array, and came to anchor within pistol shot of the Turkish fleet,
composed of seventy warships, forty transports and four fire-ships,
anchored under cover of the land batteries. To windward of the British
corvette "Dartmouth" lay a Turkish brulote or fire-ship. A gig was sent to
demand the withdrawal of this dangerous vessel. The Turks fired on the boat
with cannon-shot and musketry. When Codrington sent a boat to the Egyptian
flagship, Moharem Bey, the admiral, opened with his guns. One shot struck
the "Asia," Codrington's flagship, and his pilot was killed. Codrington
opened with all his guns. The British broadsides soon reduced the Egyptian
flagship on one side, and a Turkish man-o'-war on the other side to mere
wrecks. The French and Russians joined in. The Moslem ships, which had a
superiority of 800 guns, replied with spirit. At close range they fought
the combined fleets of their hated Christian adversaries. From the
surrounding shores 20,000 Moslem soldiers discharged their guns into the
land-locked harbor. The fight lasted from three in the afternoon until
seven in the evening. All bravery was in vain when pitted against Western
seamanship and gunnery. In the course of a short afternoon one Turkish ship
after another was sunk or blown to pieces. By sundown little was left of
the Turkish fleet but a mass of wreckage. Only fifteen ships escaped, to be
scuttled by their own sailors. Four thousand Moslem seamen lost their
lives. All night long the Turkish gunners on shore kept up their fire. On
the morrow, when Ibrahim returned to Navarino, he found the waters of the
harbor strewn with wreckage and the floating bodies of his sailors. One of
the best accounts of the battle of Navarino has been given by Eugene Sue,
the novelist, who then served as surgeon on one of the French vessels.
[Sidenote: Greece saved]
The island of Hydra and with it all Greece was saved. The subsequent course
of Sultan Mahmoud was that of blind infatuation and fury. So far from
accepting the European demands for an armistice, he put forward a
peremptory request for an indemnity for the losses inflicted upon him. The
Ambassadors of the Powers quitted Constantinople. It was then that the loss
of Canning was felt in England. Instead of pursuing the vigorous policy to
which it stood committed by the battle of Navarino, Great Britain hung
back. Further intervention, with the profits accruing therefrom, was left
to Russia.
1828
[Sidenote: Peace of Tourkmanchay]
The time for undisturbed intervention in the East was most auspicious for
Russia. Peace with Persia was concluded early in the year. By the treaty of
Tourkmanchay, Fet Aly of Persia ceded to Russia the provinces of Erivan and
Nakhitchevan and paid an indemnity of 20,000,000 roubles. The river Araxes
was recognized as the frontier of both states. England's ascendency in
Persia was effectually set at naught. Even in China Emperor Taouk-Wang felt
encouraged to issue edicts prohibiting England's pernicious opium trade on
the Chinese coast. Russia's armies were now let loose on Turkey.
[Sidenote: Independence of Greece]
[Sidenote: Capodistrias summoned]
[Sidenote: Russia's double game]
[Sidenote: Understanding with France]
In the meanwhile, the Greeks profited by the Turkish check at Navarino to
assert themselves as an independent people. On January 18, Capodistrias,
the former Prime Minister of Russia, was summoned from Geneva and made
president of the Greek republic. His term of office was to last seven
years. This eminent statesman justified his selection by immediate
beneficent measures. A grand council of state was established and a
national bank opened in Athens. With the help of France, immunity from
further incursions from the Turks was practically assured. To preserve the
_status quo_ in Greece, Russia undertook to limit its single handed war on
Turkey to operations on the mainland and in the Black Sea. Within the
waters of the Mediterranean the Czar proposed to continue as an armed
neutral in harmony with the other Powers under the treaty of London, and,
to allay the apprehensions of Austria, the Russian forces in the Balkans
were ordered to carry their line of operations as far as possible from
Austria's sphere of influence. A still more effectual check on Austria was
secured by the Czar's secret encouragement of French aspirations toward the
Rhine. Charles X. exposed the plot when he said: "If the Czar attacks
Austria, I will hold myself in reserve and regulate my conduct according to
circumstances. If Austria attacks, I will instantly march against her." As
Prince Metternich put it, "The two powers were at one: France against the
European _status quo_; Russia against that of the Orient."
