Timeline of World History TIMELINE OF WORLD HISTORY
 
 

TIMELINE OF WORLD HISTORY
 

Loading
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
     
     
 
1800 - 1899
 
 
1800-09 1810-19 1820-29 1830-39 1840-49 1850-59 1860-69 1870-79 1880-89 1890-99
1800 1810 1820 1830 1840 1850 1860 1870 1880 1890
1801 1811 1821 1831 1841 1851 1861 1871 1881 1891
1802 1812 1822 1832 1842 1852 1862 1872 1882 1892
1803 1813 1823 1833 1843 1853 1863 1873 1883 1893
1804 1814 1824 1834 1844 1854 1864 1874 1884 1894
1805 1815 1825 1835 1845 1855 1865 1875 1885 1895
1806 1816 1826 1836 1846 1856 1866 1876 1886 1896
1807 1817 1827 1837 1847 1857 1867 1877 1887 1897
1808 1818 1828 1838 1848 1858 1868 1878 1888 1898
1809 1819 1829 1839 1849 1859 1869 1879 1889 1899
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
CONTENTS
  BACK-1820-1829 NEXT-1820 Part II    
 
 
     
1820 - 1829
YEAR BY YEAR:
1820-1829
History at a Glance
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1820 Part I
Ferdinand VII
Trienio Liberal
Caroline of Brunswick
Charles Ferdinand, Duke of Berry
Henri, Count of Chambord
Cato Street Conspiracy
"Missouri Compromise"
Congress of Troppau
Liberal Revolution in Portugal
Ecuadorian War of Independence
Sucre Antonio Jose
Engels Friedrich
Erskine Thomas
Gorres Joseph
Spencer Herbert
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1820 Part II
Keats: "Ode to a Nightingale"
Pushkin: "Ruslan and Ludmila"
Fet Afanasy
Scott: "Ivanhoe"
Shelley: "Prometheus Unbound"
William Blake: The Book of Job
Tenniel John
Discovery of the Venus de Milo
Fromentin Eugene
Vieuxtemps Henri
Henri Vieuxtemps - Elegy for Viola and Piano Op.30
Henri Vieuxtemps
Moffat Robert
Florence Nightingale
Anthony Susan Brownell
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1821 Part I
Congress of Laibach
Victor Emmanuel I
Felix Charle
Battle of Novara
Greek War of Independence
Greek Revolution Timeline
Battle of Alamana
Battle of Carabobo
Missouri
Independence of Brazil
Ecole Nationale des Chartes
Concordats with individual states of Germany
Baker Eddy Mary
Grote George
Hegel: "Grundlinien der Philosophie des Rechts"
Mill James
Champollion Jean-François
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1821 Part II
Baudelaire Charles
Charles Baudelaire
"The Flowers of Evil"
Fenimore Cooper: "The Spy"
Dostoevsky Fyodor
Fyodor Dostoyevsky
"The Idiot"
Flaubert Gustave
Gustave Flaubert
"
Madame Bovary
Goethe: "Wilhelm Meisters Wanderjahre"
William Hazlitt: "Table-Talk"
Quincey Thomas
Thomas de Quincey: "Confessions of an English Opium Eater"
Thomas De Quincey 
"Confessions of an English Opium-Eater"
Shelley: "Adonais"
Nekrasov Nekolay
Brown Ford Madox
Ford Madox Brown
Weber: "Der Freischutz"
Helmholtz Hermann
Seebeck Thomas Johann
Virchow Rudolf
Wheatstone Charles
"The Guardian"
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1822 Part I
Chios Massacre
Battle of Dervenakia
Grant Ulysses
Iturbide Augustin
Congress of Verona
Colebrooke Henry Thomas
Fourier Joseph
Poncelet Jean-Victor
Goncourt Edmond
Nodier Charles
Vigny Alfred-Victor
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1822 Part II
Delacroix: "Dante and Virgil Crossing the Styx"
Martin John
John Martin
Franck Cesar
Cesar Franck - Prelude, Chorale and Fugue
Cesar Franck
Royal Academy of Music, London
Schubert: Symphony No. 8 ("The Unfinished")
Mendel Gregor
Pasteur Louis
Schliemann Heinrich
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1823 Part I
Federal Republic of Central America
Monroe Doctrine
Leo XII
Renan Ernest
Ernest Renan
"The Life of Jesus"
Fenimore Cooper: "The Pioneers"
Ostrovski Alexander
Petofi Sandor
Yonge Charlotte Mary
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1823 Part II
Ferdinand Waldmuller: "Portrait of Beethoven"
Beethoven: "Missa Solemnis"
Bishop Henry Rowley
Bishop "Home! Sweet Home!"
Schubert: "Rosamunde"
Weber: "Euryanthe"
Babbage Charles
Macintosh Charles
Navigation of the Niger
Oudney Walter
Denham Dixon
Clapperton Bain Hugh
"The Lancet"
Royal Thames Yacht Club
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1824 Part I
First Anglo-Burmese War (1824–1826)
Russo-American Treaty of 1824
First Siege of Missolonghi
Constitution of Mexico
Battle of Ayacucho
Bockh August
Botta Carlo Giuseppe Guglielmo
Dumas Alexandre, fils
Landor Walter Savage
Walter Scott: "Redgauntlet"
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1824 Part II
Delacroix: "The Massacre at Chios"
John Flaxman: "Pastoral Apollo"
Ingres: "Vow of Louis XIII"
Israels Joseph
Joseph Israels
Overbeck: "Christ's entry into Jerusalem"
Gerome Jean-Leon
Jean-Leon Gerome
Boulanger Gustave
Gustave Boulanger
Girodet Anne-Louis
Anne-Louis Girodet-Trioson
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1824 Part III
Beethoven: Symphony No. 9
Bruckner Anton
Anton Bruckner - Locus Iste
Anton Bruckner
Smetana Bedrich
Smetana - Die Moldau
Bedrich Smetana
Aspdin Joseph
Carnot Sadi
Thomson William
The Hume and Hovell expedition
Hume Hamilton
Hovell William Hilton
Athenaeum Club, London
"Le Globe"
Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1825 Part I
Ferdinand IV of Naples
Francis I of the Two Sicilies
Third Siege of Missolonghi
Treaty of Saint Petersburg of 1825
Uruguay became independent of Brazil (1825)
Kruger Paul
Maximilian I
Ludwig I of Bavaria
Nicholas I
Decembrist revolt in Russia
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1825 Part II
Lasalle Ferdinand
William Hazlitt: "The Spirit of the Age"
Manzoni: "The Betrothed"
Meyer Conrad Ferdinand
Pepys Samuel: "The Diaries of Samuel Pepys"
Pushkin: "Boris Godunov"
Tegner Esaias
Esaias Tegner: "Frithjofs Saga"
Constable: "Leaping Horse"
Collinson James
James Collinson
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1825 Part III
Boieldieu: "La Dame blanche"
Strauss II Johann , the "Waltz King"
Johan Strauss - Blue Danube Waltz
Johann Strauss II, the "Waltz King"
Charcot Jean Martin
Gurney Goldsworthy
Stockton and Darlington Railway
The Desert
Caillie Rene-Auguste
Laing Alexander Gordon
John Franklin Canadian and Arctic expedition
Horse-bus
Trade Union
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1826 Part I
The Sortie of Missolonghi
Ottoman–Egyptian Invasion of Mani
Treaty of Yandabo
Pedro I
Maria II, Queen of Portugal
Akkerman Convention
Congress of Panama
Russo-Persian War of 1826-1828
Zollverein
Khan Dost Mohammad
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1826 Part II
Liebknecht Wilhelm
Ruan Yuan
Fenimore Cooper: "The Last of the Mohicans"
Benjamin Disraeli: "Vivian Grey"
Scheffel Josef Viktor
Scott: "Woodstock"
Moreau Gustave
Gustave Moreau
Weber: "Oberon"
Nobili Leopoldo
Unverdorben Otto
Raffles Stamford
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1827 Part I
Battle of Phaleron
Kapodistrias Ioannis Antonios
Siege of the Acropolis (1826–27)
Treaty of London
Battle of Navarino
Mahmud II
Russo-Persian War - Campaign of 1827
Coster Charles
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1827 Part II
Bocklin Arnold
Arnold Bocklin
Constable: "The Cornfield"
Hunt William Holman
William Holman Hunt
Audubon John James
Audubon: "Birds of North America"
Baer Karl Ernst
Bright Richard
Lister Joseph
Niepce Nicephore
Ohm Georg Simon
Ressel Joseph
Simpson James
Wohler Friedrich
Timbuktu
Baedeker Karl
"London Evening Standard"
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1828 Part I
Ypsilantis Alexander
Michael
Russo-Turkish War of 1828–1829
"Tariff of Abominations"
Treaty of Montevideo
Guerrero Vicente
Lange Friedrich Albert
Muller Karl Otfried
Taine Hippolyte Adolphe
Noah Webster "American Dictionary of the English Language"
About Edmond
Alexandre Dumas pere: "Les Trois Mousquetaires"
Ibsen Henrik
Meredith George
George Meredith 
"The Egoist"
Oliphant Margaret
Tolstoy Leo
Leo Tolstoy
"The Kreutzer Sonata"
Verne Jules
Jules Verne
"Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea."
"The Children of Captain Grant"
"The Mysterious Island"
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1828 Part II
Bonington Richard Parkes
Richard Parkes Bonington
Rossetti Dante Gabriel
Dante Gabriel Rossetti
Stevens Alfred
Alfred Stevens
Stuart Gilbert
Gilbert Stuart
Auber: "La Muette de Portici"
Marschner: "Der Vampire"
Abel Niels Henrik
Burdon-Sanderson John
Cohn Ferdinand
De Vinne Theodore
Stewart Balfour
Swan Joseph
Dunant Henri
Hauser Kaspar
Working Men's Party
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1829 Part I
Schurz Carl
Biddle Nicholas
Metropolitan Police Act 1829
First Hellenic Republic
Treaty of Adrianople
Attwood Thomas
Bustamante Anastasio
O’Connell Daniel
Gran Colombia–Peru War (1828-1829)
Benson Edward White
Roman Catholic Emancipation Act
Gardiner Samuel Rawson
Pius VIII
Balzac: "Les Chouans"
Goethe: "Wilhelm Meisters Wanderjahre"
Jefferson Joseph  
Edgar Allan Poe: "Al Araaf"
Salvini Tommaso
Scott: "Anne of Geierstein"
Timrod Henry
Warner Charles Dudley
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1829 Part II
Feuerbach Anselm
Anselm Feuerbach
Millais John Everett
John Everett Millais
Gottschalk Louis
Louis Moreau Gottschalk - Grande Tarantelle
Louis Gottschalk
Rossini: "William Tell"
Rubinstein Anton
Rubinstein - Piano Concerto No. 1
Anton Rubinstein
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1829 Part III
Cantor Moritz Benedikt
Dobereiner Johann Wolfgang
Dreyse Nikolaus
Henry Joseph
Priessnitz Vincenz
Hydropathy, Hydrotherapy
Kekule August
Mitchell Silas Weir
Smithson James
Booth William
Salvation Army
Shillibeer George
Flong
Suttee
 
 
 

The Trial of Queen Caroline, 1820 by Sir George Hayter
 
 
 
 
 HISTORY, RELIGION, PHILOSOPHY, ART, LITERATURE, MUSIC, SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, DAILY LIFE
 
 
 
 
YEAR BY YEAR:  1800 - 1899
 
 
 
1820 Part I
 
 
 
1820
 
 
Revolution in Spain-King Ferdinand VII forced to restore Constitution of 1812
 
 
Ferdinand VII
 

Ferdinand VII, byname Ferdinand the Desired, Spanish Fernando el Deseado (born October 14, 1784, El Escorial, Spain—died September 29, 1833, Madrid), king of Spain in 1808 and from 1814 to 1833. Between 1808 and 1813, during the Napoleonic Wars, Ferdinand was imprisoned in France by Napoleon.

 

Ferdinand VII
  Ferdinand was the son of Charles IV and Maria Luisa of Parma, who placed their whole confidence in Manuel de Godoy. From 1795 Godoy had flaunted the title of prince of the Peace for his capitulation to France in the Peace of Basel. Ferdinand’s tutor stirred up his jealousy and encouraged him to seek the protection of Napoleon. Charles IV was sufficiently alarmed to arrest Ferdinand but forgave him. When Godoy allowed French troops to enter Spain, Charles was overthrown by the Revolt of Aranjuez (March 17, 1808), and he abdicated in favour of Ferdinand. However, French troops occupied Madrid, and Napoleon summoned Ferdinand to the frontier and obliged him to return the crown to his father, who granted it to Napoleon. Napoleon made his brother Joseph Bonaparte king of Spain and held Ferdinand in France for the duration of the war.

It was left to the Spanish populace to rise against the French invaders in the name of the absent Ferdinand, known as “the Desired.” In 1812 independent Spaniards adopted the Constitution of Cádiz, but in December 1813 Napoleon released Ferdinand expressly to overthrow it.

When Ferdinand returned to Spain in 1814 he was urged by reactionaries to abolish the Cortes of Cádiz and all its works, which he did almost immediately. He resumed his obsolete powers and attempted to recover control of Spanish America, now partly independent.

 
 
But his ministers could neither reinforce his armies in America nor persuade the British government to collaborate or connive at reconquest. In 1820 a liberal revolution restored the Constitution of 1812, which Ferdinand accepted, but in 1823 Louis XVIII of France sent the duc d’Angoulême at the head of a large army to release Ferdinand from his radical ministers. Ferdinand’s new government arrested the radicals or drove them into exile. By 1826 the Spanish possessions in America were all independent. Ferdinand’s government now depended on a militia, the Royalist Volunteers, and the French forces of occupation.

