Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T23:37:12.208Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

British Neutrality and Spanish—American Independence: The Problem of Foreign Enlistment 1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2009

D. A. G. Waddell
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Throughout the Spanish–American wars of independence Britain's policy was to observe a strict neutrality between Spain and the colonial revolutionaries. This did not reflect an indifferent detachment or a commitment to even-handed justice, but was rather dictated by the pursuit of Britain's own interests, which necessitated the maintenance of good relations both with Spain and with Spanish America. During the period of the Peninsular War of 1808–14 Spain was a vital ally against Napoleon, and after the war was over she remained an important element in the European collective security system that Lord Castlereagh, the British Foreign Secretary, constructed to prevent the re-emergence of French dominance. Accordingly Britain refused requests from the revolutionary regimes in South America to recognise their independence or to help them to defend it against the mother country. At the same time Britain declined to assist her Spanish ally in recovering control over the rebellious territories, as she had no desire to imperil the important commerical links she was developing with the emergent states of Spanish America. Both parties continued to try to enlist British assistance, and both of them at times complained of breaches of neutrality by British officials. But for several years Britain walked her tightrope very successfully.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Latin American Studies , Volume 19 , Issue 1 , May 1987 , pp. 1 - 18
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1987

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.)

References

2 On Britain's policy generally, see Kaufmann, W. W., British Policy and the Independence of Latin America, 1804–1828 (New Haven, 1951)Google Scholar; Webster, C. K., The Foreign Policy of Castlereagh, 1815–1822 (2nd edn., London, 1934), pp. 88–118, 405–23Google Scholar; Lynch, J., ‘Great Britain and Latin American Independence’, in Lynch, J. (ed.), Andrés Bello: the London Years (Richmond, Surrey, 1982), pp. 7–24Google Scholar; and Waddell, D. A. G., ‘International Politics and Latin American Independence’ in Bethell, L. (ed.), Cambridge History of Latin America, vol. 3 (Cambridge, 1985), pp. 197–228Google Scholar. On the implementation of neutrality in the Caribbean, see Waddell, D. A. G., Gran Bretaña y la Independencia de Venezuela y Colombia (Caracas, 1983)Google Scholar; and in the South Atlantic and Pacific, see Graham, G. S. and Humphreys, R. A. (eds.), The Navy and South America, 1807–1823. Publications of the Navy Records Society, vol. 104 (London, 1962)Google Scholar; also Street, J., ‘Lord Strangford and Rio de la Plata, 1808–1815’, Hispanic American Historical Review, 33 (1953), pp. 477–510.Google Scholar

3 For examples, see Mulhall, M. G., The English in South America (Buenos Aires, 1878)Google Scholar, ch. xvi, xxviii.

4 López Méndez to Bolívar, 22 July 1817, Archivo de la Gran Colombia, Sección Venezolana, Microfilm Collection, Fundación John Boulton (Caracas), serie B, rollo 4, tomo xxx, 239–65, printed in Lambert, Eric, Voluntarios Británicos e Irlandeses en la Gesta Bolivariana (Caracas, 1981) 1, 49–60Google Scholar. López Méndez had been in London since 1810 when he accompanied Bolívar and Andrés Bello on the first Venezuelan mission to be sent to Britain. Bolívar returned to Caracas after two months, but López Méndez and Bello stayed in England, López Méndez intermittently functioning as Venezuelan agent (see Waddell, D. A. G., ‘British Relations with Venezuela, New Granada and Gran Colombia, 1810–1829’, in Lynch, (ed.), Andrés Bello, pp. 25–47Google Scholar, and Sunyer, Carlos Pi, Patriotas Americanos en Londres (Caracas, 1978), pp. 231–43Google Scholar). He informed the Foreign Office on 17 April 1817 of his re-appointment as ‘Deputy from the provinces of Venezuela’ (Public Record Office (PRO), FO 72/206 fo. 21).

5 See Lambert, , Voluntarios, 1, 37–69Google Scholar; Hasbrouck, A., Foreign Legionaries in the Liberation of Spanish South America (New York, 1928), pp. 45–54.Google Scholar

6 Campuzaño to Castlereagh, 24 and 30 July 1817, FO 72/203 fos. 238–47.

7 Hamilton to Campuzaño, 31 July 1817, Campuzaño to Castlereagh, 5 August 1817, Castlereagh to Campuzaño, 5 September 1817, FO 72/203 fos. 248, 260–2, 337–42; Liverpool to Castlereagh, 6 August 1817, Public Record Office of Northern Ireland (PRONI), D 3030/5440/1; Foreign Office to Law Officers, 2 August 1817, Law Officers to Castlereagh, 25 August 1817, FO 83/2365 fos. 63, 71–3; Castlereagh to Wellesley, no. 41, 28 August 1817, FO 72/196 fos. 188–92.

