Timeline of World History TIMELINE OF WORLD HISTORY
 
 

TIMELINE OF WORLD HISTORY
 

Loading
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
     
     
 
1800 - 1899
 
 
1800-09 1810-19 1820-29 1830-39 1840-49 1850-59 1860-69 1870-79 1880-89 1890-99
1800 1810 1820 1830 1840 1850 1860 1870 1880 1890
1801 1811 1821 1831 1841 1851 1861 1871 1881 1891
1802 1812 1822 1832 1842 1852 1862 1872 1882 1892
1803 1813 1823 1833 1843 1853 1863 1873 1883 1893
1804 1814 1824 1834 1844 1854 1864 1874 1884 1894
1805 1815 1825 1835 1845 1855 1865 1875 1885 1895
1806 1816 1826 1836 1846 1856 1866 1876 1886 1896
1807 1817 1827 1837 1847 1857 1867 1877 1887 1897
1808 1818 1828 1838 1848 1858 1868 1878 1888 1898
1809 1819 1829 1839 1849 1859 1869 1879 1889 1899
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
CONTENTS
  BACK-1855 Part III NEXT-1856 Part II    
 
 
     
1850 - 1859
YEAR BY YEAR:
1850-1859
History at a Glance
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1850 Part I
Compromise of 1850
Constitution of Prussia
The eight Kaffir War, 1850-1853
Masaryk Tomas
Kitchener Horatio Herbert
Erfurt Union
Fillmore Millard
California
Taiping Rebellion
Hong Xiuquan
Feng Yunshan
Yang Xiuqing
Shi Dakai
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1850 Part II
Protestant churches in Prussia
Public Libraries Act 1850
Schopenhauer: "Parerga und Paralipomena"
Herbert Spencer: "Social Statics"
E. B. Browning: "Sonnets from the Portuguese"
Emerson: "Representative Men"
Hawthorne: "The Scarlet Letter"
Herzen Aleksandr
Ibsen: "Catiline"
Loti Pierre
Maupassant Guy
Guy de Maupassant
"Bel-Ami"
Stevenson Robert Louis
Robert Louis Stevenson  
"Treasure Island
"
Turgenev: "A Month in the Country"
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1850 Part III
Corot: "Une Matinee"
Courbet: "The Stone Breakers"
Menzel: "Round Table at Sansouci"
Millais: "Christ in the House of His Parents"
Millet: "The Sower"
Bristow George Frederick
George Frederick Bristow - Dream Land
George Frederick Bristow
Schumann: "Genoveva"
Wagner: "Lohengrin"
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1850 Part IV
Bernard Claude
Clausius Rudolf
Stephenson Robert
Chebyshev Pafnuty Lvovich
Barth Heinrich
Galton Francis
Anderson Karl John
McClure Robert
McClure Arctic Expedition
Royal Meteorological Society
University of Sydney
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1851 Part I
Victoria, state of Australia
Murdock Joseph Ballard
Machado Bernardino
Bourgeois Leon Victor Auguste
Foch Ferdinand
Bombardment of Sale
French coup d'état
Danilo II
Hawthorne: "The House of Seven Gables"
Gottfried Keller: "Der grune Heinrich"
Ward Humphry
Ruskin: "The Stones of Venice"
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1851 Part II
Herman Melville: "Moby Dick"
Corot: "La Danse des Nymphes"
Walter Thomas Ustick
Ward Leslie
Crystal Palace
Falero Luis Ricardo
Luis Ricardo Falero
Kroyer Peder
Peder Kroyer
Hughes Edward Robert
Edward Robert Hughes
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1851 Part III
Gounod: "Sappho"
D’Indy Vincent
Vincent D'Indy - Medee
Vincent d'Indy
Verdi: "Rigoletto"
Bogardus James
Cast-iron architecture
Kapteyn Jacobus Cornelius
Helmholtz's ophthalmoscope
Neumann Franz Ernst
Ruhmkorff Heinrich Daniel
Singer Isaac Merrit
Cubitt William
Thomson William
Royal School of Mines
Carpenter Mary
"The New York Times"
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1852 Part I
Joffre Joseph
Transvaal
Second French Empire
Second Anglo-Burmese War
New Zealand Constitution Act
Asquith Herbert Henry
Pierce Franklin
Delisle Leopold Victor
Fischer Kuno
First Plenary Council of Baltimore
Vaihinger Hans
Gioberti Vincenzo
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1852 Part II
Bourget Paul
Creasy Edward
Creasy: "The Fifteen Decisive Battles of the World: from Marathon to Waterloo"
Charles Dickens: "Bleak House"
Theophile Gautier: "Emaux et Camees"
Moore George
Reade Charles
Harriet Beecher Stowe: "Uncle Tom's Cabin"
Thackeray: "History of Henry Esmond"
Turgenev: "A Sportsman's Sketches"
Zhukovsky Vasily
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1852 Part III
Fopd Madox Brown: "Christ Washing Peter's Feet"
William Holman Hunt: "The Light of the World"
John Everett Millais: "Ophelia"
Bryullov Karl
Karl Bryullov
Stanford Charles
Charles Villiers Stanford - Piano Concerto No.2
Charles Stanford
Becquerel Henri
Gerhardt Charles Frederic
Van’t Hoff Jacobus Henricus
Mathijsen Antonius
Michelson Albert
Ramsay William
Sylvester James Joseph
United All-England Eleven
Wells Fargo & Company
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1853 Part I
Eugenie de Montijo
Crimean War
Battle of Sinop
Rhodes Cecil
Peter V
Nagpur Province
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1853 Part II
Mommsen: "History of Rome"
Matthew Arnold: "The Scholar-Gipsy"
Charlotte Bronte: "Villette"
Caine Hall
Elizabeth Gaskell: "Ruth"
Nathaniel Hawthorne: "Tanglewood Tales"
Charles Kingsley: "Hypatia"
Tree Herbert Beerbohm
Charlotte M. Yonge: "The Heir of Redclyffe"
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1853 Part III
Haussmann Georges-Eugene
Larsson Carl
Carl Larsson
Hodler Ferdinand
Ferdinand Hodler
Van Gogh Vincent
Vincent van Gogh
Steinway Henry Engelhard
Verdi: "Il Trovatore"
Verdi: "La Traviata"
Wood Alexander
"Die Gartenlaube"
International Statistical Congress
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1854 Part I
Bloemfontein Convention
Orange Free State
Battle of the Alma
Menshikov Alexander Sergeyevich
Siege of Sevastopol (1854-1855)
Kornilov Vladimir Alexeyevich
Battle of Balaclava
Battle of Inkerman
Perry Matthew Calbraith
Gadsden Purchase
Bleeding Kansas (1854–59)
Kansas-Nebraska Act
Elgin-Marcy Treaty
Republican Party
Said of Egypt
Ostend Manifesto
Zollverein
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1854 Part II
Herzog Johann
Jewish Theological Seminary of Breslau
Youthful Offenders Act 1854
Immaculate Conception
Patmore Coventry
Patmore: "The Angel in the House"
Sandeau Leonard
Guerrazzi Francesco Domenico
Rimbaud Arthur
Arthur Rimbaud "Poems"
Tennyson: "The Charge of the Light Brigade"
Thackeray: "The Rose and the Ring"
Thoreau: "Walden, or Life in the Woods"
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1854 Part III
Courbet: "Bonjour, Monsieur Courbet"
Frith William Powell
William Frith
Millet: "The Reaper"
Angrand Charles
Charles Angrand
Gotch Thomas Cooper
Thomas Cooper Gotch
Berlioz: "The Infant Christ"
Humperdinck Engelbert
Humperdinck - Hansel und Gretel
Liszt: "Les Preludes"
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1854 Part IV
Poincare Henri
Eastman George
Ehrenberg Christian Gottfried
Paul Ehrlich
Laryngoscopy
Goebel Henry
George Boole: "The Laws of Thought"
Riemann Bernhard
Wallace Alfred Russel
Southeast Asia
"Le Figaro"
Litfass Ernst
Northcote–Trevelyan Report
Maurice Frederick Denison
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1855 Part I
Alexander II
Istomin Vladimir Ivanovich
Somerset FitzRoy
Nakhimov Pavel Stepanovich
Treaty of Peshawar
Bain Alexander
Droysen Johann
Gratry Auguste
Milman Henry
Le Play Pierre
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1855 Part II
Charles Kingsley: "Westward Ho!"
Nerval Gerard
Charles Dickens "Little Dorrit"
Ganghofer Ludwig
Longfellow: "The Song of Hiawatha"
Corelli Marie
Pinero Arthur Wing
Tennyson: "Maud"
Anthony Trollope: "The Warden"
Turgenev: "Rudin"
Walt Whitman: "Leaves of Grass"
Berlioz: "Те Deum"
Verdi: "Les Vepres Siciliennes"
Chansson Ernest
Chausson - Poeme
Ernest Chausson
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1855 Part III
Rayon
Hughes David Edward
Lowell Percival
Cunard Line
"The Daily Telegraph"
Niagara Falls suspension bridge
Paris World Fair
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1856 Part I
Victoria Cross
Doctrine of Lapse
Oudh State
Ottoman Reform Edict of 1856
Congress of Paris
Treaty of Paris (1856)
Napoleon, Prince Imperial
Sacking of Lawrence
Pottawatomie massacre
Second Opium War (1856-1860)
Anglo–Persian War (1856-1857)
Buchanan James
Tasmania
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1856 Part II
Froude: "History of England"
Goldstucker Theodor
Lotze Rudolf Hermann
Motley: "Rise of the Dutch Republic"
Flaubert: "Madame Bovary"
Haggard Henry Rider
Victor Hugo: "Les Contemplations"
Charles Reade: "It Is Never Too Late to Mend"
Shaw George Bernard
Wilde Oscar
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1856 Part III
Berlage Hendrik Petrus
Ferstel Heinrich
Sargent John
John Singer Sargent
Vrubel Mikhail
Mikhail Vrubel
Cross Henri Edmond
Henri-Edmond Cross
Bechstein Carl
Dargomyzhsky Alexander
Alexander Dargomyzhsky: "Rusalka"
Alexander Dargomyzhsky
Maillart Aime
Aime Maillart - Les Dragons de Villars
Sinding Christian
Sinding - Suite in A minor
Christian Sinding
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1856 Part IV
Bessemer Henry
Bessemer process
Freud Sigmund
Sigmund Freud
Peary Robert Edwin
Mauveine
Pringsheim Nathanael
Siemens Charles William
Hardie James Keir
Taylor Frederick Winslow
"Big Ben"
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1857 Part I
Treaty of Paris
Indian Rebellion of 1857
Italian National Society
Manin Daniele
Taft William Howard
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1857 Part II
Buckle Henry Thomas
Buckle: "History of Civilization in England"
Charles Baudelaire: "Les Fleurs du mal"
Conrad Joseph
Joseph Conrad 
"Lord Jim"
George Eliot: "Scenes from Clerical Life"
Hughes Thomas
Thomas Hughes: "Tom Brown's Schooldays"
Mulock Dinah
 Pontoppidan Henrik
Adalbert Stifter: "Nachsommer"
Sudermann Hermann
Thackeray: "The Virginians"
Anthony Trollope: "Barchester Towers"
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1857 Part III
Klinger Max
Max Klinger
Millet: "The Gleaners"
Dahl Johan Christian
Johan Christian Dahl
Leoncavallo Ruggero
Ruggero Leoncavallo - Pagliacci
Ruggero Leoncavallo 
Elgar Edward
Edward Elgar - The Light of Life
Edward Elgar
Kienzl Wilhelm
Wilhelm Kienzl - Symphonic Variations
Wilhelm Kienzl
Liszt: "Eine Faust-Symphonie"
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1857 Part IV
Coue Emile
Hertz Heinrich
Wagner-Jauregg Julius
Ross Ronald
Newton Charles Thomas
Mausoleum of Halicarnassus
Burton Richard
Speke John Hanning
The Nile Quest
McClintock Francis
Alpine Club
"The Atlantic Monthly"
Baden-Powell Robert
Matrimonial Causes Act
North German Lloyd
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1858 Part I
Orsini Felice
Stanley Edward
Minnesota
Treaty of Tientsin
Government of India Act 1858
Law Bonar
William I
Karageorgevich Alexander
Roosevelt Theodore
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1858 Part II
Bernadette Soubirous
Carey Henry Charles
Thomas Carlyle: "History of Friedrich II of Prussia"
Hecker Isaac
Missionary Society of St. Paul the Apostle
Rothschild Lionel Nathan
Schaff Philip
Benson Frank
Feuillet Octave
Oliver Wendell Holmes: "The Autocrat of the Breakfast Table"
Kainz Joseph
Lagerlof Selma
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1858 Part III
Corinth Lovis
Lovis Corinth
William Powell Frith: "The Derby Day"
Menzel: "Bon soir, Messieurs"
Segantini Giovanni
Giovanni Segantini
Khnopff Fernand
Fernand Khnopff
Toorop Jan
Cornelius Peter
Cornelius: "Der Barbier von Bagdad"
Jaques Offenbach: "Orpheus in der Unterwelt"
Puccini Giacomo
Giacomo Puccini: Donna non vidi mai
Giacomo Puccini
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1858 Part IV
Diesel Rudolf
Huxley Thomas Henry
Planck Max
Mirror galvanometer
General Medical Council
Suez Canal Company
S.S. "Great Eastern"
Webb Beatrice
Webb Sidney
Transatlantic telegraph cable
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1859 Part I
Second Italian War of Independence
Battle of Varese
Battle of Palestro
Battle of Magenta
Battle of Solferino
Oregon
Ferdinand II of the Two Sicilies
Francis II of the Two Sicilies
Charles XV of Sweden
German National Association
Jaures Jean
Roon Albrecht
William II
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1859 Part II
Bergson Henri
Henri Bergson
Bergson Henri "Creative Evolution"
Charles Darwin: "On the Origin of Species"
Dewey John
Husserl Edmund
Karl Marx: "Critique of Political Economy"
John Stuart Mill: "Essay on Liberty"
Tischendorf Konstantin
Codex Sinaiticus
Villari Pasquale
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1859 Part III
Dickens: "A Tale of Two Cities"
Doyle Arthur Conan
Arthur Conan Doyle  
"SHERLOCK HOLMES"
Duse Eleonora
George Eliot: "Adam Bede"
Edward Fitzgerald: "Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam"
Ivan Goncharov: "Oblomov"
Hamsun Knut
Heidenstam Verner
Housman Alfred Edward
A.E. Housman 
"A Shropshire Lad", "Last Poems"
Victor Hugo: "La Legende des siecles"
Jerome K. Jerome
Tennyson: "Idylls of the King"
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1859 Part IV
Corot: "Macbeth"
Gilbert Cass
Millet: "The Angelus"
Hassam Childe
Childe Hassam 
Seurat Georges
Georges Seurat
Whistler: "At the Piano"
Daniel Decatur Emmett: "Dixie"
Gounod: "Faust"
Verdi: "Un Ballo in Maschera"
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1859 Part V
Arrhenius Svante
Kirchhoff Gustav
Curie Pierre
Drake Edwin
Drake Well
Plante Gaston
Lead–acid battery
Smith Henry John Stephen
Brunel Isambard Kingdom
Blondin Charles
Lansbury George
Samuel Smiles: "Self-Help"
 
 
 

FEdouard Louis Dubufe, Congrès de Paris, 1856, Palace of Versailles.
 
