book 3, chapter 13 (volume 3).

See, also, NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1686, and MASSACHUSETTS: 1671-1686.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1689-1697. King William's War.

See CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1689-1690; and 1692-1697.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1689-1701. The reinstatement of the charter government.

"April, 1689, came at last. The people of Boston, at the first news of the English Revolution, clapped Andros into custody. May 9, the old Connecticut authorities quietly resumed their functions, and called the assembly together for the following month. William and Mary were proclaimed with great fervor. Not a word was said about the disappearance or reappearance of the charter; but the charter government was put into full effect again, as if Andros had never interrupted it. An address was sent to the king, asking that the charter be no further interfered with; but operations under it went on as before. No decided action was taken by the home government for some years, except that its appointment of the New York governor, Fletcher, to the command of the Connecticut militia, implied a decision that the Connecticut charter had been superseded. Late in 1693, Fitz John Winthrop was sent to England as agent to obtain a confirmation of the charter. He secured an emphatic legal opinion from Attorney General Somers, backed by those of Treby and Ward, that the charter was entirely valid, Treby's concurrent opinion taking this shape: 'I am of the same opinion, and, as this matter is stated, there is no ground of doubt.' The basis of the opinion was that the charter had been granted under the great seal; that it had not been surrendered under the common seal of the colony, nor had any judgment of record been entered against it; that its operation had merely been interfered with by overpowering force; that the charter therefore remained valid; and that the peaceable submission of the colony to Andros was merely an illegal suspension of lawful authority. In other words, the passive attitude of the colonial government had disarmed Andros so far as to stop the legal proceedings necessary to forfeit the charter, and their prompt action, at the critical moment, secured all that could be secured under the circumstances. William was willing enough to retain all possible fruit of James's tyranny, as he showed by enforcing the forfeiture of the Massachusetts charter; but the law in this case was too plain, and he ratified the lawyers' opinion in April, 1694. The charter had escaped its enemies at last, and its escape is a monument of one of the advantages of a real democracy. ... Democracy had done more for Connecticut than class influence had done for Massachusetts."

_A. Johnston, Connecticut, chapter 12._

{503}

"The decisions which established the rights of Connecticut included Rhode Island. These two commonwealths were the portion of the British empire distinguished above all others by the largest liberty. Each was a nearly perfect democracy under the shelter of a monarchy. ... The crown, by reserving to itself the right of appeal, had still a method of interfering in the internal affairs of the two republics. Both of them were included among the colonies in which the lords of trade advised a complete restoration of the prerogatives of the crown. Both were named in the bill which, in April, 1701, was introduced into parliament for the abrogation of all American charters. The journals of the house of lords relate that Connecticut was publicly heard against the measure, and contended that its liberties were held by contract in return for services that had been performed; that the taking away of so many charters would destroy all confidence in royal promises, and would afford a precedent dangerous to all the chartered corporations of England. Yet the bill was read a second time, and its principle, as applied to colonies, was advocated by the mercantile interest and by 'great men' in England. The impending war with the French postponed the purpose till the accession of the house of Hanover."

_G. Bancroft, History of the U. S. (Author's last revision), part 3, chapter 3 (volume 2)._

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1690. The first Colonial Congress.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1690.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1702-1711. Queen Anne's War.

See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1702-1710; and CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1711-1713.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1744-1748. King George's War and the taking of Louisbourg.

See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1744; 1745; and 1745-1748.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1753-1799. Western territorial claims. Settlements in the Wyoming Valley. Conflicts with the Penn colonists.

See PENNSYLVANIA; A. D. 1753-1799.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1754. The Colonial Congress at Albany, and Franklin's plan of union.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1754.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1755-1760. The French and Indian War, and conquest of Canada.

See CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1750-1753; 1755; 1756; 1756-1757; 1758; 1759; 1760; NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1749-1755; 1755; Ohio (VALLEY): A. D. 1748-1754; 1754; 1755; CAPE BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1758-1760.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1760-1765. The question of taxation by Parliament. The Sugar Act. The Stamp Act. The Stamp Act Congress.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1760-1775; 1763-1764; 1765; and 1766.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1765. The revolt against the Stamp Act.