Ferdinand had no children from his three marriages, and his absolutist supporters looked to his even more absolutist younger brother, Don Carlos (Carlos María Isidro de Borbón), to succeed him. In 1830 his fourth wife, María Cristina, gave birth to a daughter, the future Isabella II. Isabella’s birth prompted Ferdinand to revoke the Salic Law of Succession, which prevented women from acceding to the throne. During Ferdinand’s illness, Don Carlos tried to persuade the queen to recognize his rights, but Ferdinand recovered, banished Don Carlos, and looked for moderate liberal support for his young daughter. When Ferdinand died in September 1833, Isabella was recognized as the sovereign, but his widow was obliged to lean on the liberals as Don Carlos asserted his claims from Portugal and thus began the First Carlist War.

Encyclopædia Britannica

 
 
Revolt
 

In 1820 his misrule provoked a revolt in favor of the Constitution of 1812 which began with a mutiny of the troops under Col. Rafael del Riego and the king was quickly made prisoner. He grovelled to the insurgents as he had done to his parents. Ferdinand had restored the Jesuits upon his return; now the Society had become identified with repression and absolutism among the liberals, who attacked them: twenty-five Jesuits were slain in Madrid in 1822. For the rest of the 19th century, expulsions and reinstatements of the Jesuits would continue to be the hallmarks of liberal and authoritarian political regimes, respectively.

 
 

Ferdinand VII
  At the beginning of 1823, as a result of the Congress of Verona, the French invaded Spain "invoking the God of St Louis, for the sake of preserving the throne of Spain to a descendant of Henry IV, and of reconciling that fine kingdom with Europe." When in May the revolutionary party carried Ferdinand to Cádiz, he continued to make promises of amendment until he was free.

When freed after the Battle of Trocadero and the fall of Cádiz he avenged himself with a ferocity which disgusted his far from liberal allies. In violation of his oath to grant an amnesty he avenged himself, for three years of coercion, by killing on a scale which left his "rescuers" sickened and horrified. The Duke of Angoulême, powerless to intervene, made known his protest against Ferdinand's actions by refusing the Spanish decorations Ferdinand offered him for his military services.

During his last years Ferdinand's energy was abated. He no longer changed ministers every few months as a sport, and he allowed some of them to conduct the current business of government. He became torpid, bloated and unpleasant to look at. His last ten years of reign (1823–1833) are generally known as the "Ominous Decade", and saw the relentless restoration of a reactionary absolutism, the re-establishment of archaic university programs and the suppression of any opposition, both of the Liberal Party and of the reactionary revolt (known as "War of the Agraviados") which broke out in 1827 in Catalonia and other regions.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 
 
 
Spanish Constitution of 1812
 

The Spanish Constitution of 1812 was established on 19 March 1812 by the Cádiz Cortes, Spain's first national sovereign assembly, the Cortes Generales ("General Courts"), in refuge in Cádiz during the Peninsular War. It established the principles of universal male suffrage, national sovereignty, constitutional monarchy and freedom of the press, and supported land reform and free enterprise. This constitution, one of the most liberal of its time, was effectively Spain's first, given that the Bayonne Statute issued in 1808 under Joseph Bonaparte never entered into effect.

 
The Constitution never entered fully into effect either: much of Spain was ruled by the French, while the rest of the country was in the hands of interim junta governments focused on resistance to the Bonapartes rather than on the immediate establishment of a constitutional regime. In the overseas territories many did not recognize the legitimacy of these interim metropolitan governments, leading to a power vacuum and the establishment of separate juntas on the American continent. On 24 March 1814, six weeks after returning to Spain, Ferdinand VII abolished the constitution and had all monuments to it torn down. The Constitution Obelisk in Saint Augustine, Florida survived. The constitution was reinstated during the Trienio Liberal (1820–1823), and again briefly 1836—1837 while the Progressives prepared the Constitution of 1837.

The Spaniards nicknamed the Constitution La Pepa, possibly because it was adopted on Saint Joseph's Day, 'Pepa' being a nickname for 'Josephine'.

 
 
Background
The Cortes drafted and adopted the Constitution while besieged by 70,000 French troops in the south of Spain, first on Isla de León (now San Fernando), an island bordering the Bay of Cádiz, on the Atlantic coast, and then within the small, strategically located city of Cádiz itself.

From a Spanish point of view, the Peninsular War was a war of independence against the French Empire and the king installed by the French, Joseph Bonaparte. In 1808, both King Ferdinand VII and his predecessor and father, Charles IV, had resigned their claims to the throne in favor of Napoleon Bonaparte, who in turn passed the crown to his brother Joseph. While many in elite circles in Madrid were willing to accept Joseph's rule, the Spanish people were not. The war began on the night of 2 May 1808, and was immortalized by Francisco Goya's painting The Second of May 1808, also known as The Charge of the Mamelukes.

Napoleon's forces faced both Spanish regular troops and partisans and later British troops under the Arthur Wellesley. The Spanish partisans organized an interim Spanish government, the Supreme Central Junta and called for a Cortes to convene with representatives from all the Spanish provinces throughout the worldwide empire, in order to establish a government with a firm claim to legitimacy. The Junta first met on 25 September 1808 in Aranjuez and later in Seville, before retreating to Cádiz.

The Supreme Central Junta, originally under the leadership of the elderly Count of Floridablanca, initially tried to consolidate southern and eastern Spain to maintain continuity for a restoration of the Bourbons. However, almost from the outset they were in physical retreat from Napoleon's forces, and the comparative liberalism offered by the Napoleonic regime made Floridablanca's enlightened absolutism[3] a likely basis to rally the country. In any event, Floridablanca's strength failed him and he died on 30 December 1808.

When the Cortes convened in Cádiz in 1810, there appeared to be two possibilities for Spain's political future if the French could be driven out. The first, represented especially by Gaspar Melchor de Jovellanos, was the restoration of the absolutist Antiguo Régimen ("Old Regime"); the second was to adopt some sort of written constitution.

  Deliberations and reforms
Retreating before the advancing French and an outbreak of yellow fever, the Supreme Central Junta moved to Isla de León, where it was protected by the British Royal Navy, and abolished itself, leaving a regency to rule until the Cortes could convene.

The origins of the Cortes did not harbor any revolutionary intentions, since the Junta saw itself simply as a continuation of the legitimate government of Spain. The opening session of the new Cortes was held on 24 September 1810 in the building now known as the Real Teatro de las Cortes. The opening ceremonies included a civic procession, a mass, and a call by the president of the Regency, Pedro Quevedo y Quintana, the bishop of Ourense, for those present to fulfill their task loyally and efficiently. Still, the very act of resistance to the French involved a certain degree of deviation from the doctrine of royal sovereignty: if sovereignty resided entirely in the monarch, then Charles and Ferdinand's abdications in favor of Napoleon would have made Joseph Bonaparte the legitimate ruler of Spain.

The representatives who gathered at Cádiz were far more liberal than the elite of Spain taken as a whole, and they produced a document far more liberal than might have been produced in Spain were it not for the war. Few of the most conservative voices were at Cádiz, and there was no effective communication with King Ferdinand, who was a virtual prisoner in France. In the Cortes of 1810-1812, liberal deputies, who had the implicit support of the British who were protecting the city, were in the majority and representatives of the Church and nobility constituted a minority. Liberals wanted equality before the law, a centralized government, an efficient modern civil service, a reform of the tax system, the replacement of feudal privileges by freedom of contract, and the recognition of the property owner's right to use his property as he saw fit. Three basic principles were soon ratified by the Cortes: that sovereignty resides in the nation, the legitimacy of Ferdinand VII as king of Spain, and the inviolability of the deputies.
With this, the first steps towards a political revolution were taken, since prior to the Napoleonic intervention, Spain had been ruled as an absolute monarchy by the Bourbons and their Habsburg predecessors. Although the Cortes was not unanimous in its liberalism, the new Constitution reduced the power of the crown, the Catholic Church (although Catholicism remained the state religion), and the nobility.

 
 

Cortes of Cadiz Oath in 1810. Oil painting by José Casado del Alisal, 1863.
 
 
The Cortes of Cádiz worked feverishly and the first written Spanish constitution was promulgated in Cádiz on 19 March 1812. The Constitution of 1812 is regarded as the founding document of liberalism in Spain and one of the first examples of classical liberalism or conservative liberalism worldwide. It came to be called the "sacred code" of the branch of liberalism that rejected the French Revolution, and during the early nineteenth century it served as a model for liberal constitutions of several Mediterranean and Latin American nations. It served as the model for the Norwegian Constitution of 1814, the Portuguese Constitution of 1822 and the Mexican one of 1824, and was implemented with minor modifications in various Italian states by the Carbonari during their revolt of 1820 and 1821.

As the principal aim of the new constitution was the prevention of arbitrary and corrupt royal rule, it provided for a limited monarchy which governed through ministers subject to parliamentary control. Suffrage, which was not determined by property qualifications, favored the position of the commercial class in the new parliament, since there was no special provision for the Church or the nobility. The constitution set up a rational and efficient centralized administrative system for the whole monarchy based on newly reformed and uniform provincial governments and municipalities, rather than maintaining some form of the varied, historical local governmental structures. Repeal of traditional property restrictions gave liberals the freer economy they wanted.

The first provincial government created under the Constitution was in the province of Guadalajara con Molina. Its deputation first met in the village of Anguita in April 1813, since the capital Guadalajara was the site of ongoing fighting.
 
 
Establishment of Spanish active and passive citizenship
Among the most debated questions during the drafting of the constitution was the status of the native and mixed-race populations in Spain's possessions around the world. Most of the overseas provinces were represented, especially the most populous regions.

Both the Viceroyalty of New Spain and the Viceroyalty of Peru had deputies present, as did Central America, the islands of the Spanish Caribbean, Florida, Chile, Upper Peru and the Philippines. The total number of representatives was 303, of which thirty-seven were born in overseas territories, although several of these were temporary, substitute deputies [suplentes] elected by American refugees in the city of Cadiz: seven from New Spain, two from Central America, five from Peru, two from Chile, three from the Río de la Plata, three from New Granada, and two from Venezuela, one from Santo Domingo, two from Cuba, one from Puerto Rico and two from the Philippines.

Although most of the overseas representatives were Criollos, the majority wanted to extend suffrage to all indigenous, mixed-race and free black people of the Spanish Empire, which would have granted the overseas territories a majority in the future Cortes. The majority of representatives from peninsular Spain opposed those proposals as they wished to limit the weight of non-peninsulares.
 
Allegory of the Constitution of 1812, Francisco de Goya, Swedish National Museum.
 
 
According to the best estimates of the time, continental Spain had an estimated population of between 10 and 11 million, while the overseas provinces had a combined population of around 15 to 16 million. The Cortes ultimately approved a distinction between nationality and citizenship (that is, those with the right to vote).
 
 
The Constitution gave Spanish citizenship to natives of the territories that had belonged to the Spanish monarchy in both hemispheres. The Constitution of 1812 included Indigenous peoples of the Americas to Spanish citizenship, but the acquisition of citizenship for any casta of Afro-American peoples of the Americas was through naturalization excluding slaves. Spanish nationals were defined as all people born, naturalized or permanently residing for more than ten years in Spanish territories. Article 1 of the Constitution read: "The Spanish nation is the collectivity of the Spaniards of both hemispheres." Voting rights were granted to Spanish nationals whose ancestry originated from Spain or the territories of the Spanish Empire. This had the effect of changing the legal status of the people not only in peninsular Spain but in Spanish possessions overseas. In the latter case, not only people of Spanish ancestry but also indigenous peoples as well were transformed from the subjects of an absolute monarch to the citizens of a nation rooted in the doctrine of national, rather than royal, sovereignty. At the same time, the Constitution recognized the civil rights of free blacks and mulatos but explicitly denied them automatic citizenship. Furthermore, they were not to be counted for the purposes of establishing the number of representatives a given province was to send to the Cortes.

That had the effect of removing an estimated six million people from the rolls in the overseas territories. In part, this arrangement was a strategy by the peninsular deputies to achieve equality in the number of American and peninsular deputies in the future Cortes, but it also served the interests of conservative Criollo representatives, who wished to keep political power within a limited group of people.
  The peninsular deputies, for the most part, were also not inclined towards ideas of federalism promoted by many of the overseas deputies, which would have granted greater self-rule to the American and Asian territories. Most of the peninsulares, therefore, shared the absolutists' inclination towards centralized government. Another aspect of the treatment of the overseas territories in the constitution —one of the many that would prove not to be to the taste of Ferdinand VII— that by converting these territories to provinces, the king was deprived of a great economic resource. Under the Antiguo Régimen, the taxes from Spain's overseas possessions went directly to the royal treasury; under the Constitution of 1812, it would go to the state administrative apparatus.

The influence of the 1812 Constitution on the emerging states of Latin America was quite direct. Miguel Ramos Arizpe of Mexico, Joaquín Fernández de Leiva of Chile, Vicente Morales Duárez of Peru and José Mejía Lequerica of Ecuador, among other significant figures in founding American republics, were active participants at Cádiz. One provision of the Constitution, which provided for the creation of a local government (an ayuntamiento) for every settlement of over 1,000 people, using a form of indirect election that favored the wealthy and socially prominent, came from a proposal by Ramos Arizpe. This benefited the bourgeoisie at the expense of the hereditary aristocracy both on the Peninsula and in the Americas, and in the Americas, it was particularly to the advantage of the Criollos, since they came to dominate the ayuntamientos. It also brought in a certain measure of federalism through the back door, both on the peninsula and overseas: elected bodies at the local and provincial level might not always be in lockstep with the central government.