 
 
 
 HISTORY, RELIGION, PHILOSOPHY, ART, LITERATURE, MUSIC, SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, DAILY LIFE
 
 
 
 
YEAR BY YEAR:  1800 - 1899
 
 
 
1856 Part I
 
 
 
1856
 
 
Queen Victoria institutes the Victoria Cross
 
 
Victoria Cross
 
Victoria Cross, the highest decoration for valour in the British armed forces, awarded for extreme bravery in the face of the enemy.
 
It was instituted in 1856 by Queen Victoria at the request of her consort, Prince Albert.

The first crosses were awarded during the Crimean War.

In 1858, new statutes allowed the Victoria Cross to be conferred for gallantry when not in the presence of the enemy; instances of this were extremely rare, and by 1881 the cross was again awarded only for conspicuous courage in the face of the enemy.

King Edward VII, in 1902, decreed that the honour could be awarded posthumously, which, since then, it frequently has been. Anyone in any branch of the British armed forces is eligible, including women, although no woman has as yet received the award.

So great is the prestige of the Victoria Cross that it takes precedence over all other orders and medals in Britain, and recipients are entitled to add V.C. after their name. Only 1,348 crosses have been awarded since the honour was instituted.

The medal is bronze (originally cast from Russian guns captured in the Crimean War), depicting a lion on a crown with the inscription “For Valour,” while the reverse side has the date of the act for which the decoration is bestowed and the name, rank, and regiment of the recipient.

Encyclopædia Britannica
 
Victoria Cross
 
 
     
 
Queen Victoria

Victorian era
     
 
 
 
1856
 
 
Britain annexes Oudh, India
 
 
Doctrine of Lapse
 

The Doctrine of Lapse was an annexation policy purportedly devised by Lord Dalhousie, who was the Governor General for the East India Company in India between 1848 and 1856.

 
According to the Doctrine, any princely state or territory under the direct influence (paramountcy) of the British East India Company (the dominant imperial power in the subcontinent), as a vassal state under the British Subsidiary System, would automatically be annexed if the ruler was either "manifestly incompetent or died without a male heir". The latter supplanted the long-established right of an Indian sovereign without an heir to choose a successor. In addition, the British decided whether potential rulers were competent enough. The doctrine and its application were widely regarded by many Indians as illegitimate.

History

At the time of its adoption, the British East India Company had imperial administrative jurisdiction over wide regions of the subcontinent. The company took over the princely states of Satara (1848), Jaipur and Sambalpur (Odisha) (1849), Nagpur and Jhansi (1854), Tanjore and Arcot (1855), Udaipur (Chhattisgarh) and Oudh (1856) under the terms of the doctrine of lapse. Mostly claiming that the ruler was not ruling properly, the Company added about four million pounds sterling to its annual revenue by virtue of this doctrine. Udaipur State, however, would have local rule reinstated by the British in 1860.
  With the increasing power of the East India Company, discontent simmered among many sections of Indian society and the largely indigenous armed forces; these rallied behind the deposed dynasties during the Indian rebellion of 1857 also known as the Sepoy Mutiny of 1857. Following the rebellion, in 1858, the new British Viceroy of India, whose rule replaced that of the British East India Company, renounced the doctrine.

The princely state of Kittur was taken over by the East India Company in 1824 by imposing a 'Doctrine Of Lapse'. So it is debatable whether it was actually devised by Lord Dalhousie in 1848, though he arguably did make it official by documenting it. Dalhousie's annexations and the doctrine of lapse had caused suspicion and uneasiness among most ruling princes in India.

Doctrine of Lapse before Dalhousie
Dalhousie applied the Doctrine of Lapse vigorously for annexing Indian princely states, but the policy was not solely of his invention. The Court of Directors of the East India Company had articulated this early in 1834. As per this policy, the Company annexed Mandvi in 1839, Kolaba and Jalaun in 1840 and Surat in 1842.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 
 
 
Oudh State
 

The Oudh State or Kingdom of Oudh (Awadh State) was a princely state in the Awadh region during the British Raj until 1856.

 
The now obsolete but once official English-language name of the state, also written in British historical texts as 'Oude', derived from the name of Ayodhya.

The capital of Oudh State was in Faizabad, but the British Agents, officially known as 'residents', had their seat in Lucknow. The Nawab of Oudh, one of the richest native princes, paid for and erected a splendid Residency in Lucknow as a part of a wider programme of civic improvements.

Oudh joined other Indian states in an upheaval against British rule in 1858 during one of the last series of actions in the Indian rebellion of 1857. In the course of this uprising a few detachments of the British Indian Army from the Bombay Presidency overcame the disunited collection of Indian states in a single rapid campaign. Even so, determined rebels continued to wage sporadic guerrilla clashes until the spring of 1859. This ill-fated rebellion is also historically known as the 'Oudh campaign'.

After the British annexation of Oudh, the North Western Provinces became the North Western Provinces and Oudh.

  History
In 1732, under Mughal sovereignty, a senior official of the Mughal Empire established a hereditary polity in Oudh. As the power of the Mughals waned, the rulers of Oudh gradually affirmed their own sovereignty.

Since the state was located in a prosperous region, the British East India Company soon took notice of the affluence in which the Nawabs of Oudh lived. The result would be direct British interference in the internal state matters of Oudh, and the kingdom became a British protectorate in May 1816.

Three years later, in 1819, the ruler of Oudh took the style of Padshah (king), signaling formal independence under the advice of the Marquis of Hastings.

On 7 February 1856 by order of Lord Dalhousie, Governor General of the East India Company, the king of Oudh was deposed, and its kingdom was annexed to British India under the terms of the Doctrine of lapse on the grounds of internal misrule.
After Oudh's territory was merged with the North Western Provinces, it formed the larger province of North Western Provinces and Oudh.

 
 

Map showing the United Provinces of Agra and Oudh
 
 
In 1902, the latter province was renamed the United Provinces of Agra and Oudh, and in 1904 the region within the new United Provinces, corresponding to the former North Western Provinces and Oudh, was renamed the Agra Province.

Between 5 July 1857 and 3 March 1858 there was a brief upheaval by the son of the deposed king joining the Indian Rebellion of 1857. During the rebellion, the British temporarily lost control of the territory; they reestablished their rule over the next eighteen months, during which time there were massacres such as those that had occurred during the Siege of Cawnpore (Kanpur).

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 
 
 
1856
 
 
Ottoman Reform Edict of 1856
 

Islâhat Fermânı (The Imperial Islâhat Firmân, The Imperial Reform Edict, or The Rescript of Reform) was a February 18, 1856 edict of the Ottoman government and part of the Tanzimat reforms. The decree from Sultan Abdülmecid I promised equality in education, government appointments, and administration of justice to all regardless of creed.

The decree is often seen as a result of the influence of France and Britain, which assisted the Ottoman Empire against the Russians during the Crimean War (1853–1856) and the Treaty of Paris (1856) which ended the war.

 
Hatt-ı Hümayun was a promise by the Sultan to his citizens, subjects. However, some items in his promise were achieved by the communities, (see: millet). Sultan promised to be held responsible for the constitution of the "Provincial Councils" and "Communal Councils" and the fairness of this process and the results. In matters concerning all the subjects of the State (related with Hatt-ı Hümayun), the spiritual leader of every congregation, along with its official appointed for one year by the government, will participate in the negotiations of `Meclisi Valay-i Ahkam-i Adliyye', a law court established in 1837 to deal with cases of high officials. Sultan also promised (personal judge of fairness) the freedom of voting in the councils.

These goals are promised by the Sultan and the final consideration is in him; in meaning Hatt-ı Hümayun is the Sultan's ideas.
 
 
Content
Hatt-ı Hümayun "unites all the previous reforms" (beginning with Hatt-ı Şerif of Gulhane) and applies previous reform to all the subjects of the Empire, without distinction of class or religion, for the security of their persons and property and the preservation of their honor.

Hatt-ı Hümayun did not release the government from its previous obligations; spiritual immunities (Christian millets or other non-Muslim protectorates). Regarding these responsibilities review process established under each millet such that they form a commission composed ad hod of members of its own body to give formulate (discuss) and submit the reforms required by the progress of Ottoman civilization.

 
 
Religion and civic duties
Hatt-ı Hümayun granted that all forms of religion freely worshiped, no subject hindered in the exercise of the religion, nor be in any way annoyed. No one shall be compelled to change their religion.

Hatt-ı Hümayun brought accountability, such that the Patriarchs, Metropolitans, Archbishops, Bishops, and Rabbis began to take an oath on their entrance into office according to a form agreed upon (content of the oath is verified by the state), which they will be responsible for honoring their oath.

In to build trust (prevent bribery); the income of these people (in public work) is replaced by fixed revenues of the Patriarchs and heads of communities, and by the allocation of allowances and salaries equitably proportioned to the importance, the rank, and the dignity of the different members of the clergy.

Hatt-ı Hümayun granted the full freedom of the repair, according to their original plan, of buildings set apart for religious worship, for schools, for hospitals, and for cemeteries; if these activities are performed at "non-mixed communities" under the towns, small boroughs and villages.
To prevent the destruction of historical architectures, and keep track of public investments the plans of these different buildings, in case of their new erection, must, after having been approved by the Patriarchs or heads of communities, be submitted to Imperial order, or make known its observations upon them within a certain time.

Hatt-ı Hümayun granted that each community have equal power on the repair according to the original plan of the buildings for religious worship, schools, hospitals, and cemeteries; only if these activities are performed at "mixed communities" of the towns, small boroughs and villages. The authorities (decision making) in mixed populations use imperial system to pronounce a sovereign decision (imperial system visioned as a buffer).

Hatt-ı Hümayun granted the of government the responsibility of the formation of roads and canals to increase the facilities of communication and the sources of the wealth.

Hatt-ı Hümayun granted the organization of new Code to determine how the works of public utility can be supported (raised from private and special taxes levied in the provinces). These funds could only be used to benefit of the establishment of ways of communication by land and sea.

  Education
Hatt-ı Hümayun granted that all the subjects, without distinction, shall be received into the Civil and Military Schools. Every community is authorized to establish Public Schools of Science, Art, and Industry. However in these public schools the methods of instruction and the choice of professors in schools of this class shall be under the control of a "Mixed Council of Public Instruction (Council of Public Instruction)" (Education ministry).

Justice
Hatt-ı Hümayun granted that that all commercial, correctional, and criminal suits between Muslims and Christian or other non-Muslim subjects, or between Christians or other non-Muslims of different sects, shall be referred to "mixed tribunals". The proceedings were in public. The parties were confronted. Production of witnesses was granted which the testimonies were accepted upon an oath. Suits relating to civil affairs publicly tried. Civil affairs resolved before the Mixed Provincial Councils with the Governor and Judge.

Hatt-ı Hümayun granted that there will be formulation of the new Codes; penal, correctional, and commercial laws, and rules of procedure and they were translated and published in all the languages.

Hatt-ı Hümayun granted that the reform of the penitentiary (houses of detention, punishment, or correction) and other establishments. Activities had to reconcile the rights of humanity and with those of justice. Corporal punishment is abolished administered.

Public security
Hatt-ı Hümayun granted that police organization (policies and regulations) can not deny the guarantees for the safety of person and property. After the revision (defines a commission) officers are responsible. The police force was organized in capital, provincial towns and in the rural districts in separate organizations.

Effect
Although the goal of the Hatt-ı Hümayun was to bring equality among Ottoman citizens, the process was perceived more as one intended to please Europe. The biggest change was the Ottoman State's acceptance of the notion of "minorities". Previously, Muslim government organizations (civil and military schools) begin to accept non-Muslim citizens. The official state language principle (Ottoman Turkish for written communication) was broken, and the Empire became a multi-language system. Patriarchates began to administer justice on the state level, which could be said to weaken the judicial sovereignty of the State.

