TOPIC-I – Spanish Revolution of 1820

  • The Spanish revolution of 1820 was organized by the liberals of Spain. It was a conflict between royalists and liberals with France intervening on the side of the royalists. The revolutions of 1820 succeeded in forcing the monarchs of Spain and the southern Italian kingdom of the two Sicily’s to grant liberal constitutions.
  • The Spanish King Ferdinand VII (1784-1833) refused to accept the liberal constitution of 1812 and this provoked widespread unrest, particularly in the army. The king sought to re-conquer the Spanish colonies in the America that had recently successfully revolted and consequently deprived Spain of a major source of revenue. In January 1820 at Cadiz, Spain the troops who had assembled for an expedition to America were angry over infrequent pay, bad food, and poor quarters. The troops mutinied under the leadership of Colonel Rafael del Riegoy Nuriez (1785-1823). Pledging loyalty to the 1812 constitution, they seized their commander, moved into nearby San Fernando, and then prepared to march on Madrid, the capital.
  • Despite the rebels’ relative weakness, Ferdinand accepted the constitution on March 9, 1820, ushering in the so-called Liberal Triennium (“Trienio Liberal”), a period of popular rule. But in this liberal atmosphere, political conspiracies of both right and left proliferated. Liberal revolutionaries stormed the king’s palace and virtually made Ferdinand a prisoner for the next three years. A mutiny occurred in the Madrid garrison, and civil war erupted in the regions of Castile, Toledo, and Andalusia.
  • The Holy Alliance (Russia, Austria and Prussia) refused Ferdinand’s request for help but the Quadruple Alliance (Britain, France, the Netherlands and Austria) at the Congress of Verona in October 1822 gave France a mandate to intervene and restore the Spanish monarchy. French troops (the 100,000 Sons of Saint Louis) under the King’s nephew Louis-Antoine invaded Spain, captured Madrid, and drove the revolutionaries south to Cadiz and Seville.
  • On August 31, 1823, rebel forces were routed in the Battle of Trocadero near Cadiz. Soon after, the French freed Ferdinand, who had been taken from Madrid as a captive and placed him on the throne. Unexpectedly, he took ruthless revenge on his opponents, revoked the 1812 constitution and restored absolute monarchy to Spain.


TOPIC-II The July Revolution of 1830

  • The French Revolution of 1830, also known as the July Revolution, saw the overthrow of King Charles X, the French Bourbon monarch and the ascension of his cousin Louis-Philippe. It marked the shift from one constitutional monarchy, the Bourbon Restoration, to another i.e. the July Monarchy and the transition of power from the House of Bourbon to its cadet branch, the House of Orleans and the substitution of the principle of popular sovereignty for hereditary right. Supporters of the Bourbon were called Legitimists, and supporters of Louis-Philippe were called the Orleanists.


Background of the Revolution of 1830

  • On September 16, 1824, Charles X ascended to the throne of France. He was the younger brother of Louis XVIII who upon the defeat of Napoleon Bonaparte and by agreement of the Allied powers, had been installed as King of France. The fact that both Louis and Charles ruled by hereditary right rather than popular consent was the first of two triggers for Les Trois Glorieuses, the “Three Glorious Days” of the July Revolution.
  • Upon the abdication of Napoleon in 1814, continental Europe, and France in particular, was in a state of disarray. The Congress of Vienna met to redraw the continent’s political map. Although there were many European countries attending the congress, there were four major powers that controlled the decision making; Great Britain, represented by foreign secretary Viscount Castlereagh; Austria, represented by chief minister (and chairman of the congress) Metternich; Russia, represented by Emperor Alexander I; and Prussia, represented by King Frederick William III. Another very influential person at the Congress was Charles Maurice de Talleyrand, a French diplomat under Napoleon. Although France was considered an enemy state, Talleyrand was allowed to attend the Congress because he claimed that he had only cooperated with Napoleon under duress.
  • Talleyrand proposed that Europe be restored to its ‘legitimate’ (i.e. pre-Napoleon) borders and governments; a plan that, with some changes, was accepted by members of the Congress. France returned to its 1789 borders and the Houses of Bourbon, deposed by the Revolution, was restored to the throne. In the eyes of the Congress, the political situation in France and Europe was now back to normal. However, the new king, Louis XVIII, knew that ideas of nationalism and democracy still lingered in his country.