8 Campuzaño to Piazarro, no. 80, 25 July 1817, no 130, 21 August 1817, no. 148, 9 September 1817, no. 151, 12 September 1817, Archivo General de Simancas (AGS), Estado leg. 8289 fos. 13, 32, 38, 41. Campuzaño was in touch with a Colonel Tucker and other British officers who expressed interest in Spanish royalist service (see AGS Estado leg. 8178 and 8321 passim) and Ambassador San Carlos also supported the idea of employing British officers (see San Carlos to Pizarro, no. 25, 14 October 1817, Archivo Historico Nacional, Madrid (AHN), Estado leg. 5469); but Madrid first discouraged such recruitment and finally refused permission (Pizarro to Campuzaño, 15 September 1817, Pizarro to San Carlos, 1 December 1817, AGS Estado, leg. 8178). See also Heredia, E. A., Planes españoles para reconquistar hispanoamérica, 1810–1818 (Buenos Aires, 1974), pp. 358–9.Google Scholar

9 Darling to Goulburn, 1 September 1817, PROWO 3/221, p. 252; Canning to Bathurst, 6 September 1817, Bathurst to Canning, 8 September 1817, Castlereagh to Bathurst, 11 September 1817, British Library (BL), Manuscripts Division, Loan 57, Bathurst Papers, vol. ii, fos. 1243–6; Goulburn to Darling, 12 September 1817, FO 72/221 fos. 70–74; Darling to various officers, September–October 1817, WO 3/380, pp. 235, 335, 346, 450, WO 3/381, pp. 41, 76; Bathurst to Castlereagh, 12 September 1817, PRONI, D 3030/5464; War Office Circular dated 30 September 1817, printed in Morning Chronicle (London), 7 10 1817, p. 2.Google Scholar

10 See, for example, The Times (London), 3, 4, 17 09, 7 10 1817Google Scholar; Morning Chronicle, 2, 4, 5, 24 September, 6 October 1817; Courier (London), 4, 6, 16, 20, 25 September, 10 October 1817; Morning Post (London), 5, 29 September 1817. See also Hasbrouck, , Legionaries, p. 55.Google Scholar

11 San Carlos to Castlereagh, 12 October 1817, FO 72/204A fos. 5–12; San Carlos to Pizarro, no. 16, 14 October 1817, AGS Estado leg. 8289, fo. 45. The Spanish Ambassador was better informed than the British Government. Army headquarters had great difficulty in obtaining even partial information (see Torres to Bathurst, 13 October 1817, BL, Loan 57, vol ii, fo. 1250); a Home Office informer was used, but his reports were scanty (see Home Office Secret Letter Book (1809–34) PRO HO 5/35, and discussion in Sunyer, Pi, Patriotas, pp. 253–86Google Scholar).

12 ‘Memo delivered to Méndez’, 17 October 1817, FO 97/376, no. 611(b); San Carlos to Pizarro, no. 31, 18 October 1817, Archivo General de Indias, Seville (AGI), Estado leg. 88, no. 46 (copy in AGS Estado leg. 8289 fo. 49).

13 Castlereagh to Wellesley, no. 56, 18 October 1817, FO 72/196 fos. 235–7; San Carlos to Castlereagh, 17 November 1817, FO 72/204A, fo. 29; Webster, C. K., ‘Castlereagh and the Spanish Colonies 1 1815–1818’, English Historical Review, 27 (1912), pp. 78–95Google Scholar; Webster, , Castlereagh, 1815–1822, pp. 88–95Google Scholar. The ships did not arrive in Spain until February 1818 and ultimately proved unsuitable for service in South America (see Fontana, J., La Quiebra de la Monarquía Absoluta, 1814–1820 (Barcelona, 1971), pp. 238–95Google Scholar).