 
 

The promulgation of the Constitution of 1812, oil painting by Salvador Viniegra.
Museo de las Cortes de Cádiz.
 
 
Repeal and restoration
When Ferdinand VII was restored in March 1814 by the Allied Powers, it is not clear whether he immediately made up his mind as to whether to accept or reject this new charter of Spanish government. He first promised to uphold the constitution, but was repeatedly met in numerous towns by crowds who welcomed him as an absolute monarch, often smashing the markers that had renamed their central plazas as Plaza of the Constitution. Sixty-nine deputies of the Cortes signed the so-called Manifiesto de los Persas ("Manifesto of the Persians") encouraging him to restore absolutism. Within a matter of weeks, encouraged by conservatives and backed by the Roman Catholic Church hierarchy, he abolished the constitution on 4 May and arrested many liberal leaders on 10 May, justifying his actions as the repudiation of an unlawful constitution made by a Cortes assembled in his absence and without his consent. Thus he came back to assert the Bourbon doctrine that the sovereign authority resided in his person only.
Ferdinand's absolutist rule rewarded the traditional holders of power—prelates, nobles and those who held office before 1808—but not liberals, who wished to see a constitutional monarchy in Spain, or many who led the war effort against the French but had not been part of the pre-war government.
  Ferdinand's absolutist rule rewarded the traditional holders of power—prelates, nobles and those who held office before 1808—but not liberals, who wished to see a constitutional monarchy in Spain, or many who led the war effort against the French but had not been part of the pre-war government. This discontent resulted in several unsuccessful attempts to restore the Constitution in the five years after Ferdinand's restoration. Finally on 1 January 1820 Rafael del Riego, Antonio Quiroga and other officers initiated a mutiny of army officers in Andalusia demanding the implementation of the Constitution. The movement found support among the northern cities and provinces of Spain, and by 7 March the king had restored the Constitution. Over the next two years, the other European monarchies became alarmed at the liberals' success and at the Congress of Verona in 1822 approved the intervention of royalist French forces in Spain to support Ferdinand VII. After the Battle of Trocadero liberated Ferdinand from control by the Cortes in August 1823, he turned on the liberals and constitutionalists with fury. After Ferdinand's death in 1833, the Constitution was in force again briefly in 1836 and 1837, while the Constitution of 1837 was being drafted. Since 1812, Spain has had a total of seven constitutions; the current one has been in force since 1978.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 
 
 
1820
 
 
Trienio Liberal
 

The Trienio Liberal ("Liberal Triennium") was a period of three years of liberal government in Spain. After the revolution of 1820 the movement spread quickly to the rest of Spain and the Spanish Constitution of 1812 was reinstated. The Triennium was a volatile period between liberals and conservatives in Spain, and constant political tensions between the two groups progressively weakened the government's authority. Finally in 1823, with the approval of the crown heads of Europe, a French army invaded Spain and reinstated the King's absolute power. This invasion is known in France as the "Spanish Expedition" (expédition d’Espagne), and in Spain as "The Hundred Thousand Sons of St. Louis".

 
The Revolution of Cabezas de San Juan
Spain's King Ferdinand VII provoked widespread unrest, particularly in the army, by refusing to accept the liberal Spanish Constitution of 1812. The King sought to reclaim the Spanish colonies in the Americas that had recently revolted successfully, consequently depriving Spain from an important source of revenue. In January 1820, soldiers assembled at Cadiz for an expedition to South America, angry over infrequent pay, bad food, and poor quarters, mutinied under the leadership of Colonel Rafael del Riego y Nuñez. Pledging fealty to the 1812 Constitution, they seized their commander. Subsequently the rebel forces moved to nearby San Fernando where they began preparations to march on the capital of Madrid.
  Liberal government
Despite the rebels' relative weakness, Ferdinand accepted the constitution on March 9, 1820, granting power to liberal ministers and ushering in the so-called Liberal Triennium (el Trienio Liberal), a period of popular rule. However, in this liberal atmosphere, political conspiracies of both right and left proliferated in Spain, as was the case across much of Europe. Liberal revolutionaries stormed the King's palace and seized Ferdinand VII who was a prisoner of the Cortes in all but name for the next three years. During this time Ferdinand retired to Aranjuez. The elections to the Cortes Generales in 1822 were won by Rafael del Riego. Ferdinand's supporters set themselves up at Urgell, took up arms and put in place an absolutist regency.
 
 
Ferdinand's supporters, accompanied by the Royal Guard, staged an uprising in Madrid which was subdued by forces supporting the new government and its constitution. Despite the defeat of Ferdinand's supporters at Madrid, civil war erupted in the regions of Castile, Toledo, and Andalusia.
 
 
French intervention and restoration of Absolutism
In 1822, Ferdinand VII applied the terms of the Congress of Vienna, lobbied for the assistance of the other absolute monarchs of Europe, in the process joining the Holy Alliance formed by Russia, Prussia, Austria and France to restore absolutism. In France, the ultra-royalists pressured Louis XVIII to intervene.

To temper their counter-revolutionary ardor, the Duc de Richelieu deployed troops along the Pyrenees Mountains along the France-Spain border, charging them with halting the spread of Spanish liberalism and the "yellow fever" from encroaching into France. In September 1822 this "cordon sanitaire" became an observation corps and then very quickly transformed itself into a military expedition.

The Holy Alliance (Russia, Austria and Prussia) refused Ferdinand's request for help, but the Quintuple Alliance (Britain, France, Russia, Prussia and Austria) at the Congress of Verona in October 1822 gave France a mandate to intervene and restore the Spanish monarchy.
On 22 January 1823, a secret treaty was signed at the congress of Verona, allowing France to invade Spain to restore Ferdinand VII as an absolute monarch. With this agreement from the Holy Alliance, on 28 January 1823 Louis XVIII announced that "a hundred thousand Frenchmen are ready to march, invoking the name of Saint Louis, to safeguard the throne of Spain for a grandson of Henry IV of France".

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 
A Spanish document of 1820 which certifies that the King swore the Constitution.
 
 
 
1820
 
 
King George III of England d., succeeded by Prince Regent as George IV (—1830)
 
 

Portrait by Allan Ramsay
 
George IV by Sir Thomas Lawrence
 
 
 
1820
 
 
Caroline, wife of George IV demands recognition as queen; the king wishes to dissolve marriage, but
popular sympathy for her demands ends inquiry into her conduct
 
 
Caroline of Brunswick
 

Caroline Amelia Elizabeth of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel (17 May 1768 – 7 August 1821), best known as Caroline of Brunswick, was Queen of the United Kingdom as the wife of King George IV from 29 January 1820 until her death in 1821. Between 1795 and 1820, she was Princess of Wales.

 
Her father was the ruler of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel in Germany, and her mother, Princess Augusta, was the sister of George III. In 1794, she was engaged to her first-cousin and George III's eldest son and heir George, Prince of Wales, although they had never met and George was already married illegally to Maria Fitzherbert. George and Caroline married the following year, and nine months later Caroline had a child, Princess Charlotte of Wales.

Shortly after Charlotte's birth, George and Caroline separated. By 1806, rumours that Caroline had taken lovers and had an illegitimate child led to an investigation into her private life. The dignitaries who led the investigation concluded that there was "no foundation" to the rumours, but Caroline's access to her daughter was restricted.

In 1814, Caroline moved to Italy, where she employed Bartolomeo Pergami as a servant. Pergami soon became Caroline's closest companion, and it was widely assumed that they were lovers. In 1817, Caroline was devastated when her daughter Charlotte died in childbirth; she heard the news from a passing courier as George had refused to write and tell her. He was determined to divorce Caroline, and set up a second investigation to collect evidence of her adultery.

 
 
In 1820, George became king of the United Kingdom and Hanover. George hated her, vowed she would never be the queen, and insisted on a divorce, which she refused. A legal divorce was possible but difficult to obtain. Caroline returned to Britain to assert her position as queen. She was wildly popular and the new king was despised for his immoral behaviour.

On the basis of the evidence collected against her, George attempted to divorce her by introducing the Pains and Penalties Bill to Parliament, but George and the bill were so unpopular, and Caroline so popular with the masses, that it was withdrawn by the Tory government. In July 1821, Caroline was barred from the coronation on the orders of her husband. She fell ill in London and died three weeks later; her funeral procession passed through London on its way to her native Brunswick, where she was buried.
  Early life
Caroline was born as Princess of Brunswick, with the courtesy title of Duchess of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel on 17 May 1768 at Braunschweig (known in English as Brunswick) in Germany. She was the daughter of Charles William, Duke of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel, and his wife Princess Augusta of Great Britain, eldest sister of George III.

John Stanley, later Lord Stanley of Alderley, saw her in 1781, and noted that she was an attractive girl with curly, fair hair. Caroline could understand English and French, but her father admitted that she was lacking in education. According to Caroline's mother, who was British, all German princesses learned English in the hope that they would be chosen to marry George, Prince of Wales, George III's eldest son and heir apparent and Caroline's first cousin.

 
 
Engagement
In 1794, Caroline and the Prince of Wales were engaged. They had never met—George had agreed to marry her because he was heavily in debt, and if he contracted a marriage with an eligible princess, Parliament would increase his allowance. Caroline seemed eminently suitable: she was a Protestant of royal birth, and the marriage would ally Brunswick and Britain. Though Brunswick was only a small country, Britain was at war with revolutionary France and eager to obtain allies on the European mainland. On 20 November 1794, Lord Malmesbury arrived at Brunswick to escort Caroline to her new life in Britain. In his diary, Malmesbury recorded his reservations about Caroline's suitability as a bride for the prince: she lacked judgment, decorum and tact, spoke her mind too readily, acted indiscreetly, and often neglected to wash, or change her dirty clothes.
 
 
He went on to say that she had "some natural but no acquired morality, and no strong innate notions of its value and necessity."

However, Malmesbury was impressed by her bravery; on the journey to England, the party heard cannon fire, as they were not far from the French lines. While Caroline's mother, who was accompanying them to the coast as chaperone, was concerned for their safety, Caroline was unfazed.

On 28 March 1795, Caroline and Malmesbury left Cuxhaven in the Jupiter. Delayed by poor weather, they landed a week later, on Easter Sunday, 5 April, at Greenwich. There, she met Frances Villiers, Countess of Jersey, George's mistress, who had been appointed Caroline's Lady of the Bedchamber. Smith concludes that:

She was chosen as the intended bride of George, prince of Wales partly because her mother was a favourite sister of George III, partly through the favourable reports of her given by the dukes of York and Clarence when they visited Germany, and partly for lack of a suitable alternative German protestant princess.
On meeting his future wife for the first time, George called for a glass of brandy. He was evidently disappointed. Similarly, Caroline told Malmesbury, "[the Prince is] very fat and he's nothing like as handsome as his portrait." At dinner that evening, the Prince was appalled by Caroline's garrulous nature and her jibes at the expense of Lady Jersey. She was upset and disappointed by George's obvious partiality for Lady Jersey over her.

  Troubled marriage
Caroline and George were married on 8 April 1795 at the Chapel Royal, St. James's Palace, in London. At the ceremony, George was drunk. He regarded Caroline as unattractive and unhygienic, and told Malmesbury that he suspected that she was not a virgin when they married. He, of course, was not. He had himself already secretly married Maria Fitzherbert; however, his marriage to Fitzherbert violated the Royal Marriages Act 1772 and thus was not legally valid.

In a letter to a friend, the prince claimed that the couple only had sexual intercourse three times: twice the first night of the marriage, and once the second night. He wrote, "it required no small [effort] to conquer my aversion and overcome the disgust of her person." Caroline claimed George was so drunk that he "passed the greatest part of his bridal night under the grate, where he fell, and where I left him".

Nine months after the wedding, Caroline gave birth to Princess Charlotte Augusta, George's only legitimate child, at Carlton House on 7 January 1796. Charlotte was second in the line of succession to the British throne after her father. Just three days after Charlotte's birth, George made out a new will. He left all his property to "Maria Fitzherbert, my wife", while to Caroline he left one shilling.

Gossip about Caroline and George's troubled marriage was already circulating. The newspapers claimed that Lady Jersey opened, read and distributed the contents of Caroline's private letters. She despised Lady Jersey and could not visit or travel anywhere without George's permission.

 
 

Caroline in 1795, shortly before her marriage to the future George IV
  The press vilified George for his extravagance and luxury at a time of war and portrayed Caroline as a wronged wife. She was cheered in public and gained plaudits for her "winning familiarity" and easy, open nature. George was dismayed at her popularity and his own unpopularity, and felt trapped in a loveless marriage with a woman he loathed. He wanted a separation.
In April 1796, George wrote to Caroline, "We have unfortunately been oblig'd to acknowledge to each other that we cannot find happiness in our union. ... Let me therefore beg you to make the best of a situation unfortunate for us both." In June, Lady Jersey resigned as Caroline's Lady of the Bedchamber. George and Caroline were already living separately, and in August 1797 Caroline moved to a private residence: The Vicarage or Old Rectory in Charlton, London. Later, she moved to Montagu House in Blackheath. No longer constrained by her husband, or, according to rumour, her marital vows, she entertained whomever she pleased. She flirted with Admiral Sir Sidney Smith and Captain Thomas Manby, and may have had a fling with the politician George Canning.

