PARK CRESCENT, REGENT`S PARK, AND THE SPACES OF BRAZILIAN DIPLOMACY IN LONDON, 1822-1829¹

PARK CRESCENT, REGENT’S PARK, E OS ESPAÇOS DA DIPLOMACIA DO BRASIL EM LONDRES, 1822-1829

Abstract

This article explores the history of Brazilian diplomacy abroad during its formative period, investigating addresses, buildings and neighbourhoods where the first agents lived and worked specifically in London between 1822 and 1829, and why they installed the first legation at Park Crescent, Regent’s Park. The objective is to discuss the meaning of local spaces for the history of the diplomatic mission and the representation of the Empire of Brazil in other territories. The article demonstrates that the first legation in London was installed in a new, rich and modern district at the time, presenting itself in a different space from the other legations and embassies. In conclusion, it is argued that this action expressed a policy of seeking legitimacy and fortifying of relationship with a specific sector of that society, namely, bankers, investors and merchants, who had business in Brazil.

Keywords:
history of diplomacy; spaces of diplomacy; 19th century; Brazilian diplomacy; London urban history

Resumo

O artigo explora a história da diplomacia do Brasil no exterior, no período de sua formação, investigando endereços, edifícios e bairros em que os primeiros agentes moraram e trabalharam especificamente em Londres, entre 1822 e 1829, e por que instalaram a primeira legação em Park Crescent, Regent’s Park. O objetivo é discutir o significado dos espaços locais para a história da missão diplomática e da representação do Império do Brasil em outros territórios. O artigo demonstra que a primeira legação em Londres foi instalada em um novo, rico e moderno bairro da época, apresentando-se em um espaço distinto das demais legações e embaixadas. Na conclusão, argumenta-se que essa ação expressou uma política de busca por legitimação e estreitamento de relações com um setor específico daquela sociedade, a saber, banqueiros, investidores e mercadores, que tinham negócios no Brasil.

Palavras-chave:
história da diplomacia; espaços da diplomacia; século 19; diplomacia brasileira, história urbana de Londres

Seeking diplomatic recognition of an independent and unitary Brazilian state in a part of South American territory was one of the multiple phenomena that composed the rupture between Portuguese America and the European metropolis. Between 1822 and 1826, this policy was carried out by the dominant political authorities in Rio de Janeiro, who were heirs to the central administration left in that city by the Portuguese court from 1808 onward. Its unfolding involved the organization of diplomatic missions which presented themselves in foreign territories as properly Brazilian and not Portuguese. From August 1822, the authorities in Rio began to appoint other agents to work in London and Paris, without using the existing Portuguese diplomatic structure in those capitals. While these agents sought to obtain diplomatic recognition for a new independent state, they needed to organize the basic means for the exercise of their attributions, such as housing, furniture, office supplies, archives, library, employees and services. Thus, the structuring of Brazil’s first diplomatic missions abroad began. This article examines the history of this new diplomacy, exploring addresses, neighbourhoods and buildings where the first two agents lived and worked specifically in London and why they established the first legation in Park Crescent, Regent’s Park. The chronology extends from the appointment of the first agent to that court, Felisberto Caldeira Brant Pontes Oliveira e Horta, in October 1822, and extending through the formal recognition of the Brazilian legation in January 1826, with Manuel Rodrigues Gameiro Pessoa at the head, when the mission already was in Park Crescent. The legation remained there until 1829. The article discusses the meaning of local spaces for that mission and of Brazilian diplomacy abroad in this initial formative period.

In recent decades, research into spaces or places of diplomacy have obtained increasing importance, especially in the fields of geography and architectural history, in a recurring dialogue with urban history and diplomatic history. Geographers have investigated, for example, the meaning of the location and distribution of embassies and diplomacy buildings in urban space, as Mamadouh; Mejier et al. (2015) sought, or exploring the typology of places of negotiations and diplomatic meetings, such as studies by Henrikson (2005).⁴ Architectural historians such as Loeffler (1990), Girardelli (2014), Song; Zuh (2017), and van Gameren, Tola (2017) have investigated the meanings of projects, buildings and spaces designed especially to serve as embassies, residences and spaces for diplomacy. In Brazil, there is a particular current interest in spaces of diplomacy for the second half of the 20th century, due to the importance of modern Brazilian architecture, projects of foreign embassies in Brasília and Brazilian embassies abroad, as explored by Fisher and Santos (2018), Chiarelli (2018) and Medeiros, Chaim et al. (2019). These studies demonstrate the existence of multiple levels of spaces in which the activities and history of diplomacy took place and the different possible approaches to this subject. Researchers often highlight the representative characteristic of spaces for diplomacy, inside or outside their own territories. For example, Girardelli points to the “inherently ‘representative’ nature of the buildings involved” (2017, paragraph 2), while Shimazu argues that “The explicit ‘localization’ of diplomacy by privileging the place where diplomacy physically takes place allows an insight into different layers of meanings that would otherwise elude traditional approaches to the study of diplomacy” (2012, p. 335).

In fact, exploring spaces of diplomacy represents a different problem from the bulk of Brazilian diplomatic history based on more traditional approaches, including those that also examined the initial years of the mission in London. Authors such as Lima (1901), Accioly (1922), Calogeras, (1928), Freitas (1958), Rodrigues (1975), Pantaleão (2003), and Santos (2022) interpreted important questions about the opinions, agencies and contexts of the diplomatic negotiations for the independence of Brazil which occurred in Great Britain in 1824. Additionally, authors such as Melo Morais (1877), Carreira (1889), Barroso (1934), Barman (2001), Shaw (2005), Guimarães (2012), Silva (2012), Summerhill (2015), Almeida (2017), Ramos (2018) studied the financial history of Brazil during the monarchical regime, the first loans borrowed from banks of the City of London in 1824, 1825 e 1829, the relationship between British companies and banks, all of which had, at least, to mention the role of that mission⁵. All these studies contribute to the knowledge of the history of foreign policy, international relations and economy of Brazil. Yet, investigating the spatial dimension of the history of the mission itself may raise to the forefront important questions that have been understudied or completely overlooked. Most significant in this respect, is the way in which legations (and the Brazilian ruling classes in Rio) presented themselves in other countries.

A few texts emphasized spaces (especially, the so-called salons) for the activities and history of Brazilian diplomatic agents in London during the 19^th century. Dória (1923) highlighted a room at Windsor Castle as a place of recognition of Brazil’s independence, for this was the spot where the official presentation ceremony of Gameiro Pessoa to King George IV took place in January 1826. The same author alluded to the legation in Park Crescent. Nabuco (1900) dedicated a chapter of his autobiography titled “32, Grosvenor Gardens” to discuss the salon of the legation house of Francisco Inácio de Carvalho Moreira (Baron of Penedo), when the former served as attaché in the 1870s. Mendonça (1942) also wrote a chapter titled “The Salon of Grosvenor Gardens” in his biography of the same Carvalho Moreira. But none of these authors explored the question of spaces in depth. Biographical works, such as Aguiar (1896), Calogeras (1936), Peixoto (2022) and Gouvêa (2010), concerned with diplomats who led Brazilian legations in London during the 19^th century, did not mention addresses and buildings in that capital.⁶

Where did the new Brazilian agents live and carry out their activities before the formal recognition of the mission and why did they set up the first legation house in this particular site? What were the features of the building and neighbourhood of the first legation? What were the addresses of other foreign legations or embassies in London at the time? Did these addresses coincide with the location of the first Brazilian legation? Which people, families and sectors resided in the same building? What is the meaning of these addresses, buildings, architectures and neighbourhoods for Brazilian diplomacy? To answer these questions, through a large variety and number of documents,⁷ the first section of this article presents the addresses where Brazilian agents lived and worked between 1822 and 1825 and where the first legation was located from 1826 to 1829. It also notes the buildings where negotiations for the diplomatic independence of Brazil took place in London and highlights the importance of the first loans for the organization of the mission. The second section presents the addresses of the buildings of the other foreign missions in London in 1825, when the Brazilian legation was established in Park Crescent, Regent’s Park. It also explores the period of construction of the buildings, mentioning one of the main architects and comparing this information to those of the first Brazilian legation. In the third section, the article reflects on the neighbours of the Brazilian mission, observing that some of them had important links with Brazil and its diplomacy in London. In the concluding section, it is argued that the fact that the legation had been set in the then-suburban, modern, rich and recently built area of Regent’s Park and, in particular, at the terrace of Park Crescent, represented a search for legitimacy and the fortification of relations between the new Brazilian diplomacy and a specific group of local private agents. This occurred to the point that the legation was organized (and therefore presented itself in London) in a different neighbourhood and type of building, compared to other embassies and legations, including those of other American countries.

