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-1833 Part III NEXT-1834 Part I    
 
 
     
1830 - 1839
YEAR BY YEAR:
1830-1839
History at a Glance
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1830 Part I
Webster Daniel
Hayne Robert Young
Webster–Hayne debate
Blaine James
Gascoyne-Cecil Robert Arthur Talbot
French conquest of Algeria
French Revolution of 1830
Charles X
Louis-Philippe
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1830 Part II
Francis Joseph I
Elisabeth of Austria
Diaz Porfirio
Gran Colombia
Wartenburg Johann David Ludwig
Petar II Petrovic-Njegos
Grey Charles
November Uprising (1830–31)
Milos Obrenovic I
Mysore
Red Jacket
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1830 Part III
William Cobbett: "Rural Rides"
Coulanges Numa Denis
Smith Joseph
Mormon
Honore de Balzac: La Comedie humaine
Dickinson Emily
Emily Dickinson
"Poems"
Genlis Comtesse
Goncourt Jules
Hayne Paul Hamilton
Heyse Paul
Victor Hugo: "Hernani"
Mistral Frederic
Rossetti Christina
Smith Seba
Stendhal: "Le Rouge et le Noir"
Tennyson: "Poems, Chiefly Lyrical"
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1830 Part IV
Bierstadt Albert
Albert Bierstadt
Corot: "Chartres Cathedral"
Delacroix: "Liberty Guiding the People"
Leighton Frederic
Frederic Leighton
Pissarro Camille
Camille Pissarro
Impressionism Timeline
Ward John Quincy Adams
Waterhouse Alfred
Auber: "Fra Diavolo"
Bellini: "The Capulets and the Montagues"
Bulow Hans
Donizetti: "Anna Bolena"
Goldmark Karl
Karl Goldmark - Violin Concerto No 1
Karl Goldmark
Leschetizky Teodor
Remenyi Eduard
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1830 Part V
Reclus Jean Jacques Elisee
Markham Clements Robert
Brown Robert
Hessel Johann Friedrich Christian
Liverpool and Manchester Railway
Lyell Charles
Raoult Francois Marie
Reichenbach Karl
Royal Geographical Society
Thimonnier Barthelemy
Thomson Wyville
Lander Richard Lemon
Charting the Coastline
John Biscoe
Lockwood Belva Ann
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1831 Part I
Battle of Ostroleka
Caprivi Leo
Charles Albert
Leopold I of Belgium
Belgian Revolution (1830-1831)
Goschen George Joachim
Turner Nat
Gneisenau August Wilhelm Antonius
Labouchere Henry
Clausewitz Carl
Garfield James Abram
Egyptian–Ottoman War (1831–33)
Russell John
Pedro II of Brazil
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1831 Part II
Blavatsky Helena
Gregory XVI
Farrar Frederic William
Gilman Daniel Coit
Harrison Frederic
Miller William
Adventist
White Helen Gould Harmon
Roscoe William
Thomas Isaiah
Winsor Justin
Wright William Aldis
Rutherford Mark
Darby John Nelson
Plymouth Brethren
Balzac: "La Peau de chagrin"
Calverley Charles Stuart
Donnelly Ignatius
Victor Hugo: "Notre Dame de Paris"
Jackson Helen Hunt
Leskov Nikolai
Raabe Wilhelm
Sardou Victorien
Trumbull John
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1831 Part III
Begas Reinhold
Reinhold Begas
Meunier Constantin
Constantin Meunier
Bellini: "La Sonnambula"
Bellini: "Norma"
Joachim Joseph
Joseph Joachim - Violin Concerto, Op 11
Joseph Joachim
Meyerbeer: "Robert le Diable"
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1831 Part IV
Barry Heinrich Anton
Guthrie Samuel
Liebig Justus
Chloroform
Colomb Philip Howard
Darwin and the Beagle
Maxwell James Clerk
North Pole
Routh Edward John
Sauria Marc Charles
Great cholera pandemic
Garrison William Lloyd
Godkin Edwin Lawrence
Hirsch Moritz
Hood John Bell
French Foreign Legion
London Bridge
Pullman George Mortimer
Schofield John
Smith Samuel Francis
Stephan Heinrich
Whiteley William
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1832 Part I
Reform Bill
Gentz Friedrich
Roberts Frederick Sleigh
Democratic Party
Clay Henry
Calhoun Caldwell John
"Italian Youth"
Falkland Islands
Revolution and Counter-Revolution in Europe, 1815-1832
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1832 Part II
Bancroft Hubert Howe
Fowler Thomas
Krause Karl Christian Friedrich
Rask Rasmus
Stephen Leslie
Vaughan Herbert Alfred
White Andrew Dickson
Alcott Louisa May
Alger Horatio
Arnold Edwin
Balzac: "Le Colonel Chabert"
Bjornson Bjornstjerne Martinius
Busch Heinrich
Carroll Lewis
Lewis Carroll
Lewis Carroll - photographer

"Alice's Adventures in Wonderland" 
"
Through the Looking-Glass" 
Delavigne Casimir
Echegaray Jose
Washington Irving: "Tales of the Alhambra"
Kennedy John Pendleton
Pellico Silvio
Aleksandr Pushkin: "Eugene Onegin"
Tennyson: "Lady of Shalott"
Watts-Dunton Theodore
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1832 Part III
Constable: "Waterloo Bridge from Whitehall Stairs"
Dore Gustave
Gustave Dore
Manet Edouard
Edouard Manet
Orchardson William
William Orchardson
Hughes Arthur
Arthur Hughes
Berlioz: "Symphonie Fantastique"
Damrosch Leopold
Donizetti: "L'Elisir d'Amore"
Garcia Manuel Vicente Rodriguez
Malibran Maria
Viardot Pauline
Garcia Manuel
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1832 Part IV
Wundt Wilhelm
Crookes William
Hayes Isaac Israel
Bolyai Janos
Koenig Rodolph
Nordenskiold Nils Adolf Erik
Reaching for the Pole
Nares George Strong
Scarpa Antonio
Vambery Armin
Conway Moncure Daniel
Declaration of Independence, 1776
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1833 Part I
Gordon Charles George
Otto of Greece
Amalia of Oldenburg
Randolph John
Harrison Benjamin
Isabella II
Santa Anna Antonio Lopez
Whig Party
Muhammad Ali dynasty
Zollverein
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1833 Part II
Bopp Franz
Bradlaugh Charles
Dilthey Wilhelm
Fawcett Henry
Furness Horace Howard
Ingersoll Robert Green
Pusey Edward Bouverie
Alarcon Pedro Antonio
Balzac: "Eugenie Grandet"
Booth Edwin
Charles Dickens: "Sketches by Boz"
George Cruikshank. From Charles Dickens, Sketches by Boz, 1836.
Gordon Adam Lindsay
Lamb: "Last Essays of Elia"
Longfellow: "Outre-Mer"
Morris Lewis
George Sand: "Lelia"
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1833 Part III
Burne-Jones Edward
Edward Burne-Jones
Rops Felicien
Felicien Rops
Guerin Pierre-Narcisse
Pierre-Narcisse Guerin
Herold Ferdinand
Ferdinand Herold - Piano Concerto No.2
Ferdinand Herold
Brahms Johannes
Brahms - Hungarian Dances
Johannes Brahms
Chopin: Etudes Op.10 & 25
Heinrich Marschner: "Hans Heiling"
Mendelssohn: "Italian Symphony"
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1833 Part IV
Weber Wilhelm Eduard
Muller Johannes Peter
Roscoe Henry Enfield
Wheatstone bridge
Back George
Factory Acts
Burnes Alexander
Home Daniel Dunglas
Nobel Alfred
SS "Royal William"
Slavery Abolition Act 1833
General Trades Union in New York
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1834 Part I
Grenville William Wyndham
Grand National Consolidated Trades Union
Quadruple Alliance
Peel Robert
South Australia Colonisation Act 1834
Xhosa Wars
Cape Colony
Carlism
First Carlist War
Battle of Alsasua
Battle of Alegria de Alava
Battle of Venta de Echavarri
Battle of Mendaza
First Battle of Arquijas
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1834 Part II
Acton John Emerich
Eliot Charles William
Gibbons James
Seeley John Robert
Spurgeon Charles
Treitschke Heinrich
Maurier George
Balzac: "Le Pere Goriot"
Bancroft George
Blackwood William
Edward Bulwer-Lytton: "The Last Days of Pompeii"
Dahn Felix
Frederick Marryat: "Peter Simple"
Alfred de Musset: "Lorenzaccio"
Pushkin: "The Queen of Spades"
Shorthouse Joseph Henry
Stockton Frank Richard
Browne Charles Farrar
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1834 Part III
Perov Vasily
Vasily Perov
Bartholdi Frederic Auguste
Degas Edgar
Edgar Degas
Ingres: "Martyrdom of Saint Symphorian"
Whistler James McNeill
James McNeill Whistler
Morris William
William Morris
Adolphe Adam: "Le Chalet"
Barnett John
John Barnett: "The Mountain Sylph"
John Barnett
Berlioz: "Harold en Italie"
Borodin Aleksandr
Alexander Borodin: Prince Igor
Aleksandr Borodin
Elssler Fanny
Kreutzer Conradin
Kreutzer - Das Nachtlager in Granada
Konradin Kreutzer
Santley Charles
Ponchielli Amilcare
 Amilcare Ponchielli - Dance of the Hours
Amilcare Ponchielli
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1834 Part IV
Haeckel Ernst
Arago Francois
Buch Leopold
Faraday: "Law of Electrolysis"
Langley Samuel Pierpont
McCormick Cyrus Hall
Mendeleyev Dmitry
Runge Friedlieb Ferdinand
Phenol
Steiner Jakob
Depew Chauncey Mitchell
Burning of Parliament
Gabelsberger Franz Xaver
Hansom Joseph Aloysius
Hunt Walter
Lloyd's Register
Poor Law Amendment Act 1834
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1835 Part I
Ferdinand I of Austria
Bernstorff Christian Gunther
Brisson Henri
Masayoshi Matsukata
Olney Richard
Lee Fitzhugh
Municipal Corporations Act 1835
Palma Tomas Estrada
Riyad Pasha
White George Stuart
Second Seminole War
Texas Revolution (1835 – 1836)
Battle of Gonzales
Siege of Bexar
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1835 Part II
Leake William Martin
Abbott Lyman
Brooks Phillips
Caird Edward
Dahlmann Friedrich
Finney Charles Grandison
Harris William Torrey
Hensen Viktor
Jevons William Stanley
Skeat Walter William
Cousin Victor
Strauss David Friedrich
Giacomo Leopardi: "Canti"
Austin Alfred
Butler Samuel
Gaboriau Emile
Hemans Felicia Dorothea
Hogg James
Ireland William Henry
Mathews Charles
Menken Adah Isaacs
Simms William Gilmore
Mark Twain
Carducci Giosue
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1835 Part III
Constable: "The Valley Farm"
Corot: "Hagar in the Desert"
Defregger Franz
Kunichika Toyohara
Toyohara Kunichika
Cui Cesar
Cesar Cui "Orientale"
Cesar Cui
Donizetti: "Lucia di Lammermoor"
Halevy Fromental
Halevy: "La Juive"
Placido Domingo - Rachel, quand du Seigneur
Fromental Halevy
Saint-Saens Camille
Camille Saint-Saens - Danse Macabre
Camille Saint-Saens
Thomas Theodore
Wieniawski Henri
Wieniawski - Polonaise de Concert in D major No. 1, Op. 4
Henri Wieniawski
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1835 Part IV
Newcomb Simon
Schiaparelli Giovanni Virginio
Geikie Archibald
Chaillu Paul
Locomotive: Electric traction
Talbot Wiliam Henry Fox
Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society
Sacher-Masoch Leopold Ritter
Masochism
Heth Joice
Bennett James Gordon
Carnegie Andrew
Chubb Charles
Colt Samuel
Field Marshall
Green Henrietta Howland
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1836 Part I
Crockett Davy
Houston Sam
Battle of the Alamo
Battle of San Jacinto
BATTLE OF SAN JACINTO
Cannon Joseph Gurney
Chartism
Arkansas
Chamberlain Joseph
Campbell-Bannerman Henry
Great Trek
Voortrekker
Xhosa
Inoue Kaoru
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1836 Part II
Ralph Waldo Emerson: "Nature"
Ramakrishna
Aldrich Thomas Bailey
Besant Walter
Frederick Marryat: "Mr. Midshipman Easy"
Burnand Francis Cowley
Carlyle: "Sartor Resartus"
Dickens: "Pickwick Papers"
Eckermann Johann Peter
Gilbert William Schwenk
Gogol: "The Government Inspector"
Harte Bret
Newell Robert Henry
Reuter Fritz
Pusckin: "The Captain's Daughter"
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1836 Part III
Alma-Tadema Lawrence
Lawrence Alma-Tadema
Corot: "Diana Surprised by Actaeon"
Fantin-Latour Henri
Henri Fantin-Latour
Homer Winslow
Winslow Homer
Lefebvre Jules Joseph
Jules Joseph Lefebvre
Lenbach Franz
Franz von Lenbach
Poynter Edward
Edward Poynter
Tissot James
James Tissot
Carle Vernet
Carle Vernet
Adolphe Adam: "Le Postilion de long jumeau"
Delibes Leo
Delibes - Lakme - Flower duet
Leo Delibes
Reicha Antoine
Glinka: "A Life for the Tzar"
Mendelssohn: "St. Paul"
Meyerbeer: "Les Huguenots"
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1836 Part IV
Bergmann Ernst
Daniell John Frederic
Davy Edmund
Ericsson John
Gray Asa
Lockyer Norman
Colt's Manufacturing Company
Crushed stone
Schwann Theodor
Pepsin
Schimper Karl Friedrich
Gould Jay
"The Lancers"
Ross Betsy
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1837 Part I
William IV, King of Great Britain
Michigan
Van Buren Martin
Cleveland Grover
Itagaki Taisuke
Holstein Friedrich
Boulanger Georges
Carnot Sadi
Caroline affair
Ernest Augustus I of Hanover
Rebellions of 1837
Lafontaine Louis-Hippolyte
Baldwin Robert
Sitting Bull
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1837 Part II
Thomas Carlyle: "The French Revolution"
Green John Richard
Lyon Mary
Mount Holyoke College
Mann Horace
Moody Dwight
Murray James
Oxford English Dictionary
Old School–New School Controversy
Balzac: "Illusions perdues"
Nathaniel Hawthorne: "Twice-told Tales"
Braddon Mary Elizabeth
Eggleston Edward
Ebers Georg
Howells William Dean
Swinburne Algernon Charles
Wyndham Charles
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1837 Part III
Carolus-Duran
Carolus-Duran
Legros Alphonse
Alphonse Legros
Marees Hans
Hans von Marees
Auber: "Le Domino  noir"
Balakirev Mily
Balakirev - Symphony No.1
Mily Balakirev
Berlioz: "Requiem"
Dubois Theodore
Theodore Dubois - Piano Concerto No. 2
Theodore Dubois
Lesueur Jean-Francois
Lesueur: Coronation music for Napoleon I
Jean-François Lesueur
Lortzing: "Zar und Zimmermann"
Cosima Wagner
Waldteufel Emile
Emile Waldteufel - waltzes
Emile Waldteufel
Zingarelli Niccolo
Nicola Antonio Zingarelli - Tre ore dell'Agonia
Nicola Zingarelli
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1837 Part IV
Analytical Engine
Borsig August
Burroughs John
Cooke William
Telegraph
d'Urville Jules Dumont
Kuhne Wilhelm
Van der Waals Johannes Diderik
Fitzherbert Maria Anne
Hanna Mark
Lovejoy Elijah
Morgan John Pierpont
Pitman Isaac
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1838 Part I
Osceola
Gambetta Leon
Weenen Massacre
Battle of Blood River
Anti-Corn Law League
Cobden Richard
Bright John
Rodgers John
Weyler Valeriano
Wood Henry Evelyn
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1838 Part II
Adams Henry
Bowditch Nathaniel
Bryce Viscount
Montagu Corry, 1st Baron Rowton
Lecky William Edward Hartpole
Lounsbury Thomas Raynesford
Mach Ernst
Mohler Johann Adam
Sacy Antoine Isaac Silvestre
Sidgwick Henry
Trevelyan George Otto
Lytton: "The Lady of Lyons"
Daly Augustin
Dickens: "Oliver Twist"
Victor Hugo: "Ruy Blas"
Irving Henry
Villiers de l'Isle-Adam
Rachel Felix
Roe Edward Payson
Schwab Gustav Benjamin
Scudder Horace Elisha
Creevey Thomas
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1838 Part III
Dalou Jules
Jules Dalou
Mauve Anton
Anton Mauve
Richardson Hobson Henry
Henry Hobson Richardson
Fortuny Maria
Maria Fortuny
Berlioz: "Benvenuto Cellini"
Bizet Georges
Bizet - Carmen - Habanera
Georges Bizet
Bruch Max
Max Bruch - Violinkonzert Nr. 1
Max Bruch
Lind Johanna Maria
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1838 Part IV
Abbe Cleveland
Cournot Antoine-Augustin
Daguerre-Niepce method of photography
Dulong Pierre-Louis
Hyatt Alpheus
Muir John
Perkin William Henry
Stevens John
Zeppelin Ferdinand
Belleny John
United States Exploring Expedition
Wilkes Charles
Hill Octavia
Wanamaker John
Woodhull Victoria
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1839 Part I
Uruguayan Civil War (1839-1851)
Rudini Antonio Starabba
Treaty of London
First Opium War (1839-1842)
Richter Eugen
Frederick VI of Denmark
Christian VIII of Denmark
Natalia Republic
Abdulmecid I
Ranjit Singh
Van Rensselaer Stephen
Cervera Pascual
First Anglo-Afghan War
Anglo-Afghan Wars
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1839 Part II
Fesch Joseph
Paris Gaston
Peirce Charles Sanders
Reed Thomas
Anzengruber Ludwig
Sparks Jared
Galt John
Herne James
Longfellow: "Hyperion"
De Morgan William
Ouida
Dickens:  "Nicholas Nickleby"
Pater Walter
Рое: "The Fall of the House of Usher"
Praed Winthrop Mackworth
Smith James
Sully-Prudhomme Armand
Stendhal: "La Chartreuse de Parme"
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1839 Part III
Beechey William
William Beechey
Cezanne Paul
Paul Cezanne
Sisley Alfred
Alfred Sisley
Thoma Hans
Hans Thoma
Yoshitoshi Tsukioka
Tsukioka Yoshitoshi
Gomes Antonio Carlos
Antonio Carlos Gomes - Il Guarany - Ouverture
Antonio Carlos Gomes
Moussorgsky Modest
Moussorgsky - Boris Godunov
Modest Mussorgsky
Paine John Knowles
John Knowles Paine - Symphony No.1
John Knowles Paine
Randall James Rider
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1839 Part IV
Crozier Francis Rawdon Moira
Grey George
Into the Interior
Garnier Frangois
Goodyear Charles
Vulcanization
Jacobi Moritz
Mosander Carl Gustaf
Przhevalsky Nikolay
Smith William
Mond Ludwig
Stephens John Lloyd
Catherwood Frederick
George Henry
Kundt August
Schonbein Christian Friedrich
Steinheil Carl August
Doubleday Abner
Macmillan Kirkpatrick
Cadbury George
Cunard Samuel
Cunard Line
Grand National
Lowell John
Lowell Institute
Rockefeller John
Stanhope Hester Lucy
Weston Edward Payson
Willard Frances
 
