Moderantism

Moderantism was, together with Progressivism, one of the two main currents of 19th century Spanish liberalism. It had its origins in the so-called moderates during the Liberal Triennium, who during the reign of Isabella II formed a party, the Moderate Party, which was the party that remained in power the longest and managed to integrate the "reformist" absolutists into its ranks. The less conservative sector of the Moderate Party formed the Liberal Union in 1854. During the Restoration, the members of the Moderate Party joined Antonio Cánovas del Castillo's Liberal-Conservative Party.

Their European points of reference were French doctrinairianism and British conservatism. Their adversary in Spanish public life was progressive liberalism, although both constituted the only part of the political spectrum institutionally accepted for the political game, the so-called dynastic parties.^[1]

^ Texts from Francisco Tomás y Valiente, El derecho penal de la monarquía absoluta (in Spanish), Madrid, Tecnos, 1969, pgs. 431-432 as quoted in this study. but these paragraphs do not appear in the google books preview. The second paragraph, on the other hand, is a direct quote from José María Jover (Política, diplomacia y humanismo popular en la España del siglo XIX (in Spanish), 1976, pg. 348-349), as can be verified by this other source.

In Spain there was a very firm adherence to this adulterated form of political liberalism, tailor-made for the conservative bourgeoisie. The most enduring Spanish Constitutions of the 19th century obeyed this theoretical model in their entirety. What is more, in Spain the conservative tendency of doctrinaire liberalism was accentuated in several respects, and its temporal validity was much more lasting than in France. The main theoreticians of doctrinaire liberalism in Spain were, according to Díez del Corral, Jovellanos, Martínez de la Rosa, Donoso Cortés and Cánovas del Castillo. As can be seen, a string of names that links on the one hand with the learned of the late 18th century and on the other with the most important politician of the last quarter of the 19th century. José María Jover has called the Spanish version of doctrinaire liberalism 'moderantism'. There was in Spain a party, the Moderado, which was only moderately (i.e., scarcely) liberal.
......
Moderantism is the political regime of an oligarchy that wishes to keep the forms of a representative regime without prejudice to renouncing in advance the results that a sincere application of this regime would bring.

[1] Texts from Francisco Tomás y Valiente, El derecho penal de la monarquía absoluta (in Spanish), Madrid, Tecnos, 1969, pgs. 431-432 as quoted in this study. but these paragraphs do not appear in the google books preview. The second paragraph, on the other hand, is a direct quote from José María Jover (Política, diplomacia y humanismo popular en la España del siglo XIX (in Spanish), 1976, pg. 348-349), as can be verified by this other source.

In Spain there was a very firm adherence to this adulterated form of political liberalism, tailor-made for the conservative bourgeoisie. The most enduring Spanish Constitutions of the 19th century obeyed this theoretical model in their entirety. What is more, in Spain the conservative tendency of doctrinaire liberalism was accentuated in several respects, and its temporal validity was much more lasting than in France. The main theoreticians of doctrinaire liberalism in Spain were, according to Díez del Corral, Jovellanos, Martínez de la Rosa, Donoso Cortés and Cánovas del Castillo. As can be seen, a string of names that links on the one hand with the learned of the late 18th century and on the other with the most important politician of the last quarter of the 19th century. José María Jover has called the Spanish version of doctrinaire liberalism 'moderantism'. There was in Spain a party, the Moderado, which was only moderately (i.e., scarcely) liberal.
......
Moderantism is the political regime of an oligarchy that wishes to keep the forms of a representative regime without prejudice to renouncing in advance the results that a sincere application of this regime would bring.

[1]