14 Castlereagh to Wellesley, loc. cit., fos. 237–40. The Confidential Memorandum is printed in Webster, C. K. (ed.), Britain and the Independence of Latin America, 1812–1830 (2 vols., London, 1938), ii, 352–8Google Scholar. For the earlier history of mediation see Rydjord, J., ‘British Mediation between Spain and her Colonies, 1811–1813’, Hispanic American Historical Review, 21 (1941), pp. 29–50Google Scholar; Webster, C. K., The Foreign Policy of Castlereagh, 1812–1815 (London, 1931), pp. 67–72Google Scholar; Webster, , Independence ii, 309–51.Google Scholar

15 Castlereagh to Wellesley, no. 55, 18 October 1817, FO 72/196 fos. 229–34.

16 See, for example, Campuzaño to Pizarro, no. 148, 9 September 1817, AGS Estado leg. 8289 fo. 38; Pizarro to Wellesley, 10 November 1817, AGI Estado leg. 88, no. 39; San Carlos to Pizarro, no. 54, 15 November 1817, AHN Estado leg. 5469.

17 San Carlos to Pizarro, no. 36, 1 November 1817, AGS Estado leg. 8289 fo. 51.

18 Castlereagh to Wellesley, no. 55, 18 October 1817, FO 72/196, fo. 232; Law Officers to Castlereagh, 25 August 1817, FO 83/2385, fos. 71–2; Law Officers to Sidmouth, 7 October, 8 December 1817, PRO 30/28/5, pp. 348–9, 378.

19 Eldon to [Castlereagh] and note [by Castlereagh], undated November 1817, FO 97/376; Castlereagh to San Carlos, 20 December 1817, FO 72/204A, fos. 193–7. There may be some connection between Castlereagh's conclusion and San Carlos's observation, in reporting a meeting with Castlereagh on 13 November, that the forthcoming session of Parliament would offer an opportunity for introducing more effective measures, but that in view of public opinion it would be a delicate matter for the ministry to raise (San Carlos to Pizarro, no. 54, 15 November 1817, AHN Estado leg. 5469).

20 San Carlos to Pizarro, no. 66, 25 November 1817, AGS Estado leg. 8289 fo. 57; Castlereagh to Wellesley, no. 66, 2 December 1817, FO 72/196, fos. 281–2.

21 Printed in Britain, Great, Foreign Office, British and Foreign State Papers, vol. 4, 1816–1917 (London, 1838), pp. 488–9.Google Scholar

22 Morning Chronicle, 4 December 1817.

23 Crosse to San Carlos, 3 December 1817, AGS Estado leg. 8291 fo. 89; Morning Post, 6 December 1817; The Scotsman (Edinburgh), no. 48, 20 December 1817, p. 381; The Times, 2, 3 December 1817; Lambert, , Voluntarios 1, 82–9Google Scholar; San Carlos to Castlereagh, 23 January 1818, FO 72/216 fos. 16–25

24 San Carlos to Pizarro, no. 89, 17 December 1817, enclosing ‘Observaciones sobre el estado actual de las relaciones de la Inglaterra con la España en respecto a los asuntos de America’, AGI Estado leg. 88, no. 47. (the ‘Observaciones’ are printed in Delgado, Jaime, ‘La Pacificatión de América en 1818’, Revista de lndias 10, no. 40 (1950), pp. 275–9Google Scholar); Morning Chronicle, 29 November 1817; San Carlos to Pizarro, no. 24, 28 January 1818, AGS Estado leg. 8289 fo. 64.

25 San Carlos to Castlereagh, 30 November 1817, FO 72/204 A fo. 82. See also Castlereagh to Wellington, 8 December 1817, Southampton University Library, Wellington Papers 1/563.

26 San Carlos to Pizarro, no. 54, 15 November 1817, Pizarro to San Carlos, 1 December 1817, AHN Estado leg. 5469.

27 San Carlos to Castlereagh, 23 January, 28 January, 6 February 1818, FO 72/216, fos. 16, 40, 44; Foreign Office to Law Officers, 29 January, 30 January, 31 January, 7 February 1818, Law Officers to Castlereagh, 6 February 1818, FO 83/2365, fos. 110–24. Castlereagh sent the Law Officers a copy of the U.S. law of 3 March 1817 (14th Congress, sess. 11, chap. 58). For a discussion of the relationship of British to American neutrality law, see Britain, Great, Parliament, , Parliamentary Papers, House of Commons (1867–1868), 32, no. 4207Google Scholar, ‘Report of Neutrality Laws Commissioners’, Appendices. See also Wheeler, G. J., Foreign Enlistment Act 1870 (London, 1896).Google Scholar

28 Law Officers to Castlereagh, 22 April 1818, FO 83/2365, fo. 152 refers to ‘the bill we prepared’.

29 San Carlos to Pizarro, no. 212, 23 June 1818, AGS Estado leg. 8287, fo. 46. Castlereagh's concern over public opinion is also evident in a later explanation of the delay over the bill, in which he refers to his wish to avoid exposing Spain to ‘torrents of abuse’ (see Castlereagh to Wellington, 6 February 1819, Wellington Papers 1/617).