Her daughter Charlotte was placed in the care of a governess, in a mansion near Montagu House in the summers, and Caroline visited her often. It seems that a single daughter was not sufficient to sate Caroline's maternal instincts, and she adopted eight or nine poor children who were fostered out to people in the district. In 1802, she adopted a three-month old boy, William Austin, and took him into her home. By 1805, Caroline had fallen out with her near neighbours, Sir John and Lady Douglas, who claimed that Caroline had sent them obscene and harassing letters. Lady Douglas accused Caroline of infidelity, and alleged that William Austin was Caroline's illegitimate son.
 
 
Delicate Investigation
In 1806, a secret commission was set up, known as the "Delicate Investigation", to examine Lady Douglas's claims. The commission comprised four of the most eminent men in the country: Prime Minister Lord Grenville, the Lord Chancellor Lord Erskine, the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales Lord Ellenborough and the Home Secretary Lord Spencer. Lady Douglas testified that Caroline herself had admitted to her in 1802 that she was pregnant, and that Austin was her son. She further alleged that Caroline had been rude about the royal family, touched her in an inappropriately sexual way, and had admitted that any woman friendly with a man was sure to become his lover. In addition to Smith, Manby and Canning, artist Thomas Lawrence and Henry Hood (the son of Lord Hood) were also mentioned as potential paramours. Caroline's servants could or would not confirm that these gentlemen were her lovers, nor that she had been pregnant, and said that the child had been brought to Caroline's house by his true mother, Sophia Austin. Sophia was summoned before the commissioners, and testified that the child was hers.

The commissioners decided that there was "no foundation" for the allegations, but despite being a supposedly secret investigation, it proved impossible to prevent gossip from spreading, and news of the investigation leaked to the press. Caroline's conduct with her gentlemen friends was considered improper, but there was no direct proof that she had been guilty of anything more than flirtation. Perhaps Caroline had told Lady Douglas that she was pregnant out of frustrated maternal desire, or as part of a foolish prank that, unfortunately for her, backfired. Later in the year, Caroline received further bad news as Brunswick was overrun by the French, and her father was killed in the battle of Jena-Auerstadt. Her mother and brother, Frederick William, Duke of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel, fled to England. Caroline had wanted to return to Brunswick and leave Britain behind her, but with much of Europe controlled by the French she had no safe haven to run to.

During the Delicate Investigation, Caroline was not permitted to see her daughter, and afterwards her visits were essentially restricted to once a week and only in the presence of Caroline's own mother, the Dowager Duchess of Brunswick. Meetings took place at either Blackheath or an apartment in Kensington Palace designated for Caroline's use.

  Social isolation
By the end of 1811, King George III had become permanently insane, and the Prince of Wales was appointed as Regent. He restricted Caroline's access to Princess Charlotte further, and Caroline became more socially isolated as members of high society chose to patronise George's extravagant parties rather than hers. She moved her London residence to Connaught House in Bayswater. Caroline needed a powerful ally to help her oppose George's increasing ability to prevent her from seeing her daughter.

In league with Henry Brougham, an ambitious Whig politician who favoured reform, she began a propaganda campaign against George. George countered by leaking Lady Douglas's testimony from the "Delicate Investigation", which Brougham repudiated by leaking the testimonies of the servants and Mrs Austin. Charlotte favoured her mother's point of view, as did most of the public. Jane Austen wrote of Caroline: "Poor woman, I shall support her as long as I can, because she is a Woman and because I hate her Husband."

In 1814, after Napoleon's defeat, nobility from throughout Europe attended celebrations in London, but Caroline was excluded. George's relationship with his daughter was also deteriorating, as Charlotte sought greater freedom from her father's strictures.

On 12 July, he informed Charlotte that she would henceforth be confined at Cranbourne Lodge, Windsor, that her household would be replaced, and that she could have no visitors except her grandmother, Queen Charlotte, once a week. Horrified, Charlotte ran away to her mother's house in Bayswater.

After an anxious night, Charlotte was eventually persuaded to return to her father by Brougham, since legally she could be placed in her father's care and there was a danger of public disorder against George, which might prejudice Charlotte's position if she continued to disobey him.

Caroline, unhappy at her situation and treatment in Britain, negotiated a deal with the Foreign Secretary, Lord Castlereagh. She agreed to leave the country in exchange for an annual allowance of £35,000. Both Brougham and Charlotte were dismayed by Caroline's decision, as they both realised that Caroline's absence would strengthen George's power and weaken theirs. On 8 August 1814, Caroline left Britain.

 
 

Portrait of Caroline by Sir Thomas Lawrence, 1804
  Exile
After a two-week visit to Brunswick, Caroline headed for Italy through Switzerland. Along the way, possibly in Milan, she hired Bartolomeo Pergami as a servant. Pergami soon rose to the head of Caroline's household, and managed to get his sister, Angelica, Countess of Oldi, appointed as Caroline's lady-in-waiting. In mid-1815, Caroline bought a house, Villa d'Este, on the shores of Lake Como, despite the fact that her finances were stretched.

From early 1816, she and Pergami went on a cruise around the Mediterranean, visiting Napoleon's former palace on Elba, and Sicily, where Pergami obtained the Order of Malta and a barony. By this time, Caroline and Pergami were eating their meals together openly, and it was widely rumoured that they were lovers. They visited Tunis, Malta, Milos, Athens, Corinth, Constantinople, and Nazareth. Caroline entered Jerusalem riding on a donkey in a convoy of camels. Pergami was made a Knight of the Order of Jerusalem. Caroline instituted the Order of St Caroline, nominating Pergami its Grand Master. In August, they returned to Italy, stopping at Rome to visit the Pope.
By this time, gossip about Caroline was everywhere. Lord Byron wrote to his publisher that Caroline and Pergami were lovers, and Baron Friedrich Ompteda, a Hanoverian spy, bribed one of Caroline's servants so that he could search her bedroom for proof of adultery. He found none.

 
 
By August 1817, Caroline's debts were growing, so she sold Villa d'Este and moved to the smaller Villa Caprile near Pesaro. Pergami's mother, brother and daughter, but not his wife, joined Caroline's household.

The previous year, Caroline's daughter, Princess Charlotte, had married Prince Leopold of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld, and the future of the British monarchy looked bright. Then tragedy struck: in November 1817, Charlotte died after giving birth to her only child, a stillborn son. For the most part, Charlotte had been immensely popular with the public, and her death was a blow to the country. George refused to write to Caroline to inform her, leaving it for their son-in-law Leopold to do, but Leopold was deep in grief and delayed writing. George did, however, write to the pope of the tragedy, and by chance the courier carrying the letter passed by Pesaro, and so it was that Caroline heard the devastating news. Caroline had lost her daughter, but she had also lost any chance of regaining position through the succession of her daughter to the throne.

 
 

The Trial of Queen Caroline, 1820 by Sir George Hayter
 
 
George was determined to press ahead with a divorce and set up a commission chaired by the Vice-Chancellor John Leach to gather evidence of Caroline's adultery. Leach sent three commissioners to Milan to interrogate Caroline's former servants, including Theodore Majocchi and Caroline's maid, Louise Demont. In London, Brougham was still acting as Caroline's agent. Concerned that the "Milan commission" might threaten Caroline, he sent his brother James to Caroline's villa in the hope of establishing whether George had any grounds for divorce. James wrote back to his brother of Caroline and Pergami, "they are to all appearances man and wife, never was anything so obvious." The Milan commission was assembling more and more evidence, and by 1819 Caroline was worried. She informed James Brougham that she would agree to a divorce in exchange for money. However, at this time in England divorce by mutual consent was illegal; it was only possible to divorce if one of the partners admitted or was found guilty of adultery. Caroline said it was "impossible" for her to admit that, so the Broughams advised that only formal separation was possible. Both keen to avoid publicity, the Broughams and the Government discussed a deal where Caroline would be called by a lesser title, such as "Duchess of Cornwall" rather than "Princess of Wales". As the negotiations continued at the end of 1819, Caroline travelled to France, which gave rise to speculation that she was on her way back to England. In January 1820, however, she made plans to return to Italy, but then on 29 January 1820 King George III died. Caroline's husband became king and, at least nominally, she was queen of the United Kingdom.
 
 

Portrait c. 1820 by James Lonsdale
  Queen consort
Instead of being treated like a queen, Caroline found that her estranged husband's accession paradoxically made her position worse. On visiting Rome, the pope refused her an audience, and the pope's minister Cardinal Consalvi insisted that she be greeted only as a duchess of Brunswick, and not as a queen. In an attempt to assert her rights, she made plans to return to Britain. The King demanded that his ministers get rid of her. He successfully persuaded them to remove her name from the liturgy of the Church of England, but they would not agree to a divorce because they feared the effect of a public trial. The government was weak and unpopular, and a trial detailing salacious details of both Caroline's and George's separate love lives was certain to destabilise it further. Rather than run the risk, the government entered into negotiations with Caroline, and offered her an increased annuity of £50,000 if she stayed abroad.

By the beginning of June, Caroline had travelled north from Italy, and was at St Omer near Calais. Acting on the advice of Alderman Matthew Wood and Lady Anne Hamilton (daughter of Archibald Hamilton, 9th Duke of Hamilton), she rejected the government's offer. She bid farewell to Pergami, and embarked for England. When she arrived on 5 June, riots broke out in support of her.

 
 
Caroline was a figurehead for the growing Radical movement that demanded political reform and opposed the unpopular king.

Nevertheless, the King still adamantly desired a divorce, and the following day, he submitted the evidence gathered by the Milan commission to Parliament in two green bags. On 15 June, the Guards in the King's Mews mutinied. The mutiny was contained, but the government was fearful of further unrest. Examination of the bags of evidence was delayed as Parliament debated the form of the investigation, but eventually, on 27 June, they were opened and examined in secret by 15 peers.
 
 
The peers considered the contents scandalous, and a week later, after their report to the House, the government introduced a bill in Parliament, the Pains and Penalties Bill 1820, to strip Caroline of the title of queen consort and dissolve her marriage. It was claimed that Caroline had committed adultery with a low-born man: Bartolomeo Pergami.

Various witnesses, such as Theodore Majocchi, were called during the reading of the bill, which was effectively a public trial of the Queen. The trial caused a sensation, as details of Caroline's familiarity with Pergami were revealed. Witnesses said the couple had slept in the same room, kissed, and been seen together in a state of undress. The bill passed the House of Lords, but was not submitted to the House of Commons as there was little prospect that the Commons would pass it. To her friends, Caroline joked that she had indeed committed adultery once—with the husband of Mrs. Fitzherbert, the King.

Even during the trial, the Queen remained immensely popular, as witnessed by over 800 petitions and nearly a million signatures that favoured her cause. As a figurehead of the opposition movement demanding reform, many revolutionary pronouncements were made in Caroline's name.

“ All classes will ever find in me a sincere friend to their liberties, and a zealous advocate of their rights. ”
—Queen Caroline, September 1820, quoted in Robins, p. 240

“ A government cannot stop the march of intellect any more than they can arrest the motion of the tides or the course of the planets. ”
—Queen Caroline quoted in The Times, 7 October 1820


But with the end of the trial her alliance with the radicals came to an end. The government again extended the offer of £50,000 a year, this time without preconditions, and Caroline accepted.

  Death
Despite the King's best attempts, Caroline retained a strong popularity amongst the masses, and pressed ahead with plans to attend the coronation service on 19 July 1821 as queen. Lord Liverpool told Caroline that she should not go to the service, but she turned up anyway. George had Caroline turned away from the coronation at the doors of Westminster Abbey. Refused entry at both the doors to the East Cloister and the doors to the West Cloister, Caroline attempted to enter via Westminster Hall, where many guests were gathered before the service began. A witness described how the Queen stood at the door fuming as bayonets were held under her chin until the Deputy Lord Chamberlain had the doors slammed in her face. Caroline then proceeded back to an entrance near Poet's Corner, where she was met by Sir Robert Inglis, who held the office of "Gold Staff". Inglis persuaded the Queen to return to her carriage, and she left. Caroline lost support through her exhibition at the coronation; the crowds jeered her as she rode away, and even Brougham recorded his distaste at her undignified behaviour.

That night, Caroline fell ill and took a large dose of milk of magnesia and some drops of laudanum. Over the next three weeks she suffered more and more pain as her condition deteriorated. She realised she was nearing death and put her affairs in order. Her papers, letters, memoirs, and notebooks were burned. She wrote a new will, and settled her funeral arrangements: she was to be buried in her native Brunswick in a tomb bearing the inscription "Here lies Caroline, the Injured Queen of England". She died at Brandenburg House at 10:25 p.m. on 7 August 1821 at the age of 53. Her physicians thought she had an intestinal obstruction, but she may have had cancer, and there were rumours at the time that she had been poisoned. Even up till her last moments, she was being reported on by a man named Stephen Lushington, who conveyed his insights to the King's loyal supporter, the Prime Minister Lord Liverpool. Exactly why this deathbed surveillance was carried out remains unclear, and the surviving documentation is patchy. The exact cause of her death remains unknown.

 
 
Afraid that a procession of the funeral bier through London could spark public unrest, Lord Liverpool decided the Queen's cortège would avoid the city, passing to the north on the way to Harwich and Brunswick. The crowd accompanying the procession was incensed and blocked the intended route with barricades to force a new route through Westminster and London. The scene soon descended into chaos; the soldiers forming the honour guard opened fire and rode through the crowd with drawn sabres. People in the crowd threw cobblestones and bricks at the soldiers, and two members of the public—Richard Honey, a carpenter, and George Francis, a bricklayer—were killed. Eventually, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Sir Robert Baker, ordered that the official route be abandoned, and the cortège passed through the city. As a result, Baker was dismissed from office.

