Test Bank for Network+ Guide to Networks 6th Edition Tamara

Dean 1133608191 9781133608196

Full link download:
Test Bank:
https://testbankpack.com/p/test-bank-for-network-
guide-to-networks-6th-edition-tamara-dean-
1133608191-9781133608196/
Solution Manual:
https://testbankpack.com/p/solution-manual-for-network-guide-to-networks-6th-edition-
tamara-dean-1133608191-9781133608196/

Chapter 2: Network Standards and the OSI Model

TRUE/FALSE

1. Standards assist in network design.

ANS: T PTS: 1 REF: 39

2. Network functions are associated with only one layer of the OSI model.

ANS: F PTS: 1 REF: 43

3. The Application layer includes software applications.

ANS: F PTS: 1 REF: 44

4. Not all Transport layer protocols are concerned with reliability.

ANS: T PTS: 1 REF: 48

5. For greater network efficiency, segmentation is preferred.

ANS: F PTS: 1 REF: 51

MULTIPLE CHOICE

1. Standards define the performance of a product or service.

a. ideal c. minimum acceptable
b. most acceptable d. maximum acceptable
ANS: C PTS: 1 REF: 39
2. The goal of is to establish international technological standards to facilitate the global exchange
of information and barrier free trade.
a. ANSI c. ITU
b. ISO d. ISOC
ANS: B PTS: 1 REF: 41
3. The is a specialized United Nations agency that provides developing countries with technical
expertise and equipment to advance those nations’ technological bases.
a. ANSI c. ITU
b. ISO d. ISOC
ANS: C PTS: 1 REF: 41

4. oversees the IAB (Internet Architecture Board).

a. EIA c. ICANN
b. ISOC d. ISO
ANS: B PTS: 1 REF: 41

5. Which statement accurately describes the OSI model?

 a. It describes how software programs interact with humans.
b. It prescribes the type of hardware or software that should support each layer.
c. It describes how software programs interact with other software programs.
d. It describes a theoretical representation of what happens between two
nodes communicating on a network.
ANS: D PTS: 1 REF: 43

6. Which OSI model layer initiates the flow of information?

a. Physical c. Application
b. Session d. Presentation
ANS: C PTS: 1 REF: 43

7. Which OSI model layer manages data encryption?

a. Physical c. Application
b. Session d. Presentation
ANS: D PTS: 1 REF: 45

8. In which OSI model layer does TCP operate?

a. Physical c. Network
b. Transport d. Data Link
ANS: B PTS: 1 REF: 47

9. Which type of protocol is useful when data must be transferred quickly?

a. connection-oriented c. TCP
b. connectionless d. IP
ANS: B PTS: 1 REF: 48

10. Transport layer protocols break large data units into .

a. PDUs c. frames
b. segments d. block IDs
ANS: B PTS: 1 REF: 48

11. is the process of reconstructing segmented data.

a. Reassembly c. Resegmenting
b. Reengineering d. Realigning
ANS: A PTS: 1 REF: 48

12. Each network node has types of addresses.

a. two c. four
b. three d. five
ANS: A PTS: 1 REF: 50

13. The process of determining the best path from Point A on one network to Point B on another is
known as .
a. mapping c. reconfiguring
b. enhancing d. routing
ANS: D PTS: 1 REF: 50
 14. In which OSI model layer does IP operate?
a. Physical c. Network
b. Transport d. Data Link
ANS: C PTS: 1 REF: 50

15. Which Data Link sublayer manages flow control?

a. LLC c. Management layer
b. MAC d. Addressing layer
ANS: A PTS: 1 REF: 52

16. Which Data Link sublayer manages access to the physical medium?
a. LLC c. Management layer
b. MAC d. Addressing layer
ANS: B PTS: 1 REF: 52

17. The is a fixed number associated with a device’s NIC.

a. LLC address c. logical address
b. frame address d. physical address
ANS: D PTS: 1 REF: 52

18. In which OSI model layer do hubs operate?

a. Physical c. Data Link
b. Network d. Physical and Data Link
ANS: A PTS: 1 REF: 55

19. In which OSI model layer(s) do NICs operate?

a. Physical c. Data Link
b. Network and Physical d. Physical and Data Link
ANS: D PTS: 1 REF: 55

20. Which IEEE standard describes Ethernet?

a. 802.1 c. 802.5
b. 802.3 d. 802.11
ANS: B PTS: 1 REF: 58

21. Which IEEE standard describes specifications for wireless transmissions?

a. 802.1 c. 802.5
b. 802.3 d. 802.11
ANS: D PTS: 1 REF: 59

COMPLETION
1. are documented agreements containing technical specifications or other

precise criteria that stipulate how a particular product or service should be designed or performed.

ANS: Standards

PTS: 1 REF: 39
 2. The Application layer separates data into , or discrete amounts of data.

ANS:
PDUs (protocol data units)
protocol data units
PDUs

PTS: 1 REF: 43

3. is the process of gauging the appropriate rate of transmission based on how

fast the recipient can accept data.

ANS: Flow control

PTS: 1 REF: 47

4. protocols establish a connection with another node before they

begin transmitting data.

ANS: Connection oriented

PTS: 1 REF: 47

5. A network’s represents the largest data unit the network will carry.

ANS:
MTU (maximum transmission
unit) maximum transmission unit
MTU

PTS: 1 REF: 48

MATCHING

Match each item with a statement below:

