In 1888 Mr Balfour served on the Gold and Silver Commission, currency problems from the standpoint of bimetallism being among the more academic subjects which had engaged his attention. On the death of Mr W. H. Smith in 1891 he became first lord of the treasury and leader of the House of Commons, and in that capacity introduced in 1892 a Local Government Bill for Ireland. The Conservative government was then at the end of its tether, and the project fell through. For the next three years Mr Balfour led the opposition with great skill and address. On the return of the Unionists to power in 1895 he resumed the leadership of the House, but not at first with the success expected of him, his management of the abortive education proposals of '96 being thought, even by his own supporters, to show a disinclination for the continuous drudgery of parliamentary management under modern conditions. But after the opening session matters proceeded more smoothly, and Mr Balfour regained his old position in the estimation of the House and the country. He had the satisfaction of seeing a bill pass for providing Ireland with an improved system of local government, and took an active share in the debates on the various foreign and domestic questions that came before parliament during 1895-1900. His championship of the voluntary schools, his adroit parliamentary handling of the problems opened up by the so-called "crisis in the Church" caused by the Protestant movement against ritualistic practices, and his pronouncement in favour of a Roman Catholic university for Ireland—for which he outlined a scheme that met with much adverse criticism both from his colleagues and his party,—were the most important aspects of Mr Balfour's activity during these years. His speeches and work throughout this period took a wider range than before his accession to the leadership of the Commons. During the illness of Lord Salisbury in 1898, and again in Lord Salisbury's absence abroad, he was in charge of the foreign office, and it fell to his lot to conduct the very critical negotiations with Russia on the question of railways in North China. To his firmness, and at the same time to the conciliatory readiness with which he accepted and elaborated the principles of a modus vivendi, the two powers owed the avoidance of what threatened to be a dangerous quarrel. As a member of the cabinet responsible for the Transvaal negotiations in 1899 he bore his full share of controversy, and when the war opened so disastrously he was the first to realize the necessity for putting the full military strength of the country into the field. At the general election of 1900 he was returned for East Manchester (which he had represented since 1885) by a majority of 2453, and continued in office as first lord of the treasury. His leadership of the House of Commons in the first session of the new parliament was marked by considerable firmness in the suppression of obstruction, but there was a slight revival of the criticisms which had been current in 1896. Mr Balfour's inability to get the maximum amount of work out of the House was largely due to the situation in South Africa, which absorbed the intellectual energies of the House and of the country and impeded the progress of legislation.

The principal achievements of the long session of 1902 (which extended to the autumn) were the passing of the Education Act,—entirely reorganizing the system of primary education, abolishing the school boards and making the county councils the local authority; new rules of procedure; and the creation [v.03 p.0252] of the Metropolitan Water Board; and on all these questions, and particularly the two first, Mr Balfour's powers as a debater were brilliantly exhibited.

On Lord Salisbury's resignation on the 11th of July 1902, Mr Balfour succeeded him as prime minister, with the cordial approval of all sections of the Unionist party. For the next three and a half years his premiership involves the political history of England, at a peculiarly interesting period both for foreign and domestic affairs. Within a few weeks Mr Balfour had reconstituted the cabinet. He himself became first lord of the treasury and lord privy seal, with the duke of Devonshire (remaining lord president of the council) as leader of the House of Lords; Lord Lansdowne remained foreign secretary, Mr (afterwards Lord) Ritchie took the place of Sir Michael Hicks-Beach (afterwards Lord St Aldwyn) as chancellor of the exchequer, Mr J. Chamberlain remained colonial secretary, his son Austen being postmaster-general with a seat in the cabinet. Mr G. Wyndham as chief secretary for Ireland was included in the cabinet; Lord Selborne remained at the admiralty, Mr St John Brodrick (afterwards Lord Midleton) war minister, Lord George Hamilton secretary for India, and Mr Akers-Douglas, who had been first commissioner of works, became home secretary; Lord Balfour of Burleigh remained secretary for Scotland, Lord Dudley succeeded Lord Cadogan as lord lieutenant of Ireland, and Lord Londonderry became president of the Board of Education (with Sir William Anson as parliamentary secretary in the House of Commons). Mr Balfour's brother Gerald (b. 1853), who had entered public life as his private secretary when at the Local Government Board, and had been chief secretary for Ireland from 1895-1900, retained his position (since 1900) as president of the Board of Trade.

The new prime minister came into power practically at the same moment as the king's coronation (see EDWARD VII.) and the end of the South African War (see TRANSVAAL). The task of clearing up after the war, both in South Africa and at home, lay before him; but his cordial relations with Mr Chamberlain (q.v.), and the enthusiastic support of a large parliamentary majority, made the prospects fair. For a while no cloud appeared on the horizon: and the Liberal party were still disorganized (see CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN and ROSEBERY) over their attitude towards the Boers. Mr Chamberlain went to South Africa in the late autumn, with the hope that his personality would influence the settlement there; and the session of 1903 opened in February with no hint of troubles to come. A difficulty with Venezuela, resulting in British and German co-operation to coerce that refractory republic, caused an explosion of anti-German feeling in England and some restlessness in the United States, but the government brought the crisis to an end by tactful handling and by an ultimate recourse to arbitration. The two chief items of the ministerial parliamentary programme were the extension of the new Education Act to London and Mr Wyndham's Irish Land Purchase Act, by which the British exchequer should advance the capital for enabling the tenants in Ireland to buy out the landlords. Moreover, the budget was certain to show a surplus and taxation could be remitted. As events proved, it was the budget which was to provide a cause of dissension, bringing a new political movement into being, and an issue overriding all the legislative interest of the session. Mr Ritchie's remission of the shilling import-duty on corn led to Mr Chamberlain's crusade in favour of tariff reform and colonial preference, and as the session proceeded the rift grew in the Unionist ranks.

In the separate article on Mr Chamberlain the progress of this movement is sufficiently narrated. From this moment it is only necessary here to realize Mr Balfour's position. He had always admitted the onesidedness of the English free-trade system, and had supported the desirability of retaliating against unfair competition and "dumping" by foreign countries. But Mr Chamberlain's new programme for a general tariff, with new taxes on food arranged so as to give a preference to colonial products, involved a radical alteration of the established fiscal system, and such out-and-out Unionist free-traders in the cabinet as Mr Ritchie and Lord George Hamilton, and outside it, like Lord Hugh Cecil and Mr Arthur Elliot (secretary to the treasury), were entirely opposed to this. Mr Balfour was anxious to avoid a rupture, doubtful of the feeling of the country, uncertain of the details by which Mr Chamberlain's scheme could be worked out. As leader of the party and responsible for the maintenance of so great a political engine, he was anxious not to be precipitate. He was neither for nor against the new movement, and professed to hold "no settled convictions" on the subject. Mr Chamberlain rested his case largely on the alleged diminution in British trade, and the statistics therefore required investigation before the government could adopt any such programme. From the middle of May, when Mr Chamberlain began to press the matter, Mr Balfour had a difficult hand to play, so long as it was uncertain how the party would follow the new lead. The Board of Trade was asked to supply full figures, and while its report was awaited the uncertainty of attitude on the part of the government afforded grateful opportunity for opposition mischief-making, since the Liberal party had now the chance of acting as the conservative champions of orthodox economics. Another opportunity for making political capital was provided by the publication of the report of the royal commission on the Boer War under Lord Elgin's chairmanship, which horrified the country by its disclosures (August 26th) as to the political and military muddling which had gone on, and the want of any efficient system of organization.

The session ended in August without any definite action on the fiscal question, but in the cabinet the discussions continued. On the 16th of September Mr Balfour published a pamphlet on "Insular Free Trade," and on the 18th it was announced that Lord George Hamilton and Mr Ritchie had resigned, Lord Balfour of Burleigh and Mr Arthur Elliot following a day or two later. These were the strait free-traders, but at the same time Mr Chamberlain resigned also. The correspondence between Mr Chamberlain and Mr Balfour (September 9th and 16th) was published, and presented the latter in the light of a sympathizer with some form of fiscal union with the colonies, if practicable, and in favour of retaliatory duties, but unable to believe that the country was yet ready to agree to the taxation of food required for a preferential tariff, and therefore unwilling to support that scheme; at the same time he encouraged Mr Chamberlain to test the feeling of the public and to convert them by his missionary efforts outside the government. Mr Chamberlain on his side emphasized his own parliamentary loyalty to Mr Balfour. In his pamphlet on "Insular Free Trade" the prime minister reviewed the economic history since Cobden's time, pointed to the falsification of the promises of the early free-traders, and to the fact that England was still the only free-importing country, and insisted that he was "in harmony with the true spirit of free-trade" when he pleaded for "freedom to negotiate that freedom of exchange may be increased." This manifesto was at first taken, not only as the platform of the government, but also as that from which its resigning free-trade members had dissented; and the country was puzzled by a statement from Lord George Hamilton that Mr Balfour had circulated among his colleagues a second and different document, in fuller agreement with Mr Chamberlain. The situation was confused by personal suspicion and distrust as well as by economic difficulties. But the public noted that the duke of Devonshire, whose orthodoxy was considered typical, remained in the cabinet.

The crisis, however, soon developed further, owing to explanations between the free-trade Unionists. On October 1st Mr Balfour spoke at Sheffield, reiterating his views as to free-trade and retaliation, insisting that he "intended to lead," and declaring that he was prepared at all events to reverse the traditional fiscal policy by doing away with the axiom that import duties should only be levied for revenue purposes. The speech was enthusiastically received by the National Union of Conservative Associations, who had year by year flirted with protectionist resolutions, and who were known to be predominantly in sympathy with Mr Chamberlain. But the free-traders did not like Mr Balfour's formula as to reversing the traditional [v.03 p.0253] fiscal policy of import taxes for revenue only. Next day the duke of Devonshire resigned, a step somewhat bitterly resented by Mr Balfour, who clearly thought that his sacrifices in order to conciliate the duke had now been made in vain. During this critical fortnight the duke had apparently acquiesced in Mr Balfour's compromise, and had co-operated in reconstituting the ministry; his nephew and heir had been made financial secretary to the treasury, while Mr Alfred Lyttelton was appointed colonial secretary, Mr Austen Chamberlain chancellor of the exchequer, Mr Brodrick secretary for India, Mr H. O. Arnold-Forster war minister, Lord Stanley postmaster-general and Mr Graham Murray secretary for Scotland. Lord Londonderry now became president of the council, Lord Lansdowne leader of the House of Lords, and Lord Salisbury, son of the late premier, who as Lord Cranborne had for three years been under-secretary for foreign affairs, was included in the cabinet as lord privy seal.

