_Constitution and Functions._--Throughout the period of Athenian greatness the Ecclesia was the sovereign power, not only in practice but also in theory. The assembly met in early times near the sanctuary of Aphrodite Pandemus (i.e. south of the Acropolis), but, in the 5th and 4th centuries, the regular place of meeting was the Pnyx. From the 5th century it met sometimes in the theatre, which in the 3rd century was the regular place. From Demosthenes we learn that in his time special meetings were held at Peiraeus, and, in the last centuries B.C., meetings were held at Athens and Peiraeus alternately. Certain meetings, however, for voting ostracism (q.v.) and on questions affecting individual status took place in the Agora. Meetings were (1) ordinary, (2) extraordinary, and (3) convened by special messengers ([Greek: kyriai], [Greek: synklêtoi] and [Greek: kataklêtoi]), these last being called when it was desirable that the country people should attend. At ordinary meetings the attendance was practically confined to Athenian residents. According to Aristotle there were four regular meetings in each prytany (see BOULE); probably only the first of these was called [Greek: kyria]. It is certain, however, that the four meetings did not fall on regular days, owing to the occurrence of feast days on which no meeting could take place. In the [Greek: kyria ekklêsia] of each month took place the _Epicheirotonia_ (monthly inquiry) of the state officials, and if it proved unsatisfactory a trial before the Heliaea was arranged; the council reported on the general security and the corn-supply, and read out lists of vacant inheritances and unmarried heiresses. In the sixth prytany of each year at the [Greek: kyria ekklêsia] the question whether ostracism should take place that year was put to the vote. For all meetings it was usual that the Prytaneis should give five days' notice in the form of a _programma_ (agenda). On occasions of sudden importance the herald of the council summoned the people with a trumpet, and sometimes special messengers were despatched to "bring in" the country people ([Greek: katakalein]). Entry: ECCLESIA
The task of historical criticism in the case of the Peloponnesian War is widely different from its task in the case of the Persian Wars. It has to deal, not with facts as they appear in the traditions of an imaginative race, but with facts as they appeared to a scientific observer. Facts, indeed, are seldom in dispute. The question is rather whether facts of importance are omitted, whether the explanation of causes is correct, or whether the judgment of men and measures is just. Such inaccuracies as have been brought home to Thucydides on the strength, e.g. of epigraphic evidence, are, as a rule, trivial. His most serious errors relate to topographical details, in cases where he was dependent on the information of others. Sphacteria (see Pylos) (see G. B. Grundy, _Journal of Hellenic Studies_, xvi., 1896, p. 1) is a case in point. Nor have the difficulties connected with the siege of Plataea been cleared up either by Grundy or by others (see Grundy, _Topography of the Battle of Plataea_, &c., 1894). Where, on the contrary, he is writing at first hand his descriptions of sites are surprisingly correct. The most serious charge as yet brought against his authority as to matters of fact relates to his account of the Revolution of the Four Hundred, which appears, at first sight, to be inconsistent with the documentary evidence supplied by Aristotle's _Constitution of Athens_ (q.v.). It may be questioned, however, whether the documents have been correctly interpreted by Aristotle. On the whole, it is probable that the general course of events was such as Thucydides describes (see E. Meyer, _Forschungen_, ii. 406-436), though he failed to appreciate the position of Theramenes and the Moderate party, and was clearly misinformed on some important points of detail. With regard to the omission of facts, it is unquestionable that much is omitted that would not be omitted by a modern writer. Such omissions are generally due to the author's conception of his task. Thus the internal history of Athens is passed over as forming no part of the history of the war. It is only where the course of the war is directly affected by the course of political events (e.g. by the Revolution of the Four Hundred) that the internal history is referred to. However much it may be regretted that the relations of political parties are not more fully described, especially in book v., it cannot be denied that from his standpoint there is logical justification even for the omission of the ostracism of Hyperbolus. There are omissions, however, which are not so easily explained. Perhaps the most notable instance is that of the raising of the tribute in 425 B.C. (see DELIAN LEAGUE). Entry: II