First spaces of Brazilian diplomacy in London, 1822-1826

The British government formally recognized the first Brazilian diplomatic mission after the diplomatic recognition of the independence of Brazil by Portugal, which occurred with the treaty of August 29, 1825, signed in Rio. After both parties ratified the treaty, Manuel Rodrigues Gameiro Pessoa, appointed by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to London, could submit his letters of credential to King George IV. The diplomas were delivered at a ceremony on January 30, 1826, at Windsor Castle, where the Brazilian agent was introduced by the minister George Canning to the British monarch. On that occasion, Gameiro Pessoa had already been resident at Park Crescent, Regent’s Park, since the previous year. He first lived at number 23 and, by the week of the ceremony, at number 21, where Brazil’s first legation was established in London.⁸ At the same house, the mission remained until around August 1829, when the Ministry of Foreign Affairs replaced Gameiro Pessoa, who left the country, causing a change of address.⁹ However, before the legation was set up at 21 Park Crescent, Regent’s Park and the mission was formally recognized, between 1822 and 1825, the two first appointed agents, Felisberto Caldeira Brant Pontes Oliveira e Horta and Manuel Gameiro Pessoa, lived and worked at other addresses: an apartment at Brunet`s Hotel, at 24-26 Leicester Square; the house at 10, Allsop’s Buildings, New Road, Marylebone; the house at 45, York Street, Portman Square; the house at 41 Grosvenor Place, Knightsbridge (Belgravia); and, finally, the house at 23 Park Crescent, Regent’s Park.

In August 1822, when the authorities in Rio appointed Caldeira Brant, he was already living in London on private business. Caldeira Brant was a high-ranking military official, born in Minas Gerais, but whose residence, marriage, children and business had been established in Bahia since the early 19^th century. He was the owner of a large number of enslaved persons and with links to the transatlantic slave trade in Africa. He was also the owner of lands and mills, a merchant involved in overseas trade, a banker and a political figure in Bahia. (Aguiar, 1896; Calogeras, 1936; Peixoto, 2022). When Brant arrived in London in June 1821, he took up residence in an apartment at Brunet’s Hotel, 24-26 Leicester Square (The British Press, 1821, p. 4). More than a year later, when he received the nomination from Rio in October 1822, he was still resident there, for he signed letters to the British Foreign Office from Brunet’s Hotel in November, for instance (Brasil, 1972, vol. I, pp. 203 and 221).

Once the policy of the Brazilian ruling classes consisted precisely in appointing an agent for a new American diplomatic representation, Brant could not reside or work in the Portuguese embassy. The diplomatic mission of Portugal had been located at 74 South Audley Street, Grosvenor Square, for over a decade, where José Luís de Sousa (Count of Villa Real), the ambassador of Lisbon, lived and worked. Upon receipt of his nomination, letters sent by Brant to José Bonifácio, the minister in Rio, demonstrate that a house was a matter of immediate concern. Brant complained about the cost of dinners, the cost of visiting local ministers and wrote “about the difficulties of living in London” (Brasil, 1972, vol. I, p. 197). In November 1822, he wrote: “... I won’t talk either about the impossibility of living in London with six thousand cruzeiros, without a house to live in, without a secretary, etc. etc.” (Brazil, 1972, p. 197). Brant’s personal financial conditions had allowed him to stay in a hotel that served wealthy foreigners, including diplomats from the Americas and continental Europe. What the passage expresses is that there was an expectation of an official residence for the new mission. The reference was the structure of the Portuguese embassy. Caldeira Brant established the following condition to take charge of his designation: “The Chargé d’Affaires of Portugal has a salary of twelve thousand cruzeiros, a house to live in, 2 secretary officers, etc. etc. all paid for by the Treasury, and less than that cannot be.” (Brasil, 1972, vol. I, p. 197).

In either December 1822 or January 1823, Caldeira Brant moved to another address, 10 Allsop’s Buildings, New Road, Marylebone, where he remained until August of that year.¹⁰ In September 1822, he wrote a letter to Brazil, indicating that the reply should be sent to 10 Allsop’s Buildings (Correspondência, 1859, p. 414). Therefore, he had already planned a change of address on his own initiative before he received the appointment from Rio.¹¹ In August 1823, Brant returned to Rio, after having spent more than two years living in London, part of which he spent unsuccessfully trying to be received formally by the British government.

Due to Brant’s departure from London in August 1823, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs nominated another diplomatic agent to the mission, Manuel Rodrigues Gameiro Pessoa. He had been living in Paris since the previous year, appointed to that capital for obtaining diplomatic recognition of Brazilian independence, similar to Brant’s role in London. Gameiro was born in Portugal, but also had personal and family ties in Bahia since the early 19^th century. Gameiro was an official at the Portuguese Foreign Office since at least 1814, having been attaché and secretary of the diplomatic mission at the Congress of Vienna and secretary of the embassy in Paris (Guimarães, 1938. pp. 231-232; Santos, 2022b, pp. 734-735). As with other second-ranking officials in the Portuguese central administration who remained in Rio when King João VI returned to Portugal in 1821, Gameiro Pessoa adhered to the Brazilian claim to independence, becoming one of the protagonists of diplomatic recognition in the 1820s.

Gameiro Pessoa arrived in London in March 1824, thus opening a second and more formal phase of negotiations for the diplomatic recognition of independence. Portugal had also accepted the negotiations with Brazil in that capital. In April 1824, in an official letter sent to Rio, Gameiro wrote that “so quickly I made the arrangements that will be indispensable for my arrival in this Capital...”; these arrangements included setting up a residence. For the first three months, he took up residence at 45 York Street, Portman Square.¹² At the same time, Caldeira Brant returned to London, appointed again to work together with Gameiro, to handle the negotiations and obtain a loan for the structuring of a new Brazilian state in what was once Portuguese America. Brant arrived on 13 April 1824, staying once more at Brunet’s Hotel, Leicester Square, where he remained until June.¹³ In this last month, both Brazilian diplomats moved and started to live together in a house at 41 Grosvenor Place, Knightsbridge (Belgravia). They remained at that address until May 1825.¹⁴ In an official letter sent to Rio in September 1824, responding to the minister of Foreign Affairs, Luis José de Carvalho e Mello, about Pedro I not being sure on if they were working “jointly” in London, Brant replied that “Furthermore, the jointly that Your Excellence ordinance has been brought to such an extent by us that we live in the same house and ride in the same carriage.” (Brasil, 1972, v. II, p. 125). From July to November 1824, that is, during the entire period of formal conferences to obtain diplomatic recognition of Brazil, they lived at 41 Grosvenor Place. In the first days of May 1825, after they had contracted the loan, Brant returned to Rio de Janeiro and, on the 30th of the same month, Gameiro Pessoa moved to 23 Park Crescent, Regent’s Park.¹⁵

In addition to the houses mentioned (occupied by Brazilian and Portuguese diplomats), informal conversations took place in two other buildings: the Austrian embassy located at Chandos House on Chandos Street, which was very important for back-channel politicking, and the Foreign Office building, at the time located on Downing Street, where informal and formal negotiations took place. As evidence of the importance of place, one of the preliminary disagreements between the negotiators was precisely about the building in which the conferences would take place. As the press reported, “...a question of etiquette arose as to the place in which the conferences were to be held” (Morning Post, July 24, 1824, p. 3). It should be noted that the question consisted in resolving the contradiction for the demand for a place considered neutral and which would mean reciprocity between the two parties. However, whereas there was an official Portuguese Embassy house, there was not yet a Brazilian legation formally recognized, considering that it was still being negotiated. As a result of this impasse, the Foreign Office offered a room in its building.

No more conferences took place in London for the diplomatic independence of Brazil from November 1824 onwards. In February 1825, Caldeira Brant and Gameiro Pessoa formally broke off negotiations with Portugal. Due to the standoffs between the parties, the precedence of the United States in the recognition of the new American States, and British concerns regarding the continuity of the customs privileges given by the treaty of 1810 with Brazil, George Canning took over the negotiations, even before the formal breakup, transferring it unilaterally to Rio. These negotiations between London and Rio resulted in the Treaty of Peace, Friendship and Alliance between Lisbon and Rio, signed on August 29, 1825. Thus, the Brazilian government could now send renewed documents to Gameiro Pessoa, definitively nominate him as the first extraordinary envoy and plenipotentiary minister of Brazil in the British court, when he could be introduced at the ceremony at Windsor Castle in January 1826.