During the remainder of 1903 the struggle within the Unionist party continued. Mr Chamberlain spoke all over the country, advocating a definite scheme for reorganizing the budget, so as to have more taxes on imports, including food, but proposing to adjust the taxation so as to improve the position of the working-classes and to stimulate employment. The free-trade Unionists, with the duke of Devonshire, Lord Goschen, Lord James and Lord Hugh Cecil, as their chief representatives, started a Free Food league in opposition to Mr Chamberlain's Tariff Reform league; and at a great meeting at Queen's Hall, London, on the 24th of November their attitude was made plain. They rejected Mr Chamberlain's food-taxes, discredited his statistics, and, while admitting the theoretical orthodoxy of retaliation, criticized Mr Balfour's attitude and repudiated his assumption that retaliation would be desirable. Finally in December came the appointment of Mr Chamberlain's Tariff Commission. There was no doubt about the obstinacy and persistency of both sections, and both were fighting, not only to persuade the public, but for the capture of the party and of its prime minister. Both sides were inclined to claim him; neither could do so without qualification. His dialectical dexterity in evading the necessity of expressing his fiscal opinions further than he had already done became a daily subject for contemptuous criticism in the Liberal press; but he insisted that in any case no definite action could be taken till the next parliament; and while he declined to go the "whole hog"—as the phrase went—with Mr Chamberlain, he did nothing to discourage Mr Chamberlain's campaign. Whether he would eventually follow in the same direction, or would come back to the straiter free-trade side, continued to be the political conundrum for month after month. Minor changes were made in the ministry in 1903, Mr Brodrick going to the India office and Mr Arnold-Forster becoming minister for war, but Mr Balfour's personal influence remained potent, the government held together, and in 1904 the Licensing Bill was successfully carried. Though a few Unionists transferred their allegiance, notably Mr. Winston Churchill, and by-elections went badly, Mr Balfour still commanded a considerable though a dwindling majority, and the various contrivances of the opposition for combining all free-traders against the government were obstructed by the fact that anything tantamount to a vote of censure would not be supported by the "wobblers" in the ministerial party, while the government could always manage to draft some "safe" amendment acceptable to most of them. This was notably shown in the debate on Mr Black's motion on the 18th of May. On the 3rd of October Mr Balfour spoke at Edinburgh on the fiscal question. The more aggressive protectionists among Mr Chamberlain's supporters had lately become very confident, and Mr Balfour plainly repudiated "protection" in so far as it meant a policy aiming at supporting or creating home industries by raising home prices; but he introduced a new point by declaring that an Imperial Conference would be called to discuss with the colonies the question of preferential tariffs if the Unionist government obtained a majority at the next general election. The Edinburgh speech was again received with conflicting interpretations, and much discussion prevailed as to the conditions of the proposed conference, and as to whether it was or was not an advance, as the Chamberlainites claimed, towards Mr Chamberlain. Meanwhile the party was getting more and more disorganized, and the public were getting tired of the apparent mystification. The opposition used the situation to make capital in the country, and loudly called for a dissolution.

It was plain indeed that the fiscal question itself was ripe for the polls; Board of Trade statistics had been issued in profusion, and the whole case was before the country. But, though Mr Chamberlain declared his desire for an early appeal to the electors, he maintained his parliamentary loyalty to Mr Balfour. There were, moreover, public reasons why a change of government was undesirable. From 1903 onwards the question of army reform had been under discussion, and the government was anxious to get this settled, though in fact Mr Brodrick's and Mr Arnold-Forster's schemes for reorganization failed to obtain any general support. And while foreign affairs were being admirably conducted by Lord Lansdowne, they were critical enough to make it dangerous to contemplate a "swopping of horses." The Russo-Japanese War might at any moment lead to complications. The exercise by Russian warships of the right of search over British ships was causing great irritation in English commercial circles during 1904; after several incidents had occurred, the stopping of the P. & O. steamer "Malacca" on July 13th in the Red Sea by the Russian volunteer cruiser "Peterburg" led to a storm of indignation, and the sinking of the "Knight Commander" (July 24th) by the Vladivostok squadron intensified the feeling. On the 23rd of October the outrageous firing by the Russian Baltic fleet on the English fishing-fleet off the Dogger Bank in the North Sea was within an ace of causing war. It was not till the 28th that Mr Balfour, speaking at Southampton, was able to announce that the Russian government had expressed regret, and that an international commission would inquire into the facts with a view to the responsible persons being punished. Apart from the importance of seeing the Russo-Japanese War through, there were important negotiations on foot for a renewal or revision of the treaty with Japan; and it was felt that on these grounds it would be a mistake for the government to allow itself to be driven into a premature dissolution, unless it found itself unable to maintain a majority in parliament. At the same time the government's tenure of office was obviously drawing to its close; the usual interpretation of the Septennial Act involved a dissolution either in 1905 or 1906, and the government whips found increased difficulty in keeping a majority at Westminster, since neither the pronounced Chamberlainites nor the convinced free-trade Unionists showed any zeal, and a large number of the uncertain Unionists did not intend to stand again for parliament.

The events of the session of 1905 soon foreshadowed the end. The opposition were determined to raise debates in the House of Commons on the fiscal question, and Mr Balfour was no less determined not to be caught in their trap. These tactics of avoidance reached their culminating point when on one occasion Mr Balfour and his supporters left the House and allowed a motion hostile to tariff reform to be passed nem. con. Though the Scottish Churches Bill, the Unemployed Bill and the Aliens Bill were passed, a complete fiasco occurred over the redistribution proposals, which pleased nobody and had to be withdrawn owing to a blunder as to procedure; and though on the 17th of July a meeting of the party at the foreign office resulted in verbal assurances of loyalty, only two days later the government was caught in a minority of four on the estimates for the Irish Land Commission. For a few days it was uncertain whether they would resign or dissolve, but it was decided to hold on.

The real causes, however, which kept the government in office, were gradually losing their validity. The Russo-Japanese War came to an end; the new offensive and defensive alliance with Japan was signed on the 12th of August; the successful Anglo-French agreement, concluded in April 1904, had brought out a vigorous expression of cordiality between England and France, shown in an enthusiastic exchange of naval visits; and the danger, which threatened in the early summer, of complications [v.03 p.0254] with France and Germany over Morocco, was in a fair way of being dispelled by the support given to France by Great Britain. The Liberal leaders had given public pledges of their adhesion to Lord Lansdowne's foreign policy, and the fear of their being unable to carry it on was no longer a factor in the public mind. The end came in November 1905, precipitated by a speech made by Mr Balfour at Newcastle on the 14th, appealing for unity in the party and the sinking of differences, an appeal plainly addressed to Mr Chamberlain, whose supporters—the vast majority of the Unionists—were clamouring for a fighting policy. But Mr Chamberlain was no longer prepared to wait. On the 21st of November at Bristol he insisted on his programme being adopted, and Mr Balfour was compelled to abandon the position he had held with so much tactical dexterity for two years past. Amid Liberal protests in favour of immediate dissolution, he resigned on the 4th of December; and Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, being entrusted by the king with the formation of a government, filled his cabinet with a view to a general election in January. The Unionists went to the polls with divided counsels, and sustained a crushing defeat, remarkable nevertheless for the comparative success of the tariff reformers. While Mr Chamberlain had a signal personal triumph in all the divisions of Birmingham, Mr Balfour himself was defeated by a large majority in Manchester.

Being in a miserable minority in parliament (157 Unionists against 379 Liberals, 51 Labour members, and 83 Nationalists), some form of consolidation among the Unionists was immediately necessary, and negotiations took place between Mr Balfour and Mr Chamberlain which resulted in the patching up of an agreement (expressed in a correspondence dated February 14th), and its confirmation at a meeting of the party at Lansdowne House a few days later. The new compact was indicated in Mr Balfour's letter, in which he declared that "fiscal reform is, and must remain, the first constructive work of the Unionist party; its objects are to secure more equal terms of competition for British trade and closer commercial union with the colonies; and while it is at present unnecessary to prescribe the exact methods by which these objects are to be attained, and inexpedient to permit differences of opinion as to these methods to divide the party, though other means are possible, the establishment of a moderate general tariff on manufactured goods, not imposed for the purpose of raising prices, or giving artificial protection against legitimate competition, and the imposition of a small duty on foreign corn, are not in principle objectionable, and should be adopted if shown to be necessary for the attainment of the ends in view or for purposes of revenue." Mr Balfour's leadership of the whole party was now confirmed; and a seat was found for him in the City of London by the retirement of Mr Gibbs.

The downfall of Mr Balfour's administration, and the necessity of reorganizing the Unionist forces on the basis of the common platform now adopted, naturally represented a fresh departure under his leadership, the conditions of which to some extent depended on the opportunities given to the new opposition by the proceedings of the Radical government (see CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN, SIR H.; and ASQUITH, H. H.). His own administration had been wrecked, through no initiative of his, by the dissensions over the fiscal question. But his wide range of knowledge and interests, his intellectual finesse, his personal hold over his supporters, his statesmanlike grasp upon imperial problems and his oratorical ability, had been proved to a remarkable degree; and in foreign affairs his tenure of power had been conspicuously successful. He left his country indeed in a position of strength abroad, which it had not held since the Crimean War. His institution of the permanent Committee of Imperial Defence, and of the new Army Council (1904), were reforms of the highest importance, resulting from the report of a "triumvirate" consisting of Lord Esher, Sir John Fisher and Sir George Clarke, appointed in November 1903. The Unionist regime as a whole, however, had collapsed. Its ministers had become "stale." The heavy taxation of the war years was still retained, to the disgust especially of the income-tax payers; and new issues arose over the Education Act, labour questions, and the introduction of Chinese labour into South Africa (in 1904), which were successfully used against the government in the constituencies. The result was an electoral defeat which indicated, no doubt, a pronounced weakening of Mr Balfour's position in public confidence. This verdict, however, was one based mainly on temporary reasons, which were soon to be overshadowed by the new issues involved in the change of ministry. As a matter of fact, a year of opposition had not passed before his power in the House of Commons, even with so small a party behind him, was once more realized. The immense Radical majority started with a feeling of contempt for the leader who had been rejected at Manchester, but by 1907 he had completely reasserted his individual pre-eminence among parliamentarians. Mr Balfour had never spoken more brilliantly, nor shone more as a debater, than in these years when he had to confront a House of Commons three-fourths of which was hostile. His speech at Birmingham (November 14, 1907), fully accepting the principles of Mr Chamberlain's fiscal policy, proved epoch-making in consolidating the Unionist party—except for a small number of free-traders, like Lord Robert Cecil, who continued to hold out—in favour of tariff reform; and during 1908 the process of recuperation went on, the by-elections showing to a marked degree the increased popular support given to the Unionist candidates. This recovery was due also to the forcible-feeble character of the Radical campaign against the House of Lords, the unpopularity of the Licensing Bill, the failure of the government to arrive at an education settlement, the incapacity of its Irish administration, its apparent domination by the "little navy" section, and its dallying with Socialism in the budget of 1909. The rejection of this budget in December by the House of Lords led to a desperate struggle at the polls in January 1910, but the confident hopes of the Unionists were doomed to disappointment. They won back over a hundred seats, returning 273 strong, but were still in a minority, the Liberals numbering 275, Labour members 40, and Irish Nationalists 82. Mr Balfour himself was elected for the City of London by an enormous majority.

