Part 7

The only prominent event in the history of the island during the later years of the 18th century, was the threatened invasion by the French and Spanish in 1782, but Jamaica was saved by the victory of Rodney and Hood off Dominica. The last attempt at invasion was made in 1806, when the French were defeated by Admiral Duckworth. When the slave trade was abolished the island was at the zenith of its prosperity; sugar, coffee, cocoa, pimento, ginger and indigo were being produced in large quantities, and it was the dépôt of a very lucrative trade with the Spanish main. The anti-slavery agitation in Great Britain found its echo in the island, and in 1832 the negroes revolted, believing that emancipation had been granted. They killed a number of whites and destroyed a large amount of valuable property. Two years later the Emancipation Act was passed, and, subject to a short term of apprenticeship, the slaves were free. Emancipation left the planters in a pitiable condition financially. The British government awarded them compensation at the rate of £19 per slave, the market value of slaves at the time being £35, but most of this compensation went into the hands of the planters' creditors. They were left with over-worked estates, a poor market and a scarcity of labour. Nor was this the end of their misfortunes. During the slavery times the British government had protected the planter by imposing a heavy differential duty on foreign sugar; but on the introduction of free trade the price of sugar fell by one-half and reduced the profits of the already impoverished planter. Many estates, already heavily mortgaged, were abandoned, and the trade of the island was at a standstill. Differences between the executive, the legislature, and the home government, as to the means of retrenching the public expenditure, created much bitterness. Although some slight improvement marked the administration of Sir Charles Metcalfe and the earl of Elgin, when coolie immigration was introduced to supply the scarcity and irregularity of labour and the railway was opened, the improvement was not permanent. In 1865 Edward John Eyre became governor. Financial affairs were at their lowest ebb and the colonial treasury showed a deficit of £80,000. To meet this difficulty new taxes were imposed and discontent was rife among the negroes. Dr Underhill, the secretary of a Baptist organization known as the British Union, wrote to the colonial secretary in London, pointing out the state of affairs. This letter became public in Jamaica, and in the opinion of the governor added in no small measure to the popular excitement. On the 11th of October 1865 the negroes rose at Morant Bay and murdered the custos and most of the white inhabitants. The slight encounter which followed filled the island with terror, and there is no doubt that many excesses were committed on both sides. The assembly passed an act by which martial law was proclaimed, and the legislature passed an act abrogating the constitution.

The action of Governor Eyre, though generally approved throughout the West Indies, caused much controversy in England, and he was recalled. A prosecution was instituted against him, resulting in an elaborate exposition of martial law by Chief Justice Cockburn, but the jury threw out the bill and Eyre was discharged. He was succeeded in the government of Jamaica by Sir Henry Storks, and under the crown colony system of government the state of the island made slow but steady progress. In 1868 the first fruit shipment took place from Port Antonio, the immigration of coolies was revived, and cinchona planting was introduced. The method of government was changed in 1884, when a new constitution, slightly modified in 1895, was granted to the island.

In the afternoon of the 14th of January 1907 a terrible earthquake visited Kingston. Almost every building in the capital and in Port Royal, and many in St Andrews, were destroyed or seriously injured. The loss of life was variously estimated, but probably exceeded one thousand. Among those killed was Sir James Fergusson, 6th baronet (b. 1832). The principal shock was followed by many more of slighter intensity during the ensuing fortnight and later. On the 17th of January assistance was brought by three American war-ships under Rear-Admiral Davis, who however withdrew them on the 19th, owing to a misunderstanding with the governor of the island, Sir Alexander Swettenham, on the subject of the landing of marines from the vessels with a view to preserving order. The incident caused considerable sensation, and led to Sir A. Swettenham's resignation in the following March, Sir Sydney Olivier, K.C.M.G., being appointed governor. Order was speedily restored; but the destructive effect of the earthquake was a severe check to the prosperity of the island.