Rental advertisements in the press at the time, collected throughout this study, might bring some features of the houses at Park Crescent, where Gameiro was residing when the ceremony in Windsor occurred. The residences were described as familiar, elegant and spacious. Characteristics of the internal rooms of one of the units appear in the following advertisement:

5, Park Crescent, Portland-Place:

Containing, on the Upper Floor, Five Bedchambers neatly Papered, Landing, and Closet.

On the Second Floor - Two Large Bedchambers and Dressing-room handsomely Papered, veined Marble Chimney Pieces, Landing, Water Closet, and Housemaid’s Closet, with Water laid on.

On the First Floor - A capital lofty Drawing room, with enriched Cornice and Ceiling, Window opening to a Stone Balcony, Statuary Marble Chimney Piece, and Folding Doors, opening to a Back Drawing Room, correspondently finished.

On the Ground Floor - An Entrance Hall, Walls Stuccoed and Painted in imitation of Sienna Marble, Folding Doors to an Inner Hall, Stone Staircase to the Second Floor with an elegant Iron Ballustre and Mahogany Hand-rail, a spacious elegant Dinner-room communicating by Folding Door to a Library, Water Closet, Passage to a Gentlemen’s Morning Room and Door to the Garden.

Basement - Housekeeper’s Room, with Water laid on; Butler’s Pantry, with Closets, and Water laid on; Servant’s Hall; capital Kitchen; Scullery, with Water laid on; Cleaning Room, Knife Room, Coal, Beer, and Wine [Cellars], Servant’s Water Closet, and Pump of excellent Spring Water.

Large Garden at the back of the House, Planted with Shrubs, with a communication to the Portland road

(Star, February 23, 1828, p. 1)

The text above describes an almost identical residence to that of the first Brazilian legation. From 1825 to 1829, this kind of space served both as a home for Gameiro Pessoa and for carrying out the work of the other Brazilian diplomats accredited in London. The secretaries and attachés who would staff the mission from 1826 onwards could or could not live at the same address, although they worked regularly there. João Antônio Pereira da Cunha, the secretary, and Augusto de Paiva, the attaché, certainly resided in Park Crescent. In addition, as the description of the rooms points out, the everyday maintenance of the house required the employment of many domestic workers. The size of the place, the number of rooms and the need for many employees demonstrates well that there was a more consolidated organization of the mission, compared to the beginning of the process, when Brant complained about the need to have a house, employees, a suitable salary and the price of dinners. As already alluded to in Castro (1983, p. 29), Cervo and Bueno (2014, p. 30) and Almeida (2017, p. 275), part of the loan that Brant and Gameiro borrowed in London in 1824 (contracted, in fact, in two parts, in August 1824 and January 1825, in the total amount of 3 million pounds sterling) supported the material structuring of that mission in London as well as its counterparts in Paris, Vienna and Washington, for instance. As stated by Ramos, there were around eight thousand pounds sterling available to that legation in 1826 (2022, p. 326). On that occasion, that mission became the centre for the payment of the others.

Park Crescent, Regent’s Park and the traditional spaces of embassies and legations in London (1825)

Park Crescent encompasses two terraces located at the south-east corner of Regent’s Park. At the time, the park, the terraces, and the villas within it were still under construction in order to form a new, rich and modern London area. This neighbourhood was part of a much larger project of the spatial and architectural reconfiguration of the London metropolis, developed between 1811 and 1830. This process represented the development of a “new London” from the 1820s onwards (White, 2008, p. 24). One of the most important parts of this ample urban reform project involved the transformation of Marylebone Park (an agricultural area, contiguous to the north of the then built urban environment) into a modern “garden city.” (Summerson, 1988, p. 164). In short, the most immediate cause consisted of a process of the valuation of rural estates owned by the British Crown in Marylebone Park. It resulted in a simultaneous process of construction, speculation and valuation of nearby estates owned by or leased to wealthy aristocrats. This was still widely favoured by the extensive availability of bank credit, investors and speculators, from post-Waterloo, in 1815, to the financial crisis of 1825. The construction of Regent’s Park and Regent’s Street, for instance, also led to the displacement of the poorest populations in these places (Olsen, 1976, pp. 37-38; White, 2008, pp. 24-25). Inside the new park, the construction of a Royal house was projected, but in the end it was not done. The construction of the other residences were designed to meet the housing expectations of the “higher ranks of society.” (Saunders, 1981, p. 113). In Regent’s Park :

There was a preponderance of men associated with trade. The successful banker, the wealthy merchant, the fortunate stock-broker, sought to make their home in Regent’s Park, where they were joined by the most prosperous members of the professional classes - the Church, the Army and Navy, doctors, lawyers and publishers - all of them prizing the rural atmosphere which was still within half an hour of the City and Westminster (Saunders, 1981, p. 114).

The reform of London in the late Georgian period was sketched out, first, by John Fordyce, and later by the architect John Nash. It was sponsored by the British Crown, the state and dozens of owners, investors, speculators and contractors, such as James Burton, and was carried out by architects, such as Decimus Burton, professionals and thousands and thousands of unknown workers. In particular, Park Crescent was a project carried out by John Nash himself, who accompanied and supervised the work. Of all the terraces surrounding Regent’s Park, Park Crescent was the first to be completed, containing twenty-nine residential units, fourteen of which were located on the east side and fifteen on the west side (Saunders, 1981, pp. 90-94). Construction started in 1811 by the builder Charles Mayor, who went bankrupt, leaving it unfinished. In 1818, with funding from magnate John Farquhar, three other builders, William Richardson, Samuel Baxter and Henry Peto, continued the construction (Saunders, 1981, pp. 81, 85), which was completed in 1823. Therefore, when Gameiro Pessoa moved to Park Crescent in May 1825, these spaces were newly built or even under construction. Other terraces and villas were completed only in the second half of the 1820s.

Two more distinctive features of the terraces surrounding Regent’s Park and one specific to Park Crescent also stand out. These features provide elements for understanding how the Brazilian legation presented itself in London in the 1820s. The first of these features is the palatial aspect of the terraces, although Park Crescent had fewer elements of this characteristic. According to Olsen, this feature of “splendorous” buildings and façades (in the author’s words) occurred because the construction of that garden city aimed to fulfil the project of making the wealthiest part of London, the West End, and, in particular, the area of Regent’s Park, as the capital of a new world empire (1976, pp. 37-39). In the words of James Elmes, one of the main propagandists of the great reform of London in the late Georgian period, the intention was to create “The Rome of Modern History” (Elmes, 1828, p. 2). The second feature of the Regent’s Park terraces is the use of stucco, covering completely all buildings which were built in brick. This was unlike the exposed stone or brick which predominated in buildings in London at the time, such as in Mayfair and Westminster, mainly edifications from the 17^th and 18^th centuries. Some authors point out that the prevalence of stucco was due to a lack of resources, while others argue that it allowed greater possibilities for creating external architectural and decorative elements on palatial terraces, even at a lower cost (Saunders, 1981, p. 80; Olsen, 1976 , p. 39; Olsen, 1986, p. 16-19).¹⁶

One specific characteristic of Park Crescent is that it was built in a semi-circular shape, although in the initial plan it was to be a circle. As Zerlang suggested, in relation to the crescents and circles of late Georgian streets, the crescent shape represented a more dynamic visual axis in contrast to the more rectilinear visual axis of the terraces and squares built in the 17^th and 18^th centuries. This more dynamic and modern axis would have been inspired by the then fashionable panoramas of the early 19^th century (2001, pp. 38-40). Precisely the Regent’s Park project intended that crescents, circles, terraces and villas, around and inside the park, would articulate themselves visually with the park itself, in a panoramic way, with little visual contact amongst the buildings themselves, giving the impression of immersion in a green area, albeit with amenities of urban terraces, such as new water and sewers systems (Olsen, 1986, p. 19; Olsen, 1976, p. 38). Thus, when Regent’s Park and its residences were built they were “the most fashionable part of the town” (Saunders, 1981, p. 106).