a. ANSI f. Session layer
b. ISO g. Transport layer
c. IEEE h. Network layer
d. ISOC i. Physical layer
e. Presentation layer
1. A professional membership society that helps to establish technical standards for the Internet.
2. A collection of standards organizations representing 162 countries.
3. Determines standards for the electronics industry and other fields, such as chemical and nuclear
engineering, health and safety, and construction.
4. An international society composed of engineering professionals with goals of promoting
development and education in the electrical engineering and computer science fields.
5. Translates network addresses into their physical counterparts.
6. Serves as a translator.
7. Generates signals as changes in voltage at the NIC.
8. Manages end-to-end delivery of data.
Another document from Scribd.com that is
random and unrelated content:
enterprise by rash and unskilled speculators, to be followed
by disaster to the adventurers and their employees, and a
plethora of commodities which deranged the operations of
skilled and prudent enterprise. … 'It would seem that the
rates of duties under the existing tariff—fixed, for the most
part, during the war under the evident necessity at that time
of stimulating to its utmost extent all domestic
production—might be adapted, through reduction, to the present
condition of peace requiring no such extraordinary stimulus.
And in the mechanical and manufacturing industries, especially
those which have been long established, it would seem that the
improvements in machinery and processes made within the last
twenty years, and the high scale of productiveness which had
become a characteristic of their establishments, would permit
our manufacturers to compete with their foreign rivals under a
substantial reduction of existing duties.' Entertaining these
views, the commission sought to present a scheme of tariff
duties in which substantial reduction was the distinguishing
feature. … The attempt to modify the tariff brought into bold
relief the numerous conflicting interests, and the difficulty
and delicacy of the undertaking. As our industries become more
heterogeneous, the tariff also grows more complex, and the
difficulty of doing justice to all is increased. For example,
the wool manufacturers to succeed best must have free wool and
dye-stuffs; on the other hand, both these interests desired
protection. The manufacturers of the higher forms of iron must
have free materials to succeed best; on the other hand, the
ore producers, the pig-iron manufacturers, and every
succeeding class desired a tariff on their products. It was
not easy for these interests to agree, and some of them did
not. The iron-ore producers desired a tariff of 85 cents a ton
on ore; the steel-rail makers were opposed to the granting of
more than 50; the manufacturers of fence wire were opposed to
an increase of duty on wire rods used for making wire, and
favored a reduction; the manufacturers of rods in this country
were desirous of getting an increase; the manufacturers of
floor oil-cloths desired a reduction or abolition of the duty
on the articles used by them; the soap manufacturers desired
the putting of caustic soda on the free list, which the
American manufacturers of it opposed; some of the woolen
 manufacturers were desirous that protection should be granted
to the manufacturers of dye-stuffs, and some were not; the
manufacturers of tanned foreign goat and sheep skins desired
the removal of the tariff on such skins; those who tanned
them, and who were much less numerous, were equally tenacious
in maintaining the tariff on the raw skins, and the same
conflict arose between other interests. The method of
determining how much protection their several interests
needed, and of adjusting differences between them, has always
been of the crudest kind. … Although not all of the
recommendations of the commission were adopted, most of them
were. Those which pertained to the simplification of the law
were adopted with only slight changes. The bill reported by
the commission contained, not including the free list, 631
articles and classifications. … Less than 25 articles, mainly
in the cotton, woolen goods, and the iron and steel schedules,
were matters of contention. The rates on 409 of the 631
articles mentioned in the tariff recommended by the commission
were adopted, and between 50 and 60 more articles have
substantially the same rates, though levied under different
clauses. Of the 170 changes, 98 were fixed at lower rates than
those proposed by the commission, 46 at higher, and 26 have
been classed as doubtful."

A. S. Bolles,
Financial History of the United States, 1861-1885,
book 2, chapter 7.

TARIFF: (United States): A. D. 1884-1888.

Attempts at Tariff Reform.
The Morrison Bills and the Hewett Bill.
President Cleveland's Message.
The Mills Bill and its defeat.

The slight concessions made in the protectionist

tariff-revision of 1883 did not at all satisfy the opinion in
the country demanding greater industrial freedom, and the
question of tariff-reform became more important than before in
American politics. The Democratic Party, identified by all its
early traditions, with the opposition to a policy of
 "protection," won the election of 1884, placing Mr. Cleveland
in the Presidency and gaining control of the House of
Representatives in the 49th Congress. But it had drifted from
its old anchorage on the tariff question, and was slow in
pulling back. A large minority in the party had accepted and
become supporters of the doctrine which was hateful to their
fathers as an economic heresy.
{3084}
The majority of the Democrats in the House, however, made
strenuous efforts to accomplish something in the way of
reducing duties most complained of. Their first undertaking
was led by Mr. Morrison of Illinois, who introduced a bill
which "proposed an average reduction of 20 per cent., but with
so many exceptions that it was estimated the average reduction
on dutiable articles would be about 17 per cent. The rates
under the Morrill Act of 1861 were to form the minimum limit.
An extensive addition to the free list was proposed, including
the following articles: ores of iron, copper, lead, and
nickel, coal, lumber, wood, hay, bristles, lime, sponges,
indigo, coal tar and dyewoods." In the Committee of Ways and
Means the bill underwent considerable changes, the articles in
the free list being reduced to salt, coal, lumber and wood. It
was reported to the House March 11, and remained under debate
until May 6, when it was killed by a motion to strike out the
enacting clause, on which 118 Republicans and 41 Democrats
voted aye, against 4 Republicans and 151 Democrats voting nay.
The 4 Republicans supporting the bill were all from Minnesota;
of the 41 Democrats opposing it 12 were from Pennsylvania, 10
from Ohio, 6 from New York, 4 from California and 3 from New
Jersey. "The Morrison 'horizontal bill' having been thus
killed, Mr. Hewett, a New York Democrat, and a member of the
Ways and Means Committee, on May 12 introduced a new tariff
bill, providing for a reduction of 10 to 20 per cent. on a
considerable number of articles and placing several others on
the free list." The bill was reported favorably to the House,
but action upon it was not reached before the adjournment.
During the same session, a bill to restore the duties of 1867
on raw wool was defeated in the House; an amendment to the
shipping bill, permitting a free importation of iron and steel
steamships for employment in the foreign trade, passed the
House and was, defeated in the Senate; and a bill reducing the
duty on works of art from 20 to 10 per cent. was defeated in
the House. In the next Congress, the Forty-ninth, Mr. Morrison
led a new undertaking to diminish the protective duties which
were producing an enormous surplus of revenue. The bill which
he introduced (February 15, 1886) received radical changes in
the Ways and Means Committee, "inasmuch as it was clearly seen
that the opposition from the metal and coal interests was
sufficiently strong to destroy all chance of consideration in
the House. Accordingly, it was found preferable to make the
duties on wool and woolens the special point for assault." But
the bill modified on this new line,—lowering duties on woolens
to 35 per cent. ad valorem, and placing wool in the free list,
with lumber, wood, fish, salt, flax, hemp and jute,—was
refused consideration by a vote of 157 to 140 in the House, on
the 17th of June. Again there were 35 members of his own party
arrayed against Mr. Morrison. At the second session of the
same Congress, December 18, 1886, Mr. Morrison repeated his
attempt with no better success.

