Chapter 15

(L. F. V.-*H.)

HARBURG,a seaport town of Germany, in the Prussian province of Hanover, on the left bank of the southern arm of the Elbe, 6 m. by rail S. of Hamburg. Pop. (1885), 26,320; (1905)—the area of the town having been increased since 1895—55,676. It is pleasantly situated at the foot of a lofty range of hills, which here dip down to the river, at the junction of the main lines of railway from Bremen and Hanover to Hamburg, which are carried to the latter city over two grand bridges crossing the southern and the northern arms of the Elbe. It possesses a Roman Catholic and two Protestant churches, a palace, which from 1524 to 1642 was the residence of the Harburg line of the house of Brunswick, a high-grade modern school, a commercial school and a theatre. The leading industries are the crushing of palm-kernels and linseed and the manufacture of india-rubber, phosphates, starch, nitrate and jute. Machines are manufactured here; beer is brewed, and shipbuilding is carried on. The port is accessible to vessels drawing 18 ft. of water, and, despite its proximity to Hamburg, its trade has of late years shown a remarkable development. It is the chief mart in the empire for resin and palm-oil. The Prussian government proposes establishing here a free port, on the lines of theFreihafenin Hamburg.

Harburg belonged originally to the bishopric of Bremen, and received municipal rights in 1297. In 1376 it was united to the principality of Lüneburg, along with which it fell in 1705 to Hanover, and in 1806 to Prussia. In 1813 and 1814 it suffered considerably from the French, who then held Hamburg, and who built a bridge between the two towns, which remained standing till 1816.

See Ludewig,Geschichte des Schlosses und der Stadt Harburg(Harburg, 1845); and Hoffmeyer,Harburg und die nächste Umgegend(1885).

HARCOURT,a village in Normandy, now a commune in the department of Eure, arrondissement of Bernay and canton of Brionne, which gives its name to a noble family distinguished in French history, a branch of which was early established in England. Of the lords of Harcourt, whose genealogy can be traced back to the 11th century, the first to distinguish himself was Jean II. (d. 1302) who was marshal and admiral of France. Godefroi d’Harcourt, seigneur of Saint Sauveur le Vicomte, surnamed “Le boiteux” (the lame), was a marshal in the English army and was killed near Coutances in 1356. The fief of Harcourt was raised to the rank of a countship by Philip of Valois, in favour of Jean IV., who was killed at the battle of Creçy (1346). His son, Jean V. (d. 1355) married Blanche, heiress of Jean II., count of Aumale, and the countship of Harcourt passed with that of Aumale until, in 1424, Jean VIII., count of Aumale and Mortain and lieutenant-general of Normandy, was killed at the battle of Verneuil, and with him the elder branch became extinct in the male line. The heiress, Marie, by her marriage with Anthony of Lorraine, count of Vaudémont, brought the countship of Harcourt into the house of Lorraine. The title of count of Harcourt was borne by several princes of this house. The most famous instance was Henry of Lorraine, count of Harcourt, Brionne, and Armagnac, and nicknamed “Cadet la perle” (1601-1666). He distinguished himself in several campaigns against Spain, and later played an active part in the civil wars of the Fronde. He took the side of the princes, and fought against thegovernment in Alsace; but was defeated by Marshal de la Ferté, and made his submission in 1654.

The most distinguished among the younger branches of the family are those of Montgomery and of Beuvron. To the former belonged Jean d’Harcourt, bishop of Amiens and Tournai, archbishop of Narbonne and patriarch of Antioch, who died in 1452; and Guillaume d’Harcourt, count of Tancarville, and viscount of Melun, who was head of the administration of the woods and forests in the royal domain (souverain maître et réformateur des eaux et forêts de France) and died in 1487.

From the branch of the marquises of Beuvron sprang Henri d’Harcourt, marshal of France, and ambassador at the Spanish court, who was made duke of Harcourt (1700) and a peer of France (1709); also François Eugène Gabriel, count, and afterwards duke, of Harcourt, who was ambassador first in Spain, and later at Rome, and died in 1865. This branch of the family is still in existence.

See G. A. de la Rogne,Histoire généalogique de la maison d’Harcourt(4 vols., Paris, 1662); P. Anselme,Histoire généalogique de la maison de France, v. 114, &c.; and Dom le Noir,Preuves généalogiques et historiques de la maison de Harcourt(Paris, 1907).

(M. P.*)