However, did these rich and modern residences in Park Crescent or even the other terraces in Regent’s Park correspond to places where foreign diplomats lived and worked in London when Gameiro Pessoa moved there in 1825? To answer this question, it is was necessary to research which addresses, neighbourhoods and buildings the other embassies and legations were located in at the time. The sources consulted for the addresses (newspapers and almanacs) may have small inaccuracies, but they provide a generally-accurate overview of which spaces prevailed, whether for taste or practicality, among embassies, legations and residences of diplomats in London in 1825.¹⁷ Most of the diplomatic representations were located on streets and squares of Mayfair and south of Marylebone, in houses mainly built in the 18^th century. These were older, more traditional areas and, above all, closer to spaces of political power in Westminster, such as St. James Palace, the Houses of Parliament and the Foreign Office. The Brazilian legation was the furthest from these locations, compared to the others. It was the most suburban and the newest. The other legations and embassies were in different urban spaces in terms of location and architectural style from John Nash’s terraces around Regent’s Park, in the north part of Marylebone, constructed in the late Georgian period.

In Mayfair, the Russian embassy was at 30 Ashburnham House, Dover Street; that of Portugal, at 74, South Audley Street; that of Netherlands, at 1 Bryanstone Square; that of Sweden, at 27 Orchard Street, Portman Square and, very close to the latter, that of Saxony at 23 Portman Street. The Sardinian representation was on Hill Street, Berkeley Square; that of Bavaria, on Queen Street; Baden and Hesse, at 7 Cork Street. In Marylebone, the French and Spanish embassies and Colombian legation were located on Portland Place, respectively at numbers 50, 14 and 33. The Austrian embassy was on Chandos Street, immediately parallel to the beginning of Portland Place and very close to the previous houses. The Austrian embassy was also practically in front of the Prussian embassy, which was located at 8 Mansfield Street. The legation of the United States was at 41 Edward Street, Langham Place, close to the previous ones as well. Still south of Marylebone, the Danish embassy was on Hinde Street, Manchcester Square (where it was since 1823, replacing the house at 17 Portland Place). It was close to the Wurtemberg legation at 15 Thayer Street. The Two Sicilies were at 84 Gloucester Place. The Hanover representation was the only one off the circuit, farther south, at 32 Grosvenor Place, Knightsbridge (on the same street where Brant and Gameiro lived between June 1824 and May 1825).¹⁸

In addition to these sites where the embassies, legations and residences were concentrated, the construction periods of their buildings can prove that there was a contrast between the foreign diplomatic houses in London in 1825 and the first Brazilian legation. The other embassies functioned in buildings erected between the 1660s and 1810s, but mainly dated from the 18^th century. The oldest was Ashburnham House, built in 1660, where the Russian embassy was located. The Portuguese embassy was in a house built in the 1730s. In the buildings on Portland Place, where the representations of France, Colombia, Denmark and Spain were or had been, edifices erected from 1770s to 1790s predominated, the same period of construction of the Austrian and Prussian residences. It should be added that some streets and buildings near Portland Place were being partly or wholly altered by John Nash’s renovations, though not those of the embassies. The most recent houses were the legation of the Two Sicilies on Gloucester Place, built from 1810 onwards, and the embassy of the Netherlands, which began construction in 1812.¹⁹

Furthermore, an important part of the diplomatic missions (that of France, Spain, Austria, Prussia, Russia and Colombia) was in buildings designed or refurbished by the architect Robert Adam. He was responsible for the architecture and interiors of Chandos House, built in 1770-71, the houses on Mansfield Street, in 1770-74, and the houses of Portland Place from 1778. Adam had also designed the main renovation of Ashburnham House, in Dover Street, in 1773-79 (cf. Colvin, 1995, p. 57). None of these places were built for the purpose of serving as embassies or legations. But, for a relevant part of the diplomatic corps in the mid-1820s, a taste for housing represented by the British classicism in architecture, from the 18^th century, built mainly in stone, prevailed. ²⁰ The projects by Robert Adam were preferred for their particularity and aesthetic value at the time, according to researchers, were in the interiors of the houses (cf. Harris, 2001).

It should be mentioned that Leicester Square, where Brunet’s Hotel was located, dates from the 18^th century as well. The square and its buildings were constructed around 1750 and by the first decades of the 19^th century it was already a fashionable commercial area with a large presence of French people and owners (Mars, 2013; Carpenter, 2013). The Allsop’s Building and York Street buildings date from the 18^th or early 19^th century and are clearly shown on Mogg’s map (1806). The house at 41 Grosvenor Place, although it was much further south of the others, in Knightsbridge, on the Belgravia part of the Grosvenor Estate, had been erected in the mid-18^th century (Sheppard, 1977, p. 30-33). The first three were spaces closer to diplomacy in London at the time and to political power areas. It should also be added that, unlike other foreign diplomats, Gameiro Pessoa had a possible preference for suburban spaces, adjacent to large parks and green areas such as in Grosvenor Place and Park Crescent.

The Neighbours of Park Crescent, Regent’s Park (1820s)

Finally, this investigation sought to identify the residents of the two modern terraces of Park Crescent for the second half of the 1820s, in addition to the house and office of Gameiro Pessoa. The documents demonstrate that there were residents living there who had business in Portuguese America and with the new independent Brazilian state and its diplomacy. The immediate neighbourhood, therefore, became one of the main reasons why the legation was installed on this site. From the twenty-nine Park Crescent house numbers, with the exception of No. 21, where Gameiro Pessoa’s house was located, this study identified thirty-one tenant-residents for the second half of the 1820s,²¹ including members from the same family. It was not possible to know the exact street numbers of the houses for all of them, because the sources (chiefly newspaper and fire insurance records) do not always provide this information; as well as there may have been the eventual departure of one tenant and the entry of others. The number of people who resided there or were there every day is much higher, because, in addition to the families of the names collected, there were hundreds of domestic workers.

Presenting each resident individually would exceed the introductory purposes of this article. The study identified that there was a group of families from the traditional English and Scottish rural aristocracy, including some of them with participation in politics and the armed forces, such as Luísa Gordon (Marquise of Cornwallis at no. 12), George Irby (Baron Boston at no. 17), the Countess of St. Germains, William Henry John Scott, George Stewart (Earl of Galloway) and his daughter, Louisa Duncombe, as well as John Thornton Leslie Melville (Earl of Leven at no. 27). But, in Park Crescent at that time, there was predominantly English, Scottish and Jewish (from English, German, Dutch and Iberian origins) bourgeois families of bankers, financiers and international merchants. Among those were William Fairlie (at no. 9), Thomas Hudson (at no. 6), Charles Hammersley (at no. 25), Thomson Bonar, Henry Porcher (at no. 10), Ralph Bernal, Mayer Davidson and Jessy Barent Cohen (at no. 14), Samuel Moses Samuel and Esther Barent Cohen (at no. 29), Abraham Samuda and members of the family of Lion Abraham Goldschmidt (or himself).²² In the first group, there were also bankers or people from bankers’ families such as Leslie Melville and William Scott. All these bankers, brokers and merchants had businesses throughout the British Empire, Asia, Oceania, Africa, Europe and the Americas.

As mentioned, an important part of these individuals had business precisely in Brazil and with the new Brazilian state and its diplomats in London. In the latter half of the 1820s, Samuel Moses Samuel and Esther Barent Cohen; Mayer Davidson and Jessy Barent Cohen; Henry Porcher; members of the Fairlie family, of the Goldschmidt family, of the Shaw family and Leslie Melville lived in Park Crescent as well. Some of these relationships with Brazil have already been alluded to or briefly described in works of economic history cited at the beginning of the article, for example, in Barman (2003), Shaw (2005), Guimarães (2012), Silva (2012), Summerhill (2015), Ramos (2018), and they also appear in the letters sent by the legation to the government in Brazil. But no researcher has identified that there was a spatial relationship between the residences of those agents and the Brazilian legation house, i.e., that they were neighbours precisely in the same buildings. This information is important, because it allows for more in-depth knowledge about how Brazilian authorities and its diplomats presented themselves publicly in London. As was noted, the legation was constructed in a different neighbourhood and type of building in comparison with others embassies and legations. In addition, it allows to know more about the spaces of sociability and political and economic articulation of Brazilian diplomacy and even of the Brazilian ruling classes abroad.

As Barman identified (2003), Samuel Moses Samuel was the eldest brother and cousin of the owners of the company Samuel Phillips & Co, founded in Brazil in 1808. He was a banker and investor in London. Esther Barent Cohen was daughter of one of London’s leading bankers, who had already died by this time. They were the brothers-in-law of the couple Hannah Barent Cohen and Nathan Mayer Rothschild. According to the same author, Samuel Phillips & Co. had become the representative of N. M. Rothschild’s company in Brazil since 1815; Samuel and Esther moved to Park Crescent in the 1820s. But, Barman did not note that the Brazilian legation was located a few houses next door in the same building. Samuel M. Samuel and Samuel Phillips & Co. also formed one of the consortia that had tried to offer the loan to the Brazilian agents in May 1824 (Itabaiana, 1827, p. 79; Brasil, 1972, vol. II, p. 19). It was at Nathan Mayer Rothschild’s bank that Brant and Gameiro took out the second loan, in January 1825. Rothschild also became the banker of Brazilian diplomats in London (Barman, 2003; Shaw, 2005).