 
 

Some rules were cheered by the Non-Muslims

Non-Muslims could become civil servants,
The possibility to transfer their inheritance cases to Patriarchates,
The publishing of murder and commerce laws in the languages of the minorities,
The establishment of higher court (judiciary) and the representation of all congregations with two representatives from each.
The extending of powers of Patriarchates in administering justice,
The extending of the right to property to foreigners.

Some rules were not cheered by the Non-Muslims

The obligation to do one's military service,
The reexamination of religious privileges to make them equal (some millets lost privileges relative to others)
The abolition of arbitrary fees exacted by priests all along from their congregations
The establishment of salaries (fixed income) to spiritual leaders (priest, patriarch etc.)
The obligation of spiritual leaders to take the oath of devotion

 
Hatt-ı Hümayun in bringing equality among (millet), created a discontent to the Armenian Patriarchate. Before the Hatt-ı Hümayun Armenian Patriarch was not only the spiritual leader of the community, but its secular leader (all Armenians, Armenian nation) as well. The Armenians ("Armenian nationals") wanted to abolish oppression by the nobility, and draw up a new `National Regulation', which limited the powers of Patriarch whose jurisdiction was extended to 50 regions and could at will dismiss the Bishops. Finally the Council accepted the draft regulation on May 24, 1860, and presented it to the Babiali. The Babiali ratified it with some minor changes, with a firman on March 17, 1863, and made it effective.

In 1863 the Armenian National Constitution (Ottoman Turkish:"Nizâmnâme-i Millet-i Ermeniyân") was Ottoman Empire approved form of the "Code of Regulations" composed of 150 articles drafted by the "Armenian intelligentsia", which defined the powers of Patriarch (position in Ottoman Millet) and newly formed "Armenian National Assembly". Armenian Patriarch with the sharing of his powers with the Armenian National Assembly and limitations brought by Armenian National Constitution perceived the changes as erosion of its community.

During the fall of the Ottoman Empire, foreign powers often influenced the government by means of foreign loans and aid as well as exploitation of the millet system and its groups of Jewish and Christian minorities.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 
 
 
1856
 
 
Congress of Paris
 

The Congress of Paris was a peace conference held in Paris, France, in 1856, between representatives of the great powers in Europe to make peace after the almost three-year-long Crimean War.

 
Before the Congress
The Crimean war was fought mainly on the Crimean Peninsula between Russia on one side, and Great Britain, France, the Ottoman Empire, and Sardinia on the other. It was fought mainly due to two reasons.

The Russians demanded better treatment of and wanted to protect the Orthodox subjects of the Sultan of Turkey. This was later considered and promised by the Sultan of Turkey during the meeting at the Congress of Paris.

Also, there was a dispute between the Russians and the French regarding the privileges of the Russian Orthodox and the Roman Catholic Churches in Palestine. With the backing of Britain, the Turks declared war on Russia on 4 October 1853. On 28 March 1854, France and Britain also declared war against Russia.

Then, on 26 January 1855, Sardinia-Piedmont also entered the war against Russia by sending 10,000 troops to aid the allies.

Throughout the war, the Russian army's main concern was to make sure that Austria stayed out of the war. Still, Austria threatened to enter the war, causing peace.

  The Congress
The Congress of Paris took place in 1856 to make peace after the almost three-year-long Crimean War. The Congress of Paris was a peace conference held between representatives of the great powers in Europe, which at the time were: France, Great Britain, the Ottoman Empire, Sardinia, Russia, Austria, and Prussia. They assembled soon after 1 February 1856, when Russia accepted the first set of peace terms after Austria threatened to enter the war on the side of the Allies. It is also notable that the meeting took place in Paris, just at the conclusion of the 1855 Universal Expo.

The Congress of Paris worked out the final terms from 25 February to 30 March. The Treaty of Paris (1856) was then signed on 30 March 1856 with Russia on one side and France, Great Britain, Ottoman Turkey, and Sardinia-Piedmont on the other. The group of men negotiated at the Quai d’Orsay. One of the representatives who attended the Congress of Paris on behalf of the Ottoman Empire was Ali Pasha, who was the grand vizier of the Empire. Russia was represented by Prince Orlov and Baron Brunnov. Britain sent their Ambassador to France, who at the time was the Lord Cowley. While other congresses, such as the Congress of Vienna, spread questions and issues for different committees to resolve, the Congress of Paris resolved everything in one group.

 
 
A significant diplomatic victory was scored by tiny Piedmont that, although not being yet considered a "great" European power, was nevertheless granted a seat at the Congress by the French Emperor Napoleon III, mostly for having sent an expeditionary corps of 18,000 men to fight against Russia along with France and Prussia, but also possibly because of the intrigues of the very attractive Countess of Castiglione, who had caught the Emperor's attention. The Piedmontese foreign minister Camillo Benso di Cavour seized this opportunity to denounce Austrian political and military interference in the Italian peninsula that he said was stifling the wish of the Italian people to choose their own government.
 
 

Picture of the Territory affected by the Congress. The light green area to the left is the area Russia had to surrender between the Danube River and Moldavia.
 
 
Results of the Congress
The Congress resulted in a pledge by all of the powers to jointly maintain "the integrity of the Ottoman Empire". It also guaranteed Turkey’s independence.

Also, Russia gave up the left bank of the mouth of the Danube River, including part of Bessarabia to Moldavia and gave up its claim to the special protection of Christians in the Ottoman Empire. Moldavia and Wallachia (which together later became Romania in 1858) along with Serbia were recognized as quasi-independent self-governing principalities under protection of the other European Powers. The sultan of Turkey agreed, in return, to help improve the status of the Christian subjects in his empire.

The territories of Russia and Turkey were restored to their prewar boundaries. The Black Sea was neutralized so that no warships were allowed to enter; however, it was open to all other nations. It also opened the Danube River for shipping from all nations. Some of the rules and agreements were altered 22 years later by the Congress of Berlin.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 
 
 
Treaty of Paris (1856)
 

The Treaty of Paris of 1856 settled the Crimean War between Russia and an alliance of the Ottoman Empire, the British Empire, Second French Empire, and the Kingdom of Sardinia. The treaty, signed on 30 March 1856 at the Congress of Paris, made the Black Sea neutral territory, closing it to all warships, and prohibiting fortifications and the presence of armaments on its shores.

The treaty marked a severe setback to Russian influence in the region. Conditions for the return of Sevastopol and other towns and cities in the south of Crimea were clear; "not to establish any naval or military arsenal on the Black Sea coast".

 

FEdouard Louis Dubufe, Congrès de Paris, 1856, Palace of Versailles.
 
 
Historical context
The Treaty of Paris was signed on March 30, 1856 at the Congress of Paris with Russia on one side of the negotiating table and France, Great Britain, the Ottoman Empire, and Sardinia Piedmont on the other. The Treaty of Paris came about to resolve the Crimean War which had begun on October 23, 1853 when the Sultan formally declared war on Russia after the Tsar moved troops into the Danubian Principalities. The Treaty of Paris would have far reaching implications on the future of the Ottoman Empire, as would the ending of the war itself. At the time, it was seen as an achievement of the Tanzimât foreign policy. The Treaty saw the European Powers pledge to maintain the integrity of the Ottoman Empire, and restored the respective territories of Russian and the Turks to their prewar boundaries, neutralizing the Black Sea for open international trade.

Negotiations
As the first modern war came to a close after 18 long months of violence, all sides of the war wanted to come to a lasting resolution. Yet, competing goals would come to spoil the idea of a lasting and definite peace treaty. Even within the allies conflicting notions of what the peace should entail created a less solid peace deal, leading to further problems for the Ottoman Empire—especially in terms of the Turks relations with the Russian Empire and the Concert of Europe. Distrust sewn between the allied nations of France and Britain during the war effort compounded problems in hammering out a comprehensive peace plan. With the signing of the peace deal in 1856 the Crimean War might have formally come to a close but another war became more likely with its signing than without it.

  Russian aims
The Russians wanted to ensure that while they lost the war they still left the Congress of Paris with some strength left in their empire and with some of their wartime possessions left under their dominion.

When Alexander II took the crown of Russia in 1855 he inherited a potential crisis that threatened to collapse the Russian Empire.

Problems all throughout the Empire stretching from parts of Finland to Poland, as well as Crimea and many tribal conflicts stretched the Russian economy to the brink of collapse.

Russia knew that within a few months a total defeat in the Crimean War was imminent and that would mean the complete humiliation of Russia on a global scale.

Peace talks were pursued by Alexander II with Britain and France in Paris in 1856 as not just a means of attempting to keep some imperial possession, but as a means of stopping the deaths of thousands of its barely trained army reserves and an economic crisis.

A huge aim of the Russians was ending war with the appearance of some strength left in the Russian Bear that once terrified the Western allies. Russia in the peace talk process “contrived to turn defeat into victory…through…peacetime [internal] reforms and diplomatic initiatives.”, Like the Ottoman Empire, the Russians desired to turn their attention inward to fix many internal problems, such as the economy and growing unrest amongst society that the government had not done enough in the war effort to crush the weak Turks.
 
 
Great powers aims
The most interesting relationship at the Treaty of Paris negotiations was probably the French and British, who mid war began to seemingly pick up their Napoleonic War rivalry once again. The French blamed many of the defeats the Great Powers lost to the Russians on the fact that Britain had marched into war without a clear plan of action. This was perhaps illustrated by the celebrated and valourous but fruitless Charge of the Light Brigade in the Battle of Balaclava. While the British were increasingly wary throughout the war that the French might capitalize on a weakened Russia and focus their attention on seeking revenge for French military defeats at Trafalgar and Waterloo by the hands of the British. The British and French diplomats and politicians welcomed the Russian peace talks because it would end the war before either ally could turn their attention to betray the other.

Great Britain and France also desired to ensure that the Ottoman Empire came out of the Peace of Paris stronger and able to keep the balance of power in Europe stable. Britain and France hoped that peace and restricting Russian access to key areas in the area, such as the Black Sea, would free up the limping Ottoman Empire to focus on internal issues such as rising tides of nationalism in many nations under Turkish authority. Without the Ottomans being in full control of their empire, the Great Powers feared that there could potentially be a mad grab for Turkish territory, strengthening nations that could pose a threat to the French and British. A strong Russia and German force, bolstered by the acquisition of lands from a decaying Ottoman Empire, scared them into desiring nothing more than protecting the "Sick Man of Europe" from further external stress. Thus, full removal of Russian presence of the Danubian provinces and the Black Sea was necessary to protect not just Turkish interests but those of Britain and France as well.

 
 
Russian losses
While only losing a few battles during the course of the whole Crimean War, the Russians for many reasons came out the losers of the conflict.
The Ottomans, British and French governments would have desired a more crushing defeat for the Tsar; however, the defeat left Russia crippled in many key areas.

For one, the Russians lost over 500,000 troops and knew by pressing further militarily with their untrained army they would lose even more lives.

Russia was forced with their desired for peace to remove themselves from the Danubian provinces completely restoring power back over to the Turks.

Russian battleships were banned from sailing the Black Sea, which drastically decreased their influence over the essential warm water port.

Another loss the Russians needed to contend with after the Peace of Paris was the stretched economy and a restless people unhappy with the way in which the war was executed.

The political and social unrest, compounded by economic decay, led indirectly to the emancipation of the serfs and revolutionary ideas spreading. The goals that Russia sought in finding peace with the Great Powers, in finding diplomatic solutions that benefited Russia and internal reforms seemed to be unattained by the Tsar in the signing of the Peace of Paris.
  Short-term consequences
One immediate result of the Peace of Paris of 1856 was the reopening of the Black Sea for safe, open international trade. Prior to the peace the naval war and presence of Russian warships made trade difficult. The Russian fleet in the Black Sea was formidable, as they sank the Turkish fleet. Now that the Russian fleet was banned from the waterway, peaceful trade could commence once again.

The Peace of Paris also allowed for the war to end and for temporary stability to return to Europe. The Ottomans could focus their attention on the crumbling internal infrastructure, while the Russian could look to their faltering economy. Tensions built up by opportunistic fears between Britain and France could for the time being ease. Yet, nothing in the Peace of Paris could keep Europe stable for the long run, for much more troubling long-term consequences were cause by the peace deal.

The Peace of Paris was also affected by the general public in places such as France and Britain because the Crimean War, as the first modern war, was also the first in which the general public through the media received timely and accurate coverage of the carnage. The British people voted out of office their prime minister, who was viewed as being incompetent with the war effort in favor of Lord Palmerston, who was seen as having a clearer plan to victory. Peace was necessary because for the first time foreign policy was very accessible to the people, and the people demanded an end to the bloodshed.

 
 

Treaty of Paris: debates
 
 
Long-term consequences
Nationalism was bolstered in many ways by the Crimean War and very little was done at a systemic level to stem the tides of growing nationalist sentiment in many nations. The Ottoman Empire for the next few decades after the Crimean War leading up to World War I would have to squash nationalist sentiment in many of its provinces. The once mighty and flourishing united empire was splintering as many ethnic groups cried out for more rights—most notably self-rule. Britain and France may have for the time being allowed the situation in Europe to stabilize, but the Peace of Paris did little to create lasting stability in the Concert of Europe. The Ottomans joined the Concert of Europe after the Peace was signed, but most European nations looked to the crumbling empire with either hungry or terrified eyes. The Crimean War revealed to the world just how important solving the “Eastern Question” was to the stability of Europe; however, the Peace of Paris provided no clear answer or guidance.

Austria and the Germanic states also were affected by nationalism as a result of the signing of the Peace of Paris. Austria was normally an ally of the Russian Empire; however, for the Crimean War the nation chose to remain mostly neutral. Neutrality during the brutal war, and the Russian defeat, led to relations between the two nations to start to falter. Austria would soon look to the German states for support, and a unified and strengthened Germany was not a pleasant thought for Britain and France. Germany would pose a threat to French borders, and British political and economic interest in the East.