The final route (in heavy rain) took the following course: Hammersmith, Kensington (blocked), Kensington Gore (blocked), Hyde Park, Park Lane (blocked), return to Hyde Park where soldiers forced the gates open, Cumberland Gate (blocked), Edgware Road, Tottenham Court Road, Drury Lane, the Strand, and from there through the City of London, then by way of Romford, Chelmsford, and Colchester, to the seaport of Harwich.

The body was placed on a ship on 16 August and reached Brunswick on the 24th. Caroline was buried in Brunswick Cathedral on the 25th.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 
 
 
1820
 
 
Assassination of the Duke de Berry, heir presumptive to Fr. throne; his son, the Comte de Chambord,
b. (d. 1883)
 
 
Charles Ferdinand, Duke of Berry
 

Charles-Ferdinand de Bourbon, duke de Berry, (born Jan. 24, 1778, Versailles, Fr.—died Feb. 14, 1820, Paris), French prince whose murder by the fanatic Louvel marked a turning point in the history of the Restoration monarchy (1814–30). His death hastened the downfall and replacement of the Decazes government and the polarization into liberal and royalist groups.

 

Charles-Ferdinand de Bourbon, duke de Berry
  Taken abroad by his father, the Comte d’Artois (afterward Charles X of France), at the outbreak of the French Revolution (1789), he served in the Prince de Condé’s army (1792–97) and went with Condé to Russia, where the tsar Paul gave him a cavalry regiment.

From 1801 to 1814, however, he lived in England. There he began a liaison with an Englishwoman, Emma (Amy) Brown, by whom he had two daughters (afterward Baronne de Charette and Comtesse de Faucigny-Lucinge).

Having returned to France in 1815, Berry retired to Ghent during the Hundred Days, but returned again to Paris at the Second Restoration.

On June 17, 1816, he married Caroline, eldest daughter of Francis I of the Two Sicilies (by whom he had one daughter, Louise, later duchess and regent of Parma).

On Feb. 13, 1820, as he was leaving the Paris Opéra, he was mortally wounded by a saddler, Louis-Pierre Louvel. He died the next day.

His posthumous son, the Duc de Bordeaux (later Comte de Chambord), represented the last hope for the Bourbon dynasty.

Encyclopædia Britannica

 
 
 
Henri, Count of Chambord
 

Henri Dieudonné d’Artois, count de Chambord, in full Henri-charles-ferdinand-marie Dieudonné D’artois, Count De Chambord (born Sept. 29, 1820, Paris, France—died Aug. 24, 1883, Frohsdorf, Austria), last heir of the elder branch of the Bourbons and, as Henry V, pretender to the French throne from 1830.

 
 

Henri Dieudonné d’Artois, count de Chambord
  The posthumous son of the assassinated Charles-Ferdinand, Duke de Berry, and grandson of King Charles X, he was forced to flee France in 1830 when his cousin Louis-Philippe seized the throne. He spent most of his young life in Austria, where he nourished a hatred for the French Revolution and constitutionalism.

Chambord was relatively inactive during the July Monarchy (1830–48), the Second Republic (1848–52), and the early stages of the Second Empire. Apparently the antipapal policies of Napoleon III provoked him to revive his Legitimist claim to the monarchy (in rivalry alike with Bonapartist and with Orleanist claims).

On Oct. 9, 1870, after Napoleon’s fall, Chambord issued a proclamation inviting all of France to reunite under the Bourbons. The elections of 1870 returned only a minority of committed Republicans and, for a time, restoration seemed a real possibility. He was, however, hostile to the glories of the revolutionary past (as evidenced later in three publications, Mes idées [1872], Manifestes et programmes politiques, 1848–73 [1873], and De l’institution d’une régence [1874]), and his instinctive intransigence led him to declare that he would not become “legitimate king of the Revolution.” These views undermined even the support of the royalist-inclining president of the republic, Marshal Patrice de Mac-Mahon.

 
 
A motion to restore the Bourbon monarchy was defeated in June 1874 in the National Assembly by a vote of 272 to 79, and on January 30 of the following year the republic was formally adopted by a slim margin of one vote. Chambord, who had come very near to fulfilling his claims, lived out the remainder of his life in exile.

Encyclopædia Britannica

 
 
 
1820
 
 
Cato Street murder conspiracy against Brit. cabinet ministers discovered; leaders executed
 
 
Cato Street Conspiracy
 

The Cato Street Conspiracy was an attempt to murder all the British cabinet ministers and Prime Minister Lord Liverpool in 1820. The name comes from the meeting place near Edgware Road in London. The police had an informer and the plotters fell into a police trap and 13 were arrested, while one policeman was killed. Five conspirators were executed, and five others were transported to Australia.

 
How widespread the Cato Street conspiracy was is uncertain. It was a time of unrest; rumours abounded. Chase notes that, "the London Irish community and a number of trade societies, notably shoemakers, were prepared to lend support, while unrest and awareness of a planned rising were widespread in the industrial north and on Clydeside."
 
 
Origins
The conspirators were called the Spencean Philanthropists, a group taking their name from the British radical speaker Thomas Spence. The group was known for being a revolutionary organization, involved in unrest and propaganda and plotting the overthrow of the government.

Some of them, particularly Arthur Thistlewood, had been involved with the Spa Fields riots in 1816. Thistlewood came to dominate the group with George Edwards as his second in command. Edwards was a police spy. Most of the members were angered by the Six Acts and the Peterloo Massacre, as well as with the economic and political depression of the time. They planned to assassinate the cabinet which was supposed to be together at a dinner. They would then seize key buildings, overthrow the government and establish a "Committee of Public Safety" to oversee a radical revolution. According to the prosecution at their trial, they had intended to form a provisional government headquartered in the Mansion House.

  Governmental crisis
Hard economic times encouraged social unrest, The end of the Napoleonic Wars in 1815 further worsened the economy and saw the return of job-seeking veterans. King George III's death on 29 January 1820, created a new governmental crisis.

In a meeting held on 22 February, George Edwards, suggested that the group could exploit the political situation and kill all the cabinet ministers. They planned to invade a cabinet dinner at the home of Lord Harrowby, Lord President of the Council, armed with pistols and grenades.

Thistlewood thought the act would trigger a massive uprising against the government. James Ings, a coffee shop keeper and former butcher, later announced that he would have decapitated all the cabinet members and taken two heads to exhibit on Westminster Bridge. Thistlewood spent the next hours trying to recruit more men for the attack. Twenty-seven men joined the effort.
 
 

Arthur Thistlewood
(1774–1820),
one of the Cato Street conspirators, depicted by Abraham Wivell.
 
William Davidson
(1781–1820),
one of the Cato Street
conspirators.
 
Discovery
When Jamaican-born William Davidson, who had worked for Lord Harrowby, went to find more details about the cabinet dinner, a servant in Lord Harrowby's house told him that his master was not at home. When Davidson told this to Thistlewood, he refused to believe it and demanded that the operation commence at once. John Harrison rented a small house in Cato Street as the base of operations. However, Edwards kept the police fully informed.
Some of the other members had suspected Edward but Thistlewood had made him his top aide. Edwards had presented the idea with the full knowledge of the Home Office, who had also put the advertisement about the supposed dinner in The New Times. When he reported that his would-be-comrades would be ready to follow his suggestion, the Home Office decided to act.
  Arrest
On 23 February, Richard Birnie, Bow Street magistrate, and George Ruthven, another police spy, went to wait at a pub on the other side of the street of the Cato Street building with 12 officers of the Bow Street Runners. Birnie and Ruthven waited for the afternoon because they had been promised reinforcements from the Coldstream Guards, under the command of Lieutenant FitzClarence, the late king's grandson. Thistlewood's group arrived during that time. At 7:30 pm, the Bow Street Runners decided to apprehend the conspirators themselves. In the resulting brawl, Thistlewood killed a police officer, Richard Smithers, with a sword. Some conspirators surrendered peacefully, while others resisted forcefully. William Davidson was captured but Thistlewood, Robert Adams, John Brunt and John Harrison slipped out through the back window but they were arrested a few days later.
 
 


The arrest of the Cato Street conspirators.

 

Charges
"1. Conspiring to devise plans to subvert the Constitution. 2. Conspiring to levy war, and subvert the Constitution. 3. Conspiring to murder divers of the Privy Council. 4. Providing arms to murder divers of the Privy Council. 5. Providing arms and ammunition to levy war and subvert the Constitution. 6. Conspiring to seize cannon, arms and ammunition to arm themselves, and to levy war and subvert the Constitution. 7. Conspiring to burn houses and barracks, and to provide combustibles for that purpose. 8. Preparing addresses, &c. containing incitements to the King's subjects to assist in levying war and subverting the Constitution. 9. Preparing an address to the King's subjects, containing therein that their tyrants were destroyed, &c., to incite them to assist in levying war, and in subverting the Constitution. 10. Assembling themselves with arms, with intent to murder divers of the Privy Council, and to levy war, and subvert the Constitution. 11. Levying war."

 
Trial
During the trial, the defence argued that the statement of Edwards, a government spy, was unreliable and he was therefore never called to testify. Police persuaded two of the men, Robert Adams and John Monument, to testify against other conspirators in exchange for dropped charges. Most of the accused were sentenced to be hanged, drawn and quartered for high treason on 28 April. All sentences were later commuted, at least in respect of this medieval form of execution, to hanging and beheading. The death sentences of Charles Cooper, Richard Bradburn, John Harrison, James Wilson and John Strange were commuted to transportation for life.

John Brunt, William Davidson, James Ings, Arthur Thistlewood and Richard Tidd were hanged at Newgate Prison on the morning of 1 May 1820 in front of a large crowd, with some paying as much as three guineas for a good vantage point, from the windows of houses overlooking the scaffold. Infantry were stationed close-by, but out of sight of the crowd and two troops of Life Guards were present. Large banners had been prepared with a painted order to disperse. These would be displayed to the crowd if trouble caused the authorities to invoke the Riot Act.

The hangman was John Foxton who was assisted by Thomas Cheshire in this high profile execution After their bodies had hung for half an hour, they were lowered one at a time and an unknown individual in a black mask decapitated them with a small knife.

 
The execution of the Cato Street conspirators,
1 May 1820.
 
 
Each beheading was accompanied by shouts, booing and hissing from the crowd. Each head was given to the assistant executioner in turn, who raised and displayed it to the assembled spectators and declaring it to be the head of a traitor before placing it in the coffin with the remainder of the body.
 
 

Print from May 1820 showing establishment figures dancing around a maypole (a reference to the date of the conspirators' execution, May Day 1820). On top of the maypole are the heads of:
John Thomas Brunt (1782–1820);
William Davidson (1781–1820);
James Ings (1794–1820);
Arthur Thistlewood (1774–1820);
and, Richard Tidd (1773–1820).
 
 
Legacy
The British government used the incident to justify the Six Acts that had been passed two months prior. However, in the House of Commons, Matthew Wood MP accused the government of purposeful entrapment of the conspirators to smear the campaign for parliamentary reform. The otherwise pro-government newspaper The Observer ignored the order of the Lord Chief Justice Sir Charles Abbott not to report the trial before the sentencing.

The conspiracy is the subject of many books, as well as one play, Cato Street, written by the actor and author Robert Shaw. The conspiracy was also the basis for a 2001 radio drama, Betrayal: The Trial of William Davidson by Tanika Gupta, on BBC Radio 4.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 
 
 
1820
 
 
"Missouri Compromise"
 

The Missouri Compromise, submitted by Henry Clay, was passed in 1820 between the pro-slavery and anti-slavery factions in the United States Congress, involving primarily the regulation of slavery in the western territories. It prohibited slavery in the former Louisiana Territory north of the parallel 36°30′ north except within the boundaries of the proposed state of Missouri. The 1820 passage of Missouri Compromise took place during the presidency of James Monroe.

 
The Missouri Compromise was effectively repealed by the Kansas-Nebraska Act, submitted to Congress by Stephen A. Douglas in January 1854. The Act opened Kansas Territory and Nebraska Territory to slavery and future admission of slave states by allowing white male settlers in those territories to determine through "popular sovereignty" whether they would allow slavery within each territory. Thus, the Kansas-Nebraska Act effectively undermined the prohibition on slavery in territory north of 36°30′ latitude which had been established by the Missouri Compromise. This change was viewed by Free Soilers and many abolitionist Northerners as an aggressive, expansionist maneuver by the slave-owning South, and led to the creation of the Republican Party.

Although it had been repealed in 1857 the Supreme Court indicated that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional in Dred Scott v. Sandford.

 
 

Animation showing the free/slave status of U.S. states and territories, 1789–1861, including the Missouri Compromise.
 
 
Development in Congress
To balance the number of "slave states" and "free states," the northern region of what was then Massachusetts ultimately gained admittance into the United States as a free state to become Maine. This only occurred as a result of a compromise involving slavery in Missouri, and in the federal territories of the American west. A bill to enable the people of the Missouri Territory to draft a constitution and form a government preliminary to admission into the Union came before the House of Representatives in Committee of the Whole, on February 13, 1819. James Tallmadge of New York offered an amendment, named the Tallmadge Amendment, that forbade further introduction of slaves into Missouri, and mandated that all children of slave parents born in the state after its admission should be free at the age of 25. The committee adopted the measure and incorporated it into the bill as finally passed on February 17, 1819, by the house. The United States Senate refused to concur with the amendment, and the whole measure was lost.
During the following session (1819–1820), the House passed a similar bill with an amendment, introduced on January 26, 1820, by John W. Taylor of New York, allowing Missouri into the union as a slave state.
  The question had been complicated by the admission in December of Alabama, a slave state, making the number of slave and free states equal. In addition, there was a bill in passage through the House (January 3, 1820) to admit Maine as a free state.