HARCOURT, SIMON HARCOURT,1st Viscount(c.1661-1727), lord chancellor of England, only son of Sir Philip Harcourt of Stanton Harcourt, Oxfordshire, by his first wife, Anne, daughter of Sir William Waller, was born about 1661 at Stanton Harcourt, and was educated at a school at Shilton, Oxfordshire, and at Pembroke College, Oxford. He was called to the bar in 1683, and soon afterwards was appointed recorder of Abingdon, which borough he represented as a Tory in parliament from 1690 to 1705. In 1701 he was nominated by the Commons to conduct the impeachment of Lord Somers; and in 1702 he became solicitor-general and was knighted by Queen Anne. He was elected member for Bossiney in 1705, and as commissioner for arranging the union with Scotland was largely instrumental in promoting that measure. Harcourt was appointed attorney-general in 1707, but resigned office in the following year when his friend Robert Harley, afterwards earl of Oxford, was dismissed. He defended Sacheverell at the bar of the House of Lords in 1710, being then without a seat in parliament; but in the same year was returned for Cardigan, and in September again became attorney-general. In October he was appointed lord keeper of the great seal, and in virtue of this office he presided in the House of Lords for some months without a peerage, until, on the 3rd of September 1711, he was created Baron Harcourt of Stanton Harcourt; but it was not till April 1713 that he received the appointment of lord chancellor. In 1710 he had purchased the Nuneham-Courtney estate in Oxfordshire, but his usual place of residence continued to be at Cokethorpe near Stanton Harcourt, where he received a visit in state from Queen Anne. In the negotiations preceding the peace of Utrecht, Harcourt took an important part. There is no sufficient evidence for the allegations of the Whigs that Harcourt entered into treasonable relations with the Pretender. On the accession of George I. he was deprived of office and retired to Cokethorpe, where he enjoyed the society of men of letters, Swift, Pope, Prior and other famous writers being among his frequent guests. With Swift, however, he had occasional quarrels, during one of which the great satirist bestowed on him the sobriquet of “Trimming Harcourt.” He exerted himself to defeat the impeachment of Lord Oxford in 1717, and in 1723 he was active in obtaining a pardon for another old political friend, Lord Bolingbroke. In 1721 Harcourt was created a viscount and returned to the privy councils; and on several occasions during the king’s absences from England he was on the council of regency. He died in London on the 23rd of July 1727. Harcourt was not a great lawyer, but he enjoyed the reputation of being a brilliant orator; Speaker Onslow going so far as to say that Harcourt “had the greatest skill and power of speech of any man I ever knew in a public assembly.” He was a member of the famous Saturday Club, frequented by the chiefliteratiand wits of the period, with several of whom he corresponded. Some letters to him from Pope are preserved in theHarcourt Papers. His portrait by Kneller is at Nuneham.

Harcourt married, first, Rebecca, daughter of Thomas Clark, his father’s chaplain, by whom he had five children; secondly, Elizabeth, daughter of Richard Spencer; and thirdly, Elizabeth, daughter of Sir Thomas Vernon. He left issue by his first wife only. His son, Simon (1684-1720), married Elizabeth, sister of Sir John Evelyn of Wotton, by whom he had one son and four daughters, one of whom married George Venables Vernon, afterwards Lord Vernon (seeHarcourt, Sir William—footnote). Simon Harcourt predeceased his father, the lord chancellor, in 1720, leaving a sonSimon Harcourt(1714-1777), 1st Earl Harcourt, who succeeded his grandfather in the title of viscount in 1727. He was educated at Westminster school. In 1745, having raised a regiment, he received a commission as a colonel in the army; and in 1749 he was created Earl Harcourt of Stanton Harcourt. He was appointed governor to the prince of Wales, afterwards George III., in 1751; and after the accession of the latter to the throne he was appointed, in 1761, special ambassador to Mecklenburg-Strelitz to negotiate a marriage between King George and the princess Charlotte, whom he conducted to England. After holding a number of appointments at court and in the diplomatic service, he was promoted to the rank of general in 1772; and in October of the same year he succeeded Lord Townsend as lord lieutenant of Ireland, an office which he held till 1777. His proposal to impose a tax of 10% on the rents of absentee landlords had to be abandoned owing to opposition in England; but he succeeded in conciliating the leaders of Opposition in Ireland, and he persuaded Henry Flood to accept office in the government. Resigning in January 1777, he retired to Nuneham, where he died in the following September. He married, in 1735, Rebecca, daughter and heiress of Charles Samborne Le Bas, of Pipewell Abbey, Northamptonshire, by whom he had two daughters and two sons, George Simon and William, who succeeded him as 2nd and 3rd earl respectively.

See Lord Campbell,Lives of the Lord Chancellors, vol. v. (London, 1846); Edward Foss,The Judges of England, vol. viii. (London, 1848); Gilbert Burnet,Hist. of his own Time(with notes by earls of Dartmouth and Hardwicke, &c., Oxford, 1833); Earl Stanhope,Hist. of England, comprising the reign of Queen Anne until the Peace of Utrecht(London, 1870). In addition to the above-mentioned authorities many particulars concerning the 1st Viscount Harcourt, and also of his grandson, the 1st earl, will be found in theHarcourt Papers. For the earl, see also Horace Walpole,Memoirs of the Reign of George II.(3 vols., 2nd ed., London, 1847),Memoirs of the Reign of George III.(4 vols., London, 1845, 1894); also, for his vice-royalty of Ireland, see Henry Grattan,Memoirs of the Life and Times of the Right Hon. H. Grattan(5 vols., London, 1839-1846); Francis Hardy,Memoirs of J. Caulfield, Earl of Charlemont(2 vols., London, 1812); and for his genealogy, see Sir John Bernard Burke,Genealogical History of Dormant and Extinct Peerages(London, 1883).

(R. J. M.)