 
 

The Printing Press and the Abolition of Slavery by David d'Angers
 
 
 
 
 HISTORY, RELIGION, PHILOSOPHY, ART, LITERATURE, MUSIC, SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, DAILY LIFE
 
 
 
 
YEAR BY YEAR:  1800 - 1899
 
 
 
1833 Part IV
 
 
 
1833
 
 
Legendre Adrien, Fr. mathematician, d. (b. 1752)
 

Adrien-Marie Legendre
 
 
 
1833
 
 
Gauss Carl Friedrich and Wilhelm E. Weber devise the electromagnetic telegraph which functions over a distance of 9,000 feet
 
 
Weber Wilhelm Eduard
 

Wilhelm Eduard Weber, (born Oct. 24, 1804, Wittenberg, Ger.—died June 23, 1891, Göttingen), German physicist who, with his friend Gauss Carl Friedrich, investigated terrestrial magnetism and in 1833 devised an electromagnetic telegraph. The magnetic unit, termed a weber, formerly the coulomb, is named after him.

 

Wilhelm Eduard Weber
  Weber was educated at Halle and later at Göttingen, where he was appointed professor of physics in 1831. He was professor at the University of Leipzig from 1843 to 1849, and he then returned to Göttingen and became director of the astronomical observatory there. He played an important role in the development of electrical science, particularly by his work to establish a system of absolute electrical units. Gauss had introduced a logical arrangement of units for magnetism involving the basic units of mass, length, and time. Weber repeated this for electricity in 1846. Occasionally he collaborated with his brothers, the physiologists Ernst Heinrich Weber (1795–1878) and Eduard Friedrich Weber (1806–71). During his final years at Göttingen, Weber studied electrodynamics and the electrical structure of matter. He received many honours from England, France, and Germany, among which were the title of Geheimrat (privy councillor) and the Copley Medal of the Royal Society. Many of his extensive articles are in the six volumes of Resultate aus den Beobachtungen des magnetischen Vereins (1837–43), edited by himself and Gauss.

Encyclopædia Britannica

 
 
 
1833
 
 
"The Handbook of Human Physiology" by Johannes Peter Muller
 
 
Muller Johannes Peter
 

Johannes Peter Muller, (born July 14, 1801, Koblenz, Fr. [of the Consulate]—died April 28, 1858, Berlin), German physiologist and comparative anatomist, one of the great natural philosophers of the 19th century. His major work was Handbuch der Physiologie des Menschen für Vorlesungen, 2 vol. (1834–40; Elements of Physiology).

 

Johannes Peter Muller
  Müller was the son of a shoemaker. In 1819 he entered the University of Bonn, where the faculty of medicine was permeated with Naturphilosophie, which the young Müller eagerly espoused. He continued his studies at the University of Berlin, where he came under the influence of the sober, precise anatomist Karl Rudolphi and thereby freed himself from naturalistic speculation.

In 1824 he was granted a lectureship in physiology and comparative anatomy at the University of Bonn. In his inaugural lecture, “Physiology, a science in need of a philosophical view of nature,” he outlined his approach to science and maintained that the physiologist must combine empirically established facts with philosophical thinking. Two years later he was appointed associate professor, and in 1830 he became a full professor.

In the meantime, his voluminous Zur vergleichenden Physiologie des Gesichtssinnes . . . (1826; “Comparative Physiology of the Visual Sense . . . ”) brought Müller to the attention of scholars by its wealth of new material on human and animal vision; he included the results of analyses of human expressions and research on the compound eyes of insects and crustaceans. His most important achievement, however, was the discovery that each of the sense organs responds to different kinds of stimuli in its own particular way or, as Müller wrote, with its own specific energy. The phenomena of the external world are perceived, therefore, only by the changes they produce in sensory systems. His findings had an impact even on the theory of knowledge.

 
 
Müller’s monograph “On Imaginary Apparitions” was also published in 1826. According to this theory the eye as a sensory system not only reacts to external optical stimuli but can also be excited by internal stimuli generated by the imagination. Thus, persons who report seeing religious visions, ghosts, or phantoms may actually be experiencing optical sensations and believe them to be of external origin, even though they do not in fact have an adequate external stimulus.
 
 
Maintaining an almost incredible level of output at Bonn, he examined many problems in physiology, development, and comparative anatomy. He studied the passage of impulses from afferent nerves (going to the brain and spinal cord) to efferent nerves (going away from the same centres), further elucidating the concept of reflex action. By careful experiments on live frogs, he confirmed the law named after Charles Bell and François Magendie, according to which the anterior roots of the nerves originating from the spinal cord are motor and the posterior roots are sensory. He investigated the nervous system of lower animal species, the intricate structure of glands, and the process of secretion. When tracing the development of the genitalia, he discovered what is now known as the Müllerian duct, which forms the female internal sexual organs. He contributed to knowledge of the composition of the blood and lymph, the process of coagulation, the structure of lymph hearts of frogs, the formation of images on the retina of the eye, and the propagation of sound in the middle ear.

In 1833 Müller was called to Berlin to succeed Rudolphi. In his new post he again carefully explored many problems concerning animal function and structure. His early years in Berlin were devoted mainly to physiology. His Handbuch der Physiologie des Menschen für Vorlesungen stimulated further basic research and became a starting point for the mechanistic concept of life processes, which was widely accepted in the second half of the 19th century.

Inspired by the vast Berlin anatomical collection, Müller became interested again in pathology. After the demonstration by his assistant, Theodor Schwann, that the cell was the basic unit of structure in the animal body, he concentrated on the cellular structure of tumours with the aid of a microscope.

  In 1838 his work Über den feineren Bau und die Formen der krankhaften Geschwülste (On the Nature and Structural Characteristics of Cancer, and of Those Morbid Growths Which May Be Confounded with It) began to establish pathological histology as an independent branch of science. Müller also distinguished himself as a teacher. His students included the renowned physiologist and physicist Hermann Helmholtz and the cellular pathologist Rudolf Virchow.

Beginning in 1840 Müller increasingly focused his research on comparative anatomy and zoology, in so doing becoming one of the most respected scholars in these subjects. He was a master at collecting and classifying specimens; he devised an improved classification of fish and, based on an ingenious analysis of vocal organs, did the same for singing birds.

For several years he concentrated on the lowest forms of marine vertebrates, the Cyclostomata and Chondrichthyes. He painstakingly described the structures and complex development of members of various classes of the invertebrate phylum Echinodermata. His last research activities were concerned with the marine protozoans Radiolaria and Foraminifera.

In 1827, 1840, and 1848, Müller suffered periods of depression that rendered him incapable of working for months on end. They may perhaps be attributed—as his periods of explosive productivity—to a manic-depressive disposition. It may also be regarded as the cause of his death in 1858. Some scholars have concluded that he died by his own hand.

Johannes Steudel

Encyclopædia Britannica
 
 
 
1833
 
 
Roscoe Henry Enfield
 

Sir Henry Enfield Roscoe, (7 January 1833 – 18 December 1915) was an English chemist. He is particularly noted for early work on vanadium and for photochemical studies.

 

Sir Henry Enfield Roscoe
  Life and work
Henry Enfield Roscoe was born in London, the son of Henry Roscoe (1800–1836), and grandson of William Roscoe (1753–1831). Stanley Jevons was a cousin.