O. H. Perry,
Proposed Tariff Legislation since 1883
(Quarterly Journal of Economics, October, 1887).

The assembling of the 50th Congress, on the 6th of December,

1887, was signalized by a message from President Cleveland
which produced an extraordinary effect, decisively lifting the
tariff question into precedence over all other issues in
national politics, and compelling the Democratic Party to
array its lines distinctly and unequivocally against the
upholders of "protection" as an economic policy. He emphasized
the "paramount importance of the subject" impressively by
passing by every other matter of public concern, and devoting
his message exclusively to a consideration of the "'state of
the Union' as shown in the present condition of our Treasury
and our general fiscal situation." The condition of the
Treasury to which the President called attention was one of
unexampled plethora. "On the 30th day of June, 1885, the
excess of revenues over public expenditures, after complying
with the annual requirement of the Sinking-Fund Act, was
$17,859,735.84; during the year ended June 30, 1886, such
excess amounted to $49,405,545.20; and during the year ended
June 30, 1887, it reached the sum of $55,567,849.54." "Our
scheme of taxation," said the President, "by means of which
this needless surplus is taken from the people and put into
the public treasury, consists of a tariff or duty levied upon
importations from abroad, and internal-revenue taxes levied
upon the consumption of tobacco and spirituous and malt
liquors. It must be conceded that none of the things subjected
to internal-revenue taxation are, strictly speaking,
necessaries; there appears to be no just complaint of this
taxation by the consumers of these articles, and there seems
to be nothing so well able to bear the burden without hardship
to any portion of the people. But our present tariff laws, the
vicious, inequitable, and illogical source of unnecessary
taxation, ought to be at once revised and amended. These laws,
as their primary and plain effect, raise the price to
consumers of all articles imported and subject to duty, by
precisely the sum paid for such duties. Thus the amount of the
duty measures the tax paid by those who purchase for use these
imported articles. Many of these things, however, are raised
or manufactured in our own country, and the duties now levied
upon foreign goods and products are called protection to these
home manufactures, because they render it possible for those
of our people who are manufacturers to make these taxed
articles and sell them for a price equal to that demanded for
the imported goods that have paid customs duty. So it happens
that while comparatively a few use the imported articles,
millions of our people, who never use and never saw any of the
foreign products, purchase and use things of the same kind
made in this country, and pay therefor nearly or quite the
same enhanced price which the duty adds to the imported
articles. Those who buy imports pay the duty charged thereon
into the public treasury, but the majority of our citizens,
who buy domestic articles of the same class, pay a sum at
least approximately equal to this duty to the home
manufacturer. … The difficulty attending a wise and fair
revision of our tariff-laws is not underestimated. It will
require on the part of Congress great labor and care, and
especially a broad and national contemplation of the subject,
 and a patriotic disregard of such local and selfish claims as
are unreasonable and reckless of the welfare of the entire
country. Under our present laws more than 4,000 articles are
subject to duty.
{3085}
Many of these do not in any way compete with our own
manufactures, and many are hardly worth attention as subjects
of revenue. A considerable reduction can be made in the
aggregate by adding them to the free list. The taxation of
luxuries presents no features of hardship; but the necessaries
of life used and consumed by all the people, the duty upon
which adds to the cost of living in every home, should be
greatly cheapened. The radical reduction of the duties imposed
upon raw material used in manufactures, or its free
importation, is of course an important factor in any effort to
reduce the price of these necessaries. … It is not apparent
how such a change can have any injurious effect upon our
manufacturers. On the contrary, it would appear to give them a
better chance in foreign markets with the manufacturers of
other countries, who cheapen their wares by free material.
Thus our people might have an opportunity of extending their
sales beyond the limits of home consumption—saving them from
the depression, interruption in business, and loss caused by a
glutted domestic market, and affording their employes more
certain and steady labor, with its resulting quiet and
contentment. The question thus imperatively presented for
solution should be approached in a spirit higher than
partisanship. … But the obligation to declared party policy
and principle is not wanting to urge prompt and effective
action. Both of the great political parties now represented in
the Government have, by repeated and authoritative
declarations, condemned the condition of our laws which
permits the collection from the people of unnecessary revenue,
and have, in the most solemn manner, promised its correction.
… Our progress toward a wise conclusion will not be improved
by dwelling upon the theories of protection and free trade.
This savors too much of bandying epithets. It is a condition
which confronts us—not a theory. Relief from this condition
may involve a slight reduction of the advantages which we
award our home productions, but the entire withdrawal of such
advantages should not be contemplated. The question of free
trade is absolutely irrelevant."—The President's emphatic
utterance rallied his party and inspired a more united effort
in the House to modify and simplify the tariff. Under the
chairmanship of Mr. Mills, of Texas, a bill was framed by the
Committee of Ways and Means and reported to the House on the
2d of April, 1888. "We have gone as far as we could," said the
Committee in reporting the bill, "and done what we could, in
the present condition of things, to place our manufactures
upon a firm and unshaken foundation, where they would have
advantages over all the manufacturers of the world. Our
manufacturers, having the advantage of all others in the
intelligence, skill, and productive capacity of their labor,
need only to be placed on the same footing with their rivals
in having their materials at the same cost in the open markets
of the world. In starting on this policy, we have transferred
many articles from the dutiable to the free list. The revenues
now received on these articles amount to $22,189,595.48.
Three-fourths of this amount is collected on articles that
enter into manufactures, of which wool and tin-plates are the
most important. … The repeal of all duties on wool enables us
to reduce the duties on the manufactures of wool
$12,332,211.65. The largest reduction we have made is in the
woolen schedule, and this reduction was only made possible by
placing wool on the free list. There is no greater reason for
a duty on wool than there is for a duty on any other raw
material. A duty on wool makes it necessary to impose a higher
duty on the goods made from wool, and the consumer has to pay
a double tax. If we leave wool untaxed the consumer has to pay
a tax only on the manufactured goods. … In the woolen schedule
we have substituted ad valorem for specific duties. The
specific duty is the favorite of those who are to be benefited
by high rates, who are protected against competition, and
protected in combinations against the consumer of their
products. There is a persistent pressure by manufacturers for
the specific duty, because it conceals from the people the
amount of taxes they are compelled to pay to the manufacturer.
The specific duty always discriminates in favor of the costly
article and against the cheaper one. … This discrimination is
peculiarly oppressive in woolen and cotton goods, which are
 necessaries of life to all classes of people." The ad valorem
duty on woolen goods proposed by the committee in accordance
with these views, ranged from 30 to 45 per cent., existing
rates being reckoned as equivalent to about from 40 to 90 per
cent. ad valorem. Duties on cottons were fixed at 35 to 40 per
cent. On steel rails the bill proposed a reduction from $17
per ton to $11. It lowered the duty on pig-iron to $6 per ton.
It diminished the tariff on common earthenware from 60 to 35
per cent.; on china and decorated earthenware from 60 to 45
per cent.; on window-glass from 93 and 106 to 62 and 68 per
cent. It put tin plates on the free list, along with hemp,
flax, lumber, timber, salt, and other materials of manufacture
and articles in common use. These were the more important
modifications contemplated in what became known as "the Mills
Bill." After vigorous debate, it was passed by the Democrats
of the House with a nearness to unanimity which showed a
remarkable change in the sentiment of their party on the
subject. Only four Democratic representatives were found
voting in opposition to the measure. In the Senate, where the
Republicans were in the majority, the measure was wrecked, as
a matter of course. The protectionists of that body
substituted a bill which revised the tariff in the contrary
direction, generally raising duties instead of lowering them.
Thus the issue was made in the elections of 1888.