Mr Balfour's other publications, not yet mentioned, include Essays and Addresses (1893) and The Foundations of Belief, being Notes introductory to the Study of Theology (1895). He was made LL.D. of Edinburgh University in 1881; of St Andrews University in 1885; of Cambridge University in 1888; of Dublin and Glasgow Universities in 1891; lord rector of St Andrews University in 1886; of Glasgow University in 1890; chancellor of Edinburgh University in 1891; member of the senate London University in 1888; and D.C.L. of Oxford University in 1891. He was president of the British Association in 1904, and became a fellow of the Royal Society in 1888. He was known from early life as a cultured musician, and became an enthusiastic golf player, having been captain of the Royal and Antient Golf Club of St Andrews in 1894-1895.

(H. CH.)

BALFOUR, FRANCIS MAITLAND (1851-1882), British biologist, younger brother of Arthur James Balfour, was born at Edinburgh on the 10th of November 1851. At Harrow school he showed but little interest in the ordinary routine, but in one of the masters, Mr George Griffith, he fortunately found a man who encouraged and aided him in the pursuit of natural science, a taste for which, and especially for geology, had been cultivated in him by his mother from an early age. Going into residence at Trinity College, Cambridge, in 1870, he was elected a natural science scholar of his college in the following year, and although his reading was not ordered on the lines usual for the Schools, he obtained the second place in the Natural Science Tripos of December 1873. A course of lectures on embryology, delivered by Sir Michael Foster in 1871, definitely turned his attention to animal morphology, and, after his tripos, he was selected to occupy one of the two seats allocated to the university of Cambridge at the Naples zoological station. The research work which he began there contributed in an important degree to his election as a fellow of Trinity in 1874, and also afforded him material for a series of papers (published as a monograph in 1878) on the Elasmobranch fishes, which threw new light on [v.03 p.0255] the development of several organs in the Vertebrates, in particular of the uro-genital and nervous systems. His next work was to write a large treatise, Comparative Embryology, in two volumes; the first, published in 1880, dealing with the Invertebrates, and the second (1881) with the Vertebrates. This book displayed a vigorous scientific imagination, always controlled by a logical sense that rigidly distinguished between proved fact and mere hypothesis, and it at once won wide recognition, not only as an admirable digest of the numberless observations made with regard to the development of animals during the quarter of a century preceding its publication, but also on account of the large amount of original research incorporated in its pages. Balfour's reputation was now such that other universities became anxious to secure his services, and he was invited to succeed Professor George Rolleston at Oxford and Sir Wyville Thomson at Edinburgh. But although he was only a college lecturer, holding no official post in his university, he declined to leave Cambridge, and in the spring of 1882 the university recognized his merits by instituting a special professorship of animal morphology for his benefit. Unhappily he did not deliver a single professorial lecture. During the first term after his appointment he was incapacitated from work by an attack of typhoid fever. Going to the Alps to recruit his health, he perished, probably on the 19th of July 1882, in attempting the ascent of the Aiguille Blanche, Mont Blanc, at that time unscaled. Besides being a brilliant morphologist, Balfour was an accomplished naturalist, and had he lived would probably have taken a high place among British taxonomists.

BALFOUR, SIR JAMES, BART. (of Denmylne and Kinnaird) (c. 1600-1657), Scottish annalist and antiquary. He was well acquainted with Sir William Segar and with Dugdale, to whose Monasticon he contributed. He was knighted by Charles I. in 1630, was made Lyon king-at-arms in the same year, and in 1633 baronet of Kinnaird. He was removed from his office of king-at-arms by Cromwell and died in 1657. Some of his numerous works are preserved in the Advocates' library at Edinburgh, together with his correspondence—from which rich collection Haig published Balfour's Annales of Scotland in 4 vols. 8vo (1824-1825).

See Sibbald, Memoria Balfouriana (1699).

BALFOUR, SIR JAMES (of Pittendreich) (d. 1583 or 1584), Scottish judge and politician, son of Sir Michael Balfour of Montquhanny, was educated for the legal branch of the church of Scotland. In June 1547, together with Knox and others taken at St Andrews, he was condemned to the French galleys, but was released in 1549, abjured the reformers, entered the service of Mary of Guise, and was rewarded with some considerable legal appointments. Subsequently he went over to the lords of the congregation and then betrayed their plans. After Mary's arrival in Scotland he became one of her secretaries, in 1565 being reported as her greatest favourite after Rizzio.[1] He obtained the parsonage of Flisk in Fife in 1561, was nominated a lord of session, and in 1563 one of the commissaries of the court which now took the place of the former ecclesiastical tribunal; in 1565 he was made a privy-councillor, and in 1566 lord-clerk-register, and was knighted. According to Mary his murder was intended together with Rizzio's in 1566. An adherent of Bothwell, he was deeply implicated in Darnley's murder, though not present at the commission of the crime. By his means Darnley was lodged at Kirk o' Field, his brothers' house. He was supposed to have drawn up the bond at Craigmillar for the murder; he signed it, was made under Bothwell deputy-governor of Edinburgh Castle, and is said to have drawn up the marriage-contract between Bothwell and Mary. When, however, the fall of Bothwell was seen to be impending he rapidly changed sides and surrendered the castle to Murray, stipulating for his pardon for Darnley's murder, the retention of the priory of Pittenweem, and pecuniary rewards. He was appointed president of the court of session on resigning the office of lord-clerk-register. He was present at the battle of Langside with the regent in 1568, and was accused of having advised Mary to leave Dunbar to her ruin, and of having betrayed to her enemies the casket letters. The same year, however, in consequence of renewed intrigues with Mary's faction, he was dismissed, and next year was imprisoned on the charge of complicity in Darnley's murder. He succeeded in effecting his escape by means of bribery, the expenses of which he is said to have paid by intercepting the money sent from France to Mary's aid. In August 1571, during the regency of Lennox, an act of forfeiture was passed against him, but next year he was again playing traitor and discovering the secrets of his party to Morton, and he obtained a pardon from the latter in 1573 and negotiated the pacification of Perth the same year. Distrusted by all parties, he fled to France, where he seems to have remained till 1580. In 1579 his forfeiture was renewed by act of parliament. In January 1580 he wrote to Mary offering her his services, and in June protested his desire to be useful to Elizabeth, lamented the influence of the Jesuits, and intended a journey to Dieppe to hear some good Protestant preaching.[2] On the 27th of December of the same year he returned to Scotland and effected the downfall and execution of Morton by producing a bond, probably that in defence of Bothwell and to promote his marriage with Mary, and giving evidence of the latter's knowledge of Bothwell's intention to murder Darnley. In July 1581 his cause was reheard; he was acquitted of murder by assize, and shortly afterwards in 1581 or 1582 he was restored to his estates and received at court. His career, one of the blackest in the annals of political perfidy and crime, closed shortly before the 24th of January 1584. He was the greatest lawyer of his day, and part-author at least of Balfour's Practicks, the earliest text-book of Scottish law, not published, however, till 1754. He married Margaret, daughter and heir of Michael Balfour of Burleigh, by whom, besides three daughters, he had six sons, the eldest of whom was created Baron Balfour of Burleigh in 1607.[3]

BIBLIOGRAPHY.—See article in the Dict. of Nat. Biog. and authorities there quoted; Balfour's Practicks (1754) and introductory preface; A. Lang's Hist. of Scotland, vol. ii. and authorities (1902); Sir J. Melville's Memoirs (Bannatyne Club, 1827); Cal. of State Papers—Register of Privy Council of Scotland, i.-iii.; Scottish Series (Thorpe), i. and ii. (Bain), ii.-iv.; The Border Papers, i.; Hamilton Papers, ii. (Foreign).

(P. C. Y.)

[1] Cal. of State Pap. (Scottish), ii. 218, 250.

[2] Cal. of State Pap. (Foreign), 1579-1580, p. 294.

[3] The title was attainted in 1716, through the 5th baron's complicity in the Jacobite rising of 1715. In 1869 it was restored to Alexander Hugh Bruce (b. 1849), as 6th baron; he became one of the most influential of contemporary Scottish noblemen, on the Conservative side in politics, and was secretary for Scotland from 1895 to 1903.

BALFOUR, ROBERT (known also as BALFOREUS) (1550?-1625?), Scottish philosopher, was educated at St Andrews and the university of Paris. He was for many years principal of the Guienne College at Bordeaux. His great work is his Commentarii in Organum Logicum Aristotelis (Bordeaux, 1618); the copy in the British Museum contains a number of highly-eulogistic poems in honour of Balfour, who is described as Graium aemulus acer. Balfour was one of the scholars who contributed to spread over Europe the fame of the praefervidum ingenium Scotorum. His contemporary, Dempster, called him the "phoenix of his age, a philosopher profoundly skilled in the Greek and Latin languages, and a mathematician worthy of being compared with the ancients." His Cleomedis meteora, with notes and Latin translation, was reprinted at Leiden as late as 1820.

See Dempster, Historia Ecclesiastica Gent. Scotorum; Irving's Lives of the Scottish Writers; Anderson's Scottish Nation, i. 217.

