Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

Melanesians are vague and confused. Thus, on some of the islands they believe in a power which has created and governs all things. Others worship the sun, while the Tanneese and the New Caledonians seem to have no religion whatever. Besides this, every individual has his own guardian spirit. The Polynesians believe in a number of high gods, by whom the universe has been created, and who, although with some diversity, are worshiped throughout all Oceanica. Besides these high gods the Polynesians worship an immense host of inferior deities, of elementary genii, fairies and giants. There is, besides, a third class of deities, consisting of apotheoses of human beings. The Tabu, too, forms part of the religious ideas of the Polynesians. In Micronesia religion is based on the belief in an invisible supreme being, and, in addition thereto, sometimes on the belief in invisible intermediary beings. In regard to social relations Melanesia is also very backward. The population of each island is divided into many tribes, which, as a rule, are enemies of one another. The tribes have each a chief, for the most part, however, without authority; and they are classed by villages into numerous small subdivisions, with a common ruler on important occasions. In Polynesia, however, there are two estates to be distinguished: the nobles, who are related to the gods, and the common people, who are of this earth only and without soul. Between these two estates, that of the landed proprietors, in many instances, has assumed the intermediate position of a third estate; thus in some places, for instance in Tahiti, the high nobility merely consists of the king, the king's family, and their nearest relatives. They also have generally a kind of feudal system, in which one king or superior chief rules over several subordinate chiefs, who derive their landed property from him, and who in turn owe him service in case of war. A similar feudal system is in existence in Micronesia, but there the estates are divided into the nobility, the semi-nobility and the common people. Even as far as industry and skill are concerned, the Melanesians rank below the Polynesians. They pursue fishing and to a limited extent agriculture. Some of the groups of islands have no connection whatever with Europe. Only in the New Hebrides and the Loyalty islands did the sandalwood commodity give rise to an active traffic, since European vessels transported the wood from these islands to Asia. For centuries, however, an active trade has been carried on between the inhabitants of the western and northwestern coasts of New Guinea and those of the Moluccas. New Caledonia, it is true, has been brought into connection with Europe in consequence of its occupation by the French; but that intercourse is inconsiderable. In Polynesia agriculture is highly developed. In building houses and boats, as well as in manufacturing bast-cloth (which is frequently very beautiful), weapons and tools, the Polynesians display great skill. The trade in sandalwood, pearls, cocoa oil, and the

[merged small][ocr errors]

catching of trepangs and whales, ever since the end of the eighteenth century, attracted many European ships to these waters and gave rise to an active intercourse with the inhabitants of these islands. — In Micronesia, too, agriculture thrives, as far as the condition of the soil is favorable. With their skillfully constructed boats the natives make extensive voyages for trading purposes; they export the products which they manufacture in large quantities, as, for instance, boats, pandang mats, ropes and twine of cocoanut fibre, weapons of cocoawood, implements made of the wood of the bread-fruit tree, cloth, baskets, sails, and, above all, hammocks, which are very much in demand. Ever since the white element established itself on the islands a marked decrease of the native population has been noticeable. On the Hawaiian group and in Melanesia the population has decreased to about one-fifth since the days of Cook. In Micronesia, too, the contact with white men, chiefly in consequence of destructive diseases, such as small-pox and syphilis, having been brought into the country, has had the same effect. — II. AUSTRALIA. In former times and in a wider sense, under the name of Australia was comprised the extensive group of islands in the Pacific ocean scattered between the coasts of Asia and the Indian ocean, and the coast of America. In a narrower sense the name Australia is used today to designate the insular continent, the Australian continent (formerly called New Holland), while the other islands and groups of islands belonging thereto are known by the collective name Oceanica. The Australian continent, in the southeastern part of the Indian archipelago, is situated entirely on the eastern hemisphere. The population of Australia consists of natives and of Europeans recently settled there. The farther the Europeans penetrate from the coasts into the interior and cultivate its soil, the more are the natives confined to the deserts and the nearer they approach extinction. In the settled portions of Australia they gradually disappear before European civilization, as do also in part the native flora and fauna. At the time of the first arrival of Europeans, there may have been about 50,000 Australians wandering about in the now colonized portions of New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia. In the year 1851 the number of natives was estimated at 1,750 in New South Wales, at 2,500 in Victoria and at 3,780 in South Australia; in 1872 there were still 3,369 natives in South Australia; in Victoria, there were but 1,330 native Australian aborigines left, while the number of aborigines in New South Wales had dwindled down to 984. The total number of natives for the whole continent can not be given with certainty. The latest estimates showed that their number does not amount to more than 60,000. The native population of Tasmania is now entirely extinct. Including Tasmania and New Zealand, which are officially considered part of the Australian colonies, there are at present seven Australian colonies, irrespective of the Northern