TARIFF: (United States): A. D. 1890.

The McKinley Act.

"In the campaign of 1888 the tariff question was the issue
squarely presented. … The victory of the Republicans … and the
election of President Harrison were the results. … The
election was won by a narrow margin, and was affected by
certain factors which stood apart from the main issue. The
independent voters had been disappointed with some phases of
President Cleveland's administration of the civil service, and
many who had voted for him in 1884 did not do so in 1888. … On
the whole, however, the Republicans held their own, and even
made gains, throughout the country, on the tariff issue; and
they might fairly consider the result a popular verdict in
favor of the system of protection. But their opposition to the
 policy of lower duties, emphasized by President Cleveland, had
led them not only to champion the existing system, but to
advocate its further extension, by an increase of duties in
various directions. …
{3086}
Accordingly when the Congress then elected met for the session
of 1889-90, the Republican majority in the House proceeded to
pass a measure which finally became the tariff act of 1890.
This measure may fairly be said to be the direct result of Mr.
Cleveland's tariff message of 1887. The Republicans, in
resisting the doctrine of that message, were led by logical
necessity to the opposite doctrine of higher duties. …
Notwithstanding grave misgivings on the part of some of their
leaders, especially those from the northwest, the act known
popularly as the McKinley bill was pushed through."

F. W. Taussig,
Tariff History of the United States,
chapter 5.

The bill was reported to the House of Representatives by the

Chairman of its Committee on Ways and Means, Mr. McKinley, on
the 16th of April, 1890. "We have not been so much concerned,"
said the majority of the Committee in their report, "about the
prices of the articles we consume as we have been to encourage
a system of home production which shall give fair remuneration
to domestic producers and fair wages to American workmen, and
by increased production and home competition insure fair
prices to consumers. … The aim has been to impose duties upon
such foreign products as compete with our own, whether of the
soil or the shop, and to enlarge the free list wherever this
can be done without injury to any American industry, or
wherever an existing home industry can be helped without
detriment to another industry which is equally worthy of the
protecting care of the Government. … We have recommended no
duty above the point of difference between the normal cost of
production here, including labor, and the cost of like
production in the countries which seek our markets, nor have
we hesitated to give this quantum of duty even though it
involved an increase over present rates and showed an advance
of percentages and ad valorem equivalents." On the changes
proposed to be made in the rates of duty on wool and on the
manufactures of wool—the subject of most debate in the whole
measure—the majority reported as follows; "By the census of
1880, in every county in the United States except 34, sheep
were raised. In 1883 the number of sheep in the United States
was over 50,000,000, and the number of persons owning flocks
was in excess of a million. This large number of flock-masters
was, to a considerable extent, withdrawn from the business of
raising grain and other farm products, to which they must
return if wool-growing cannot be profitably pursued. The
enormous growth of this industry was stimulated by the wool
tariff of 1867, and was in a prosperous condition prior to the
act of 1883. Since then the industry has diminished in
alarming proportions, and the business has neither been
satisfactory nor profitable. … By the proposed bill the duties
on first and second class wools are made at 11 and 12 cents a
pound, as against 10 and 12 under existing law. On third-class
wool, costing 12 cents or less, the duty is raised from 2½
cents a pound to 3½ cents, and upon wool of the third class,
costing above 12 cents, the duty recommended is an advance
from 5 to 8 cents per pound. … There seems to be no doubt that
with the protection afforded by the increased duties
recommended in the bill the farmers of the United States will
be able at an early day to supply substantially all of the
home demand, and the great benefit such production will be to
the agricultural interests of the country cannot be estimated.
The production of 600,000,000 pounds of wool would require
about 100,000,000 sheep, or an addition of more than 100 per
cent to the present number. … The increase in the duty on
clothing wool and substitutes for wool to protect the wool
growers of this country, and the well-understood fact that the
tariff of 1883, and the construction given to the worsted
clause, reduced the duties on many grades of woollen goods to
a point that invited increasing importations, to the serious
injury of our woollen manufacturers and wool growers,
necessitate raising the duties on woollen yarn, cloth and
dress goods to a point which will insure the holding of our
home market for these manufactures to a much greater extent
than is now possible. The necessity of this increase is
apparent in view of the fact already stated that during the
last fiscal year there were imports of manufactures of wool of
the foreign value of $52,681,482, as shown by the undervalued
invoices, and the real value in our market of nearly
$90,000,000—fully one-fourth of our entire home
consumption—equivalent to an import of at least 160,000,000
pounds of wool in the form of manufactured goods. In revising
the woollen-goods schedule so as to afford adequate protection
to our woollen manufacturers and wool growers we have
continued the system of compound duties which have proved to
be so essential in any tariff which protects wool, providing
first for a specific compensatory pound or square yard duty,
equivalent to the duty which would be paid on the wool if
imported, for the benefit of the wool grower, and an ad
valorem duty of from 30 to 50 per cent, according to the
proportion of labor required in the manufacture of the several
classes of goods, as a protection to the manufacturer against
foreign competition, and 10 per cent additional upon ready
made clothing for the protection of the clothing
manufacturers. … In computing the equivalent ad valorem duty
on manufactures of woollens, the combinations of both the
specific duty, which is simply compensatory for the duty on
the wool used, of which the wool grower receives the benefit,
and the duty which protects the manufacturers, makes the
average resultant rate of the woollen-goods schedule proposed
91.78 per cent."

Report of the Committee on Ways and Means.

