and at an angle to the British squadron. Captain Hoste was not compelled to lie still as the allies did at Trafalgar. He stood on, and as the two French lines had to overtake him as he slipped away at an angle to their course, one of them got in the way of the other. Captain Hoste materially forwarded the success of his manœuvre by leading the foremost French ship, the “Favorite,” 40, on to a reef, which was known to himself, but not to the enemy. Both squadrons then turned, and the Franco-Venetians falling into great confusion were defeated in spite of the gallant fighting of the individual ships. Two prizes were taken and Dubourdieu was killed.
The second naval battle of Lissa was fought between the Austrian and Italian navies on the 20th of July 1866. The island, then in possession of the Austrians, was attacked by an Italian squadron from Ancona of 12 ironclads and 22 wooden vessels. One of the ironclads was damaged in a bombardment of the forts, and two were detached on other service, when an Austrian squadron of 7 ironclads, one unarmoured warship the “Kaiser” and a number of small craft which had left Fasano under the command of Admiral Tegethoff came to interrupt their operations. The Italian admiral Persano arranged his ships in a single long line ahead, which allowing for the necessary space between them meant that the Italian formation stretched for more than 2 m. Just before the action began Admiral Persano shifted his flag from the “Ré d’Italia,” the fourth ship in order from the van, to the ram “Affondatore,” the fifth. This made it necessary for the “Affondatore” and the ships astern to shorten speed, and, as the leading vessels stood on, a gap was created in the Italian line. Admiral Tegethoff, who was on the port bow of the Italians, attacked with his squadron in three divisions formed in obtuse angles. The Italians opened a very rapid and ill-directed fire at a distance of 1000 yds. The Austrians did not reply till they were at a distance of 300 yds. Under Tegethoff’s vigorous leadership, and aided by the disorder in the Italian line, the Austrians brought on a brief, but to the Italians destructive, mêlée. They broke through an interval between the third and fourth Italian ships. The unarmed Austrian ships headed to attack the unarmed Italians in the rear. At this point an incident occurred to which an exaggerated importance was given. The Italian ironclad “Ré di Portogallo” of 5600 tons, in the rear of the line, stood out to cover the unarmoured squadron by ramming the Austrians. She was herself rammed by the wooden “Kaiser” (5000 tons), but received little injury, while the Austrian was much injured. The “Kaiser” and the wooden vessels then made for the protection of fort San Giorgio on Lissa unpursued. In the centre, where the action was hottest, the Austrian flagship “Ferdinand Max” of 5200 tons rammed and sank the “Ré d’Italia.” The Italian “Palestro” of 2000 tons was fired by a shell and blew up. By midday the Italians were in retreat, and Tegethoff anchored at San Giorgio. His squadron had suffered very little from the wild fire of the Italians. The battle of the 20th July was the first fought at sea by modern ironclad steam fleets, and therefore attracted a great deal of attention. The sinking of the “Ré d’Italia” and the ramming of the “Portogallo” by the “Kaiser” gave an immense impulse to the then popular theory that the ram would be a leading, if not the principal, weapon in modern sea warfare. This calculation has not been borne out by more recent experience, and indeed was not justified by the battle itself, in which the attempts to ram were many and the successes very few. The “Ré d’Italia” was struck only because she was suddenly and most injudiciously backed, so that she had no way on when charged by the “Ferdinand Max.”
For the first battle of Lissa see James’s Naval History, vol. v. (1837). A clear account of the second battle will be found in Sir S. Eardley-Wilmot’s Development of Navies (London, 1892); see also H. W. Wilson’s Ironclads in Action (London, 1896). (D. H.)
LISSA (Polish Lézno), a town in the Prussian province of
Posen, 25 m. N.E. from Glogau by rail and at the junction of lines
to Breslau, Posen and Landsberg. Pop. (1905) 16,021. The
chief buildings are the handsome palace, the medieval town-hall,
the four churches and the synagogue. Its manufactures consist
chiefly of shoes, machinery, liqueurs and tobacco; it also possesses
a large steam flour-mill, and carries on a brisk trade in grain and cattle.
Lissa owes its rise to a number of Moravian Brothers who were banished from Bohemia by the emperor Ferdinand I. in the 16th century and found a refuge in a village on the estate of the Polish family of Leszczynski. Their settlement received municipal rights in 1561. During the Thirty Years’ War the population was reinforced by other refugees, and Lissa became an important commercial town and the chief seat of the Moravian Brothers in Poland. Johann Amos Comenius was long rector of the celebrated Moravian school here. In 1656 and 1707 Lissa was burned down.
See Voigt, Aus Lissas erster Blütezeit (Lissa, 1905), and Sanden, Geschichte der Lissaer Schule (Lissa, 1905).
LIST, FRIEDRICH (1789–1846), German economist, was born
at Reutlingen, Württemberg, on the 6th of August 1789. Unwilling
to follow the occupation of his father, who was a prosperous
tanner, he became a clerk in the public service, and by
1816 had risen to the post of ministerial under-secretary. In
1817 he was appointed professor of administration and politics
at the university of Tübingen, but the fall of the ministry in
1819 compelled him to resign. As a deputy to the Württemberg
chamber, he was active in advocating administrative reforms.
He was eventually expelled from the chamber and in April 1822
sentenced to ten months’ imprisonment with hard labour in
the fortress of Asperg. He escaped to Alsace, and after visiting
France and England returned in 1824 to finish his sentence,
and was released on undertaking to emigrate to America. There
he resided from 1825 to 1832, first engaging in farming and
afterwards in journalism. It was in America that he gathered
from a study of Alexander Hamilton’s work the inspiration
which made him an economist of his pronounced “National”
views. The discovery of coal on some land which he had acquired
made him financially independent, and he became United States
consul at Leipzig in 1832. He strongly advocated the extension
of the railway system in Germany, and the establishment of the
Zollverein was due largely to his enthusiasm and ardour. His
latter days were darkened by many misfortunes; he lost much
of his American property in a financial crisis, ill-health also
overtook him, and he brought his life to an end by his own hand
on the 30th of November 1846.
List holds historically one of the highest places in economic thought as applied to practical objects. His principal work is entitled Das Nationale System der Politischen Ökonomie (1841). Though his practical conclusions were different from those of Adam Müller (1779–1829), he was largely influenced not only by Hamilton but also by the general mode of thinking of that writer, and by his strictures on the doctrine of Adam Smith. It was particularly against the cosmopolitan principle in the modern economical system that he protested, and against the absolute doctrine of free trade, which was in harmony with that principle. He gave prominence to the national idea, and insisted on the special requirements of each nation according to its circumstances and especially to the degree of its development.
He refused to Smith’s system the title of the industrial, which he thought more appropriate to the mercantile system, and designated the former as “the exchange-value system.” He denied the parallelism asserted by Smith between the economic conduct proper to an individual and to a nation, and held that the immediate private interest of the separate members of the community would not lead to the highest good of the whole. That the nation was an existence, standing between the individual and humanity, and formed into a unity by its language, manners, historical development, culture and constitution. That this unity must be the first condition of the security, wellbeing, progress and civilization of the individual; and private economic interests, like all others, must be subordinated to the maintenance, completion and strengthening of the nationality. The nation having a continuous life, its true wealth must consist—and this is List’s fundamental doctrine—not in the quantity of exchange-values which it possesses, but in the full and many-sided development of its productive powers. Its economic education should be more important than the immediate production of values, and it might be right that one generation should sacrifice its gain and enjoyment to secure the strength and skill of the future. In the sound and normal condition of a nation which has attained