* *

*

*

"You

seem to a modern reader pretty stringent and | dominions and countries, as well in all spiritual or comprehensive, "there lacketh full and sufficient words"; and in the act further regulating the succession to the crown (35 H. VIII., c. 1) occasion was taken to provide a new consolidated form to replace the two previously appointed oaths. This is very full and elaborate; some of its language survived down to our own times, as will be seen by the following extract: "I, A B, having now the veil of darkness of the usurped power, authority and jurisdiction of the see and bishop of Rome clearly taken away from mine eyes, do utterly testify and declare in my conscience that neither the see nor the bishop of Rome nor any foreign potentate hath, nor ought to have, any jurisdiction, power or authority within this realm, neither by God's law nor by any other just law or means, and that I shall never consent nor agree that the foresaid see or bishop of Rome, or any of their successors, shall practice, exercise or have any manner of authority, jurisdiction or power within this realm or any other the king's realms or dominions, nor any foreign potentate, of what estate, degree or condition soever he be, but that I shall resist the same at all times to the uttermost of my power, and that I shall bear faith, truth and true allegiance to the king's majesty and to his heirs and successors, and that I shall accept, repute and take the king's majesty, his heirs and successors, when they or any of them shall enjoy his place, to be the only supreme head in earth under God of the church of England and Ireland, and of all other his highness' dominions Refusal to take the oath is, as before, to subject the recusant to the penalties of high treason. Apparently this act remained in force till Mary's accession, in 1553. One of the first proceedings of her reign was to abolish all statutory treasons not within the statute of Edward III., by which the offense of high treason was and still is defined. (1 Mar., st. 1, c. 1.) Thus, the penalty for not taking the oath of allegiance and supremacy was abrogated, and the oath of course became a dead letter, though not dealt with in express terms. Nor was it revived in the same form when the reformation again got the upper hand with the accession of Elizabeth. The first act of parliament of her reign*-which, in repealing the reactionary legislation of Philip and Mary, names "Queen Mary, your highness' sister," with a significant absence of honorable additions-created a new and much more concise oath of supremacy and allegiance, to be made by all ecclesiastical officers and ministers, and all temporal officers of the crown, and also by all persons taking orders or university degrees. It is short enough to be cited in full: "I, A B, do utterly testify and declare in my conscience that the queen's highness is the only supreme governor of this realm and of all other her highness' * 1 Eliz., c. 1. In the argument in Miller vs. Salomons, in the Exchequer (7 Ex., at p. 478), it was erroneously stated to be the first statute on the subject.