Charles X’s reign

  • On 16 September 1824, after a lingering illness of several months, the sixty-nine year old Louis XVIII died childless. His younger brother, Charles, age sixty-six, therefore inherited the throne of France. On 27 September Charles X, as he was now known, made his state entry into Paris to popular acclaim. But by 1830 the mood of the capital had taken a sharp, downward turn in its opinion of the new king. The main causes of this dramatic shift in public opinion were-
  1. The imposition of the death penalty for anyone profaning the host of the Catholic Church (Anti-Sacrilege Act).
  2. The provisions for financial indemnities for properties confiscated by the 1789 Revolution and the First Republic of Napoleon. These indemnities to be paid to any one, whether noble or non-noble, who had been declared as the “enemy of the Revolution”.
  • Critics of the first accused the King and his new ministry of pandering to the Catholic Church and by doing so violating guarantees of equality of religious belief as specified in the constitution. The second matter that of financial indemnities, was far more opportunistic than the first. This was because since the restoration of the monarchy, there had been demands from all groups to settle matters of property ownership; to reduce, if not eliminate, the uncertainties in the real estate market both in Paris and in France. But, despite what should have been a popular reaction to the proposal, liberal opponents, many of whom were frustrated Bonapartists, began a whispering campaign that Charles X was only proposing this in order to shame those who had not emigrated. Both measures, they claimed, were nothing more than clever subterfuge meant to bring about the destruction of the constitution.
  • Up to this time, thanks to the popularity of the Chamber of Peers with the people of Paris, the King’s relationship with the elite – both of the right and left – had remained solid. This, too, was about to change. On 12 April, propelled by both genuine conviction and the spirit of independence, the Chamber of Deputies soundly rejected the government’s proposal to change the inheritance laws. The popular leftist newspaper Le Constitutional pronounced this refusal “a victory over the forces of counter-revolutionaries and reactions.
  • While the popularity of both the Chamber of Peers and the Chamber of Deputies skyrocketed, the popularity of the King and his ministry dropped. Because of what it perceived to be growing, relentless, and increasingly vitriolic criticism of both the government and the Church, the government of Charles X introduced into the Chamber of Deputies a proposal for a law tightening censorship, especially in regard to the newspapers. The Chamber, for its part, objected so violently that the humiliated government had no choice but to withdraw its proposals. Then, on the grounds that it had behaved in an offensive manner towards the crown, on 30th April, the King abruptly dissolved the National Guard of Paris. This aroused the indignation of common public. In July 1830, it came. On Sunday, 25 July Charles X signed the July Ordinances, also known as “Ordinances of Saint-Cloud”. On Monday, 26 July they were published in the leading conservative newspaper in Paris, the Moniteur and on Tuesday, 27th July the revolution commenced.

Significance of the July Revolution

  • The revolution of 1830 was by no means a wide – spread popular rising. It was more in the nature of a coup in France. It was conceived by the bourgeoisie who had their own grievances against the France King Charles X, and they succeeded in bringing about a political, not a social revolution. The Government set up under the “July Monarchy” in France was to a great extent a class interest government by and for business and industry. Its bourgeoisie character was written large on it. To all out-ward appearance the government was “parliamentary” and “responsible” as in England—the King’s role being to reign but not to govern.
  • At first sight, it appears that all what the revolution achieved was to substitute the younger for the older branch of the house of Bourbons in France. Despite the fact that the old constitution remained in force, it must be emphasized that it was liberalized somewhat by a slight revision, more particularly by a measure which sufficiently lowered the property qualifications for the franchise to bring about a doubling of the number of voters. It is even more significant that the accession of Louis Philippe involved a fundamental theoretical change. Charles X, the embodiment of legitimacy, had been identified with the émigrés and the Church and had Church and had ruled France “by the grace of God.” To indicate that his successor ruled “by the grace of people” his title was changed from “King of France” to King of the French.” In the eyes of the reactionaries Louis Philippe was, therefore, an illegitimate and despicable interloper.
  • Reviewing the effect of the Revolution of 1830 throughout Europe, it may be asserted that though outside of France and Belgium they did not amount to much, a new era was now definitely unfolding itself. Liberalism had called general attention to itself and as a political force it had come to stay. Nationalism, too, closely allied with Liberalism, had asserted itself successfully in Belgium and had become a factor to be reckoned with in politics. The edifice erected at Vienna in 1815 had been pulled down by the movements of 1830 in Europe, and though Metternich and his accomplices might still hope to build it anew, and in fact went on trying to do so till at least 1848, their efforts were bound to meet with failure, for the simple reason that a new age in which Liberalism and nationalism dominated had struggled itself into being.


