Page:The New International Encyclopædia 1st ed. v. 06.djvu/63

DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE. . Much useful material may be found in Emmet, History of the Inception and Drafting of the Declaration of Independence; with a Collection of Autographs of the Signers, and Other Documents (New York, 1876), which however, is not generally accessible. Consult, also: Rise of the Republic of the United States (Boston, 1872); Greene, Historical View of the American Revolution (Boston, 1865); Ellis, “The Sentiment of Independence, its Growth and Consummation,” in Winsor, Narrative and Critical History of America, vol. vi. (Boston, 1888); Tyler, Literary History of the American Revolution, vol. i. (New York, 1897); Randall, Life of Thomas Jefferson (New York, 1858); Bancroft, History of the United States vol. iv. last ed. (New York, 1891); Stille, “Pennsylvania and the Declaration of Independence,” in the Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, vol. xiii. (Philadelphia, 1889); Hays, “A Contribution to the Bibliography of the Declaration of Independence,” in the Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society vol. xxxix. (Philadelphia, 1900); a chapter, “The Authentication of the Declaration of Independence,” in Chamberlain, John Adams, with Other Essays and Addresses (Boston, 1898); Friedenwald, “The Declaration of Independence,” in the International Monthly, vol. iv. (Burlington, Vt., 1901); and Dana, “The Declaration of Independence,” in the Harvard Law Review, vol. xiii. (Cambridge, 1900). For collected biographies of the signers, consult: Sanderson, Biography of the Signers of the Declaration of Independence (9 vols., Philadelphia, 1823-27); Brotherhead, Book of the Signers (Philadelphia, 1861; new ed. 1875); Lossing, Biographical Sketches of the Signers of the American Declaration of Independence (New York, 1860); and Dwight, Signers of the Declaration of Independence (last ed., New York, 1895). Further references may be found in the biographical notices in this book of the individual signers.  DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE, . See .  DECLARATION OF INDULGENCE. This name is applied to several acts of the last two Stuart kings, but particularly to the proclamation of James II., in 1687, suspending the operation of the penal statutes directed against the Roman Catholics and the Protestant Nonconformists, and of all acts imposing a test as a qualification for holding lay or ecclesiastical office. In this way, James hoped to gain, in favor of his Catholic policy, the adherence of the Protestant dissenters, many of whom were suffering severe persecution under those laws. Several hundred addresses of thanks were presented to the King; but the majority of the dissenting clergy would not accept toleration on such terms. The great leaders, Baxter, Howe, and Bunyan, declined the Indulgence at the price of a breach of the law and the encouragement of Romanism.

The clergy, generally, refused to read the proclamation in their churches, as commanded by a royal order of May, 1688. The seven bishops, with Archbishop Sancroft at their head, signed a firm but moderate petition to the King, refusing to publish a declaration which they knew to be illegal. James commanded the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to deprive these bishops of their sees, but this was going too far, even for that body; and on the suggestion of Jeffreys, a prosecution before the King's Bench for seditious libel was substituted. So threatening was the popular indignation, that the accused prelates were acquitted, although the jury was packed and the judges were mere tools of the Crown. The declaration cost James the allegiance of the Anglican Church, and precipitated the Revolution of 1688. Consult: Howell, State Trials, xii. (London, 1809-28); and D'Oyly, Life of William Sancroft (London, 1840). See.  DECLARATION OF PARIS. An agreement defining the rules of maritime law, to be applied in time of war, signed by the plenipotentiaries of Great Britain, Austria, France, Prussia, Russia, Sardinia, and Turkey, at Paris, April 16, 1856, where they had met in convention to settle the questions involved in the Crimean War, just closed. England had always claimed, and had exercised, the right to seize an enemy's goods on the high seas, though conveyed in a neutral vessel, which included the right to stop and search neutral merchant vessels for this purpose. The exercise of this right had aroused against England the Northern Maritime League of 1800, and was condemned generally by the civilized world. Nothing short of absolute command of the seas made it safe for a single power to maintain a practice which threatened in moments of danger to turn the whole body of neutral States into enemies. Besides, while it was profitable for England to seize an enemy's goods in neutral ships when she was at war, it reacted upon England when she remained at peace during hostilities between other States. Likewise, while her privateers might inflict severe injuries upon an enemy's commerce, her own commerce in time of war offered a rich field for hostile privateers. So, in return for the abolition of privateering, Great Britain consented to a rule permitting the products of a belligerent State to find a market in time of war.

The following rules were adopted by the convention: (1) Privateering is, and remains, abolished. (2) The neutral flag covers enemy's goods, with the exception of contraband of war. (3) Neutral goods, with the exception of contraband of war, are not liable to capture under the enemy's flag. (4) Blockades, in order to be binding, must be effective, that is to say, maintained by a force sufficient really to prevent access to the coast of the enemy. This declaration was subsequently accepted by the civilized nations, with the exception of the United States, Spain, Mexico, and several South American republics. The United States urged the substitution of a more advanced provision, excepting from capture all private property, even of citizens of belligerents, either by privateers or national vessels. This was the situation at the opening of the Civil War. On the issuance by the Confederate President, Jefferson Davis, of letters to privateers, Secretary of State Seward addressed a note to the Powers, requesting to be allowed to accede to the Declaration of Paris without modification. Great Britain and France, who had recognized the South as belligerents, and were anxious not to invalidate the letters of marque issued by the Confederate Government, stipulated that the accession of the United States should not “have any bearing, direct or indirect, on the internal differences