¹ Biblioteca Municipal de Lima (hereafter cited as BML), Actas, de Cabildo, Libro, 45, 15 07 1821.Google Scholar 1 was privileged, on the occasion of the Fiestas Patrias in 1972, to be given permission to use the original Libro 45 of the Acts, because I needed to read the entire volume. I believe I was the first foreigner allowed to use the book containing this national treasure, which is usually kept on display in a glass case. The cabildo meetings immediately leading up to and following the Declaration, however, have been printed, in edited form, in Fernando, Gamio Palacio, La municipalidad de Lima y Ia emancipación de 1821 (Lima, 1971) This in turn is a re-edition and amplification of the same author's publication under a very similar title,Google ScholarLa municipalidad de Limo y la emancipación (Lima, 1944). All citations here are from the 1975 book. A very usable facsimile of the Declaration and the signatures, complete with transcriptions of the names and an alphabetic list, was published under the title Acta de Ia Declaración de la Independencia Nacional in 1971 by the Concejo Provincial de Lima. It is the copy used here. The Biblioteca Municipal of Lima is not a major archive, rather it is the working-library for the Concejo Provincial. It does, however, possess all of the extant Libros de Actas.Google Scholar

² I used the facsimile of the Declaration to count this number. I have deducted one name, that of Manuel Muelle, the cabildo secretary, who signed twice. Even so, the total of 3,504 may not be perfectly correct because some names are illegible or obscured as a result of smeared ink, bad handwriting, ink transference through the pages, and several rips on pp. 1–4. The greatest problem in identifying signers, however, is that many of them used short versions of their names. Consequently, I cannot identify, much less check for possible duplication, names such as José Garcia (there are 4), José Gutiérrez (3), Joséeno (3), José Rodríguez (3), or José Sánchez (4). One would assume that no one but Muelle signed twice, but it is impossible to be sure. I have ventured a positive identification only when the name is clearly distinguishable from others like it by some recognized criterion such as use of a maternal surname or variations in spelling. The Gaceta del Gobierno Independiente de Lima published a special edition on 10 Aug. 1821, containing a list of the signatures. It was apparently incomplete. At any rate, the list published as an appendix to the facsimile of the Gaceta (La Plata, 1950) is incomplete, as its editors point out. It showed 3,136 signatures.Google Scholar

³ See Timothy, E. Anna, ‘Economic Causes of San Martín's Failure at Lima’, Hispanic American Historical Review, 54, No. 4, (11 1974), 657–681.Google Scholar

⁴ Pedro, Angel de Tado to Marqués, de Castell-Bravo de Rivero, Madrid, 14 11 1823, Archivo General de IndiasGoogle Scholar hereafter cited as AGI, Lima 1024. A word is in order concerning why this startling document, to my knowledge, has not previously been studied. It is a very long letter written on a single sheet of paper in a nearly microscopic script, and folded several times. With no identifying marks to attract the investigator's eye, it literally disappears in its legajo. Its importance was recognized, however, when first received, for Castell-Bravo, an emigrant Lima oidor, turned it over to the Fiscal of the Council of the Indies, who suggested it be published as propaganda. The Council read the letter in a session on 17 Jan. 1826, but there is no indication it was ever published. Two other documents substantiate Tado's existence and the details of his career. One (AGI, Lima 1563) is an expediente concerning his request in 1826 for the crown to grant him a benefice in some church in Spain. It contains his printed Relación de Méritos (in which his surname is spelled ‘Jado’), and personal references from the Archbishop and Castell-Bravo. The second (AGI, Lima 604) is the decision of the Cámara de Indias of 27 02 1826, to find him a position. Throughout both expedientes, Tado is treated as a competent witness with a long experience in Peru. When dispensing benefices the Council was very critical of applicants, and its failure to notice anything amiss in Tado's qualifications or career suggests, quite frankly, that everything was in order. I have chosen to use ‘Tado’ as his surname because in his own handwriting it seems to be a T.Google Scholar

⁵ La Serna announced the evacuation on 4 July and 8 July, 1821, AGI, Indiferente 1571 and 313 respectively.

