and remonstrance, but appears not to have been printed till 1694. In consequence he was dismissed on the 9th of August 1682 from the office of lord privy seal. In 1683 he appeared at the Old Bailey as a witness in defence of Lord Russell, and in June 1685 he protested alone against the revision of Stafford’s attainder. He died at his home at Blechingdon in Oxfordshire on the 26th of April 1686, closing a career marked by great ability, statesmanship and business capacity, and by conspicuous courage and independence of judgment. He amassed a large fortune in Ireland, in which country he had been allotted lands by Cromwell.

The unfavourable character drawn of him by Burnet is certainly unjust and not supported by any evidence. Pepys, a far more trustworthy judge, speaks of him invariably in terms of respect and approval as a “grave, serious man,” and commends his appointment as treasurer of the navy as that of “a very notable man and understanding and will do things regular and understand them himself.” He was a learned and cultivated man and collected a celebrated library, which was dispersed at his death. Besides the pamphlets already mentioned, he wrote:—A True Account of the Whole Proceedings betwixt the Duke of Ormond and  the Earl of Anglesey (1682); A Letter of Remarks upon Jovian (1683); other works ascribed to him being The King’s Right of Indulgence in Matters Spiritual  asserted (1688); Truth Unveiled, to which is added a short Treatise on  Transubstantiation (1676); The Obligation resulting from the Oath of Supremacy (1688); and England’s Confusion (1659). Memoirs of Lord Anglesey were published by Sir P. Pett in 1693, but contain little biographical information and were repudiated as a mere imposture by Sir John Thompson (Lord Haversham), his son-in-law, in his preface to Lord Anglesey’s State of the Government in 1694. The author however of the preface to The Rights of the Lords asserted (1702), while blaming their publication as “scattered and unfinished papers,” admits their genuineness.

Lord Anglesey married Elizabeth, daughter and co-heiress of Sir James Altham of Oxey, Hertfordshire, by whom, besides other children, he had James, who succeeded him, Altham, created Baron Altham, and Richard, afterwards 3rd Baron Altham. His descendant Richard, the 6th earl (d. 1761), left a son Arthur, whose legitimacy was doubted, and the peerage became extinct. He was summoned to the Irish House of Peers as Viscount Valentia, but was denied his writ to the parliament of Great Britain by a majority of one vote. He was created in 1793 earl of Mountnorris in the peerage of Ireland. All the male descendants of the 1st earl of Anglesey became extinct in the person of George, 2nd earl of Mountnorris, in 1844, when the titles of Viscount Valentia and Baron Mountnorris passed to his cousin Arthur Annesley (1785–1863), who thus became 10th Viscount Valentia, being descended from the 1st Viscount Valentia, the father of the 1st earl of Anglesey in the Annesley family. The 1st viscount was also the ancestor of the Earls Annesley in the Irish peerage.

ANGLESEY, HENRY WILLIAM PAGET, 1st (1768–1854), British field-marshal, was born on the 17th of May 1768. He was the eldest son of Henry Paget, 1st earl of Uxbridge (d. 1812), and was educated at Westminster School and Christ Church, Oxford, afterwards entering parliament in 1790 as member for Carnarvon, for which he sat for six years. At the outbreak of the French Revolutionary wars Lord Paget (as he was then styled), who had already served in the militia, raised on his father’s estate the regiment of Staffordshire volunteers, in which he was given the temporary rank of lieutenant-colonel (1793). The corps soon became part of the regular army as the 80th Foot, and it took part, under Lord Paget’s command, in the Flanders campaign of 1794. In spite of his youth he held a brigade command for a time, and gained also, during the campaign, his first experience of the cavalry arm, with which he was thenceforward associated. His substantive commission as lieutenant-colonel of the 16th Light Dragoons bore the date of the 15th of June 1795, and in 1796 he was made a colonel in the army. In 1795 he married Lady Caroline Elizabeth Villiers, daughter of the earl of Jersey. In April 1797 Lord Paget was transferred to a lieut.-colonelcy in the 7th Light Dragoons, of which regiment he became colonel in 1801. From the first he applied himself strenuously to the improvement of discipline, and to the perfection of a new system of cavalry evolutions. In the short campaign of 1799 in Holland, Paget commanded the cavalry brigade, and in spite of the unsuitable character of the ground, he made, on several occasions, brilliant and successful charges. After the return of the expedition, he devoted himself zealously to his regiment, which under his command became one of the best corps in the service. In 1802 he was promoted major-general, and six years later lieutenant-general. In command of the cavalry of Sir John Moore’s army during the Corunna campaign, Lord Paget won the greatest distinction. At Sahagun, Mayorga and Benavente, the British cavalry behaved so well under his leadership that Moore wrote:—“It is impossible for me to say too much in its praise. Our cavalry is very superior in quality to any the French have, and

title: Page:EB1911 - Volume 02.djvu/27


text:
Page:Southern Historical Society Papers volume 09.djvu/10

Vol. IX.

February 15, 1864.