Effects of the July Revolution on the Settlement of 1815

  • In France, Belgium, Spain, Portugal, Norway, Switzerland and England the revolution altered the territorial and political systems erected in 1815, Liberalism and nationality became triumphant. In Italy, Germany and Poland the July Revolution at least temporarily upset the political and territorial systems enforced in 1815. But the conservative powers i.e. Austria, Russia and Prussia ultimately suppressed the liberal and nationalist forces in these countries by their superior strength and restored the status quo. Yet, the revolution in these countries revealed the fact that the position of the conservative powers was shaking and the Vienna arrangement had not been deep rooted in these countries.
  • Europe was politically and ideologically divided into two camps by the impact of the July revolution. The old concert of Europe was broken. Two new Concerts were born out of the revolution. England, France, Spain, Belgium formed the concert of constitutional states of the west. Russia, Austria and Prussia formed the Concert of conservative states of the East. The line of ideological and political division among them was the river Rhine. To the east of the river were the conservative power and to thee west of it were the constitutional states. Thus a new balance of power emerged by the July Revolution in place of the old balance of power of 1815. Europe was also ideologically divided.


Effect of the July Revolution on other Countries

  • The emancipation of Belgium was one of the important outcomes of the July Revolution of 1830. The Congress of Vienna united the Belgium with Holland to form the kingdom of Netherlands. But unfortunately in taking this step they in their anxiety to achieve the immediate ends, completely lost sight of glaring snags in the arrangement and thus paved the way for the annulment of the union in due course. They also ignored the sensitive nationalism of a country which for more than three hundred years had been living in subjection to one or another foreign power.
  • The resentment of practicably all sections of people in Belgium against their domination by the Dutch steadily grew in strength. It rested as much on nationalist desire for independence as much on the liberal opposition to the rule of King Williams I of Holland, who had too much power under language. They felt aggrieved that they had only equal representation in the joint Parliament with the Dutch when they outnumbered the Dutch by two to one. The Belgians could not possibly stand that the country should be run mainly in the interests of the Dutch minority and mainly by the Dutch officers. The conservative Catholics in Belgium objected strongly to the proclamation of freedom of worship and charged the government with bias towards Protestantism.
  • As per the demand of the nationalists of the Belgium, the King agreed to summon the joint Parliament which on September 29, 1830 voted for separation. The Belgium thereupon set up a provincial government. Steps were then taken to elect a new National Congress which met on November 10 and after a few days unanimously confirmed Belgium independence. By February 1831, the national Congress promulgated a new constitution which was the most liberal in Europe at that time.
  • While the Holy Alliance power (Austria, Prussia, and Russia) wanted to check the Belgium revolution and preserve the position of 1815, France and Britain wanted to prevent intervention and took the initiative to summon a conference of the five powers in London to preserve the peace of Europe. It met on November 4, 1830, just as the election to the Belgian National Congress was taking place. The Conference in December, 1830, recognized the principle of Belgium independence and a month later issued a protocol proclaiming that “Belgium forms a perpetually neutral state.”
  • Prince Leopold of Saxe-Gotha (better known as Leopard I) (1970-1865), uncle to Queen Victoria of England, ascended the throne of independent Belgium in July 1831, taking the oath to maintain the constitution as drawn by the being an independent country. In 1839, an international treaty guaranteeing the permanent independence and neutrality of Belgium was signed by all the important powers of Europe. Thus Belgium won international recognition of her independence and her neutrality till at least the outbreak of the First World War in 1914.
  • The impact of the revolution was felt in Switzerland also leading to liberalization of the Swiss constitution. In Spain and Portugal a civil war started ending in the Anglo-French intervention on behalf of the Liberals. The Liberal constitution of Spain and Portugal was saved. Norway got the recognition of her autonomy from the Swedish king.
  • The rulers of Brunswick, Hanover, Herse, Bavaria, Baden, Saxony etc. were forced to grant liberal constitution. But Metternich reemployed the Carlsbad Decree and stamped out the seeds of liberalism in Germany. In Italy revolution broke out in Parma, Modena and the papal States. But Austrian intervention led to its failure. Poland revolted against Russian rule. But the Russian army suppressed the polish rising and the new Polish constitution was revoked.