Roscoe studied at the Liverpool Institute for Boys and University College London. He then went to Heidelberg to work under Robert Bunsen, who became a lifelong friend. In 1857, Roscoe was appointed to the chair of chemistry at Owens College, Manchester, where he remained until 1886 by which time the Victoria University had been established. From 1885 to 1895 he was MP for Manchester South. He served on several royal commissions appointed to consider educational questions, in which he was keenly interested, and from 1896 to 1902 was vice-chancellor of the University of London. He was knighted in 1884.

Roscoe's scientific work includes a memorable series of researches carried out with Bunsen between 1855 and 1862, in which they laid the foundations of comparative photochemistry. In 1864 they carried out what is reputed to be the first flashlight photography, using magnesium as a light source. In 1867, Roscoe began an elaborate investigation of vanadium and its compounds, and devised a process for preparing it pure in the metallic state, at the same time showing that the substance which had previously passed for the metal was contaminated with oxygen. In so doing he corrected Berzelius's value for the atomic mass. Roscoe was awarded the 1868 Bakerian Lecture for this work. He also carried out researches on niobium, tungsten, uranium, perchloric acid, and the solubility of ammonia.

 
 
He was the uncle of Beatrix Potter. The mineral Roscoelite was named after him, due to its vanadium content and Roscoe's work on that element.

Roscoe received an honorary doctorate (LL.D) from the University of Glasgow in June 1901. He was awarded the Franklin Institute's Elliott Cresson Medal in 1912.

Publications
Roscoe's publications include, besides several elementary books on chemistry that had a wide circulation and were translated into many foreign languages, Lectures on Spectrum Analysis (1869); a Treatise on Chemistry (the first edition of which appeared in 1877–1892); A New View of Dalton's Atomic Theory, with Dr Arthur Harden (1896); and an Autobiography (1906). The Treatise on Chemistry, written in collaboration with Carl Schorlemmer (1834–1892), who was appointed his private assistant at Manchester in 1859, official assistant in the laboratory in 1861, and professor of organic chemistry in 1874, was long regarded as a standard work. Roscoe's Lessons in Elementary Chemistry (1866) passed through many editions in England and abroad.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
 
 
1833
 
 
Trevithick Richard, Eng. engineer and inventor who built first steam-powered vehicle to carry passengers (1801), d. (b. 1771)
 
 

Richard Trevithick in 1816 by John Linnell
 
 
 
1833
 
 
Wheatstone bridge, for the comparison of electric resistances, inductances, and capacitances, devised
by Samuel Hunter Christie; used for the first time in 1847 by Sir Wheatstone Charles
 
 
Wheatstone bridge
 

A Wheatstone bridge is an electrical circuit used to measure an unknown electrical resistance by balancing two legs of a bridge circuit, one leg of which includes the unknown component. Its operation is similar to the original potentiometer. It was invented by Samuel Hunter Christie in 1833 and improved and popularized by Sir Wheatstone Charles  in 1843. One of the Wheatstone bridge's initial uses was for the purpose of soils analysis and comparison.

 
Significance
The Wheatstone bridge illustrates the concept of a difference measurement, which can be extremely accurate. Variations on the Wheatstone bridge can be used to measure capacitance, inductance, impedance and other quantities, such as the amount of combustible gases in a sample, with an explosimeter. The Kelvin bridge was specially adapted from the Wheatstone bridge for measuring very low resistances. In many cases, the significance of measuring the unknown resistance is related to measuring the impact of some physical phenomenon (such as force, temperature, pressure, etc.) which thereby allows the use of Wheatstone bridge in measuring those elements indirectly.

The concept was extended to alternating current measurements by James Clerk Maxwell in 1865 and further improved by Alan Blumlein around 1926.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 
 
 
Christie Samuel Hunter
 

Samuel Hunter Christie (22 March 1784 – 24 January 1865) was a British scientist and mathematician.

 

Samuel Hunter Christie
  Life
He studied mathematics at Trinity College, Cambridge, where he won the Smith's Prize and was second wrangler. He was particularly interested in magnetism, studying the earth's magnetic field and designing improvements to the magnetic compass. Some of his magnetic research was done in collaboration with Peter Barlow. He became a Fellow of the Royal Society in 1826, delivered their Bakerian Lecture in 1833 and served as their Secretary from 1837 to 1853.

In 1833 he published his 'diamond' method, the forerunner of the Wheatstone bridge, in a paper on the magnetic and electrical properties of metals, as a method for comparing the resistances of wires of different thicknesses.

However, the method went unrecognised until 1843, when Charles Wheatstone proposed it, in another paper for the Royal Society, for measuring resistance in electrical circuits. Although Wheatstone presented it as Christie's invention, it is his name, rather than Christie's, that is now associated with the device.

Christie taught mathematics at the Royal Military Academy, Woolwich, from 1838 until his retirement in 1854. He died at Twickenham, on 24 January 1865.

A portrait photograph of Christie in 1865 by Ernest Edwards is held by the National Portrait Gallery.

 
 
Family
He had ten children (five with each wife), of which eight survived him. His eldest son was the astronomer William Henry Mahoney Christie (1845–1922).

Samuel Christie is the son of one James Christie, although this was almost certainly not the auctioneer James Christie (founder of the great auction house). Instead he was probably the son of a James Christie who in 1821 described himself as a tailor, late of Leicester Square but then of Newman Street, and who died in 1825 aged eighty-six. Because they had the same name, some confusion has arisen between the two James Christie's and many websites incorrectly state that he was the son of the auctioneer. But, as the latter occupied a house in Pall Mall from 1768 until 1803, and died in that year, it seems certain that the James Christie who lived in Leicester Square was not the auctioneer.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
 
 
1833
 
 
 
Back George
 

Admiral Sir George Back (6 November 1796 – 23 June 1878) was a British naval officer, explorer of the Canadian Arctic, naturalist and artist.

 

Sir George Back
  Career
Back was born in Stockport. As a boy, he went to sea as a volunteer in the frigate HMS Arethusa in 1808 and took part in the destruction of batteries on the Spanish coast. In the following year, he was involved in combat in the Bay of Biscay, until he was captured by the French. Back remained a prisoner until the peace of early 1814 and during this time, practised his skills as an artist, which he later put to use in recording his travels through the Arctic.
Following his release, Back served on HMS Akbar and HMS Bulwark as a midshipman before volunteering to serve under John Franklin in his first expedition to the Arctic in 1818. Back also served under Franklin in his two overland expeditions to survey the northern coast of North America, first on the Coppermine Expedition of 1819–1822 - when Back was responsible for all the surveying and chart making - and then a similar expedition by the MacKenzie River in 1824-1826, during which time he was promoted first to lieutenant and then to commander in 1825. Lacking appointment to a ship, Back was unemployed on the half-pay list, from 1827 to 1833.

Back River Expedition
By 1832 nothing had been heard of the Arctic explorer John Ross since 1829 and plans were made to find him. Back proposed to take fur trade routes to the Great Slave Lake and follow the Great Fish River northeast to Ross's probable location. No white man had ever seen this river but it was known from Indian reports (it was later named the Back River).

 
 
He left England in February 1833, reached the Great Slave Lake in August where George McLeod of the Hudson's Bay Company had built winter quarters at Fort Reliance at the eastern end of the lake. He located the river on 29 August and returned to the fort to winter. In March 1834 he received a packet of letters saying that Ross was back in England and telling him to explore the coast from Ross's King William Land to Franklin's Point Turnagain. This was the main unknown region, along with a few hundred miles eastward from Point Barrow and the area around King William Island which was completely misunderstood. He set out on 7 June 1834, passed Artillery Lake and Clinton-Colden Lake and reached the river on 28 June. He ran east down a river in the barren grounds with 83 rapids but only one portage. On 23 July he reached salt water at Chantry Inlet. He explored the inlet, saw King William Island to the north and then unheroically but wisely turned back. He reached Fort Reliance on 27 September 1834 and England on 8 September 1835. The expedition's naturalist was Richard King who contributed appendices on meteorology and botany to Back's account of the expedition; he also wrote his own two-volume account of the expedition.
 
 

George Back 1833-1834
 
 
The Frozen Strait Expedition of 1836-37
In 1836 Back was promoted to captain by Order in Council, a rare honour. The goal this time was the northern end of Hudson Bay at either Repulse Bay or Wager Inlet. From there he would drag boats overland to seawater and sail the unknown coast west to the Back River and Franklin's Point Turnagain. These were the two easternmost known points on the north coast west of Hudson Bay. The area between them and between the Back River and Hudson Bay was unknown. (In fact, 60 miles northwest of Repulse bay is the cul-de-sac of the Gulf of Boothia. To reach the Back River he would have had to drag his boats 250 miles west-northwest.) He was given command of the converted bomb vessel HMS Terror with a crew of 60 and provisions for 18 months. He left in June 1836 which was late in the season and because on contrary winds had to be towed by steamship all the way to the Orkney Islands. He reached Hudson Strait on the first of August and by the end of August the Terror was beset by ice somewhere east of Frozen Strait. It remained icebound for 10 months: at one point the Terror was pushed 40 feet up the side of a cliff by the pressure of the ice. Several times preparations were made to abandon ship. Scurvy appeared in January and three men died of it. In the spring of 1837, an encounter with an iceberg further damaged the ship.

Sometimes the pressure of the ice was enough to force turpentine out of the planks. The ship drifted with the ice south along Southampton Island and then east toward Hudson Strait. It was not until July that the ice retreated sufficiently to allow HMS Terror to head for home. Soon a large mass of ice frozen to the vessel broke off causing the remaining ice to tip the ship on its side until the ice was hacked off. The vessel was in a sinking condition by the time he was able to beach the ship on the coast of Ireland at Lough Swilly. 'There was not one on board who did not express astonishment that we had ever floated across the Atlantic' Although a number of Arctic explorers allowed their ships to be frozen in harbors for the winter, this seems to be the only case of a ship being caught in offshore ice. Its survival is a tribute to the strength of bomb vessels in Arctic service.
  Retirement from the Royal Navy
Poor health caused Back to retire from active service. He was made a Knight Bachelor on 18 March 1839, and maintained an interest in Arctic exploration for the rest of his life. In 1859, he was nominated a rear-admiral.

 Back served as an advisor to the Admiralty during the search for John Franklin's lost expedition, and as vice-president of the Royal Geographical Society, having received its gold and silver medal. Although nominally retired, Back remained on Admiralty List and, based on seniority, he was promoted to vice-admiral in 1863 and finally admiral in 1876.

In spite of the high regard in which he was held in Great Britain and the many honors he received, Back had a history of being disliked and distrusted by many of the people he worked with in the Arctic, including Franklin. He was variously criticized for being rude, a weak leader, selfish, sycophantic, and quarrelsome. Later in life he gained a reputation for being a dandy and a womaniser. In 1846, he married the widow of Anthony Hammond. He is buried in the Kensal Green Cemetery, London.

Back as artist
George Back was an accomplished artist. A watercolor of an iceberg, believed to have been painted by Back following his 1836-37 expedition, sold at auction on 13 September 2011 for $59,600, despite its being unsigned and undated.

Experts at the prestigious London auction house Bonhams credited the watercolor to Back, claiming it had been presented by Back to his sister Katherine Pares, and thence descended through her family. The auction house opined that the scene surrounding the towering iceberg appears to match a description in Back's Narrative of an Expedition in H.M.S. Terror (1838) when the Terror was in the Davis Strait (between Canada and Greenland) that reads "in the evening (of 29 July 1836) when the weather cleared ... we observed an enormous berg, the perpendicular face of which was not less than 300 feet high..."

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 
 
Artistic works
Beck drew 'HMS Terror Thrown Up By Ice' (1813). Beck drew the portrait 'A Buffalo Pound' (1823), which was later reworked into an engraving. He painted the watercolour 'Winter View of Fort Franklin' (1825-6).
 
 

'Arctic Council Planning Search' by George Back
 
 

HMS Terror (1813) as drawn by George Back
 
 

Coppermine mouth (1821) by George Back
 
 

'Expedition Doubling Cape Barrow' (1821) by George Back
 
 

'Fort Enterprise' by George Back
 
 

'Franklin's canoes in gale' by George Back
 
 

'Preparing an Encampment on the Barren Grounds' by George Back
 
 

'Resting Place in Winter' by George Back
 
 
see also: Search for a Northern Seaway
 
 
 
1833
 
 
Brit. Factory Act provides a system for factory inspection
 
 
Factory Acts
 

The Factory Acts were a series of Acts passed by the Parliament of the United Kingdom to regulate the conditions of industrial employment. The early Acts concentrated on regulating the hours of work and moral welfare of young children employed in cotton mills but were effectively unenforced until the Act of 1833 established a professional Factory Inspectorate. The regulation of working hours was then extended to women by an Act of 1844. An Act in 1847 (the Ten Hour Act) (together with Acts in 1850 and 1853 remedying defects in the 1847 Act) met a long- standing (and by 1847 well-organised) demand by the millworkers for a ten-hour day.

 
The Factory Acts also sought to ameliorate the conditions under which mill-children worked with requirements on ventilation, sanitation, and guarding of machinery. Introduction of the ten-hour day proved to have none of the dire consequences predicted by its opponents, and its apparent success effectively ended theoretical objections to the principle of factory legislation; from the 1860s onwards more industries were brought within the Factory Act, until by 1910, Sidney Webb reviewing the cumulative effect of century of factory legislation felt able to write
 

The system of regulation which began with the protection of the tiny class of pauper apprentices in textile mills now includes within its scope every manual worker in every manufacturing industry. From the hours of labour and sanitation, the law has extended to the age of commencing work, protection against accidents, mealtimes and holidays, the methods of remuneration, and in the United Kingdom as well as in the most progressive of English-speaking communities, to the rate of wages itself. The range of Factory Legislation has, in fact, in one country or another, become co-extensive with the conditions of industrial employment. No class of manual-working wage-earners, no item in the wage-contract, no age, no sex, no trade or occupation, is now beyond its scope. This part, at any rate, of Robert Owen's social philosophy has commended itself to the practical judgment of the civilised world. It has even, though only towards the latter part of the nineteenth century, converted the economists themselves -converted them now to a " legal minimum wage " — and the advantage of Factory Legislation is now as soundly " orthodox " among the present generation of English, German, and American professors as " laisser-faire " was to their predecessors. ... Of all the nineteenth century inventions in social organisation, Factory Legislation is the most widely diffused.