*

*

ecclesiastical things or causes as temporal, and
that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state or
potentate hath or ought to have any jurisdiction,
power, superiority, pre-eminence or authority,
ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm, and
therefore I do utterly renounce and forsake all
foreign jurisdictions, powers, superiorities and
authorities, and do promise that from henceforth
I shall bear faith and true allegiance to the queen's
highness, her heirs and lawful successors, and to
my power shall assist and defend all jurisdictions,
pre-eminences, privileges and authorities granted
or belonging to the queen's highness, her heirs
and successors, or united or annexed to the im-
perial crown of this realm. So help me God and
by [sic] the contents of this Book.". The oath
was not imposed on all subjects, and the only
penalty for refusing it was forfeiture of the office
in respect of which it ought to be taken. So far
this presents a very favorable contrast to the vio-
lent legislation of Henry VIII. Under the act of
Elizabeth the sanction is the mildest one compat-
ible with the law being effectual; indeed, it is
not properly a penalty, but a condition. The
law no longer says to all sorts of men,
must take this oath or be punished as a traitor,"
but only to men receiving office or promotion,
"You must take this oath to qualify yourself for
holding the place." But troubles were not long
in gathering, and they bore their natural fruit in
a return to disused severities. A new and more
stringent anti-papal act was passed in 1563 (5
Eliz., c. 1), and it seems that even sharper meas-
ures had been first proposed. The obligation to
take the oath of supremacy was extended to all
persons taking orders and degrees, schoolmasters,
barristers, attorneys, and officers of all courts.
A first refusal to take the oath was to entail the
penalties of premunire; a second, those of high
treason. Temporal peers were specially exempt-
ed, forasmuch as the queen's majesty is other-
wise sufficiently assured of the faith and loy-
alty of the temporal lords of her highness' court
of parliament." So matters stood till, early in
the reign of James I., yet a new outbreak of
indignation and panic was produced by the gun-
powder plot. The Protestant majority was con-
vinced by "that more than barbarous and hor-
rible attempt to have blownen up with gunpowder
the king, queen, prince, lords and commons,
in the house of parliament assembled, tending
to the utter subversion of the whole state,"
that popish recusants and occasionally conform-
ing papists should be more sharply looked after.
Hence the “ Act for the better discovering and
repressing of popish recusants" (3 Jas. I., c. 4),
which established, among other precautions, a
wordy oath of allegiance, supremacy and ab-
juration, which might be tendered by justices of
assize or of the peace to any commoner above the
age of eighteen; persons refusing it were to incur
the penalties of premunire. This oath contains
an explicit denial of the pope's authority to de-

64

ever.

pose the king or discharge subjects of their allegiance, a promise to bear allegiance to the crown notwithstanding any papal sentence of excommunication or deprivation, and a disclaimer of all equivocation or mental evasion or reservation. About the middle of it occurs for the first time the "damnable doctrine and position" clause, as we may call it, which was long afterward continued in the interests of the Protestant succession against James II. and the pretender. The words are these: "And I do further swear that I do from my heart abhor, detest and abjure, as impious and heretical, this damnable doctrine and position, that princes which be excommunicated or deprived by the pope may be deposed or murdered by their subjects or any other whosoever." Here also we find the words, afterward discussed in relation to the admission of Jews to parliament, "upon the true faith of a Christian." They can not have been particularly intended to exclude Jews from office, as Jews were at that time excluded from the realm altogether. It has been plausibly conjectured that their real intention was to clinch the proviso against mental reservation or equivocation "by conclusively fixing a sense to that oath which by no evasion or mental reservation should be got rid of without (even in the opinion of the Jesuit doctors them selves) incurring the penalty of mortal sin." For in a certain treatise on Equivocation, of which a copy corrected in Garnet's handwriting was found in the chamber of Francis Tresham, one of the conspirators named in the act, and was much used on the trial, this point of mental reservation is fully discussed; and it is laid down that equiv. ocation and reservation may be used without danger to the soul even if they are expressly disclaimed in the form of the oath itself. But there is this exception, that "no person is allowed to equivocate or mentally reserve, without danger, if he does so, of incurring mortal sin, where his doing so brings apparently his true faith toward God into doubt or dispute." It was probably conceived by the advisers of the crown that the words, "upon the true faith of a Christian," brought the statutory form of oath within this exception. (Judgment of Baron Alderson in Miller vs. Salomons, 7 Ex. 536, 537.) A few years later, in the session of 1610, a sort of confirming act was passed (7 James I., c. 6), which made minute provision as to the places where, and | the officers by whom, the oath should be administered to various classes of persons. — Shortly after the restoration an oath declaring it unlawful upon any pretense whatever to take arms against the king, was imposed on all soldiers and persons holding military offices (14 Car. II., c. 3, ss. 17, 18); | King James and since his decease pretending to and the act of uniformity (14 Car. II., c. 4, s. 6) | be and taking upon himself the stile and title of contained a declaration to the like effect, and also king of England by the name of James the Third, against the solemn league and covenant. A simi- hath not any right or title whatsoever to the crown lar provision in the corporation act was overlooked of this realm or any other the dominions thereto at the revolution, and escaped repeal till the reign of George I. In 1672 a revival of the anti-Catholic agitation followed upon Charles II.'s attempts