30 Castlereagh to Wellesley, no. 13, 12 March 1819, FO 72/222 fos. 42–4, printed in Webster, , Independence 11, 377–9Google Scholar. Castlereagh's statement that the measure was witheld ‘upon communication with the Duke of San Carlos’ appears to imply some consultation, but the Ambassador seems to have been presented with a fait accompli.

31 Webster, , ‘Castlereagh and the Spanish Colonies, I 1815–18’, pp. 90–95Google Scholar; Webster, C. K., ‘Castlereagh and the Spanish Colonies, ii 1818–22’, English Historical Review, 30 (1915), pp. 631–45.Google Scholar A further reason for continuing to discuss mediation was the possibility that the United States would take steps towards recognising the independence of some of the South American states. This would have been damaging not only to Spain but also to British policy, as it would have pre-empted any compromise solution; encouraged republicanism and revolutionary principles rather than monarchy and legitimism in South America; and, most important, given the United States opportunities to obtain commerical privileges from the new states to the exclusion of Britain. Castlereagh therefore sought to discourage any precipitate action from Washington by giving the impression that European mediation might occur (see Webster, , Castlereagh, 1815–22, pp. 415–21).Google Scholar

32 See Wellesley to Foreign Office, no. 127, 15 September 1818, FO 72/212 fo. 223; Anna, T., Spain and the Loss of America (Lincoln, Nebraska, and London, 1983)Google Scholar, chap. 6; Fontana, La Quiebra, chap 10; Heredia, , Planes, pp. 369–85Google Scholar; Memo, by Casa Irujo, 21 September 1818, AGI Estado leg. 89, no. 89; Casa Irujo to San Carlos, 17 October 1818, AGS Estado leg. 8293 fo. 85.

33 See FO 72/218, 219, 220, 211, passim.

34 FO Memo. 20 February 1818, Delaware to Lack, 26 February 1818, Admiralty to Foreign Office, 2 March 1818, Lack to Foreign Office, 3 March 1818, FO 72/281, fos. 233, 258–61, 267, 273. In one case the authorities seem to have been evaded through the influence of the participants with high officials at the Treasury, and with the Duke of Sussex, the Prince Regent's liberally inclined brother, who favoured the insurgents (see Report by Capper, no. 14, 12 November 1818, FO 72/221 fo. 245).

35 San Carlos to Pizarro, Reservado no. 5, 10 J uly 1818, AHN Estado leg. 5470; San Carlos to Pizarro, no. 207, 13 June 1818, AGS Estado leg. 8289, fo. 115.

36 Castlereagh to Wellesley, no. 32, 4 August 1818, FO 72/209 fos 101–2; San Carlos to Pizarro, no. 289, 10 August 1818, AGS Estado leg. 8289, fo. 116; San Carlos to Casa Irujo, no. 398, 27 November 1818, AGS Estado leg. 8289, fo. 142.

37 San Carlos to Foreign Office, 15 October 1818, Foreign Office to San Carlos, 27 October 1818, and similar exchange of 3 November and 9 December 1818, FO 72/217, fos. 112, 151, 156–7, 302–3.

38 San Carlos to Casa Irujo, no. 398, 27 November 1818, AGS Estado leg. 8289, fo. 142.

39 Draft replies to San Carlos' dispatches nos. 376 and 379A, 5 October, 21 November 1818, AHN Estado leg. 5470.

40 San Carlos to Castlereagh, 22 January 1819, FO 72/228 fos. 33–52; Foreign Office to Law Officers, 27 January 1819, FO 83/2365, fo. 259; Law Officers to Castlereagh, 2 February 1819, PRO 30/28/6, pp. 211–12.

41 Law Officers to Foreign Office, 3 February, 5 February 1819, FO 83/2365 fos. 266, 269–70; Castlereagh to San Carlos, 6 February 1819, FO 72/228, fos. 55–6; Foreign Office to Treasury, 6 February 1819, FO 72/229, fos. 107–8; George Maude to San Carlos 11 February 1819, AGS Estado leg. 8289, fo. 216.