[Sidenote: Holy War proclaimed in Turkey]
[Sidenote: Russia declares war]
[Sidenote: Early success]
Although the recent Turkish concessions to Russia left to the Czar no
ground for war, a pretext was supplied by Sultan Mahmoud himself. With true
Turkish infatuation he chose this moment to issue a direct challenge to
Russia. The Czar was denounced as the instigator of the Greek rebellion,
and the arch enemy of Islam. The treaty of Akerman was declared null and
void. A holy war was proclaimed against the Muscovites. "The Turk does not
count his enemies. If all the unbelievers together unite against us we will
enter on the war as a sacred duty, and trust to Allah for help." This
proclamation was followed by the expulsion of all Christians from
Constantinople. Unfortunately for the Sultan, his recent massacre of the
Janizaries deprived him of the flower of his troops, and the reorganization
of the Turkish army, which was the motive of that act, was only under way.
For seven years the Russians had been preparing for this war. Nicholas lost
no time in answering the Sultan's challenge. He replied with a declaration
of war on April 26. Field Marshal Wittgenstein crossed the Pruth, while
Paskievitch entered Asia Minor. The Russian troops overran the Roumanian
provinces, Wallachia and Moldavia. The Danube was crossed early in June,
under the eyes of the Czar. Unable to meet their enemy in the open field,
the Turks withdrew into their strongholds, Ibraila and Silistria on the
Danube, Varna and Shumla in the Balkans. The Russians besieged and stormed
Ibraila, and thence pushed on through the Dubrudsha toward the Black Sea.
In the meanwhile Paskievitch in Asia Minor defeated two Turkish armies and
captured Erzeroum.
[Sidenote: Brionis victorious]
[Sidenote: Surrender of Varna]
After these early successes the Russian operations began to lag. The Czar's
presence at headquarters was a source of embarrassment rather than of
strength. Wittgenstein committed the error of dividing his army into three
slender columns. Too weak to conduct forward operations, they were held in
check before Silistria, Varna and Shumla. The Russian transport service,
none too good at best, collapsed under the threefold strain. The ill-fed
soldiers wasted away by thousands. At length Homer Brionis, the commandant
of Shumla, took advantage of the weakness of his besiegers. On September 24
he broke out of Shumla and marched to the relief of Varna. The Czar,
notwithstanding the evident weakness of his troops, ordered his cousin,
Eugene of Wurtemberg, to check the Turkish advance with a frontal attack.
The result was a severe defeat. Had Brionis marched onward Varna would have
been relieved. He clung to Shumla, however, and the Turks at Varna were
forced to surrender. It was late in autumn now, and cold weather put a stop
to the campaign for the year. The display of military weakness seriously
injured the prestige of Russia. The manifold mistakes of this campaign have
been unsparingly laid bare in a famous monograph of Moltke. Henceforth the
successful prosecution of the war became a _sine qua non_ for Russia.
[Sidenote: Turks evacuate Morea]
[Sidenote: Vacillation in France]
During the progress of these events, French forces were landed in Greece.
They occupied Navarino, Patras and Modon. The Turks gave in and consented
to evacuate the Morea. In France, the ultra-royalist measures of Charles X.
gave rise to an ever growing spirit of dissatisfaction. The death of
Manuel, the outcast of the Chambers, was made the occasion of a great
public demonstration. The coalition of Liberals with a faction of Royalists
opposed to the Ministry had a brilliant triumph. Villele's Cabinet offered
to resign. Instead of that, the King placed Martignac above him. "You are
deserting M. Villele," said the Princess Royal to the King. "It is your
first step downward from the throne." The Duc de Broglie wrote: "Should we
succeed, after the fall of the present Ministry, in getting through the
year tranquilly, it will be a triumphant success." By way of concession to
the Liberals, a royal edict suppressed all the educational institutions
maintained by the Society of Jesus. The effect of this measure was offset
later in the year by renewed imprisonment and a heavy fine inflicted upon
Beranger for writing political songs.
[Sidenote: South American revolutions]
[Sidenote: Mitre's resume]
Latin attempts at parliamentary government in America were productive of
even more discouraging results. In the Argentine Republic, the army, after
defeating the Brazilians, was led against its own government by General
Lavalle. The administration was overturned and President Dorrego was shot.