 
He also commented on the gradual (accidentally almost Fabian) way this transformation had been achieved
 

The merely empirical suggestions of Dr. Thomas Percival and the Manchester Justices of 1784 and 1795, and the experimental legislation of the elder Sir Robert Peel in 1802, were expanded by Robert Owen in 1815 into a general principle of industrial government, which came to be applied in tentative instalments by successive generations of Home Office administrators. ... This century of experiment in Factory Legislation affords a typical example of English practical empiricism. We began with no abstract theory of social justice or the rights of man. We seem always to have been incapable even of taking a general view of the subject we were legislating upon. Each successive statute aimed at remedying a single ascertained evil. It was in vain that objectors urged that other evils, no more defensible existed in other trades, or among other classes, or with persons of ages other than those to which the particular Bill applied. Neither logic nor consistency, neither the over-nice consideration of even-handed justice nor the Quixotic appeal of a general humanitarianism, was permitted to stand in the way of a practical remedy for a proved wrong.
That this purely empirical method of dealing with industrial evils made progress slow is scarcely an objection to it. With the nineteenth century House of Commons no other method would have secured any progress at all.

 
Health and Morals of Apprentices Act 1802
The Health and Morals of Apprentices Act 1802 (42 Geo III c.73) was introduced by Sir Robert Peel ; it addressed concerns felt by the medical men of Manchester about the health and welfare of children employed in cotton mills, and first expressed by them in 1784 in a report on an outbreak of 'putrid fever' at a mill at Radcliffe owned by Peel. Although the Act included some hygiene requirements for all textile mills, it was largely concerned with the employment of apprentices; it left the employment of 'free' (non-indentured) children unregulated. It allowed (but did not require) local magistrates to enforce compliance with its requirements, and therefore went largely unenforced. As the first attempt to improve the lot of factory children, it is often seen as paving the way for future Factory Acts. At best, it only partially paved the way; its restriction to apprentices (where there was a long tradition of legislation) meant that it was left to later Factory Acts to establish the principle of intervention by Parliament on humanitarian grounds on worker welfare issues against the "laissez-faire" political and economic orthodoxy of the age which held that to be ill-advised. Under the Act, regulations and rules came into force on 2 December 1802 and applied to all textile mills and factories employing three or more apprentices or twenty employees. The buildings must have sufficient windows and openings for ventilation, and should be cleaned at least twice yearly with quicklime and water; this included ceilings and walls.
 
A child apprentice in a cotton mill
 
 

Each apprentice was to be given two sets of clothing, suitable linen, stockings, hats, and shoes, and a new set each year thereafter. Apprentices could not work during the night (between 9 pm and 6 am), and their working hours could not exceed 12 hours a day, excluding the time taken for breaks. A grace period was provided to allow factories time to adjust, but all night-time working by apprentices was to be discontinued by June 1804.

All apprentices were to be educated in reading, writing and arithmetic for the first four years of their apprenticeship. The Act specified that this should be done every working day within usual working hours but did not state how much time should be set aside for it. Educational classes should be held in a part of the mill or factory designed for the purpose. Every Sunday, for one hour, apprentices were to be taught the Christian religion; every other Sunday, divine service should be held in the factory, and every month the apprentices should visit a church. They should be prepared for confirmation in the Church of England between the ages of 14 and 18 and must be examined by a clergyman at least once a year. Male and female apprentices were to sleep separately and not more than two per bed.

Local magistrates had to appoint two inspectors known as visitors to ensure that factories and mills were complying with the Act; one was to be a clergyman and the other a Justice of the Peace, neither to have any connection with the mill or factory. The visitors had the power to impose fines for non-compliance and the authority to visit at any time of the day to inspect the premises.

The Act was to be displayed in two places in the factory. Owners who refused to comply with any part of the Act could be fined between £2 and £5.

 
 
 
 
Cotton Mills and Factories Act 1819
The 1819 Cotton Mills and Factories Act (59 Geo. III c66) stated that no children under 9 were to be employed and that children aged 9–16 years were limited to 12 hours' work per day. It applied to the cotton industry only, but covered all children, whether apprentices or not. It was seen through Parliament by Sir Robert Peel; it had its origins in a draft prepared by Robert Owen in 1815 but the Act that emerged in 1819 was much watered-down from Owen's draft. It was also effectively unenforceable; enforcement was left to local magistrates, but they could only inspect a mill if two witnesses had given sworn statements that the mill was breaking the Act.
  Cotton Mills Regulation Act 1825
In 1825 John Cam Hobhouse introduced a Bill to allow magistrates to act on their own initiative, and to compel witnesses to attend hearings; noting that so far there had been only two prosecutions under the 1819 Act. Opposing the Bill a millowner MP agreed that the 1819 Bill was widely evaded, but went on to remark that this put millowners at the mercy of millhands "The provisions of Sir Robert Peel's act had been evaded in many respects: and it was now in the power of the workmen to ruin many individuals, by enforcing the penalties for children working beyond the hours limited by that act" and that this showed to him that the best course of action was to repeal the 1819 Act.
 
 
 On the other hand another millowner MP supported Hobhouse's Bill saying that he
 

agreed that, the bill was loudly called for, and, as the proprietor of a large manufactory, admitted that there was much that required remedy. He doubted whether shortening the hours of work would be injurious even to the interests of the manufacturers; as the children would be able, while they were employed, to pursue their occupation with greater vigour and activity. At the same time, there was nothing to warrant a comparison with the condition or the negroes in the West Indies.

 
Hobhouse's Bill also sought to limit hours worked to eleven a day; the Act as passed (the Cotton Mills Regulation Act :6 Geo. IV., c. 63) improved the arrangements for enforcement, but kept a twelve-hour day Monday-Friday with a shorter day of nine hours on Saturday. The 1819 Act had specified that a mealbreak of an hour should be taken between 11 a.m. and 2 p.m. ; a subsequent Act (60 Geo. III., c. 5) allowing water-powered mills to exceed the specified hours in order to make up for lost time widened the limits to 11 a.m. to 4 p.m.; Hobhouse's Act of 1825 set the limits to 11 a.m. to 3 p.m. A parent's assertion of a child's age was sufficient, and relieved employers of any liability should the child in fact be younger. JPs who were millowners or the fathers or sons of millowners could not hear complaints under the Act.
 
 
 
 
Act to Amend the Laws relating to the employment of Children in Cotton Mills & Manufactories 1829
In 1829, Parliament passed an 'Act to Amend the Laws relating to the employment of Children in Cotton Mills & Manufactories' which relaxed formal requirements for the service of legal documents on millowners (documents no longer had to specify all partners in the concern owning or running the mill; it would be adequate to identify the mill by the name by which it was generally known). The Bill passed the Commons was subject to a minor textual amendment by the Lords (adding the words 'to include') and then received the Royal Assent without the Commons first being made aware of (or agreeing to) the Lords' amendment. To rectify this inadvertent breach of privilege,a further Act (making no other change to the Act already passed) was promptly passed on the last day of the Parliamentary session.

Labour in Cotton Mills Act 1831 (Hobhouse's Act)
An Act to repeal the Laws relating to Apprentices and other young Persons employed in Cotton Factories and in Cotton Mills, and to make further Provisions in lieu thereof (1 & 2 Will. IV c39)

(Acts repealed were 59 Geo. III, c. 66; 60 Geo. III, c. 5; 6 Geo. IV, c. 63; 10 Geo. IV, c. 51; 10 Geo. IV, c. 63)
In 1831 Hobhouse introduced a further bill with - he told the Commons-[9] the support of the leading manufacturers who felt that "unless the House should step forward and interfere so as to put an end to the night-work in the small factories where it was practised, it would be impossible for the large and respectable factories which conformed to the existing law to compete with them." The Act repealed the previous Acts, and consolidated their provisions in a single Act, which also introduced further restrictions. Night working was forbidden for anyone under 21 and if a mill had been working at night the onus of proof was on the millowner (to show nobody under-age had been employed).

The limitation of working hours to twelve now applied up to age eighteen. Complaints could only pursued if made within three weeks of the offence; on the other hand JPs who were the brothers of millowners were now also debarred from hearing Factory Act cases. Hobhouse's claim of general support was optimistic; the Bill originally covered all textile mills; the Act as passed again applied only to cotton mills.

  Labour of Children, etc., in Factories Act 1833 (Althorp's Act)
The Factory Act 1833 (3 & 4 Will. IV) c103 was an attempt to establish a regular working day in textile manufacture. The act had the following provisions:

Children under 9 could not be employed in textile manufacture (except in silk mills).
Children under 18 must not work at night (ie after 8. 30 p.m. and before 5.30 a.m.)
Children (ages 9–13) must not work more than 8 hours with an hour lunch break. (Employers could (and it was envisaged they would) operate a 'relay system' with two shifts of children between them covering the permitting working day; adult millworkers therefore being 'enabled' to work a 15-hour day)
Children (ages 9–13) must have two hours of education per day.
Children (ages 14–18) must not work more than 12 hours a day with an hour lunch break.
Provided for routine inspections of factories and set up a Factory Inspectorate (subordinate to the Home Office) to carry out such inspections, with the right to demand entry and the authority to act as a magistrate. (Under previous Acts supervision had been by local 'visitors' (a Justice of the Peace, and a clergyman) and effectively discretionary). The inspectors were empowered to make and enforce rules and regulations on the detailed application of the Act, independent of the Home Secretary
Millowners and their close relatives were no longer debarred (if JPs) from hearing cases brought under previous Acts, but were unlikely to be effectively supervised by their colleagues on the local bench or be zealous in supervising other millowners

Factories Act 1844 (Graham's factory act)
The Factories Act 1844 (citation 7 & 8 Vict c. 15) further reduced hours of work for children and applied the many provisions of the Factory Act of 1833 to women. The act applied to the textile industry and included the following provisions:

Children 9–13 years could work for 9 hours a day with a lunch break.
Ages must be verified by surgeons.
Women and young people now worked the same number of hours. They could work for no more than 12 hours a day during the week, including one and a half hours for meals, and 9 hours on Sundays. They must all take their meals at the same time and could not do so in the workroom

 
 
Time-keeping to be by a public clock approved by an inspector
Some classes of machinery: every fly-wheel directly connected with the steam engine or water-wheel or other mechanical power, whether in the engine-house or not, and every part of a steam engine and water-wheel, and every hoist or teagle, near to which children or young persons are liable to pass or be employed, and all parts of the mill-gearing (this included power shafts) in a factory were to be "securely fenced "
Children and women were not to clean moving machinery
Accidental death must be reported to a surgeon and investigated; the result of the investigation to be reported to a Factory Inspector
Factory owners must wash factories with lime every fourteen months.
Thorough records must be kept regarding the provisions of the Act and shown to the inspector on demand
an abstract of the amended Act must be hung up in the factory so as to be easily read, and show (amongst other things) names and addresses of the inspector and sub-inspector of the district, the certifying surgeon, the times for beginning and ending work, the amount of time and time of day for meals
Factory Inspectors no longer had the powers of JPs but (as before 1833) millowners, their fathers, brothers and sons were all debarred (if magistrates) from hearing Factory Act cases
 
 
 
 
Factory Act 1847
After the collapse of the Peel administration which had resisted any reduction in the working day to less than 12 hours, a Whig administration under Lord John Russell came to power. The new Cabinet contained supporters and opponents of a ten-hour day and Lord John himself favoured an eleven-hour day. The Government therefore had no collective view on the matter; in the absence of Government opposition, the Ten Hour Bill (also known as the Ten Hour Act) was passed, becoming the Factories Act 1847 (citation 10 & 11 Vict c. 29). This law limited the work week in textile mills (and other textile industries except lace and silk production) for women and children under 18 years of age. Each work week contained 63 hours effective 1 July 1847 and was reduced to 58 hours effective 1 May 1848. In effect, this law limited the workday for all millhands to 10 hours.

This law was successfully passed due to the contributions of the Ten Hours Movement. This campaign was established during the 1830s and was responsible for voicing demands towards limiting the work week in textile mills. The leaders of the movement were Richard Oastler (who led the campaign outside Parliament), as well as John Fielden and Lord Ashley, 7th Earl of Shaftesbury (who led the campaign inside Parliament).

  Factory Act 1850 (the 'Compromise' Act)
The Acts of 1844 and 1847 had reduced the hours per day which any woman or young person could work but not the hours of the day within which they could do that work (from 5:30 a.m. to 8:30 p.m.). Under the 1833 Act millowners (or some of them) had used a 'relay system' so that the mill could operate all the permitted hours without any protected person exceeding their permitted workday.

The system was considered objectionable both because of the effect on the protected persons (who ended up working split shifts) and because an inspector (or other millowners) could relatively easily monitor the hours a mill ran; it was much more difficult if not impossible to check the hours worked by an individual (as an inspector observed "the lights in the window will discover the one but not the other") Section 26 of the 1844 Act required that the hours of work of all protected persons " shall be reckoned from the time when any child or young person shall first begin to work in the morning in such factory." but nothing in it or in the 1847 Act clearly prohibited split shifts (although this had been Parliament's intention). The factory inspector for Scotland considered split shifts to be legal; the inspector for Bradford thought them illegal and his local magistrates agreed with him: in Manchester the inspector thought them illegal but the magistrates did not.
 