Essentially the war that sought to stabilize power relations in Europe only brought about temporary peace. By fighting the brutal war the Great powers only strengthened nationalist aspirations of ethnic groups under the control of the Turks and in the German states. The Peace of Paris may have ended the Crimean War, and by 1877 the Russians and Turks would once again be at war.

  Provisions
The treaty admitted the Ottoman Empire to the European concert, and the Powers promised to respect its independence and territorial integrity.

Russia gave up a little land and relinquished its claim to a protectorate over the Christians in the Ottoman domains. The Black Sea was demilitarised, and an international commission was set up to guarantee freedom of commerce and navigation on the Danube River.

Moldavia and Wallachia would stay under nominal Ottoman rule, but would be granted independent constitutions and national assemblies, which were to be monitored by the victorious powers.

A project of a referendum was to be set in place to monitor the will of the peoples regarding unification. Moldavia received the south of Bessarabia (Budjak), creating a buffer between the Ottoman Empire and Russia in the west. Romania, which would later be formed from the two territories, would largely remain an Ottoman puppet-state

New rules of wartime commerce were set out:

(1) privateering was illegal;

(2) a neutral flag covered enemy goods except contraband;

(3) neutral goods, except contraband, were not liable to capture under an enemy flag;

(4) a blockade, to be legal, had to be effective.

The treaty also demilitarised the Aland Islands in the Baltic Sea, which belonged to the autonomous Russian Grand Principality of Finland. The fortress Bomarsund had been destroyed by British and French forces in 1854 and the alliance wanted to prevent its future use as a Russian military base.

 
 
Russian losses
The Peace of Paris confirmed Nicholas I's failures.

Russia lost territory it had been granted at the mouth of the Danube.
Russia was forced to abandon its claims to protect Christians in the Ottoman Empire in favour of France.
Russia lost its influence over the Romanian principalities, which, together with Serbia, were given greater independence.
In the long run the war marked a turning point in Russian domestic and foreign policy. Russian intellectuals used the defeat to demand fundamental reform of the government and social system.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 
 
 
1856
 
 
Napoleon, Prince Imperial
 
Napoléon, Prince Imperial (Full name: Napoléon Eugène Louis Jean Joseph Bonaparte, 16 March 1856 – 1 June 1879), prince impérial de France, was the only child of Emperor Napoleon III of France and his Empress consort Eugénie de Montijo. After his father was dethroned in 1870, he relocated with his family to England. On his father's death in January 1873, he was proclaimed Napoleon IV, Emperor of the French by the Bonapartist faction.

In England he trained as a soldier. Keen to see action, he successfully put pressure on the British to allow him to participate in the Anglo-Zulu war. In 1879, serving with British forces, he was killed in a skirmish with a group of Zulus. His early death sent shockwaves throughout Europe, as he was the last serious dynastic hope for the restoration of the Bonapartes to the throne of France.

 

Napoléon at age 22, 1878
  Biography
Born in Paris, he was baptized on 14 June 1856, at Notre Dame Cathedral. His godfather was Pope Pius IX, whose representative, Cardinal Patrizi, officiated. His godmother was Queen Victoria, represented by Eugène de Beauharnais's daughter, Josephine, the Queen of Sweden.

His education, after a false start under the academic historian Francis Monnier, was, from 1867, supervised by General Frossard as governor, assisted by Augustin Filon, as tutor. His English nurse, Miss Shaw, who was recommended by Queen Victoria and taught the prince English from an early age; his valet, the famously loyal Xavier Uhlmann; and his inseparable friend Louis Conneau also figured importantly in his life. The young prince was known by the nickname "Loulou" in his family circle.

At the outbreak of the Franco-Prussian War of 1870–1871, he accompanied his father to the front and first came under fire at Saarbrücken. When the war began to go against the Imperial arms, however, his father sent him to the border with Belgium. In September he sent him a message to cross over into Belgium. He travelled from there to England, arriving on 6 September, where he was joined by his parents, the Second Empire having been abolished. The Royal family settled in England at Camden Place in Chislehurst, Kent. On his father's death, Bonapartists proclaimed him Napoleon IV. On his 18th birthday, a large crowd gathered to cheer him at Camden Place.

The Prince Imperial attended elementary lectures in physics at King's College London. In 1872, he applied and was accepted to the Royal Military Academy, Woolwich.

 
 

He finished seventh in his class of thirty four, and came top in riding and fencing. He was then commissioned into the Royal Artillery in order to follow in the footsteps of his famous great-uncle.

During the 1870s, there was some talk of a marriage between him and Queen Victoria's youngest daughter, Princess Beatrice. Victoria also reportedly believed that it would be best for "the peace of Europe" if the prince became king of France. The Prince remained a devout Catholic, and retained hopes that the Bonapartist cause might eventually triumph if the secularising Third Republic failed. He supported the tactics of Eugène Rouher over those of Victor, Prince Napoléon, breaking with Victor in 1876.

 
 

The Prince and his mother by Franz Xaver Winterhalter, 1857
  With the outbreak of the Zulu War in 1879, the Prince Imperial, with the rank of lieutenant, forced the hand of the British military to allow him to take part in the conflict, despite the objections of Rouher and other Bonapartists. He was only allowed to go to Africa by special pleading of his mother, the Empress Eugénie, and by intervention of Queen Victoria herself.

He went as an observer, attached to the staff of Frederic Thesiger, 2nd Baron Chelmsford, the commander in South Africa, who was admonished to take care of him. Louis accompanied Chelmsford on his march into Zululand. Keen to see action, and full of enthusiasm, he was warned by Lieutenant Arthur Brigge, a close friend, "not to do anything rash and to avoid running unnecessary risks. I reminded him of the Empress at home and his party in France."

Chelmsford, mindful of his duty, attached the Prince to staff of Colonel Richard Harrison of the Royal Engineers, where it was felt he could be active but safe. Harrison was responsible for the column's transport and for reconnaissance of the forward route on the way to Ulundi, the Zulu capital. While he welcomed the presence of Louis, he was told by Chelmsford that the Prince must be accompanied at all times by a strong escort.

Lieutenant Jahleel Brenton Carey, a French speaker and British subject from Guernsey, was given particular charge of Louis. The Prince took part in several reconnaissance missions, though his eagerness for action almost led him into an early ambush, when he exceeded orders in a party led by Colonel Redvers Buller. Despite this on the evening of 31 May 1879, Harrison agreed to allow Louis to scout in a forward party scheduled to leave in the morning, in the mistaken belief that the path ahead was free of Zulu skirmishers.

 
 

The Prince with his parents in 1861
 
 

Bust of the Prince by Jean-Baptiste Carpeaux, 1865
 
Napoléon at age 14, 1870
 
 

The Prince and his mother by James Tissot, 1878
 
 
Death
On the morning of 1 June, the troop set out, earlier than intended, and without the full escort, largely owing to Louis's impatience. Led by Carey, the scouts rode deeper into Zululand. Without Harrison or Buller present to restrain him, the Prince took command from Carey, even though the latter had seniority. At noon the troop was halted at a temporarily deserted kraal while Louis and Carey made some sketches of the terrain, and used part of the thatch to make a fire. No lookout was posted. As they were preparing to leave, about 40 Zulus fired upon them and rushed toward them screaming. The Prince's horse dashed off before he could mount, the Prince clinging to a holster on the saddle — after about a hundred yards a strap broke, and the Prince fell beneath his horse and his right arm was trampled. He leapt up, drawing his revolver with his left hand, and started to run — but the Zulus could run faster.
 
 

Prince, 1878
  The Prince was speared in the thigh but pulled the assegai from his wound. As he turned and fired on his pursuers, another assegai, thrown by a Zulu named Zabanga, struck his left shoulder.[8] The Prince tried to fight on, using the assegai he had pulled from his leg, but, weakened by his wounds, he sank to the ground and was overwhelmed; when recovered, his body had eighteen assegai wounds and had been stabbed through the right eye which had burst it, and penetrated his brain. Two of his escort had been killed and another was missing. Lt. Carey and the four men remaining came together about fifty yards from where the Prince made his final stand — but did not fire at the Zulus. Carey led his men back to camp, where he was greeted warmly for the last time in his career: after a court of inquiry, a court martial, intervention by the Empress Eugénie and Queen Victoria, he was to return to his regiment a pariah, shunned by his fellow officers for not standing and fighting. Carey endured several years of social and regimental opprobrium before his death in Bombay, India, on 22 February 1883.

Louis Napoleon's death caused an international sensation. Rumours spread in France that the prince had been intentionally "disposed of" by the British. Alternatively, the French republicans or the Freemasons were blamed. In one account Queen Victoria was accused of arranging the whole thing, a theory that was later dramatised by Maurice Rostand in his play Napoleon IV.
 
 

The Zulus later claimed that they would not have killed him if they had known who he was. Langalabalele, his chief assailant, met his death in July at the Battle of Ulundi. Eugénie was later to make a pilgrimage to Sobuza's kraal, where her son died. The Prince, who had begged to be allowed to go to war (taking the sword carried by the first Napoleon at Austerlitz with him) and who had worried his commanders by his dash and daring, was described by Garnet Wolseley as "a plucky young man, and he died a soldier's death. What on earth could he have done better?".

His badly decomposed body was brought back to England on board the British troopship HMS Orontes and buried in Chislehurst. Later, it was transferred to a special mausoleum constructed by his mother as the Imperial Crypt at Saint Michael's Abbey, Farnborough, Hampshire, England, next to his father. As his heir the Prince Imperial appointed Prince Napoléon Victor Bonaparte, thus omitting the genealogically senior heir, Victor's father, Prince Napoléon.

 
 

Death of the Prince impérial during the Anglo-Zulu War, detail of a painting by Paul Jamin.
 
 

Legacy
The asteroid moon Petit-Prince was named after the Prince Imperial in 1998, because it orbits an asteroid named after his mother (45 Eugenia).

In the days when London's telephone exchanges were named, with dialling using the first three letters of the name, the exchange that served Chislehurst was named 'IMPerial'. The names were converted to numbers in 1966; the 'IMPerial' exchange is still recognisable as the block of numbers that begin 020-467xxxx.

 
 

The Four Napoleons, c. 1858
  In literature
The death is presented in some detail in G. A. Henty's The Young Colonists: A Tale of The Zulu and Boer Wars (1885). The narrator describes it as one of the most shameful incidents ever in British military history.

In the R. F. Delderfield novel Long Summer Day (the first of the A Horseman Riding By trilogy), Boer War veteran Paul Craddock buys a farm in 1900 or 1901. The middle-aged estate manager, Rudd, is somewhat embittered at having been one of the soldiers who had failed to rescue the Prince Imperial in 1879. Craddock is aware of the events, because by coincidence he had been born that very day.

In the play Napoleon IV by Maurice Rostand, the prince is killed in a carefully planned ambush arranged with the connivance of Queen Victoria, who fears that if he comes to power France will outstrip Britain. In the climax to the play the prince's (imaginary) fiancée confronts the queen.

In a 1943 Southern Daily Echo article, former Sapper George Harding (2nd Company Royal Engineers) recalled being ordered to take a horse ambulance and find the Prince's body and bring it back to the column. The Prince Imperial had been out on reconnaissance mission with a party of the 17th Lancers. Describing the mission, he said "We advanced to a dried up river bed and had to cut away the banks to get the ambulance across. Eventually, we reached a kraal beside a large mealie field where we found the bodies of the Prince and some of his party. They had been surprised by Zulus as they rested in the kraal.

 
 
The Zulus broke out of the mealie field and killed them before they could remount their horses. The Prince had been stabbed 16 times with assegais. We made a rough coffin and put his body in the ambulance. After burying the other bodies where they were found, we went back to the column. The Prince's body was taken back to England for burial."

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
 
 
1856
 
 
Massacre of Potawatomie Creek, Kansas - slavers murdered by free-staters
 
 
Sacking of Lawrence
 

The Sacking of Lawrence occurred on May 21, 1856, when pro-slavery activists attacked and ransacked the town of Lawrence, Kansas, which had been founded by anti-slavery settlers to help ensure that Kansas would become a "free state". The incident made worse the guerrilla war in Kansas Territory that became known as Bleeding Kansas.

 
Background
Lawrence was founded in 1854 by anti-slavery settlers, many with the financial support of the New England Emigrant Aid Company. The town soon became the center of pro-slavery violence in Kansas Territory. While the village had been besieged in December 1855, it was not directly attacked at that time. The non-fatal shooting of Douglas County Sheriff Samuel Jones on April 23, 1856, while he was attempting to arrest free-state settlers in Lawrence, is considered the immediate cause of the violence. Lawrence residents drove Jones out of town after they shot him, and on May 11, Federal Marshal J. B. Donaldson proclaimed the act had interfered with the execution of warrants against the extralegal Free-State legislature, which was set up in opposition to the official pro-slavery territorial government. Based on this proclamation, as well the finding by a grand jury that Lawrence's Free State Hotel was actually built to use as a fort, Sheriff Jones assembled a posse of about 800 southernern settler to enter Lawrence, disarm the citizens, destroy the anti-slavery presses, and dismantle the Free State Hotel.
 
 

Ruins of Free State Hotel after the attack
 
 
Sacking
On May 21, 1856, the posse led by Sheriff Jones neared the town. A large force was stationed on the high ground at Mount Oread, and a cannon was placed to cover and command the area. The house of Charles L. Robinson, later to become the first governor of Kansas, was taken over as Jones's headquarters. Every road to the town and on the opposite side of the river was guarded by posse members to prevent the free soilers from fleeing. Two flags were to be seen that day: a blood-red flag inscribed with "Southern-rights" and the "stars and stripes."