BALGUY, JOHN (1686-1748), English divine and philosopher, was born at Sheffield on the 12th of August 1686. He was educated at the Sheffield grammar school and at St John's College, Cambridge, graduated B.A. in 1706, was ordained in 1710, and in 1711 obtained the small living of Lamesley and Tanfield in Durham. He married in 1715. It was the year in which Bishop Hoadley preached the famous sermon on "The Kingdom of Christ," which gave rise to the "Bangorian controversy"; and Balguy, under the nom de plume of Silvius, began his career of authorship by taking the side of Hoadley in this controversy against some of his High Church opponents. [v.03 p.0256] In 1726 he published A letter to a Deist concerning the Beauty and Excellency of Moral Virtue, and the Support and Improvement which it receives from the Christian Religion, chiefly designed to show that, while a love of virtue for its own sake is the highest principle of morality, religious rewards and punishments are most valuable, and in some cases absolutely indispensable, as sanctions of conduct. In 1727 he was made a prebendary of Salisbury by his friend Hoadley. He published in the same year the first part of a tractate entitled The Foundation of Moral Goodness, and in the following year a second part, Illustrating and enforcing the Principles contained in the former. The aim of the work is two-fold—to refute the theory of Hutcheson regarding the basis of rectitude, and to establish the theory of Cudworth and Clarke, that virtue is conformity to reason—the acting according to fitnesses which arise out of the eternal and immutable relations of agents to objects. In 1729 he became vicar of Northallerton, in the county of York. His next work was an essay on Divine Rectitude: or, a Brief Inquiry concerning the Moral Perfections of the Deity, particularly in respect of Creation and Providence. It is an attempt to show that the same moral principle which ought to direct human life may be perceived to underlie the works and ways of God: goodness in the Deity not being a mere disposition to benevolence, but a regard to an order, beauty and harmony, which are not merely relative to our faculties and capacities, but real and absolute; claiming for their own sakes the reverence of all intelligent beings, and alone answering to the perfection of the divine ideas. Balguy wrote several other terse and readable tracts of the same nature, which he collected and published in a single volume in 1734. In 1741 he published an Essay on Redemption, containing somewhat advanced views. Redemption as taught in Scripture means, according to him, "the deliverance or release of mankind from the power and punishment of sin, by the meritorious sufferings of Jesus Christ," but involves no translation of guilt, substitution of persons or vicarious punishment. Freed from these ideas, which have arisen from interpreting literally expressions which are properly figurative, the doctrine, he argues, satisfies deep and urgent human wants, and is in perfect consistence and agreement with reason and rectitude. His last publication was a volume of sermons, pervaded by good sense and good feeling, and clear, natural and direct in style. He died at Harrogate on the 21st of September 1748. A second volume of sermons appeared in 1750 (3rd ed. in 2 vols., 1760).

BALI, an island of the East Indies, E. of Java, from which it is separated by Bali Strait, which is shallow, and scarcely over a mile in width at its narrowest point. Bali is 93 m. in length, and its greatest breadth is 50 m. The area is 2095 sq. m. In 1882, for administrative purposes, Bali was separated from Java and combined with the island of Lombok to form the Dutch residency of Lombok and Bali. Politically its divisions are two:—(1) the two districts, Buleleng and Jembrana, on Dutch territory; and (2) the autonomous states of Klung Lung, Bangli, Mengui, Badung and Tabanan. Buleleng, on the north-west, is the chief town. The population on Dutch territory in the whole residency in the year 1905 was 523,535. Bali belongs physically to Java; the climate and soil are the same and it has mountains of proportionate height. There are several lakes of great depth and streams well fitted for the purposes of irrigation, of which full advantage is taken by the natives. The geological formation includes (like that of Java) three regions—the central volcanic, the southern peninsula of Tertiary limestone, and alluvial plains between the older formations. The highest volcanoes, Tabanan, Batur and Gunung Agung (Bali Beak), have respectively heights of 7545 ft., 7383 ft., and 10,497 ft., the central chain having an average altitude of 3282 ft. As regards flora and fauna Bali is associated with Java. The deep strait which separates it on the east from Lombok was taken by A. R. Wallace (q.v.) as representing the so-called Wallace's Line, whereby he demarcated the Asiatic from the Australian fauna.

The natives of Bali, though of the same stock as the Javanese, and resembling them in general appearance, exceed them in stature and muscular power, as well as in activity and enterprise. They are skilful agriculturists and artisans, especially in textile fabrics and the manufacture of arms. Though native rule is tyrannical and arbitrary, especially in the principalities of Badung and Tabanan, trade and industry could not flourish if insecurity of persons and property existed to any great extent. The natives have also a remedy against the aggression of their rulers in their own hands; it is called Metilas, consists in a general rising and renunciation of allegiance, and proves mostly successful. Justice is administered from a written civil and criminal code. Slavery is abolished. Hinduism, which was once the religion of Java, but has been extinct there for four centuries, is still in vogue in the islands of Bali and Lombok, where the cruel custom of widow-burning (suttee) is still practised, and the Hindu system of the four castes, with a fifth or Pariah caste (called Chandala), adhered to. It appears partly blended with Buddhism, partly overgrown with a belief in Kalas, or evil spirits. To appease these, offerings are made to them either direct or through the mediation of the Devas (domestic or agrarian deities); and if these avail not, the Menyepi or Great Sacrifice is resorted to. In the course of this ceremony, after the sacrifice, men rush in all directions carrying torches; the women also carry fire-brands, or knock on the houses with rice-crushers and other heavy implements, and thus the evil spirits are considered to be driven away. The Mahommedan religion occurs among the coastal population. The Balinese language belongs to the same group of the Malayan class as the Javanese, Sundanese, Madurese, &c., but is as distinct from each of these as French is from Italian. It is most nearly akin to the Sasak language spoken in Lombok and on the east coast of Bali. The literary language has embodied many of its ingredients from the Old Javanese, as spoken in Java at the time of the fall of Majapahit (15th century), while the vulgar dialect has kept free from such admixture. Javanese influence is also traceable in the use of three varieties of speech, as in the Javanese language, according to the rank of the people addressed. The alphabet is with some modifications the same as the Javanese, but more complicated. The material universally used for writing on is the prepared leaf of the lontar palm. The sacred literature of the Balinese is written in the ancient Javanese or Kawi language, which appears to be better understood here than it is in Java. A general decline in culture is manifest in the Balinese. Of the early history of their island the Balinese know nothing. The oldest tradition they possess refers to a time shortly after the overthrow of the Majapahit dynasty in Java, about the middle of the 15th century; but it has been supposed that there must have been Indian settlers here before the middle of the 1st century, by whom the present name, probably cognate with the Sanskrit balin, strong, was in all likelihood imposed. It was not till 1633 that the Dutch attempted to enter into alliance with the native princes, and their earliest permanent settlement at Port Badung only dates from 1845. Their influence was extended by the results of the war which they waged with the natives about 1847-49.

The only roadstead safe all the year round is Temukus on the north coast. The rivers are not navigable. Agriculture is the chief means of subsistence; rice being a crop of particular importance. Other crops grown for export are coffee, tobacco, cocoa and indigo. Gold-working, the making of arms and musical instruments, wood-carving, cotton, silk and gold thread weaving are of importance. There are numerous Arab and Chinese traders.

See R. Van Eck, Schetsen van het eiland Bali, Tijdsch. van Nederl. Indie (1878-1879); J. Jacobs, Eeenigen tijd onder de Baliers (Batavia, 1883); H. Tonkes, Volkskunde von Bali (Halle, 1888); Liefrinck, De rijst cultuur op Bali, Indische Gids. (1886).

BALIKISRI (Balukiser), a town of Asia Minor, capital of the Karasi sanjak in the vilayet of Brusa, altitude 575 ft., situated on rising ground above a fertile plain which drains to the Sea of Marmora. Pop. 20,000 (Moslems, 15,000; Christians, 5000). It is a centre of trade in opium, silk and cereals, communicating by carriage roads with Panderma. The sanjak is rich in mineral wealth; silver mines are worked at Balia and boracite mines at Susurlu. At or near Balikisri was the Roman town of Hadrianutherae, founded, as its name commemorates, by the emperor Hadrian.

[v.03 p.0257] BALIOL, the name of a family which played an important part in the history of Scotland. The founder of the family in England was a Norman baron, Guy or Guido de Baliol, who held the fiefs of Bailleul, Dampierre, Harcourt and Vinoy in Normandy. Coming to England with William the Conqueror, he received lands in the north of England from William II., and his son, or grandson, Bernard or Barnard de Baliol, built a fortress in Durham called Castle Barnard, around which the town of Barnard Castle grew. The first burgesses probably obtained their privileges from him. Bernard fought for King Stephen during the civil war, was present at the battle of the Standard in August 1138, and was taken prisoner at the battle of Lincoln in February 1141. The date of his death is uncertain. Dugdale only believes in the existence of one Bernard de Baliol, but it seems more probable that the Bernard de Baliol referred to after 1167 was a son of the elder Bernard, and not the same individual. If so the younger Bernard was one of the northern barons who raised the siege of Alnwick, and took William the Lion, king of Scotland, prisoner in July 1174. He also confirmed the privileges granted by his father to the burgesses of Barnard Castle, and was succeeded by his son Eustace. Practically nothing is known of Eustace, or of his son Hugh who succeeded about 1215. Hugh's son and successor, John de Baliol, who increased his wealth and position by a marriage with Dervorguila (d. 1290), daughter of Alan, earl of Galloway, is said to have possessed thirty knights' fees in England and one half of the lands in Galloway. He was one of the regents of Scotland during the minority of Alexander III., but in 1255 was deprived of this office and his lands forfeited for treason. He then appeared in England fighting for Henry III. against Simon de Montfort, and was taken prisoner at the battle of Lewes in 1264. About 1263 he established several scholarships at Oxford, and after his death in 1269 his widow founded the college which bears the name of the family. He left four sons, three of whom died without issue, and in 1278 his lands came to his son, John de Baliol (q.v.), who was king of Scotland from 1292 to 1296, and who died in Normandy in 1315. John's eldest son by his marriage with Isabel, daughter of John de Warenne, earl of Surrey, was Edward de Baliol who shared his father's captivity in England in 1296. Subsequently crossing over to France, he appears to have lived mainly on his lands in Normandy until 1324, when he was invited to England by King Edward II., who hoped to bring him forward as a candidate for the Scottish crown. A favourable opportunity, however, did not arise until after the death of King Robert the Bruce in 1329, when Edward III. had succeeded his father on the English throne. Although Edward did not give Baliol any active assistance, the claimant placed himself at the head of some disinherited Scottish nobles, raised a small army and sailed from Ravenspur. Landing at Kinghorn in Fifeshire in August 1332, he gained a complete victory over the Scots under Donald, earl of Mar, at Dupplin Moor, took Perth, and on the 24th of September was crowned king of Scotland at Scone. He then acknowledged Edward III. as his superior, but soon afterwards was defeated at Annan (where his brother, Henry de Baliol, was slain) and compelled to fly to England. Regaining his kingdom after the defeat of the Scots at Halidon Hill in July 1333, Baliol surrendered the whole of the district formerly known as Lothian to Edward, and did homage for Scotland to the English king. His party, however, was weakened by disunion, and he won no serious support in Scotland. Entirely dependent on Edward, he again sought refuge in England, and took a very slight part in the war waged on his behalf. He returned to Scotland after the defeat of King David II. at Neville's Cross in 1346. After making an absolute surrender of Scotland to Edward III. in 1356 at Roxburgh in return for a pension, Edward de Baliol died at Wheatley near Doncaster in 1367.

