Part 11

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]

The precarious position of Wellington's Ministry at home was offset by a firm policy abroad. In British India the new Governor-General, Lord Bentinck, upheld British prestige by his firm abolition of the native custom of burning widows and by his extermination of the roving gangs of Thugs. In regard to the Eastern Question and the war in the Balkans, England came to an agreement with Austria to frustrate Russia's plans with respect to Constantinople. Thanks to this _entente cordiale_ between the two countries, enterprising English capitalists and engineers were allowed to put into operation the first line of steamboats that plied the waters of the Danube. Among other minor events of interest to Englishmen during this year, may be mentioned the first public appearance of Fanny Kemble, the actress, and the earliest boat race between student crews from the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge. England lost two of her famous scientists during this year--Sir Humphry Davy and Thomas Young. Davy was born in 1778 and died in Geneva. Besides inventing the miner's safety lamp, with which his name will be forever associated, he made valuable experiments in photography; discovered that the causes of chemical and electrical attraction are identical; produced potassium and sodium by the electric current; proved the transformation of energy into heat; formulated a theory of the properties of particles of matter (or atoms); and made remarkable experiments which led to the theory of the binary composition of chemical compounds. Young was born in 1773. At Cambridge they called him "Phenomenon Young," because he was said to know everything. In truth, Young developed into the most profound English scientist of the century. When only twenty he was asked to read papers before the Royal Society. In 1801 he delivered the Bakerian lecture, his subject being "The Theory of Light and Colors." That lecture marks an epoch in physical science; for it brought forward for the first time convincing proof of the correctness of the undulatory theory of light. The intangible substance which pulsates and undulates to produce light, Young christened the "luminiferous ether." And the term is still to be found in our scientific vocabulary.