The two printing offices were sacked first; their presses were smashed and the type was thrown in the river. The next target was the impressive Free State Hotel. The first cannon shot was aimed at it by David Rice Atchison, who missed. Nearly fifty more shots were fired at it, but even direct hits had little effect upon the its walls. Jones then decided to blow it up. Several kegs of gunpowder were exploded in the building, but even they caused little damage to the walls. As a last resort, the hotel was torched, and by early evening it had become a roofless, smoldering ruin. The posse looted the half-deserted town, and burned Robinson's home on Mount Oread as they retreated.

One man had died during the attack, a posse member who was struck by falling masonry.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 
 
 
Pottawatomie massacre
 
The Pottawatomie massacre occurred during the night of May 24 and the morning of May 25, 1856. In reaction to the sacking of Lawrence, Kansas by pro-slavery forces, John Brown and a band of abolitionist settlers—some of them members of the Pottawatomie Rifles—killed five settlers north of Pottawatomie Creek in Franklin County, Kansas. This was one of the many bloody episodes in Kansas preceding the American Civil War, which came to be known collectively as Bleeding Kansas. Bleeding Kansas was largely brought about by the Missouri Compromise and Kansas–Nebraska Act.
 
Background
John Brown was particularly affected by the sacking of Lawrence, in which a sheriff-led posse destroyed two abolitionist newspaper offices, the fortified Free State Hotel, and the house of Charles Robinson, the free-state militia commander-in-chief and leader of the Free State government established in opposition to the pro-slavery Territorial Government. A Douglas County grand jury had ordered the abatement because the hotel "had been used as a fortress" and an "arsenal" the previous winter and the "seditious" newspapers were indicted because "they had urged the people to resist the enactments passed" by the territorial governor. The violence against abolitionists was accompanied by celebrations in the pro-slavery press, with writers such as Dr. John H Stringfellow of the Squatter Sovereign proclaiming that pro-slavery forces "are determined to repel this Northern invasion and make Kansas a Slave State; though our rivers should be covered with the blood of their victims and the carcasses of the Abolitionists should be so numerous in the territory as to breed disease and sickness, we will not be deterred from our purpose." Brown was outraged by both the violence of pro-slavery forces, and also by what he saw as a weak and cowardly response by the antislavery partisans and the Free State settlers, whom he described as cowards, or worse. In addition, two days before this massacre Brown learned about the caning of abolitionist Charles Sumner by Preston Brooks on the floor of Congress.
 
 
Attack
A Free State company under the command of John Brown, Jr., set out, and the Osawatomie company joined them. On the morning of May 22, 1856, they heard of the sack of Lawrence and the arrest of Deitzler, Brown, and Jenkins. However, they continued their march toward Lawrence, not knowing whether their assistance might still be needed, and encamped that night near the Ottawa Creek. They remained in the vicinity until the afternoon of May 23, at which time they decided to return home.

On May 23, John Brown, Sr. selected a party to go with him on a private expedition. Captain John Brown, Jr., objected to their leaving his company, but seeing that his father was obdurate, acquiesced, telling him to "do nothing rash." The company consisted of John Brown, four of his sons—Frederick, Owen, Salmon, and Oliver—Thomas Weiner, and James Townsley, whom John had induced to carry the party in his wagon to their proposed field of operations.

They encamped that night between two deep ravines on the edge of the timber, some distance to the right of the main traveled road. There they remained unobserved until the following evening of May 24. Some time after dark, the party left their place of hiding and proceeded on their "secret expedition". Late in the evening, they called at the house of James P. Doyle and ordered him and his two adult sons, William and Drury (all former slave catchers) to go with them as prisoners. (Doyle's 16-year-old son, John, who was not a member of the pro-slavery Law and Order Party, was spared after his mother pleaded for his life.) The three men were escorted by their captors out into the darkness, where Owen Brown and one of his brothers killed them with broadswords. 

  John Brown, Sr. did not participate in the stabbing but fired a shot into the head of the fallen James Doyle to ensure he was dead.

Brown and his band then went to the house of Allen Wilkinson and ordered him out. He was slashed and stabbed to death by Henry Thompson and Theodore Winer, possibly with help from Brown's sons. From there, they crossed the Pottawatomie, and some time after midnight, forced their way into the cabin of James Harris at swordpoint. Harris had three house guests: John S. Wightman, Jerome Glanville, and William Sherman, the brother of Henry Sherman ("Dutch Henry"), a militant pro-slavery activist. Glanville and Harris were taken outside for interrogation and asked whether they had threatened Free State settlers, aided Border Ruffians from Missouri, or participated in the sack of Lawrence. Satisfied with their answers, Brown's men let Glanville and Harris return to the cabin. William Sherman was led to the edge of the creek and hacked to death with the swords by Winer, Thompson, and Brown's sons.

Having learned at Harris's cabin that "Dutch Henry", their main target in the expedition, was away from home on the prairie, they ended the expedition and returned to the ravine where they had previously encamped. They rejoined the Osawatomie company on the night of May 25.

In the two years prior to the massacre, there had been 8 killings in Kansas Territory attributable to slavery politics, and none in the vicinity of the massacre. Brown murdered five in a single night, and the massacre was the match to the powder keg that precipitated the bloodiest period in “Bleeding Kansas” history, a three-month period of retaliatory raids and battles in which 29 people died.

 
 
Debate over Brown's role and motivation
In Kansas Territory, Brown’s role in the massacre was no secret. A United States congressional committee investigating the troubles in Kansas Territory identified Brown as the chief perpetrator. Nonetheless, following John Brown's raid on Harpers Ferry, there was widespread denial of Brown’s involvement in the Eastern abolitionist press. The author of Brown’s first notable biography (James Redpath, a “journalist” who was much more a propagandist) denied Brown's presence at the murders. Only after the 1879 statement of James Townsley (who stated he was forced by Brown to participate in the incident) did the Brown sympathizers admit the truth. From that date, they focused on justifications for the massacre. A whole litany of justifications involving the provocations of the pro-slavery victims were floated: they were killed in retaliation for their hanging of a free-state man, for the murder of Brown’s brother, for the murder of one of Brown’s sons and arrest of another, for the burning of the free-state settlement at Osawatomie, and for outrages upon Brown’s wife and daughters. One by one, these excuses were debunked: there had been no hanging; while a man named Reese P. Brown had been a victim in the territorial violence on January 19, 1856, he was no relative of John Brown; the death of one Brown son, the arrest of another, and burning of Osawatomie were all in response to (did not pre-date) the massacre; Brown’s wife and daughters never came to Kansas. That left Brown sympathizers and supporters with the position that the massacre was in response to threats of violence by the pro-slavery victims of the massacre. Regarding those threats as justification for the massacre, Charles Robinson (free-state champion and first governor of Kansas) stated, “When it is known that such threats were as plenty as blue-berries in June, on both sides, all over the Territory, and were regarded as of no more importance than the idle wind, this indictment will hardly justify midnight assassination of all pro-slavery men, whether making threats or not... Had all men been killed in Kansas who indulged in such threats, there would have been none left to bury the dead.”

John Brown was evasive about his role in the massacre, even after he was condemned to hang for his role in Harpers Ferry and when directly questioned about the incident. However, Brown reportedly informed the party that committed the atrocity of his objective; according to James Townsley, Brown acted to “strike terror into the hearts of the Pro-slavery party.”

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
 
 
1856
 
 
Second Opium War (1856-1860)
 
The Second Opium War, the Second Anglo-Chinese War, the Second China War, the Arrow War, or the Anglo-French expedition to China, was a war pitting the British Empire and the Second French Empire against the Qing dynasty of China, lasting from 1856 to 1860. It was fought over similar issues as the First Opium War.
 
Names
"Second War" and "Arrow War" are both used in literature. "Second Opium War" refers to one of the British tactical objectives: legalising the opium trade, expanding coolie trade, opening all of China to British merchants, and exempting foreign imports from internal transit duties. The "Arrow War" refers to the name of a vessel which became the starting point of the conflict.
 
 

The capture of Ye Mingchen after the fall of Canton
 
 
First phase
Outbreak

The 1850s saw the rapid growth of European and American imperialism. Some of the shared goals of the western powers were the expansion of their overseas markets and the establishment of new ports of call. The French Treaty of Huangpu and the American Wangxia Treaty both contained clauses allowing renegotiation of the treaties after 12 years of being in effect. In an effort to expand their privileges in China, Britain demanded the Qing authorities renegotiate the Treaty of Nanking (signed in 1842), citing their most favoured nation status. The British demands included opening all of China to British merchant companies, legalising the opium trade, exempting foreign imports from internal transit duties, suppression of piracy, regulation of the coolie trade, permission for a British ambassador to reside in Beijing and for the English-language version of all treaties to take precedence over the Chinese language.

To give Chinese merchant vessels operating around treaty ports the same privileges accorded British ships by the Treaty of Nanking, British authorities granted these vessels British registration in Hong Kong.
 
 
In October 1856, Chinese marines in Canton seized a cargo ship called the Arrow on suspicion of piracy, arresting twelve of its fourteen Chinese crew members. The Arrow had previously been used by pirates, captured by the Chinese government, and subsequently resold. It was then registered as a British ship and still flew the British flag at the time of its detainment, though its registration had expired. Its captain, Thomas Kennedy, who was aboard a nearby vessel at the time, reported seeing Chinese marines pull the British flag down from the ship. The British consul in Canton, Harry Parkes, contacted Ye Mingchen, imperial commissioner and Viceroy of Liangguang, to demand the immediate release of the crew, and an apology for the alleged insult to the flag. Ye released nine of the crew members, but refused to release the last three. Parkes delivered an ultimatum, supported by Hong Kong governor Sir John Bowring and Admiral Sir Michael Seymour, threatening to bombard Canton if the men were not released within 24 hours.

The remaining crew of the Arrow were then released, with no apology from Viceroy Ye Mingchen. Governor Bowring, without first consulting with his superiors in London, ordered Seymour to attack Canton as planned. This event came to be known as the Arrow Incident and provided the alternative name of the ensuing conflict. The British Prime Minister, Lord Palmerston, later supported the actions of his officials, who claimed to be upholding British prestige and avenging the insult to the flag. Moreover, Palmerston may have been seeking to force the Chinese into accepting full-scale trade with Britain.

Operations were commenced against the Barrier Forts on the Canton River. From 23 October to 13 November, these naval and military operations were continuous. The Barrier Forts, the Bogue Forts, the Blenheim Forts, and the Dutch Folly Forts, and twenty-three Chinese junks, were all taken or destroyed. The suburbs of Canton were pulled, burnt, or battered down, that the ships might fire upon the walls of the town.

Faced with fighting the Taiping Rebellion, the Qing government was in no position to resist the West militarily.

  British attacks
Although the British were delayed by the Indian Rebellion of 1857, they followed up the Arrow Incident in 1856 and attacked Guangzhou from the Pearl River. Viceroy Ye Mingchen ordered all Chinese soldiers manning the forts not to resist the British incursion. After taking the fort near Guangzhou with little effort, the British Army attacked Guangzhou.

Meanwhile, in Hong Kong, there was an attempt to poison the John Bowring and his family in January. However, the baker who had been charged with lacing bread with arsenic bungled the attempt by putting an excess of the poison into the dough. This meant that his victims threw up sufficient quantities of the poison as to only have a non-lethal dose left in their system. Criers were sent out with an alert, preventing further injury.

When known in Britain, the Arrow incident (and the British military response) became the subject of controversy. The British House of Commons on 3 March passed a resolution by 263 to 249 against the Government saying: That this House has heard with concern of the conflicts which have occurred between the British and Chinese authorities on the Canton River; and, without expressing an opinion as to the extent to which the Government of China may have afforded this country cause of complaint respecting the non-fulfilment of the Treaty of 1842, this House considers that the papers which have been laid on the table fail to establish satisfactory grounds for the violent measures resorted to at Canton in the late affair of the Arrow, and that a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the state of our commercial relations with China.

In response, Lord Palmerston assaulted the patriotism of the Whigs who sponsored the resolution and Parliament was dissolved, causing the British general election of March 1857.

The Chinese issue figured prominently in the election, and Palmerston won with an increased majority, silencing the voices within the Whig faction who supported China. The new parliament decided to seek redress from China based on the report about the Arrow Incident submitted by Harry Parkes. The French Empire, the United States, and the Russian Empire received requests from Britain to form an alliance.
 
 

Signing of the Treaty of Tientsin in 1859-06-06 after China lost the war.
 
 
Intervention of France
France joined the British action against China, prompted by complaints from their envoy, Baron Jean-Baptiste Louis Gros, over the execution of a French missionary, Father Auguste Chapdelaine, by Chinese local authorities in Guangxi province, which at that time was not open to foreigners.
 
 
The United States and Russia sent envoys to Hong Kong to offer help to the British and French, though in the end Russia sent no military aid, and the US fought only at the Pearl River Forts in 1856 and at the Taku Forts in 1859.

The British and the French joined forces under Admiral Sir Michael Seymour. The British army led by Lord Elgin, and the French army led by Gros, attacked and occupied Guangzhou in late 1857. Ye Mingchen was captured, and Bogui, a Mongol who was governor of Guangdong, surrendered. A joint committee of the Alliance was formed. The Allies left Bogui at his original post in order to maintain order on behalf of the victors. The British-French Alliance maintained control of Guangzhou for nearly four years. Ye Mingchen was exiled to Calcutta, India, where he starved himself to death.

The coalition then cruised north to briefly capture the Taku Forts near Tientsin (now known as Tianjin) in May 1858.