See Bryan Edwards, _History of the West Indies_ (London, 1809, and appendix, 1819); P. H. Gosse, _Journal of a Naturalist in Jamaica_ (London, 1851) and _Birds of Jamaica_ (1847); _Jamaica Handbook_ (London, annual); Bacon and Aaron, _New Jamaica_ (1890); W. P. Livingstone, _Black Jamaica_ (London, 1900), F. Cundall, _Bibliotheca Jamaicensis_. (Kingston, 1895), and _Studies in Jamaica History_ (1900); W. J. Gardner, _History of Jamaica_ (New York, 1909). For geology, see R. T. Hill, "The Geology and Physical Geography of Jamaica," _Bull. Mus. Com. Zool. Harvard_, xxxiv. (1899).

JAMAICA, formerly a village of Queens county, Long Island, New York, U.S.A., but after the 1st of January 1898 a part of the borough of Queens, New York City. Pop. (1890) 5361. It is served by the Long Island railroad, the lines of which from Brooklyn and Manhattan meet here and then separate to serve the different regions of the island.[1] King's Park (about 10 acres) comprises the estate of John Alsop King (1788-1867), governor of New York in 1857-1859, from whose heirs in 1897 the land was purchased by the village trustees. In South Jamaica there is a race track, at which meetings are held in the spring and autumn. The headquarters of the Queens Borough Department of Public Works and Police are in the Jamaica town-hall, and Jamaica is the seat of a city training school for teachers (until 1905 one of the New York State normal schools). For two guns, a coat, and a quantity of powder and lead, several New Englanders obtained from the Indians a deed for a tract of land here in September 1655. In March 1657 they received permission from Governor Stuyvesant to found a town, which was chartered in 1660 and was named Rustdorp by Stuyvesant, but the English called it Jamaica; it was rechartered in 1666, 1686 and 1788. The village was incorporated in 1814 and reincorporated in 1855. In 1665 it was made the seat of justice of the north riding; in 1683-1788 it was the shire town of Queens county. With Hempstead, Gravesend, Newtown and Flushing, also towns of New England origin and type, Jamaica was early disaffected towards the provincial government of New York. In 1669 these towns complained that they had no representation in a popular assembly, and in 1670 they protested against taxation without representation. The founders of Jamaica were mostly Presbyterians, and they organized one of the first Presbyterian churches in America. At the beginning of the War of Independence Jamaica was under the control of Loyalists; after the defeat of the Americans in the battle of Long Island (27th August 1776) it was occupied by the British; and until the end of the war it was the headquarters of General Oliver Delancey, who had command of all Long Island.

FOOTNOTE:

[1] In June 1908 the subway lines of the interborough system of New York City were extended to the Flatbush (Brooklyn) station of the Long Island railroad, thus bringing Jamaica into direct connexion with Manhattan borough by way of the East river tunnel, completed in the same year.

JAMB (from Fr. _jambe_, leg), in architecture, the side-post or lining of a doorway or other aperture. The jambs of a window outside the frame are called "reveals." Small shafts to doors and windows with caps and bases are known as "jamb-shafts"; when in the inside arris of the jamb of a window they are sometimes called "scoinsons."

JAMES (a variant of the name Jacob, Heb. [Hebrew: Yaacov], one who holds by the heel, outwitter, through O. Fr. _James_, another form of _Jacques_, _Jaques_, from Low Lat. _Jacobus_; cf. Ital. _Jacopo_ [Jacob], _Giacomo_ [James], Prov. _Jacme_, Cat. _Jaume_, Cast. _Jaime_), a masculine proper name popular in Christian countries as having been that of two of Christ's apostles. It has been borne by many sovereigns and other princes, the most important of whom are noticed below, after the heading devoted to the characters in the New Testament, in the following order: (1) kings of England and Scotland, (2) other kings in the alphabetical order of their countries, (3) the "Old Pretender." The article on the Epistle of James in the New Testament follows after the remaining biographical articles in which James is a surname.

