Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T11:54:18.680Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Political Influence of the British Merchants Resident in Chile During the O’higgins’ Administration, 1817-1823*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 December 2015

Jay Kinsbruner
Jay Kinsbruner*
Affiliation:
Queens College, New York
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

For Several reasons the British merchants resident in Chile after the establishment of the patriot government in February, 1817, were in a position to exert political pressure. For one thing, they were beginning to increase in numbers and to prosper. For another, Supreme Director Bernardo O’Higgins, whose father was Irish and who himself had lived and studied in England, was predisposed toward the British and their brand of liberalism. The question of recognition was also important. After independence was declared in 1818, the government made a concerted effort to win recognition from the foreign powers. Attention was centered on Great Britain. But perhaps the most consequential factor was the potential role of the British navy.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Americas , Volume 27 , Issue 1 , July 1970 , pp. 26 - 39
Copyright
Copyright © Academy of American Franciscan History 1970

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

The author wishes to acknowledge the financial assistance of the Joint Committee on Latin American Studies of the Social Science Research Council in carrying out the research project from which this article is drawn.

References

1 Haigh, Samuel, Sketches Of Buenos Ayres And Chile (London, 1829), p. 176 Google Scholar. British industrialist John Miers thought that during the O’Higgins period Vaparaiso did not have more than “four hundred Englishmen,” including transients. See Miers, John, Travels In Chile And La Plata (2 vols. London, 1826), 1,446 Google Scholar.

2 Haigh, op. cit., p. 132.

3 Graham, Maria, Journal Of A Residence In Chile, During The Year 1822 (London, 1824), p. 131.Google Scholar

4 Cited in Humphreys, R.A. (ed.), British Consular Reports On The Trade And Politics Of Latin America, 1824-1826 (London, 1940), pp. 344–351 Google Scholar. I have used the official figures.

5 Antonio José de Irisarri, London, May 27, 1817, to Bernardo O’Higgins, MS in Colección Vicuña Mackenna, hereinafter cited as CVM, vol. 94, in Archivo Nacional De Chile, hereinafter cited as ANC.

6 Antonio José de Irisarri, London, June 25, 1817, to Bernardo O’Higgins, MS in CVM, vol. 94. See also Centener’s, Charles W. “La Misión Irisarri a la Gran Bretaña, 1818-1823,” in Boletín de la Academia Chilena de la Historia, XI, No. 28 (1944), pp. 5–16 Google Scholar.

7 Colección Tribunal del Consulado, hereinafter cited as Consulado, vol. 35, p. 34, in ANC.

8 The 1813 decree is in Boletin de las leyes i decretos del gobierno (Santiago, 1898), I, pp. 28–114 Google Scholar. See Veliz, Claudio, Historia de la marina mercante de Chile (Santiago, 1961). pp. 22–23 Google Scholar, for a clear analysis of the decree. Foreigners were permitted to sell only imported goods, and then only in the wholesale trade. It seems to have been taken for granted that the previous general exclusion from retail trade applied. Coastal trade—cabotaje—was reserved for nationals.

9 Consulado, vol. 35, pp. 34-35.

10 Boletín (1898), II, p. 109.

11 Ibid., pp. 129-130.

12 Consulado, vol. 17.

13 Carlos Higginson, Santiago, November 25, 1817, to Consulado, MS in Consulado, vol. 17.

14 The MS papers of the hearing and Consulado decrees are in Ibid.

15 W.G.D. Worthington, Santiago, October 22, 1818, to John Quincy Adams, in Manning, William R. (ed.), Diplomatic Correspondence Of The United States. Concerning The Independence Of The Latin-American Nations (3 vols.; New York, 1925), II, 941–946 Google Scholar.

16 Boletin, II, p. 316. See also Goebeľs, Dorothy Burne “British-American Rivalry in the Chilean Trade, 1817-1820,” in The Journal of Economic History, II, No. 2 (Nov. 1942), pp. 190–202 Google Scholar. However, I do not think the author has demonstrated that there was a trade rivalry between British and American merchants resident in Chile. Albion, Robert G. in his “British Shipping and Latin America, 1806-1914,” (The Journal of Economic History, XI, No. 4 [Fall 1951], pp. 361–374)Google Scholar, has observed that the British had two elements their United States’ colleagues lacked — “capital and manufacturers.” This no doubt aided the British merchants in establishing themselves. Albion’s trade figures are of value only for the post-1823 period.

17 Antonio José de Irisarri, n.p., June 4, 1818, to Gobernador de Valparaíso, MS copy in Ministerio del Interior, hereinafter cited as MI, vol. 46, in ANC.