 

In 1850 the Court of Exchequer held that the section was to be too weakly worded to make relay systems illegal. The 1850 Act (citation 13 & 14 Vict c. 54) therefore established a 'normal day' for women and young persons by setting the times within which they could work so tightly that they were also the start and stop times if they were to work the maximum permitted hours per day. The key provisions were:

Women and young persons could only work from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. in the summer and 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. in the winter : since they were to be allowed 90 minutes total breaks during the day, the maximum hours worked per day increased to 10.5
All work would end on Saturday at 2 p.m.
The work week was extended from 58 hours to 60 hours.

Children (8-13) were not covered by this Act: it had been the deliberate intention of the 1833 Act that a mill might use two sets of children on a relay system and the obvious method of doing so did not require split shifts. A further Act of 1853 set similar limits on the hours within which children might work.

 
 
 
 
Factory Act 1856
In April 1855 a National Association of Factory Occupiers was formed "to watch over factory legislation with a view to prevent any increase of the present unfair and injudicious enactments".

The 1844 Act had required that "mill gearing" - which included power shafts - should be securely fenced.

Magistrates had taken inconsistent views as to whether this applied where the "mill gearing" was not readily accessible; in particular where power shafting ran horizontally well above head height.

In 1856, the Court of Queen's Bench ruled that it did. In April, 1856, the National Association of Factory Occupiers succeeded in obtaining an Act reversing this decision: mill gearing needed secure fencing only of those parts with which women, young persons, and children were liable to come in contact.

(The inspectors feared that the potential hazards in areas they did not normally access might be obvious to experienced men, but not be easily appreciated by women and children who were due the legislative protection the 1856 Act had removed, especially given the potential severe consequences of their inexperience.
An MP speaking against the Bill was able to give multiple instances of accidents to protected persons resulting in death or loss of limbs - all caused by unguarded shafting with which they were supposedly not liable to come into contact - despite restricting himself to accidents in mills owned by Members of Parliament (so that he could be corrected by them if had misstated any facts).

(Dickens thereafter referred to the NAFO as the Association for Mangling Operatives)) For other parts of the mill gearing any dispute between the occupier and the inspector could be resolved by arbitration.

The arbitration was to be by a person skilled in making the machinery to be guarded; the inspectors however declined to submit safety concerns to arbitration by those "who look only to the construction and working of the machinery, which is their business,and not to the prevention of accidents, which is not their business"
  Factories Act Extension Act 1867
In virtually every debate on the various Factories Bills, opponents had thought it a nonsense to pass legislation for textile mills when the life of a mill child was much preferable to that of many other children: other industries were more tiring, more dangerous, more unhealthy, required longer working hours, involved more unpleasant working conditions, or (this being Victorian Britain) were more conducive to lax morals. This logic began to be applied in reverse once it became clear that the Ten Hours Act had had no obvious detrimental effect on the prosperity of the textile industry or on that of millworkers. Acts were passed bringing other textile trades within the scope of the Factories Act : bleaching and dyeworks (1860 - outdoor bleaching was excluded), lace work (1861), calendering (1863), finishing (1864). In 1864 the Factories Extension Act was passed: this extended the Factories Act to cover a number of occupations (mostly non-textile): potteries (both heat and exposure to lead glazes were issues), lucifer match making ('phossie jaw') percussion cap and cartridge making, paper staining and fustian cutting. In 1867 the Factories Act was extended to all establishments employing 50 or more workers by another Factories Act Extension Act. An Hours of Labour Regulation Act applied to 'workshops' (establishments employing less than 50 workers); it subjected these to requirements similar to those for 'factories' (but less onerous on a number of points eg: the hours within which the permitted hours might be worked were less restrictive, there was no requirement for certification of age) but was to be administered by local authorities, rather than the Factory Inspectorate.

Factory and Workshop Act 1870

Factory and Workshop Act 1871

Factory and Workshop Act 1878

The Factory and Workshop Act 1878 (41 & 42 Vict. c. 16) brought all the previous Acts together in one consolidation.

Now the Factory Code applied to all trades.
No child anywhere under the age of 10 was to be employed.
Compulsory education for children up to 10 years old.
10-14 year olds could only be employed for half days.
Women were to work no more than 56 hours per week.

 
 
 
 
Factory Act 1891
Under the heading Conditions of Employment were two considerable additions to previous legislation: the first is the prohibition on employers to employ women within four weeks after confinement (childbirth); the second the raising the minimum age at which a child can be set to work from ten to eleven.

Factory and Workshop Act 1895
The main article gives an overview of the state of Factory Act legislation in Edwardian Britain under The Factory and Workshop Acts 1878 to 1895 (the collective title of the Factory and Workshop Act 1878, the Factory and Workshop Act 1883, the Cotton Cloth Factories Act 1889, the Factory and Workshop Act 1891 and the Factory and Workshop Act 1895.)

Factory and Workshop Act 1901
Minimum working age is raised to 12. The act also introduced legislation regarding education of children, meal times, and fire escapes.

  Factories Act 1937
The 1937 Act (1 Edw. 8 & 1 Geo. 6 c.67) consolidated and amended the Factory and Workshop Acts from 1901 to 1929.

It was introduced to the House of Commons by the Home Secretary, Sir John Simon, on 29 January 1937 and given Royal Assent on 30 July.

Factories Act 1959

Factories Act 1961

This Act consolidated the 1937 and 1959 Acts.

As of 2008, the 1961 Act is substantially still in force, though workplace health and safety is principally governed by the Health and Safety at Work etc.

Act 1974 and regulations made under it.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 
 
 
1833
 
 
Scot. explorer Alexander Burnes crosses Hindu Rush mountain range in Central Asia
 
 
Burnes Alexander
 

Sir Alexander Burnes, (born May 16, 1805, Montrose, Forfarshire, Scotland—died November 2, 1841, Kabul, Afghanistan), British explorer and diplomat (of the same family as the poet Robert Burns) who gained renown for his explorations in what are now Pakistan, Afghanistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Iran. For his accomplishments he was knighted in 1839.

 

Sir Alexander Burnes
  Burnes became interested in the geography of Afghanistan and central Asia while serving as an officer in the northwestern Indian state of Kutch (1823–29).

He traveled in 1831 up the Indus River from Sind (Pakistan), delivering gifts to the local rulers, exploring the regions he visited, and eventually reaching the Punjab city of Lahore, now in Pakistan. The following year he began a journey that took him across Afghanistan, the Hindu Kush mountains, and Russian Turkistan to the city of Bukhara; his Persian travels led him to Meshed, Tehrān, and Bushire.

The fame of his adventures preceded his return to London (1833) and earned him many honours, including a private audience with King William IV.

In 1834 he published his Map of Central Asia and Travels into Bokhara. As a result of a political mission to Kabul (1836), he encouraged British India to support Dōst Mohammed Khān on the Afghanistan throne.

The government, however, chose to support the unpopular Shāh Shojāʿ’s claim to the throne (1839) and needed Burnes to help reinstate him.

Burnes was killed by a mob in Kabul, along with his younger brother and members of his staff.

Encyclopædia Britannica

 
 
 
1833
 
 
Home Daniel Dunglas
 

Daniel Dunglas Home (pronounced 'Hume') (20 March 1833 – 21 June 1886) was a Scottish physical medium with the reported ability to levitate to a variety of heights, speak with the dead, and to produce rapping and knocks in houses at will. His biographer Peter Lamont opines that he was one of the most famous men of his era. Harry Houdini described him as "one of the most conspicuous and lauded of his type and generation" and "the forerunner of the mediums whose forte is fleecing by presuming on the credulity of the public." Home conducted hundreds of séances, which were attended by many eminent Victorians.

There have been eyewitness accounts by séance sitters describing conjuring methods and fraud that Home may have employed.

 

Daniel Dunglas Home
  Family
Daniel Home's mother, Elizabeth ("Betsy") Home (née McNeill) was known as a seer in Scotland, as were many of her predecessors, like her great uncle Colin Uruqhart, and her uncle Mr. McKenzie. The gift of second sight was often seen as a curse, as it foretold instances of tragedy and death. Home's father, William Home, was the illegitimate son of Alexander, the 10th Earl of Home.
Evidence supports the elder Home's illegitimacy, as various payments meant for William were made by the 10th Earl. Elizabeth and William were married when he was 19-years old, and found employment at the Balerno paper mill. The Homes moved into one of small houses built in the mill for the workforce, in Currie (six miles south-west of Edinburgh). William was described as a "bitter, morose and unhappy man" who drank, and was often aggressive towards his wife. Elizabeth had eight children while living in the mill house: six sons and two daughters, although their lives were not fully recorded.

The eldest, John, later worked in the Balerno mill and eventually managed a paper mill in Philadelphia, Mary drowned in a stream at 12-years old in 1846, and Adam died at sea at the age of 17 while en route to Greenland, which Home says he saw in a vision and reportedly confirmed five months later.
 
 
Early life
Daniel Home was Elizabeth's third child, and was born on 20 March 1833. He was baptised by the Reverend Mr. Somerville three weeks after his birth at Currie Parish Church on 14 April 1833. The one-year old Home was deemed a delicate child, having a "nervous temperament", and was passed to Elizabeth's childless sister, Mary Cook. She lived with her husband in the coastal town of Portobello, 3 miles (4.8 km) east of Edinburgh. According to Home, his cradle rocked by itself at the Cooks' house, and he had a vision of a cousin's death, who lived in Linlithgow, to the west of Edinburgh.
 
 

Daniel Dunglas Home
  America
Sometime between 1838 and 1841, Home's aunt and uncle decided to emigrate to the United States with their adopted son, sailing in the cheapest class of steerage as they could not afford a cabin. After landing in New York, the Cooks travelled to Greeneville, near Norwich, Connecticut. The red-haired and freckled Home attended school in Greeneville, where he was known as "Scotchy" by the other students. The 13-year old Home did not join in sports games with other boys, preferring to take walks in the local woods with a friend called Edwin. The two boys read the Bible to each other and told stories, and made a pact stating that if one or the other were to die, they would try and make contact after death. Home and his aunt soon moved to Troy, NY, which is about 155 miles (249 km) from Greeneville, although Home in his own book stated it was 300 miles (480 km) away. Home lost contact with Edwin until one night when Home, according to Lamont, saw a brightly lit vision of him standing at the foot of the bed, which gave Home the feeling that his friend was dead. Edwin made three circles in the air before disappearing, and a few days later a letter arrived stating that Edwin had died of malignant dysentery, which was three days before Home's vision.

A few years later Home and his aunt returned to Greeneville, and Elizabeth Home emigrated from Scotland to America with the surviving members of the family to live in Waterford, Connecticut, which was 12 miles (19 km) away from the Cook's house. Home and his mother's reunion was short-lived, as Elizabeth appeared to foretell her own death in 1850. Home said he saw his mother in a vision saying, "Dan, 12 o'clock", which was the time of her death. After Elizabeth's death Home turned to religion.

 
 
His aunt was a Presbyterian, and held the Calvinist view that one's fate has been decided, so Home embraced the Wesleyan faith, which believed that every soul can be saved. Home's aunt resented Wesleyans so much that she forced Home to change to Congregationalist, which was not to her liking, either, but was more in line with her own religion. The house was reportedly disturbed by rappings and knocking similar to those that occurred two years earlier at the home of the Fox sisters. Ministers were called to the Cooks' house: a Baptist, a Congregationalist, and even a Wesleyan minister, who all believed that Home was possessed by the Devil, although Home believed it was a gift from God.] According to Home, the knocking did not stop, and a table started to move by itself, even though Home's aunt put a bible on it and then placed her full body weight on it. According to Lamont, the noises did not stop and were attracting the unwanted attention of Cook's neighbours, so Home was told to leave the house.
 
 
Fame
The 18-year old Home stayed with a friend in Willimantic, Connecticut, and later Lebanon, Connecticut. Home held his first séance in March 1851, which was reported in a Hartford newspaper managed by W. R. Hayden, who wrote that the table moved without anyone touching it, and kept moving when Hayden physically tried to stop it. After the newspaper report, Home became well known in New England, travelling around healing the sick and communicating with the dead, although he wrote that he was not prepared for this sudden change in his life because of his supposed shyness.

Home never directly asked for money, although he lived very well on gifts, donations and lodging from wealthy admirers. He felt that he was on a "mission to demonstrate immortality", and wished to interact with his clients as one gentleman to another, rather than as an employee. In 1852, Home was a guest at the house of Rufus Elmer in Springfield, Massachusetts, giving séances six or seven times a day, which were visited by crowds of people, including a Harvard professor, David Wells, and the poet and editor of the New York Evening Post, William Cullen Bryant.

They were all convinced of Home's credibility and wrote to the Springfield Republican newspaper stating that the room was well lit, full inspections were allowed, and said, "We know that we were not imposed upon nor deceived". It was also reported that at one of Home's demonstrations five men of heavy build (with a combined weight of 850 pounds) sat on a table, but it still moved, and others saw "a tremulous phosphorescent light gleam over the walls".

 
The levitation of Daniel Dunglas Home at Ward Cheney's house interpreted in a lithograph from Louis Figuier, Les Mystères de la science 1887.
 