Apart from the reforms which Cleisthenes was now able to establish, the period of his ascendancy is a blank, nor are we told when and how it came to an end. It is clear, however--and it is impossible in connexion with the Pan-hellenic patriotism to which Athens laid claim, to overrate the importance of the fact--that Cleisthenes, hard pressed in the war with Boeotia, Euboea and Sparta (Herod, v. 73 and foll.), sent ambassadors to ask the help of Persia. The story, as told by Herodotus, that the ambassadors of their own accord agreed to give "earth and water" (i.e. submission) in return for Persian assistance, and that the Ecclesia subsequently disavowed their action as unauthorized, is scarcely credible. Cleisthenes (1) was in full control and must have instructed the ambassadors; (2) he knew that any help from Persia meant submission. It is practically certain, therefore, that he (cf. the Alcmaeonids and the story of the shield at Marathon) was the first to "medize" (see Curtius, _History of Greece_). Probably he had hoped to persuade the Ecclesia that the agreement was a mere form. Aelian says that he himself was a victim to his own device of ostracism (q.v.); this, though apparently inconsistent with the _Constitution of Athens_ (_c._ 22), may perhaps indicate that his political career ended in disgrace, a hypothesis which is explicable on the ground of this act of treachery in respect of the attempted Persian alliance. Whether to Cleisthenes are due the final success over Boeotia and Euboea, the planting of the 4000 cleruchs on the Lelantine Plain, and the policy of the Aeginetan War (see AEGINA), in which Athens borrowed ships from Corinth, it is impossible to determine. The eclipse of Cleisthenes in all records is one of the most curious facts in Greek history. It is also curious that we do not know in what official capacity Cleisthenes carried his reforms. Perhaps he was given extraordinary _ad hoc_ powers for a specified time; conceivably he used the ordinary mechanism. It seems clear that he had fully considered his scheme in advance, that he broached it before the last attack of Isagoras, and that it was only after the final expulsion of Isagoras and his Spartan allies that it became possible for him to put it into execution. Entry: 1
_Great Britain_.--In Great Britain the ballot was suggested for use in parliament by a political tract of the time of Charles II. It was actually used by the Scots parliament of 1662 in proceeding on the Billeting Act, a measure proposed by Middleton to secure the ostracism of Lauderdale and other political opponents who were by secret-vote declared incapable of public office. The plan followed was this: each member of parliament wrote, in a disguised hand, on a piece of paper, the names of twelve suspected persons; the billets were put in a bag held by the registrar; the bag was then sealed, and was afterwards opened and its contents ascertained in the exchequer chamber, where the billets were immediately burned and the names of the ostracised concealed on oath. The Billeting Act was repudiated by the king, and the ballot was not again heard of till 1705, when Fletcher of Saltoun, in his measure for a provisional government of Scotland by annual parliaments in the event of Queen Anne's death, proposed secret-voting to protect members from court influence. The gradual emancipation of the British parliament from the power of the crown, and the adoption of a strictly representative system of election, not only destroyed whatever reason may once have existed for the ballot in deliberative voting, but rendered it essential that such voting should be open. It was in the agitations for parliamentary reform at the beginning of the 19th century that the demand for the ballot in parliamentary elections was first seriously made. The Benthamites advocated the system in 1817. At the so-called Peterloo Massacre (1819) several banners were inscribed with the ballot. O'Connell introduced a bill on the subject in 1830; and the original draft of Lord John Russell's Reform Bill, probably on the suggestion of Lords Durham and Duncannon, provided for its introduction. Later on the historian Grote became its chief supporter in the House of Commons; and from 1833 to 1839, in spite of the ridicule cast by Sydney Smith on the "mouse-trap," and on Grote's "dagger-box, in which you stab the card of your favourite candidate with a dagger,"[1] the minority for the ballot increased from 106 to 217. In 1838 the ballot was the fourth point of the People's Charter. In the same year the abolition of the land qualification introduced rich commercial candidates to the constituencies. Lord Melbourne's cabinet declared the question open. The cause, upheld by Macaulay, Ward, Hume (in his resolutions, 1848) and Berkeley, was strengthened by the report of Lord Hartington's Select Committee [v.03 p.0279] (15th March 1870), to the effect that corruption, treating and intimidation by priests and landlords took place to a large extent at both parliamentary and municipal elections in England and Ireland; and that the ballot, if adopted, would probably not only promote tranquillity at elections, but protect voters from undue influence, and introduce greater freedom and purity in voting, provided secrecy was made inviolable except in cases where a voter was found guilty of bribery, or where an invalid vote had been given. Entry: BALLOT