General Rosas became the leader of the Federalist forces and took the field
against the revolutionists. In Chile, the different parties contending for
the government patched up a precarious peace which was not destined to last
long. In Colombia, the Nueva Granada of the Spaniards, Bolivar clung to the
dictatorship. A new proclamation of dictatorial powers was issued by him on
February 10. Soon afterward an insurrection broke out against him led by
Peadella. Scarcely had this uprising been quelled when an attempt was made
to kill Bolivar at his seat of government. Henceforth the history of Latin
America degenerated into an endless series of revolutions and
counter-revolutions. The only real strength supplied to the various
republican governments, so called, was that derived from strong personal
characters, yielding one-man power. General Mitre, the great statesman and
historian of South America, has drawn up this striking resume of the fate
of the foremost leaders of Spanish American revolutions. Their story is the
quintessence of the subsequent turbulent career of Latin America during the
Nineteenth Century.
[Sidenote: The gratitude of republics]
"The first revolutionists of La Paz and of Quito died on the scaffold.
Miranda, the apostle of liberty, betrayed by his own people, died, alone
and naked, in a dungeon. Moreno, the priest of the Argentine revolution,
and the teacher of the democratic idea, died at sea, and found a grave in
the ocean. Hidalgo, the first popular leader of Mexico, was executed as a
criminal. Belgrano, the first champion of Argentine independence, who saved
the revolution, died obscurely, while civil war raged around him.
O'Higgins, the hero of Chile, died in exile, as Carrera, his rival, had
done before him. Iturbide, the real liberator of Mexico, died a victim to
his own ambition. Montufar, the leader of the revolution at Quito, and his
comrade Villavicencio, the promoter of that of Cartagena, were strangled.
The first presidents of New Granada, Lozano and Torres, fell sacrifices to
colonial terrorism. Piar, who found the true base for the insurrection in
Colombia, was shot by Bolivar, to whom he had shown the way to victory.
Rivadavia, the civil genius of South America, who gave form to her
representative institutions, died in exile. Sucre, the conqueror of
Ayacucho, was murdered by his own men on a lonely road. Bolivar and San
Martin died in exile."
[Sidenote: Dissension in North America]
[Sidenote: New tariff]
[Sidenote: North _vs._ South]
In North America, likewise, the radical issues between the Northern and
Southern States produced ever more dissensions and discord. The question of
State sovereignty was prominent in the discussion of the tariff law of
1828, and assumed more and more a sectional aspect. The North had grown
rich and prosperous; when under free trade her energies were directed to
agriculture and commerce. This was the more emphasized when, under a
protective policy, her labor and her capital were devoted to the
development of manufactures. The Southern States had originally desired a
protective policy for their own supposed advantage; now they demanded free
trade for the same reason. But the North had put much money into
manufactures, and therefore demanded that Congress, which had placed her in
this position, should protect her in it. So the tariff of 1828, the highest
adopted in the United States up to that time, was a more comprehensive
measure than any which preceded it, and was adjusted throughout to
encourage Northern industry. New England was largely at one on this
subject, and the Middle and Western States were practically united. Thus it
became a question of party politics. From the tariff of 1828 dates a new
era in American Federal legislation. The division between the North and the
South began. Led by Daniel Webster, the New England States became advocates
of the protective system. The question, from being a national issue, became
distinctly sectional.
[Sidenote: Injustice to Indians]
[Sidenote: State rights precedent]
State sovereignty was the most important problem that presented itself
during John Quincy Adams's administration. The trouble with the Creek and
Cherokee Indians in Georgia brought this issue to the front. These tribes
were now partially civilized, and were tilling their lands in contentment.
Although they held their lands under treaty with the United States, Georgia
sought to eject them. Instead of protecting the Indians the national
government allowed Georgia to have its way and sent them to the Indian
Territory. Thus was an individual State permitted to act in defiance of the
national government.