⁶ Hall is to be preferred over all other witnesses, both foreign and Peruvian, because of his skill as an observer. He was the captain of a British royal navy ship. H.M.S. Conway, cruising the Pacific. Consequently, he was present at the meetings and discussions of both royalists and rebels. He knew both San Martiín and La Serna, and judged them fairly. Though he leaned towards the idea of independence on intellectual grounds, he was not anti-Spanish, and scrupulously observed the principles of neutrality. Hence, he is to be preferred even over other foreign observers such as John, Miller. His book, Extracts from a Journal Written on the Coasts of Chili, Peru, and Mexico in the years 1820, 1821 and 1822 (2 vols., 3rd ed., Edinburgh, 1824), is marred chiefly by the fact that his official duties sometimes drew him away from the center of action. Thus, while he watched San Martín set up the republic, he was not in Lima during the next few months to witness its collapse.Google Scholar

⁷ Hall, , Extracts, 1, 219–232.Google Scholar

⁸ Gamio, Palacio, La municipalidad, p. 39.Google Scholar

⁹ Tado to Castell-Bravo, AGI, Lima 1024.

¹⁰ Gamio, Palacio, La municipalidad, p. 42.Google Scholar

¹¹ Ibid., p. 45.

¹² Manuel, Pardo to Minister of Grace and Justice, Rio de Janeiro, 12 02 1822, AGI, Lima 1659.Google Scholar

¹³ Pedro, , Bishop of Guamanga, to Minister of Grace and Justice, Mexico City, 8 03 1822, AGI, Indiferente 1571.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Manuel, M´ndez to King, , Madrid, 16 09 1823, AGI, Lima 1024.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Consulta, Council of Indies, Madrid, 26 January 1824, AGI, Lima 604.

¹⁶ Expediente concerning José, Antonio Prada, Madrid, 1824, AGI, Lima 1024.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Unsigned Diaria, Rio, de Janeiro, 26 12 1821, AGI, Lima 1023.Google Scholar

¹⁸ HaIl, , Extracts, 1, 254–255.Google Scholar

¹⁹ ‘Relación elevada al Sr Presidente del Departamento por los escribaños de Lima, informando de las escrituras extendidas en sus registros por los españoles residentes en esta juris. dicción’, Archivo Nacional del Perú (hereafter cited as ANP), Superior Govierno, Leg. 38, C. 1365.Google Scholar

²⁰ Conde, de Villar de Fuente to San, Martín, Lima, 2 08 1821, ANP, Archivo Histórico de Hacienda, PL I–I0.Google Scholar

²¹ The names of Constulado members are taken from a letter of the Consulado to Pezuela, , Lima, 27 08 1818, AGI, Lima 155.Google Scholar

²² Decree of San, Martín, Quartel General de la Legua, 19 07 1821, AGI, Lima 800.Google Scholar

²⁴ Suplemento a la Gaceta del Gobierno, Lima, No. 40, 22 05 1822.Google Scholar

²⁵ Gaceta del Gobierno, 2 01, 26 01 1822.Google Scholar

²⁶ Hall, , Extracts, 2, 87.Google Scholar

²⁷ Mariano, Felipe Paz Soldán, Historia del Perú Independiente (2 Parts, Lima, 1868–1874), 1:1, 314.Google Scholar

²⁸ Figure reported in letter of La, Serna to Minister of Hacienda, Cuzco, 2 04 1824, AGI, Lima 762.Google Scholar

²⁹ Expediente concerning Francisco, Tomás Anzotegui, Regent of Lima, 1825, AGI, Lima 795.Google Scholar

