Ch 11 The Industrial Revolution


Hits: 2575






1818 - Karl Heinrich Marx was born into a comfortable middle-class home in Trier, Germany, in 1818. He initially followed in his father's footsteps and studied law in Bonn and Berlin, where he met his future wife, the aristocrat's daughter Jenny von Westphalen.   Marx then edited a liberal newspaper in Cologne which was shut down by the Prussian government. He emigrated to Paris where he outlined his first views on communism as a cooperative production in contrast to the alienation of ...


The Jacobin Club 

Politics in the Reign of Terror

Jan 17, 2009 Jason Chavis

The Jacobin Club was the most powerful political organization in France during the French Revolution. It was formed in Versailles during the Estates-General of 1789.


Formed in Versailles by deputies from Brittany during the Estates-General of 1789, the earliest meetings were secretive and few records remain regarding their content. Soon, other members from the rest of France joined, swelling their ranks. Mirabeau controlled their earliest incarnations, joined by Abbe Sieyes, Abbe Gregoire, Charles Lameth, Antoine Barnave, duc d'Aiguillon and Maximilien Robespierre.

Following the March on Versailles in October of 1789, the club relocated with the rest of the National Constituent Assembly to Paris where it rented a refectory of a monastery. The Rue St. Honore housed the Jacobins, the French name for the Dominicans. This name was given to the club by its enemies as a form of ridicule. In 1791, the club officially adopted the name.

Expanding its presence in Paris, the Jacobin Club became synonymous with radicalized oratory. The stance of the organization became one of republicanism, education, universal suffrage and the separation of church and state. The club officially established its platform at this time. The club would discuss the questions put forth by the National Assembly, work for the establishment of a constitution that followed the Rights of Man and correspond with other societies similar to itself. Along with the platform, rules of order were established, bringing to power a president, secretaries, a treasurer and various committees to work on issues of the club. Soon, the Jacobins had a network of branches located throughout France.

The Terror

After a period of moderation, the club became increasingly radicalized by left-wing rhetoric. After the kings dethronement and subsequent beheading, many of the more conservative elements in the society left to form the Feuillants Club. This left Maximilien Robespierre as the central figure in the Jacobin Club.

Initially, the party was a minority in the National Convention. The society was known as “the Mountain,” because its membership sat in the higher seats in the convention hall. They established a position against the war with Austria and an expansion of the Revolution at home.

During the spring of 1793, a Parisian mob instituted a coup on the Convention, bringing the Jacobin Club to power. Led by Robespierre, the Convention was purged of elements disloyal to the Revolution. The Committee of Public Safety instituted a program known as the Reign of Terror, in which those thought to be counter-revolutionaries were executed. Robespierre believed these purges would create a Republic of Virtue. However, during the final purge on 9 Thermidor, Robespierre himself was executed. The remaining Jacobins lost power in the Convention and were disolved in 1794.

The Jacobins attempted to reform in 1799. They lashed out against the Directory and supported Napoleon Bonaparte's coup d'etat, which brought the dictator to power. The new club was soon eradicated, leaving the Jacobins to their place in history.


Simon Schama, Citizens: A Chronicle of the French Revolution (Vintage Books, 1990



Ludwig van Beethoven (1770 - 1827)

Symphony no 3, 'Eroica'

Friday 29 September, 7.30pm

Dvorak Suite in A major, Op.98b
Jonathan Dove Hojoki (BBC commission: world premiere)

BBC Symphony Orchestra
Jiri Belohlavek conductor 
Lawrence Zazzo counter-tenor

Barbican Hall, Barbican Centre, Silk Street, London EC2Y 8DS 
Book tickets

Why is this Symphony so Great?

In 1801, Beethoven began to complain bitterly of deafness. The following year, depressed and close to suicide, he left Vienna for the village of Heiligenstadt. Here he penned a moving 'testament' intended for the eyes of his brothers. "Ah," he wrote, "it seemed to me impossible to leave the world until I had brought forth all that I felt was within me." Despite suffering the distress and pain of tinnitus, chronic stomach ailments and other severe illnesses, the composer drew on extraordinary inner strength to compose his 'Eroica' or 'Heroic' Symphony. The new score, written in the winter of 1803-4, proved longer than any symphony written before, its monumental structure bound together by Beethoven's bold use and development of simple melodic themes.