TOPIC-III  – The February Revolution of 1848


  • The European Revolutions of 1848, known in some countries as the Spring of Nations or the Year of Revolution, were a series of political upheavals throughout the continent. Described by some historians as a revolutionary wave, the period of unrest began on 12 January 1848 in Sicily and then, further propelled by the French Revolution of 1848, soon spread to the rest of Europe.
  • Although most of the revolutions were quickly put down, there was a significant amount of violence in many areas, with tens of thousands of people tortured and killed. While the immediate political effects of the revolutions were reversed, the long-term reverberations of the events were far-reaching.
  • Great Britain, the Kingdom of Poland, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, Principality of Serbia and the Russian and Ottoman Empires were the only major European states to go without a national revolution over this period. In Great Britain, the middle classes had been pacified by general enfranchisement in the Reform Act 1832, with consequent agitations, violence, and petitions of the Chartist movement that came to a head with the petition to Parliament of 1848. The repeal of the protectionist agricultural tariffs – called the “Corn Laws” – in 1846, had defused some proletarian fervour. Elsewhere in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, the population of Ireland was being decimated by the Great Famine. The Young Irelander Rebellion of 1848, a short-lived attempt to protest peacefully against British misrule, was suppressed.
  • Switzerland was also spared, having been through a civil war the previous year. But the introduction of the Swiss Federal Constitution in 1848 was a revolution of sorts, laying the foundation of Swiss society as it is today.


Origin of the February Revolution

  • These revolutions arose from such a wide variety of causes that it is difficult to view them as resulting from a coherent movement or social phenomenon. Numerous changes had been taking place in European society throughout the first half of the 19th Both liberal reformers and radical politicians were reshaping national governments. Technological change was revolutionizing ideas such as popular liberalism, nationalism and socialism began to spring up. A series of economic downturns and crop failures, particularly those in the year 1846, produced starvation among peasants and the working urban poor.
  • Large swathes of the nobility were discontented with royal absolutism or near-absolutism. In 1846 there had been an uprising of Polish nobility in Austrian Galicia, which was only countered when peasants, in turn, rose up against the nobles. Additionally, an uprising by democratic forces against Russia occurred in Greater Poland.
  • Next the middle classes began to agitate. Despite the aspirations Karl Marx and his followers may have had as laid out in The Communist Manifesto (published in German on February 1, 1848), the workers had little solidarity and practically no organization.
  • Both the lower middle classes and the working classes wanted liberal reform. The revolutions of 1848 were an expression of this sentiment. While much of the impetus came from the middle classes, much of the cannon fodder came from the lower classes. The revolts first erupted in the cities.


Urban poor

  • The population in French rural areas had rapidly risen, causing many peasants to seek a living in the cities. Many in the bourgeoisie feared and distanced themselves from the working poor, who had shown their muscle in 1789. The uneducated, teeming masses seemed a fertile breeding ground of vice. Urban industrial workers toiled from 13 to 15 hours per day, living in squalid, disease-ridden slums. Traditional artisans felt the pressure of industrialization, having lost their guilds. Social critics such as Marx became popular and secret societies sprang up. At the time of the Revolution, there was widespread unemployment as a result of an economic crisis that began in 1846 and workers agitated for the right to vote and for state subsidies to the major trades.
  • The situation in the German states was similar. Prussia had quickly industrialized. Worker living standards had dropped; alcohol consumption had gone up in the 1840s. During the decade of the 1840s, mechanized production in the textile industry brought about inexpensive clothing that undercut the handmade products of German tailors. Reforms had ameliorated the most unpopular traditions of feudalism but industrial workers saw little immediate gain from the emerging socio-economic system of capitalism and the accompanying social changes.


Rural areas

  • Rural population growth had led to food shortages, land pressure, and migration, both within Europe and out from Europe (for example, to the United States). Population concentration led to disease, especially cholera, which contemporary scientists had not yet connected with contaminated water supplies. In the years 1845 and 1846 a potato blight, originating in Belgium, caused a subsistence crisis in Northern Europe. The effects of the blight were most severely manifested in the Great Irish Famine but also caused famine-like conditions in the Scottish Highlands and throughout Continental Europe.
  • Aristocratic wealth (and corresponding power) was synonymous with the ownership of land. Owning land at this time was practically synonymous with having peasants under one’s control, often duty-bound to labour for their masters. In a problem mirroring that of slaveholders in the United States, a principal aristocratic problem was controlling one’s labourers. Peasant grievances exploded during the revolutionary year of 1848.