"Substantially as reported from the Committee on Ways and

Means, it [the McKinley Bill] passed the House, after two
weeks' debate, May 21 [1890]. The vote was a strictly party
one, except that two Republicans voted in the negative. June
19 the bill was reported from the Senate Committee on Finance
with a very large number of amendments, mainly in the way of a
lessening of rates. After debating the project during nearly
the whole of August and a week in September, the Senate passed
it by a strict party vote, September 10. The differences
between the houses then went to a conference committee. The
bill as reported by this committee, September 26, was adopted
 by the House and Senate on the 27th and 30th respectively and
approved by the President October 1. On the final vote three
Republicans in each house declined to follow their party. The
law went into effect October 6.
{3087}
Prominent features of the new schedules are as follows:

steel rails reduced one-tenth of a cent per lb.;

tin plates increased from one cent to two and two-tenths cents
per lb., with the proviso that they shall be put on the free
list at the end of six years if by that time the domestic
product shall not have reached an aggregate equal to one-third
of the importations;

unmanufactured copper substantially reduced;

bar, block and pig tin, hitherto on the free list, receives a
duty of four cents per lb. to take effect July 1, 1893,
provided that it be restored to the free list if by July 1,
1895, the mines of the United States shall not have produced
in one year 5,000 tons;

a bounty of one and three-fourths and two cents per lb. upon
beet, sorghum, cane or maple sugar produced in the United
States between 1891 and 1905;

all imports of sugar free up to number 16, Dutch standard, in

color and all above that one-half cent per lb. (formerly from
three to three and a half cents), with one-tenth cent
additional if imported from a country that pays an export
bounty;

a heavy increase on cigar wrappers and cigars;

a general and heavy increase on agricultural products, e. g.

on beans, eggs, hay, hops, vegetables and straw;

a heavy increase on woolen goods, with a new classification of

raw wool designed to give more protection;
paintings and statuary reduced from 30 to 15 per cent.

The following (among other) additions are made to the free

list: beeswax, books and pamphlets printed exclusively in
languages other than English, blue clay, coal tar, currants
and dates, jute butts and various textile and fibrous grasses,
needles, nickel ore, flower and grass seeds and crude sulphur.
… Among the 464 points of difference between the two houses
which the conference committee had to adjust, some of the more
important were as follows: paintings and statuary, made free
by the House and kept at the old rate by the Senate, were
fixed at half the old rate; binding twine, made free by the
Senate in favor of Western grain-raisers but taxed by the
House to protect Eastern manufacturers, fixed at half the
House rate; the limit of free sugar fixed at number 16, as
voted by the House, instead of number 13, as passed by the
Senate, thus including in the free list the lower grades of
refined as well as all raw sugar. The question of reciprocity
with American nations was injected into the tariff discussion
by Secretary Blaine in June. In transmitting to Congress the
recommendation of the International American Conference for
improved commercial relations, the secretary dilated upon the
importance of securing the markets of central and South
America for our products, and suggested as a more speedy way
than treaties of reciprocity an amendment to the pending
tariff bill authorizing the President to open our ports to the
free entry of the products of any American nation which should
in turn admit free of taxation our leading agricultural and
manufactured products. In July Mr. Blaine took up the idea
again in a public correspondence with Senator Frye,
criticizing severely the removal of the tariff on sugar, as
that on coffee had been removed before, without exacting trade
concessions in return. He complained that there was not a
section or a line in the bill as it came from the House that
would open the market for another bushel of wheat or another
barrel of pork. The Senate Finance Committee acted upon the
suggestion of the secretary by introducing an amendment to the
bill authorizing and directing the President to suspend by
proclamation the free introduction of sugar, molasses, coffee,
 tea and hides from any country which should impose on products
of the United States exactions which in view of the free
introduction of sugar etc. he should deem reciprocally unequal
and unreasonable. The rates at which the President is to
demand duties upon the commodities named are duly fixed. This
reciprocity provision passed the Senate and the conference
committee and became part of the law."

Political Science Quarterly:

Record of Events, December, 1890.

TARIFF: (United States): A. D. 1894.

The Wilson Act.
Protected interests and the Senate.

Two years after the embodiment of the extremest doctrines of

protection in the McKinley Act, the tariff question was
submitted again to the people, as the dominant issue between
the Republican and Democratic parties, in the presidential and
congressional elections of 1892. The verdict of 1888 was then
reversed, and tariff reform carried the day. Mr. Cleveland was
again elected President, with a Democratic majority in both
houses of Congress apparently placed there to sustain his
policy. A serious financial situation was manifesting itself
in the country at the time he resumed the presidential office,
produced by the operation of the silver-purchase law of 1890
(see MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1848-1893), and by the
extravagance of congressional appropriations, depleting the
treasury. It became necessary, therefore, to give attention,
first, to the repeal of the mischievous silver law, which was
accomplished, November 1, 1893, at a special session of
Congress called by the President. That cleared the way for the
more serious work of tariff-revision, which was taken up under
discouraging circumstances of general depression and extensive
collapse in business, throughout the country. "The Democratic
members of the House committee on ways and means began during
the special session the preparation of a tariff bill. The
outcome of their labors was the Wilson Bill, which was laid
before the whole committee and made public November 27. On the
previous day the sugar schedule was given out, in order to
 terminate the manipulation of the stock market through false
reports as to the committee's conclusions. The characteristic
features of the bill, as described in the statement of
Chairman Wilson which accompanied it, were as follows: First,
the adoption, wherever practicable, of ad valorem instead of
specific duties; second, 'the freeing from taxes of those
great materials of industry that lie at the basis of
production.' Specific duties were held to be objectionable,
first, as concealing the true weight of taxation, and second,
as bearing unjustly on consumers of commoner articles. Free
raw materials were held necessary to the stimulation of
industry and the extension of foreign trade. The schedules, as
reported, showed in addition to a very extensive increase in
the free list, reductions in rates, as compared with the
McKinley Bill, on all but a small number of items. The
important additions to the free list included iron ore,
lumber, coal and wool. Raw sugar was left free, as in the
existing law, but the rate on refined sugar was reduced from
one-half to one-fourth of a cent per pound, and the bounty was
repealed one-eighth per annum until extinguished.
{3088}
Some amendments were made in the administrative provisions of
the tariff law, designed to soften, as the committee said,
features of the McKinley Bill 'that would treat the business
of importing as an outlawry, not entitled to the protection of
the government.' It was estimated that the reduction of
revenue effected would be about $50,000,000, and the committee
set to work on an internal revenue bill to make good this
deficiency. On January 8 Mr. Wilson brought up the bill in the
House, and debate began under a rule calling for a vote on the
29th. During the consideration in committee a number of
changes were made in the schedules, the most important being
in respect to sugar, where the duty was taken off refined
sugars, and the repeal of the bounty was made immediate
instead of gradual. A clause was inserted, also, specifically
repealing the reciprocity provision of the McKinley Act. The
greatest general interest was excited, however, by the
progress of the internal revenue bill, the chief feature of
which was a proposition for an income tax. The bill, after
formulation by the Democratic members of the ways and means
committee, was brought before the full committee January 22.
Besides the income tax, the measure provided for a stamp duty
on playing cards, and raised the excise on distilled spirits
to one dollar per gallon. As to incomes, the committee's bill
… imposed a tax of two per cent on all incomes so far as they
were in excess of $4,000, after allowing deductions for taxes,
losses not covered by insurance and bad debts. Declarations of
income were required from all persons having over $3,500,
under heavy penalties for neglect, refusal or fraud in the
matter. As to corporations, the same rate was levied on all
interest on bonds and on all dividends and all surplus income
above dividends, excepting premiums returned to policy holders
by mutual life insurance companies, interest to depositors in
savings banks, and dividends of building loan associations. …
The income-tax measure was immediately and very vigorously
antagonized by a considerable number of Eastern Democrats,
headed by the New York Congressmen. It was adopted by the ways
and means committee mainly through Southern and Western votes.
On the 24th of January it was reported to the House. A
Democratic caucus on the following day resolved by a small
majority, against the wish of Mr. Wilson, to attach the
measure to the Tariff Bill. Accordingly, the rule regulating
the debate was modified to allow discussion of the amendment.
The final votes were then taken on February 1. The internal
revenue bill was added to the Wilson Bill by 182 to 50, 44
Democrats voting in the minority and most of the Republicans
not voting. The measure as amended was then adopted by 204 to
140, 16 Democrats and one Populist going with the Republicans
in the negative. In the hands of the Senate finance committee
the bill underwent a thorough revision, differences of opinion
in the Democratic majority leading to a careful discussion of
the measure in a party caucus. The measure as amended was laid
before the full committee March 8, and was introduced in the
Senate on the 20th. Changes in details were very numerous. The
most important consisted in taking sugar, iron ore and coal
off the free list and subjecting each to a small duty. Debate
on the bill was opened April 2. It was soon discovered,
however, that many Democratic senators were seriously
dissatisfied with the schedules affecting the industries of
their respective states, and at the end of April there was a
lull in the debate while the factions of the majority adjusted
their differences. A scheme of changes was finally agreed to
in caucus on May 3, and laid before the Senate by the finance
committee on the 8th. The most important features were a new
sugar schedule which had given great trouble, and very
numerous changes from ad valorem to specific duties, with a
net increase in rates."