Beethoven initially intended his Third Symphony to carry the title 'Bonaparte'. When the composer heard that Napoleon had been crowned emperor of France , he furiously denounced his former hero. "He will now set himself on high, like all the others, and become a tyrant!" Upon publication, the symphony appeared with its familiar title of 'heroic symphony' and a further line explaining that the work was "composed to celebrate the memory of a great man".
"This composition, extremely difficult of performance, is in reality a lengthy, daring and wild fantasia," observed one astonished reviewer after the work's 1805 premiere. Here is Beethoven's profound concept of the heroic, of humankind's noble goodness. The first movement grabs the ear with three mighty chords and a main theme of irresistible grandeur. A slow funeral march commemorates the hero's death. The work closes with a compelling set of variations that celebrates the hero's Promethean spirit, the human desire to overcome adversity and be free from oppression. With his 'Eroica', Beethoven challenged musical conventions and paved the way for future generations to explore big ideas in instrumental music.

(c) Andrew Stewart 2006

The Continental System

After his victory at Jena, Napoleon felt that the time had come to put into execution his project of excluding England from the continent. England had given him an excuse for the Berlin Decree given below by declaring the coast from the river Elbe to Brest in a state of blockade (May, 1806).

*          *          *

November 21, 1806.

Napoleon, emperor of the French and king of Italy, in consideration of the facts:

1. That England does not recognize the system of international law universally observed by all civilized nations.
2. That she regards as an enemy every individual belonging to the enemy's state, and consequently makes prisoners of war not only of the crews of armed ships of war but of the crews of ships of commerce and merchantmen, and even of commercial agents and of merchants traveling on business.
3. That she extends to the vessels and commercial wares, and to the property of individuals, the right of conquest which is applicable only to the possessions of the belligerent power.
4. That she extends to unfortified towns and commercial ports, to harbors and the mouths of rivers, the right of blockade, which, in accordance with reason and the customs of all civilized nations, is applicable only to strong places. . . . That she has declared districts in a state of blockade which all her united forces would be unable to blockade, such as entire coasts and the whole of an empire.
5. That this monstrous abuse of the right of blockade has no other aim than to prevent communication among the nations and to raise the commerce and the industry of England upon the ruins of that of the continent.
8. That it is a natural right to employ such arms against an enemy as he himself makes use of, and to combat in the same way as he combats. Since England has disregarded all ideas of justice and every high sentiment implied by civilization among mankind, we have resolved to apply to her the usages which she has ratified in her maritime legislation.

The provisions of the present decree shall continue to be looked upon as embodying the fundamental principles of the empire until England shall recognize that the law of war is one and the same on land and on sea, and that the rights of war cannot be extended so as to include private property of any kind or the persons of individuals unconnected with the profession of arms, and that the right of blockade shall be restricted to fortified places actually invested by sufficient forces.

We have consequently decreed and do decree that which follows.

ARTICLE I. The British Isles are declared to be in a state of blockade.
II. All commerce and all correspondence with the British Isles is forbidden. Consequently, letters or packages directed to England, or to an Englishman, or written in the English language, shall not pass through the mails and shall be seized.
III. Every individual who is an English subject, of whatever state or condition he may be, who shall be discovered in any country occupied by our troops or by those of our allies, shall be made a prisoner of war. 
IV. All warehouses, merchandise, or property of whatever kind belonging to a subject of England shall be regarded as a lawful prize.
V. Trade in English goods is prohibited, and all goods belonging to England or coming from her factories or her colonies are declared a lawful prize.
VII. No vessel coming directly from England or from the English colonies, or which shall have visited these since the publication of the present decree, shall be received in any port.
VIII. Any vessel contravening the above provision by a false declaration shall be seized, and the vessel and cargo shall be confiscated as if it were English property.
X. The present decree shall be communicated by our minister of foreign affairs to the kings of Spain, of Naples, of Holland, and of Etruria, and to our other allies whose subjects, like ours, are the victims of the unjust and barbarous maritime legislation of England.



*          *          *

On November 11, 1807, after news of the Treaty of Tilsit had reached the English government, it replied by an order in council establishing an undisguised "paper" blockade. This, in spite of some alleged merciful exceptions, was almost a prohibition of neutral trading such as that carried on by the United States, and President Jefferson ordered the first embargo, December 22, 1807, as a retaliatory measure. Napoleon replied to England's measures by issuing his brief and cogent Milan Decree.

*          *          *

AT OUR ROYAL PALACE AT MILAN, December 17, 1807.