A cadet branch of the Baliol family was descended from Ingelram, or Engelram, a son of the younger Bernard de Baliol. Ingelram's wife was the daughter and heiress of William de Berkeley, lord of Reidcastle in Forfarshire, and chamberlain of Scotland, and by her he had a son Henry, who became chamberlain about 1223. Henry married Lora or Lauretta, a daughter of Philip de Valoines (Valsques), lord of Panmure, and in 1234 inherited part of the rich English fiefs of the Valoines family. He sided with the English barons against John in 1215, and accompanied Henry III. to France in 1242. He died in 1246. It is probable but not certain that Henry's son was Alexander de Baliol, lord of Cavers in Teviotdale, and chamberlain of Scotland. Alexander took a leading part in Scottish affairs during the latter part of the 13th century, and is first mentioned as chamberlain in 1287. He shared in the negotiations between the Scottish nobles and Edward I. of England which culminated in the treaty of Salisbury in 1289, and the treaty of Brigham in 1290. Probably deprived of his office as chamberlain about 1296 he may have shared the imprisonment of his kinsman, John de Baliol the king. He then fought in Scotland for Edward, and was summoned to several English parliaments. His wife was Isabella de Chilham, through whom he obtained lands in Kent. He died about 1309, leaving a son, Alexander, whose son, Thomas, sold the estate of Cavers to William, earl of Douglas, in 1368. Thomas is the last of the Baliols mentioned in the Scottish records.

A late and dubious tradition asserts that the family name became so discredited owing to the pusillanimous conduct of John and Edward Baliol that it was abandoned by its owners in favour of the form Baillie.

See John of Fordun, Chronica gentis Scotorum, edited by W. F. Skene (Edinburgh, 1871-1872); Andrew of Wyntoun, The Orygynale Cronykil of Scotland, edited by David Laing (Edinburgh, 1872-1879); Gesta Edwardi de Carnarvan, by a canon of Bridlington, edited by W. Stubbs (London, 1883); W. Dugdale, The Baronage of England (London, 1675-1676); R. Surtees, The History of Durham (London, 1816-1840); Documents and Records illustrating the History of Scotland, edited by F. T. Palgrave (London, 1837); Documents illustrative of the History of Scotland (1286-1306), edited by J. Stevenson (Edinburgh, 1870); Calendar of Documents relating to Scotland, edited by J. Bain (Edinburgh, 1881-1888).

BALIOL, JOHN DE (1249-1315), king of Scotland, was a son of John de Baliol (d. 1269) of Barnard Castle, Durham, by his wife Dervorguila, daughter of Alan, earl of Galloway, and became head of the Baliol family (see above) and lord of extensive lands in England, France and Scotland on his elder brother's death in 1278. Little else, however, is known of his early life. He came into prominence when the Scottish throne became vacant in 1290 owing to the death of Margaret, the "maid of Norway," a granddaughter of King Alexander III., and was one of the three candidates for the crown whose pretensions were seriously considered. Claiming through his maternal grandmother, Margaret, the eldest daughter of David, earl of Huntingdon (d. 1219), who was a grandson of King David I., Baliol's principal rival was Robert Bruce, earl of Annandale, and the dispute was the somewhat familiar one of the eldest by descent against the nearest of kin. Meanwhile the English king, Edward I., was closely watching the trend of affairs in Scotland and was invited to settle this dispute. It is doubtful what rights, if any, the English kings had over Scotland, but when Edward met the Scottish nobles at Norham in May 1291, he demanded a formal recognition of his position as overlord of Scotland. After some delay this was tacitly admitted by the nobles, and acknowledged by Baliol and the other competitors, who all agreed to abide by his decision. A court of eighty Scotsmen and twenty-four Englishmen was then appointed to try the question. Traversing the statements made in favour of Bruce, Baliol claimed by the principles of feudal law for an indivisible inheritance, and on the advice of the court Edward decided in his favour. Having sworn fealty to the English king, Baliol was crowned king of Scotland at Scone on the 30th of November 1292; in his new capacity he did homage to Edward at Newcastle, and in January 1293 released the English king from all promises and obligations made while the kingdom of Scotland was in his hands. These amicable relations were soon disturbed. A Scottish vassal carried his case to Edward as Baliol's overlord, and Baliol himself was soon summoned to the English court to answer a suit brought against him. After a short struggle he admitted Edward's right, and in May 1294 attended a parliament in London. He soon quarrelled with his overlord, the exact point at issue being doubtful, and returned [v.03 p.0258] to Scotland. Consequent on the dispute which had broken out between England and France, a council of twelve was appointed to assist him, and it was decided to defy Edward. Englishmen were dismissed from the Scottish court, their fiefs were confiscated, and an alliance was concluded with Philip IV., king of France. War broke out, but Baliol did not take the field in person. Invading Scotland, Edward met with a feeble resistance, and at Brechin in July 1296 Baliol surrendered his kingdom to Antony Bek, bishop of Durham, as the representative of the English king. About the same time he appeared before Edward at Montrose, and delivered to him a white rod, the feudal token of resignation. With his son, Edward, he was taken a prisoner to England, remaining in captivity until July 1299, when he was released at the request of Pope Boniface VIII. He lived for some time under the pope's supervision, and seems to have passed his remaining days quietly on his French estates. He died in Normandy early in 1315, leaving several children by his wife, Isabel, a daughter of John de Warenne, earl of Surrey (d. 1304).

See Documents and Records illustrating the History of Scotland, edited by F. T. Palgrave (London, 1837); Documents illustrative of the History of Scotland, 1286-1306, edited by J. Stevenson (Edinburgh, 1870), J. H. Burton, History of Scotland, vol. ii. (Edinburgh, 1905); A. Lang, History of Scotland, vol. i. (Edinburgh, 1904); Sir H. Maxwell, Robert the Bruce (London, 1897); Calendar of Documents relating to Scotland, edited by J. Bain (Edinburgh, 1881-1888). Also SCOTLAND: History.

BALIUAG, a town of the province of Bulacan, Luzon, Philippine Islands, on the Quingua river, 29 m. (by rail) N.N.W. of Manila. Pop. (1903) 21,008, including the population (7072) of Bustos, which was annexed to Baliuag in that year after the census was taken. Baliuag is served by an extension of the railway between Manila and Dagupan. It is the trade centre of a fertile agricultural district, and manufactures bamboo hats, silk and native fibre goods.

BALKAN PENINSULA, the most easterly of the three large peninsulas which form the southern extremities of the European continent. Its area, 184,779 sq. m., is about 35,000 sq. m. less than that of the Iberian Peninsula, but more than twice that of the Italian. Its northern boundary stretches from the Kilia mouth of the Danube to the Adriatic Sea near Fiume, and is generally regarded as marked by the courses of the rivers Danube, Save and Kulpa. On the E. it is bounded by the Black Sea, the Sea of Marmora, and the Aegean; on the S. by the Mediterranean; on the W. by the Ionian Sea and the Adriatic. With the exception of the Black Sea coast and the Albanian littoral, its shores are considerably indented and flanked by groups of islands. The Peninsula in its general contour resembles an inverted pyramid or triangle, terminating at its apex in a subsidiary peninsula, the Peloponnesus or Morea. Its surface is almost entirely mountainous, the only extensive plains being those formed by the valleys of the Danube and Maritza, and the basin of Thessaly drained by the Salambria (ancient Peneus). The Danubian plain, lying, for the most part, outside the Peninsula, is enclosed, on the north, by the Carpathians; and on the south by the Balkans, from which the Peninsula derives its name. These ranges form together the great semicircular mountain-chain, known as the anti-Dacian system, through which the Danube finds a passage at the Iron Gates. The other mountain-systems display great complexity of formation; beginning with the Dinaric Alps and the parallel ranges of Bosnia, they run, as a rule, from north-west to south-east; the great chain of Rhodope traverses the centre of the Peninsula, throwing out spurs towards the Black Sea and the Aegean; farther west are the lofty Shar Dagh and the mountains of Montenegro and Albania, continued by the Pindus range and the heights of Acarnania and Aetolia. The principal summits are Olympus (9794 ft.), overlooking the Gulf of Salonica; Musalla (9631) and Popova Shapka (8855), both in the Rhodope system; Liubotrn in the Shar Dagh (8989); Elin, in the Perin Planina (8794); Belmeken in southern Bulgaria (chain of Dospat, 8562); Smolika in the Pindus range (8445); Dormitor in northern Montenegro (8294); Kaimakchalan in central Macedonia (8255); and Kiona in Aetolia (8235). Owing to the distribution of the mountain-chains, the principal rivers flow in an easterly or south-easterly direction; the Danube falls into the Black Sea, the Maritza, Mesta, Struma (Strymon), Vardar and Salambria into the Aegean. The only considerable rivers flowing into the Adriatic are the Narenta, Drin and Viossa. The principal lakes are those of Ochrida, Prespa, Scutari and Iannina. The climate is more severe than that of the sister peninsulas, and the temperature is liable to sudden changes. The winter, though short, is often intensely cold, especially in the Danubian plain and in Thrace, the rigorous climate of which is frequently alluded to by the Latin poets. Bitter north-easterly winds prevail in the spring, and snow is not uncommon even in the low-lying districts of Greece. The autumn weather is generally fine and clear.