The Senate decided to connect the two measures. It passed a bill for the admission of Maine with an amendment enabling the people of Missouri to form a state constitution. Before the bill was returned to the House, a second amendment was adopted on the motion of Jesse B. Thomas of Illinois, excluding slavery from the Louisiana Territory north of the parallel 36°30′ north (the southern boundary of Missouri), except within the limits of the proposed state of Missouri.

The vote in the Senate was 24 for the compromise, to 20 against. The amendment and the bill passed in the Senate on February 17 and February 18, 1820.

The House then approved the Senate compromise amendment, on a vote of 90 to 87, with those 87 votes coming from free state representatives opposed to slavery in the new state of Missouri. The House then approved the whole bill, 134 to 42 (the latter votes being from southern states).

 
 
Second Missouri Compromise
The two houses were at odds not only on the issue of the legality of slavery, but also on the parliamentary question of the inclusion of Maine and Missouri within the same bill. The committee recommended the enactment of two laws, one for the admission of Maine, the other an enabling act for Missouri. They recommended against having restrictions on slavery but for including the Thomas amendment. Both houses agreed, and the measures were passed on March 5, 1820, and signed by President James Monroe on March 6.

The question of the final admission of Missouri came up during the session of 1820–1821. The struggle was revived over a clause in Missouri's new constitution (written in 1820) requiring the exclusion of "free negroes and mulattoes" from the state. Through the influence of Henry Clay, an act of admission was finally passed, upon the condition that the exclusionary clause of the Missouri constitution should "never be construed to authorize the passage of any law" impairing the privileges and immunities of any U.S. citizen. This deliberately ambiguous provision is sometimes known as the Second Missouri Compromise.

 
 
Impact on political discourse
During the decades following 1820 Americans hailed the 1820 agreement as an essential compromise almost on the sacred level of the Constitution itself. The Civil War broke out in 1861; historians often say the Compromise helped postpone the war.

These disputes involved the competition between the southern and northern states for power in Congress and for control over future territories. There were also the same factions emerging as the Democratic-Republican party began to lose its coherence.

In an April 22 letter to John Holmes, Thomas Jefferson wrote that the division of the country created by the Compromise Line would eventually lead to the destruction of the Union:

...but this momentous question, like a fire bell in the night, awakened and filled me with terror. I considered it at once as the knell of the Union. it is hushed indeed for the moment. but this is a reprieve only, not a final sentence.

  A geographical line, coinciding with a marked principle, moral and political, once conceived and held up to the angry passions of men, will never be obliterated; and every new irritation will mark it deeper and deeper.

Congress' consideration of Missouri's admission also raised the issue of sectional balance, for the country was equally divided between slave and free states with eleven each.
To admit Missouri as a slave state would tip the balance in the Senate (made up of two senators per state) in favor of the slave states. For this reason, northern states wanted Maine admitted as a free state.

On the constitutional side, the Compromise of 1820 was important as the example of Congressional exclusion of slavery from U.S. territory acquired since the Northwest Ordinance.

Following Maine's 1820 and Missouri's 1821 admissions to the Union, no other states were admitted until 1836, when Arkansas was admitted.

 
 

The United States in 1819. The Missouri Compromise prohibited slavery in the Unorganized territory of the Great Plains (dark green) and permitted it in Missouri (yellow) and the Arkansas Territory (lower blue area).
 
 
Repeal
The provisions of the Missouri Compromise forbidding slavery in the former Louisiana Territory north of the parallel 36°30′ north were effectively repealed by the Kansas–Nebraska Act of 1854, despite efforts made to fight the Act by prominent speakers, including Abraham Lincoln in his "Peoria Speech."

In the Dred Scott v. Sandford case in 1857, the Supreme Court ruled that Congress did not have authority to prohibit slavery in territories, and that those provisions of the Missouri Compromise were unconstitutional.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 
 
 
1820
 
 
U.S. Land Law fixes land price at a minimum of $1.25 per acre
 
 
 
1820
 
 
Congress of Troppau
 

The Congress of Troppau was a conference of the Quintuple Alliance to discuss means of suppressing the revolution in Naples of July 1820, and at which the Troppau Protocol was signed on 19 November 1820.

 
The congress met on October 20, 1820 in Troppau (modern Opava) in Austrian Silesia at the behest of Tsar Alexander I of Russia. Alexander and Francis I of Austria were present in person; King Frederick William III of Prussia was represented by the crown prince (afterwards Frederick William IV).

The three eastern powers were further represented by their foreign policy ministers: Austria by Prince Metternich, Russia by Count Capo d'lstria, Prussia by Prince Hardenberg.

Britain objected, on principle, to the suggested concerted action against the Neapolitan Liberals. Therefore she sent no plenipotentiary, but was represented by Lord Stewart, ambassador in Vienna and the half-brother of the Foreign Secretary at the time, Viscount Castlereagh. France, too, had given no plenary powers to her representatives, though her policy was less clearly defined.
Thus, from the very beginning of the congress, it was clear that a division between the eastern and western powers was growing.

  The characteristic note of this congress was its intimate and informal nature; the determining fact at the outset was Metternich's discovery that he had no longer anything to fear from the "Jacobinism" of the emperor Alexander. In a three hours' conversation over a cup of tea at the little inn he had heard the tsar's confession and promise of amendment: "Aujourd'hui je deplore tout ce que j'ai dit et fait entre les annees 1814 et 1818 ... Dites-moi ce que vous voulez de moi. Je le ferai": Today I deplore everything that I have said and done between the years 1814 and 1818 ... Tell me what you want of me. I will do it.

Metternich's failure to convert Castlereagh to his views was now of secondary importance; the "free" powers being in accord, it was safe to ignore the opinions of Britain and France, whose governments, whatever their goodwill, were fettered by constitutional forms. In a series of conferences - to which the representatives of Britain and France were not admitted, on the excuse that they were only empowered to "report," not to "decide" - was drawn up the famous preliminary protocol signed by Austria, Russia and Prussia on November 8.

 
 
Troppau Protocol
The main pronouncement of the "Troppau Protocol" is as follows:

"States, which have undergone a change of government due to revolution, the result of which threaten other states, ipso facto cease to be members of the European Alliance, and remain excluded from it until their situation gives guarantees for legal order and stability. If, owing to such alterations, immediate danger threatens other states the powers bind themselves, by peaceful means, or if need be, by arms, to bring back the guilty state into the bosom of the Great Alliance."

No effort was made by the powers to give immediate effect to the principles enunciated in the protocol; and after it was officially announced the conferences were adjourned. It was decided to resume them at the Congress of Laibach the following January.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
 
 
1820
 
 
Liberal Revolution in Portugal
 

The Liberal Revolution of 1820 (Revolução Liberal) was a Portuguese political revolution that erupted in 1820 and lasted until 1826. It began with a military insurrection in the city of Porto, in northern Portugal, that quickly and peacefully spread to the rest of the country. The Revolution resulted in the return in 1821 of the Portuguese Court to Portugal from Brazil, where it had fled during the Peninsular War, and initiated a constitutional period in which the 1822 Constitution was ratified and implemented. The movement's liberal ideas had an important influence on Portuguese society and political organization in the nineteenth century.

 
Historical background
From 1807 to 1811 Napoleonic French forces invaded Portugal three times. As a result, the Portuguese royal family was transferred to the Portuguese colony of Brazil, where it remained until 1821. From Brazil, the Portuguese king João VI ruled his trans-Atlantic empire for thirteen years.

Following the defeat of the French forces in 1814, Portugal experienced a prolonged period of political turmoil, in which many sought greater self-rule for the Portuguese people. Eventually this unrest put an end to the king's long stay in Brazil, when his return to Portugal was demanded by the revolutionaries.

Even though the Portuguese had participated in the defeat of the French, the country found itself virtually a colony of Brazil or British protectorate. The officers of the Portuguese Army resented British control of the Portuguese armed forces.

In addition the 1808 Decree of the Opening of Ports to Friendly Nations, practically brought an end to the so-called "colonial pact" (See, Mercantilism), and the two Treaties of 1810, which guaranteed favored status to British products entering Portugal, decimated the commerce of cities like Porto and Lisbon and set off a deep economic crisis which affected its bourgeoisie. The city of Porto, with a strong, dynamic bourgeoisie and with liberal tradition, was the place where the Liberal Revolution began.

After Napoleon's definite defeat in 1815, a clandestine Supreme Regenerative Council of Portugal and the Algarve was formed in Lisbon by army officers and freemasons, headed by General Gomes Freire de Andrade—Grand Master of the Grande Oriente Lusitano

  and former general under Napoleon until his defeat in 1814—with the objective to end British control of the country and to promote "the salvation and independence" of the pátria.

In its brief existence the movement attempted to introduce liberalism in Portugal, although it ultimately failed to do so. In 1817 three masons, João de Sá Pereira Soares, Morais Sarmento and José Andrade Corvo, denounced the movement to the authorities, who arrested many suspects, including Freire de Andrade, who was charged with conspiracy against John VI, represented in the Peninsula by a Regency, then overseen by the British military authority headed by William Carr Beresford.

In October 1817, the Regency found the twelve of the accused guilty of treason against the nation and sentenced them to death by hanging. Beresford intended to suspend the sentence until it was confirmed by John VI, but the Regency, judging that such a move was a slight to its authority, ordered their immediate execution, which took place on October 18 at Campo do Santana (today, Campo dos Mártires da Pátria, "Field of the Martyrs of the Fatherland"). Freire de Andrade was executed on the same day at the São Julião da Barra Fort. The executions sparked protests against Beresford and the Regency and intensified anti-British feeling in the country.

A couple of years after the executions, Beresford left for Brazil to ask the king for more resources and powers to suppress the lingering presence of what he called "Jacobinism," which were granted to him.
In his absence, the Revolution of Porto broke out in 1820, and upon his arrival from Brazil, he was forbidden to disembark in Lisbon.

 
 
The revolution and its aftermath
Influenced by the concurrent Liberal Revolution in Spain of January 1, 1820, a liberal revolution started in Porto, quickly spreading without resistance to several other Portuguese cities and towns, culminating with the revolt of Lisbon. The revolutionaries demanded the immediate return of the royal court to continental Portugal in order to "restore the metropolitan dignity." In fact, the liberal revolution of 1820 not only forced the return of the king, it also demanded a constitutional monarchy to be set up in Portugal. The revolutionaries also sought to restore Portuguese exclusivity in the trade with Brazil, reverting Brazil to the status of a colony, officially to be reduced to a "Principality of Brazil," instead of the Kingdom of Brazil, which it had been for the past five years. The Brazilian kingdom had legally been an equal, constituent part of the United Kingdom of Portugal, Brazil and the Algarves. The revolutionaries organized the election of a constitutional assembly which debated the nature of the future government. The elections resulted in deputies were primarily from the professions—lawyers, professors—and not from the merchants who had spearheaded the revolution, and this class now took the lead in the revolution. The constitution that was approved in 1822 was closely modeled on the Spanish Constitution of 1812.

After John VI returned to Portugal in 1821, his heir-apparent Pedro became regent of the Kingdom of Brazil.

 
The Portuguese Cortes
 
 
Following a series of political events and disputes, Brazil declared its independence from Portugal on September 7, 1822.

On October 12, 1822, Pedro was acclaimed as the first Emperor of Brazil. He was crowned on December 1, 1822. Portugal recognized Brazil's sovereignty in 1825.

In 1823 the first revolt against the constitutional order was organized by Prince Miguel and Brigadier João Carlos Saldanha, which managed to close the parliament and to convince King João VI to recall Beresford as an advisor. In 1826 João VI died with no clear heir, further destabilizing the nation. Upon seizing the throne, Miguel led another revolt against the constitutional government, triggering six years of civil wars, which pitted him against his brother, now Pedro IV of Portugal, who headed the liberal faction.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
 
 
1820
 
 
Ecuadorian War of Independence
 

The Ecuadorian War of Independence was fought from 1820 to 1822 between several South American armies and Spain over control of the lands of the Royal Audience of Quito, a Spanish colonial administrative jurisdiction from which would eventually emerge the modern Republic of Ecuador. The war ended with the defeat of the Spanish forces at the Battle of Pichincha on May 24, 1822, which brought about the independence of the entire Presidencia de Quito. The Ecuadorian War of Independence is part of the Spanish American wars of independence fought during the first two decades of the 19th century.

 
Beginning of the war
The military campaign for the independence of the territory now known as Ecuador from Spanish rule could be said to have begun after nearly three hundred years of Spanish colonization. Ecuador's capital Quito was a city of around ten thousand inhabitants. It was there, on August 10, 1809 that the first call for independence from Spain was made in Latin America ("Luz de América"), under the leadership of the city's criollos, including Carlos Montúfar, Eugenio Espejo and Bishop Cuero y Caicedo. Luz de America was the nickname given to Quito which saw the first revolt against Spanish occupation. The nickname served the urge for the call of independence that was heard around the continent, and inspired the eventual domino collapse of the crown throughout Latin America.

Then on October 9, 1820, the port-city of Guayaquil proclaimed its independence after a brief and almost bloodless revolt against the local garrison. The leaders of the movement, a combination of Venezuelan, Ecuadorian, and Peruvian pro-independence officers from the colonial Army, along with Ecuadorian intellectuals and patriots, set up a Junta de Gobierno and raised a military force with the purpose of defending the city and carrying the independence movement to the other provinces in the country.