Napoleon, emperor of the French, king of Italy, protector of the Confederation of the Rhine. In view of the measures adopted by the British government on the 11th of November last, by which vessels belonging to powers which are neutral, or are friendly to, and even allied with, England, are rendered liable to be searched by British cruisers, detained at certain stations in England, and subject to an arbitrary tax of a certain per cent upon their cargo, to be regulated by English legislation:

Considering that by these acts the English government has denationalized the vessels of all the nations of Europe, and that no government may compromise in any degree its independence or its rights by submitting to such demands, -- all the rulers of Europe being jointly responsible for the sovereignty and independence of their flags, -- and that, if through unpardonable weakness, which would be regarded. by posterity as an indelible stain, such tyranny should be admitted and become consecrated by custom, the English would take steps to give it the force of law, as they have already taken advantage of the toleration of the governments to establish the infamous principle that the flag does not cover the goods, and to give the right of blockade an arbitrary extension which threatens the sovereignty of every state: 

We have decreed and do decree as follows:

ARTICLE I. Every vessel, of whatever nationality, which shall submit to be searched by an English vessel, or shall consent to a voyage to England, or shall pay any tax whatever to the English government, is ipso facto- declared denationalized, loses the protection afforded by its flag, and becomes English property.
II. Should these vessels which are thus denationalized through the arbitrary measures of the English government enter our ports or those of our allies, or fall into the hands of our ships of war or of our privateers, they shall be regarded as good and lawful prizes.
III. The British Isles are proclaimed to be in a state of blockade both by land and by sea. Every vessel, of whatever nation or whatever may be its cargo, that sails from the ports of England, or from those of the English colonies, or of countries occupied by English troops, or destined for England, or for any of the English colonies, or any country occupied by English troops, becomes, by violating the present decree, a lawful prize, and may be captured by our ships of war and adjudged to the captor. . . .

*          *          *

Pasquier, in his Memoirs, makes the following admirable criticism of Napoleon's continental system.

*          *          *

[Napoleon's unwise severity after the battle of Jena] was nothing compared to a measure adopted in the hour of intoxication of victory, and which, by erecting an insurmountable barrier, so to speak, between France and England, condemned each of these two powers to entertain no hopes of peace and rest until its rival was completely destroyed. . . .

Napoleon flattered himself with the idea of having found the means to deal a blow at his most deadly opponent in the matter nearest his heart. Seeing himself master of the greater part of the European coast, or at least enjoying a domination over the mouths of the principal rivers of Germany, he persuaded himself that it de pended on him to close all Europe's markets to England and thus compel her to accept peace from him at his own terms. The conception was no doubt a grand one, and the measure was no more iniquitous than that of England, but the difference lay in the fact that the latter, in her pretensions to a blockade, was not undertaking anything beyond her strength, and did not stand in need of any other nation's cooperation to carry it out. 

France, on the contrary, was entering upon an undertaking which could not be put into execution without the voluntary or enforced cooperation of all the European powers. It was therefore sufficient in order to render it fruitless – and the future went to prove this -- that a single one of these powers, unable to submit to the privations imposed upon it, should either announce its firm determination not to lend a hand in the matter, or should be content with finding ways of eluding it. . . . 

Not only was England in a position to supply the continent with the numerous products of her industry, but she also controlled almost the entirety of all colonial wares and provisions. Hence it would become necessary, in the first place, to have recourse to all possible means calculated to make continental industry supply that which English industry would no longer furnish. In the second place, with regard to colonial products, some of which, such as sugar and coffee, were almost indispensable necessaries of life, and others of which were the actual raw material on which depended the manufactures which it was proposed to create, it was necessary to devise a means for allowing them the right of entry, but in a proportion calculated on the strictest necessity, and, if possible, by means of an exchange favorable to the natural products of the continent.

So it happened that through the most persevering and at times the most ingenious efforts, by the aid of a succession of decrees, and with the help of that strange invention of licenses which were nothing but organized smuggling, continental industry, or rather French industry, backed up with a million bayonets and with an auxiliary force of coast guards, succeeded in meeting a tremendous competition and in deriving large profits.

[Source: James Harvey Robinson, Readings in European History, 2 vols (Boston: Ginn & Company, 1906), 2:503-508.]