  Interlude

Treaties of Tientsin
In June 1858, the first part of the war ended with the four Treaties of Tientsin, to which Britain, France, Russia, and the U.S. were parties. These treaties opened 11 more ports to Western trade. The Chinese initially refused to ratify the treaties.

The major points of the treaty were:

Britain, France, Russia, and the U.S. would have the right to establish diplomatic legations (small embassies) in Peking (a closed city at the time)
Ten more Chinese ports would be opened for foreign trade, including Niuzhuang, Tamsui, Hankou, and Nanjing
The right of all foreign vessels including commercial ships to navigate freely on the Yangtze River
The right of foreigners to travel in the internal regions of China, which had been formerly banned
China was to pay an indemnity of four million taels of silver to Britain and two million to France.

 
 
Treaty of Aigun
On 28 May 1858, the separate Treaty of Aigun was signed with Russia to revise the Chinese and Russian border as determined by the Nerchinsk Treaty in 1689. Russia gained the left bank of the Amur River, pushing the border south from the Stanovoy mountains. A later treaty, the Convention of Peking in 1860, gave Russia control over a non-freezing area on the Pacific coast, where Russia founded the city of Vladivostok in 1860.
 
 
Second phase
Anglo-French invasion

In June 1858, shortly after the Qing Court agreed to the disadvantageous treaties, more hawkish ministers prevailed upon the Xianfeng Emperor to resist encroachment by the West. On 2 June 1858, the Xianfeng Emperor ordered the Mongolian general Sengge Rinchen to guard the Dagu Forts near Tianjin. Sengge Richen reinforced the forts with added artillery. He also brought 4,000 Mongolian cavalry from Chahar and Suiyuan.

In June 1859, a British naval force with 2,200 troops and 21 ships, under the command of Admiral Sir James Hope, sailed north from Shanghai to Tianjin with newly appointed Anglo-French envoys for the embassies in Beijing. They sailed to the mouth of the Hai River guarded by the Dagu Forts near Tianjin and demanded to continue inland to Beijing.
Sengge Rinchen replied that the Anglo-French envoys may land up the coast at Beitang and proceed to Beijing but refused to allow armed troops to accompany them to the Chinese capital. The Anglo-French forces insisted on landing at Dagu instead of Beitang and escorting the trip to Beijing. On the night of 24 June 1859, a small batch of British forces blew up the iron obstacles that the Chinese had placed in the Baihe River. The next day, the British forces sought to forcibly sail into the river, and shelled the Taku Forts. Low tide and soft mud prevented their landing, however, and accurate fire from Sengge Rinchen's canons sank four gunboats and severely damaged two others.

 
British troops taking fort in 1860
 
 
American Commodore Josiah Tattnall, although under orders to maintain neutrality, declared "blood is thicker than water," and provided covering fire to protect the convoy's retreat. The failure to take Dagu was a blow to British prestige, and anti-foreign resistance reached a crescendo within the Qing Court.

In the summer of 1860, London once more dispatched Lord Elgin with an Anglo-French force of 11,000 British under General James Hope Grant, 6,700 French under General Cousin-Montauban. They pushed north with 173 ships from Hong Kong and captured the port cities of Yantai and Dalian to seal the Bohai Gulf. On 3 August they carried out a landing near at Beitang (also spelled "Pei Tang"), some 3 kilometres (1.9 mi) from the Taku Forts, which they captured after three weeks on 21 August. After taking Tianjin on 23 August, the Anglo-French forces marched inland toward Beijing. The Xianfeng Emperor then dispatched ministers for peace talks, but the British diplomatic envoy, Harry Parkes, insulted the imperial emissary and word arrived that the British had kidnapped the prefect of Tianjin. Parkes was arrested in retaliation on 18 September. Parkes and his entourage were imprisoned and interrogated. Half were reportedly executed by slow slicing, with the application of tourniquets to severed limbs to prolong the torture; this infuriated British leadership when they recovered the unrecognizable bodies. The Anglo-French forces clashed with Sengge Rinchen's Mongolian cavalry on 18 September near Zhangjiawan before proceeding toward the outskirts of Beijing for a decisive battle in Tongzhou District, Beijing.

On 21 September, at the Balichiao (Eight Mile Bridge), Sengge Rinchen's 10,000 troops including elite Mongolian cavalry were annihilated after doomed frontal charges against concentrated firepower of the Anglo-French forces, which entered Beijing on 6 October.

 
 

Cousin-Montauban leading French forces during the 1860 campaign.
 
 
United States Conflicts during the War
The U.S. was involved in two conflicts the first in retaliation for a Chinese attack on a U.S. Navy officer. The resulting campaign was the Battle of the Pearl River Forts, near Canton. The second was in 1859 when a U.S. warship, the USS San Jacinto bombarded the Dagu Forts in support of British and French troops on the ground.
 
 
Burning of the Summer Palaces
With the Qing army devastated, Emperor Xianfeng fled the capital leaving Prince Gong in charge of negotiations. Xianfeng first fled to the Chengde Summer Palace and then to Rehe Province.

Anglo-French troops in Beijing began looting the Summer Palace (Yihe Yuan) and Old Summer Palace (Yuanmingyuan) immediately (as it was full of valuable artwork).

After Parkes and the surviving diplomatic prisoners were freed, Lord Elgin ordered the Summer Palaces destroyed starting on 18 October. Beijing was not occupied; the Anglo-French army remained outside the city.

The destruction of the Forbidden City was discussed, as proposed by Lord Elgin to discourage the Chinese from using kidnapping as a bargaining tool, and to exact revenge on the mistreatment of their prisoners.

Elgin's decision was further motivated by the torture and murder of almost twenty Western prisoners, including two British envoys and a journalist for The Times.
The Russian envoy Count Ignatiev and the French diplomat Baron Gros settled on the burning of the Summer Palaces instead, since it was "least objectionable" and would not jeopardise the treaty signing.

  Aftermath
After the Xianfeng emperor and his entourage fled Beijing, the June 1858 Treaty of Tianjin was finally ratified by the emperor's brother, Yixin, the Prince Gong, in the Convention of Peking on 18 October 1860, bringing The Second Opium War to an end.

The British, French and—thanks to the schemes of Ignatiev—the Russians were all granted a permanent diplomatic presence in Beijing (something the Qing resisted to the very end as it suggested equality between China and the European powers). The Chinese had to pay 8 million taels to Britain and France. Britain acquired Kowloon (next to Hong Kong). The opium trade was legalised and Christians were granted full civil rights, including the right to own property, and the right to evangelise.

The content of the Convention of Peking included:

China's signing of the Treaty of Tianjin
Opening Tianjin as a trade port
Cede No.1 District of Kowloon (south of present day Boundary Street) to Britain
Freedom of religion established in China
British ships were allowed to carry indentured Chinese to the Americas
Indemnity to Britain and France increasing to 8 million taels of silver apiece
Legalisation of the opium trade

 
 

Palikao's bridge, on the evening of the battle, by Émile Bayard
 
 
Two weeks later, Ignatiev forced the Qing government to sign a "Supplementary Treaty of Peking" which ceded the Maritime Provinces east of the Ussuri River (forming part of Outer Manchuria) to the Russians who went on to found the port of Vladivostok between 1860–61. The Anglo-French victory was heralded in the British press as a triumph for British Prime Minister Lord Palmerston, which made his popularity rise to new heights. British merchants were delighted at the prospects of the expansion of trade in the Far East. Other foreign powers were pleased with the outcome too, since they hoped to take advantage of the opening-up of China.

The defeat of the Imperial army by a relatively small Anglo-French military force (outnumbered at least 10 to 1 by the Qing army) coupled with the flight (and subsequent death) of the Emperor and the burning of the Summer Palace was a shocking blow to the once powerful Qing Dynasty. "Beyond a doubt, by 1860 the ancient civilisation that was China had been thoroughly defeated and humiliated by the West."[18] After the war, a major modernisation movement, known as the Self-Strengthening Movement, began in China in the 1860s and several institutional reforms were initiated.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
 
see also: First Opium War (1839-1842)
 
 
 
1856
 
 
Anglo–Persian War (1856-1857)
 

The Anglo–Persian War lasted between November 1, 1856 and April 4, 1857, and was fought between Great Britain and Persia (which was at the time ruled by the Qajar dynasty).

 
In the war, the British opposed an attempt by Persia to press its claim on the city of Herat. Though Herat had been part of Persia under the Qajar dynasty at the time the war broke out, it had declared itself independent under its own rebellious emir and placed itself under the protection of the British in India and in alliance with the Emirate of Kabul (the forebear of the modern state of Afghanistan). The campaign was successfully conducted under the leadership of Major General Sir James Outram in two theatres—on the southern coast of Persia near Bushehr and in southern Mesopotamia. The war resulted with Persia withdrawing from Herat and signing a new treaty in which it surrendered its claims on the city and the British withdrawing from southern Persia.
 
 
Origins
In the context of the Great Game—the Anglo–Russian contest for influence in Central Asia—the British wished for Afghanistan to remain an independent country friendly to Britain as a buffer against Russian expansion towards India. They opposed an extension of Persian influence in Afghanistan because of the perception that Persia was unduly influenced by the Russians. The Persian influence on Central Asia had caused the creation of Greater Iran; while knowing of the influence, the British had never attacked Persia. Persia had over 12 foreign provinces under its imperial control . The Native-British forces struggled most as to influence of Iranian-India in the North-West further causing the dispute between India and Great Britain. They made a fresh attempt in 1856, and succeeded in taking Herat on 25 October, with Russian encouragement and in violation of the existing Anglo-Persian treaty. In response, the British Governor-General in India, acting on orders from London, declared war on 1 November.

Separate from and preceding the dispute over Herat was an incident concerning one Meerza Hashem Khan, whom the British ambassador hoped to appoint as a secretary in the mission in Teheran. The Persians objected, creating a dispute that escalated when rumours appeared that the British ambassador had improper relations with the man's wife, who was the sister of the Shah's principal wife. The dispute escalated still further when the Persians arrested the woman; the British ambassador broke relations when they refused to release her. Indeed, the initial mobilisation of British forces began in response to this incident, although it is unlikely that the British would have gone beyond the occupation of one or two islands in the Persian Gulf had the issue of Herat not arisen.
  1856
Two courses of action were available to the British, to mount an overland expedition through Afghanistan or attack the Persian empire from the south through the Persian Gulf; the aim being both punitive, and to force the Shah to ask for terms. The British Government decided to attack in the general area of Bushire, a small city near the southern coast of Persia and ordered the Government in India to launch a maritime expeditionary force. In the aftermath of the disastrous First Afghan War, the British were reluctant to send a force through Afghanistan to relieve Herat directly. Instead, they elected to attack the Persians on the Persian Gulf coast.

Initially a division, under Major General Foster Stalker, was organised comprising 2300 British soldiers and 3400 Indian sepoys of the Bombay Presidency army which landed in Persia in early December 1856. This included two companies of the Bombay Sappers & Miners. These were:

The 2nd Company, under Captain C. T. Haig, (Bombay Engineers)
The 4th Company, under Captain J. Le Mesurier, (Bombay Engineers)

The two companies were accompanied by the headquarters of the Corps of Bombay Sappers and Miners, under Captain W. R. Dickinson, (Bombay Engineers). Major J. Hill, the erstwhile Commandant of the Bombay Sappers and Miners, who had handed the Corps over to Dickinson, was appointed as the Commanding Engineer for this expedition.
After the expedition he resumed the post of Commandant of the Bombay Sappers once again. Artillery commanded by Brevet Lieutenant-Colonel Sinclair Trevelyan, Bombay Artillery

 
 


Persia in 1808 according to a British map, before losses to Russia in the north by the 1813 Treaty of Gulistan, and the loss of Herat to Great Britain in 1857 through the Treaty of Paris.

 
The 3rd troop Horse Brigade, commanded by Major Edward Blake, Bombay Artillery
The 1st company 1st battalion European Foot Artillery,(Organized for the expedition as the 3rd Light Field Battery), commanded by Captain William Hatch, Bombay Artillery
The 4th company 1st battalion European Foot Artillery,(Organized for the expedition as the 5th Light Field Battery), commanded by Captain Henry Gibbard, Bombay Artillery

Reserve Artillery, European Foot Artillery, Bombay Artillery commanded by Major of Brigade, Captain John Pottinger
Soon after the induction of the force, it was considered to be inadequate for the task and a second division under Brigadier General Henry Havelock was formed and the entire expedition placed under command of Major General Sir James Outram. This force inducted[clarification needed] in January 1857.

During the hostilities, 'B' Company of the Madras Sappers & Miners under Brevet-Major A. M. Boileau, Madras Engineers, embarked at Coconada on 19 January and reached the force just in time to participate in operations in Southern Mesopotamia.

The first division under Stalker set sail from Bombay in November after the declaration of war, on a squadron or flotilla of seven steamships under Commodore Young, towing thirty sailing vessels. The British landed a force and captured the island of Kharag on 4 December and landed on 9 December on the coast a few miles south of Persia's primary port of Bushire.

 
 

Battle of Kooshab (1856)
 
 
Battle of Bushire
The first division of the expedition disembarked in the neighbourhood of the city of Bushire on 5 December 1856. They stormed the old fort at Reshire (also called Rishahr or Rashir) and after a short naval bombardment went on to capture the city on 10 December, ably assisted by the two companies of Bombay Sappers & Miners. There was then a delay as the British waited for reinforcements.

Reconnaissance inland revealed a Persian force of 4000 troops at Shiraz and the first division was considered too weak to venture inland away from its maritime base of operations.
This led to the formation and induction of a second division from India, which landed in Persia in late January and reached Bushire, preceded by Outram on 20 January.