By that time, the tide of the wars of independence in South America had turned decisively against Spain: Simón Bolívar's victory at the Battle of Boyacá (August 7, 1819) had sealed the independence of the former Viceroyalty of Nueva Granada, while to the south, José de San Martín, after landing his Army on the Peruvian coast on September 8, 1820, was preparing the campaign for the independence of the Viceroyalty of Perú.

The news of the proclamation of independence of Guayaquil spread rapidly to other cities in the Presidencia, and several towns followed the example in quick succession. Portoviejo declared its independence on October 18, 1820, and Cuenca—the economic center of the southern highlands—did the same on November 3, 1820. The stage was set for the campaign of liberation of Quito.

  The Junta de Guayaquil moves to the offensive
The military unit raised and financed in Guayaquil was given the name of Division Protectora de Quito ("Division for the Protection of Quito"). Its immediate purpose was to advance on the cities of Guaranda and Ambato, in the central highlands, hoping to bring these cities to the independentist cause, and cutting all road communications between Quito and the cities of Guayaquil and Cuenca, so as to forestall any Royalist countermove from the north.

The Division, under the command of Colonel Luis Urdaneta, one of the ringleaders of the revolt in Guayaquil, began its advance out of the coastal plain towards the highlands, and by November 7, was ready to begin its march up the Andes mountains. The first clash with a Royalist covering force was a success, occurring on November 9, 1820, at Camino Real, a strategic mountain pass along the road from Guayaquil to Guaranda. This victory opened the way into the inter-Andean highlands, and the capture of Guaranda soon followed.

News of the presence of the patriot army in Guaranda had the intended effect: most of the towns in the highlands went on to proclaim their independence in quick succession, Latacunga and Riobamba doing it on November 11, and Ambato on November 12, 1820. By the middle of November, the Spanish rule over the Presidencia had been reduced to Quito and its surrounding areas in the northern highlands. It looked as if the liberation of the entire territory would be easier than expected.

But the hopes turned out to be premature and short-lived. Field-Marshal Melchor Aymerich, acting President and supreme commander of the military forces in the Presidencia de Quito, took swift action.

Soon, an army of around 5,000 troops, under the command of veteran Spanish Colonel Francisco González, was dispatched south to deal with the 2,000-strong patriot army, stationed in Ambato. In the Battle of Huachi, on November 22, 1820, the Royalist army inflicted a severe defeat on Urdaneta's force, which had to fall back, badly mauled, to Babahoyo, on the coastal plains.

 
 
Disaster struck the patriots. The Spanish army continued its advance south, towards Cuenca, retaking all major towns along the way. On December 20, 1820, after the defenders of the city were defeated at the Battle of Verdeloma, Cuenca was retaken by the Royalist army.

The authorities in Guayaquil, who on November 11, 1820, had issued a decree creating the Provincia Libre de Guayaquil (Free Province of Guayaquil), desperately organized a ragtag detachment with the survivors of Huachi plus some reinforcements (300 men altogether, including some 50 cavalry), ordering it to make a final stand at Babahoyo. As the Royalist army did not seem to be particularly inclined to come down to the plains to meet them, the patriots sent some guerrilla bands back into the highlands, which were finally ambushed and massacred on January 4, 1821 at the Battle of Tanizagua. The guerrillas' commanding officer, Spanish-born Colonel Gabriel García Gomez, taken prisoner after the battle, was executed by a firing squad and decapitated, his head sent to Quito to be displayed before the population. Thus, amid total military failure and a number of Royalist reprisals on the civilian population of the highlands cities, the attempt of the Junta de Guayaquil to carry out the independence of the Presidencia de Quito came to an end.

 
 
Sucre enters the scene
And yet, not all was lost: help was on the way. By February 1821, the foreign aid requested by the Junta de Guayaquil back in October finally materialized in the form of Spanish-born independentist General José Mires, sent by General Simón Bolívar, President of Colombia. Even more welcomed perhaps was what Mires had brought along with him: 1,000 muskets; 50,000 musket rounds; 8,000 bits of flint; 500 sabers, and 100 pairs of pistols. Mires' instructions were clear: "To liberate the capital city of Quito, whose taking will bring about the liberation of the whole Department", as the first step towards later operations aimed at securing the complete independence of Perú. Bolívar also informed Guayaquil that he would begin a simultaneous campaign from the north.
  Second Battle of Huachi
By July 1821, Sucre had almost finished deploying the Army around Babahoyo, ready to advance on the highlands as soon as the weather allowed. Aymerich acted to preempt the patriot plans with a two-pincer movement: he would lead his Army from Guaranda down to Babahoyo, while Colonel González, coming from the southern highlands down to Yaguachi, would attack his flank. Sucre, privy to Aymerich's intentions (thanks to a well-developed espionage network), sent Mires to deal with González. The encounter, which ended up destroying Gonzalez's force, took place near the town of Cone, on August 19, 1821. Upon hearing the news, Aymerich retraced his steps and headed back to the highlands. Sucre advanced on to the highlands, his main force occupying Guaranda on September 2, 1821.
 
 
Aymerich moved to block any further progress, and in the Second Battle of Huachi, which took place on September 12, 1821, annihilated Sucre's infantry. The patriot forces lost 800 men, mostly killed, plus 50 prisoners, among them General Mires. As Second Huachi had also taken a heavy toll on the Royalists, Aymerich decided against exploiting his victory with an advance on the coastal plains. On November 19, 1821, a 90-day armistice was signed at Babahoyo, putting an end to Sucre's ill-fated first attempt to liberate Quito.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 
 
 
Sucre Antonio Jose
 
Antonio José de Sucre, in full Antonio José de Sucre Alcalá (born February 3, 1795, Cumaná, New Granada [now in Venezuela]—died June 4, 1830, Berruecos, Gran Colombia [now in Colombia]), liberator of Ecuador and Peru, and one of the most respected leaders of the Latin American wars for independence from Spain. He served as Simón Bolívar’s chief lieutenant and eventually became the first constitutionally elected leader of Bolivia.
 
 

Antonio Jose de Sucre
  At the age of 15 Sucre entered the struggles for independence in Venezuela and Colombia. He displayed great skill at military tactics, and by 1820 he had become chief of staff to the Venezuelan leader of Latin American revolt against Spanish rule, Simón Bolívar. That same year he was promoted by Bolívar to the rank of general and assigned to free southern Gran Colombia (now Ecuador) from Spanish control. Leaving Colombia with a small army, Sucre marched along the coast to Guayaquil and proclaimed it a protectorate of Colombia. Then he marched to Quito, 10,000 feet (3,000 metres) above sea level, where he defeated Spanish royalist forces on May 24, 1822, at the Battle of Pichincha. Proceeding southeast, he joined his army with that of Bolívar to form a force of about 9,000 men that won the Battle of Junín in Peru on August 6, 1824. Bolívar left the rest of the campaign in the hands of Sucre, who went on to rout a 9,000-man royalist army at the Battle of Ayacucho in Peru on December 9. This victory effectively assured the independence of Peru. A few insubordinates still held Charcas in Upper Peru (now Bolivia); early in 1825 Bolívar ordered Sucre to dislodge them, which he did.

Sucre then set up a Bolivian government under a complicated constitution written by Bolívar, with Sucre as president. He tried to rebuild the economy of war-torn Bolivia and embarked on progressive social and economic reforms, such as the expropriation of most of the Roman Catholic Church’s assets in order to fund a new system of public secondary schools. Sucre soon became the target of opposition from Bolivia’s entrenched traditional elites, and a local uprising at Chuquisaca in 1828 and an invasion by Peruvian troops caused him to resign the presidency in April of that year and retire to Ecuador.

 
 
He was called, however, to defend Gran Colombia against the Peruvians, whom he defeated in 1829. He was called again the following year to preside over the “Admirable Congress” in Bogotá, a last unsuccessful effort to maintain the unity of Ecuador, Colombia, and Venezuela. While returning home, Sucre was assassinated. The assassins were rumoured to be agents of José María Obando, a Colombian soldier and opponent of Bolívar, but no proof was ever found.

Encyclopædia Britannica

 
 

Death of Antonio José de Sucre by Arturo Michelena.
 
 
     
 



World Countries



Ecuador
     
 
 
 
1820
 
 
Brown Thomas: "Lectures on the Philosophy of the Human Mind"
 
 

Thomas Brown: "Lectures on the Philosophy
of the Human Mind"
 
 
 
1820
 
 
Engels Friedrich
 

Friedrich Engels (28 November 1820 – 5 August 1895) was a German social scientist, author, political theorist, philosopher, and father of Marxist theory, together with Karl Marx.

 


Engels in 1877

  In 1845 he published The Condition of the Working Class in England, based on personal observations and research in Manchester.

In 1848 he co-authored The Communist Manifesto with Karl Marx, though he has also authored and co-authored (primarily with Marx) many other works, and later he supported Marx financially to do research and write Das Kapital.

After Marx's death, Engels edited the second and third volumes. Additionally, Engels organized Marx's notes on the "Theories of Surplus Value," which he later published as the "fourth volume" of Capital.

He has also made important contributions to family economics.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 
 
see also: Friedrich Engels
 
 
     
  Karl Marx
"Manifesto of the Communist Party"
- Marxism

Friedrich Engels
First International
     
 
 
 
1820
 
 
Thomas Erskine: "Internal Evidence for the Truth of Revealed Religion"
 
 
Erskine Thomas
 

Thomas Erskine of Linlathen (13 October 1788 – 20 March 1870) was a Scottish advocate and lay theologian in the early part of the 19th century. With his friend the Reverend John McLeod Campbell he attempted a revision of Calvinism.

 
Life
He was the youngest son of David and Ann Erskine. His great-grandfather was Colonel John Erskine of Carnock, near Dunfermline. The colonel's son was John Erskine of Carnock whose second son, David, was a writer to the signet, and purchased the estate of Linlathen, near Dundee; by the death without surviving issue of his elder brothers, it came into the possession of Thomas Erskine in 1816.

After to his father's death when he was very young, Erskine was left largely to the care of his maternal grandmother, Mrs. Graham of Airth Castle, a Stirling of Ardoch, Episcopalian and a strong Jacobite. Erskine was educated at the Edinburgh High School, a school in Durham, and the University of Edinburgh, and was admitted a member of the Faculty of Advocates in 1810. He took a place in the literary society of Edinburgh.

  Inheriting by the death of his brother James the estate of Linlathen, Erskine retired from the bar, and gave himself up to the study of questions of theology.

He travelled and made friends including Thomas Carlyle, Arthur Penrhyn Stanley, Alexander Ewing, F. D. Maurice, Lucien-Anatole Prévost-Paradol, Alexandre Vinet, Adolphe Monod, and Madame de Broglie. He initially wrote extensively on contemporary religious controversies.

In 1831 the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland deposed John McLeod Campbell, minister of Row, for preaching the doctrine of universal atonement. Erskine strongly supported Campbell, and went further in doctrine, espousing universal reconciliation.

When Erskine died at home in 1870, his last words were: "Lord Jesus!"

 
 
Works
He was known as the author of:

- Remarks on the Internal Evidence for the Truth of Revealed Religion (1820);
- an Essay on Faith (1822); and
- Unconditional Freeness of the Gospel (1828).

These books all passed through several editions. Erskine also authored The Brazen Serpent (1831), and then wrote The Doctrine of Election, a lengthy treatise on the theological doctrine of predestination and interaction with Paul's Letter to the Romans, which appeared in 1837. This was the final work during his lifetime.

A posthumously published work was The Spiritual Order and Other Papers (1871). Two volumes of his letters, edited by William Hanna, appeared in 1877.

 
 
Views
Erskine was an Episcopalian, self-taught in theology. He emphasized the loving side of God's nature, supported the universal atonement of Christ, and was critical of the typical federal theology of the Scottish Calvinism of his time.

The work The Doctrine of Election has a purpose and theme that may be summed up as follows:

The current form of Calvinistic doctrine goes against human experience and the real message of Scripture. The powers of good and evil, of God and the self, strive within every person's soul.

A person's 'elective will' in one's own personality determines with which of the other two wills one chooses to side. This last will only chooses which of the two shall be dominant. Thus, God inwardly encourages us to choose the good, the true and the beautiful—we are not agents of our own good decision making, but rather we choose that which God has already chosen for us.

  As Erskine studied the Bible text he became convinced that it "presented a history of wondrous love in order to excite gratitude, of a high and holy worth, to attract veneration and esteem. It presented a view of danger, to produce alarm; of refuge to confer peace and joy; and of eternal glory, to animate hope." A quote shows some of his thinking:

Christ, the gift of God's present forgiving love to every man and woman, is the door through which alone we can enter into our provision of hope. Until we know the love of our Father's heart to us, as manifested in Christ, the future must always be to us at best a dark and doubtful wilderness. But when we know that all that we have conceived of our Father's love, is as nothing to the reality—that he is indeed love itself—a love passing knowledge—a shoreless, boundless, bottomless ocean-fountain of love, of holy, sin-hating, sin-destroying love, which longs over us that we should be filled with itself—and be by it delivered from the power of evil—then, indeed, we are saved by hope, for we know that love must triumph and fulfill all its counsel.

 
 
Reputation
In his day and time he was influential on theologically forward thinking pastors and theologians. The German church historian Otto Pfleiderer "regard[ed] [Erskine's] ideas as the best contribution to dogmatics which British theology has produced in the present century." He influenced especially Frederick Denison Maurice, Alexander John Scott and George MacDonald.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 
 
 
1820
 
 
Joseph von Gorres: "Germany and the Revolution"
 
 
Gorres Joseph
 

Joseph von Gorres, in full Johann Joseph von Görres (born Jan. 25, 1776, Koblenz, archbishopric of Trier [Germany]—died Jan. 29, 1848, Munich, Bavaria), German Romantic writer who was one of the leading figures of Roman Catholic political journalism.