HARCOURT, SIR WILLIAM GEORGE GRANVILLE VENABLES VERNON(1827-1904). English statesman, second son of the Rev. Canon William Vernon Harcourt (q.v.), of Nuneham Park, Oxford, was born on the 14th of October 1827. Canon Harcourt was the fourth son and eventually heir of Edward Harcourt (1757-1847), archbishop of York, who was the son of the 1st Lord Vernon (d. 1780), and who took the name of Harcourt alone instead of Vernon on succeeding to the property of his cousin, the last Earl Harcourt, in 1831.1The subjectof this biography was therefore born a Vernon, and by his connexion with the old families of Vernon and Harcourt was related to many of the great English houses, a fact which gave him no little pride. Indeed, in later life his descent from the Plantagenets2was a subject of some banter on the part of his political opponents. He was educated at Trinity College, Cambridge, graduating with first-class honours in the classical tripos in 1851. He was called to the bar in 1854, became a Q.C. in 1866, and was appointed Whewell professor of international law, Cambridge, 1869. He quickly made his mark in London society as a brilliant talker; he contributed largely to theSaturday Review, and wrote some famous letters (1862) toThe Timesover the signature of “Historicus,” in opposition to the recognition of the Southern States as belligerents in the American Civil War. He entered parliament as Liberal member for Oxford, and sat from 1868 to 1880, when, upon seeking re-election after acceptance of office, he was defeated by Mr Hall. A seat was, however, found for him at Derby, by the voluntary retirement of Mr Plimsoll, and he continued to represent that constituency until 1895, when, having been defeated at the general election, he found a seat in West Monmouthshire. He was appointed solicitor-general and knighted in 1873; and, although he had not shown himself a very strenuous supporter of Mr Gladstone during that statesman’s exclusion from power, he became secretary of state for the home department on the return of the Liberals to office in 1880. His name was connected at that time with the passing of the Ground Game Act (1880), the Arms (Ireland) Act (1881), and the Explosives Act (1883). As home secretary at the time of the dynamite outrages he had to take up a firm attitude, and the Explosives Act was passed through all its stages in the shortest time on record. Moreover, as champion of law and order against the attacks of the Parnellites, his vigorous speeches brought him constantly into conflict with the Irish members. In 1884 he introduced an abortive bill for unifying the municipal administration of London. He was indeed at that time recognized as one of the ablest and most effective leaders of the Liberal party; and when, after a brief interval in 1885, Mr Gladstone returned to office in 1886, he was made chancellor of the exchequer, an office which he again filled from 1892 to 1895.

Between 1880 and 1892 Sir William Harcourt acted as Mr Gladstone’s loyal and indefatigable lieutenant in political life. A first-rate party fighter, his services were of inestimable value; but in spite of his great success as a platform speaker, he was generally felt to be speaking from an advocate’s brief, and did not impress the country as possessing much depth of conviction. It was he who coined the phrase about “stewing in Parnellite juice,” and, when the split came in the Liberal party on the Irish question, even those who gave Mr Gladstone and Mr Morley the credit of being convinced Home Rulers could not be persuaded that Sir William had followed anything but the line of party expediency. In 1894 he introduced and carried a memorable budget, which equalized the death duties on real and personal property. After Mr Gladstone’s retirement in 1894 and Lord Rosebery’s selection as prime minister Sir William became the leader of the Liberal party in the House of Commons, but it was never probable that he would work comfortably in the new conditions. His title to be regarded as Mr Gladstone’s successor had been too lightly ignored, and from the first it was evident that Lord Rosebery’s ideas of Liberalism and of the policy of the Liberal party were not those of Sir William Harcourt. Their differences were patched up from time to time, but the combination could not last. At the general election of 1895 it was clear that there were divisions as to what issue the Liberals were fighting for, and the effect of Sir William Harcourt’s abortive Local Veto Bill on the election was seen not only in his defeat at Derby, which gave the signal for the Liberal rout, but in the set-back it gave to temperance legislation. Though returned for West Monmouthshire (1895, 1900), his speeches in debate only occasionally showed his characteristic spirit, and it was evident that for the hard work of Opposition he no longer had the same motive as of old. In December 1898 the crisis arrived, and with Mr John Morley he definitely retired from the counsels of the party and resigned his leadership of the Opposition, alleging as his reason, in letters exchanged between Mr Morley and himself, the cross-currents of opinion among his old supporters and former colleagues. The split excited considerable comment, and resulted in much heart-burning and a more or less open division between the section of the Liberal party following Lord Rosebery (q.v.) and those who disliked that statesman’s Imperialistic views.

Though now a private member, Sir William Harcourt still continued to vindicate his opinions in his independent position, and his attacks on the government were no longer restrained by even the semblance of deference to Liberal Imperialism. He actively intervened in 1899 and 1900, strongly condemning the government’s financial policy and their attitude towards the Transvaal; and throughout the Boer War he lost no opportunity of criticizing the South African developments in a pessimistic vein. One of the readiest parliamentary debaters, he savoured his speeches with humour of that broad and familiar order which appeals particularly to political audiences. In 1898-1900 he was conspicuous, both on the platform and in letters written to TheTimes, in demanding active measures against the Ritualistic party in the Church of England; but his attitude on that subject could not be dissociated from his political advocacy of Disestablishment. In March 1904, just after he had announced his intention not to seek election again to parliament, he succeeded, by the death of his nephew, to the family estates at Nuneham. But he died suddenly there on the 1st of October in the same year. He married, first, in 1859, Thérèse (d. 1863), daughter of Mr T. H. Lister, by whom he had one son, Lewis Vernon Harcourt (b. 1863), afterwards first commissioner of works both in Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman’s 1905 ministry (included in the cabinet in 1907) and in Mr Asquith’s cabinet (1908); and secondly, in 1876, Elizabeth, widow of Mr T. Ives and daughter of Mr. J. L. Motley, the historian, by whom he had another son, Robert (b. 1878).