General,—I have the honor to report that, in accordance with instructions received from General Lee, under date of January 20, 1864, the expedition left Kingston as follows:

General Barton with his own brigade and that of Kemper, and three regiments of Ranson's, eight rifle-pieces, six Napoleons, and six hundred cavalry on the morning of the 30th ultimo to cross the Trent and take the works in front of Newbern, in reverse, and prevent the enemy reinforced by land or water. Later in the day I sent off the Fifteenth and Seventeenth Virginia to report to Colonel Dearing on the north side of the Neuse river—with this three pieces of artillery,—Whitford's regiment, and three hundred cavalry. He was to have attacked, if practicable, "Fort Anderson"—Barrington's. Commander Wood, of the navy, with his boat party, left on the 31st ultimo, and I, with Hoke's brigade, three regiments of Corse's and two of Clingman's


text:
Page:Southern Historical Society Papers volume 09.djvu/442

Vol. IX.

Nov. 30th, 1881.

''Rev'd J. Wm. Jones, Secretary of the''

Southern Historical Society, Richmond, Va.:

-The Hon. Jefferson Davis in his admirable argument exposing the absurdity of Judge Story's theory, that the Declaration of Independence implied or declared that the people of the several revolted colonies were "one whole people," (i. e. one sovereign political community,) forcibly says, at page 126, of Vol. I of "The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government," that if so, then the colony of Maryland must have been in a state of "rebellion" against the other colonies, as well as against Great Britain, from 1778 to 1781, "during which period Maryland refused to ratify or be bound by the Articles of Confederation," which instrument, if Judge Story's theory be correct, was, as Mr. Davis pertinently remarks, "binding upon her, as a majority of the 'whole people' had adopted it." Mr. Davis then continues as follows: "A fortiori, North Carolina and Rhode Island were in a state of rebellion while they declined to ratify and recognize the Constitution adopted by the other eleven fractions of this united


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Hamilton, Walter Kerr


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Hamilton, William de


text:
The New International Encyclopædia/Hunkers

HUNKERS (perhaps from Dutch honk, station, home). In American political history, the name applied for some years after 1843 to that part of the Democratic Party in the State of New York which stood for conservatism, and was arrayed against the radical faction of the same party, known as the ../Barnburners/ (q.v.). Factional differences had arisen in the party prior to 1843, but open and avowed antagonism may be said to date from that year. The Hunkers adhered to the regular Democratic Party in the Presidential contest of 1848, while their opponents united with the Free Soilers, and with them nominated Van Buren. After 1852 the two factions acted more or less in harmony in both State and National politics. Among the leaders of the Hunkers were Horatio Seymour, William L. Marcy, Samuel Beardsley, Edwin Croswell, and Daniel S. Dickinson. The name ‘Hunkers’ was also applied at times to the Conservative element of the Democratic Party in other States.


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Hamilton, William (1616-1651)


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Hamilton, William (d.1724)


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Hamilton, William (d.1729)


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Hamilton, William (1665?-1751)


text:
Page:EB1911 - Volume 12.djvu/436

 national spirit of England in the great final campaign of the war. Meanwhile the motto frappez fort, frappez vite was carried out at once by the regular forces. On the 19th of July 1650 Cromwell made the final arrangements at Berwick-on-Tweed. Major-General Harrison, a gallant soldier and an extreme Independent, was to command the regular and auxiliary forces left in England, and to secure the Commonwealth against Royalists and Presbyterians. Cromwell took with him Fleetwood as lieutenant-general and Lambert as major-general, and his forces numbered about 10,000 foot and 5000 horse. His opponent David Leslie (his comrade of Marston Moor) had a much larger force, but its degree of training was inferior, it was more than tainted by the political dissensions of the people at large, and it was, in great part at any rate, raised by forced enlistment. On the 22nd of July Cromwell crossed the Tweed. He marched on Edinburgh by the sea coast, through Dunbar, Haddington and Musselburgh, living almost entirely on supplies landed by the fleet which accompanied him—for the country itself was incapable of supporting even a small army—and on the 29th he found Leslie’s army drawn up and entrenched in a position extending from Leith to Edinburgh.

52. Operations around Edinburgh.—The same day a sharp but indecisive fight took place on the lower slopes of Arthur’s Seat, after which Cromwell, having felt the strength of Leslie’s line, drew back to Musselburgh. Leslie’s horse followed him up sharply, and another action was fought, after which the Scots assaulted Musselburgh without success. Militarily Leslie had the best of it in these affairs, but it was precisely this moment that the kirk party chose to institute a searching three days’ examination of the political and religious sentiments of his army. The result was that the army was “purged” of 80 officers and 3000 soldiers as it lay within musket shot of the enemy. Cromwell was more concerned, however, with the supply question than with the distracted army of the Scots. On the 6th of August he had to fall back as far as Dunbar to enable the fleet to land supplies in safety, the port of Musselburgh being unsafe in the violent and stormy weather which prevailed. He soon returned to Musselburgh and prepared to force Leslie to battle. In preparation for an extended manœuvre three days’ rations were served out. Tents were also issued, perhaps for the first time in the civil wars, for it was a regular professional army, which had to be cared for, made comfortable and economized, that was now carrying on the work of the volunteers of the first war. Even after Cromwell started on his manœuvre, the Scottish army was still in the midst of its political troubles, and, certain though he was that nothing but victory in the field would give an assured peace, he was obliged to intervene in the confused negotiations of the various Scottish parties. At last, however, Charles II. made a show of agreeing to the demands of his strange supporters, and Leslie was free to move. Cromwell had now entered the hill country, with a view to occupying Queensferry and thus blocking up Edinburgh. Leslie had the shorter road and barred the way at Corstorphine Hill (August 21). Cromwell, though now far from his base, manœuvred again to his right, Leslie meeting him once more at Gogar (August 27). The Scottish lines at that point were strong enough to dismay even Cromwell, and the manœuvre on Queensferry was at last given up. It had cost the English army severe losses in sick, and much suffering in the autumn nights on the bleak hillsides.

