Part 1186

ASSYRIAN MONEY AND BANKING.

See MONEY AND BANKING (page 2199).

ATHENS: Outline sketch of ancient history.

See EUROPE (pages 992-996).

ATLANTIC CABLE, The laying of the.

See ELECTRICAL DISCOVERY AND INVENTION: A. D. 1854-1866 (page 776).

ATTAINDER. BILL OF ATTAINDER.

"An attainder ('attinctura') is a degradation or public dishonouring, which draws after it corruption of blood. It is the consequence of any condemnation to death, and induces the disherison of the heirs of the condemned person, which can only be removed by means of parliament. A bill of attainder, or of pains and penalties, inflicts the consequences of a penal sentence on any state criminal. … By the instrumentality of such bill the penalties of high treason are generally imposed. Penalties may, however, be imposed at pleasure, either in accordance with, or in contravention of, the common law. No other court of law can protect a person condemned in such manner. The first bill of the kind occurred under Edward IV., when the commons had to confirm the statute condemning Clarence to death. This convenient method of getting rid of disagreeable opponents was in high favour during the reign of Henry VIII. The bills of pains and penalties were hurried through the parliament, and the parties accused were not even put upon their trial. Thus were the illustrious Sir Thomas More and Bishop Fisher, for misprision of treason, without regular trial, without examination of witnesses, or hearing the accused in their self-defence, legally consigned to the scaffold. Anne Boleyn was formally tried for high treason by the house of peers; but the head of Catharine Howard was disposed of by a simple bill of attainder. This was the first case in which the offence charged was created by the very bill against which the pretended criminal was held to have offended. Under Philip and Mary the benefit of clergy was, by means of a bill, withheld from a certain Rufford. What had been an instrument of kingly despotism, under Tudor sway, was converted, under the Stuarts, into a parliamentary engine against the crown. The points of indictment against Strafford were so weak that the lords were for acquitting him. Thereupon, Sir Arthur Haselrig introduced a bill of attainder in the commons. The staunch friends of freedom, such as Pym and Hampden, did not support this measure; but yet it passed through the commons with only 59 dissentient voices. After the 35 peers opposed to the trial of Strafford had withdrawn, the terror-stricken lords accepted the bill by 26 against 19 votes. … This parliamentary administration of justice has by no means been relinquished. A bill of attainder may refer simply to a concrete case, and contrive penalties for acts which are not specially punishable by statute, whereas an impeachment applies to some violation of recognized legal principles, and is a solemn indictment preferred by the commons to the house of lords."

_E. Fischel, The English Constitution, book 7, chapter 9._

"By the 33 & 34 Vict. c. 23, forfeiture and attainder for treason or felony have been abolished."

_T. P. Taswell-Langmead, English Constitutional History, chapter 10 (2d edition, page 393), foot-note._

AUSTRIA: Start--------

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1273-1349. The House of Hapsburgh in the earlier period of its fortunes.