JAMES (Gr. [Greek: Iakôbos], the Heb. _Ya'akob_ or Jacob), the name of several persons mentioned in the New Testament.

1. JAMES, the son of Zebedee. He was among the first who were called to be Christ's immediate followers (Mark i. 19 seq.; Matt. iv. 21 seq., and perhaps Luke v. 10), and afterwards obtained an honoured place in the apostolic band, his name twice occupying the second place after Peter's in the lists (Mark iii. 17; Acts i. 13), while on at least three notable occasions he was, along with Peter and his brother John, specially chosen by Jesus to be with him (Mark v. 37; Matt. xvii. i, xxvi. 37). This same prominence may have contributed partly to the title "Boanerges" or "sons of thunder" which, according to Mark iii. 17, Jesus himself gave to the two brothers. But its most natural interpretation is to be found in the impetuous disposition which would have called down fire from heaven on the offending Samaritan villagers (Luke ix. 54), and afterwards found expression, though in a different way, in the ambitious request to occupy the places of honour in Christ's kingdom (Mark x. 35 seq.). James is included among those who after the ascension waited at Jerusalem (Acts i. 13) for the descent of the Holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost. And though on this occasion only his name is mentioned, he must have been a zealous and prominent member of the Christian community, to judge from the fact that when a victim had to be chosen from among the apostles, who should be sacrificed to the animosity of the Jews, it was on James that the blow fell first. The brief notice is given in Acts xii. 1, 2. Eusebius (_Hist. Eccl._ ii. 9) has preserved for us from Clement of Alexandria the additional information that the accuser of the apostle "beholding his confession and moved thereby, confessed that he too was a Christian. So they were both led away to execution together; and on the road the accuser asked James for forgiveness. Gazing on him for a little while, he said, 'Peace be with thee,' and kissed him. And then both were beheaded together."

The later, and wholly untrustworthy, legends which tell of the apostle's preaching in Spain, and of the translation of his body to Santiago de Compostela, are to be found in the _Acta Sanctorum_ (July 25), vi. 1-124; see also Mrs Jameson's _Sacred and Legendary Art_, i. 230-241.

2. JAMES, the son of Alphaeus. He also was one of the apostles, and is mentioned in all the four lists (Matt. x. 3; Mark iii. 18; Luke vi. 15; Acts i. 13) by this name. We know nothing further regarding him, unless we believe him to be the same as James "the little."

3. JAMES, the little. He is described as the son of a Mary (Matt, xxvii. 56; Mark xv. 40), who was in all probability the wife of Clopas (John xix. 25). And on the ground that Clopas is another form of the name Alphaeus, this James has been thought by some to be the same as 2. But the evidence of the Syriac versions, which render Alphaeus by _Chalphai_, while Clopas is simply transliterated _Kleopha_, makes it extremely improbable that the two names are to be identified. And as we have no better ground for finding in Clopas the Cleopas of Luke xxiv. 18, we must be content to admit that James the little is again an almost wholly unknown personality, and has no connexion with any of the other Jameses mentioned in the New Testament.

4. JAMES, the father of Judas. There can be no doubt that in the mention of "Judas of James" in Luke vi. 16 the ellipsis should be supplied by "the son" and not as in the A.V. by "the brother" (cf. Luke iii. 1, vi. 14; Acts xii. 2, where the word [Greek: adelphos] is inserted). This Judas, known as Thaddaeus by Matthew and Mark, afterwards became one of the apostles, and is expressly distinguished by St John from the traitor as "not Iscariot" (John xiv. 22).