Jessy Barent Cohen, Esther’s sister, and Mayer Davidson (brothers-in-law of Samuel, Esther, Nathan and Hannah) resided at Park Crescent as well. Meyer Davidson was an investor, stock broker, and director of several companies, participating in the Rothschild firm in London. Similarly, resident Henry Porcher was also a banker and investor, and he was one of the four partners in Fletcher, Alexander & Co., one of the three banking companies in which Caldeira Brant and Gameiro Pessoa took out the first loan in August 1824.²³ The firm B. A. Goldschmidt & Co. was among the other banks that tried to provide the loan to Brazilian diplomats in May 1824 (Brasil, 1972, vol. II, p. 19) and had made a loan to Portugal in 1823 (Morning Herald, 14 Oct, 1823, p. 2). This Portuguese loan was paid by Brazil due to the Treaty of August 29, 1825.²⁴ B. A. Goldschmidt & Co. was also a member of The Imperial Brazilian Mining Association (Morning Herald, Dec. 10, 1824, p. 2), the first foreign company to obtain a mining concession in Brazil after independence (Silva, 2012). The chairman of that company, Edward Oxenford, did not reside in Park Crescent. Living for some time in Brazil, Oxenford had offered himself to the Brazilian government to be the negotiator of the loans in London. Having failed in his attempt, he sought to provide the loan to Brazilian agents in May 1824 (Brasil, 1972, vol. II p. 19). Another partner in the mining company was Moses Montefiore (Morning Herald, 10 Dec. 1824, p. 2), a great London banker, who also did not live in Park Crescent, but was the brother-in-law of Samuel M. Samuel, Mayer Davidson, Nathan Mayer Rothschild and the Cohen sisters. He was married to Judith Barent Cohen. The Goldschmidt family was also partner with Mayer Davidson, Moses Montefiore and Leslie Melville in other companies (Morning Post, 21 January 1825, p. 1).

The firm of magnate William Fairlie, who died at his home in Park Crescent in early 1826, was mentioned in correspondence from Brazil’s agents to Rio, as seeking to obtain a mining concession in Brazil, along with the company by Robert Farquhar (Brasil, 1972, vol. II, p. 168), who did not live there. The Farquhar firm was one of the partners in one of the three firms involved in the Brazilian loan of August 1824 (Bazett, Farquhar, Crawford and Co.) At another firm, Farquhar was a partner of Moses Montefiore and Leslie Melville. In “Farquhar House”, Brazilian agents also made government purchases at that time (Brasil, 1972, vol. II, p. 132). The Farquhar family was largely responsible for financing the construction of Park Crescent from 1818 (Saunders, 1981, p. 81, 84). In view of the relationships mentioned, the Shaw family who resided in Park Crescent was very possibly that of Gabriel Shaw (or himself), a partner at Thomas Wilson & Co., the third company involved in the 1824 loan (Carreira, 1889, p. 100; Ramos, 2018, p. 52). Now, though it is not an exhaustive survey in this case, these are examples of the network of bankers, investors, speculators and large merchants who resided in the two buildings and can provide an overview of the connections with Brazil and its diplomats, in particular, with Gameiro Pessoa.²⁵

It should also be noted that even if a small part of the loans had been used to structure the new Brazilian missions abroad and especially in London, as mentioned, the simple contracting of these loans from that bankers’ network, neither commissions or even possible corruption, cannot explain why the legation built by Gameiro Pessoa was located in Park Crescent. He could have chosen a residence in a more traditional diplomatic area in London at that time such as Mayfair or southward of Marylebone or could have remained in Knightsbridge, Belgravia. What the research points out is that the correlation between the address of the Brazil’s first legation and the aforementioned individuals in Park Crescent, Regent’s Park, represents a common space of certain sociability, articulation, identification and social and cultural reproduction.

Conclusions

After the first Brazilian diplomats had lived in temporary homes, Manuel Rodrigues Gameiro Pessoa established a new official residence and workplace from May 1825 onward in the modern, new and wealthy Park Crescent, Regent’s Park. First, he occupied number 23 and, in January 1826, moved to number 21, where he stayed until August 1829. The London mission was supported mainly by the loans contracted in 1824 and 1825, and with the organization of secretaries, attachés, domestic employees, carriage, services and other basic facilities, similar to those of the other diplomatic representations of the period in that capital, with its own urban and architectural histories and its own contemporary elite tastes. However, the Brazilian legation was not installed in a similar urban space for the housing and work of the diplomatic mission as the other powers. Therefore, the Brazilian legation presented itself in a different way from its counterparts in that metropolis. Park Crescent and the terraces of Regent’s Park did not correspond to these spaces, for the other embassies and legations were concentrated in Mayfair and south of Marylebone. The difference is proven too by the period of construction of the buildings, architects, architect designers and even types of material. Additionally, it is not a question of a difference between embassies of old European powers in contrast with those of new American powers. The addresses of the legation of Colombia and the United States in the same traditional areas verifies this.

An important reason why the legation was established at this address might be found in the neighbours of Park Crescent: a group of bankers, investors, speculators and large international merchants who had begun or intended to have business with the imperial court in Rio and in other provinces of Brazil as well as with its diplomatic missions abroad, particularly in London. Therefore, Gameiro Pessoa’s choice of Park Crescent as his residence and the location of the first Brazilian legation expressed, firstly, the need to organize a new diplomatic project in London, which presented itself as Brazilian and not as Portuguese. Secondly, it expressed Gameiro’s expectations of good housing and representation of the state and of himself in that metropolis, based also on certain prevailing tastes. Thirdly, the choice of Park Crescent expressed the experiences of the agents’ previous residences in that capital as well as Gameiro Pessoa’s possible preference for more suburban places. Most importantly, it fundamentally expressed a search for legitimation and fortifying of relations with a specific sector of that society, based on the sociability and social and cultural identification and reproduction that the modern space of Park Crescent, Regent’s Park, provided and represented. These characteristics arose in the Brazilian mission in London in the context of its formation during the 1820s and perhaps beyond.

References - Manuscripts

• The National Archives of the UK (TNA). Catalogue reference: FO 13/43; FO 13/14; FO 13/67; FO 13/54; FO 13/32; FO 63/282; FO 63/264. (Letters)
• London Metropolitan Archives (LMA), City of London. Catalogue reference: CLC/B/192/F/001/MS11936/499/1026149; CLC/B/192/F/001/MS11936/504/1031360; CLC/B/192/F/001/MS11936/510/1051199; CLC/B/192/F/001/MS11936/511/1067277. (Fire insurance records)
• British Library. Department of Manuscripts. Catalogue reference: Add MS 47294; Add MS 51633; Add MS 89143/2/22/7. (Letters)

Images and maps

• ACKERMANN, Rudolph. The Crescent, Portland Place 1engraving. Available at:Available at:https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_Crescent,_Portland_Place,_Rudolph_Ackermann_1822.jpg [accessed 28 Nov. 2022].
  » https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_Crescent,_Portland_Place,_Rudolph_Ackermann_1822.jpg
• MOGG, Edward. London in Miniature London: [s.n.], 1806. 1 map, colour. Available at:Available at:https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:1806_Mogg_Pocket_or_Case_Map_of_London,_England_-_Geographicus_-_London-mogg-1806.jpg [accessed 28 Nov. 2022].
  » https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:1806_Mogg_Pocket_or_Case_Map_of_London,_England_-_Geographicus_-_London-mogg-1806.jpg
• SHEPHERD, Thomas H. East Side of Park Crescent. In: ELMES, James. Metropolitan Improvements; or London in the Nineteenth Century London: Jones & Co., 1828. p. 305. Available at:Available at:https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:East_Side_of_Park_Crescent_-_Shepherd,_Metropolitan_Improvements_(1828),_p305.jpg [accessed28 Nov. 2022].
  » https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:East_Side_of_Park_Crescent_-_Shepherd,_Metropolitan_Improvements_(1828),_p305.jpg