During the Reconstruction the people of the South were divided thus: nearly all native whites (the most prominent of whom were disfranchised) on one side irrespective of former political faith, and on the other side the ex-slaves organized and led by a few native and Northern whites called respectively scalawags and carpet-baggers, who were supported by the United States government and who controlled the Southern state governments. The Ku Klux movement in its wider aspects was the effort of the first class to destroy the control of the second class. To control the negro the Klan played upon his superstitious fears by having night patrols, parades and drills of silent horsemen covered with white sheets, carrying skulls with coals of fire for eyes, sacks of bones to rattle, and wearing hideous masks. In calling upon dangerous blacks at night they pretended to be the spirits of dead Confederates, "just from Hell," and to quench their thirst would pretend to drink gallons of water which was poured into rubber sacks concealed under their robes. Mysterious signs and warnings were sent to disorderly negro politicians. The whites who were responsible for the conduct of the blacks were warned or driven away by social and business ostracism or by violence. Nearly all southern whites (except "scalawags"), whether members of the secret societies or not, in some way took part in the Ku Klux movement. As the work of the societies succeeded, they gradually passed out of existence. In some communities they fell into the control of violent men and became simply bands of outlaws, dangerous even to the former members; and the anarchical aspects of the movement excited the North to vigorous condemnation.[1] The United States Congress in 1871-1872 enacted a series of "Force Laws" intended to break up the secret societies and to control the Southern elections. Several hundred arrests were made, and a few convictions were secured. The elections were controlled for a few years, and violence was checked, but the Ku Klux movement went on until it accomplished its object by giving protection to the whites, reducing the blacks to order, replacing the whites in control of society and state, expelling the worst of the carpet-baggers and scalawags, and nullifying those laws of Congress which had resulted in placing the Southern whites under the control of a party composed principally of ex-slaves. Entry: KU
The device of ostracism is the final stone in the Cleisthenean structure. An admirable scheme in theory, and, at first, in practice, it deteriorated in the 5th century into a mere party weapon, and in the case of Hyperbolus (417) became an absurdity. Entry: A
BALLOT (from Ital. _ballotta_, dim. of _balla_, a ball), the modern method of secret-voting employed in political, legislative and judicial assemblies, and also in the proceedings of private clubs and corporations. The name comes from the use of a little ball dropped according to choice into the right receptacle; but nowadays it is used for any system of secret-voting, even though no such ball is employed. In ancient Athens, the dicasts, in giving their verdict, generally used balls of stone (_psephi_) or of metal (_sponduli_). Those pierced in the centre, or black in colour, signified condemnation; those unpierced, or white, signified acquittal. The boxes were variously arranged; but generally a brass box received both classes of votes, and a wooden box received the unused balls. In the assembly, cases of _privilegia_, such as ostracism, the naturalization of foreigners or the release of state-debtors, were decided by secret-voting. The petalism, or voting by words on olive-leaves, practised at Syracuse, may also be mentioned. At Rome the ballot was introduced to the comitia by the _Leges Tabellariae_, of which the _Lex Gabiana_ (139 B.C.) relates to the election of magistrates, the _Lex Cassia_ (137 B.C.) to _judicia populi_, and the _Lex Papiria_ (131 B.C.) to the enactment and repeal of laws. The wooden _tabellae_, placed in the _cista_ or wicker box, were marked U. R. (_uti rogas_) and A. (_antiquo_) in the case of a proposed law; L. (_libero_) and D. (_damno_) in the case of a public trial; in the case of an election, _puncta_ were made opposite the names or initials of the candidates. _Tabellae_ were also used by the Roman judices, who expressed their verdict or judgment by the letters A. (_absolvo_), C. (_condemno_), and N. L. (_non liquet_). In modern times voting by ballot is usually by some form of writing, but the use of the ball still persists (especially in clubs), and a "black ball" is the regular term for a hostile vote. Entry: BALLOT
The reconstruction of the city after its demolition by the Persians was not carried out on the lines of a definite plan like that of the Peiraeus. The houses were hastily repaired, and the narrow, crooked streets remained; the influence of Themistocles, who aimed at transferring the capital to the Peiraeus, was probably directed against any costly scheme of restoration, except on the Acropolis. The period of Cimon's administration, however, especially the interval between his victory on the Eurymedon and his ostracism (468-461 B.C.), was marked by great architectural activity in the lower city as well as on the citadel. To his time may be referred many of the buildings around the Agora (probably rebuilt on the former sites) and elsewhere, and the passage, or [Greek: dromos], from the Agora to the Dipylon flanked by long porticos. The Theseum or temple of Theseus, which lay to the east of the