5. JAMES, the Lord's brother. In Matt. xiii. 55 and Mark vi. 3 we read of a certain James as, along with Joses and Judas and Simon, a "brother" of the Lord. The exact nature of the relationship there implied has been the subject of much discussion. Jerome's view (_de vir. ill._ 2), that the "brothers" were in reality cousins, "sons of Mary the sister of the Lord's mother," rests on too many unproved assumptions to be entitled to much weight, and may be said to have been finally disposed of by Bishop Lightfoot in his essay on "The Brothers of the Lord" (_Galatians_, pp. 252 sqq., _Dissertations on the Apostolic Age_, pp. 1 sqq.). Even however if we understand the word "brethren" in its natural sense, it may be applied either to the sons of Joseph by a former wife, in which case they would be the step-brothers of Jesus, or to sons born to Joseph and Mary after the birth of Jesus. The former of these views, generally known as the _Epiphanian_ view from its most zealous advocate in the 4th century, can claim for its support the preponderating voice of tradition (see the catena of references given by Lightfoot, _loc. cit._, who himself inclines to this view). On the other hand the _Helvidian_ theory as propounded by Helvidius, and apparently accepted by Tertullian (cf. _adv. Marc._ iv. 29), which makes James a brother of the Lord, as truly as Mary was his mother, undoubtedly seems more in keeping with the direct statements of the Gospels, and also with the after history of the brothers in the Church (see W. Patrick, _James the Brother of the Lord_, 1906, p. 5). In any case, whatever the exact nature of James's antecedents, there can be no question as to the important place which he occupied in the early Church. Converted to a full belief in the living Lord, perhaps through the special revelation that was granted to him (1 Cor. xv. 7), he became the recognized head of the Church at Jerusalem (Acts xii. 17, xv. 13, xxi. 18), and is called by St Paul (Gal. ii. 9), along with Peter and John, a "pillar" of the Christian community. He was traditionally the author of the epistle in the New Testament which bears his name (see JAMES, EPISTLE OF). From the New Testament we learn no more of the history of James the Lord's brother, but Eusebius (_Hist. Eccl._ ii. 23) has preserved for us from Hegesippus the earliest ecclesiastical traditions concerning him. By that authority he is described as having been a Nazarite, and on account of his eminent righteousness called "Just" and "Oblias." So great was his influence with the people that he was appealed to by the scribes and Pharisees for a true and (as they hoped) unfavourable judgment about the Messiahship of Christ. Placed, to give the greater publicity to his words, on a pinnacle of the temple, he, when solemnly appealed to, made confession of his faith, and was at once thrown down and murdered. This happened immediately before the siege. Josephus (_Antiq._ xx. 9, 1) tells that it was by order of Ananus the high priest, in the interval between the death of Festus and the arrival of his successor Albinus, that James was put to death; and his narrative gives the idea of some sort of judicial examination, for he says that along with some others James was brought before an assembly of judges, by whom they were condemned and delivered to be stoned. Josephus is also cited by Eusebius (_Hist. Eccl._ ii. 23) to the effect that the miseries of the siege were due to divine vengeance for the murder of James. Later writers describe James as an [Greek: episkopos] (Clem. Al. _apud_ Eus. _Hist. Ecc._ ii. 1) and even as an [Greek: episkopos episkopôn] (Clem. _Hom., ad init._). According to Eusebius (_Hist. Eccl._ vii. 19) his episcopal chair was still shown at Jerusalem at the time when Eusebius wrote.

BIBLIOGRAPHY.--In addition to the relevant literature cited above, see the articles under the heading "James" in Hastings's _Dictionary of the Bible_ (Mayor) and _Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels_ (Fulford), and in the _Encycl. Biblica_ (O. Cone); also the introductions to the Commentaries on the Epistle of James by Mayor and Knowling. Zahn has an elaborate essay on _Brüder und Vettern Jesu_ ("The Brothers and Cousins of Jesus") in the _Forschungen zur Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons_, vi. 2 (Leipzig, 1900). (G. Mi.)

JAMES I. (1566-1625), king of Great Britain and Ireland, formerly king of Scotland as James VI., was the only child of Mary Queen of Scots, and her second husband, Henry Stewart Lord Darnley. He was born in the castle of Edinburgh on the 19th of June 1566, and was proclaimed king of Scotland on the 24th of July 1567, upon the forced abdication of his mother. Until 1578 he was treated as being incapable of taking any real part in public affairs, and was kept in the castle of Stirling for safety's sake amid the confused fighting of the early years of his minority.