Books and newspapers

• ACCIOLY, Hildebrando. Grã-Bretanha: Notícia histórica. In.: BRASIL. Ministério das Relações Exteriores. Arquivo Diplomático da Independência. Edição fac-similada da edição de 1922. Volume I. Tomo I e II. Brasília: Ministério das Relações Exteriores, 1972.
• AGUIAR, Antônio Augusto de. Vida do Marquez de Barbacena Rio de Janeiro: Imprensa Nacional, 1896.
• ALBUQUERQUE, Heloísa Cavalcanti de. A Embaixada do Brasil em Washington [s. l.]: Dezembro Editorial; Embaixada do Brasil em Washington, BM&F, 2001.
• ALMEIDA, Paulo Roberto de. Formação da diplomacia econômica no Brasil: as relações econômicas internacionais no Império. 3ª. edição revista. Brasília: FUNAG, 2017.
• BARBACENA, Visconde de. [Felisberto Caldeira Brant Pontes Oliveira e Horta]. Defeza dos negociadores do emprestimo brasileiro em Londres contra as invectivas do parecer da commissão da Camara dos Deputados, sobre o relatorio do Ministro da Fazenda Rio de Janeiro Na Typographia Imperial e Nacional, 1826.
• BARMAN, Roderick. Nathan Mayer Rothschild and Brazil: The Role of Samuel Phillips & Co. London: Rothschild Archive, 2003. Available at:Available at:https://www.rothschildarchive.org/materials/ar2003_brazil.pdf [accessed28 Nov. 2022].
  » https://www.rothschildarchive.org/materials/ar2003_brazil.pdf
• BARROSO, Gustavo. Brasil - colônia de banqueiros (História dos empréstimos de 1824 a 1934). Rio de Janeiro: Civilização Brasileira, 1934(2ª. edição).
• BETHELL, Leslie. The Independence of Brazil and the Abolition of the Brazilian Slave Trade: Anglo-Brazilian Relations, 1822-1826. Journal of Latin American Studies Cambridge University Press, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 115-147, 1969.
• BRASIL. Ministério das Relações Exteriores. Arquivo Diplomático da Independência Edição fac-similada da edição de 1922. Volumes I e II. Brasília: Ministério das Relações Exteriores, 1972.
• BRITISH PRESS, London, June 15, 1821, p. 4.
• BRITISH PRESS, London, June 18, 1825, p. 3.
• COLVIN, Howard. A Biographical Dictionary of British Architects, 1600-1840 Third Edition. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1995.
• CALÓGERAS, João Pandiá. O Marquez de Barbacena 2ª. Edição. Rio de Janeiro: Companhia Editora Nacional, 1936.
• CALÓGERAS, João Pandiá. A política exterior do Império Volume II - O Primeiro Reinado. Rio de Janeiro: Imprensa Nacional, 1928.
• CARPENTER, Kirsty. The novelty of the French émigrés in London in 1790s. In. KELLY, Debra; CONYK, Martin. A History of the French in London: Liberty, Equality and Opportunity London: School of Advanced Study, University of London, Institute of Historical Research, 2013.
• CARREIRA, Liberato de Castro. História financeira e orçamentária do Império do Brazil desde a sua fundação Rio de Janeiro: Imprensa Nacional, 1889.
• CARVALHO, Ronald de. Estudos Brasileiros. 3ª. série. Rio de Janeiro: F. Briguiet & Cia., 1931.
• CERVO, Amado Luiz. BUENO, Clodoaldo. História da política exterior do Brasil 4ª. edição revista e ampliada. Brasília: Editora UnB, 2014.
• CHIARELLI, Silvia Raquel. Le Corbusier: Embaixada da França, Brasília. Tese (Doutorado). Universidade Presbiteriana Mackenzie, São Paulo, 2018.
• DAWSON, Frank Griffith. A primeira crise da dívida latino-americana: a City de Londres e a Bolha Especulativa de 1822-1825 São Paulo: Editora 34, 1998.
• DÓRIA, Luís Gastão d’Escrangnolle. A Independência em Windsor. Revista da Semana, Ano XXIV, N. 22, 26 de maio de 1923. Rio de Janeiro.
• ELMES, James. Metropolitan Improvements; or London in the Nineteenth Century London: Jones & Co., 1828.
• FISHER, Sylvia. SANTOS, Paulo Roberto Alves. Conexões internacionais: arquitetura estrangeira em Brasília. Thesis, vol. 5, pp. 201-214, 2018.
• FREITAS, Caio de. George Canning e o Brasil (influência da diplomacia inglesa na formação brasileira) Rio de Janeiro: Companhia Editora Nacional, 1958.
• GIRARDELLI, Paolo. Editorial: Here and elsewhere: the landmarks of a changing world order. (Dossier: The space of diplomacy. Design and beyond). ABE Journal (Online), 12, 2017.
• GIRARDELLI, Paolo. Power or leisure? Remarks on the architecture of the European summer embassies on the Bosphorus shore. New Perspectives on Turkey, 50, pp. 29-58, 2014.
• GLOBE, London, February 4, 1825, p. 4.
• GOUVÊA, Fernando da Cruz. Um diplomata e político do Império: O conselheiro Sérgio Teixeira de Macedo Recife: CEPE, 2010.
• GUIMARÃES, Argeu. Diccionario bio-biographico brasileiro de diplomacia, politica externa e direito internacional Rio de Janeiro: Edição do autor, 1938.
• GUIMARÃES, Carlos Gabriel. A presença inglesa nas finanças e no comércio no Brasil Imperial: os casos da Sociedade Bancária Mauá, McGregor & Cia (1854-1866) e da firma inglesa Samuel Phillips & Cia (1808-1840) São Paulo: Alameda, 2012.
• HARRIS, Eileen. The Genius of Robert Adam: His Interiors London: Paul Mellon Centre BA, 2001.
• HENRIKSON, A. K. The Geography of Diplomacy. In.: FLINT, C. The Geography of War and Peace: From Death Camps to Diplomats New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.
• ITABAYANA, Visconde de [Manuel Rodrigues Gameiro Pessoa]. Exposição fiel sobre a negociação do empréstimo que o Império do Brasil ha contraído em Londres e sobre as vantagens delle resultantes Londres: J. Barnard, 1827.
• LIMA, Manuel de Oliveira. História diplomática do Brasil: Reconhecimento do Império. Paris; Rio de Janeiro: H. Garnier, 1901.
• LOEFFLER, Jane C. The Architecture of Diplomacy: Heyday of the United States Embassy-Building Program, 1954-1960. Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, vol. 49, n. 3, pp. 251-278, Sept, 1990).
• LONDON COURIER and Evening Gazette, London, January 24, 1825, p. 4.
• LONDON COURIER and Evening Gazette, London, August 14, 1828, p. 4.
• LONDON EVENING STANDARD, London, July 7, 1828, p. 4.
• LONDON PACKET and New Lloyd’s Evening Post, London, January 23, 1828, p. 1.
• LUSTOSA, Isabel. O jornalista que imaginou o Brasil: tempo, vida e pensamento de Hipólito da Costa (1774-1823). Campinas: Editora da Unicamp, 2019.
• MAMADOUH, Virginie; MEJIER, Anne; SIDAWAY, James D; WUSTEN, Herman van der. Toward an Urban Geography of Diplomacy: Lessons from The Hague. The Professional Geographer, vol. 67, issue 4, pp. 564-574, 2015.
• MARS, Valerie. Experiencing French cookery in Nineteenth-century London. In. KELLY, Debra; CONYK, Martin. A History of the French in London: Liberty, Equality and Opportunity London: School of Advanced Study, University of London, Institute of Historical Research, 2013; p. 217-240.