1857
Once reinforcements arrived, an Army expeditionary force of three brigades under Major General Sir James Outram advanced on Brazjun/Borazjan (en route to Shiraz), which the Persians abandoned without a fight.

The British appropriated or destroyed the supplies at the site and then halted on 5 February near the village of Khoosh-Ab where good water was available.

  Battle of Khushab
Outram advanced further on the 6th and 7th, but seeing the enemy retreat into the mountains beyond his reach and being short of rations, he decided not to risk a mountain pursuit but instead to fall back to the wells near Khoosh-Ab or Khushab for a logistic pause, before returning to Bushire. The Persians, encouraged by the retreat of Havelock's forces, occupied with 8000 men a position dominating Outram's camp, catching the British in a potentially dangerous situation. Outram attacked this position on 7–8 February in the Battle of Khushab, ultimately managed to inflict a defeat on the Persians in what turned out to be the largest battle of the war, with 70-200 Persian dead.

The British resumed their march back to Bushire, but in deplorable conditions; torrential rains which created mud so deep as to pull a man's boots from his feet. The troops went through a harrowing ordeal, finally reaching Bushire on 10 February, about which is written:

The troops had covered 46 miles in 41 hours to meet the enemy, a further 20 miles over the most difficult country during the night after the battle, and after a rest of 6 hours, another 24 miles to Bushire.

—E.W.C. Sandes in the Indian Sappers and Miners (1948).

 
 
Battle of Mohammerah
The British then shifted their focus north up the Persian Gulf, invading Southern Mesopotamia by advancing up the Shatt Al Arab waterway to Mohammerah (future Khorramshahr) at its junction with the Karun River, short of Basra. The force collected for this sortie consisted of 1500 British and 2400 Indian soldiers. The engineers grouped with this force included 2nd Company, Bombay Sappers & Miners (with 109 troops under Captain Haig) and B Company, Madras Sappers & Miners (with 124 troops under Brevet-Major Boileau). The transfer of forces was delayed by the separate deaths by suicide of two high-ranking British officers, which occasioned a shuffling of commands and forced Outram to leave Brigadier John Jacob in command in Bushire.
 
 
On March 19 the expedition entered the Shatt al Arab. On 24th they were in sight of the strong defences of Mohammerah. The engineer officers were part of the close reconnaissance of the Persian guns in a small canoe. They first planned to erect a battery on an island in the Shatt al Arab, but the island proved to be too swampy. They then towed the mortars on a raft and moored it behind the island from where fire support was provided. Two days later, warships sailed up the Shatt al Arab and silenced the Persian battery. The troops landed and advanced through the date groves. These were punctuated with irrigation channels which the sappers rapidly bridged with palm trees. The Madras Sappers were also aboard the S.S. Hugh Lindsay assisting the 64th Regiment to fire the ship's carronades.

Besides its defences, Muhammarah was further protected by the political requirement that the British not violate Ottoman territory, as the city lay right on the border. In the event, however, the Persians abandoned the city to a British force under Brigadier Henry Havelock, which captured it on 27 March. The 13,000 Persians and Arabs under the command of Khanlar Mirza withdrew to Ahvaz, a hundred miles up the Karun River.

  Battle of Ahvaz
The sappers were now continually employed in destroying Persian batteries, making roads, landing stages and huts in the unhealthy climate and so could not be spared for the sortie to Ahvaz, where the Royal Navy and forces from the 64th Foot and 78th Highlanders attacked the Persian force. The town fell to the British on 1 April 1857.

Treaty of Paris (1857)
On returning to Muhammarah on 4 April the force learned that peace had been signed in Paris on 4 March and hostilities ceased. At the time that news of peace arrived, Outram was planning an invasion into the Persian interior that likely would have significantly escalated the war. The expeditionary force had thus successfully carried out its purpose by capturing Bushire, defeating the Persians at Khoosh-Ab and capturing a foothold in southern Mesopotamia thus forcing the Persians to sue for terms and over the next few months, the force returned to India.[6] The British later also vacated both Kharag island and Bushire. Most of these forces were soon inducted into operations in Central India to quell the Indian Mutiny, in which both Havelock and Outram would later distinguish themselves at the siege of Lucknow.

 
 
Diplomacy
The Persians apparently hoped that the British would not contest their acquisition of Herat—they recognised that they could not expect to win a war against the British army—and thus once British opposition became clear they attempted to back down. Negotiations in Constantinople between Persian ambassador Ferukh Khan and British ambassador Lord Stratford de Redcliffe ultimately broke down over British demands that the Persians replace their prime minister (the sadr-i a'zam). News of the onset of fighting resulted in a formal rupture of talks, but discussions soon began again in Paris, and the two sides signed a peace treaty on 4 March, in which the Shah agreed to withdraw from Herat and refrain from further interference in the affairs of Afghanistan. In the treaty, the Persians agreed to withdraw from Herat, to apologise to the British ambassador on his return, to sign a commercial treaty, and to cooperate in suppressing the slave trade in the Persian Gulf; the British agreed not to shelter opponents of the Shah in the embassy, and they abandoned the demand to replace the prime minister as well as one requiring territorial concessions to the Imam of Muscat, a British ally. The Persians faithfully withdrew from Herat, permitting the British to return their troops to India, where they were soon needed for combat in the Indian Mutiny. Herat returned to more direct Afghan control when it was retaken by Dost Mohammed Khan in 1863.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 
Ferouk Khan in The Illustrated London News, 1857.
 
 
 
1856
 
 
James Buchanan wins U.S. presidential election
 
 
Buchanan James
 

James Buchanan, (born April 23, 1791, near Mercersburg, Pa., U.S.—died June 1, 1868, near Lancaster, Pa.), 15th president of the United States (1857–61), a moderate Democrat whose efforts to find a compromise in the conflict between the North and the South failed to avert the Civil War (1861–65).

 
Origins and bachelorhood
Buchanan was the son of James Buchanan and Elizabeth Speer, both of Scottish Presbyterian stock from the north of Ireland. His father had immigrated to the United States in 1783 and worked as a storekeeper. Buchanan was educated at Dickinson College in Carlisle, Pa., graduating in 1809, and studied law in Lancaster, Pa. He was admitted to the bar in 1812 and soon established a successful law practice. His gift for oratory led him to politics.

Buchanan never married and remains the only bachelor president. In 1819, when he was 28 years old, he became engaged to Anne C. Coleman, the daughter of a wealthy Pennsylvania family. He broke off the engagement for an undisclosed reason, and shortly afterward Coleman died, possibly a suicide. While Buchanan was senator, he shared lodgings with another bachelor, Sen. William R. King of Alabama, causing some tongues in Washington to wag, but, in conformity with the mores of the time, the relationship was not a public matter. When Buchanan became president, he made his 27-year-old niece, Harriet Lane, his hostess. Buchanan had served as her guardian, and he had overseen her education since she was 12 years old, when her mother, Buchanan’s sister, died. He took her to England with him when he was minister to Great Britain, where she became accustomed to being in the limelight. In the U.S. capital she was a popular figure, even dubbed the “Democratic Queen.”

 
 

James Buchanan
  Early political career
A Federalist, Buchanan served in the Pennsylvania legislature (1814–16) and in the U.S. House of Representatives (1821–31). When his party disintegrated in the 1820s, Buchanan associated himself with the emerging Democratic Party. He served as U.S. minister to St. Petersburg (1831–33) for the Andrew Jackson administration, U.S. senator (1834–45), and secretary of state (1845–49) in the cabinet of Pres. James K. Polk. The annexation of Texas and subsequent Mexican War took place during Buchanan’s tenure as secretary of state. Buchanan’s role in the war was limited, but he played a more active part in the border dispute with Britain over Oregon. Despite the 1844 campaign slogan of “Fifty-four forty or fight,” the matter was settled peaceably by treaty. In both situations the United States gained large tracts of territory. Buchanan had sought the nomination for president in 1844 but had ultimately thrown his support to Polk. Failing to receive the presidential nomination in 1848, Buchanan retired from public service until 1853, when he was appointed minister to Britain by Pres. Franklin Pierce. In Congress, Buchanan tended to side with the South, and, although he felt that slavery was morally wrong, he did not want the country to eliminate the institution by the “introduction of evils infinitely greater.”
 
 
From his perspective, a greater evil would be freeing the slaves and making them the new masters, “abolishing slavery by the massacre of the high-minded, and the chivalrous race of men in the South.” He therefore tried to impress the Southern party leadership with his respect for the constitutional safeguards for the practice. Thus in 1846 he opposed the Wilmot Proviso, which would have prohibited the extension of slavery into the U.S. territories, and he supported the Compromise of 1850, which attempted to maintain a balance of Senate seats between slave and free states. While in Europe as minister to Britain he played a large part in drafting the Ostend Manifesto (Oct. 18, 1854), a diplomatic report recommending that the United States acquire Cuba from Spain to forestall any possibility of a slave uprising there. Buchanan’s support for the manifesto stemmed not only from his fear that such an uprising might have an inflammatory effect on slaves in the United States but also from his basic belief in American imperialism. “It is, beyond question,” he wrote to Congress in 1858, “the destiny of our race to spread themselves over the continent of North America, and this at no distant day.”
 
 

James Buchanan (1859) by George Healy as seen in the National Portrait Gallery in Washington, DC
  Presidency
Having thus consolidated his position in the South, Buchanan was nominated for president in 1856 and was elected, winning 174 electoral votes to 114 for the Republican John C. Frémont and 8 for Millard Fillmore, the American (Know-Nothing) Party candidate. During the campaign Republican speakers harped on Buchanan’s seemingly heartless statement that ten cents a day was adequate pay for a workingman. They jeered him as “Ten-Cent Jimmy.” Although well endowed with legal knowledge and experienced in government, Buchanan lacked the soundness of judgment and conciliatory personality to undo the misperceptions the North and South had of one another and thereby to deal effectively with the slavery crisis. His strategy for the preservation of the Union consisted in the prevention of Northern antislavery agitation and the enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act (1850). Embroiled in the explosive struggle in Kansas over the expansion of slavery (1854–59), he attempted to persuade Kansas voters to accept the unpopular Lecompton Constitution, which would have permitted slavery there. The economic panic of 1857 and the raid on the arsenal at Harpers Ferry, Va., in 1859 by the abolitionist John Brown added to the national turmoil. Buchanan’s position was further weakened by scandals over financial improprieties within his administration. At the 1860 Democratic National Convention, a split within the Democratic Party resulted in the advancement of two candidates for president, Sen. Stephen A. Douglas of Illinois and Vice Pres. John C. Breckinridge, which opened the way for the election of the Republican Abraham Lincoln as president in 1860.
 
 
On Dec. 20, 1860, South Carolina voted to secede from the Union. By February 1861 seven Southern states had seceded. Buchanan denounced secession but admitted that he could find no means to stop it, maintaining that he had “no authority to decide what shall be the relation between the federal government and South Carolina.” His cabinet members began to resign, and stopgap measures were rejected by Congress. War was inevitable. The president refused to surrender any of the federal forts that he could hold, however, and he ordered reinforcements (January 1861) sent to Fort Sumter at Charleston, S.C. However, when the federal supply ship was fired upon by shore batteries, it turned back. The call for a second relief mission came too late for Buchanan to act. As the crisis deepened, he seemed impatient for his time in the White House to run out.
 
 

President Buchanan and his Cabinet
From left to right: Jacob Thompson, Lewis Cass, John B. Floyd, James Buchanan,
Howell Cobb, Isaac Toucey, Joseph Holt and Jeremiah S. Black, (c. 1859)
 
 
Retirement
Upon leaving office (March 4), Buchanan retired to Wheatland, his home near Lancaster, Pa. His reputation suffered during his years in retirement. Congress, the Republican Party, President Lincoln, the U.S. military, and national newspapers all ridiculed his handling of the Fort Sumter crisis and his failure to prevent the secession of Southern states. The Senate even drafted a resolution to condemn Buchanan. In fact, to prevent the defacing of Buchanan’s portrait, it had to be removed from the Capitol rotunda. Buchanan vigorously defended his presidency and died confident in the belief that posterity would vindicate him and redeem his reputation.

Encyclopædia Britannica

 
 
 
1856
 
 
Britain grants self-government to Tasmania
 
 
Tasmania
 

Tasmania, formerly Van Diemen’s Land, island state of Australia. It lies about 150 miles (240 km) south of the state of Victoria, from which it is separated by the relatively shallow Bass Strait.

Structurally, Tasmania constitutes a southern extension of the Great Dividing Range. The state comprises a main island called Tasmania; Bruny Island, nestling close to the southeastern coast of the main island; King and Flinders islands in Bass Strait; numerous smaller islands off the coast of the main island; and subantarctic Macquarie Island, about 900 miles (1,450 km) to the southeast. The main island is roughly heart-shaped, with a maximum length and width of about 200 miles (320 km), and its latitude and climate are broadly comparable to those of northern California and northwestern Spain. With an area slightly larger than that of Sri Lanka, Tasmania is the smallest of Australia’s states. Hobart is the state capital.

 
The state owes its name to the Dutch navigator-explorer Abel Janszoon Tasman, who in 1642 became the first European to discover the island. Until 1856, however, the island was known as Van Diemen’s Land, named for Anthony van Diemen, the governor of the Dutch East Indies who had sent Tasman on his voyage of exploration. The island of Tasmania contains some of the most spectacular mountain, lake, and coastal scenery in the country, and much of its land is protected in national parks and reserves. The state also produces a major portion of Australia’s hydroelectric power and possesses a great diversity of natural resources. Nevertheless, Tasmania has remained among the poorest of Australia’s states, with a steadily decreasing share of the country’s population. Although insularity renders much of its political, economic, and social life distinctive, proximity to Melbourne and air travel make Tasmania less isolated and more cosmopolitan than is often assumed in other Australian states. Area 26,410 square miles (68,401 square km). Population (2011) 495,354.
 