The young king was a very weakly boy. It is said that he could not stand without support until he was seven, and although he lived until he was nearly sixty, he was never a strong man. In after life he was a constant and even a reckless rider, but the weakness in his legs was never quite cured. During a great part of his life he found it necessary to be tied to the saddle. When on one occasion in 1621 his horse threw him into the New River near his palace of Theobalds in the neighbourhood of London, he had a very narrow escape of being drowned; yet he continued to ride as before. At all times he preferred to lean on the shoulder of an attendant when walking. This feebleness of body, which had no doubt a large share in causing certain corresponding deficiencies of character, was attributed to the agitations and the violent efforts forced on his mother by the murder of her secretary Rizzio when she was in the sixth month of her pregnancy. The fact that James was a bold rider, in spite of this serious disqualification for athletic exercise, should be borne in mind when he is accused of having been a coward.

The circumstances surrounding him in boyhood were not favourable to the development of his character. His immediate guardian or foster-father, the earl of Mar, was indeed an honourable man, and the countess, who had charge of the nursing of the king, discharged her duty so as to win his lasting confidence. James afterwards entrusted her with the care of his eldest son, Henry. When the earl died in 1572 his place was well filled by his brother, Sir Alexander Erskine. The king's education was placed under the care of George Buchanan, assisted by Peter Young, and two other tutors. Buchanan, who did not spare the rod, and the other teachers, who had more reverence for the royal person, gave the boy a sound training in languages. The English envoy, Sir Henry Killigrew, who saw him in 1574, testified to his proficiency in translating from and into Latin and French. As it was very desirable that he should be trained a Protestant king, he was well instructed in theology. The exceptionally scholastic quality of his education helped to give him a taste for learning, but also tended to make him a pedant.

James was only twelve when the earl of Morton was driven from the regency, and for some time after he can have been no more than a puppet in the hands of intriguers and party leaders. When, for instance, in 1582 he was seized by the faction of nobles who carried out the so-called raid of Ruthven, which was in fact a kidnapping enterprise carried out in the interest of the Protestant party, he cried like a child. One of the conspirators, the master of Glamis, Sir Thomas Lyon, told him that it was better "bairns should greet [children should cry] than bearded men." It was not indeed till 1583, when he broke away from his captors, that James began to govern in reality.

For the history of his reign reference may be made to the articles on the histories of England and Scotland. James's work as a ruler can be divided, without violating any sound rule of criticism, into black and white--into the part which was a failure and a preparation for future disaster, and the part which was solid achievement, honourable to himself and profitable to his people. His native kingdom of Scotland had the benefit of the second. Between 1583 and 1603 he reduced the anarchical baronage of Scotland to obedience, and replaced the subdivision of sovereignty and consequent confusion, which had been the very essence of feudalism, by a strong centralized royal authority. In fact he did in Scotland the work which had been done by the Tudors in England, by Louis XI. in France, and by Ferdinand and Isabella in Spain. It was the work of all the strong rulers of the Renaissance. But James not only brought his disobedient and intriguing barons to order--that was a comparatively easy achievement and might well have been performed by more than one of his predecessors, had their lives been prolonged--he also quelled the attempts of the Protestants to found what Hallam has well defined as a "Presbyterian Hildebrandism." He enforced the superiority of the state over the church. Both before his accession to the throne of England (1603) and afterwards he took an intelligent interest in the prosperity of his Scottish kingdom, and did much for the pacification of the Hebrides, for the enforcement of order on the Borders, and for the development of industry. That he did so much although the crown was poor (largely it must be confessed because he made profuse gifts of the secularized church lands), and although the armed force at his disposal was so small that to the very end he was exposed to the attacks of would-be kidnappers (as in the case of the Gowrie conspiracy of 1600), is proof positive that he was neither the mere poltroon nor the mere learned fool he has often been called.