[Sidenote: Industrial development]
[Sidenote: Webster's Dictionary]
[Sidenote: The "Book of Mormon"]
In other respects, it was a year of great prosperity and progress for the
United States. The differences with British North America in regard to
boundaries and to the proposed joint settlement of Oregon were amicably
settled by arbitration. The question of indemnities arising out of the
differences with England was likewise satisfactorily adjusted. England's
recent introduction of railroads was eagerly followed up in America. The
rails of the first American steam road were laid at Baltimore. They were
made of wood covered with iron bars. At Baltimore, too, the manufacture of
fire bricks was begun. Boston harbor beheld its first steamboat. The new
canal between Providence and Worcester was opened and produced an instant
increase of traffic for New England. In the other Eastern States factories
grew in number and new processes were introduced. Thus, the first varnish
made in America was produced at New York. Damask table linen was
manufactured at Pittsburg. The first straw paper was turned out at
Meadville, Pennsylvania. The planing mill was introduced. The Franklin
Institute at Philadelphia awarded to Stephen Boyden of Newark the premium
for his malleable castings. Arts and literature likewise flourished. Among
the new paintings exhibited during this year in America were Inman's
portrait of Halleck, Stuart's "Jared Sparks," Greenough's "Chanting
Cherubs," Dunlap's "Calvary" and Thomas Cole's "Garden of Eden." At Boston
the first lithographic press was established. Noah Webster published his
dictionary. Fenimore Cooper brought out his American romances, "The
Prairie" and "Red Rover," while Richard H. Dana published his "Buccaneer."
A book of singular fruition was Joseph Smith's "Book of Mormon," a
corrupted version of Spaulding's "The Manuscript Found."
[Sidenote: Heine's "Book of Songs"]
About the same time Wergeland in Norway published his tragedy, "Sinclair's
Death." In Germany the appearance of the "Book of Songs," instantly raised
Heine to the foremost rank among German lyric poets. The early influence of
Byron was revealed by his masterly translations from "Manfred," and of the
opening stanzas of "Childe Harold" and the lines addressed to "Inez." Most
felicitous was Heine's German version of Byron's famous farewell to his
wife:
"Fare thee well, and if forever,
Still forever, fare thee well."
Heine's own lyrical pieces, now put forth in profusion, were fully equal to
those of his English prototype. The "Book of Songs" throughout breathed
the spirit of the poet's sad boast:
"From my heavy sorrows
Made I these little songs...."
Heine's love songs, alone, by their subtile fusion of exquisite simplicity
with cynicism in a perverse form, won him immediate recognition outside of
Germany. This in itself has never been forgiven by the Germans. Such
prejudice did not deter German song composers from setting to music Heine's
melodious verses. Franz Schubert, the foremost song composer, just before
his death found inspiration in Heine's poems for his famous "Swan Song."
[Sidenote: Death of Schubert]
Schubert died in Vienna on the 19th of October, at the age of thirty-one.
Notwithstanding his brief career and lack of systematic schooling, he was
one of the most prolific as well as original of German composers. His
earliest extant song, "Hagar's Lament," was written at the age of fourteen.
Such early master works as "Margaret at the Spinning Wheel," and the
"Erl-King," both written for Goethe's words, mark the swift development of
his genius. During his eighteenth year, when he wrote the "Erl-King," he
composed no less than 144 songs. On one day alone he wrote eight. Besides
this he composed two operettas, three song plays, three other stage pieces,
four masses and several cantatas. In spite of his astonishing fecundity the
young composer suffered signally from lack of recognition. His whole life
was a long-drawn battle for subsistence. All his efforts to obtain a steady
income were unavailing. Though he composed scores for no less than
seventy-two of Goethe's lyrics, that great poet was indifferent to the
young composer. Beethoven, too, gave him but reluctant recognition. Not
until the year of his death did Schubert succeed in giving a public concert
that was a pecuniary success. He was wretchedly underpaid by his
publishers, and his greatest works utterly failed of contemporary
recognition. He died in the depths of poverty. In accordance with his last
request, Schubert was buried in the eastern graveyard at Waehring, close to
the grave of Beethoven. Schubert achieved immortal fame as the creator of
the modern lyric song. No less original were his effective transfers of the
song motive to pianoforte music, as shown in his "Moments Musicales" and
"Impromptus." Some of his symphonies, notably that in C and the "Fragment"
in B minor, are equal to those of Beethoven.
[Sidenote: Moratin]
Spain lost one of her most distinguished modern playwrights by the death of
Nicolas Fernandez de Moratin, a pupil of Goldoni, and the author of such
enduring Spanish comedies as "El Baron," "La Mogigata" and "El Si de Las
Ninas." Besides his plays, Moratin also wrote an authoritative work on the
"Origins of the Spanish Stage."
Toward the end of the year the disorders in Portugal appeared to have
subsided sufficiently to warrant the withdrawal of the British troops. Dom
Miguel, the regent, promptly proclaimed himself King. After having grasped
the reins of power, one of his first measures was the dissolution of the
seven ancient estates of Portugal. In Spain King Ferdinand VII., in
December, celebrated his wedding to Maria Christina of Naples.
