born in Leicestershire on the 1st of April 1822, being the third son of the 6th Earl of Buckinghamshire. In 1835 he entered the Royal Navy and served as a midshipman on the coast of Brazil in the suppression of the slave trade, displaying much gallantry in the operations. In 1855 he took part, as captain of the “Driver,” in the Baltic Expedition, and was actively engaged at Bomarsund and Abo. In 1862 he retired from the navy with the rank of post-captain; but his love of adventure led him, during the American Civil War, to take the command of a blockade-runner. He had the good fortune to run the blockade eighteen times, conveying war material to Charleston and returning with a cargo of cotton. In 1867 Hobart entered the Turkish service, and was immediately nominated to the command of that fleet, with the rank of “Bahrie Limassi” (rear-admiral). In this capacity he performed splendid service in helping to suppress the insurrection in Crete, and was rewarded by the Sultan with the title of Pasha (1869). In 1874 Hobart, whose name had, on representations made by Greece, been removed from the British Navy List, was reinstated; his restoration did not, however, last long, for on the outbreak of the Russo-Turkish war he again entered Turkish service. In command of the Turkish squadron he completely dominated the Black Sea, blockading the ports of South Russia and the mouths of the Danube, and paralysing the action of the Russian fleet. On the conclusion of peace Hobart still remained in the Turkish service, and in 1881 was appointed Mushir, or marshal, being the first Christian to hold that high office. His achievements as a blockade-runner, his blockade of Crete, and his handling of the Turkish fleet against the torpedo-lined coasts of Russia, showed him to be a daring, resourceful, and skilful commander, worthy to be ranked among the illustrious names of British naval heroes. He died at Milan on the 19th of June 1886.
See his Sketches of My Life (1886), which must, however, be used with caution, since it contains many proved inaccuracies.
HOBART, the capital of Tasmania, in the county of Buckingham,
on the southern coast of the island. It occupies a site of
great beauty, standing on a series of low hills at the foot of
Mount Wellington, a lofty peak (4166 ft.) which is snow-clad
for many months in the year. The town fronts Sullivan’s Cove,
a picturesque bay opening into the estuary of the river Derwent,
and is nearly square in form, laid out with wide streets intersecting
at right angles, the chief of which are served by electric tramways.
It is the seat of the Anglican bishop of Tasmania, and of the
Roman Catholic archbishop of Hobart. The Anglican cathedral
of St David dates from 1873, though its foundations were laid
as early as 1817. St Mary’s Roman Catholic cathedral is a
beautiful building; but perhaps the most notable ecclesiastical
building in Hobart is the great Baptist tabernacle in Upper
Elizabeth Street. The most prominent public buildings are the
Houses of Parliament, to which an excellent library is attached;
the town hall, a beautiful building of brown and white Tasmanian
freestone in Italian style; the museum and national art gallery,
and the general post office (1904) with its lofty clock-tower.
Government House, the residence of the governor of Tasmania,
a handsome castellated building, stands in its domain on the
banks of the Derwent, to the north of the town. The botanical
gardens adjoin. Of the parks and public gardens, the most
extensive is the Queen’s Domain, covering an area of about
700 acres, while the most central is Franklin Square, adorned
with a statue of Sir John Franklin, the famous Arctic explorer,
who was governor of Tasmania from 1837 to 1843. The university
of Tasmania, established in 1890, and opened in 1893,
has its headquarters at Hobart. The town is celebrated for its
invigorating climate, and its annual regatta on the Derwent
attracts numerous visitors. The harbour is easy of access,
well sheltered and deep, with wharf accommodation for vessels
of the largest tonnage. It is a regular port of call for several
intercolonial lines from Sydney and Melbourne, and for lines
from London to New Zealand. The exports, of an average
value of £850,000 annually, consist mainly of fruit, hops, grain,
timber and wool. The industries comprise brewing, saw-milling,
iron-founding, flour-milling, tanning, and the manufacture of
pottery and woollen goods. Hobart is the centre of a large
fruit-growing district, the produce of which, for the most part,
is exported to London and Sydney. The city was founded in
1804 and takes its name from Lord Hobart (see Buckinghamshire, Earls of),
then secretary of state for the colonies.