British History:

'Holy Alliance'


Home > Library > History, Politics & Society > British History

‘Holy Alliance’ was the derisive name given to the declaration at Paris in September 1815 by Alexander I of Russia, Frederick William III of Prussia, and Francis I of Austria that they would govern and collaborate in accordance with Christian principles. The driving spirit was the tsar in the midst of a devout phase. Britain, pleading her constitutional position, did not sign, though the prince regent expressed personal approval. Castlereagh, then foreign secretary, dismissed it privately as ‘a piece of sublime mysticism and nonsense’. No mechanism was included in the declaration and disagreements between the signatories soon appeared.


Heligoland ?

North of Hamburg,South of Denmark



Hits: 2489




WILLIAM Cobbett was a man of many parts - soldier, orator, mathematician and language student before he turned his mind to radical politics.

Born in Farnham, Surrey, in 1763, the son of an innkeeper and small-time farmer, he worked as a farm labourer before jumping aboard a passing stagecoach one day and heading for London. There, he worked as an office clerk before enlisting at the age of 19 into the 54th Regiment of Foot.

By the following year he was a sergeant major serving in New Brunswick. He had already taught himself to read and write, and now began a systematic campaign to improve himself - logic, rhetoric, geometry and military fortifications were the subjects he studied and mastered.

He showed such promise that he was put in charge of the regimental accounts, but it wasn't long before he uncovered widespread corruption.

After buying his discharge in 1791 and returning to England, he brought corruption charges against several officers, but the military closed ranks and when allegations were made against him, he was forced to flee to revolutionary France.

He spent a year studying the French language before sailing for Philadelphia in 1792. There, he wrote scathingly against American democracy, publishing a newspaper called Porcupine's Gazette, and using its columns to blast the pro-French Revolution ideals of Rights of Man author Tom Paine and English chemist and religious writer Joseph Priestley, who had moved from Birmingham to Pennsylvania in 1794.

But he pushed things too far and was ruined financially when heavy libel damages were awarded against him.

Cobbett returned to England in 1800 and two years later launched his Political Register, which had at first a distinct Tory slant. By 1804, however, he had changed its politics to out-and-out radicalism and it continued in that vein until his death in 1835.

When newspaper tax threatened to kill off the publication, he turned it into a pamphlet, avoiding the tax, selling it for two

 pence a copy and reaching a readership of 40,000, making it the leading voice of the working classes.

His army experiences still rankled, and he went to prison for two years in 1810 for seditious libel, after castigating the military policy of flogging. Six hundred friends and acquaintances marked his release with a celebration dinner.

Money problems and fear of another gaol term sent him back across the Atlantic in 1817. He farmed in Long Island for a while before chancing a return to Britain in 1819 and standing unsuccessfully for parliament in 1821 and 1826. In 1832, after the first Reform Bill, he was elected MP for Oldham.

Cobbett was seen more as a champion of the farm labourer rather than the industrial working man, and his interests were demonstrated not just in his attempts to introduce maize as a crop into Britain, and his antagonism towards the Government's promotion of widespread potato growing, but also in his support of farm labourers in thje 'Captain Swing' Riots of 1830.

For this, he was tried for sedition, but acquitted.

Cobbett had founded the journal Parliamentary Debate in 1802, and he eventually sold it out to Luke Hansard, whose name it carries to this day.

Cobbett's book Rural Rides, an account of his travels around Britain on horseback, published in 1830, is an invaluable record of town and country life in the early 19th century.

When he died on his farm at Farnham, Surrey, of influenza in 1835, a reported 8,000 people attended his funeral


Hits: 3533




London Corresponding Society

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

London Corresponding Society was a moderate-radical body concentrating on reform of the Parliament of Great Britain, founded on 25 January 1792. The creators of the group were John Frost (1750-1842), an attorney,[1] and Thomas Hardy, a shoemaker and metropolitan Radical. The aim of the society was parliamentary reform, especially the expansion of the representation of working class people.

In common with the other corresponding societies its membership was predominantly drawn from artisans and working men: early members included Joseph Gerrald, Francis Place, Edward Marcus Despard, Maurice Margarot and Olaudah Equiano. Shortly after its formation it had affiliates in Manchester, Norwich, Sheffield and Stockport.