Geology.—Broadly speaking, the Balkan Peninsula may be divided into four areas which geologically are distinct. There is a central region, roughly triangular in shape, with its base resting upon the Aegean Sea and its apex in Servia. On two sides this area is bordered by belts of folded beds which form on the west the mountain ranges of the Adriatic and Ionian coasts, and on the north the chain of the Balkans. Finally, beyond the Balkans lies the great Rumanian depression, occupied chiefly by undisturbed Cretaceous and Tertiary strata. The central region, although wedged in between two belts of folding, is not affected by the folds of either, excepting near its margins. It consists largely of crystalline and schistose rocks. The core is formed by the mountain masses of Rhodope, Belasitza, Perin and Rila; and here Palaeozoic and Mesozoic beds are absent, and the earliest sedimentary deposits belong to the Tertiary period and lie flat upon the crystalline rocks. Upon the margins, however, Cretaceous beds are found. The eastern parts of Greece are composed almost entirely of Cretaceous beds, but nevertheless they must be considered to belong to the central area, for the folds which affect them are nearly at right angles to those of the western chains. In general, however, the central area is one of faulting rather than of folding, and the sedimentary beds sometimes lie in troughs formed by faults. Extensive volcanic outbursts occurred in this region during the Tertiary period. In the western folded belt the strike of the folds is N.W.-S.E., or N.N.W.-S.S.E. There are many local irregularities, but the general direction is maintained as far as the southern extremity of Greece, where the folds show a tendency to curve towards Crete. In the north, Carboniferous beds are present, and the Trias and the Jura take a considerable part in the formation of the chain. The Sarmatian beds are also involved in the folds, indicating that the folding was not completed till Pliocene times. In the south, the older beds disappear and the whole chain is formed chiefly of Cretaceous beds, though Eocene and probably Jurassic rocks are [v.03 p.0259] present. The Eocene beds are folded, but the marginal Pliocene beds are not, and the final folding seems to have taken place during the Miocene period. (For the Balkans, see BULGARIA.)

Area and Population.—The following figures show the area and population of the various political divisions of the Balkan Peninsula in 1909; see also the articles on the separate countries.

Pop. per Political Divisions Area in sq. m. Pop. in 1909 sq. m. ——————————————————————————————————— Croatia-Slavonia (south of the Save and Kulpa) . . . . (about)8,200 (about)1,200,000 146.3 Servia . . . . . . 18,782 2,493,770 132.2 Bulgaria (with Eastern Rumelia) 37,240 4,028,239 88. The Dobrudja (Rumania) . . 5,896 258,242 43.9 Dalmatia (Austria) . . . 4,923 591,597 120.1 Montenegro . . . . . 3,255 311,564 94 Bosnia and Herzegovina (Austria- Hungary) . . . . . 19,696 1,568,092 70.9 Sanjak of Novibazar (Turkish) 2,840 153,000 53.5 Albania, Macedonia and other Turkish possessions . . . 62,744 5,812,300 92.6 Greece . . . . . 24,400 2,631,952 107.8

187,976 19,048,756 101.3

For full details as to the physical features, natural products, population, customs, trade, finance, government, religion, education, language, literature, antiquities, history, politics, &c., of the Balkan lands, see ALBANIA, BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA, BULGARIA, CROATIA-SLAVONIA, DALMATIA, DOBRUDJA, GREECE, ILLYRIA, MACEDONIA, MONTENEGRO, NOVIBAZAR, SERVIA and TURKEY.



Races.—The Peninsula is inhabited by a great variety of races, whose ethnological limits are far from corresponding with the existing political boundaries. The Turkish population, descended in part from the Ottoman invaders of the 14th and 15th centuries, in part from colonists introduced at various epochs from Asia by the Turkish government, declined considerably during the 19th century, especially in the countries withdrawn from the sultan's authority. It is diminishing in Thessaly; it has entirely disappeared in the rest of Greece, almost entirely in Servia; and it continues to decrease in Bulgaria notwithstanding the efforts of the authorities to check emigration. It is nowhere found in compact masses except in north-eastern Bulgaria and the region between Adrianople, the Black Sea and the Sea of Marmora. Elsewhere it appears in separate villages and isolated districts, or in the larger towns and their immediate neighbourhood. The total Turkish population of the Peninsula scarcely exceeds 1,800,000. The Slavonic population, including the Serbo-Croats and Bulgars, is by far the most numerous; its total aggregate exceeds 10,000,000. The majority of the Serbo-Croats left their homes among the Carpathians and settled in the Balkan Peninsula in the 7th century. The distinction between the Serbs of the more central region and the Croats of the north-west, was first drawn by the early Byzantine chroniclers, and was well established by the 12th century. It does not correspond with any valid linguistic or racial difference; but in the course of time a strong religious difference arose. Along the Croatian and Dalmatian coast there existed a well-developed Latin civilization, which was sustained by constant intercourse with Italy; and, under its influence, the Serbo-Croatian immigrants were converted to the Roman Catholic Church. In the wild and mountainous interior, however, the Byzantine Church had few or no rivals and the Orthodox creed prevailed. The Orthodox Serbs inhabit the kingdom of Servia, Old Servia (or Novibazar and north-western Macedonia), Montenegro, Herzegovina and parts of Bosnia. The Roman Catholic Croats predominate in Dalmatia, north-western Bosnia and Croatia-Slavonia. Montenegro, like the other mountainous regions, adhered to the Greek Church; it received a number of Orthodox Servian refugees at the beginning of the 15th century, when the Turks occupied Servia. The numbers of the Serbo-Croats may be estimated at about 5,600,000. The Bulgars, who descend from a fusion of the Slavonic element with a later Ugro-Finnish immigration, inhabit the kingdom of Bulgaria (including Eastern Rumelia), parts of the Dobrudja and the greater part of Macedonia, except Old Servia and the Aegean littoral. Apart from their colonies in Bessarabia and elsewhere, they may be reckoned at 4,400,000. Only a portion of the widely-spread Ruman or Vlach race, which extends over a great part of Transylvania, south Hungary and Bessarabia, as well as the Rumanian kingdom, falls within the limits of the Peninsula. It is found in numerous detached settlements in Macedonia, Albania and northern Greece, and in colonies of recent date in Servia and Bulgaria. The nomad Vlachs or Tzintzars of these countries call themselves Arumani or "Romans"; they are a remnant of the native Latinized population which received an increase from the immigration of Daco-Roman refugees, who fled southwards during the 3rd century, after the abandonment of Dacia by Aurelian. (See VLACHS.) The entire Ruman population of the Balkan countries may be set down approximately at 600,000. The Albanians, who call themselves Shkupetar or Arber, are the representatives of the primitive Illyrian population; they inhabit the Adriatic littoral from the southern frontier of Montenegro to the northern boundary of Greece, in which country they are found in considerable numbers. They have shown a tendency to advance in a north-easterly direction towards the Servian frontier, and the movement has been encouraged for political reasons by the Turkish government. The whole Albanian nation possibly numbers from 1,500,000 to 1,600,000. The Greeks, whose immigration from Asia Minor took place in pre-historic times, are, next to the Albanians, the oldest race in the Peninsula. Their maritime and commercial instincts have led them from the earliest times to found settlements on the sea-coast and the islands. They inhabit the Black Sea littoral from Varna to the Bosporus, the shores of the Sea of Marmora and the Aegean, the Aegean archipelago, the mainland of Greece, Epirus and the western islands as far north as Corfu. In Constantinople they [v.03 p.0260] probably exceed 300,000. They are seldom found in large numbers at any great distance from the sea, and usually congregate in the principal towns and commercial centres, such as Adrianople, Constantza, Varna and Philippopolis; there are also detached colonies at Melnik, Stanimaka, Kavakly, Niegush and elsewhere. The Greek inhabitants of the Peninsula and adjacent islands probably number 4,500,000. The remainder of the population is for the most part composed of Armenians, Jews and gipsies. The Armenians, like the Greeks, congregate in the principal centres of trade, especially at Constantinople; their numbers were greatly reduced by the massacres of 1896. The Jews are most numerous at Salonica where they form half the population. The gipsies are scattered widely throughout the Peninsula; they are found not only in wandering troops, as elsewhere in Europe, but in settlements or cantonments in the neighbourhood of towns and villages.

Religions.—Owing to the numerous conversions to Islam which followed the Turkish conquest, the Mahommedan population of the Peninsula is largely in excess of the purely Turkish element. More than half the Albanian nation and 35% of the inhabitants of Bosnia and Herzegovina adopted the creed of the conquering race. Among the Bulgars and Greeks the conversions were less numerous. The Bulgarian Mahommedans, or Pomaks, who inhabit the valleys of Rhodope and certain districts in northern Bulgaria, are numerically insignificant; the Greek followers of Islam are almost confined to Crete. The whole Moslem population of the Peninsula is about 3,300,000. The great bulk of the Christian population belongs to the Orthodox Church, of which the oecumenical patriarch at Constantinople is the nominal head, having precedence over all other ecclesiastical dignitaries. The Bulgarian, Servian, Montenegrin and Greek churches are, however, in reality autocephalous. The Bulgarian church enjoys an exceptional position, inasmuch as its spiritual chief, the exarch, who resides at Constantinople, controls the Bulgarian prelates in European Turkey as well as those in the kingdom of Bulgaria. On the other hand, the Greek prelates in Bulgaria are subject to the patriarch. Religious and political questions are intimately connected in eastern Europe. The heads of the various religious communities are the only representatives of the Christian population recognized by the Turkish government; they possess a seat in the local administrative councils and supervise the Christian schools. The efforts of the several branches of the Orthodox Church to obtain a separate organization in the Turkish dominions are to be attributed exclusively to political motives, as no difference of dogma divides them. The Serbo-Croats of Dalmatia, and Croatia-Slavonia, some of the Gheg tribes in Albania, about 21% of the Bosnians, a still smaller number of Bulgarians in the kingdom and in Macedonia and a few Greeks in the islands belong to the Roman Catholic Church. A certain number of Bulgars at Kukush in Macedonia and elsewhere form a "uniate" church, which accepts the authority and dogma of Rome, but preserves the Orthodox rite and discipline. The Armenians are divided between the Gregorian and Uniate-Armenian churches, each under a patriarch. The other Christian confessions are numerically inconsiderable. The Gagauzi in Eastern Bulgaria, a Turanian and Turkish-speaking race, profess Christianity.