 
Home was investigated by numerous people, such as Professor Robert Hare, the inventor of the oxy-hydrogen blowpipe, and John Worth Edmonds, a Supreme Court judge, who were sceptical, but later said they believed Home was not fraudulent.

In his book, "Incidents in My Life", Home claims that on August 1852, in South Manchester, Connecticut, at the house of Ward Cheney, a successful silk manufacturer, he was reportedly seen to levitate twice and then rise to up to the ceiling, with louder rappings and knocking than ever before, more aggressive table movements and the sounds of a ship at sea in a storm, although persons present said that the room was badly lit so as to see the spirit lights.

New York was now interested in Home's abilities, so he moved to an apartment at Bryant Park on 42nd street. His most verbal critic in New York was William Makepeace Thackeray, the author of Vanity Fair. Thackeray dismissed Home's abilities as "dire humbug", and "dreary and foolish superstition", although Thackeray had been impressed when he saw a table turning. Home thought that Thackeray was "the most sceptical inquirer" he had ever met, and as Thackeray made his thoughts public, Home faced public scepticism and further scrutiny. Home travelled between Hartford, Springfield, and Boston during the next few months, and settled in Newburgh by the Hudson River in the summer of 1853. He resided at the Theological Institute, but took no part in any of the theological discussions held there, as he wanted to take a course in medicine. Dr. Hull funded Home's studies, and offered to pay Home five dollars a day for his séances, but Home refused, as always. His idea was to fund his work with a legitimate salary by practicing medicine, but he became ill in early 1854, and stopped his studies. Home was diagnosed with Tuberculosis, and his doctors recommended recuperation in Europe. His last séance in America was in March 1855, in Hartford, Connecticut, before he travelled to Boston and sailed to England on board the Africa, at the end of March.

 
 

Home performing the accordion experiment.
  Europe
Home's name was originally Daniel Home, but by the time he arrived in Europe he had lengthened it to Daniel Dunglas Home, in reference to the Scottish house of Home, of which his father claimed to be a part. In London, Home found a believer in spiritualism, William Cox, who owned a large hotel at 53, 54 and 55 Jermyn Street, London.

As Cox was so enamoured of Home's abilities, he let him stay at the hotel without payment.

Robert Owen, an 83-year-old social reformer, was also staying at the hotel, and introduced Home to many of his friends in London society. At the time Home was described as "tall and thin, with blue eyes and auburn hair, fastidiously dressed but seriously ill with consumption". Nevertheless, he held sittings for notable people in full daylight, moving objects that were some distance away.
 
 
Some early guests at Home's sittings included the scientist Sir David Brewster (who remained unconvinced), the novelists Sir Edward Bulwer-Lytton and Thomas Adolphus Trollope, and the Swedenborgian James John Garth Wilkinson.

As well as Brewster, fellow scientists Michael Faraday and Thomas Huxley were prominent contemporary critics of Home's claims. It was the poet Robert Browning however, who proved to be one of Home's most adamant critics. After attending a séance of Home's, Browning wrote in a letter to The Times that: 'the whole display of hands, spirit utterances etc., was a cheat and imposture'. Browning gave his unflattering impression of Home in the poem, "Sludge the Medium" (1864). His wife, Elizabeth Barrett Browning, was convinced that the phenomena she witnessed were genuine and their discussions about Home were a constant source of disagreement. Frank Podmore writes of a Mr Merrifield's first-hand account of experiencing Home's fraudulence during a séance.

Home's fame grew, fuelled by his ostensible feats of levitation. William Crookes claimed Home could levitate five to seven feet above the floor. Crookes wrote "We all saw him rise from the ground slowly to a height of about six inches, remain there for about ten seconds, and then slowly descend."

 
 
In the following years Home travelled across continental Europe, and always as a guest of wealthy patrons. In Paris, he was summoned to the Tuileries to perform a séance for Napoleon III. He also performed for Queen Sophia of the Netherlands, who wrote:

"I saw him four times...I felt a hand tipping my finger; I saw a heavy golden bell moving alone from one person to another; I saw my handkerchief move alone and return to me with a knot... He himself is a pale, sickly, rather handsome young man but without a look or anything which would either fascinate or frighten you. It is wonderful. I am so glad I have seen it..."

In 1866, Mrs Jane Lyon, a wealthy widow, adopted Home as her son, giving him £60,000 in an attempt to gain introduction into high society. Finding that the adoption did not change her social situation, Lyon changed her mind, and brought a suit for the return of her money from Home on the grounds that it had been obtained by spiritual influence. Under British law, the defendant bears the burden of proof in such a case, and proof was impossible since there was no physical evidence.

 
Sketch showing how Home held the accordion.
 
 
The case was decided against Home, Mrs Lyon's money was returned, and the press pilloried Home's reputation. Home's high society acquaintances thought that he behaved like a complete gentleman throughout the ordeal, and he did not lose a single important friend.

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle a spiritualist who supported the mediumship of Home stated that he was unusual in that he had four different types of mediumship: direct voice (the ability to let spirits audibly speak); trance speaker (the ability to let spirits speak through oneself); clairvoyant (ability to see things that are out of view); and physical medium (moving objects at a distance, levitation, etc., which was the type of mediumship in which he had no equal).

 
 
Alleged levitations
Home met one of his future closest friends in 1867; the young Lord Adare (later the 4th Earl of Dunraven). Adare was fascinated by Home, and began documenting the seances they held. The following year, Home was said to have levitated out of the third storey window of one room, and back in through the window of the adjoining room in front of three witnesses (Adare, Captain Wynne, and Lord Lindsay).

Lord Adare stated that Home "swung out and in" of a window in a horizontal position. However, John Sladek has pointed out that all three witnesses gave contradictory information about the levitation, even contradicting themselves about specific details:

The incident took place at 5 Buckingham Gate, Kensington (Adare); at Ashley Place, Westminster (Adare); at Victoria Street, Westminster (Lindsay). There was a ledge 4 inches wide below the windows (Adare); a ledge 1½ inches wide (Lindsay); no foothold at all (Lindsay); balconies 7 feet apart (Adare); no balconies at all (Lindsay). The windows were 85 feet from the street (Lindsay); 70 feet (Lindsay); 80 feet (Home); on the third floor (Adare); on the first floor (Adare). It was dark (Adare); there was a bright moonlight (Lindsay). Home was asleep in one room and the witnesses went into the next (Adare); Home left the witnesses in one room and went himself into the next (Adare).

Trevor H. Hall who researched the case in detail established that the levitation took place at Ashley Place in Westminster at a height of 35 feet and suggested rather than levitating Home had stepped across a gap of four feet between two iron balconies.

Gordon Stein also noted that the gap between the two balconies was only four feet making passing between them entirely feasible.

  Joseph McCabe wrote regarding the alleged levitation:

No one professes to have seen Home carried from window to window. Home told the three men who were present that he was going to be wafted, and he thus set up a state of very nervous expectation... Both Lord Crawford and Lord Adare say that they were warned. Then Lord Crawford says that he saw the shadow on the wall of Home entering the room horizontally; and as the moon, by whose light he professes to have seen the shadow, was at the most only three days old, his testimony is absolutely worthless. Lord Adare claims only that he saw Home, in the dark, "standing upright outside our window." In the dark—it was an almost moonless December night—one could not, as a matter of fact, say very positively whether Home was outside or inside; but, in any case, he acknowledges that there was a nineteen-inch window-sill outside the window, and Home could stand on that.

A few days before the levitation, scaring Lord Lindsay, Home had opened the same window, stepped out and stood on the outside ledge in the presence of two witnesses. Ivor Lloyd Tuckett argued that Home did this to provide "a rough sketch of the picture which he aimed at producing". Another possible natural explanation for Home's famous levitation was proposed by the psychical researcher Guy William Lambert who suggested he had attached a rope to the chimneys on the roof of the building, and hung the rope down unseen to the third floor. During the alleged levitation Home "swung out and in" the room by using a double rope maneuver. Lambert's rope hypothesis was supported by the magician John Booth.

Arthur Conan Doyle claimed there were many cases on record of Home levitating, however, skeptics assert the alleged levitations occurred in darkened conditions susceptible to trickery.

 
 
Science historian Sherrie Lynne Lyons has stated that a possible explanation for Home's alleged levitation phenomena was revealed in the twentieth century by Clarence E. Willard (1882-1962). Willard revealed his technique in 1958 to members of the Society of American Magicians. He demonstrated how he could add two inches to his height by stretching. According to Lyons "it is quite likely that [Home] used a similar technique to the one that Willard used decades later".

Simon During wrote the levitation of Home was a magic trick, influenced by the magician Jean Eugène Robert-Houdin.

 
 
Critical reception
Séances

The psychologist Andrew Neher has written the spiritualist claim that Home was never caught in fraud does not hold up to scrutiny as he was caught utilizing tricks by at least four people on different occasions.

The researchers Frank Podmore (1910), Milbourne Christopher (1970), Trevor H. Hall (1984) and Gordon Stein (1993) were convinced that Home was a fraud and have provided a source of speculation on the ways in which he could have duped his séance sitters.

At a séance in the house of the solicitor John Snaith Rymer in Ealing on July 1855, a sitter (Frederick Merrifield) observed that a "spirit-hand" was in fact a false limb attached on the end of Home's arm. Merrifield also claimed to have observed Home use his foot in the séance room.

The poet Robert Browning and his wife Elizabeth attended a séance on 23, July 1855 in Ealing with the Rymers. During the séance a spirit face materialized which Home claimed was the son of Browning who had died in infancy. Browning seized the "materialization" and discovered it to be the bare foot of Home. To make the deception worse, Browning had never lost a son in infancy. Browning's son Robert in a letter to the London Times, December 5, 1902 referred to the incident: "Home was detected in a vulgar fraud."

Writing in the journal for the Society for Psychical Research, Count Petrovsky Petrovo-Solovo described séances in which Home was caught using his feet to create supposed spirit effects. Home wore thin shoes, easy to take off and draw on, and also cut socks that left the toes free. "At the appropriate moment he takes off one of his shoes and with his foot pulls a dress here, a dress there, rings a bell, knocks one way and another, and, the thing done, quickly puts his shoe on again." Home held a séance for Eugénie de Montijo, and positioned himself between Montijo and Napoleon III. One of the séance sitters known as General Felury suspected Home was utilizing trickery and asked to leave but returned unobserved to watch from another door behind Home. He saw Home slip his foot from his shoe and touch the arm of the Empress, who believed it to be one of her dead children. The observer stepped forward and revealed the fraud, and Home was conducted out of the country: "The order was to keep the incident secret."

  Jean Eugène Robert-Houdin, the French stage magician, was refused admission to Home's séances as were other magicians and skeptics. Home was never searched before or after his séances. Science historian Sherrie Lynne Lyons wrote that the glowing or light-emitting hands in his séances could easily be explained by the rubbing of oil of phosphorus on his hands. The journalist Delia Logan who attended a séance with Home in London claimed Home had used the phosphorus trick. During the séance luminous hands were observed and the host told Logan that had seen Home place a small bottle upon the mantle piece. The host slipped the bottle into his pocket and when examined the next day, it was found to contain phosphorus oil.

According to Eric Dingwall a lady acted as a medium and used to help Home during the séances attended by Henrietta Ada Ward. Home was known for his feat of handling a heated lump of coal taken from a fire. The magician Henry Evans wrote the coal handling was a juggling trick, performed by Home using a hidden piece of platinum. Hereward Carrington described Evans hypothesis as "certainly ingenious" but pointed out William Crookes an experienced chemist was present at a séance whilst Home performed the feat and would have known how to distinguish the difference between coal and platinum. Frank Podmore wrote that most of the fire feats could have easily be performed by conjuring tricks and sleight of hand but hallucination and sense-deception may have explained Crookes' claim about observing flames from Home's fingers.

The séances of Home never took place in full light. Home and his followers claimed that some of the séances took place in "light" but this was nothing more than a candle, or some glow from a fireplace. Home would adjust the lighting to his needs with no objections from his séance sitters. For example, there is this report from a witness: "The room was very dark...Home's hands were visible only as a faint white heap". Home selected the séance sitters who sat next to him, his hands and feet were not controlled and according to Frank Podmore "no precautions were taken against trickery."
Edward Clodd wrote that Home chose his séance sitters and "if test experiments were suggested, he imposed the conditions."

It has been suggested that the "spirit hands" in the séances of Home were made of gloves stuffed with a substance. Robert Browning believed they were attached to Home's feet.

 
 
Home was a sculptor and his studio in Rome contained sculpted hands. Sherrie Lynne Lyons has speculated that he may have substituted the sculptor hands, leaving his real hands free to perform phenomena in the séance room.

The British medium William Eglinton claimed to perform many of the same feats as Home such as levitations, movement of objects and materializations. All of his mediumship feats were exposed as tricks.

 
 
William Crookes investigation
Between 1870 and 1873, chemist and physicist William Crookes conducted experiments to determine the validity of the phenomena produced by three mediums: Florence Cook, Kate Fox, and Home. Crookes' final report in 1874 concluded that the phenomena produced by all three mediums were genuine, a result which was roundly derided by the scientific establishment. Crookes recorded that he controlled and secured Home by placing his feet on the top of Home's feet. Crooke's method of foot control later proved inadequate when used with Eusapia Palladino, as she merely slipped her foot out and into her sturdy shoe. In addition, Crookes' motives, methods, and conclusions with regard to Florence Cook were called into question, both at the time and subsequently, casting doubt on his conclusions about Home. In a series of experiments in London at the house of Crookes in February 1875, the medium Anna Eva Fay managed to fool Crookes into believing she had genuine psychic powers. Fay later confessed to her fraud and revealed the tricks she had used.