[Sidenote: Huskisson]
[Sidenote: O'Connell]
[Sidenote: Robert Peel]
Domestic affairs in England at this turn furnished an all-absorbing topic.
In the Cabinet, Huskisson's strong stand on the rotten borough question,
with his desire to accord Parliamentary representation to the working
people of Birmingham, had caused his expulsion from the Duke of
Wellington's councils. His resignation was followed by that of the former
members of the Canning Cabinet. Among those chosen to supply their place
was Vesey Fitzgerald, member for County Clare in Ireland. His acceptance of
office compelled him to go back to his constituents. It was then that
Daniel O'Connell, the great leader of the Catholic Association in Ireland,
saw his chance to strike a blow for Catholic emancipation. Though
disqualified from sitting in the Commons as a Catholic, O'Connell ran
against Fitzgerald. From the first Fitzgerald's cause was hopeless. The
great landowners, to be sure, supported his cause with all their wealth and
influence, but the small freeholders, to a man, voted against him. After a
five days' poll, Fitzgerald withdrew from the contest. The result was that
the hitherto irresistible influence of England's territorial aristocracy
lay shattered. The Protestant conservatives of England were filled with
consternation. Every debate in Parliament showed that the Catholic party
was daily gaining strength, while the resistance of the government became
weaker. It was clear that something must be done. At this crisis Robert
Peel, hitherto the champion of the Protestant party in the House of
Commons and Cabinet, became convinced of the necessity of yielding. He lost
no time in imparting this conviction to the Duke of Wellington, his chief,
and therewith offered his resignation. Wellington had learned a lesson from
the events that followed Huskisson's withdrawal. He refused to let Peel go.
Reluctantly he became a party to Peel's change of views. As late as
December 11, Wellington wrote a letter to the Catholic primate of Ireland,
deferring all hope of Catholic emancipation to the distant future. Before
the year closed, however, Wellington, armed with the arguments of Peel,
wrung from the King the Crown's consent to concede Catholic emancipation
without delay. Peel, as the author of this radical measure, consented to
take charge of the bill in Parliament.
1829
[Sidenote: Wellington's change of front]
At the opening of Parliament in England, the concessions of the government
in regard to Catholic emancipation were revealed in the royal speech,
delivered by commission. The great Tory party, thus taken unawares, was
furious. The Protestant clergy opposed the bill with all their influence
and clamored for a dissolution of Parliament. In the excited state of
public feeling, an immediate appeal to the country would undoubtedly have
wrecked the bill. Unable to carry out such a plan, the Tory opposition
showed itself ready to unite with any party in order to defeat the measure
and wreak vengeance on its framers. Within the Cabinet itself, Wellington's
change brought him bitter opposition. When the bill was brought into
Parliament in March, the Attorney-General, Sir C. Wetherell, not content
with refusing to draw the bill, sprang up to explain his position.
[Sidenote: Wetherell's attack]
"Am I, then," he exclaimed, "to blame for refusing to do that, in the
subordinate office of Attorney-General, which a more eminent adviser of the
Crown, only two years ago, declared he would not consent to do? I dare them
to attack me! I have no speech to eat up. I have not to say that a thing
is black one day and white another. I would rather remain as I am, the
humble member for Plympton, than be guilty of such treachery, such
contradiction, such unexplained conversion, such miserable and contemptible
apostasy.... They might have turned me out of office, but I would not be
made such a dirty tool as to draw _that_ bill. I have therefore declined to
have anything to do with it." Of course, Wetherell was at once dismissed.
[Sidenote: Defeat of Peel]
[Sidenote: Emancipation of English Catholics]
But an opportunity to avenge his dismissal was soon afforded. Robert Peel,
since he was not suffered to withdraw from the Ministry, felt in honor
bound to go back to his constituents at Oxford. The Protestant party that
had sent him to Parliament now opposed him with a simple country gentleman,
in no wise his Parliamentary equal. Peel was crushingly defeated. On the
other hand, the Whig party almost in a body went over to the government.
With their help the Catholic Emancipation act was passed. The Tories waited
only for the time to strike down their former leaders.
[Sidenote: Reforms in India]
[Sidenote: Fanny Kemble]
[Sidenote: Humphry Davy]
[Sidenote: Thomas Young]