Agora near the Acropolis, was built by Cimon: here he deposited the bones of the national hero which he brought from Scyros about 470 B.C. The only building in the city which can with certainty be assigned to the administration of Pericles is the Odeum, beneath the southern declivity of the Acropolis, a structure mainly of wood, said to have been built in imitation of the tent of Xerxes: it was used for musical contests and the rehearsal of plays. Of the various temples in which statues by Pheidias, Alcamenes and other great sculptors are known to have been placed, no traces have yet been discovered; excavation has not been possible in a large portion of the lower city, which has always been inhabited. The only extant structures of the classical period are the Hephaesteum, the Dionysiac theatre, and the choragic monument of Lysicrates. The remains of a small Ionic temple which were standing by the Ilissus in the time of Stuart have disappeared. Entry: I
I. _Old comedy_, which dated from the complete establishment of democracy by Pericles, though a comedy directed against Themistocles is mentioned. The Megarean farcical entertainments had long spread in the rural districts of Attica, and were now introduced into the city, where from about 460 onwards the "comus" became a matter of public concern. Cratinus (c. 450-422) and Crates (c. 449-425) first moulded these beginnings into the forms of Attic art. The final victory of Pericles and the democratic party may be reckoned from the ostracism of Thucydides (444); and so eagerly was the season of freedom employed by the comic poets that already four years afterwards a law--which, however, remained only a short time in force--limited their licence. Cratinus,[69] an exceedingly bold and broad satirist, apparently of conservative tendencies, was followed by Eupolis (446-after 415), every one of whose plays appears to have attacked some individual,[70] by Phrynichus, Plato and others; but the representative of old comedy in its fullest development is Aristophanes (c. 444-c. 380), a comic poet of unique and unsurpassed genius. Dignified by the acquisition of a chorus (more numerous--twenty-four to twelve or afterwards fifteen--though of a less costly kind than the tragic) of masked actors, and of scenery and machinery, as well as by a corresponding literary elaboration and elegance of style, Old Attic comedy nevertheless remained true both to its origin and to the purposes of its introduction into the free imperial city. Its special season was at the festival of the Lenaea, when the Athenians could enjoy the fun against one another without espying strangers; but it was also performed at the Great Dionysia. It borrowed much from tragedy, but it retained the phallic abandonment of the old rural festivals, the licence of word and gesture, and the audacious directness of personal invective. These characteristics are not features peculiar to Aristophanes. He was twitted by some of the older comic poets with having degenerated from the full freedom of the art by a tendency to refinement, and he took credit to himself for having superseded the time-honoured _cancan_ and the stale practical joking of his predecessors by a nobler kind of mirth. But in daring, as he likewise boasted, he had no peer; and the shafts of his wit, though dipped in wine-lees and at times feathered from very obscene fowl, flew at high game.[71] He has been accused of seeking to degrade what he ought to have recognized as good[72]; and it has been shown with complete success that he is not to be taken as an impartial or accurate authority on Athenian history. But partisan as he was, he was also a genuine patriot; and his very political sympathies--which were conservative, like those of the comic poets in general, not only because it was the old families upon whom the expense of the _choregia_ in the main devolved--were such as have often stimulated the most effective political satire. Of the conservative quality of reverence he was, however, altogether devoid; and his love for Athens was that of the most free-spoken of sons. Flexible even in his religious notions, he was, in this as in other respects, ready to be educated by his times; and, like a true comic poet, he could be witty at the expense even of his friends, and, it might almost be said, of himself. In wealth of fancy[73] and in beauty of lyric melody, he has few peers among the great poets of all times. Entry: I
BREAM (_Abramis_), a fish of the Cyprinid family, characterized by a deep, strongly compressed body, with short dorsal and long anal fins, the latter with more than sixteen branched rays, and the small inferior mouth. There are two species in the British Isles, the common bream, _A. brama_, reaching a length of 2 ft. and a weight of 12 lb., and the white bream or bream flat, _A. blicca_, a smaller and, in most places, rarer species. Both occur in slow-running rivers, canals, ponds and reservoirs. Bream are usually despised for the table in England, but fish from large lakes, if well prepared, are by no means deserving of ostracism. In the days of medieval abbeys, when the provident Cistercian monks attached great importance to pond culture, they gave the first place to the tench and bream, the carp still being unknown in the greater part of Europe. At the present day, the poorer Jews in large English cities make a great consumption of bream--and other Cyprinids, most of them being imported alive from Holland and sold in the Jewish fish markets. In America the name bream is commonly given to the golden shiner minnow (_Abramis chrysoleucus_), to the pumpkin-seed sunfish (_Eupomotis gibbosus_), and to some kinds of porgy (_Sparidae_). Entry: BREAM