Sir William Harcourt was one of the great parliamentary figures of the Gladstonian Liberal period. He was essentially an aristocratic type of late 19th century Whig, with a remarkable capacity for popular campaign fighting. He had been, and remained, a brilliant journalist in the non-professional sense. He was one of those who really made theSaturday Reviewin its palmy days, and in the period of his own most ebullient vigour, while Mr Gladstone was alive, his sense of political expediency and platform effectiveness in controversy was very acute. But though he played the game of public life with keen zest, he never really touched either the country or his own party with the faith which creates a personal following, and in later years he found himself somewhat isolated and disappointed, though he was free to express his deeper objections to the new developments in church and state. A tall, fine man, with the grand manner, he was, throughout a long career, a great personality in the life of his time.

(H. Ch.)

1William, 3rd and last Earl Harcourt (1743-1830), who succeeded his brother in the title, was a soldier who distinguished himself in the American War of Independence by capturing General Charles Lee, and commanded the British forces in Flanders in 1794, eventually becoming a field-marshal. He was a son of Simon, 1st earl (1714-1777), created viscount and earl in 1749, a soldier, and from 1772 to 1777 viceroy of Ireland, who was grandson and heir of Simon, Viscount Harcourt (1661-1727), lord chancellor—the “trimming Harcourt” of Swift—the purchaser of the Nuneham-Courtney estates in Oxfordshire, and son of Sir Philip Harcourt of Stanton Harcourt. The knights of Stanton Harcourt, from the 13th century onwards, traced their descent to the Norman de Harcourts, a branch of that family having come over with the Conqueror; and the pedigree claims to go back to Bernard of Saxony, who in 876 acquired the lordships of Harcourt, Castleville and Beauficel in Normandy. Viscount Harcourt’s second son Simon, who was father of the 1st earl, was also father of Martha, who married George Venables Vernon, of Sudbury, created 1st Baron Vernon in 1762. The latter was a descendant of Sir Richard Vernon (d. 1451), speaker of the Leicester parliament (1425) and treasurer of Calais, a member of a Norman family which came over with the Conqueror.2The Plantagenet descent (seeThe Blood Royal of Britain, by the marquis of Ruvigny, 1903, for tables) could be traced through Lady Anna Leveson Gower (wife of Archbishop Harcourt) to Lady Frances Stanley, the wife of the 1st earl of Bridgewater (1579-1649), and so to Lady Eleanor Brandon, wife of the earl of Cumberland (1517-1570), and daughter of Mary Tudor (wife of Charles Brandon, duke of Suffolk, 1484-1545), the daughter of Henry VII. and grand-daughter of Edward IV.

2The Plantagenet descent (seeThe Blood Royal of Britain, by the marquis of Ruvigny, 1903, for tables) could be traced through Lady Anna Leveson Gower (wife of Archbishop Harcourt) to Lady Frances Stanley, the wife of the 1st earl of Bridgewater (1579-1649), and so to Lady Eleanor Brandon, wife of the earl of Cumberland (1517-1570), and daughter of Mary Tudor (wife of Charles Brandon, duke of Suffolk, 1484-1545), the daughter of Henry VII. and grand-daughter of Edward IV.

HARCOURT, WILLIAM VERNON(1789-1871), founder of the British Association, was born at Sudbury, Derbyshire, in 1789, a younger son of Edward Vernon [Harcourt], archbishop of York (see above). Having served for five years in the navy he went up to Christ Church, Oxford, with a view to taking holy orders. He began his clerical duties at Bishopthorpe, Yorkshire, in 1811, and having developed a great interest in science while at the university, he took an active part in the foundation of the Yorkshire Philosophical Society, of which hewas the first president. The laws and the plan of proceedings for the British Association for the Advancement of Science were drawn up by him; and Harcourt was elected president in 1839. In 1824 he became canon of York and rector of Wheldrake in Yorkshire, and in 1837 rector of Bolton Percy. The Yorkshire school for the blind and the Castle Howard reformatory both owe their existence to his energies. His spare time until quite late in life was occupied with scientific experiments. Inheriting the Harcourt estates in Oxfordshire from his brother in 1861, he removed to Nuneham, where he died in April 1871.

HARDANGER FJORD,an inlet on the west coast of Norway, penetrating the mainland for 70 m. apart from the deep fringe of islands off its mouth, the total distance from the open sea to the head of the fjord being 114 m. Its extreme depth is about 350 fathoms. The entrance at Torö is 50 m. by water south of Bergen, 60° N., and the general direction is N.E. from that point. The fjord is flanked by magnificent mountains, from which many waterfalls pour into it. The main fjord is divided into parts under different names, and there are many fine branch fjords. The fjord is frequented by tourists, and the principal stations have hotels. The outer fjord is called the Kvindherredsfjord, flanked by the Melderskin (4680 ft.); then follow Sildefjord and Bonde Sund, separated by Varalds island. Here Mauranger-fjord opens on the east; from Sundal on this inlet the great Folgefond snowfield may be crossed, and a fine glacier (Bondhusbrae) visited. Bakke and Vikingnaes are stations on Hisfjord, Nordheimsund and Östensö on Ytre Samlen, which throws off a fine narrow branch northward, the Fiksensund. There follow Indre Samlen and Utnefjord, with the station of Utne opposite Oxen (4120 ft.), and its northward branch, Gravenfjord, with the beautiful station of Eide at its head, whence a road runs north-west to Vossevangen. From the Utne terminal branches of the fjord run south and east; the Sörfjord, steeply walled by the heights of the Folgefond, with the frequented resort of Odde at its head; and the Eidfjord, with its branch Osefjord, terminating beneath a tremendous rampart of mountains, through which the sombre Simodal penetrates, the river flowing from Daemmevand, a beautiful lake among the fields, and forming with its tributaries the fine falls of Skykje and Rembesdal. Vik is the principal station on Eidfjord, and Ulvik on a branch of the Ose, with a road to Vossevangen. At Vik is the mouth of the Björeia river, which, in forming the Vöringfos, plunges 520 ft. into a magnificent rock-bound basin. A small stream entering Sörfjord forms in its upper course the Skjaeggedalsfos, of equal height with the Vöringfos, and hardly less beautiful. The natives of Hardanger have an especially picturesque local costume.