18 Antonio José de Irisarri, n.p., November 17, 1818, to Governador de Valparaiso, MS copy in MI, vol. 46.

19 Boletín, II, pp. 407-408.

20 Joaquín Echeverría, n.p., March 20, 1819, to Gobernador de Valparaíso, MS copy in MI, vol. 46.

21 For instance, Francisco Blanco, “Natural de Londres,” had lived in the mineral district of Illapel for more than fourteen years, where he had married, raised a family, and worked in the mining industry. One day the lieutenant governor of the district placed him under arrest, gave him two hours to settle his affairs, and then transported him off to jail. In his own defense Blanco raised several questions that make it quite certain that he was charged with doubtful patriotism. The case got to O’Higgins who decreed his freedom. (The MS Blanco papers are in MI, vol. 40.)

22 The MS Wooster papers, relating to his exclusive privilege for whale fishing in the port of Coquimbo, are in Colección Capitanía General, hereinafter cited as CCG, vol. 1050, in ANC.

23 See Véliz, op. cit., pp. 28-29.

24 The MS solicitation and decree are in CCG, vol. 1050.

25 MS copies of the decrees are in CCG, vol. 1044. There were enough foreigners in Valparaiso that in October, 1819, the government found it necessary to prohibit duels between “English and Americans.” (MI, vol. 46) Duelling among naval personnel is mentioned in Billingsley’s, Edward Baxter In Defense of Neutral Rights (Chapel Hill, 1967), pp. 90–91 Google Scholar.

26 Boletín, II, pp. 174-175.

27 Joaquín Echeverría, n.p., November 16, 1819, to Gobernador de Valparaíso, MS copy in MI, vol. 46.

28 Luis de la Cruz, Valparaiso, November 18, 1819, to Joaquín Echeverría, MS in MI, vol. 39, pp. 295-296; and Echeverría, n.p., November 23, 1819, to Gobernador de Valparaíso, MS copies in MI, vol. 46.

29 The letter was published in the Gaceta Ministerial De Chile, December 18, 1819.

30 Boletín, II, pp. 177-179

31 Ibid., pp. 195-197. The Consulado’s complaint was not in accordance with the 1813 trade decree. The government’s interpretation of trade regulations, especially of such equivocal terms as “hijo del país” or “natural del país” changed from time to time. To follow all these changes would require a separate study.

32 Sesiones de los cuerpos legislativos de la república de Chile, 1811 a 1845, ed. Letelier, Valentín (37 vols.; Santiago, 1877-1908)Google Scholar, hereinafter cited as Sesiones, II, pp. 373-377.

33 Ibid., IV, pp. 17-23.

34 Ibid., pp. 228-230.

35 Ibid., pp. 259-262.

36 Ibid., pp. 102-105.

37 Boletín, II, pp. 241-242.

38 The MS letter is in CCG, vol. 1051, pp. 224-225.

39 Boletín, II, pp. 365-366.

40 Sesiones, V, pp. 126-128.

41 José Antonio Rodríguez, Santiago, June 8, 1821, to Consulado, MS in Consulado, vol. 18.

42 Sesiones, V, pp. 81-84.

43 The MS contract and decree are in Colección Fondo Antiguo, vol. 24, pieza 33, 2fs, in ANC

44 Diego Barnard, Santiago. September 14, 1822, to Supremo Director del Estado Chileno, MS in CCG, vol. 1051, pp. 324-325. The interest of the British government deserves a special study.

45 Miers’ fascinating account of his travails, which included a law suit that dragged for three years and an earthquake, can be found in his Travels hi Chile And La Plata, op. cit., II, pp. 276-287. Papers relating to his case are in CCG, vol. 1051, pp. 382-384 and in MI, vol. 61, pp. 15-18.

46 For a different interpretation concerning a British monopoly of trade see Marcello Segall, Desarrollo del capilalismo en Chile (Santiago, 1953), pp. 18-19; and Hernán Ramírez Necochea, Historia del imperialismo en Chile (Santiago, I960), pp. 21-30; 41-49. Segall merely speculates while Ramírez relies on his familiar quantitative approach, which in this case strikes me as being largely inadequate. Apart from the fact that trade figures by country for the period 1810-1823 generally either do not exist or are of questionable reliability, they would not necessarily indicate the nature of influence attendant upon an import-export trade. Some useful figures are presented in Charles W. Centener, “Relaciones comerciales de Gran Bretaña, 1810-1830,” in Revista Chilena de Historia y Geografía, No. 103 (July-Dec, 1943), pp. 96-107. In 1825 the first British consul to Chile estimated that during the 6 months ending December 31, 1824, 64 British and 37 United States ships entered and cleared the port of Valparaíso. See Christopher Richard Nugent, Valparaíso, March 17, 1825, to George Canning, in Humphreys (ed.), op. cit., pp. 90-103. According to the Foreign Office, in 1825 and 1826 British ships again outnumbered those from the United States, but did not do as well in tonnage. See Humphreys (ed.), op. cit., p. 91 footnote 2.