to dispense with the existing statutes, nominally in favor of Romanists and Dissenters equally, by a declaration of liberty of conscience. The result was, that a declaration against transubstantiation was added to the oaths of allegiance and supremacy, by a new penal statute entitled "An act for preventing dangers which may happen from popish recusants," (25 Car. II., c. 2). After the revolution of 1688, however, a new start was taken. By the combined effect of two of the earliest acts of the convention parliament (1 Will. & Mar., c. 1 and c. 8), all the previous forms of the oaths of allegiance and supremacy, expressly including the declaration as to taking arms against the king, were abrogated, and a concise form substituted, which stood as follows: "I, A B, do sincerely promise and swear that I will be faithful | and bear true allegiance to their majesties King William and Queen Mary. So help me God, etc.* I, A B, do swear that I do from my heart abhor, detest and abjure, as impious and heretical, that damnable doctrine and position that princes excommunicated or deposed by the pope or any authority of the see of Rome may be deposed or murthered by their subjects or any other whatsoAnd I do declare that no foreign prince, person, prelate, states or potentate hath or ought to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, preeminence or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm. So help me God, etc." —— In 1701 came the death of James II. at St. Germains, and the ostentatious recognition of the pretender as king of England by Louis XIV. Fuller and more stringent precautions were again thought needful, and in the very last days of William III.'s life an act was passed (13 & 14 Wm. III., c. 6), imposing on specified classes of persons, including peers, members of the house of commons, and all holding office under the crown, an oath of special and particular abjuration of the pretender's title. The declaration of 1672 against transubstantiation (which had been spared from the general abrogation of other existing tests at the beginning of the reign) was at the same time expressly continued. As the form settled by this act remained substantially unchanged down to our own time, it is here set out: "I, A B, do truly and sincerely acknowledge, profess, testify and declare in my conscience before God and the world, that our sovereign lord King William is lawful and rightful king of this realm and of all other his majesty's dominions and countries thereunto belonging. And I do solemnly and sincerely declare that I do believe in my conscience that the person pretended to be the prince of Wales during the life of the late

[ocr errors]

*The "etc." means, I suppose, and the contents of this Book."

HARVARD COLLEGE LIBRARY

GIFT OF

FRANK WILLIAM TAUSSIG

Jown. 26, 1931

ENTERED ACCORDING TO ACT OF CONGRESS, IN THE YEAR 1884, BY

MELBERT B. CARY AND COMPANY,

IN THE OFFICE OF THE LIBRARiAn of ConGRESS, AT WASHINGTON, D. C.

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

RAND, MONALLY & CO., Printers, Binders and Electrotypers, 148 to 154 Monroe St., Chicago.

Among the Writers of the Articles in the Three Volumes,
are the following:

EDWARD ATKINSON, Boston, Mass.

MAX. EBERHARDT, Counselor-at-Law, Chicago. BARTHELEMY SAINT-HILAIRE, Member of the In- LEON FAUCHER, Member of the Institute of stitute of France. France.

FREDERICK BASTIAT, the famous French Econ- HENRY FAWCETT, M. P., Professor of Political omist.

HENRI BAUDRILLART, Member of the Institute of
France.

MAURICE BLOCK, Statistician, Political Economist
and Publicist, Editor of the Dictionnaire Gén-
éral de la Politique, Paris.

Economy at the University of Cambridge; at present, Postmaster General of Great Britain. GASPAR FINALI, Ex-Minister, Italy.