HARDEE, WILLIAM JOSEPH(1815-1873), American soldier, was born in Savannah, Georgia, on the 10th of November 1815 and graduated from West Point in 1838. As a subaltern of cavalry he was employed on a special mission to Europe to study the cavalry methods in vogue (1839). He was promoted captain in 1844 and served under Generals Taylor and Scott in the Mexican War, winning the brevet of major for gallantry in action in March 1847 and subsequently that of lieut.-colonel. After the war he served as a substantive major under Colonel Sidney Johnston and Lieut.-Colonel Robert Lee in the 2nd U.S. cavalry, and for some time before 1856 he was engaged in compiling the official manual of infantry drill and tactics which, familiarly called “Hardee’s Tactics,” afterwards formed the text-book for the infantry arm in both the Federal and the Confederate armies. From 1856 to 1861 he was commandant of West Point, resigning his commission on the secession of his state in the latter year. Entering the Confederate service as a colonel, he was shortly promoted brigadier-general. He distinguished himself very greatly by his tactical leadership on the field of Shiloh, and was immediately promoted major-general. As a corps commander he fought under General Bragg at Perryville and Stone River, and for his distinguished services in these battles was promoted lieutenant-general. He served in the latter part of the campaign of 1863 under Bragg and in that of 1864 under J. E. Johnston. When the latter officer was superseded by Hood, Hardee was relieved at his own request, and for the remainder of the war he served in the Carolinas. When the Civil War came to an end in 1865 he retired to his plantation near Selma, Alabama. He died at Wytheville, Virginia, on the 6th of November 1873.

HARDENBERG, KARL AUGUST VON,Prince(1750-1822), Prussian statesman, was born at Essenroda in Hanover on the 31st of May 1750. After studying at Leipzig and Göttingen he entered the Hanoverian civil service in 1770 as councillor of the board of domains (Kammerrat); but, finding his advancement slow, he set out—on the advice of King George III.—on a course of travels, spending some time at Wetzlar, Regensburg (where he studied the mechanism of the Imperial government), Vienna and Berlin. He also visited France, Holland and England, where he was kindly received by the king. On his return he married, by his father’s desire, the countess Reventlow. In 1778 he was raised to the rank of privy councillor and created a count. He now again went to England, in the hope of obtaining the post of Hanoverian envoy in London; but, his wife becoming entangled in anamourwith the prince of Wales, so great a scandal was created that he was forced to leave the Hanoverian service. In 1782 he entered that of the duke of Brunswick, and as president of the board of domains displayed a zeal for reform, in the manner approved by the enlightened despots of the century, that rendered him very unpopular with the orthodox clergy and the conservative estates. In Brunswick, too, his position was in the end made untenable by the conduct of his wife, whom he now divorced; he himself, shortly afterwards, marrying a divorced woman. Fortunately for him, this coincided with the lapsing of the principalities of Ansbach and Bayreuth to Prussia, owing to the resignation of the last margrave, Charles Alexander, in 1791. Hardenberg, who happened to be in Berlin at the time, was on the recommendation of Herzberg appointed administrator of the principalities (1792). The position, owing to the singular overlapping of territorial claims in the old Empire, was one of considerable delicacy, and Hardenberg filled it with great skill, doing much to reform traditional anomalies and to develop the country, and at the same time labouring to expand the influence of Prussia in South Germany. After the outbreak of the revolutionary wars his diplomatic ability led to his appointment as Prussian envoy, with a roving commission to visit the Rhenish courts and win them over to Prussia’s views; and ultimately, when the necessity for making peace with the French Republic had been recognized, he was appointed to succeed Count Goltz as Prussian plenipotentiary at Basel (February 28, 1795), where he signed the treaty of peace.

In 1797, on the accession of King Frederick William III., Hardenberg was summoned to Berlin, where he received an important position in the cabinet and was appointed chief of the departments of Magdeburg and Halberstadt, for Westphalia, and for the principality of Neuchâtel. In 1793 Hardenberg had struck up a friendship with Count Haugwitz, the influential minister for foreign affairs, and when in 1803 the latter went away on leave (August-October) he appointed Hardenberg hislocum tenens. It was a critical period. Napoleon had just occupied Hanover, and Haugwitz had urged upon the king the necessity for strong measures and the expediency of a Russian alliance. During his absence, however, the king’s irresolution continued; he clung to the policy of neutrality which had so far seemed to have served Prussia so well; and Hardenberg contented himself with adapting himself to the royal will. By the time Haugwitz returned, the unyielding attitude of Napoleon had caused the king to make advances to Russia; but the mutual declarations of the 3rd and 25th of May 1804 only pledged the two powers to take up arms in the event of a French attack upon Prussia or of further aggressions in North Germany. Finally, Haugwitz, unable to persuade the cabinet to a more vigorous policy, resigned, and on the 14th of April 1804 Hardenberg succeeded him as foreign minister.