53. Dunbar.—On the 28th Cromwell fell back on Musselburgh, and on the 31st, after embarking his non-effective men, to Dunbar. Leslie followed him up, and wished to fight a battle at Dunbar on Sunday, the 1st of September. But again the kirk intervened, this time to forbid Leslie to break the Sabbath, and the unfortunate Scottish commander could only establish himself on Doon Hill (see ) and send a force to Cockburnspath to bar the Berwick road. He had now 23,000 men to Cromwell’s 11,000, and proposed, faute de mieux, to starve Cromwell into surrender. But the English army was composed of “ragged soldiers with bright muskets,” and had a great captain of undisputed authority at their head. Leslie’s, on the other hand,

had lost such discipline as it had ever possessed, and was now, under outside influences, thoroughly disintegrated. Cromwell wrote home, indeed, that he was “upon an engagement very difficult,” but, desperate as his position seemed, he felt the pulse of his opponent and steadily refused to take his army away by sea. He had not to wait long. It was now the turn of Leslie’s men on the hillside to endure patiently privation and exposure, and after one night’s bivouac, Leslie, too readily inferring that the enemy was about to escape by sea, came down to fight. The (q.v.) opened in the early morning of the 3rd of September. It was the most brilliant of all Oliver’s victories. Before the sun was high in the heavens the Scottish army had ceased to exist.

54. Royalism in Scotland.—After Dunbar it was easy for the victorious army to overrun southern Scotland, more especially as the dissensions of the enemy were embittered by the defeat of which they had been the prime cause. The kirk indeed put Dunbar to the account of its own remissness in not purging their army more thoroughly, but, as Cromwell wrote on the 4th of September, the kirk had “done its do.” “I believe their king will set up on his own score,” he continued, and indeed, now that the army of the kirk was destroyed and they themselves were secure behind the Forth and based on the friendly Highlands, Charles and the Cavaliers were in a position not only to defy Cromwell, but also to force the Scottish national spirit of resistance to the invader into a purely Royalist channel. Cromwell had only received a few drafts and reinforcements from England, and for the present he could but block up Edinburgh Castle (which surrendered on Christmas eve), and try to bring up adequate forces and material for the siege of Stirling—an attempt which was frustrated by the badness of the roads and the violence of the weather. The rest of the early winter of 1650 was thus occupied in semi-military, semi-political operations between detachments of the English army and certain armed forces of the kirk party which still maintained a precarious existence in the western Lowlands, and in police work against the moss-troopers of the Border counties. Early in February 1651, still in the midst of terrible weather, Cromwell made another resolute but futile attempt to reach Stirling. This time he himself fell sick, and his losses had to be made good by drafts of recruits from England, many of whom came most unwillingly to serve in the cold wet bivouacs that the newspapers had graphically reported.

55. The English Militia.—About this time there occurred in England two events which had a most important bearing on the campaign. The first was the detection of a widespread Royalist-Presbyterian conspiracy—how widespread no one knew, for those of its promoters who were captured and executed certainly formed but a small fraction of the whole number. Harrison was ordered to Lancashire in April to watch the north Welsh, Isle of Man and Border Royalists, and military precautions were taken in various parts of England. The second was the revival of the militia. Since 1644 there had been no general employment of local forces, the quarrel having fallen into the hands of the regular armies by force of circumstances. The New Model, though a national army, resembled Wellington’s Peninsular army more than the soldiers of the French Revolution and the American Civil War. It was now engaged in prosecuting a war of aggression against the hereditary foe over the Border—strictly the task of a professional army with a national basis. The militia was indeed raw and untrained. Some of the Essex men “fell flat on their faces on the sound of a cannon.” In the north of England Harrison complained to Cromwell of the “badness” of his men, and the lord general sympathized, having “had much such stuff” sent him to make good the losses in trained men. Even he for a moment lost touch with the spirit of the people. His recruits were unwilling drafts for foreign service, but in England the new levies were trusted to defend

title: Page:EB1911 - Volume 12.djvu/436


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Hamilton, William (1704-1754)


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Hamilton, William (1758-1790)


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Hamilton, William (1755-1797)


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Hamilton, William (1751-1801)


text:
Page:A Picturesque Tour of the Island of Jamaica.djvu/9

TITLE. DEDICATION. ARRANGEMENT WORK,  LIST  VIEWS  JAMAICA.

INTRODUCTION. HISTORICAL SKETCH.