"The English government understood very well that the colonies were earnestly opposed to the Stamp Act, but they had no thought of the storm of wrath and resistance which it would arouse. It was a surprise to many of the leaders of public affairs in America. ... Governor Fitch and Jared Ingersoll, with other prominent citizens who had done all in their power to oppose the scheme of taxation ... counselled submission. They mistook the feeling of the people. ... The clergy were still the leaders of public opinion, and they were united in denunciation of the great wrong. Societies were organized under the name of the Sons of Liberty, the secret purpose of which was to resist the Stamp Act by violent measures if necessary. ... Mr. Ingersoll, who had done all in his power to oppose the bill, after its passage decided to accept the position of stamp agent for Connecticut. Franklin urged him to take the place, and no one doubted his motives in accepting it. The people of Connecticut, however, were not pleased with this action. ... He was visited by a crowd of citizens, who inquired impatiently if he would resign." Ingersoll put them off with evasive replies for some time; but finally there was a gathering of a thousand men on horseback, from Norwich, New London, Windham, Lebanon and other towns, each armed with a heavy peeled club, who surrounded the obstinate stamp agent at Wethersfield and made him understand that they were in deadly earnest. "'The cause is not worth dying for,' said the intrepid man, who would never have flinched had he not felt that, after all, this band of earnest men were in the right. A formal resignation was given him to sign. ... After he had signed his name, the crowd cried out, 'Swear to it!' He begged to be excused from taking an oath. 'Then shout Liberty and Property,' said the now good-natured company. To this he had no objection, and waved his hat enthusiastically as he repeated the words. Having given three cheers, the now hilarious party dined together." Ingersoll was then escorted to Hartford, where he read his resignation publicly at the court-house.

_E. B. Sanford, History of Connecticut, chapter 29._

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1766. The repeal of the Stamp Act. The Declaratory Act.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1766.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1766-1768. The Townshend duties. The Circular Letter of Massachusetts.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1766-1767, and 1767-1768.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1768-1770. The quartering of troops in Boston. The "Massacre" and the removal of the troops.

See BOSTON: A. D. 1768, and 1770.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1769-1784. The ending of slavery.

See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1769-1785.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1770-1773. Repeal of the Townshend duties except on tea. Committees of Correspondence instituted. The tea ships and the Boston Tea-party.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1770, and 1772-1773; and BOSTON: A. D. 1773.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1774. The Boston Port Bill. The Massachusetts Act. The Quebec Act. The First Continental Congress.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1774.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1775. The beginning of the War of the American Revolution. Lexington. Concord. New England in arms and Boston beleaguered. Ticonderoga. Bunker Hill. The Second Continental Congress.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1776. Assumes to be a "free, sovereign and independent State."

"In May, 1776, the people had been formally released from their allegiance to the crown; and in October the general assembly passed an act assuming the functions of a State. The important section of the act was the first, as follows: 'That the ancient form of civil government, contained in the charter from Charles the Second, King of England, and adopted by the people of this State, shall be and remain the civil Constitution of this State, under the sole authority of the people thereof, independent of any king or prince whatever. And that this Republic is, and shall forever be and remain, a free, sovereign and independent State, by the name of the State of Connecticut.' The form of the act speaks what was doubtless always the belief of the people, that their charter derived its validity, not from the will of the crown, but from the assent of the people. And the curious language of the last sentence, in which 'this Republic' declares itself to be 'a free, sovereign, and independent State,' may serve to indicate something of the appearance which state sovereignty doubtless presented to the Americans of 1776-89."

A. Johnston, Connecticut, chapter 16.

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

{504}

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1776-1783. The war and the victory. Independence achieved.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 to 1783.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1778. The massacre at the Wyoming settlement.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778 (JULY).

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1779. Tryon's marauding expeditions.

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

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1786. Partial cession of western territorial claims to the United States. The Western Reserve in Ohio.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1781-1786; PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1753-1799; and OHIO: A. D. 1786-1796.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1788. Ratification of the Federal Constitution.

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

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1814. The Hartford Convention.

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

CONNECTICUT: End----------

CONNECTICUT TRACT, The.

See NEW YORK: A. D. 1786-1799.

CONNUBIUM.

See MUNICIPIUM.

CONON, Pope, A. D. 686-687.

CONOYS.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

CONRAD I., King of the East Franks (Germany), (the first of the Saxon line), A. D. 911-919.

Conrad II., King of the Romans (King of Germany), A. D. 1024-1039; King of Italy, 1026-1039; King of Burgundy, 1032-1039; Emperor, 1027-1039.