 


Tasmania, Australia.

 
History
Prehistory and European exploration

Humans probably entered Tasmania between 25,000 and 40,000 years ago. They most likely came from what is now the Australian mainland via a land bridge, but it is possible that they migrated directly from the New Hebrides archipelago (present-day Vanuatu) or elsewhere. About 20,000 years ago the inhabitants of Tasmania lived farther south than any other people in the world. Stencil images of an outstretched hand, from about 14,000 years ago, appear in caves in the southwestern part of the island. The flooding of the land bridge (creating the Bass Strait) some 11,000 to 12,000 years ago isolated the Tasmanian population. When the Europeans arrived in the mid-17th century, there were probably more than 100 “bands” of indigenous people, averaging some 50 individuals each, scattered islandwide except in the western mountains.

Abel Janszoon Tasman, the great Dutch navigator-explorer, landed in southeastern Tasmania in early December 1642. He named the island Anthony Van Diemensland, which was later Anglicized to Van Diemen’s Land. Frenchmen under Marion du Fresne came in 1772, and Tobias Furneaux led the first British exploration in 1773. Notable French exploration continued with Bruni d’Entrecasteaux in 1792–93 and Nicholas Baudin in 1802. In 1798 Matthew Flinders and George Bass circumnavigated the island.

Britain’s colonization of Tasmania was a ploy to ensure British dominance in international sea power. Both the government in London and its representative in New South Wales, Gov. Philip Gidley King, wanted to secure bases in the south. Accordingly, John Bowen established a camp at Risdon Cove on the Derwent River in September 1803. After the arrival in February 1804 of Lieut. Gov. David Collins (1804–10), following the failure of his colonization venture at Port Phillip (Victoria), the settlement was relocated to Hobart. In November 1804 William Paterson founded a settlement in northern Tasmania, which soon had Launceston as its hub. This subcolony was independent of Hobart until 1812, a harbinger of the intense regional feeling (sometimes becoming acrid jealousy) that has long characterized the Tasmanian experience.

The survival of the tiny settlements was precarious. Transported convicts always made up much of the European population at that time, and runaway convicts—many of whom became bandits of the rural regions (“bushrangers”)—challenged formal authority. Scarcity of supplies prompted them to hunt kangaroos, which worsened relations with the Aboriginal population. Collins was passive as lieutenant governor, and his successor, Thomas Davey (1812–17), was certainly no more effective.

  Thereafter rudiments of order emerged, first under Lieut. Gov. William Sorell (1817–24) and then under George Arthur (1824–36). Van Diemen’s Land gained virtual independence from New South Wales in 1825, allowing fuller scope for Arthur’s profound efficiency and determination. Subsequent lieutenant governors were the Arctic explorer-hero John Franklin (1837–43), Sir John Eardley Eardley-Wilmot (1843–46), and Sir William Thomas Denison (1847–54). All found their task difficult.

Tasmania enjoyed much economic prosperity between 1820 and 1840. During that period the European population increased from about 4,350 to more than 57,000. The colony’s penal function brought in large sums from the British treasury. Free immigrants and some ex-convicts developed commerce and various resources. Raising sheep for wool advanced quickly from the mid-1820s, and suitable land in the island’s eastern sector was soon occupied.

Tasmanian entrepreneurs and pastoralists played a dominant role in opening Port Phillip from the mid-1830s. Locals also exploited adjacent seal and whale fisheries, encouraging the growth of shipbuilding and services to support these endeavours. International whalers made use of Hobart’s superb harbour; it became a major port for whaling ships. Convict labour assisted in all this and in constructing public works and handsome buildings, in both urban and rural areas.

Indigenous Tasmanians bore the cost of all this economic development. Murderous encounters dating to the Risdon Cove settlement eventually degenerated into the Black War (1804–30), a period of great physical conflict between the Aboriginal population and European settlers. The hostility became especially intense during the 1820s, as pastoralists extended their dominion. In Bass Strait sealeries, Aboriginal women—whose status often was that of quasi-slaves—provided domestic and sexual services for the Europeans. Disease ravaged indigenous communities everywhere.

Some consciences stirred, and Arthur appointed George Augustus Robinson to “conciliate” the surviving Aboriginal population. Consequently, from 1831 virtually all Aboriginal people (about 140 by that time) were relocated to Flinders Island in Bass Strait in an effort to shield them from hostility on the Tasmanian mainland. Deaths continued, however, and in 1847 the survivors moved back to Tasmania. The last person believed to be of strictly Tasmanian descent, a woman by the name of Truganini, died in 1876.

The experience of convicts was also grim, even if it was rarely so terrible as that of the Aborigines. Altogether, at least 55,000 male and 13,000 female convicts came directly from Britain.

 
 

Mount Wellington and Hobart from Kangaroo Point, c. 1834
 
 
Once in Tasmania, most of these offenders served their time in public or private employment, with punishment for misdemeanours. About 10 percent offended more seriously and suffered execution or servitude in the jail stations at Macquarie Harbour, Maria Island, and Port Arthur. After they gained their freedom, some former convicts faced hardship, while others led modest lives and yet others achieved material success.

Notwithstanding the grim aspects of Van Diemen’s Land, aspiration and learning were not wanting. The Society of Friends (Quakers) established a bastion in Hobart in the early 1830s; the group has exercised influence in Tasmania ever since. The Royal Society of Tasmania made continual efforts to promote science from 1843. Liberals and moral reformers led a movement against convict transportation reminiscent of the crusade in the Northern Hemisphere against slavery and helped persuade the British government to end the policy by the early 1850s.

 
 
Self-government and federation
Once the importation and exploitation of convicts had ended, the way opened for the grant of colonial self-government in 1855–56. Tasmania became the colony’s official name, which, it was hoped, would be a portent of a happier age. Although penalism had provided the island with a solid economic undergirding and a position of historical importance, post-1860 Tasmania continued to be shadowed by its Vandiemonian past. Emigration across Bass Strait beckoned many in every generation. Those who remained held on to their rights and property, often with bitter tenacity. The 1860s and early ’70s were especially depressed economically. The population numbered about 90,000 in 1861 and 115,000 in 1881. By 1911, however, it had exceeded 190,000, reflecting a generation of growth. The extraction of metallic minerals was key to this expansion. The discovery of tin at Mount Bischoff in 1871 and Mount Heemskirk in 1879 marked the advent of Tasmania’s mining industry. In the 1890s a major copper mine opened at Mount Lyell, spurring the growth of Queenstown, Zeehan, and other nearby mining towns. Western Tasmania of the late 19th century had all the drama of a minerals boom. Meanwhile, small-scale farming progressed, especially along the northwest coast, which had the island’s best soils—once the fiendish job of forest clearing was done.
 
Four elderly full-blood Tasmanian Aborigines c.1860s. Truganini, for many years claimed to be the last full-blood Aboriginal to survive, is seated at far right.
 
 
Orchardists produced the apples that were long Tasmania’s symbol. Roads and railways were developed despite topography and cost. Most Tasmanians supported federation of the Australian colonies, hoping that it would further boost the island’s economy.

Premiers William Robert Giblin (1879–84) and Philip Oakley Fysh (1887–92) introduced administrative, social, and political reforms. An outstanding jurist, Andrew Inglis Clark, led a cadre of youngish men inspired by the day’s positive liberalism to help establish the University of Tasmania (1890) and otherwise enrich cultural affairs. Suffrage for men—even for the lower house of Parliament—did not come until 1900–01, but by then there already functioned in urban electorates a form of proportional representation devised by Clark; this system was in use throughout Tasmania from 1909. Women gained the right to vote in 1903 when universal adult suffrage was instituted for the House of Assembly.

Conservative and traditional interests retained much strength. Pastoralist families lived on estates granted to them in convict days. The upper-house Legislative Council was elected from a narrow franchise base and had much power to obstruct legislation. The social pyramid was steep.

One effect of this was that the Australian Labor Party (ALP) achieved power in Tasmania more slowly than elsewhere in Australia. Under John Earle (1914–16) the government pursued characteristic Labor policies of positive government for the social good, which included securing public control over hydroelectric power generation. Discussion about developing Tasmania’s hydroelectric potential had been proceeding for some years; the state’s topography promised to make this natural resource one that would compensate for the island’s poverty in most other resources.




Tessellated pavement, a rare rock formation on the Tasman Peninsula

 

At the end of World War I, these hopes flourished, as hydroelectricity made possible the construction and operation of a massive zinc refinery near Hobart. In the years immediately following, a large confectionery plant was also built near Hobart, and several textile mills sprang up, notably in Launceston. Yet the dream of a manufacturing elysium was delusive: the state’s population rose only from 213,000 in 1921 to 227,000 in 1933, and the government often faced bankruptcy.

The tiny University of Tasmania gained some renown in the 1920s for its department of economics. Tasmanian writers and journalists of this period include Robert Atkinson, who influenced the Australian-born American musician Percy Grainger; Clive Turnbull, pioneer historian of European aggression against the Aborigines; the novelist Noel Norman, who insisted that true Australianism lay in the continent’s physical centre; and Alan John Villiers, author of seafaring sagas. John Henry Butters and Herbert William Gepp, geniuses of hydroelectricity and zinc, respectively, became key national figures. Tasmania’s dominant politician of the 1920s, Joseph Aloysius Lyons, served as federal prime minister in the next decade, the first Tasmanian to hold that office; his wife, Enid, more able and fluent, was one of the first women to become a member of the federal parliament (1943) and the first woman in a federal cabinet (1949–51).

The Great Depression of the 1930s had its impact on Tasmania, but the Labor premier (1934–39) Albert George Ogilvie outshone other Australian politicians in responding to the economic problems. One of his skills was obtaining federal grants to diminish Tasmania’s comparative poverty. Informed, wholehearted, and realistic in criticizing the Axis powers, Ogilvie might have challenged Lyons for national leadership had both not died in mid-1939.

 
 

Port Arthur
 
 
Tasmania since 1950
Through the next several decades, Tasmania benefited much from Australia’s general prosperity. By 1970 the population was nearly 400,000, and living standards had approached the national norm. Premiers Robert Cosgrove (1939–58) and Eric Elliott Reece (1958–69 and 1972–75) were tough and efficient and saved the local Labor Party from the blows it was suffering elsewhere in the country. They sustained faith in further developing hydroelectricity, and some heavy industry appeared. Government services in housing, health, education, and libraries were usually good and sometimes excellent. Federal grants continued to be generous. Air travel diminished Tasmania’s insularity. Various scandals and tensions erupted, but overall this was arguably the most comfortable period in Tasmania’s history.

The next generation experienced less material progress. Anticipating what would become national trends, manufacturing suffered many setbacks, as did traditional farming—apple growing included. More than ever, the economy seemed to depend on the exploitation of natural resources, especially timber and metals.

A local environmental movement sprang up in Tasmania. Although it aroused many opponents, the movement nevertheless developed into a considerable force. Its values were somewhat like those of the anticonvict movement of the mid-19th century; Tasmania’s physical beauty, and a long-prevailing chimera that something like a utopia should prevail in such a place, further helped the ecological cause.

In the early 1970s environmentalists sought to halt hydroelectric dam construction that would further flood the natural Lake Pedder in the southwest. The campaign failed, but it spawned what many consider the world’s first Green Party, the United Tasmania Group (later known as the Tasmanian Greens). Since 1969 the ALP and non-Labor groups had been alternating in government. However, in 1989 the Greens secured enough electoral support to be decisive in maintaining a Labor government. 

  To reduce the power of the Greens, the ALP and the Liberal Party of Australia altered the electoral system for the state legislature in the late 1990s, but the effect was brief.

Parallel with the surge in ecological awareness was the growth of the Aboriginal movement. While the common assumption was that indigenous Tasmanians were extinct, Tasmanian Aborigines had indeed retained their identity. Encouraged by widespread changes in attitudes about ethnicity, as well as by federal aid to their community, Aboriginal peoples began to reassert their heritage. In the mid-1990s, with the passage of federal legislation, several historic and cultural sites in the state were returned to the Aboriginal community, and the number of individuals declaring themselves to be Aboriginal increased exponentially.

The 1990s were marked by economic stagnation in Tasmania, as was most evident in an actual slight decline in population by mid-decade (though the number then began to climb again). The state was struck by tragedy in 1996, when an assassin killed 35 people in Port Arthur. Indifferent performance by successive Liberal governments led in 1998 to a decisive ALP electoral victory under James (“Jim”) Bacon; during his six-year tenure, Bacon achieved more than had any of his most recent predecessors. Management of the state’s finances improved; the transportation infrastructure both internally and externally was greatly expanded, facilitating a boost in tourism; power and natural gas lines were laid across Bass Strait; unemployment was reduced to its lowest rate in two decades; major arts venues and events were inaugurated; and funding of health, child care, and other social services increased markedly. Bacon, who was terminally ill, was replaced as premier in 2004 by Paul Lennon. While the state remained reasonably prosperous, the following years were marked by conflict between environmentalist and prodevelopment forces as well as by voluble criticism of welfare services.

Michael Roe

Encyclopædia Britannica
 
 
     
 



World Countries



Australia
     
 
 
 
1856
 
 
Emperor Francis Joseph (Francis Joseph I) visits Lombardy and Venice and appoints his brother
Archduke Maximilian (Maximilian of Mexico) governor of the provinces
 
 

Franz Joseph I in 1853
 
Erzherzog Ferdinand Max, 1854
 
 
 

 
 
CONTENTS
  BACK-1855 Part III NEXT-1856 Part II