If there was to be war, Hardenberg would have preferred the French alliance, which was the price Napoleon demanded for the cession of Hanover to Prussia; for the Eastern powers wouldscarcely have conceded, of their free will, so great an augmentation of Prussian power. But he still hoped to gain the coveted prize by diplomacy, backed by the veiled threat of an armed neutrality. Then occurred Napoleon’s contemptuous violation of Prussian territory by marching three French corps through Ansbach; King Frederick William’s pride overcame his weakness, and on the 3rd of November he signed with the tsar Alexander the terms of an ultimatum to be laid before the French emperor. Haugwitz was despatched to Vienna with the document; but before he arrived the battle of Austerlitz had been fought, and the Prussian plenipotentiary had to make the best terms he could with the conqueror. Prussia, indeed, by the treaty signed at Schönbrunn on the 15th of December 1805, received Hanover, but in return for all her territories in South Germany. One condition of the arrangement was the retirement of Hardenberg, whom Napoleon disliked. He was again foreign minister for a few months after the crisis of 1806 (April-July 1807); but Napoleon’s resentment was implacable, and one of the conditions of the terms granted to Prussia by the treaty of Tilsit was Hardenberg’s dismissal.

After the enforced retirement of Stein in 1810 and the unsatisfactory interlude of the feeble Altenstein ministry, Hardenberg was again summoned to Berlin, this time as chancellor (June 6, 1810). The campaign of Jena and its consequences had had a profound effect upon him; and in his mind the traditions of the old diplomacy had given place to the new sentiment of nationality characteristic of the coming age, which in him found expression in a passionate desire to restore the position of Prussia and crush her oppressors. During his retirement at Riga he had worked out an elaborate plan for reconstructing the monarchy on Liberal lines; and when he came into power, though the circumstances of the time did not admit of his pursuing an independent foreign policy, he steadily prepared for the struggle with France by carrying out Stein’s far-reaching schemes of social and political reorganization. The military system was completely reformed, serfdom was abolished, municipal institutions were fostered, the civil service was thrown open to all classes, and great attention was devoted to the educational needs of every section of the community.

When at last the time came to put these reforms to the test, after the Moscow campaign of 1812, it was Hardenberg who, supported by the influence of the noble Queen Louise, determined Frederick William to take advantage of General Yorck’s loyal disloyalty and declare against France. He was rightly regarded by German patriots as the statesman who had done most to encourage the spirit of national independence; and immediately after he had signed the first peace of Paris he was raised to the rank of prince (June 3, 1814) in recognition of the part he had played in the War of Liberation.

Hardenberg now had an assured position in that close corporation of sovereigns and statesmen by whom Europe, during the next few years, was to be governed. He accompanied the allied sovereigns to England, and at the congress of Vienna (1814-1815) was the chief plenipotentiary of Prussia. But from this time the zenith of his influence, if not of his fame, was passed. In diplomacy he was no match for Metternich, whose influence soon overshadowed his own in the councils of Europe, of Germany, and ultimately even of Prussia itself. At Vienna, in spite of the powerful backing of Alexander of Russia, he failed to secure the annexation of the whole of Saxony to Prussia; at Paris, after Waterloo, he failed to carry through his views as to the further dismemberment of France; he had weakly allowed Metternich to forestall him in making terms with the states of the Confederation of the Rhine, which secured to Austria the preponderance in the German federal diet; on the eve of the conference of Carlsbad (1819) he signed a convention with Metternich, by which—to quote the historian Treitschke—“like a penitent sinner, without any formalquid pro quo, the monarchy of Frederick the Great yielded to a foreign power a voice in her internal affairs.” At the congresses of Aix-la-Chapelle, Troppau, Laibach and Verona the voice of Hardenberg was but an echo of that of Metternich.

The cause lay partly in the difficult circumstances of the loosely-knit Prussian monarchy, but partly in Hardenberg’s character, which, never well balanced, had deteriorated with age. He continued amiable, charming and enlightened as ever; but the excesses which had been pardonable in a young diplomatist were a scandal in an elderly chancellor, and could not but weaken his influence with so pious aLandesvateras Frederick William III. To overcome the king’s terror of Liberal experiments would have needed all the powers of an adviser at once wise and in character wholly trustworthy. Hardenberg was wise enough; he saw the necessity for constitutional reform; but he clung with almost senile tenacity to the sweets of office, and when the tide turned strongly against Liberalism he allowed himself to drift with it. In the privacy of royal commissions he continued to elaborate schemes for constitutions that never saw the light; but Germany, disillusioned, saw only the faithful henchman of Metternich, an accomplice in the policy of the Carlsbad Decrees and the Troppau Protocol. He died, soon after the closing of the congress of Verona, at Genoa, on the 26th of November 1822.

See L. v. Ranke,Denkwürdigkeiten des Staatskanzlers Fürsten von Hardenberg(5 vols., Leipzig, 1877); J. R. Seeley,The Life and Times of Stein(3 vols., Cambridge, 1878); E. Meier,Reform der Verwaltungsorganisation unter Stein und Hardenberg(ib., 1881); Chr. Meyer,Hardenberg und seine Verwaltung der Fürstentümer Ansbach und Bayreuth(Breslau, 1892); Koser,Die Neuordnung des preussischen Archivwesens durch den Staatskanzler Fürsten v. Hardenberg(Leipzig, 1904).