Conrad III., King of Germany (the first of the Swabian or Hohenstauffen dynasty), 1137-1152.

Conrad IV., King of Germany, 1250-1254.

CONSCRIPT FATHERS.

The Roman senators were so called,--"Patres Conscripti." The origin of the designation has been much discussed, and the explanation which has found most acceptance is this: that when, at the organization of the Republic, there was a new creation of senators, to fill the ranks, the new senators were called "conscripti" ("added to the roll") while the older ones were called "patres" ("fathers"), as before. Then the whole senate was addressed as "Patres et Conscripti," which lapsed finally into "Patres-Conscripti."

_H. G. Liddell, History of Rome, book 1, chapter 4._

CONSCRIPTION, The first French.

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

CONSCRIPTION IN THE AMERICAN CIVIL WAR.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (MARCH).

CONSERVATIVE PARTY, The English.

The name "Conservative," to replace that of Tory (see ENGLAND: A. D. 1680 for the origin of the latter) as a party designation, was first introduced in 1831, by Mr. John Wilson Croker, in an article in the Quarterly Review. "It crept slowly into general favour, although some few there were who always held out against it, encouraged by the example of the late leader of the party, Lord Beaconsfield, who was not at all likely to extend a welcome to anything which came with Mr. Croker's mark upon it."

_L. J. Jennings, The Croker Papers, volume 2, page 198._

CONSILIO DI CREDENZA.

See ITALY: A. D. 1056-1152.

CONSISTORY, The Papal.

See CURIA, PAPAL.

CONSISTORY COURTS OF THE BISHOPS.

"The duties of the officials of these courts resembled in theory the duties of the censors under the Roman Republic. In the middle ages, a lofty effort had been made to overpass the common limitations of government, to introduce punishment for sins as well as crimes, and to visit with temporal penalties the breach of the moral law. ... The administration of such a discipline fell as a matter of course, to the clergy. ... Thus arose throughout Europe a system of spiritual surveillance over the habits and conduct of every man, extending from the cottage to the castle, taking note of all wrong dealing, of all oppression of man by man, of all licentiousness and profligacy, and representing upon earth, in the principles by which it was guided, the laws of the great tribunal of Almighty God. Such was the origin of the church courts, perhaps the greatest institutions yet devised by man. But to aim at these high ideals is as perilous as it is noble; and weapons which may be safely trusted in the hands of saints become fatal implements of mischief when saints have ceased to wield them. ... The Consistory Courts had continued into the sixteenth century with unrestricted jurisdiction, although they had been for generations merely perennially flowing fountains, feeding the ecclesiastical exchequer. The moral conduct of every English man and woman remained subject to them. ... But between the original design and the degenerate counterfeit there was this vital difference,--that the censures were no longer spiritual. They were commuted in various gradations for pecuniary fines, and each offence against morality was rated at its specific money value in the Episcopal tables. Suspension and excommunication remained as ultimate penalties; but they were resorted to only to compel unwilling culprits to accept the alternative. The misdemeanours of which the courts took cognizance were 'offences against chastity,' 'heresy,' or 'matter sounding thereunto,' 'witchcraft,' 'drunkenness,' 'scandal,' 'defamation,' 'impatient words,' 'broken promises,' 'untruth,' 'absence from church,' 'speaking evil of saints,' 'non-payment of offerings,' and other delinquencies incapable of legal definition."

_J. A. Froude. History of England, chapter 3._

CONSPIRACY BILL, The.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1858-1859.

CONSTABLE, The.

"The name is derived from the 'comes stabuli' of the Byzantine court, and appears in the west as early as the days of Gregory of Tours. The duties of the constables of France ... and those of the constables of Naples ... are not exactly parallel with [those of] the constables of England. In Naples the constable kept the King's sword, commanded the army, appointed the quarters, disciplined the troops and distributed the sentinels; the marshals and all other officers being his subordinates. The French office was nearly the same. In England, however, the marshal was not subordinate to the constable. Probably the English marshals fulfilled the duties which had been in Normandy discharged by the constables. The marshal is more distinctly an officer of the court, the constable one of the castle or army. ... The constable ... exercised the office of quartermaster-general of the court and army and succeeded to the duties of the Anglo-Saxon staller."

_William Stubbs, Constitutional History of England,