Home was investigated by Crookes in a self-built laboratory at the rear of his house at Mornington Road, North London in 1871. No plans of the laboratory have been found and there is no contemporary description of it. Crookes wrote the board and spring balance experiment was a success with Home and had proven "beyond doubt" the existence of a "psychic force." However, the experiment could be easily dismissed as the result of vibrations caused by the passage of Euston trains in the large railway cutting near his house in London. The experiment was not repeatable and sometimes failed to produce any phenomena. The experiment was rejected and ridiculed by the scientific community for lack of scientific controls. In the experiment Home refused for Crookes to be near him and would draw attention to something on the other side of the room, or make conversation for diversionary signals.

In 1871, Balfour Stewart in an article for Nature noted that the experiments were not conducted in broad daylight before a large unbiased audience and the results were inconclusive. Stewart suspected the phenomena observed was "subjective, rather than objective, occurring in the imaginations of those present rather than in the outward physical world." In the same year, J. P. Earwaker wrote a science review that heavily criticized the Crookes' experiments for their poor design concluding they were pseudoscientific. According to Earwaker "For in truth they are the very opposite of scientific. Even to call them unscientific is not strong enough; clumsy and futile are much nearer the truth."

The engineer Coleman Sellers questioned the origin and weight of the board used with the balance spring apparatus. Sellers wrote that a standard mahogany board weighs around thirteen and half pounds but the one used in Crookes' experiment may have been at fault at only six pounds. Crookes responded to Sellers claiming the board weighed six pounds and this was not a mistake, he also stated he had the board for about sixteen years and it was originally cut in a lumber yard.

  P. H. Vanderweyde noted that Crookes was already a believer in psychic powers before he obtained the results of the experiments. Vanderweyde stated the spring balance used in Crookes' experiment was unreliable as it was easy to manipulate by deception and suggested he should repeat the experiment by using a chemical balance.

According to Barry Wiley during the board and spring balance experiment, Home refused for Crookes to sit near him and he was occupied by writing notes. Wiley suspected Home used resin on his finger tips to tamper with the apparatus which managed to fool Crookes into believing a psychic force was being displayed.

Regarding Crookes, the magician Harry Houdini wrote:

There is not the slightest doubt in my mind that this brainy man was hoodwinked, and that his confidence was betrayed by the so-called mediums that he tested. His powers of observation were blinded and his reasoning faculties so blunted by his prejudice in favor of anything psychic or occult that he could not, or would not, resist the influence.

Ruth Brandon in an article for the New Scientist noted that William Huggins, Serjeant Cox, Crooke's wife and daughter, his laboratory assistant, and a Mrs Humphrey were all present during the Crookes experiments with Home. However, Barry Wiley has written that when Crookes published his report on the experiments in the Quarterly Journal of Science in 1871 he did not mention all the names of the observers present in the room.

Wiley has stated that four females were present during the experiments as was Crookes' brother and the original report by Crookes did not refer to any spirits but many years later in 1889 he revealed in his Notes of séances with D. D. Home the names of the observers and claimed Home was in communication with spirits.

Crookes' assistant was the glass blower Charles Henry Gimingham (1853-1890) who had built the experimental apparatus. Wiley suspected that Gimingham worked as a secret accomplice for Anna Eva Fay in her experiments with Crookes.
Wiley noted that "Gimingham had free and open access to Crookes' laboratory and frequently worked there unsupervised with Crookes' full trust."

Joseph McCabe criticized the Crookes experiments for lack of scientific controls and wrote Home was "daily in and out of Crookes's laboratory, and it appears that he closely watched the development of the tests and was prepared in advance."

Before the experiments, Crookes was present with Home whilst he changed dress but Frank Podmore noted this would not have prevented Home from slipping into his pocket apparatus to cheat on the experiments.

Gordon Stein speculated on the deception of Crookes' testing devices (with diagrams). During a Crookes test when Home "is not touching with his hands" there are objects just lying beneath his hands that his fingertips are touching, a small match box and a small bell.

 
 
The measuring arm of Crookes' gauge does not exactly "move". It trembles. The physicist Victor Stenger wrote the experiments were poorly controlled; he gave the example of Home requesting all hands to be removed from the table whilst all those present complied. Stenger noted that "Crookes gullibly swallowed ploys such as this and allowed Home to call the shots... his desire to believe blinded him to the chicanery of his psychic subjects."
 
 
Accordion experiment
In the accordion experiment, Home sat at a table, with Crookes and another observer on either side of him, each with a foot on one of Home's feet. Home inserted his hand inside a wire cage that was pushed under the table. One of Home's hands was placed on the top of the table, and the other inside the cage which held an accordion on the non-key side, so the keyed end was hanging downwards. The accordion was reported to have played musical sounds. However, the amount of light in the room was not stated, and the accordion was not observed in good light. According to Frank Podmore there was no evidence the accordion played at all, as the keys were not observed to have moved. Podmore suggested the musical sounds could have come from an automatic instrument that Home had concealed.

In 1871, William Benjamin Carpenter wrote a critical evaluation of the Crookes experiments with Home in the Quarterly Review. Carpenter wrote that although Crookes, his assistant and Sergeant Cox claimed to have observed the accordion float in the cage; Dr. Huggins did not testify to this, and no information was given to whether the keys and bellows were seen to move. According to Carpenter no solid explanation could be given until the experiment is repeated, however, he suggested that the accordion feat that Home performed may have been a conjuring trick achieved with one hand. Carpenter concluded that Crookes should repeat the experiment in open daylight without the cage in the presence of other witnesses.

J. P. Earwaker heavily criticized the design of the accordion experiment as it took place under a dining room table. Earwaker who read Crookes' report noted that "no reason for this strangest of all strange positions is even hinted at." He also wrote "it never occurred to [Crookes] to notice whether the keys were depressed or not... it would be obvious that if the keys were not pressed down, it was impossible for the music really to have come from the accordion, and its true source must have been looked for elsewhere."

The magician John Nevil Maskelyne also criticized the design of the experiment for taking place under a table. The psychologist Millais Culpin wrote the experiment was not scientific and questioned why the experiment was done under the table instead of in a more convenient position on top of it. Before the accordion experiment with Crookes, Home had performed the accordion feat for over fifteen years under various conditions but always under his control. It was reported by sitters and Crookes that Home's accordion played only two pieces, Home Sweet Home and The Last Rose of Summer. Both contain only one-octave. The psychical researcher Hereward Carrington and spiritualist Herbert Thurston have claimed the accordion experiment was not the result of deliberate fraud.

  This is in opposition to magicians and skeptical researchers who evaluated Crookes' reports from the experiment. Henry Evans suggested the accordion feat was Home playing a musical box, attached to his leg. Joseph McCabe wrote that Home may have placed a musical box in his pocket or on the floor.

According to McCabe "the opening and shutting of the accordion could be done by hooks, or loops of black silk. So with the crowning miracle, when Home withdrew his hand, and the accordion was seen suspended in the air, moving about in the cage (under the dark table). It was probably hooked on to the table."

The magician Carlos María de Heredia claimed to have replicated the accordion feat of Home and suggested it was a trick performed by an accomplice playing a hidden accordion. Researcher Ronald Pearsall in his book The Table-Rappers (1972) suggested that a loop of catgut was attached to the accordion so Home could turn it round. Paul Kurtz wrote that other mediums had used a loop of catgut to obtain a similar effect with the accordion.

Ruth Brandon considered the possibility of an accomplice playing a concertina, or Home playing a hidden music box. The 19th century British medium Francis Ward Monck was caught using a music box in his séances that he had hidden in his trousers. The fraudulent medium Henry Slade also played an accordion while held with one hand under a table.

Skeptic James Randi stated that Home was caught cheating on a few occasions, but the episodes were never made public, and that the accordion feat was a one-octave mouth organ that Home concealed under his large moustache. Randi writes that one-octave mouth organs were found in Home's belongings after his death. According to Randi 'around 1960' William Lindsay Gresham told Randi he had seen these mouth organs in the Home collection at the Society for Psychical Research.

Gordon Stein wrote:

Home could easily have produced the sound of the accordion (concertina) by the use of a small harmonica concealed in his mouth. The up and down movement of the accordion could easily have been produced by catching the bottom of the accordion in a loop of black thread, or on a hook.

The claim that the accordion feat was performed by Home using a small harmonica was originally suggested by J. M. Robertson in 1891. The psychical researcher Eric Dingwall who catalogued Home's collection on its arrival at the SPR did not record the presence of the mouth organs, and Lamont speculates that it is unlikely Dingwall would have missed these or not made them public.

 
 
Personal life
Home married twice. In 1858, he married Alexandria de Kroll ("Sacha"), the 17-year-old daughter of a noble Russian family, in Saint Petersburg, his Best Man was the writer Alexandre Dumas. They had a son, Gregoire ("Grisha"), but Alexandria fell ill with tuberculosis, and died in 1862. In October 1871, Home married for the second, and last time, to Julie de Gloumeline, a wealthy Russian, whom he also met in St Petersburg. In the process, he converted to the Greek Orthodox faith.

In 1869 Lord Adare revealed in his diaries under the title Experiences in Spiritualism with D. D. Home that he had slept in the same bed with Home. Many of the diary entries contain erotic homosexual overtones between Adare and Home.

Death
At the age of 38, Home retired due to ill health; the tuberculosis, from which he had suffered for much of his life, was advancing and he said his powers were failing. He died on 21 June 1886 and was buried in the Russian cemetery of St. Germain-en-Laye, in Paris.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
 
 
1833
 
 
German economist List Friedrich advocates extension of German railroad system
 
 
 
1833
 
 
Nobel Alfred
 

Alfred Bernhard Nobel, (born October 21, 1833, Stockholm, Sweden—died December 10, 1896, San Remo, Italy), Swedish chemist, engineer, and industrialist, who invented dynamite and other, more powerful explosives and who also founded the Nobel Prizes.

 

Alfred Bernhard Nobel
  Alfred Bernhard Nobel was the fourth son of Immanuel and Caroline Nobel. Immanuel was an inventor and engineer who had married Caroline Andrietta Ahlsell in 1827. The couple had eight children, of whom only Alfred and three brothers reached adulthood. Alfred was prone to illness as a child, but he enjoyed a close relationship with his mother and displayed a lively intellectual curiosity from an early age. He was interested in explosives, and he learned the fundamentals of engineering from his father. Immanuel, meanwhile, had failed at various business ventures until moving in 1837 to St. Petersburg in Russia, where he prospered as a manufacturer of explosive mines and machine tools.

The Nobel family left Stockholm in 1842 to join the father in St. Petersburg. Alfred’s newly prosperous parents were now able to send him to private tutors, and he proved to be an eager pupil. He was a competent chemist by age 16 and was fluent in English, French, German, and Russian, as well as Swedish.

Alfred Nobel left Russia in 1850 to spend a year in Paris studying chemistry and then spent four years in the United States working under the direction of John Ericsson, the builder of the ironclad warship Monitor. Upon his return to St. Petersburg, Nobel worked in his father’s factory, which made military equipment during the Crimean War. After the war ended in 1856, the company had difficulty switching to the peacetime production of steamboat machinery, and it went bankrupt in 1859.

 
 
Alfred and his parents returned to Sweden, while his brothers Robert and Ludvig stayed behind in Russia to salvage what was left of the family business. Alfred soon began experimenting with explosives in a small laboratory on his father’s estate. At the time, the only dependable explosive for use in mines was black powder, a form of gunpowder. A recently discovered liquid compound, nitroglycerin, was a much more powerful explosive, but it was so unstable that it could not be handled with any degree of safety. Nevertheless, Nobel in 1862 built a small factory to manufacture nitroglycerin, and at the same time he undertook research in the hope of finding a safe way to control the explosive’s detonation. In 1863 he invented a practical detonator consisting of a wooden plug inserted into a larger charge of nitroglycerin held in a metal container; the explosion of the plug’s small charge of black powder serves to detonate the much more powerful charge of liquid nitroglycerin. This detonator marked the beginning of Nobel’s reputation as an inventor as well as the fortune he was to acquire as a maker of explosives. In 1865 Nobel invented an improved detonator called a blasting cap; it consisted of a small metal cap containing a charge of mercury fulminate that can be exploded by either shock or moderate heat. The invention of the blasting cap inaugurated the modern use of high explosives.
 
 

A golden medallion with an embossed image of a bearded man facing left in profile. To the left of the man is the text "ALFR" then "NOBEL", and on the right, the text (smaller) "NAT" then "MDCCCXXXIII" above, followed by (smaller) "OB" then "MDCCCXCVI" below.
 
 
Nitroglycerin itself, however, remained difficult to transport and extremely dangerous to handle. So dangerous, in fact, that Nobel’s nitroglycerin factory blew up in 1864, killing his younger brother Emil and several other people. Undaunted by this tragic accident, Nobel built several factories to manufacture nitroglycerin for use in concert with his blasting caps. These factories were as safe as the knowledge of the time allowed, but accidental explosions still occasionally occurred. Nobel’s second important invention was that of dynamite in 1867. By chance, he discovered that nitroglycerin was absorbed to dryness by kieselguhr, a porous siliceous earth, and the resulting mixture was much safer to use and easier to handle than nitroglycerin alone. Nobel named the new product dynamite (from Greek dynamis, “power”) and was granted patents for it in Great Britain (1867) and the United States (1868). Dynamite established Nobel’s fame worldwide and was soon put to use in blasting tunnels, cutting canals, and building railways and roads.