JOHN FISKE, Cambridge, Mass.
WORTHINGTON C. FORD, Brooklyn, N. Y.
L. FOUBERT, Chef de division, France.

J. C. BLUNTSCHLI, one of the editors of Blunt- JOSEPH GARNIER, Professor of Political Econschli & Brater's Staatswörterbuch.

GEROLAMO BOCCARDO, Editor of the Dizionario
Universale di Economia Politica e di Commercio,
Italy.

JACQUES DE BOISJOSLIN, Paris, France.

omy, Member of the Institute of France. HENRY GEORGE, Author of "Progress and Poverty," New York.

D. C. GILMAN, President of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

ALBERT S. BOLLES, Author of "History of Amer- E. L. GODKIN, Editor New York Nation.

ican Finance," Philadelphia, Pa. GASTON DE BOURGE, Advocate, Paris, France.

R. R. BOWKER, New York.

T. T. BRYCE, New Haven, Conn.

HORATIO BURCHARD, Director of the Mint, Washington, D. C.

EDWARD CARY, New York.

E. CAUCHY, Member of the Institute of France.
EMILE CHEDIEU, Advocate, France.

A. E. CHERBULIEZ, Political Economist, contrib-
utor to the Dictionnaire de l'Economie Politique.

G. BROWN GOODE, Smithsonian Institute, Washington, D. C.

LOUIS GOTTARD, Publicist, France.

GEORGE WALTON GREEN, Counselor-at-Law, New
York.

JULES GRENIER, Publicist, France.

W. E. GRIFFIS, Author of The Mikado's Empire," Schenectady, N. Y.

F. P. G. GUIZOT, France.

ARTHUR T. HADLEY, Instructor in Political
Science, Yale College, New Haven, Conn.

JOHN W. CLAMPITT, Counselor-at-Law, Chicago. | J. B. HAMILTON, Surgeon General U. S. Marine
AMBROISE CLEMENT, the distinguished French
Economist.

JAMES F. COLBY, Counselor-at-Law, New Haven,
Conn.

ROYER-COLLARD, Professor of the Faculté de
Droit, Paris.

EUSTACE CONWAY, Counselor-at-Law, New York.
THOS. M. COOLEY, Author of "Constitutional
Limitations," etc., etc., Judge of the Supreme
Court of Michigan.

CHAS. COQUELIN, one of the Editors of the Dic-
tionnaire de l'Economie Politique, France.
C. COWLEY.

COURCELLE-SENEUIL, Paris, France.

E. H. CROSBY, Counselor-at-Law, New York.
J. C. BANCROFT DAVIS, Assistant Secretary of
State, Washington, D. C.

Hospital, Washington, D. C.

FAUSTIN HÉLIE, Member of the Institute of
France.

XAVIER HEUSCHLING, Minister of the Interior,
Brussels, Belgium.

J. E. HORN, Writer on Finance, Member of the
Hungarian Parliament.

FRANKLIN B. HOUGH, Washington, D. C.
EDWARD S. ISHAM, Counselor-at-Law, Chicago,
Ill.

E. J. JAMES, University of Pennsylvania, Phila-
delphia, Pa.

JOHN A. JAMESON, Author of "The Constitutional Convention," Chicago, Ill.

PAUL JANET, Member of the Institute of France. ALEXANDER JOHNSTON, Professor of Jurisprudence, Princeton College, N. J.

DELABARRE-DUPARCQ, Director at the Military JOHN JOHNSTON, Banker, Milwaukee, Wis.

School of St. Cyr, France.

CHARLES DUNOYER, France.

JULES DUVAL, Publicist, France.

CL. DUVERNOIs, French Ex-Minister.

DORMAN B. EATON, Chairman of the Civil Serv

ice Commission, New York.

JOHN J. KNOx, Comptroller of the Currency,
Washington, D. C.

GUSTAVE KOERNER, Ex-Governor of Illinois.
CHAS. LAVOLLÉE, Ex-Prefect, France.

LOUIS LECLERC, France.

A. LEGOYT, France.

« ZurückWeiter »