Society of the Friends of the People

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Society of the Friends of the People (full title The Society of the Friends of the People, Associated for the Purpose of Obtaining a Parliamentary Reform) was formed in Great Britain by Whigs at the end of the 18th century as part of a movement seeking radical political reform that would widen electoral enfranchisement at a time when only a wealthy minority had the vote. The Society in England was aristocratic and exclusive, in contrast to the Friends of the People in Scotland who increasingly drew on a wider membership, before government clampdowns at the onset of the Napoleonic Wars ended the Societies.

Universal suffrage

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Universal suffrage (also universal adult suffrage, general suffrage or common suffrage) consists of the extension of the right to vote to adult citizens (or subjects) as a whole, though it may also mean extending said right to minors and non-citizens. Although suffrage has two necessary components, the right to vote and opportunities to vote, the term universal suffrage is associated only with the right to vote and ignores the other aspect, the frequency that an incumbent government consults the electorate. Historically, universal suffrage often in fact refers to universal adult male suffrage.

The concept of universal suffrage originally referred to all male citizens having the right to vote, regardless of property requirements or other measures of wealth. The first system to explicitly claim to use universal suffrage was France which is generally recognized as the first national system to abolish all property requirements for voting. In theory France first used universal (male) suffrage in 1792 during the revolutionary period, although the turmoil of the period made this ineffective. France and Switzerland have used universal male suffrage continuously since 1848 (for resident male citizens), longer than any other countries.

Habeas corpus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is about the legal term. For other uses, see Habeas corpus (disambiguation).

Habeas corpus (Pronounced - Hay-b-as Kohr-pus) (Latin: You (shall) have the body[1]) is a legal action, or writ, through which a person can seek relief from their unlawful detention or that of another person. It protects individuals from harming themselves or from being harmed by the judicial system. Of English origin, the writ of habeas corpus has historically been an important instrument for the safeguarding of individual freedom against arbitrary state action.

A writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum, also known as "The Great Writ", is a summons with the force of a court order addressed to the custodian (such as a prison official) demanding that a prisoner be brought before the court, together with proof of authority, allowing the court to determine whether that custodian has lawful authority to hold that person; if not, the person shall be released from custody. The prisoner, or another person on his behalf (for example, where the prisoner is being held incommunicado), may petition the court or an individual judge for a writ of habeas corpus.

The right to petition for a writ of habeas corpus has long been celebrated as the most efficient safeguard of the liberty of the subject. The British jurist Albert Venn Dicey wrote that the Habeas Corpus Acts "declare no principle and define no rights, but they are for practical purposes worth a hundred constitutional articles guaranteeing individual liberty." In most countries, however, the procedure of habeas corpus can be suspended in time of national emergency. In most civil law jurisdictions, comparable provisions exist, but they may not be called "habeas corpus."[2]

The writ of habeas corpus is one of what are called the "extraordinary", "common law", or "prerogative writs", which were historically issued by the courts in the name of the monarch to control inferior courts and public authorities within the kingdom. The most common of the other such prerogative writs are quo warranto, prohibito, mandamus, procedendo, and certiorari. When the original 13 American Colonies declared independence and became a constitutional republic in which the people are the sovereign, any person, in the name of the people, acquired authority to initiate such writs.

The due process for such petitions is not simply civil or criminal, because they incorporate the presumption of nonauthority. The official who is the respondent has the burden to prove his authority to do or not do something. Failing this, the court must decide for the petitioner, who may be any person, not just an interested party. This differs from a motion in a civil process in which the movant must have standing, and bears the burden of proof.

Napoleonic code

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

First page of the 1804 original edition.

The Napoleonic Code — or Code Napoléon (originally, the Code civil des Français) — is the French civil code, established under Napoléon I in 1804. The code forbade privileges based on birth, allowed freedom of religion, and specified that government jobs go to the most qualified. It was drafted rapidly by a commission of four eminent jurists and entered into force on March 21, 1804. Even though the Napoleonic code was not the first legal code to be established in a European country with a civil legal system — it was preceded by the Codex Maximilianeus bavaricus civilis (Bavaria, 1756), the Allgemeines Landrecht (Prussia, 1794) and the West Galician Code, (Galicia, then part of Austria, 1797) — it is considered the first successful codification[citation needed] and strongly influenced the law of many other countries. The Code, with its stress on clearly written and accessible law, was a major step in establishing the rule of law. Historians have called it "one of the few documents which have influenced the whole world."[1

We use cookies to improve our website and your experience when using it. Cookies used for the essential operation of the site have already been set. To find out more about the cookies we use and how to delete them, see our Privacy Policy.

I accept cookies from this site