 

Joseph von Gorres
  Görres was sympathetic to the ideals of the French Revolution and published a republican journal, Das rote Blatt (“The Red Page”; renamed Rübezahl), in 1799. After an unsuccessful visit to Paris in 1799 as a political negotiator for the Rhenish provinces, he became disillusioned and withdrew from active politics. He taught natural science in Koblenz and then lectured at Heidelberg (1806–07), where he became acquainted with the leaders of the second phase of German Romanticism, particularly Achim von Arnim and Clemens Brentano. With them he edited the Zeitung für Einsiedler (“Journal for Hermits,” renamed Tröst Einsamkeit; “Consolation Solitude”), which became the organ for the Heidelberg Romantics. His study of German folk literature, which had been awakened by this contact with the Romantic movement, produced Die teutschen Volksbücher (1807; “The German Chapbooks”), a collection of late medieval narrative prose that became a significant work of the Romantic movement. He also expressed the characteristically Romantic fascination with Asia in his Mythengeschichte der asiatischen Welt (1810; “Mythical Stories of the Asiatic World”).
In 1808 Görres returned to Koblenz, where he lived quietly until the national struggle against Napoleon led him to found the newspaper Rheinische Merkur (1814).
 
 
Considered to be the most influential journal of the time, it turned first against Napoleon and, after his fall, against the reactionary politics of the German states, which led to its suppression in 1816. With the publication of his pamphlet “Teutschland und die Revolution” (1819; “Germany and the Revolution”), he was forced to flee to Strasbourg and to Switzerland, where he lived in poverty for several years. In 1824 he formally returned to the Roman Catholic Church and in 1827 became professor of history at the University of Munich, where he formed a circle of liberal Roman Catholic scholars. A vigorous Catholic spokesman in several controversies, he wrote the monumental Christliche Mystik, 4 vol. (1836–42; “Christian Mysticism”). In 1876 the Görres Society was founded in his honour to advance Roman Catholic studies.

Encyclopædia Britannica

 
 

Joseph von Gorres
  Works
He supported himself by his pen, and he became a political pamphleteer. In the excitement which followed Kotzebue's assassination, the reactionary decrees of Carlsbad were framed, and these were the subject of Görres’ pamphlet Teutschland und die Revolution (“Germany and the Revolution”, 1820). In this work he reviewed the circumstances which had led to the murder of August von Kotzebue, and, while expressing horror at the deed itself, he urged that it was impossible and undesirable to repress the free utterance of public opinion. The success of the work was marked, despite a ponderous style. It was suppressed by the Prussian government, and orders were issued for the arrest of Görres and the seizure of his papers. He escaped to Strasbourg, and thence went to Switzerland. Two more political tracts were Europa und die Revolution (“Europe and the Revolution”, 1821) and In Sachen der Rheinprovinzen und in eigener Angelegenheit (“In the matter of the Rhine Province and in a matter of my own”, 1822). In the former Gorres describes the moral, intellectual and political corruption of France in the course of the eighteenth century as the major cause which led to the revolution. The book was read with avidity throughout Germany.

In Görres’ pamphlet Die Heilige Allianz und die Völker auf dem Kongress zu Verona (“The Holy Alliance and the peoples represented at the congress of Verona”) he asserted that the princes had met together to crush the liberties of the people, and that the people must look elsewhere for help. The “elsewhere” was to Rome; and from this time Görres became an Ultramontane writer.

 
 
He was summoned to Munich by King Ludwig of Bavaria as Professor of History in the university, and there his writing enjoyed popularity. His Christliche Mystik (“On christian mysticism”, 1836–1842) gave a series of biographies of the saints, together with an exposition of Roman Catholic mysticism. But his most celebrated ultramontane work was a polemical one. Its occasion was the deposition and imprisonment by the Prussian government of the archbishop Clement Wenceslaus reportedly due to his refusal to sanction in certain instances the marriages of Protestants and Roman Catholics.

Görres, in his Athanasius (1837), upheld the power of the church, although liberals of later claimed he never insisted on the absolute supremacy of Rome.[citation needed] Athanasius went through several editions, and initiated a long and bitter controversy. In the Historisch-politische Blätter (“Historical-political pages”), a Munich journal, Görres and his son Guido (1805–1852) continued to uphold the claims of the church. On New Year's Day of 1839, Görres received the "Civil Order of Merit" from the king for his services.

Görres studied mysticism while in Strasbourg. He went into the mystical writers of the Middle Ages such as Maria of Agreda as well as observing, partly in person, the ecstatic young women of his time (Maria von Mörl, and others); and strove to comprehend more thoroughly the nature of Christian mysticism. These studies led to his work Die christliche Mystik (4 vols., 1836–42; 2nd ed., 5 vols., 1879).

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 
 
 
1820
 
 
Malthus Thomas Robert: "Principles of Political Economy"
 
 

T. R. Malthus: "Principles of Political Economy"
 
 
 
1820
 
 
Spencer Herbert
 
Herbert Spencer, (born April 27, 1820, Derby, Derbyshire, Eng.—died Dec. 8, 1903, Brighton, Sussex), English sociologist and philosopher, an early advocate of the theory of evolution, who achieved an influential synthesis of knowledge, advocating the preeminence of the individual over society and of science over religion. His magnum opus was The Synthetic Philosophy, a comprehensive work completed in 1896 and containing volumes on the principles of biology, psychology, morality, and sociology.
 

Herbert Spencer
  Life and works.
Spencer’s father, William George Spencer, was a schoolmaster, and his parents’ dissenting religious convictions inspired in him a nonconformity that continued active even after he had abandoned the Christian faith. Spencer declined an offer from his uncle, the Rev. Thomas Spencer, to send him to Cambridge, and in consequence his higher education was largely the result of his own reading, which was chiefly in the natural sciences. He was, for a few months, a schoolteacher and from 1837 to 1841 a railway civil engineer.

In 1842 he contributed some letters (republished later as a pamphlet, The Proper Sphere of Government, 1843) to The Nonconformist, in which he argued that it is the business of governments to uphold natural rights and that they do more harm than good when they go beyond this. After some association with progressive journalism through such papers as The Zoist (devoted to mesmerism and phrenology) and The Pilot (the organ of the Complete Suffrage Union), Spencer became in 1848 a subeditor of The Economist.

In 1851 he published Social Statics (reissued in 1955), which contained in embryo most of his later views, including his argument in favour of an extreme form of economic and social laissez-faire. About 1850 Spencer became acquainted with Marian Evans (the novelist George Eliot), and his philosophical conversations with her led some of their friends to expect that they would marry; but in his Autobiography (1904) Spencer denies any such desire, much as he admired Evans’ intellectual powers. Other friends were G.H. Lewes, T.H. Huxley, and J.S. Mill. In 1853 Spencer, having received a legacy from his uncle, resigned his position with The Economist.

 
 
Having published the first part of The Principles of Psychology in 1855, Spencer in 1860 issued a prospectus and accepted subscriptions for a comprehensive work, The Synthetic Philosophy, which was to include, besides the already published Principles of Psychology, volumes on first principles and on biology, sociology, and morality. First Principles was published in 1862, and between then and 1896, when the third volume of The Principles of Sociology appeared, the task was completed. In order to prepare the ground for The Principles of Sociology, Spencer started in 1873 a series of works called Descriptive Sociology, in which information was provided about the social institutions of various societies, both primitive and civilized. The series was interrupted in 1881 because of lack of public support. Spencer was a friend and adviser of Beatrice Potter, later Beatrice Webb, the social reformer, who frequently visited Spencer during his last illness and left a sympathetic and sad record of his last years in My Apprenticeship (1926). Spencer died in 1903, at Brighton, leaving a will by which trustees were set up to complete the publication of the Descriptive Sociology. The series comprised 19 parts (1873–1934).

Spencer was one of the most argumentative and most discussed English thinkers of the Victorian period. His strongly scientific orientation led him to urge the importance of examining social phenomena in a scientific way. He believed that all aspects of his thought formed a coherent and closely ordered system. Science and philosophy, he held, gave support to and enhanced individualism and progress. Though it is natural to cite him as the great exponent of Victorian optimism, it is notable that he was by no means unaffected by the pessimism that from time to time clouded the Victorian confidence. Evolution, he taught, would be followed by dissolution, and individualism would come into its own only after an era of socialism and war.

 
 

Herbert Spencer
  The synthetic philosophy in outline.
Spencer saw philosophy as a synthesis of the fundamental principles of the special sciences, a sort of scientific summa to replace the theological systems of the Middle Ages. He thought of unification in terms of development, and his whole scheme was in fact suggested to him by the evolution of biological species. In First Principles he argued that there is a fundamental law of matter, which he called the law of the persistence of force, from which it follows that nothing homogeneous can remain as such if it is acted upon, because any external force must affect some part of it differently from other parts and cause difference and variety to arise. From this, he continued, it would follow that any force that continues to act on what is homogeneous must bring about an increasing variety. This “law of the multiplication of effects,” due to an unknown and unknowable absolute force, is in Spencer’s view the clue to the understanding of all development, cosmic as well as biological. It should be noted that Spencer published his idea of the evolution of biological species before the views of Charles Darwin and the British naturalist Alfred Russel Wallace were known, but Spencer at that time thought that evolution was caused by the inheritance of acquired characteristics, whereas Darwin and Wallace attributed it to natural selection.
 
 
Spencer later accepted the theory that natural selection was one of the causes of biological evolution, and he himself coined the phrase “survival of the fittest” (Principles of Biology [1864], vol. 1, p. 444).

Sociology and social philosophy. That Spencer first derived his general evolutionary scheme from reflection on human society is seen in Social Statics, in which social evolution is held to be a process of increasing “individuation.” He saw human societies as evolving by means of increasing division of labour from undifferentiated hordes into complex civilizations. Spencer believed that the fundamental sociological classification was between military societies, in which cooperation was secured by force, and industrial societies, in which cooperation was voluntary and spontaneous.

Evolution is not the only biological conception that Spencer applied in his sociological theories. He made a detailed comparison between animal organisms and human societies. In both he found a regulative system (the central nervous system in the one, government in the other), a sustaining system (alimentation in the one case, industry in the other), and a distribution system (veins and arteries in the first; roads, telegraphs, etc., in the second). The great difference between an animal and a social organism, he said, is that, whereas in the former there is one consciousness relating to the whole, in the latter consciousness exists in each member only; society exists for the benefit of its members and not they for its benefit.

This individualism is the key to all of Spencer’s work. His contrast between military and industrial societies is drawn between despotism, which is primitive and bad, and individualism, which is civilized and good. He believed that in industrial society the order achieved, though planned by no one, is delicately adjusted to the needs of all parties. In The Man Versus the State (1884) he wrote that England’s Tories generally favour a military and Liberals an industrial social order but that the Liberals of the latter half of the 19th century, with their legislation on hours of work, liquor licensing, sanitation, education, etc., were developing a “New Toryism” and preparing the way for a “coming slavery.” “The function of liberalism in the past was that of putting a limit to the powers of kings. The function of true liberalism in the future will be that of putting a limit to the powers of parliaments.”

 
 
Metaphysics.
In his emphasis on variety and differentiation, Spencer was unwittingly repeating, in a 19th-century idiom, the metaphysics of liberalism that Spinoza and Leibniz had adumbrated in the 17th century.

Spinoza had maintained that “God or Nature” has an infinity of attributes in which every possibility is actualized, and Leibniz had argued that the perfection of God is exhibited in the infinite variety of the universe.
Though neither of them believed that time is an ultimate feature of reality, Spencer combined a belief in the reality of time with a belief in the eventual actualization of every possible variety of being.

He thus gave metaphysical support to the liberal principle of variety, according to which a differentiated and developing society is preferable to a monotonous and static one.
  Evaluation.
Spencer’s attempt to synthesize the sciences showed a sublime audacity that has not been repeated because the intellectual specialization he welcomed and predicted increased even beyond his expectations. His sociology, although it gave an impetus to the study of society, was superseded as a result of the development of social anthropology since his day and was much more concerned with providing a rationale for his social ideals than he himself appreciated. Primitive men, for example, are not the childlike emotional creatures that he thought them to be, nor is religion to be explained only in terms of the souls of ancestors. When T.H. Huxley said that Spencer’s idea of a tragedy was “a deduction killed by a fact,” he called attention to the system-building feature of Spencer’s work that led him to look for what confirmed his theories and to ignore or to reinterpret what conflicted with them.

Harry Burrows Acton

 
 

Herbert Spencer
  MAJOR WORKS

Philosophy and religion.
The Nature and Reality of Religion, 1885 (withdrawn from publication). Spencer’s series on Synthetic Philosophy comprises: First Principles, 1862; The Principles of Biology, 2 vol., 1864–67; The Principles of Psychology, 1855; The Principles of Sociology, 3 vol., 1876–96; The Principles of Ethics, 2 vol., 1892–93.


Political and social.
The Proper Sphere of Government, 1843; Social Statics, 1851; Education: Intellectual, Moral, Physical, 1861; The Study of Sociology, 1872; The Man Versus the State, 1884; Facts and Comments, 1902.
 

Other works.
Essays: Scientific, Political, and Speculative, 3 vol., 1891; Autobiography, 1904, an intellectual rather than a personal autobiography.

Encyclopædia Britannica
 
 
     
  IDEAS that Changed the World

Myths and Legends
History of Religion
History of Philosophy
     
 
 
 

 
 
CONTENTS
  BACK-1820-1829 NEXT-1820 Part II