• MEDEIROS, Ana Elisabete de Almeida; CHAIM, Giselle Marie Cormier; BARBOSA, Carlos Lázaro Rocha; SOARES, Júlia Lopes. O arquiteto da diplomacia: a trajetória profissional de Olavo Redig de Campos. In: 13DOCOMOMO Brasil, 2019, Salvador. Anais do 13 DOCOMOMO Brasil: Arquitetura Moderna Brasileira. Salvador: Instituto de Arquitetos do Brasil, Departamento da Bahia, 2019.
• MENDONÇA, Renato. Um diplomata na corte da Inglaterra: o barão de Penedo e sua época Rio de Janeiro: Companhia Editora Nacional, 1942.
• MORAES, Alexandre José de Mello. A Independência e o Império do Brasil Rio de Janeiro: Typ. do Globo, 1877.
• MORNING CHRONICLE, London, June 9, 1825, p. 3.
• MORNING CHRONICLE, London, September 9, 1824, p. 4.
• MORNING CHRONICLE, London, June 18, 1825, p. 3.
• MORNING CHRONICLE, London, February 19, 1827, p. 3.
• MORNING CHRONICLE, London, October 2, 1827, p. 4.
• MORNING HERALD, London, October 14, 1823, p. 2.
• MORNING HERALD, London, July 6, 1824, p. 3.
• MORNING HERALD, London, May 2, 1825, p. 3.
• MORNING HERALD, London, May 12, 1825, p. 3.
• MORNING HERALD, London, March 20, 1826p. 2.
• MORNING HERALD, London, May 25, 1826p. 3.
• MORNING HERALD, London, June 2, 1826p. 4.
• MORNING HERALD, London, August 15, 1826, p. 4.
• MORNING POST, London, May 13, 1828, p. 4.
• MORNING POST, London, December 27, 1844, p. 8.
• MORNING POST, London, September 5, 1822, p. 4.
• MORNING POST, London, February 13, 1824, p. 3.
• MORNING POST, London, July 24, 1824, p. 3.
• MORNING POST, London, August 5, 1824, p. 4.
• MORNING POST, London, February 5, 1825, p. 3.
• MORNING POST, London, March 28, 1825, p. 3.
• MORNING POST, London, June 24, 1825, p. 1.
• MORNING POST, London, August 24, 1825, p. 3.
• MORNING POST, London, March 30, 1826, p. 2.
• MORNING POST, London, April 5, 1827, p. 4.
• MORNING POST, London, May 14, 1827, p. 7.
• MORNING POST, London, June 15, 1827, p. 3.
• MORNING POST, London, July 16, 1827, p. 3.
• MORNING POST, London, February 23, 1828, p. 3.
• MORNING POST, London, May 29, 1828, p. 3.
• MORNING POST, London, December 5, 1828, p. 4.
• NABUCO, Joaquim. Minha Formação Paris; Rio de Janeiro: H. Garnier, 1900.
• NEUMANN, Iver. Diplomatic Sites: A Critical Enquiry New York: Oxford University Press, 2013.
• NEUMAYER, Eric. Distance, Power and Ideology: Diplomatic Representation in a World of Nation-States. Area, vol. 40, n. 2, pp. 228-236, 2008.
• NEWS, The; London, February 20, 1826, p. 2.
• NEW TIMES, London, February 20, 1826, p. 2.
• NEW TIMES, London, October 13, 1826, p. 3.
• NEW TIMES, London, May 23, 1828, p. 3.
• NEW TIMES, London, July 17, 1828, p. 4.
• OLSEN, Donald J. The Growth of Victorian London London: Holmes & Meier, 1976.
• OLSEN, Donald J. The City as a Work of Art New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1986.
• PANTALEÃO, Olga. Reconhecimento do Império - 1. Mediação Inglesa. In.: HOLLANDA, Sérgio Buarque (coord.). O Brasil monárquico, tomo II: o processo de emancipação (História Geral da Civilização Brasileira, tomo II, vol. 3). 9ª. edição. Rio de Janeiro: Bertrand Brasil, 2003.
• PEIXOTO, Rafael Cupello. O marquês de Barbacena: política e sociedade no Brasil Imperial (1796-1841) Rio de Janeiro: Arquivo Nacional, 2022.
• RAMOS, Eduardo Silva. Centralização e privilégio: instituições econômicas e financeiras na formação do Estado brasileiro (1808-1836). São Paulo, Universidade de São Paulo, 2018(Dissertação de mestrado).
• RAMOS, Eduardo Silva. Dívida externa (verbete). In.: OLIVEIRA, Cecília Helena de Salles; PIMENTA, João Paulo (orgs.). Dicionário da Independência do Brasil: história, memória, historiografia São Paulo: EDUSP, 2022.
• CORRESPONDÊNCIA relativa aos successos dados em Portugal e no Brasil, de 1822-1823. Revista do Instituto Histórico e Geográfico Brasileiro, Rio de Janeiro, Tomo XXII, pp. 413-439, 1859.
• RODRIGUES, José Honório. Independência: Revolução e Contrarrevolução A Política Internacional Rio de Janeiro: F. Alves, 1975.
• ROYAL CALENDAR, and Court and City Register or England, Scotland, Ireland and the Colonies, For the Year 1825. London: W. March, 1825.
• SANTOS, Guilherme de Paula Costa. No caleidoscópio da diplomacia: formação da monarquia constitucional e reconhecimento da Independência e do Império do Brasil, 1822-1827 São Paulo: BBM, 2022.
• SANTOS, Guilherme de Paula Costa. Manuel Rodrigues Gameiro Pessoa(verbete) In.: OLIVEIRA, Cecília Helena de Salles; PIMENTA, João Paulo(orgs.). Dicionário da Independência do Brasil: história, memória, historiografia São Paulo: EDUSP, 2022b.
• SAUNDERS, Ann. Regent’s Park: A Study of the Development of the Area from 1086 to the Present Day Second Edition (revised). London: Bedford College, 1981. (1ª ed. 1969)
• SHAW, Caroline. Rothschild e o Brazil: an introduction to sources in the Rothschild Archive. Latin America Research Review, Vol. 40, N. 1, pp. 165-185, 2005.
• SHEPPARD, F. H. W. Survey of London: Volume 39, the Grosvenor Estate in Mayfair, Part 1 (General History). London, 1977, British History Online. http://www.british-history.ac.uk/survey-london/vol39/pt1 [accessed30 January 2023].
  » http://www.british-history.ac.uk/survey-london/vol39/pt1
• SHIMAZU, Naoko. Places in diplomacy. Political Geography Volume 31, Issue 6, pp. 335-336, 2012.
• SONG, Ke; ZUH, Jianfei. Architecture at a Political Turning Point: Diplomatic Buildings in 1970s Beijing. ABE Journal (Online), 12, 2017. (Dossier: The space of diplomacy. Design and beyond)
• SUMMERHILL, William Roderick. Inglorious Revolution: Political Institutions, Sovereign Debt, Financial Underdevelopment in Imperial Brazil New Haven and London, 2015.
• SUMMERSON, John. Georgian London New rev. ed. London: Barrie & Jenkins, 1988. (1a. ed. 1962) .
• SILVA, Fábio Carlos da. Barões do ouro e aventureiros britânicos no Brasil São Paulo: EDUPS; Belém: Ed UFPA, 2012.
• STAR, London, November 16, 1826, p. 2.
• STAR, London, February 23, 1828, p. 1.
• SUN, London, June 12, 1823, p. 3.
• SUN, London, February 10, 1825, p. 3.
• SUN, London, March 28, 1825, p. 3.
• SUN, London, June 18, 1825, p. 3
• SUN, London, July 14, 1827, p. 4.
• SUN, London, January 19, 1828, p. 4.
• SUN, London, February 11, 1828, p. 3.
• VAN GAMEREN, Dirk; TOLA, Ateneh Tesfaye. A City Shaped by Diplomacy. ABE Journal (Online), 12, 2017. (Dossier: The space of diplomacy. Design and beyond)
• WENREIB, Ben; HIBBERT, Christopher (orgs.). The London Encyclopaedia London: Papermac, 1983.
• WHITE, Jerry. London in the Nineteenth Century: ‘A Human Awful Wonder of God’ London: Random House UK, 2008.
• ZERLANG, Martin. London as a panorama. In.: ZERLANG, Martin (ed.). Representing London. Hellerup: Spring, 2001.