ARISTIDES [[Greek: Aristeides]] (c. 530-468 B.C.), Athenian statesman, called "the Just," was the son of Lysimachus, and a member of a family of moderate fortune. Of his early life we are told merely that he became a follower of the statesman Cleisthenes and sided with the aristocratic party in Athenian politics. He first comes into notice as strategus in command of his native tribe Antiochis at Marathon, and it was no doubt in consequence of the distinction which he then achieved that he was elected chief archon for the ensuing year (489-488). In pursuance of his conservative policy which aimed at maintaining Athens as a land power, he was one of the chief opponents of the naval policy of Themistocles (q.v.). The conflict between the two leaders ended in the ostracism of Aristides, at a date variously given between 485 and 482. It is said that, on this occasion, a voter, who did not know him, came up to him, and giving him his sherd, desired him to write upon it the name of Aristides. The latter asked if Aristides had wronged him. "No," was the reply, "and I do not even know him, but it irritates me to hear him everywhere called _the just_." Entry: ARISTIDES
_Judicial Functions._--The Ecclesia heard cases of Probole and Eisangelia (see GREEK LAW). The Probole was an action against sycophants and persons who had not kept their promises to the people, or had disturbed a public festival. The verdict went by show of hands, but no legal consequences ensued; if the plaintiff demanded punishment he had to go to the Heliaea which were not at all bound by the previous vote in the Ecclesia. Cases of Eisangelia in which the penalty exceeded the legal competence of the council came before the Ecclesia in the form of a _probouleuma_. To prevent vexatious accusations, it was (at some date unknown) decided that the accuser who failed to obtain one-fifth of the votes should be fined 1000 drachmas (£40). (For the procedure in case of OSTRACISM see that article.) Entry: ECCLESIA
56. _Anti-Semitism._--It is saddening to be compelled to close this record with the statement that the progress of the European Jews received a serious check by the rise of modern anti-Semitism in the last quarter of the 19th century. While in Russia this took the form of actual massacre, in Germany and Austria it assumed the shape of social and civic ostracism. In Germany Jews are still rarely admitted to the rank of officers in the army, university posts are very difficult of access, Judaism and its doctrines are denounced in medieval language, and a tone of hostility prevails in many public utterances. In Austria, as in Germany, anti-Semitism is a factor in the parliamentary elections. The legend of ritual murder (q.v.) has been revived, and every obstacle is placed in the way of the free intercourse of Jews with their Christian fellow-citizens. In France Edouard Adolphe Drumont led the way to a similar animosity, and the popular fury was fanned by the Dreyfus case. It is generally felt, however, that this recrudescence of anti-Semitism is a passing phase in the history of culture (see ANTI-SEMITISM). Entry: 56
Taking the Thirteen Colonies as a whole, loyalism drew its strength largely from the following classes: (1) the official class--men holding positions in the civil, military and naval services, and their immediate families and social connexions, as, for example, Lieutenant-Governor Bull in South Carolina, Governor Dunmore in Virginia and Governor Tryon in New York; (2) the professional classes--lawyers, physicians, teachers and ministers, such as Benjamin Kissam, Peter Van Schaack and Dr Azor Betts of New York and Dr Myles Cooper, president of King's College (now Columbia University); (3) large landed proprietors and their tenants, e.g. William Wragg in South Carolina and the De Lanceys, De Peysters and Van Cortlandts in New York; (4) the wealthy commercial classes in New York, Albany, Philadelphia, Baltimore and Charleston, whose business interests would be affected by war; (5) natural conservatives of the type of Joseph Galloway of Pennsylvania, and numerous political trimmers and opportunists. Before 1776 the Loyalists may be divided into two groups. There was a minority of extremists led by the Anglican ministers and teachers, who favoured an unquestioning obedience to all British legislation. The moderate majority disapproved of the mother country's unwise colonial policy and advocated opposition to it through legally organized bodies. Many even sanctioned non-importation and non-exportation agreements, and took part in the election of delegates to the First Continental Congress. The aggressive attitude of Congress, the subsequent adoption of the Declaration of Independence, and the refusal to consider Lord Howe's conciliatory propositions finally forced them into armed opposition. Very