Languages.—Until comparatively recent times Turkish and Greek were the only languages systematically taught or officially recognized in the Balkan lands subject to Turkish rule. The first, the speech of the conquering race, was the official language; the second, owing to the intellectual and literary superiority of the Greeks, their educational zeal and the privileges acquired by their church, became the language of the upper classes among the Christians. The Slavonic masses, however, both Servian and Bulgarian, preserved their language, which saved these nationalities from extinction. The Servian dialect extending into regions which escaped the Turkish yoke, enjoyed certain advantages denied to the Bulgarian: in free Montenegro the first Slavonic printing-press was founded in 1493; at Ragusa, a century later, Servian literature attained a high degree of excellence. Bulgarian, for nearly four centuries, ceased to be a written language except in a few monasteries; a literary revival, which began about the middle of the 18th century, was the first symptom of returning national consciousness. The Servian, Bulgarian and Rumanian languages have borrowed largely from the Turkish in their vocabularies, but not in their structural forms, and have adopted many words from the Greek. Modern Greek has also a large number of Turkish words which are rejected in the artificial literary language. The revival of the various Balkan nationalities was in every case accompanied or preceded by a literary movement; in Servian literature, under the influence of Obradovich and Vuk Karajich, the popular idiom, notwithstanding the opposition of the priesthood, superseded the ecclesiastical Russian-Slavonic; in Bulgaria the eastern dialect, that of the Sredna Gora, prevailed. Among the Greeks, whose literature never suffered a complete eclipse, a similar effort to restore the classical tongue resulted in a kind of compromise; the conventional literary language, which is neither ancient nor modern, differs widely from the vernacular. Albanian, the only surviving remnant of the ancient Thraco-Illyrian speech, affords an interesting study to philologists. It undoubtedly belongs to the Indo-European family, but its earlier forms cannot, unfortunately, be ascertained owing to the absence of literary monuments. Certain remarkable analogies between Albanian and the other languages of the Peninsula, especially Bulgarian and Rumanian, have been supposed to point to the influence exercised by the primitive speech upon the idioms of the immigrant races.

History.—The great Slavonic immigration, which changed the ethnographic face of the Peninsula, began in the 3rd century A.D. and continued at intervals throughout the following four centuries. At the beginning of this movement the Byzantine empire was in actual or nominal possession of all the regions south of the Danube; the greater part of the native Thraco-Illyrian population of the interior had been romanized and spoke Latin. The Thracians, the progenitors of the Vlachs, took refuge in the mountainous districts and for some centuries disappeared from history: originally an agricultural people, they became nomad shepherds. In Albania the aboriginal Illyrian element, which preserved its ancient language, maintained itself in the mountains and eventually forced back the immigrant race. The Greeks, who occupied the maritime and southern regions, were driven to the sea-coast, the islands and the fortified towns. Slavonic place-names, still existing in every portion of the Peninsula, bear witness to the multitude of the invaders and the permanency of their settlements. In the 6th century the Slavs penetrated to the Morea, where a Slavonic dialect was spoken down to the middle of the 15th century. In the 7th the Serbo-Croats invaded the north-western regions (Croatia, Servia, Bosnia, Herzegovina, Montenegro and northern Albania); they expelled or assimilated the Illyrian population, now represented in Dalmatia by the slavonized Morlachs or Mavro-Vlachs, and appropriated the old Roman colonies on the Adriatic coast. At the end of the 7th century the Bulgars, a Turanian race, crossed the Danube and subjected the Slavonic inhabitants of Moesia and Thrace, but were soon assimilated by the conquered population, which had already become partly civilized. Under their tsar Krum (802-815) the Bulgars invaded the districts of Adrianople and central Macedonia; under Simeon (893-927), who fixed his capital at Preslav, their empire extended from the Adriatic to the Black Sea. In 971 "the first Bulgarian empire" was overthrown by the emperor John Zimisces, but Bulgarian power was soon revived under the Shishman dynasty at Ochrida. In 1014 Tsar Samuel of Ochrida, who had conquered the greater part of the Peninsula, was defeated at Belasitza by the Greek emperor Basil II., and the "western Bulgarian empire" came to an end. In the 10th century the Vlachs reappear as an independent power in Southern Macedonia and the Pindus district, which were known as Great Walachia ([Greek: Megale Blachia]). The Serbs, who owing to the dissensions of their zhupans or chiefs, had hitherto failed to take a prominent part in the history of the Peninsula, attained unity under Stephen Nemanya (1169-1195), the founder of the Nemanyich dynasty. A new Bulgarian power, known as the "second" or "Bulgaro-Vlach empire," was founded at Trnovo in 1186 under the brothers Ivan and Peter Asen, who led a revolt of Vlachs and Bulgars against the Greeks. In 1204 Constantinople was captured by the Latins of the Fourth Crusade, and Baldwin of Flanders was crowned emperor; the Venetians acquired several maritime towns and islands, and Frankish feudal dynasties were established in Salonica, Athens, Achaea and elsewhere. Greek rule, however, survived in the despotate of Epirus under princes of the imperial house of the Angeli. The Latin tenure of Constantinople lasted only 57 years; the imperial city was recaptured in 1261 by Michael VIII. Palaeologus, but most of the feudal Latin states continued to exist till the Turkish conquest; the Venetians retained their possessions for several centuries later and waged continual wars with the Turks. In 1230 Theodore of Epirus, who had conquered Albania, Great Walachia and Macedonia, was overthrown at Klokotnitza by Ivan Asen II., the greatest of Bulgarian monarchs (1218-1241), who defeated Baldwin at Adrianople and extended his sway over most of the Peninsula. The Bulgarian power declined after [v.03 p.0261] his death and was extinguished at the battle of Velbuzhd (1330) by the Servians under Stephen Urosh III. A short period of Servian predominance followed under Stephen Dushan (1331-1355) whose realm included Albania, Macedonia, Epirus, Thessaly and northern Greece. The Servian incursion was followed by a great Albanian emigration to the southern regions of the Peninsula. After Dushan's death his empire disappeared, and Servia fell a prey to anarchy. For a short time the Bosnians, under their king Stephen Tvrtko (1353-1391), became the principal power in the west of the Peninsula. The disorganization and internecine feuds of the various states prepared the way for the Ottoman invasion. In 1356 the Turks seized Gallipoli; in 1361 the sultan Murad I. established his capital at Adrianople; in 1389 the fate of the Slavonic states was decided by the rout of the Servians and their allies at Kossovo. The last remnant of Bulgarian national existence disappeared with the fall of Trnovo in 1393, and Great Walachia was conquered in the same year. Under Mahommed II. (1451-1481) the Turks completed the conquest of the Peninsula. The despotate of Epirus succumbed in 1449, the duchy of Athens in 1456; in 1453 Constantinople was taken and the decrepit Byzantine empire perished; the greater part of Bosnia submitted in 1463; the heroic resistance of the Albanians under Scanderbeg collapsed with the fall of Croia (1466), and Venetian supremacy in Upper Albania ended with the capture of Scutari (1478). Only the mountain stronghold of Montenegro and the Italian city-states on the Adriatic coast escaped subjection. In the 16th century under Solyman the Magnificent (1520-1566) the Ottoman power attained its greatest height; after the unsuccessful siege of Vienna (1683) it began to decline. The period of decadence was marked in the latter half of the 18th century by the formation of practically independent pashaliks or fiefs, such as those of Scutari under Mahommed of Bushat, Iannina under Ali of Tepelen, and Viden under Pasvan-oglu. The detachment of the outlying portions of the empire followed. Owing to the uncompromising character of the Mahommedan religion and the contemptuous attitude of the dominant race, the subject nationalities underwent no process of assimilation during the four centuries of Turkish rule; they retained not only their language but their religion, manners and peculiar characteristics, and when the power of the central authority waned they still possessed the germs of a national existence. The independence of Greece was acknowledged in 1829, that of Servia (as a tributary principality) in 1830. No territorial changes within the Peninsula followed the Crimean War; but the continuance of the weakened authority of the Porte tended indirectly to the independent development of the various nationalities. The Ionian Islands were ceded by Great Britain to Greece in 1864. The great break-up came in 1878. The abortive treaty of San Stefano, concluded in that year, reduced the Turkish possessions in the Peninsula to Albania, Epirus, Thessaly and a portion of southern Thrace. A large Bulgarian principality was created extending from the Danube to the Aegean and from the Black Sea to the river Drin in Albania; it received a considerable coast-line on the Aegean and abutted on the Gulf of Salonica under the walls of that town. At the same time the frontiers of Servia and Montenegro were enlarged so as to become almost contiguous, and Montenegro received the ports of Antivari and Dulcigno on the Adriatic. From a strategical point of view the Bulgaria of the San Stefano treaty threatened Salonica, Adrianople and Constantinople itself; and the great powers, anticipating that the new state would become a Russian dependency, refused their sanction to its provisions. The treaty of Berlin followed, which limited the principality to the country between the Danube and the Balkans, created the autonomous province of Eastern Rumelia south of the Balkans, and left the remainder of the proposed Bulgarian state under Turkish rule. The Montenegrin frontier laid down at San Stefano was considerably curtailed, Dulcigno, the district north-east of the Tara, and other territories being restored to Turkey; in addition to Nish, Servia received the districts of Pirot and Vranya on the east instead of the Ibar valley on the west; the Dobrudja, somewhat enlarged, was ceded to Rumania, which surrendered southern Bessarabia to Russia. Bosnia and Herzegovina were handed over to Austrian administration; under a subsequent convention with Turkey, Austria sent troops into the sanjak of Novibazar. The complete independence of the principalities of Servia, Rumania and Montenegro was recognized. The claims of Greece, ignored at San Stefano, were admitted at Berlin; an extension of frontier, including Epirus as well as Thessaly, was finally sanctioned by the powers in 1880, but owing to the tenacious resistance of Turkey only Thessaly and the district of Arta were acquired by Greece in 1881. Rumania was proclaimed a kingdom in that year, Servia in 1882. In 1880, after a naval demonstration by the powers, Dulcigno was surrendered to Montenegro in compensation for the districts of Plava and Gusinye restored to Turkey. In 1886 the informal union of Eastern Rumelia with Bulgaria was sanctioned by Europe, the districts of Tumrush (Rhodope) and Krjali being given back to the sultan. In 1897 Crete was withdrawn from Turkish administration, and the Greco-Turkish War of that year was followed by the cession to Turkey of a few strategical points on the Thessalian frontier. In 1908 Bosnia and Herzegovina were annexed to the Dual Monarchy, and Bulgaria (including Eastern Rumelia) was proclaimed an independent kingdom.

[Sidenote: A Balkan confederation.]

The growth and development of the Balkan nations have, to a great extent, been retarded by the international jealousies arising from the Eastern Question. The possibility of the young states entering into a combination which would enable them to offer a united resistance to foreign interference while simultaneously effecting a compromise in regard to their national aims, has at various times occupied the attention of Balkan politicians. Among the earliest advocates of this idea was Ristich, the Servian statesman. During the reaction against Russia which followed the war of 1877 informal discussions were conducted with this object, and it was even suggested that a reformed or constitutional Turkey might find a place in the confederation. The movement was favourably regarded by King Charles of Rumania and Prince Alexander of Bulgaria. But the revolt of Eastern Rumelia, followed by the Servo-Bulgarian War and the coercion of Greece by the powers, embittered the rivalry of the various races, and the project was laid aside. It was revived in a somewhat modified form in 1891 by Tricoupis, who suggested an offensive alliance of the Balkan states, directed against Turkey and aiming at a partition of the Sultan's possessions in Europe. The scheme, which found favour in Servia, was frustrated by the opposition of Stamboloff, who denounced it to the Porte. In 1897 a Bulgarian proposal for joint pacific action with a view to obtaining reforms in Macedonia was rejected by Greece.