It was created a municipality in 1853, and a city in 1857; and
in 1881 its name was changed from Hobart Town to the present
form. The chief suburbs are Newton, Sandy Bay, Wellington,
Risdon, Glenorchy, Bellerive and Beltana. The population of the
city proper in 1901 was 24,652, or including suburbs, 34,182.
HOBBEMA, MEYNDERT (c. 1638–1709), the greatest landscape
painter of the Dutch school after Ruysdael, lived at
Amsterdam in the second half of the 17th century. The facts
of his life are somewhat obscure. Nothing is more disappointing
than to find that in Hobbema’s case chronology and signed
pictures substantially contradict each other. According to the
latter his practice lasted from 1650 to 1689; according to the
former his birth occurred in 1638, his death as late as 1709.
If the masterpiece formerly in the Bredel collection, called
“A Wooded Stream,” honestly bears the date of 1650, or “The
Cottages under Trees” of the Ford collection the date of 1652,
the painter of these canvases cannot be Hobbema, whose birth
took place in 1638, unless indeed we admit that Hobbema
painted some of his finest works at the age of twelve or fourteen.
For a considerable period it was profitable to pass Hobbemas
as Ruysdaels, and the name of the lesser master was probably
erased from several of his productions. When Hobbema’s
talent was recognized, the contrary process was followed, and
in this way the name, and perhaps fictitious dates, reappeared
by fraud. An experienced eye will note the differences which
occur in Hobbema’s signatures in such well-known examples as
adorn the galleries of London and Rotterdam, or the Grosvenor
and van der Hoop collections. Meanwhile, we must be content
to know that, if the question of dates could be brought into
accordance with records and chronology, the facts of Hobbema’s
life would be as follows.
Meyndert Hobbema was married at the age of thirty to Eeltije Vinck of Gorcum, in the Oudekerk or old church at Amsterdam, on the 2nd of November 1668. Witnesses to the marriage were the bride’s brother Cornelius Vinck and Jacob Ruysdael. We might suppose from this that Hobbema and Ruysdael, the two great masters of landscape, were united at this time by ties of friendship, and accept the belief that the former was the pupil of the latter. Yet even this is denied to us, since records tell us that there were two Jacob Ruysdaels, cousins and contemporaries, at Amsterdam in the middle of the 17th century—one a framemaker, the son of Solomon, the other a painter, the son of Isaac Ruysdael. Of Hobbema’s marriage there came between 1668 and 1673 four children. In 1704 Eeltije died, and was buried in the pauper section of the Leiden cemetery at Amsterdam. Hobbema himself survived till December 1709, receiving burial on the 14th of that month in the pauper section of the Westerkerk cemetery at Amsterdam. Husband and wife had lived during their lifetime in the Rozengracht, at no great distance from Rembrandt, who also dwelt there in his later and impoverished days. Rembrandt, Hals, Jacob Ruysdael, and Hobbema were in one respect alike. They all died in misery, insufficiently rewarded perhaps for their toil, imprudent perhaps in the use of the means derived from their labours. Posterity has recognized that Hobbema and Ruysdael together represent the final development of landscape art in Holland. Their style is so related that we cannot suppose the first to have been unconnected with the second. Still their works differ in certain ways, and their character is generally so marked that we shall find little difficulty in distinguishing them, nor indeed shall we hesitate in separating those of Hobbema from the feebler productions of his imitators and predecessors—Isaac Ruysdael, Rontbouts, de Vries, Dekker, Looten, Verboom, du Bois, van Kessel, van der Hagen, even Philip de Koningk. In the exercise of his craft Hobbema was patient beyond all conception. It is doubtful whether any one ever so completely