few really sanctioned the British policy as a whole, but all felt that it was their first duty to fight for the preservation of the empire and to leave constitutional questions for a later settlement. John Adams's estimate that one-third of all the people in the thirteen states in 1776 were Loyalists was perhaps approximately correct. In New England the number was small, perhaps largest in Connecticut and in the district which afterwards became the state of Vermont. New York was the chief stronghold. The "De Lancey party" or the "Episcopalian party" included the majority of the wealthy farmers, merchants and bankers, and practically all communicants of the Anglican church. New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland and Virginia contained large and influential Loyalist minorities; North Carolina was about equally divided; South Carolina probably, and Georgia certainly, had Loyalist majorities. Some of the Loyalists joined the regular British army, others organized guerilla bands and with their Indian allies inaugurated a reign of terror on the frontier from New York to Georgia. New York alone furnished about 15,000 Loyalists to the British army and navy, and about 8500 militia, making in all 23,500 Loyalist troops. This was more than any other colony supplied, perhaps more than all the others combined. Johnson's "Loyal Greens" and Butler's "Tory Rangers" served under General St Leger in the Burgoyne campaign of 1777, and the latter took part in the Wyoming and Cherry Valley massacres of 1778. The strength of these Loyalists in arms was weakened in New York by General Sullivan's success at Newtown (now Elmira) on the 29th of August 1779, and broken in the north-west by George Rogers Clark's victories at Kaskaskia and Vincennes in 1778 and 1779, and in the south by the battles of King's Mountain and Cowpens in 1780. Severe laws were passed against the Loyalists in all the states. They were in general disfranchised and forbidden to hold office or to practise law. Eight of the states formally banished certain prominent Tories either conditionally or unconditionally, and the remaining five, Connecticut, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland and Virginia, did practically the same indirectly. Social and commercial ostracism forced many others to flee. Their property was usually confiscated for the support of the American cause. They went to England, to the West Indies, to the Bahamas, to Canada and to New York, Newport, Charleston and other cities under British control. According to a trustworthy estimate 60,000 persons went into exile during the years from 1775 to 1787. The great majority settled in Nova Scotia and in Upper and Lower Canada, where they and their descendants became known as "United Empire Loyalists." Those who remained in the United States suffered for many years, and all the laws against them were not finally repealed until after the War of 1812. The British government, however, endeavoured to look after the interests of its loyal colonists. During the war a number of the prominent Loyalists (e.g. Joseph Galloway) were appointed to lucrative positions, and rations were issued to many Loyalists in the cities, such as New York, which were held by the British. During the peace negotiations at Paris the treatment of the Loyalists presented a difficult problem, Great Britain at first insisting that the United States should agree to remove their disabilities and to act toward them in a spirit of conciliation. The American commissioners, knowing that a treaty with such provisions would not be accepted at home, and that the general government had, moreover, no power to bind the various states in such a matter, refused to accede; but in the treaty, as finally ratified, the United States agreed (by Article V.) to recommend to the legislatures of the various states that Loyalists should "have free liberty to go to any part or parts of any of the thirteen United States, and therein to remain twelve months, unmolested in their endeavours to obtain the restitution of such of their estates, rights and properties as may have been confiscated," that acts and laws in the premises be reconsidered and revised, and that restitution of estates, &c., should be made. The sixth article provided "that there shall be no future confiscations made, nor any prosecutions commenced against any person" for having taken part in the war; and that those in confinement on such charges should be liberated. In Great Britain opponents of the government asserted that the Loyalists had virtually been betrayed; in America the treaty aroused opposition as making too great concessions to them. Congress made the promised recommendations, but they were unheeded by the various states, in spite of the advocacy by Alexander Hamilton and others of a conciliatory treatment of the Loyalists; and Great Britain, in retaliation, refused until 1796 to evacuate the western posts as the treaty prescribed. Immediately after the war parliament appointed a commission of five to examine the claims of the Loyalists for compensation for services and losses; and to satisfy these claims and to establish Loyalists in Nova Scotia and Canada the British government expended fully £6,000,000. Entry: LOYALISTS