HARDERWYK,a seaport in the province of Gelderland, Holland, on the shores of the Zuider Zee, 17 m. by rail N.N.E. of Amersfoort. Pop. (1900) 7425. It is a quaint old town, approached by a fine avenue of trees, and standing in the midst of a patch of fertile ground. Harderwyk is chiefly important as being the depot for recruits for the Dutch colonial army. It contains a small fort and large barracks. The principal buildings are the town hall, with some ancient furniture, a large 15th century church with a notable square tower, a municipal orphanage, and the Nassau-Veluwe gymnasium. Agriculture, fishing, and a few domestic industries form the only employment of the inhabitants. As a seaport its trade is now confined exclusively to the Zuider Zee.

HARDICANUTE[more correctlyHardacnut] (c.1010-1042), son of Canute, king of England, by his wife Ælfgifu or Emma, was born about 1019. In the contest for the English crown which followed the death of Canute in 1035 the claims of Hardicanute were supported by Emma and her ally, Godwine, earl of the West Saxons, in opposition to those of Harold, Canute’s illegitimate son, who was backed by the Mercian earl Leofric and the chief men of the north. At a meeting of the witan at Oxford a compromise was ultimately arranged by which Harold was temporarily elected regent of all England, pending the final settlement of the question on the return of Hardicanute from Denmark. The compromise was strongly opposed by Godwine and Emma, who for a time forcibly held Wessex in Hardicanute’s behalf. But Harold’s party rapidly increased; and early in 1037 he was definitely elected king. Emma was driven out and took refuge at Bruges. In 1039 Hardicanute joined her, and together they concerted an attack on England. But next year Harold died; and Hardicanute peacefully succeeded. His short reign was marked by great oppression and cruelty. He caused the dead body of Harold to be dug up and thrown into a fen; he exacted so heavy a geld for the support of his foreign fleet that great discontent was created throughout the kingdom, and in Worcestershire a general uprising took place against those sent to collect the tax, whereupon he burned the city of Worcester to the ground and devastated the surrounding country; in 1041 he permitted Edwulf, earl of Northumbria, to be treacherously murdered after having granted him a safe-conduct. While “he stood at his drink” at the marriage feast of one of his flegns he was suddenly seized with a fit, from which he died a few days afterwards on the 8th of June 1042.

HARDING, CHESTER(1792-1866), American portrait painter, was born at Conway, Massachusetts, on the 1st of September 1792. Brought up in the wilderness of New York state, Harding,as a lad of splendid physique, standing over 6 ft. 3 in., marched as a drummer with the militia to the St Lawrence in 1813. He became subsequently chairmaker, peddler, inn-keeper, and house-painter, painting signs in Pittsburg, Pa., and eventually going on the road, self-taught, as an itinerant portrait painter. He made enough money to take him to the schools at the Philadelphia Academy of Design, and he soon became proficient enough to gain a competency, so that later he went to England and set up a studio in London. There he met with great success, painting royalty and the nobility, and, despite the lackings of an early education and social experience, he became a favourite in all circles. Returning to the United States, he settled in Boston and painted portraits of many of the prominent men and women of his time. He died on the 1st of April 1866.

HARDING, JAMES DUFFIELD(1798-1863), English landscape painter, was the son of an artist, and took to the same vocation at an early age, although he had originally been destined for the law. He was in the main a water-colour painter and a lithographer, but he produced various oil-paintings both at the beginning and towards the end of his career. He frequently contributed to the exhibitions of the Water-Colour Society, of which he became an associate in 1821, and a full member in 1822. He was also very largely engaged in teaching, and published several books developing his views of art—amongst others,The Tourist in Italy(1831);The Tourist in France(1834);The Park and the Forest(1841);The Principles and the Practice of Art(1845);Elementary Art(1846);Scotland Delineated in a Series of Views(1847);Lessons on Art(1849). He died at Barnes on the 4th of December 1863. Harding was noted for facility, sureness of hand, nicety of touch, and the various qualities which go to make up an elegant, highly trained, and accomplished sketcher from nature, and composer of picturesque landscape material; he was particularly skilful in the treatment of foliage.

HARDINGE, HENRY HARDINGE,Viscount(1785-1856), British field marshal and governor-general of India, was born at Wrotham in Kent on the 30th of March 1785. After being at Eton, he entered the army in 1799 as an ensign in the Queen’s Rangers, a corps then stationed in Upper Canada. His first active service was at the battle of Vimiera, where he was wounded; and at Corunna he was by the side of Sir John Moore when he received his death-wound. Subsequently he received an appointment as deputy-quartermaster-general in the Portuguese army from Marshal Beresford, and was present at nearly all the battles of the Peninsular War, being wounded again at Vittoria. At Albuera he saved the day for the British by taking the responsibility at a critical moment of strongly urging General Cole’s division to advance. When peace was again broken in 1815 by Napoleon’s escape from Elba, Hardinge hastened into active service, and was appointed to the important post of commissioner at the Prussian headquarters. In this capacity he was present at the battle of Ligny on the 16th of June 1815, where he lost his left hand by a shot, and thus was not present at Waterloo, fought two days later. For the loss of his hand he received a pension of £300; he had already been made a K.C.B., and Wellington presented him with a sword that had belonged to Napoleon. In 1820 and 1826 Sir Henry Hardinge was returned to parliament as member for Durham; and in 1828 he accepted the office of secretary at war in Wellington’s ministry, a post which he also filled in Peel’s cabinet in 1841-1844. In 1830 and 1834-1835 he was chief secretary for Ireland. In 1844 he succeeded Lord Ellenborough as governor-general of India. During his term of office the first Sikh War broke out; and Hardinge, waiving his right to the supreme command, magnanimously offered to serve as second in command under Sir Hugh Gough; but disagreeing with the latter’s plan of campaign at Ferozeshah, he temporarily reasserted his authority as governor-general (seeSikh Wars). After the successful termination of the campaign at Sobraon he was created Viscount Hardinge of Lahore and of King’s Newton in Derbyshire, with a pension of £3000 for three lives; while the East India Company voted him an annuity of £5000, which he declined to accept. Hardinge’s term of office in India was marked by many social and educational reforms. He returned to England in 1848, and in 1852 succeeded the duke of Wellington as commander-in-chief of the British army. While in this position he had the home management of the Crimean War, which he endeavoured to conduct on Wellington’s principles—a system not altogether suited to the changed mode of warfare. In 1855 he was promoted to the rank of field marshal. Viscount Hardinge resigned his office of commander-in-chief in July 1856, owing to failing health, and died on the 24th of September of the same year at South Park near Tunbridge Wells. His elder son, Charles Stewart (1822-1894), who had been his private secretary in India, was the 2nd Viscount Hardinge; and the latter’s eldest son succeeded to the title. The younger son of the 2nd Viscount, Charles Hardinge (b. 1858), became a prominent diplomatist (see Edward VII.), and was appointed governor-general of India in 1910, being created Baron Hardinge of Penshurst.