Political Science Quarterly:

Record of Political Events, June, 1894.

Very soon after the tariff bill appeared in the Senate, it

became apparent that the more powerful protected "interests,"
and conspicuously the "sugar trust" had acquired control, by
some means, of several Democratic senators, who were acting
obviously in agreement to prevent an honest fulfillment of the
pledges of their party, and especially as concerned the free
opening of the country to raw materials. Public opinion of the
conduct of the senators in question may be judged from the
expressions of so dignified an organ of the business world as
the "Banker's Magazine," which said in its issue of July,
1894: "Indifference has largely supplanted the hopes of the
friends of tariff reform, as well as the fears of the honest
advocates of high protection; and disgust, on the part of the
people, has taken the place of trust in our Government, at the
exposures of the corruption of the Senate by the most
unconscionable and greedy Trusts in existence. Hence the
indifference of everybody but the Trusts, and their Senatorial
attorneys and dummies with 'retainers' or Trust stocks in
their pockets; as it is taken for granted that no interests,
but those rich and characterless enough to buy 'protection'
will be looked after. … Nothing will be regarded as finally
settled … if the Tariff Bill, as emasculated by the Senate,
becomes a law; and it may as well be killed by the House, if
the Senate refuse to recede; or, vetoed by the President, if
it goes to him in its present shape; and let the existing
status continue, until the country can get rid of its
purchasable Senators and fill their disgraced seats with
honest men who cannot be bought up like cattle at so much per
head. This is the growing sentiment of business men
 generally."

H. A. Pierce,
A Review of Finance and Business
(Banker's Magazine, July, 1894).

First in committee, and still more in the Senate after the

committee had reported, the bill was radically changed in
character from that which the House sent up. The profits of
the sugar trust were still protected, and coal and iron ore
were dropped back from the free list into the schedules of
dutiable commodities. According to estimates made, the average
rate of duty in the Wilson Bill as it passed the House was
35.52 per cent., and in the bill which passed the Senate it
was 37 per cent., as against 49.58 per cent. in the McKinley
law. Hence, the general effect of the revision in the Senate,
even as manipulated by the senators suspected of corrupt
motives, was an extensive lowering of duties. Some very
important additions to the free list made by the Wilson Bill
were left untouched by the senators—such as wool, lumber and
salt.
{3089}
In view of the extent of the gains acquired, the supporters of
tariff-reform in the House, after prolonged attempts in
conference committee to break the strength of the combination
against free sugar, free coal and free iron ore, were
reluctantly prevailed upon to accept the Senate bill. It had
passed the Senate on the 3d of July. The struggle in
conference committee lasted until the 13th of August, when the
House passed the Senate bill unchanged. The President declined
to give his signature to the act, but allowed it to become a
law. Immediately after the passage of the bill, the House
adopted special enactments admitting raw sugar, coal, iron
ore, and barbed wire, free of duty; but these bills were not
acted on in the Senate.

----------TARIFF: End--------

TARLETON, Colonel, in the War of the American Revolution.

 See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1780 (FEBRUARY-AUGUST); and 1780-1781.

TARPEIAN ROCK, The.

See CAPITOLINE HILL.

TARQUIN THE PROUD, The expulsion of.

See ROME: B. C. 510.

TARRACONENSIS.

See SPAIN: B. C. 218-25.

TARRAGONA: A. D. 1641.
Occupation by the French.
Surrender to the Spaniards.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1640-1642.

TARRAGONA: A. D. 1644.
Siege by the French.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1644-1646.

TARSUS.

See CILICIA.

TARTAN.

The title of the chief commander —under the king—of the

Assyrian armies.

TARTAR DYNASTY OF CHINA, The.

See CHINA: A. D. 1294-1882.

TARTARS, OR TATARS.
"The Chinese used the name in a general sense, to include the
greater part of their northern neighbours, and it was in
imitation of them, probably, that the Europeans applied the
name to the various nomade hordes who controlled Central Asia
after the Mongol invasion. But the name properly belonged, and
is applied by Raschid and other Mongol historians, to certain
tribes living in the north-eastern corner of Mongolia, who, as
I believe, were partially, at least, of the Tungusic race, and
whose descendants are probably to be found among the Solons of
Northern Manchuria."

H. H. Howorth,
History of the Mongols,
part 1, page 25.

"The name of Tartars, or Tatars, has been variously applied.