In the 1870s and ’80s Nobel built a network of factories throughout Europe to manufacture dynamite, and he formed a web of corporations to produce and market his explosives. He also continued to experiment in search of better ones, and in 1875 he invented a more powerful form of dynamite, blasting gelatin, which he patented the following year. Again by chance, he had discovered that mixing a solution of nitroglycerin with a fluffy substance known as nitrocellulose results in a tough, plastic material that has a high water resistance and greater blasting power than ordinary dynamites. In 1887 Nobel introduced ballistite, one of the first nitroglycerin smokeless powders and a precursor of cordite. Although Nobel held the patents to dynamite and his other explosives, he was in constant conflict with competitors who stole his processes, a fact that forced him into protracted patent litigation on several occasions.

  Nobel’s brothers Ludvig and Robert, in the meantime, had developed newly discovered oilfields near Baku (now in Azerbaijan) along the Caspian Sea and had themselves become immensely wealthy. Alfred’s worldwide interests in explosives, along with his own holdings in his brothers’ companies in Russia, brought him a large fortune. In 1893 he became interested in Sweden’s arms industry, and the following year he bought an ironworks at Bofors, near Varmland, that became the nucleus of the well-known Bofors arms factory. Besides explosives, Nobel made many other inventions, such as artificial silk and leather, and altogether he registered more than 350 patents in various countries.

Nobel’s complex personality puzzled his contemporaries. Although his business interests required him to travel almost constantly, he remained a lonely recluse who was prone to fits of depression. He led a retired and simple life and was a man of ascetic habits, yet he could be a courteous dinner host, a good listener, and a man of incisive wit. He never married, and apparently preferred the joys of inventing to those of romantic attachment. He had an abiding interest in literature and wrote plays, novels, and poems, almost all of which remained unpublished. He had amazing energy and found it difficult to relax after intense bouts of work. Among his contemporaries, he had the reputation of a liberal or even a socialist, but he actually distrusted democracy, opposed suffrage for women, and maintained an attitude of benign paternalism toward his many employees. Though Nobel was essentially a pacifist and hoped that the destructive powers of his inventions would help bring an end to war, his view of mankind and nations was pessimistic.

By 1895 Nobel had developed angina pectoris, and he died of a cerebral hemorrhage at his villa in San Remo, Italy, in 1896. At his death his worldwide business empire consisted of more than 90 factories manufacturing explosives and ammunition.

 
 
The opening of his will, which he had drawn up in Paris on November 27, 1895, and had deposited in a bank in Stockholm, contained a great surprise for his family, friends, and the general public. He had always been generous in humanitarian and scientific philanthropies, and he left the bulk of his fortune in trust to establish what came to be the most highly regarded of international awards, the Nobel Prizes.
 
 

Alfred Bernhard Nobel
  We can only speculate about the reasons for Nobel’s establishment of the prizes that bear his name. He was reticent about himself, and he confided in no one about his decision in the months preceding his death. The most plausible assumption is that a bizarre incident in 1888 may have triggered the train of reflection that culminated in his bequest for the Nobel Prizes.

That year Alfred’s brother Ludvig had died while staying in Cannes, France. The French newspapers reported Ludvig’s death but confused him with Alfred, and one paper sported the headline “Le marchand de la mort est mort” (“The merchant of death is dead.”) Perhaps Alfred Nobel established the prizes to avoid precisely the sort of posthumous reputation suggested by this premature obituary. It is certain that the actual awards he instituted reflect his lifelong interest in the fields of physics, chemistry, physiology, and literature.

There is also abundant evidence that his friendship with the prominent Austrian pacifist Bertha von Suttner inspired him to establish the prize for peace.

Nobel himself, however, remains a figure of paradoxes and contradictions: a brilliant, lonely man, part pessimist and part idealist, who invented the powerful explosives used in modern warfare but also established the world’s most prestigious prizes for intellectual services rendered to humanity.

Encyclopædia Britannica
 
 
 
1833
 
 
Canadian S.S. "Royal William" crosses the Atlantic in 25 days
 
 
SS "Royal William"
 
SS Royal William was a Canadian side-wheel paddle steamship that is sometimes credited with achieving the first crossing of the Atlantic Ocean to be made almost entirely under steam power, using sails only during periods of boiler maintenance, though the British-built Dutch-owned Curaçao crossed in 1827, and the sail-steam hybrid SS Savannah used some steam power when crossing in 1819. She was the largest passenger ship in the world from 1831 to 1837.
 


A painting of the SS Royal William

 
 
The 1,370-ton SS Royal William (named after the ruling monarch, William IV) was 160 feet (49 m) long and 44 feet (13 m) wide, a large steamship for the time.

She was commissioned by brewer John Molson and a group of investors from various colonies in British North America, built in Cape Blanc, Quebec by John Saxton Campbell and George Black and was launched on 27 April 1831 by Lady and Lord Aylmer at Cape Cove, Quebec. Her steam engines were made and installed in Montreal. She made several trips between Quebec and the Atlantic colonies in 1831, but travel became restricted because of the cholera epidemic in 1832. The owners lost some £16,000 on the venture.

Her owners decided to sail her to Europe and find a buyer. She departed from Pictou, Nova Scotia on 18 August 1833 with seven passengers, a small amount of freight and a load of coal and arrived at Gravesend on the River Thames after a 25-day passage. Royal William was eventually sold to the Spanish Navy where she served for many years and earned the distinction of being the first steamship to fire in anger in a minor Spanish rebellion.

One of Royal William'​s co-owners was Samuel Cunard a merchant from Halifax, Nova Scotia who drew important lessons from the ship which he applied when he founded the Cunard Steamship Company a few years later.

In the town of Pictou there is a Royal Canadian Sea Cadet Corps named after this vessel. A large wooden model of Royal William is on display at the Maritime Museum of the Atlantic in Halifax.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
 
 
1833
 
 
Slavery Abolition Act 1833
 

The Slavery Abolition Act 1833 (citation 3 & 4 Will. IV c. 73) was an 1833 Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom abolishing slavery throughout the British Empire (with the exceptions "of the Territories in the Possession of the East India Company," the "Island of Ceylon," and "the Island of Saint Helena"; the exceptions were eliminated in 1843). The Act was repealed in 1998 as part of a wider rationalization of English statute law, but later anti-slavery legislation remains in force.

 

The Printing Press and the Abolition of Slavery by David d'Angers
 
 
Background
In 1772, Lord Mansfield's judgement in the Somersett's Case emancipated a slave in England, which helped launch the movement to abolish slavery. The case ruled that slavery was unsupported by law in England and no authority could be exercised on slaves entering English or Scottish soil. In 1785, English poet William Cowper wrote:

We have no slaves at home – Then why abroad? Slaves cannot breathe in England; if their lungs receive our air, that moment they are free. They touch our country, and their shackles fall. That's noble, and bespeaks a nation proud. And jealous of the blessing. Spread it then, And let it circulate through every vein.

By 1783, an anti-slavery movement to abolish the slave trade throughout the Empire had begun among the British public.

In 1808, Parliament passed the Slave Trade Act of 1807, which outlawed the slave trade, but not slavery itself. The Royal Navy established the West Africa Squadron to suppress the Atlantic slave trade by patrolling the coast of West Africa. It did suppress the slave trade, but did not stop it entirely. It is possible that, when slave ships were in danger of being captured by the Royal Navy, some captains may have ordered the slaves to be thrown into the sea to reduce the fines they had to pay. Between 1808 and 1860, the West Africa Squadron captured 1,600 slave ships and freed 150,000 Africans. They resettled many in Jamaica and the Bahamas.

 
 

Protector of Slaves Office (Trinidad), Richard Bridgens, 1838.
 
 
In 1823, the Anti-Slavery Society was founded. Members included Joseph Sturge, Thomas Clarkson, William Wilberforce, Henry Brougham, Thomas Fowell Buxton, Elizabeth Heyrick, Mary Lloyd, Jane Smeal, Elizabeth Pease, and Anne Knight. William Wilberforce had prior written in his diary in 1787 that his great purpose in life was to suppress the slave trade before waging a 20 year fight on the industry.

During the Christmas holiday of 1831, a large-scale slave revolt in Jamaica, known as the Baptist War, broke out. It was organised originally as a peaceful strike by the Baptist minister Samuel Sharpe. The rebellion was suppressed by the militia of the Jamaican plantocracy and the British garrison ten days later in early 1832. Because of the loss of property and life in the 1831 rebellion, the British Parliament held two inquiries. The results of these inquiries contributed greatly to the abolition of slavery with the Slavery Abolition Act 1833.

A successor organisation to the Anti-Slavery Society was formed in London in 1839, the British and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society, which worked to outlaw slavery worldwide. The world's oldest international human rights organisation, it continues today as Anti-Slavery International.

 
 


Slavery Abolition Act 1833

 
The Act
The Act had its third reading in the House of Commons on 26 July 1833, three days before William Wilberforce died. It received the Royal Assent a month later, on 28 August, and came into force the following year, on 1 August 1834. In practical terms, only slaves below the age of six were freed in the colonies. Former slaves over the age of six were redesignated as "apprentices", and their servitude was abolished in two stages: the first set of apprenticeships came to an end on 1 August 1838, while the final apprenticeships were scheduled to cease on 1 August 1840.

The Act provided for compensation for slave-owners who would be losing their property. The amount of money to be spent on the compensation claims was set at "the Sum of Twenty Millions Pounds Sterling". Under the terms of the Act, the British government raised £20 million (£69.93 billion in 2013 pounds) to pay out in compensation for the loss of the slaves as business assets to the registered owners of the freed slaves. The names listed in the returns for slave compensation show that ownership was spread over many hundreds of British families, many of them of high social standing.

For example, Henry Phillpotts (then the Bishop of Exeter), with three others (as trustees and executors of the will of John Ward, 1st Earl of Dudley), was paid £12,700 for 665 slaves in the West Indies, whilst Henry Lascelles, 2nd Earl of Harewood received £26,309 for 2,554 slaves on 6 plantations.
The majority of men and women who were awarded compensation under the 1833 Abolition Act are listed in a Parliamentary Return, entitled Slavery Abolition Act, which is an account of all moneys awarded by the Commissioners of Slave Compensation in the Parliamentary Papers 1837–8 Vol. 48.

  In all, the government paid out over 2 separate awards. The £20 million fund was 40% of the government's total annual expenditure. In the Cape Colony, where farmers had loans estimated at a total £400,000 (£1.4 billion in 2013 pounds) secured against their slaves, the Dutch-language newspaper De Zuid-Afrikaan first campaigned against abolition and then for a compensation package to enable farmers to pay their debts.

As a notable exception to the rest of the British Empire, the Act did not "extend to any of the Territories in the Possession of the East India Company, or to the Island of Ceylon, or to the Island of Saint Helena." Slavery was abolished in India by the Indian Slavery Act of 1843.

On 1 August 1834, an unarmed group of mainly elderly people being addressed by the Governor at Government House in Port of Spain, Trinidad, about the new laws, began chanting: "Pas de six ans. Point de six ans" ("Not six years. No six years"), drowning out the voice of the Governor. Peaceful protests continued until a resolution to abolish apprenticeship was passed and de facto freedom was achieved. Full emancipation for all was legally granted ahead of schedule on 1 August 1838.

It is believed that after 1833 clandestine slave-trading continued within the British Empire; in 1854 Nathaniel Isaacs, owner of the island of Matakong off the coast of Sierra Leone was accused of slave-trading by the governor of Sierra Leone, Sir Arthur Kennedy. Papers relating to the charges were lost when the Forerunner was wrecked off Madeira in October 1854. In the absence of the papers, the English courts refused to proceed with the prosecution.

In Australia, blackbirding and the holding of indigenous workers' pay "in trust" continued, in some instances into the 1970s.

 
 

Illustration from the book: The Black Man's Lament, or, how to make sugar by Amelia Opie. (London, 1826)
 
 
Repeal
The Slavery Abolition Act 1833 was repealed in its entirety by the Statute Law (Repeals) Act 1998. The repeal has not made slavery legal again, with sections of the Slave Trade Act 1824, Slave Trade Act 1843 and Slave Trade Act 1873 continuing in force. In its place the Human Rights Act 1998 incorporates into British Law Article 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights which prohibits the holding of persons as slaves.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 
 
 
1833
 
 
General Trades Union in New York
 

The General Trades Union of the City of New York (GTU) was formed in 1827 by delegates from nine craft trades. It was responsible for a surge of labor militancy between 1833 and 1836.

 
The union evolved over time, first espousing the views of Ely Moore, who was a Tammany politician who made moderate criticisms against aristocrats who were greedy and corrupt. By 1835, the GTU had progressed to the beliefs of John Commerford, who made pointed attacks on “Capital”, which he defined as including not only aristocrats, but also Master Artisans. By this time, the union’s membership consisted of Craft journeymen, and sympathetic small Master Artisans were excluded because of their status.

Acceptance of female members was spotty, with many Male members hoping that their efforts against Female exploitation would result in their being returned to their previous domestic status.

The Union was affiliated with the Locofocos, who were against the Second Bank of the United States, but refrained from political activity so as to avoid the kind of demise suffered by the Working Man’s Party in 1829-30.

They staged over 40 strikes and by 1836 had a membership including 66% of New York City’s Journeyman labourers.

The union was disbanded in 1837 as a result of the financial panic of that year, and the subsequent Depression.

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

The GTU of the City and County of Philadelphia was formed in 1834.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
 
 

 
 
CONTENTS
  BACK-1833 Part III NEXT-1834 Part I