See C. Hardinge,Viscount Hardinge(Rulers of India series, 1891); and R. S. Rait,Life and Campaigns of Viscount Gough(1903).

HARDOI,a town and district of British India, in the Lucknow division of the United Provinces. The town is 63 m. N.E. of Lucknow by rail. Pop. (1901) 12,174. It has a wood-carving industry, saltpetre works, and an export trade in grain.

TheDistrict of Hardoihas an area of 2331 sq. m. It is a level district watered by the Ganges, Ramganga, Deoha or Garra, Sukheta, Sai, Baita and Gumti—the three rivers first named being navigable by country boats. Towards the Ganges the land is uneven, and often rises in hillocks of sand cultivated at the base, and their slopes covered with loftymunjgrass. Several largejhilsor swamps are scattered throughout the district, the largest being that of Sāndi, which is 3 m. long by from 1 to 2 m. broad. Thesejhilsare largely used for irrigation. Large tracts of forest jungle still exist. Leopards, black buck, spotted deer, andnilgaiare common; the mallard, teal, grey duck, common goose, and all kinds of waterfowl abound. In 1901 the population of the district was 1,092,834, showing a decrease of nearly 2% in the decade. The district contains a larger urban population than any other in Oudh, the largest town being Shahabad, 20,036 in 1901. It is traversed by the Oudh and Rohilkhand railway from Lucknow to Shahjahanpur, and its branches. The chief exports are grain, sugar, hides, tobacco and saltpetre.

The first authentic records of Hardoi are connected with the Mussulman colonization. Bāwan was occupied by Sayyid Sālār Masāūd in 1028, but the permanent Moslem occupation did not begin till 1217. Owing to the situation of the district, Hardoi formed the scene of many sanguinary battles between the rival Afghan and Mogul empires. Between Bīlgrām and Sāndi was fought the great battle between Humāyun and Sher Shāh, in which the former was utterly defeated. Hardoi, along with the rest of Oudh, became British territory under Lord Dalhousie’s proclamation of February 1856.

HARDOUIN, JEAN(1646-1729), French classical scholar, was born at Quimper in Brittany. Having acquired a taste for literature in his father’s book-shop, he sought and obtained about his sixteenth year admission into the order of the Jesuits. In Paris, where he went to study theology, he ultimately became librarian of the Collège Louis le Grand in 1683, and he died there on the 3rd of September 1729. His first published work was an edition of Themistius (1684), which included no fewer than thirteen new orations. On the advice of Jean Garnier (1612-1681) he undertook to edit theNatural Historyof Pliny for the Delphin series, a task which he completed in five years. His attention having been turned to numismatics as auxiliary to his great editorial labours, he published several learned works in that department, marred, however, as almost everything he did was marred, by a determination to be at all hazards different from other interpreters. It is sufficient to mention hisNummi antiqui populorum et urbium illustrati(1684),Antirrheticus de nummis antiquis coloniarum et municipiorum(1689), andChronologia Veteris Testamenti ad vulgatam versionem exacta et nummis illustrata(1696). By the ecclesiastical authorities Hardouin was appointed to supervise theConciliorum collectio regia maxima(1715); but he was accused of suppressing important documents and foisting in apocryphal matter, and by the order of the parlement of Paris (then at war with the Jesuits) the publication of the work was delayed. It is really a valuable collection, much cited by scholars. Hardouin declared that all the councils supposed to have taken place before the council of Trent were fictitious. It is, however, as the originator of a variety of paradoxical theories that Hardouin is now best remembered. The most remarkable, contained in hisChronologiae ex nummis antiquis restitutae(1696) andProlegomena ad censuram veterum scriptorum, was to the effect that, with the exception of the works of Homer, Herodotus and Cicero, theNatural Historyof Pliny, theGeorgicsofVirgil, and theSatires and Epistles of Horace, all the ancient classics of Greece and Rome were spurious, having been manufactured by monks of the 13th century, under the direction of a certain Severus Archontius. He denied the genuineness of most ancient works of art, coins and inscriptions, and declared that the New Testament was originally written in Latin.

Back to Index Next