It was long customary among geographical writers to give this
title to the Kalmucs and Mongoles, and even to use it as a
distinguishing name for those races of men who resemble the
Kalmucs in features, and who have been supposed, whether
correctly or not, to be allied to them in descent. Later
authors, more accurate in the application of terms, have
declared this to be an improper use of the name of Tartar, and
by them the appellation has been given exclusively to the
tribes of the Great Turkish race, and chiefly to the northern
division of it, viz. to the hordes spread through the Russian
empire and independent Tartary. … Whatever may be the true
origin of the name of Tartar, custom has appropriated it to
the race of men extensively spread through northern Asia, of
whom the Ottoman Turks are a branch. It would, perhaps, be
more strictly correct to call all these nations Turks, but the
customary appellation may be retained when its meaning is
determined."

J. C. Prichard,
Researches into the Physical History
of the Races of Mankind,
chapter 5, section 1 (volume 2).
"The populations in question [the remnants, in southern Russia
and Siberia, of the great Mongol empire of the Kiptchak],
belong to one of three great groups, stocks, or families—the
Turk, the Mongol, or the Tungus. When we speak of a Tartar, he
belongs to the first, whenever we speak of a Kalmuk, he
belongs to the second, of these divisions. It is necessary to
insist upon this; because, whatever may be the laxity with
which the term Tartar is used, it is, in Russian ethnology at
least, a misnomer when applied to a Mongol. It is still worse
to call a Turk a Kalmuk."

R. G. Latham,
The Nationalities of Europe,
volume 1, chapter 23.

"Tartars (more correctly Tatars, but Tartars is the form

generally current), a name given to nearly three million
inhabitants of the Russian empire, chiefly Moslem and of
Turkish origin. The majority—in European Russia—are remnants
of the Mongol invasion of the 13th century, while those who
inhabit Siberia are survivals of the once much more numerous
Turkish population of the Ural-Altaic region, mixed to some
extent with Finnish and Samoyedic stems, as also with Mongols.
… The ethnographical features of the present Tartar
inhabitants of European Russia, as well as their language,
show that they contain no admixture (or very little) of
Mongolian blood, but belong to the Turkish branch of the
Ural-Altaic stock, necessitating the conclusion that only
Batu, his warriors, and a limited number of his followers were
Mongolians, while the great bulk of the 13th-century invaders
were Turks."

P. A. Kropotkine,
Article "Tartars" Encyclopœdia Brittanica.

ALSO IN:
H. H. Howorth,
History of the Mongols,
part 2, division 1, page 37.
 See TURKS;
and MONGOLS.

TARTESSUS.

"The territory round Gades, Carteia, and the other Phenician

settlements in this district [southwestern Spain] was known to
the Greeks in the sixth century B. C. by the name of
Tartessus, and regarded by them somewhat in the same light as
Mexico and Peru appeared to the Spaniards of the sixteenth
century."

G. Grote,
History of Greece,
part 2, chapter 18.

This was the rich region known afterwards to the Romans as

Bætica, as Turdetania, and in modern times as Andalusia.

E. H. Bunbury,
History of Ancient Geography,
chapter 21, section 2.

ALSO IN:
J. Kenrick,
Phoenicia,
chapter 4, section 3.

TARUMI, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: CARIBS AND THEIR

KINDRED.

TARUSATES, The.

See AQUITAINE: THE ANCIENT TRIBES.

TASHKEND OR TASHKENT, Russian capture of (1865).

See RUSSIA: A. D. 1859-1876.

TASMANIA: Discovery and naming.

See AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1601-1800.

TATARS.

See TARTARS.

TAUBERBISCHOFSHEIM, Battle of.

See GERM[ANY: A. D. 1866.

{3090}

TAUNTON: A. D. 1685.
The Welcome to Monmouth.
The Maids of Taunton and their flag.

"When Monmouth marched into Taunton [A. D. 1685] it was an

eminently prosperous place. … The townsmen had long leaned
towards Presbyterian divinity and Whig politics. In the great
civil war, Taunton had, through all vicissitudes, adhered to
the Parliament, had been twice closely besieged by Goring, and
had been twice defended with heroic valour by Robert Blake,
afterwards the renowned Admiral of the Commonwealth. Whole
streets had been burned down by the mortars and grenades of
the Cavaliers. … The children of the men who, forty years
before, had manned the ramparts of Taunton against the
Royalists, now welcomed Monmouth with transports of joy and
affection. Every door and window was adorned with wreaths of
flowers. No man appeared in the streets without wearing in his
hat a green bough, the badge of the popular cause. Damsels of
the best families in the town wove colours for the insurgents.
One flag in particular was embroidered gorgeously with emblems
of royal dignity, and was offered to Monmouth by a train of
young girls." After the suppression of Monmouth's rebellion,
and while the "bloody Assizes" of Jeffreys were in progress,
these little girls were hunted out and imprisoned, and the
queen's maids of honor were permitted to extort money from
 their parents for the buying of their pardon and release.

Lord Macaulay,
History of England,
chapter 5.

See, also, ENGLAND: A. D. 1685 (MAY-JULY).

TAURICA, TAURIC CHERSONESE.

The ancient Greek name of the Crimea, derived from the Tauri,
a savage people who once inhabited it; "perhaps," says Grote,
"a remnant of the expelled Cimmerians."

See BOSPHORUS, THE CITY, &c.;

and CIMMERIANS.

TAURIS, Naval battle near.

In the Roman civil war between Cæsar and his antagonists an

important naval battle was fought, B. C. 47, near the little
island of Tauris, on the Illyrian coast. Vatinius, who
commanded on the Cæsarian side, defeated Octavius, and drove
him out of the Adriatic.

G. Long,
Decline of the Roman Republic,
volume 5, chapter 21.

TAVORA PLOT, The.

See JESUITS: A. D. 1757-1773.

TAWACONIES, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.

TAXIARCH.
PHYLARCH.
 "The tribe appears to have been the only military
classification known to Athens, and the taxiarch the only
tribe officer for infantry, as the phylarch was for cavalry,
under the general-in-chief."

G. Grote,
History of Greece,
part 2, chapter 8.

ALSO IN:
G. F. Schömann,
Antiquities of Greece: The State,
part 3, chapter 3.

TAYLOR, General Zachary,

The Mexican campaign of.

See MEXICO: A. D. 1846-1847.

Presidential election and administration.

Death.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1848.

TCHERNAYA, Battle of the (1855).

See RUSSIA: A. D. 1854-1856.

TCHINOVNIKS.