AUTHORITIES.—Special bibliographies are appended to the separate articles which deal with the various political divisions of the Peninsula. For a general description of the whole region, its inhabitants, political problems, &c., see "Odysseus," Turkey in Europe (London, 1900), a work of exceptional interest and value. See also The Balkan Question, ed. L. Villari (London, 1905); W. Miller, Travels and Politics in the Near East (London, 1898); L. Lamouche, La Peninsule balkanique (Paris, 1899); H. C. Thomson, The Outgoing Turk (London, 1897); T. Joanne, Etats du Danube et des Balkans (Paris, 1895); R. Millet, Souvenirs des Balkans (Paris, 1891); V. Cambon, Autour des Balkans (Paris, 1890); P. J. Hamard, Par dela l'Adriatique et les Balkans (Paris, 1890); E. de Laveleye, La Peninsule des Balkans (Brussels, 1886). For geology see F. Toula, "Materialien zu einer Geologic der Balkan-halbinsel," Jahr. k.-k. geol. Reichsanst. (Vienna, vol. xxxiii. 1883), pp. 61-114; A. Bittnel. M. Neumayr, &c., Denks. k. Akad. Wiss. Wien, math.-nat. Cl., vol. xl. (1880); A. Philippson, Der Peloponnes (Berlin, 1892); J. Cvijić, "Die Tektonik der Balkanhalbinsel," C. R. IX. Cong. geol. inter. Vienne, pp. 347-370 (1904). For the condition of the Peninsula before the Treaty of Berlin, see E. Rueffer, Die Balkanhalbinsel und ihre Volker (Bautzen, 1869); Mackenzie and Irby, Travels in the Slavonic Provinces of Turkey (London, 1866); and A. Boue, La Turquie d'Europe (Paris, 1840). W. Miller, The Balkans (London, 1896), sketches the history of Bulgaria, Montenegro, Rumania and Servia. See also Sir E. Hertslet, The Map of Europe by Treaty, esp. vol. iv. (London, 1875-1891); J. D. Bourchier, "A Balkan Confederation," in the Fortnightly Review (London, September 1891); the Austrian and Russian staff maps, and the ethnographical maps of Kiepert and Peucker.

(J. D. B.)

[v.03 p.0262] BALKASH, or BALKHASH (called by the Kirghiz Ak-denghiz or Ala-denghiz and by the Chinese Si-hai), a lake of Asiatic Russia, in the Kirghiz steppes, between the governments of Semipalatinsk and Semiryechensk, in 45deg to 47deg N. and 73deg 30' to 79deg E., about 600 m. to the east of Lake Aral. It is fourth in size of the lakes in Eurasia, having an area of 7115 sq. m., and lies at an altitude of 900 ft. It has the shape of a broad crescent, about 430 m. long from W.S.W. to E.N.E., having its concave side turned southwards; its width varies from 36 to 53 m. Its north-western shore is bordered by a dreary plateau, known as the Famine Steppe (Bek-pak-dala). The south-east shore, on the contrary, is low, and bears traces of having extended formerly as far as the Sasyk-kul and the Ala-kul. The Kirghiz in 1903 declared that its surface had been rising steadily during the preceding ten years, though prior to that it was dropping. The chief feeder of the lake is the Ili, which rises in the Khantengri group of the Tian-shan Mountains. The Karatal, the Aksu and the Lepsa also enter from the south-east, and the Ayaguz from the north-east. The first three rivers make their way with difficulty through the sands and reeds, which at a quite recent time were covered by the lake. Although it has no outlet, its waters are relatively fresh. It freezes generally from November to April. Its greatest depth, 35 ft., is along the north-west shore. The fauna of the lake and of its tributaries—explored by Nikolsky—is more akin to the fauna of the rivers of the Tarim basin than to that of the Aral; it also does not contain the common frog. It seems, therefore, probable that Lake Balkash stood formerly in communication through lakes Ebi-nor and Ayar (Telli-nor) with the lake that formerly filled the Lukchun depression (in 89-1/2deg E. long, and 42-1/2deg N. lat.), but researches show that a connexion with Lake Aral—at least in recent times—was improbable. The lake has been investigated by L. S. Berg (see Petermanns Mitteilungen, 1903).

BALKH, a city of Afghanistan, about 100 m. E. of Andkhui and some 46 m. S. of the Oxus. The city, which is identical with the ancient Bactra or Zainaspa, is now for the most part a mass of ruins, situated on the right bank of the Balkh river, 1200 ft. above the sea. It comprises about 500 houses of Afghan settlers, a colony of Jews and a small bazaar, set in the midst of a waste of ruins and many acres of debris. Entering by the west (or Akcha) gate, one passes under three arches, which are probably the remnants of a former Jama Masjid. The outer walls (mostly in utter disrepair) are about 6-1/2 to 7 m. in perimeter, and on the south-eastern borders are set high on a mound or rampart, indicating a Mongol origin. The fort and citadel to the north-east are built well above the town on a barren mound and are walled and moated. There is, however, little left but the remains of a few pillars. The Masjid Sabz, with its green-tiled dome, is said to be the tomb of a Khwaja, Abul Narsi Parsar. Nothing but the arched entrance remains of the Madrasa, which is traditionally not very old. The earlier Buddhist constructions have proved more durable than the Mahommedan buildings. The Top-i-Rustam is 50 yds. in diameter at the base and 30 yds. at the top, circular and about 50 ft. high. Four circular vaults are sunk in the interior and four passages have been pierced below from the outside, which probably lead to them. The base of the building is constructed of sun-dried bricks about 2 ft. square and 4 or 5 in. thick. The Takht-i-Rustam is wedge-shaped in plan, with uneven sides. It is apparently built of pise mud (i.e. mud mixed with straw and puddled). It is possible that in these ruins we may recognize the Nan Vihara of the Chinese traveller Hsuan Tsang. There are the remains of many other topes (or stupas) in the neighbourhood. The mounds of ruins on the road to Mazar-i-Sharif probably represent the site of a city yet older than those on which stands the modern Balkh. The town is garrisoned by a few hundred kasidars, the regular troops of Afghan Turkestan being cantoned at Takhtapul, near Mazar-i-Sharif. The gardens to the north-east contain a caravanserai, which is fairly well kept and comfortable. It forms one side of a courtyard, which is shaded by a group of magnificent chenar trees.

The antiquity and greatness of the place are recognized by the native populations, who speak of it as the Mother of Cities. Its foundation is mythically ascribed to Kaiomurs, the Persian Romulus; and it is at least certain that, at a very early date, it was the rival of Ecbatana, Nineveh and Babylon. For a long time the city and country was the central seat of the Zoroastrian religion, the founder of which is said to have died within the walls. From the Memoirs of Hsuan Tsang, we learn that, at the time of his visit in the 7th century, there were in the city, or its vicinity, about a hundred Buddhist convents, with 3000 devotees, and that there was a large number of stupas, and other religious monuments. The most remarkable was the Nau Behar, Nava Bihara or New Convent, which possessed a very costly statue of Buddha. A curious notice of this building is found in the Arabian geographer Yaqut. Ibn-Haukal, an Arabian traveller of the 10th century, describes Balkh as built of clay, with ramparts and six gates, and extending half a parasang. He also mentions a castle and a mosque. Idrisi, in the 12th century, speaks of its possessing a variety of educational establishments, and carrying on an active trade. There were several important commercial routes from the city, stretching as far east as India and China. In 1220 Jenghiz Khan sacked Balkh, butchered its inhabitants and levelled all the buildings capable of defence,—treatment to which it was again subjected in the 14th century by Timur. Notwithstanding this, however, Marco Polo can still, in the following century, describe it as "a noble city and a great." Balkh formed the government of Aurangzeb in his youth. In 1736 it was conquered by Nadir Shah. Under the Durani monarchy it fell into the hands of the Afghans; it was conquered by Shah Murad of Kunduz in 1820, and for some time was subject to the khan of Bokhara. In 1850 Mahommed Akram Khan, Barakzai, captured Balkh, and from that time it remained under Afghan rule.

See Hsuan Tsang, tr. by Julien, vol. i. pp. 29-32; Burnes's Travels in Bokhara (1831-1833); Ferrier's Travels; Vambery's Bokhara (1873); Report of the Russo-Afghan Boundary Commission of 1884-1885.

(T. H. H.*)

BALL, SIR ALEXANDER JOHN, BART. (1759-1809), British rear-admiral and governor of Malta, came of a Gloucestershire family. He entered the navy, and in 1778 was promoted lieutenant. Three years later began a close association with Rodney, and, two days after his chief's crowning victory of April 12, 1782, Ball was promoted commander, and in 1783 he became captain. At this time he spent a year in France with the double purpose of learning the language and living economically. Nelson, then a captain, was at this time by no means favourably impressed by his future friend and comrade, and spoke of him as a "great coxcomb." It was not until 1790 that Ball received a command. From that year, however, he was continuously employed. In 1798, assistance rendered by him to Nelson's ship in heavy weather caused the latter to forget his former animosity, and from that time the two were close friends. Under Nelson's command Ball took part in the battle of the Nile, and his ship, the "Alexander," was the particular opponent of Brueys' flagship, "L'Orient," which blew up. Two months later he was ordered to the blockade of Malta, which was kept up without a break for the next two years. Ball committed the blockade to his first lieutenant, and himself led the marines and local militia, which made the siege on the land side. His care for his men laid the foundations of his popularity with the Maltese which continued till his death. After the fall of Malta, Ball practically retired from the service, in spite of Nelson's urgent entreaty that he should continue afloat, and from 1801 (when he was made a baronet) to 1809 he was governor of Malta, where he endeared himself to the people by his regard for their interests, and his opposition to the policy of treating the island as a conquered dependency. His friendship with Lord Nelson, whose letters prove his high regard for him, was only broken by death. Ball died on the 20th of October 1809 and was buried in Malta. Sir Alexander Ball was kind to Coleridge and is highly praised by him in The Friend, "The Third Landing Place." There are numerous mentions of Ball in Nelson's Despatches, in Sir H. Nicolas' edition.