Early rumblings

  • Until 1789, with the advent of the French Revolution, there had been no significant challenges to the rule of kings in continental Europe. In 1815, after Napoleon, a close semblance of the Ancient Regime was restored at the Congress of Vienna. This was no sooner established when the monarchies, the church, and the aristocracy were again threatened.
  • There had been revolutions in France (1789 and after), Ireland (1798), and the born-of-revolution United States, which seceded in 1776 from Great Britain, as well as Mexico, having split from Spain. A revolution against the Netherlands produced the seceding country of Belgium in 1830, a year that also saw another revolution in France. Unrest was in the air. Disruptive ideas such as democracy, liberalism, nationalism and socialism gained popularity, despite forceful and often violent efforts of established powers to keep them down.


The February Revolution of 1848 in France

  • In Britain and France the period 1830-1848 was the period of the ascendancy of the Bourgeoisie when commerce and industry dominated the scene. But in central and eastern Europe where the industrial Revolution had not yet made its full impact, the reactionary ideas of Metternich in regard to feudal privileges and political absolution still kept the field. Plenty of explosive material was, however, being piled there during the period 1830-1848 in common with rest of Europe. Europe was thus being confronted with very grave social and political problem, the outstanding features of which were the sharpening of the division lines between the rich and the poor due partly to the rise of industrial capitalism and partly to the increasing awareness of the working class. “The long, long patience of the plundered poor” was being exhausted.
  • The February Revolution was a composite movement showing clearly various hostile elements which had been gathering against the French King Louis Philippe. Louis Philippe’s position on the throne became shaky in view of opposition of his rule from practically every shade of public opinion in the country. The Ligitimists stood against the king as they regarded him as a usurper. They still insisted that Charles X, and later the Court of Chambord, heir to traditional monarchy, was the rightful king. The Bonapartists and the chauvinists stirred by the Napoleonic Legend were tilting towards the great Emperor’s nephew, Louis Napoleon. The Republicans and Liberals, though they had lent their hands to the king in security the Crown, were now increasing hostility to what gradually became a thinly disguised attempt at personal rule, for although there had been little change of heart.
  • Only the moderate Orleanists were the real friends of the king. But they were disgusted with corruption which had pervaded the entire administration. They wanted to put an end to the system of management and corruption but the king would not listen to them and they were, therefore, also annoyed with him. Staunch nationalists did not take kindly to the King’s foreign policy which according to them was too “unobtrusive.” They resented the king’s playing the second fiddle to England in international affairs.
  • But what proved to be a potent cause for the fall of the” July Monarchy” was the Industrial Revolution and the concomitant rise of socialism in France. The growth of the Industrial Revolution in France, as in other countries, had led to the creation of “a class-conscious proletariat” who clamored for reforms in various directions. It would be no exaggeration to say that the Revolution of 1848 burst in France as a “social revolution” stimulated by the dire need of the new proletariat. Louis Philippe, Guizot, and the bourgeois Chamber of Deputies shut their eyes to the real drift of affairs. They persisted in their policy of ruthless suppression and no reform thus paving the way for a revolution. Paris as usual took the lead and rose against Louis Philippe.

Impact of the February Revolution

  • It is true that the Revolutionary wave swept all over Europe in 1848 but most of its effects disappeared soon. Liberalism, nationalism and democracy which had caused the wave were smothered. It seemed in 1850 when reaction had been firmly entrenched all over Europe, at least to all outward appearance. as if the efforts of the liberals and patriots were only an exercise in futility. The next two decades, however, were to show beyond a shadow of a doubt how unreal this view of things was. Instead of closing an era of liberal-national agitation, the revolutions of 1848 opened the era of liberal-national victories. By 1871 men could look back and see that almost everything fought for in 1848-1849 had been won.
  • Italy had liberated herself from Austria and was united under a constitutional king. Hungary had secured of practical autonomy. Germany was united under a government not indeed liberal by the standards of France and Great Britain, but of revolutionary liberalism by the standards of Metternich. France was a republic. Great Britain had taken a great step towards democracy and was clearly on the path of even greater liberalizing change. Even autocratic Russia had caught the fever and had emancipated her serfs and had begun gestures towards administrative reform.
  • In one sense, therefore, the period 1849-1871 may be looked upon as the fulfillment of the agitation and aspiration of the period 1815-1848 yet no one could fail to see how different the fulfillment was from the dream. The liberalism of 1815-1848 (except in England where its key note was economic laissez faire) was dominated by the romanticism of the French Revolution: its heroes were poets, idealists, and intellectuals like Byron, Shelley, Mazzini, and Lamartine.
  • The period 1849-1871 was eminently an age of realism in which practical statesmen like Cavour, Bismarck, Palmerston, and Disraeli were directing in action the mass enthusiasms that had been generated by the idealists of an earlier time.
  • While the immediate political effects of the revolutions were reversed, the long-term reverberations of the events were far-reaching. The triumph of liberal forces in France in February 1848, sparked off a series of explosions all over Europe. The pent-up feelings of liberalism burst their barriers and surged irresistibly over the Continent. In the weeks that followed the February Revolution in Paris, Europe resounded the crash of falling government and the jubilation of the liberating peoples Europe had seldom witnessed such a delirious and enthusiastic people seeking and longing for emancipation.
  • The force and impact of this upheaval was the strongest in central and Western Europe Excitement spread from the Rhine to the Danube. The very citadel of his power, Vienna, revolted against Metternich. His hour of doom had arrived after all, and he found himself in England in exile and at once an insignificant man. The fall of Metternich was symbolical. Within a week Hungary, Germany, and Italy were ablaze and the people there overthrew the powers of reaction. Nationality and Liberty seemed to triumph over Legitimacy and Autocracy. Even Britain felt the shock of February Revolution. The Chartist agitation came to a head, and in Ireland the “Young Ireland” Party rose armed insurrection.
  • Undoubtedly the Revolution of 1848 in the various countries of Europe failed to realize a fraction of the hopes which had been entertained from them. Yet, it cannot be denied that they bore fruits in certain spheres. In the political sphere they sounded they sounded the death-knell of the “Era of Metternich”, and secured the overthrow of his menacing “system” which had kept field since 1815. In the social and economic sphere they destroyed feudalism by root-and-branch in most of Eastern Europe.