"It was just now [1273] that the German monarchy received once more a real king [in the person of Rudolph of Hapsburgh]. It is evident that Ottocar's remarkable rise into power was due essentially to the previous excessive weakness of German kingship. He had acquired Austria and Styria by doubtful right according to German notions, Carinthia and Carniola without any acquiescence at all on the part of the empire. … In the election of Rudolph he was not willing to take part and afterwards he refused him recognition. No wonder that from the very beginning the German princes felt the necessity of driving him from his usurped position. … For the German cause it was the greatest gain that through Ottocar's fall (1278) room was won on the Middle Danube for a national rule: the House of Austria was enabled there to found that power which played so great a part in the world's history. The victory on the marchfeld was a victory of the renewed imperial might over a recalcitrant vassal whose power had extended the due measure of that of a prince of the realm. Looked at in this light the fall of Ottocar reminds one of the fall of Henry the Lion a hundred years before; the gain for Rudolph, however, was still greater and more essential than it had been at that former time for Frederick I. His position was for the first time now actually assured; for if the battle had resulted unfavorably it is doubtful if he could have continued to command obedience. Besides this the possibility presented itself now of using the position of ruler, conferred on him personally, to the lasting advantage of his house; at the same time he could only go to work in the matter very slowly and cautiously. … At his departure from these parts in 1281 he conferred the regency in Austria proper and in the other lands to his own son Albrecht. The latter appears already as a matured man with a certain talent for ruling. He overthrew all those who opposed them but, having done this, he bore no malice and cherished no hostility. No one could be in doubt but that for Albrecht, and for his house altogether, the king thought to found there a separate territorial principality. To begin with, the fiefs which the dukes of Austria had held of the neighboring bishoprics, especially the Bavarian ones, were conferred by Rudolph on his sons, other privileges in compensation being granted to the bishoprics. The consent of the electors, according to the new order of things, was necessary in such a case, and the king next sought to gain them over. … On December 27, 1282, he invested his sons Albrecht and Rudolph in common with Austria, Styria, Carniola and the Windischmark. … {3686} At the request of the Estates of those lands, who wished neither a joint rule nor a separation from each other, Rudolph in 1283 invested his son Albrecht alone with those four provinces. To the younger Rudolph the promise of another appanage or at least of a compensation was held out—a fatal matter! For the son of this Rudolph was John the Parricide. It was an event of the greatest import that in these south-eastern marks of the empire the Babenbergers were replaced by the Hapsburghs. The latter now, in consequence of their all-decisive victory, turned their attention at the same time to Bohemia and Hungary. Although neither in the one land nor the other did they now actually attain their goal, yet their efforts in this direction deserve our close attention as being the first tokens of a policy that was most strongly to affect the world's history. … One sees, even in these unsuccessful attempts, the bold dynastic ambition of King Rudolph; the kingdom of Arles, also, he had had in view for one of his sons. The acquisition of Austria alone, indeed, marks an epoch in itself; all the more so as only through this did he gain the prestige which he needed to enable him to do justice to his task as king of Germany. If this task be regarded as having consisted chiefly in restoring and maintaining the public peace after thirty years of utter confusion, then, indeed, he showed himself completely equal to it. … In short, through valor and steadfastness he strongly, in internal matters, upheld the power of the empire. Rebellions, indeed, were not wanting; now the archbishop of Cologne, now the duke of Savoy revolted; now Bern or Colmar, now the counts in Suabia and Burgundy. He overcame and humbled them all. … He was a very tall, thin man, pale of countenance and with very little hair on his small head; in all things moderate and of a genial nature as was shown by his offering to become the guest of artisans and by his darning his own doublet. … When giving Austria to his son Albrecht who was to try and establish here a dynastic power (Hausmacht), Rudolph had really intended to give the German crown to his younger son, Rudolph, and he might have put this through had not this son died before himself. In May 1291 the king then held a diet at Frankfort for the purpose of inducing the electors now to give their vote to his son Albrecht. This he was unable to bring about and with his hopes unrealized he died on the 15th of July 1291. … After long preliminary negotiations between the separate electors … the election took place on May 5th, 1292. Albrecht had not yet abandoned hope and had appeared in the vicinity. … The electors laid down the principle that it was not right for the son to directly follow the father on the throne of the empire. … They chose again a simple count, Adolphus of Nassau. … The less Adolphus fulfilled the expectations of his electors … the more did he lose his authority. … In short it appears that Adolphus's whole attitude, his league with England, his conception of the rights of the empire, the way he insulted ecclesiastical and secular princes, his policy with regard to the majority of the cities, caused a general ferment. … It was at a great assembly of princes in Prague, where Mainz, Bohemia, Brandenburg and Saxony met together that Albrecht's influence began to gain the upper hand. Albrecht promised, in case he should become king, to give to King Wenzel the conquests made by Adolphus in Meissen. Albrecht and all his friends then girded themselves up to conquer the empire. In April 1298 we find him in Alsace opposing Adolphus who, however, still had the upper hand. The archbishop of Mainz then summoned the electors to Mainz for June 15 to consult about the disturbances in the empire. … They determined now to depose the king whom they had elected. This was done in the Thiergarten near Mainz on June 23, 1298. … The battle for the possession of the empire took place on July 2nd at Göllheim, where a stone cross still marks the spot. … The kings wore the same coat-of-arms—yellow with a black eagle—and bore the same banner. According to one account, for which Albert of Strassburg is voucher, they came into hand to hand conflict with each other. Adolphus cried out: 'Here you will relinquish the Empire!' Albrecht answered 'The decision lies in the hand of God.' The one-eyed Albrecht struck the surer blow, hitting his antagonist directly over the eye. The blood ran down Adolphus s face; he fell and died. Albrecht would never acknowledge that he had been the slayer of the Lord's anointed. Be that as it may he won the crown for himself on the battle-field. … Albrecht is altogether a striking figure in German history. Everywhere, in the lowest plains of Switzerland or in the highest mountains of Switzerland he is busy in founding his dynastic power. Under him the House of Austria made a vigorous beginning in the matter of establishing a great and extensive authority in all parts of the empire. … It was fatal for him that the harsh want of consideration which forms the chief feature of his sway as a statesman should have raised up a murderer against him in his own immediate vicinity—in the person of his own nephew."