³⁰ It was technically against the law, of course, for an oidor to own property outright or to establish roots in the region to which he was posted, but in Lima they broke the law consistently. A series of scandals in the years 1808–1815 brought this to light. In 1852, after an extensive investigation, six ministers were warned to mend their ways or face the formation of a public causa against them. The viceroy, however, was authorized to take no action if he felt the rebellion posed too great a threat to public safety, and in 1853 he suspended further action on those grounds. The Council of the Indies responded by suspending four ministers and ordering all of them to divest themselves of any direct ownership of land and only to administer properties belonging to their wives or children. Manuel del Valle, for example, owned three haciendas at that time. In 1815 the king tried to rectify these illegalities by ordering the retirement of the Regent, the suspension of three ministers, the transfer of one other, the retirement of another, and a warning for another. Withal, most of the censured or displaced ministers stayed exactly where they were until 1821. Consulta, Council of the Indies (in sesión pleno), Madrid, 28 06 1815, AGI, Lima 602.Google Scholar

³¹ Gamio, Palacio, La municipalidad, pp. 68–77.Google Scholar

³² Hall, , Extracts, 1, 260–1.Google Scholar

³³ We cannot, however, use the 1813 census to provide a true picture of Lima society because it was drawn up in order to apportion representation in the Constitutional Cortes (which governed the empire in 1812–14 and 1821–23). By artificially dividing the population into constitutional categories it seriously distorted class divisions. ‘Citizens with exercise’ (with the vote) were white adult male heads of households who were probably literate or semiliterate, while ‘citizens without exercise’ were peninsular military personnel stationed in Lima, minors, and whites who clearly fell far short of citizenship (as for example by occupation, income, or illiteracy). Ciudadanas, confusingly, were the wives and daughters of both these categories. Every viceroyalty defined citizenship on its own because it was left vague in the Constitution. The greatest distortion, however, is that the category ‘Spaniards’ no longer meant white, as it would have previously. The Cortes had specifically decreed that Indians and mestizos were to be called ‘Spaniards’, so that category included everybody else who was not a professed regular or secular religious, a slave, or a non-national – in other words, Indians, mestizos and castas. Even so, in none of the other provinces of Peru was an Indigena listed as a ‘Spaniard’, direct indication of the fact that in Lima the few Indians who lived there were no longer considered Indigenas.

³⁴ For example, we have eliminated cirújanos but not médicos, because of the much lower status of cirújanos. Even after the foundation of the College of Medicine of San Fernando this remained the case, since the college did not receive its formal cédula of approval to train students until 1815, making it probable that most cirújanos practising in 1821 were still of the old self-taught variety. We have eliminated pulperos but retained abastecedores, because pulperos were corner grocers and retailers while abastecedores were wholesale provisioners, major businessmen. Artisans, workers, and jornaleros are easily eliminated, but fabricantes we retain among the elite as they would be owners of ‘manufacturing’ concerns. Students and religious novices would be minors, or they would at least be viewed as men not yet mature enough to have entered their profession. Demandantes (‘plain. tiffs’) are probably those members of the elite whose occupation was not clear at the time of the census because they were in the process of applying for royal appointment, were suing for inheritances, or were awaiting action on an application for some proprietary office.

³⁵ List of real estate owners, Lima, ANP, Superior Govierno, L. C. 1335.

³⁶ Comparison of the signers with lists of criminals shows that none signed. Similarly, I can find no examples of a student or a foreigner signing. This last is worth noting, especially since San Martín's expeditionary force was composed largely of non-Peruvians.

³⁷ This figure is drawn from the list of real estate owners in 1820, ANP, Superior Govierno, L. 37, C. 1335. Titled nobles, unlike other members of the elite, would have to own real estate, as it was an absolute prerequisite for continued possession of a title.

³⁸ Hall, , Extracts, 1, 114.Google Scholar

³⁹ Expediente concerning José, Arizmendi, Madrid, 1825, AGI, Lima 604.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Constilta, Council of Indies, Madrid, 16 06 1817, AGI, Lima 1018-B. The king agreed to send a formal request to the Pope through his ambassador to the Holy See, but clearly recognized that the honor was in the asking.Google Scholar

⁴¹ There was only one European, four whose birthplace was nor given, and one appointee who had not yet arrived, ‘Estado de Ia Iglesia metropolitana de Lima’, 1820, AGI, Lima 1566. In two other Peruvian dioceses the cathedrals in 1820 were apportioned as follows: Trujillo had a Spanish bishop and a chapter of four creoles and three Europeans; Arequipa had a creole bishop and a chapter of four creoles and three Europeans.