To keep the vast and complex bureaucratic machine of Russia in

motion "it is necessary to have a large and well-drilled army
of officials. These are drawn chiefly from the ranks of the
noblesse and the clergy, and form a peculiar social class
called Tchinovniks, or men with 'Tchins.' As the Tchin plays
an important part in Russia, not only in the official world,
but also to some extent in social life, it may be well to
explain its significance. All officers, civil and military,
are, according to a scheme invented by Peter the Great,
arranged in fourteen classes or ranks, and to each class or
 rank a particular name is attached. … As a general rule a man
must begin at or near the bottom of the official ladder, and
he must remain on each step a certain specified time. The step
on which he is for the moment standing, or, in other words,
the official rank or Tchin which he possesses, determines what
offices he is competent to hold. Thus rank or Tchin is a
necessary condition for receiving an appointment, but it does
not designate any actual office, and the names of the
different ranks are extremely apt to mislead a foreigner."

D. M. "Wallace,
Russia,
chapter 13.

TCHOUPRIA, Battle of (1804).

See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES:

14-19TH CENTURIES (SERVIA).

TEA: Introduction into Europe.

"The Dutch East India Company were the first to introduce it

into Europe, and a small quantity came to England from Holland
in 1666. The East India Company thereafter ordered their agent
at Bantam to send home small quantities, which they wished to
introduce as presents, but its price was 60s. per lb., and it
was little thought of. Twenty years elapsed before the Company
first decided on importing tea, but by degrees it came into
general use. In 1712 the imports of tea were only 156,000
lbs.; in 1750 they reached 2,300,000 lbs.; in 1800, 24,000,000
lbs.; in 1830, 30,500,000 lbs., and in 1870, 141,000,000 lbs."

L. Levi,
History of British Commerce,
page 239.

TEA-PARTY, The Boston.

See BOSTON: A. D. 1773.

TEA-ROOM PARTY, The.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1865-1868.

TEARLESS BATTLE, The (B. C. 368).

See GREECE: B. C. 371-362.

TECPANECAS, The.

See MEXICO: A. D. 1325-1502.

TECTOSAGES.

See VOLCÆ.

TECUMSEH, and his Indian League.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1811;

and 1812-1813 HARRISON'S NORTHWESTERN CAMPAIGN.

TECUNA, The.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: GUCK OR COCO GROUP.

TEGYRA, Battle of.

The first important victory won by the Thebans (B. C. 375), in

the war which broke the power of Sparta. It was fought in
Lokrian territory.

C. Thirlwall,
History of Greece,
chapter 38.

TEHUEL-CHE, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PATAGONIANS.

TEKKE TURCOMANS, Russian subjugation of.

 See RUSSIA: A. D. 1869-1881.

TEL EL AMARNA TABLETS, The.

See EGYPT: ABOUT B. C. 1500-1400.

TEL EL KEBIR, Battle of (1882).

See EGYPT: A. D. 1882-1883.

TELAMON, Battle of (B. C. 225).

See ROME: B. C. 295-191.

TELINGAS, The.

See TURANIAN RACES.

TELL, William, The Legend of.

See SWITZERLAND: THE THREE FOREST CANTONS.

TELMELCHES, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAMPAS TRIBES.

{3091}

TEMENIDÆ, The.

"The history of the Macedonian kingdom is the history of its

royal race. The members of this royal house called themselves
Temenidæ; i. e. they venerated as their original ancestor the
same Temenus who was accounted the founder of the Heraclide
dynasty in Peloponnesian Argos. Now, we remember the
disturbances at Argos during the regal period, the quarrel
between the Heraclidæ and the Dorian soldiery, and the flight
of a King Phidon to Tegea. It is therefore highly credible,
that during these troubles individual members of the royal
 house emigrated, in order to seek a more favorable theatre for
their activity than was offered by the cribbed and confused
affairs of their home; and tradition points precisely to the
brother of this Phidon as the man who came to Macedonia from
the shores of Peloponnesus."

E. Curtius,
History of Greece,
book 7, chapter 1 (volume 5).

TEMENITES.

One of the suburbs of the ancient city of Syracuse was

so-called from the ground sacred to Apollo Temenites which it
contained. It afterwards became a part of the city called
Neapolis.

TEMESVAR, Battle of (1849).

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848-1849.

TEMESVAR, Siege and capture of (1716).

See HUNGARY: A. D. 1699-1718.

TEMPE, Vale of.

See THESSALY.

----------TEMPLARS: Start--------

TEMPLARS: A. D. 1118.
The founding of the Order.

"During the reign of Baldwin I. the kingdom [of Jerusalem] was

constantly harassed by the incursions of the Bedoween Arabs,
and pious pilgrims were exposed to great dangers in their
visits to the holy places. Nine valiant knights therefore, of
whom the two principal were Hugh de Payens and Godfrey of St.
Omer, vowed, in honour of the Sweet Mother of God (La douce
mère de Dieu) to unite the character of the soldier and the
monk, for the protection of pilgrims. In the presence of the
king and his barons, they took, in the year 1118, in the hands
of the patriarch, the three vows taken by the Hospitallers,
adding a fourth, that of combating the heathen, without
ceasing, in defence of pilgrims and of the Holy Land. The king
assigned them a part of his palace for their dwelling, and the
canons of the Temple gave them the open space between it and
the palace, whence they derived their appellation of Templars,
or Soldiers of the Temple. … Their garments were such as were
bestowed upon them by the charitable, and the seal of their
order, when they had attained to opulence—two knights mounted
on one horse—commemorated the time when a single war-horse had
to serve two knights of the Temple. When Baldwin II. was
released from captivity (1128), he sent envoys to Europe to
implore aid of the Christian powers. Among these were Hugh de
Payens, and some others of the brethren of the Temple. The
Templars appeared before the council of Troyes, and gave an
account of their order and its objects, which were highly
approved of by the fathers. The celebrated Bernard, abbot of
Clairvaux, took a lively interest in its welfare, and made
some improvements in its rule. A white mantle was assigned as
their habit, to which Pope Eugenius some years afterwards
added a plain red cross on the left breast; their banner was
formed of the black and white striped cloth named Bauséant,
which word became their battle-cry, and it bore the humble
inscription, 'Not unto us, O Lord, but unto thy name be
glory!' Hugh de Payens returned to Syria at the head of three
hundred knights of the noblest houses of the West, who had
become members of the order."

T. Keightley,
The Crusaders,
chapter 2.

ALSO IN:
J. A. Froude,
The Spanish Story of the Armada and other Essays,
chapter 4.