Effects of the revolutions of 1830 and 1848 on the other countries of Europe

  • In tracing the effects of the two Revolutions and other countries of Europe one is reminded of an observation which Metternich once made, namely that “when France catches cold, all Europe sneezes.” Though cynically expressed the remark was true to the point because the July and February Revolutions in France proved to be the signal for the Pan European revolutions.
  • The Success of July Revolution in France brought immediate repercussions in other parts of Europe, including Britain. The liberals in various countries of Europe, particularly in Poland, Germany, Italy, Switzerland and the Netherlands were encouraged to shake off the trammels that had been imposed by the Congress of Vienna and later by holy Alliance partners. Even Britain was not immune from the influence of the 1830 Revolution in France.
  • The popular movement in these countries of Europe seemed to threaten the whole structure erected in 1815 at Vienna and created an immediate problem for Metternich and company. They had bound themselves in 1815 to guard against the outbreak of “revolution”, to watch over and assure the “general tranquility” of Europe. They had adopted and applied since then the doctrine of intervention in the affairs of the countries infected by revolutionary fever as the great preservative of public order.
  • But in other affected countries, with the solitary exception of Belgium, the Holy Alliance power succeeded in suppressing liberal movement. In Italy where the Papal States had risen against the Pope and Parma and Modena had forced their Hapsburg rulers to flee to Vienna, Metternich was able without much difficulty to crush these uprisings and restore an old order. In Poland where revolution began at the end of November 1830, led by a secret society and by university students, the rebels set up a provisional government, chiefly of members of the landed aristocracy. The rebels tried in vain to bargain with the Czar (Nicholas I) for reforms and in February 1831 a huge Russian force crossed the Polish frontier and crushed the revolution, A year later the Czar issued the Organic Statute which abolished the constitution of Alexander I and incorporated Poland in the Russian Empire though with a separate government. The Russians took ferocious revenge.
  • In the German Confederation the liberals had succeeded in extorting liberal constitution from the rulers of certain states, namely Brunswick, Hanover, Hesse-Cassel and Saxony. But these were soon scrapped and despotism was reintroduced in these states. In 1832, the Diet at Frankfurt, the Imperial Prussian Assembly, confirmed the Carlsbad Decrees, forbade all popular assemblies and promised military assistance to any government that was threatened by revolution. These and many other repressive measures were the answer of the Austrian-Controlled Diet to liberal movement in Germany.
  • Due to the revolutions and other changes of 1830-1833 Europe emerged divided into sharply contrasted political regions. In Germany, Italy and Poland Conservatism had the better of Liberalism, and the revolutions in those countries were crushed by the concerted action of the Holy Alliance power. In France, Belgium, Switzerland, Portugal, Spain and Britain the position was just the other way round. Liberalism triumphed in these countries backed at times by France and Britain. “Europe roughly west of the Rhine was moving towards a pattern of liberals, constitutional parliamentary government geared to the special interests of a growing commercial and industrial classes