• 1
  The article is the result of research started in the author’s PhD thesis, in chapter 1, which was defended at Universidade de São Paulo (USP), in 2019, and developed afterwards, between 2021 and 2022, in postdoctoral research at Birkbeck, University of London, supported by a Postdoctoral Scholarship Abroad from CNPq/INCT Proprietas.
• 4
  Other interesting approaches to the geography of diplomacy may be found in Neumann (2013) and Neumayer (2008).
• 5
  Other authors who revealed information on the mission were Carvalho (1931), when he researched the issue of Cisplatina, and Bethell (1969), on the issue of the abolition of the slave trade.
• 6
  There is the interesting study by Albuquerque (2001) on the Brazilian legation and embassy building in Washington since the 19^th century, promoted and published by the Brazilian Embassy.
• 7
  The research project consulted diplomatic correspondence, private correspondence, newspaper texts (notes of deaths, births and marriages, social and police texts, rent advertisements, advertisements for companies, firms and transactions), almanacs, fire insurance records, maps, engravings and other sources, mostly found in British archives, libraries and newspaper libraries, all of which will be mentioned throughout the article.
• 8
  The address is in more than twenty letters, send by Gameiro, but also by Brant, Antonio Teles da Silva, João Antônio Pereira da Cunha, Eustáquio Adolfo de Melo Matos, between 1825 and 1829, to the Foreign Office and which are currently deposited in The National Archives of the UK, at FO 13/32; FO 13/43; FO 13/54; FO 13/67. Furthermore, in the British Library’s Section of Manuscripts there are four letters send by Gameiro to the Foreign Office, containing the same address, at Add MS 51633, Add MS 47294 A. The British periodical press of the time also confirms this fact.
• 9
  In most diplomatic representations at that time, there was no difference between the residence and office of the mission’s head, a chancellery, and work was undertaken in the same place. In the case of Brazil, the change of the head of a mission implied changing addresses until, at least, surely the middle of the 19^th century, without this being an orientation or obligation.
• 10
  The address is in five letters, send by Brant, between January and August 1823, to the Foreign Office and which are currently deposited at The National Archives of the UK, at FO 63/2/64. Furthermore, in the British Library’s Section of Manuscripts there is one letter send by Brant to the Foreign Office with the same address, at Add MS 89143/2/22/7. Two of the letters found in The National Archives are numbered at 29 Allsop’s Buildings, which might have been a mistake by Brant, possibly the number from New Road or from an indoor unit in the building.
• 11
  The journalist Hipólito José da Costa sought to collaborate with Brant and corresponded directly with the office in Rio. Hipólito was living in London since 1805 and had direct contact with members of British political authorities at the time (Lustosa, 2019). He resided at n. 7, Lower Phillimore Place, the terrace on the west side of Argyll Road, on the then Phillimore Estate (Kensington). Although he worked at his residence during the period, writing letters to Rio for example, Hipólito died in September 1823. Gameiro Pessoa also was in London briefly, in January 1823, to help Caldeira Brant, since he had years of experience in diplomatic service while Brant had none. However, the address of this stay has not yet been identified.
• 12
  The same address is in eight letters send by Gameiro, deposited in The National Archives of the UK, at location FO 63/282. See also Itabayana (1827, pp. 80-81).
• 13
  The address is in four letters send by Brant located in The National Archives of the UK, location FO 63/282.
• 14
  The address is in nine letters send by Brant, by Gameiro or by both, found in The National Archives of the UK, in the following locations: FO 13/14; FO 63/282.
• 15
  According to Gameiro himself: “On the 30th I will move to 23 Park Crescent” (Brasil, 1972, vol. II, p. 273.). The same address is also in four letters send by Gameiro accessible in The National Archives of the UK, in the following location FO 13/14.
• 16
  For imagens of Park Crescent at the time, consult the engravings by Ackermann (1822) and Shepherd (1828).
• 17
  This is not an exhaustive investigation. Eighteen foreign legations were identified, in addition to the Brazilian legation house. It was not possible to locate the residences of agents in Buenos Aires, Mexico, Chile, Turkey and Switzerland.
• 18
  For the address of the Hanover embassy, cf. Sun, June 18, 1825, p. 3; British Press, June 18, 1825, p. 3; Morning Chronicle, June 18, 1825, p. 3. For the address of the Dutch embassy, cf. Morning Post, March 28, 1825, p. 3; Morning Post, August 24, 1825, p. 3. For the Bavarian legation, cf. Morning Post, February 5, 1825, p. 3; For that of France cf. Sun, February 10, 1825, p. 3; Morning Post, June 24, 1825, p. 1.; For that of Colombia, cf. Globe, February 4, 1825, p. 4; For that of Austria, cf. Morning Herald, May 12, 1825, p. 3; For that of the Two Sicilies, cf. Morning Post, February 13, 1824, p. 3; Morning Post, March 30, 1826, p. two; For that of Russia, cf. Morning Herald, May 2, 1825, p. 3; Star, November 16, 1826, p. 2. For the house of Denmark, cf. SUN, June 12, 1823, p. 3. For Sweden, Saxony, Sardinia, Baden and Hesse, Spain, Prussia, the United States and Wurtemberg, cf. Royal Kalendar (1825), pp. 138-139.
• 19
  For the period of construction of buildings in London, cf. Wenreib; Hibbert, 1983.
• 20
  The building of the Portuguese embassy, at 74 South Audley Street, was designed, according to Colvin (1995, p. 865), by Edward Shepherd.
• 21
  Other residents were Thomas Allan (at no. 22), Charles Townshend, William Edward Poulter, Henry Williams, Mr. and Mrs. Gowan (at no. 20), Mr. and Mrs. Shaw, Mr. and Mrs. George Tudor, Mr. Cavan (at no. 8) and John Cowell, Joshua Field (at no. 13).
• 22
  The documents which attest to the residence of these residents at Park Crescent are: for the Marchioness of Cornwallis: cf. SUN, March 28, 1825, p. 3; Morning Post, July 16, 1827, p. 3; London Metropolitan Archive (LMA), CLC/B/192/F/001/MS11936/499/1026149; CLC/B/192/F/001/MS11936/504/1031360; For William Fairlie: cf. London Courier, 24 January 1825, p. 4; for Thomas Allan: cf. Morning Chronicle, September 9, 1824, p. 4; for Thomas Hudson, cf. Morning Advertiser, 9 June 1825, p. 3; Morning Post, February 23, 1828, p. 3; for Lion Abraham Goldschmidt, cf. New Times, February 20th. 1826 p. 2; News, 20 February 1826 p. 2; for Ralph Bernal, cf. Morning Post, August 5, 1824, p. 4; Morning Herald, August 15, 1826, p. 4; for William H. J. Scott, cf. Morning Herald, March 20, 1826, p. 2; for William Edward Poulter, cf. Morning Herald, May 25, 1826 p. 3; for Henry Williams, cf. Morning Herald, June 2, 1826 p. 4; New Times, May 23, 1828, p. 3; for the Gowan couple, cf. New Times, October 13, 1826, p. 3; for Mayer Davidson and Jessy Barent Cohen, cf. Morning Chronicle, Monday 19, February 1827, p. 3; Morning Chronicle, October 2, 1827, p. 4; for George Stewart (Earl of Galloway) and his daughter, Louisa Duncombe, cf. Morning Post, April 5, 1827, p. 4; Morning Post, May 14, 1827, p. 7; for Samuel M. Samuel and Esther Barent Cohen, cf. Morning Post, June 15, 1827, p. 3; Morning Post, May 29, 1828, p. 3; for the Shaw couple, cf. Sun, July 14, 1827, p. 4; for Leslie Melville, cf. Sun, January 19, 1828, p. 4; for the Countess of St. Germains, cf. London Packet, January 23, 1828, p. 1; Morning Post, May 3, 1828, p. 1; for Charles Hammersley, cf. Sun, February 11, 1828, p. 3; for Abraham Samuda, cf. Morning Herald, May 13, 1828, p. 4; for the Tudor couple, cf. London Evening Standard, July 7, 1828, p. 4; for Baron Boston, cf. New Times, July 17, 1828, p. 4; for Cavan, cf. London Courier, August 14, 1828, p. 4; for Thomson Bonar, cf. Morning Post, December 5, 1828, p. 4; for Charles Townshend, cf. Morning Herald, July 6, 1824, p. 3; for John Cowell, cf. Morning Post, September 5, 1822, p. 4; Morning Herald, December 27, 1844, p. 8; for Henry Porcher, cf. LMA CLC/B/192/F/001/MS11936/510/1051199; for Joshua Field, cf. LMA, CLC/B/192/F/001/MS11936/511/1067277.
• 23
  Written mistakely as Henry “Pascher” in various works in Brazil, from the 19th to the 21st century.
• 24
  Without referring in this case to Brazil or the Brazilian legation, Dawson mentioned that the main partner of B. A. Goldschmidt & Co. died in 1826, at Park Crescent, Regent’s Park (1998, p. 164), as was widely reported in the newspapers of the time.
• 25
  Guimarães points out that Samuel Moses Samuel was connected to the slave trade from Africa to Brazil (2012, p. 233). Another Park Crescent resident and Member of Parliament, Ralph Bernal, had farms in Jamaica and hundreds of enslaved persons. Other possible connections to be investigated are that of Thomas Hudson who was a major importer of Portuguese wines; Leslie Melville had worked in the British Army in the Peninsular Wars and Abraham Samuda was from a Portuguese family.

• 3
  Ph.D in Social History, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brazil. [e-mail].

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  15 Sept 2023
• Date of issue
  2023

History

• Received
  28 Feb 2023
• Accepted
  18 Apr 2023