_L. Ranke, Weltgeschichte (translated from the German), volume 8, pages 566-601._

See, also, AUSTRIA (pages 199-201).

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1648-1715. Relations with Germany and France. See (in this Supplement) GERMANY: A. D. 1648-1715.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1780-1790. Joseph II., the enthroned Philosopher.

"The prince who best sums up the spirit of the century, is not Frederic [the Great, of Prussia), it is Joseph II. [the emperor]. Frederic was born a master, Joseph II. a disciple, and it is by disciples that we judge schools. The king of Prussia dammed up the waters, directed their flow, made use of the current: the emperor cast himself upon them and permitted himself to be carried. With Frederic the statesman always dominates, it is he who proposes and finally decides; the philosopher is subordinate: he furnishes to the results brought about by policy their abstract cause for existence and their theoretical justification. With Joseph II. rational conception precedes political calculation and governs it. He had breadth of mind, but his mind was superficial; ideas slipped from it. He had a taste for generosity, a passion for grandeur; but there was nothing profound in him but ambition, and it was all counter-stroke and reflection. He wished to surpass Frederic; his entire conduct was but an awkward, imprudent and ill-advised imitation of this prince whom he had made his hero, whom history made his rival and whom he copied while detesting him. {3687} The political genius of Frederic was born of good sense and moderation: there was nothing in Joseph II. but the immoderate. He was a man of systems: he had only great velleities. His education was mediocre, and, as to methods, entirely jesuitical. Into this contracted mould he cast confusedly notions hastily borrowed from the philosophers of France, from the economists especially. He thus formed a very vague ideal of political aspirations and an exaggerated sense of the power at his disposition to realize them. 'Since I ascended the throne and have worn the first crown of the world,' wrote he in 1781, 'I have made Philosophy the lawmaker of my empire. Her logical applications are going to transform Austria.' He undertakes reforms in every direction at once. History is null for him, traditions do not count, nor do facts acquired. There is no race, nor period, nor surrounding circumstances: there is the State which is everything and can do everything. He writes in 1782, to the bishop of Strasbourg: 'In a kingdom governed conformably to my principles, prejudice, fanaticism, bondage of mind must disappear, and each of my subjects must be reinstated in the possession of his natural rights.' He must have unity, and, as a first condition, the rejection of all previous ideas. Chance makes him operate on a soil the most heterogeneous, the most incoherent, the most cut up, parceled out and traversed by barriers, that there is in Europe. Nothing in common among his subjects, neither language, nor traditions, nor interests. It is from this, according to him, that the defect of monarchy arises. 'The German language is the universal language of my empire. I am the emperor of Germany, the states which I possess are provinces which form but one body with the State of which I am the head. If the kingdom of Hungary were the most important of my possessions, I should not hesitate to impose its tongue on the other countries.' So he imposes the German language on the Hungarians, the Croats, the Tchèques, the Poles, on all the Slavs. He suppresses the ancient territorial divisions; they recall the successive agglomerations, the irregular alluvions which had formed the monarchy; he establishes thirteen governments and divides them into circles. The diets disappear; the government passes into the hands of intendants according to the French formula. In the cities the burgomaster appointed by the government becomes a functionary. The nobles lose the part, already much curtailed, that they still had, here and there, in the government. He taxes them, he taxes the ecclesiastics; he meditates establishing a tax proportional to incomes and reaching all classes. He protects the peasants, alleviates serfdom, diminishes the corvées, builds hospitals, schools above all, in which the state will form pupils to obey her. His ideal would be the equality of his subjects under the uniform sway of his government. He unifies the laws; he institutes courts of appeal with a supreme court for the entire empire. He makes regulations for manufactures, binds commerce to the most rigorous protective system. Finally he puts a high hand on the church and decrees tolerance. … This immense revolution was accomplished by means of decrees, in less than five years. If we compare the state of cohesion which the Bourbon government had brought about in France in 1789, with the incoherence of the Austrian monarchy on the death of Maria Theresa in 1780, it will be seen that the revolution which caused the Constituent Assembly was a small matter compared with that which Joseph II. intended to effect."

_A. Sorel, L'Europe et la Rêvolution française (translated from the French), part 1, pages 119-122._

AUSTRIA: End--------

AUSTRIA-HUNGARY, Libraries of.

See LIBRARIES, MODERN (page 2013).

AUSTRIAN SCHOOLS.

See EDUCATION, MODERN (page 709).

AVICENNA AND ARABIAN MEDICAL SCIENCE.

See MEDICAL SCIENCE: 7-11TH CENTURIES (page 2130).

B.

BÂB, The.