⁴² ‘Lima, Estado de su Iglesia’, undated but about 1807 (after Las Heras's appointment), AGIM, Lima 1566. One member's birthplace was not given.

⁴³ Jorge, Arias-Schreiber Pezet, Los médicos en Ia independencia del Perú (Lima, 1971), p. 108.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ The personal and financial setbacks Riva Agüero suffered during the 1810s were very serious, especially for a man with his pretensions. In 1811, for example, he complained to the crown of the disproportion of offices granted to peninsulars in the same letter in which he requested appointment as either Director of the Tobacco Monopoly or Contador mayor of Peru (two of the viceroyalty's highest offices) – an absurdly pretentious request for a young man of 27 who had served only one year as a full-time royal employee: Lima, 23 July 1811, AGI, Lima 772. The most serious trauma was his resignation in 1814 as Contador ordinador of the Tribunal de Cuentas, which he claimed was the result of a conspiracy of Viceroy Abascal and Contador mayor Antonio Chacón to free the position for Chacón's son-in-law. In a statement entitled Exclamación, dictated to a secretary in the full-heat of embarrassment and anger (as he himself admitted) he set forth many of the basic creole grievances which historians sometimes uncritically accept as actual fact: Letter to Directors of Hacienda Publica, Lima, 26 April 1814, AGI, Lima 1019. Yet a further blow came in 1817 when he was ordered to repay the crown 4,901 pesos he had collected in salary from his sinecure as Guarda vista of the Lima mint during the years 1805 to 1809 when he was actually living in Europe: Royal order, Madrid, 27 May 1817, AGI, Lima 1467. How many of us could repay nearly five years of salary in a lump sum? On the other hand, how many of us would think it our due to continue collecting the salary while not performing our duties? Finally, Riva Agüero's mother was denied the full widow's pension of her second husband (his father) on the absurd technicality that the royal cédula permitting them to marry had been lost at sea. She had to settle for collecting the much smaller pension of her first husband: Consulta, Council of Indies, Madrid, 21 April 1818, AGI, Lima 1019. As genuine grievances against ‘Spanish tyranny’ these do not hold much water, but they were perhaps suflcient blows to his ego to trigger his rejection of the royal regime. How many other creole cries of tyranny sprang from the same sort of motives?

⁴⁵ Hall, , Extracts, 1, 282–3.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ San, Martín to Peruvian nobility, 1820, AGI, Indiferente 313.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ San, Martín to Las, Heras, Huaura, , 20 12 1820;Google Scholar and to Rico, , 21 12 1820, AGI, Lima 800.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Paz, Soldán, I: I, 101–10.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Cabildo, to San, Martín, 19 07 1821, ANP, Archiuo Histórico de Hacienda, OL. 7–2.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Gaceta del Gobierno, Lima, 11 08 1821.Google Scholar

⁵¹ The government quickly went bankrupt. See Anna, , ‘Economic Causes of San Martín's Failure in Lima’, loc. cit., pp. 657–88.Google Scholar

⁵² Report of Ramón, del Valle, Rio, de Janeiro, 5 03 1822, AGI, Indiferente 313.Google Scholar

⁵³ Jacinto de Romarate to Secretary of Ultramar, enclosing Vacaro's report, Aranjuez, , 20 03 1822, AGI, Indiferente 1571.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ Cristóval, Domingo to Juez, de Arribadas, Cádiz, , 19 03 1822, AGI, Lima 1619;Google Scholar Unsigned report from Rio, de Janeiro, 50 01 1822, AGI, Indiferente 1570.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ José, María Ruybál to Antonio, Luis Pereyra, Rio, de Janeiro, 27 07 1822, AGI, Lima 798.Google Scholar