42 See Castlereagh to Wellesley, no. 13, 12 March 1819, FO 72/222, fos. 42–4, printed in Webster, , Independence, 11, 377–9Google Scholar. Before the Cabinet meeting the Lord Chancellor raised the possibility of prosecuting offenders for piracy. Castlereagh asked one of the Law Officers for an immediate opinion, and was advised that the prospects of a conviction would depend on the ‘political character’ of the revolutionary regimes issuing the commissions, and would thus raise the question of the extent to which they were recognised by the British government (Hamilton to Robinson, Robinson to Castlereagh, 17 February 1819, FO 83/2365, fos. 281–3). This was presumably enough to rule out such a solution, as it would have been embarrassing to have the issue of British recognition of the insurgent government discussed in the courts of law when the government still wished to keep its relations with them informal and undefined.

43 San Carlos to Casa Irujo, no. 456, 18 February 1819, Casa Irujo to San Carlos, 18 March 1819, AGS Estado leg. 8289, fos. 152–3; Casa Irujo to San Carlos, 5 October 1818, AHN Estado leg. 5470; San Carlos to Casa Irujo, no. 504, 30 April 1819, AGI Estado leg. 89, no. 15.

44 Clauses ix, x and xi were procedural and clause xii exempted service with Asian rulers, with the permission of the Governor-General of India. The Act is printed in Great Britain, Foreign Office, British and Foreign State Papers, vol. 4, 1818–1819 (London, 1835), pp. 130–9Google Scholar. The original bill made the first offence a misdemeanour and the second a felony, but this provision was withdrawn before the second reading (see Great Britain, Parliament, Hansard's Parliamentary Debates, vol. 11 (1819)Google Scholar, cols. 365, 867).

45 Hansard, vol. xl (1819)Google Scholar, cols. 362–74.

46 The ministerial Courier, 14, 15 and 27 May 1819, echoed Castlereagh's sentiments, and The Times, 15, 28 and 29 May 1819, and the Morning Chronicle, 14, 21 May and 2 June 1819, those of the opposition; and merchants petitioned Parliament against the bill (see Hansard, vol. xl (1819)Google Scholar, cols. 858–60.

47 Hansard, vol. xl (1819)Google Scholar, cols. 867–909.

48 San Carlos to Casa Irujo, no. 530, 4 June 1819, AHN Estado, leg. 5470; The Times, Morning Chronicle, Courier, 4 June 1819.

49 Hansard, vol. xl (1819)Google Scholar, cols. 1084–1116; Diary of George Canning, Thursday 10 June 1819, West Yorkshire Archives (Leeds), Canning MSS 29, d. 1; The Times, Morning Chronicle, Courier, 12 June 1819.

50 Hansard, vol. xl (1819), cols. 1118–25, 1232–85, 1377–1416.Google Scholar

51 Castlereagh to Wellesley, no. 31, 21 July 1819, FO 72/222, fos. 88–90; San Carlos to Casa Irujo, no. 567, 17 July 1819, Salmon to San Carlos, 4 August 1819, San Carlos to Salmon no. 575, 27 July 1819, AGS Estado leg. 8288, fos. 50–2.

52 San Carlos to Salmon, no. 577, 30 July 1819, AGI Estado leg. 89, no. 20. See also The Times, 3 July 1819, for information on D'Evereux.

53 Foreign Office to Home Office, Treasury, Admiralty, War and Colonial Offices, 24 July 1819, Admiralty to Foreign Office, 27 July 1819, Home Office to Foreign Office, 6 August 1819, FO 72/231 fos. 93–8, 125, 207–8. Castlereagh to San Carlos, 16 August 1819, FO 72/228, fo. 160; San Carlos to Salmon, no. 592, 27 August 1819, AGI Estado leg. 89, no. 29.

54 A few ships with Irish recruits left Dublin after 1 August, one of which was proceeded against under the Act, when it called at Belfast (see reports in Carrick's Morning Post (Dublin) 7 January, 2 February, 20 April 1820). I am indebted to Mr Eric Lambert for this information.

55 Memorias del General O'Leary (O'Leary, S. B. (ed.), 31 vols., Caracas, 1879–1888), xvii, 467.Google Scholar

56 See, for example, Hasbrouck, Legionaries; Lambert, Voluntarios; Worcester, D., Sea Power and Chilean Independence (Gainesville, 1962).Google Scholar

57 Personal letter from Wellesley to Castlereagh, 6 July 1819, PRONI D 3030/5737.

58 The dire consequences for British trade of the passing of the act predicted by the opposition never materialised, vindicating Canning, who dissociated himself from a petition he presented to the Commons on behalf of his Liverpool constituents, saying that he did not expect British trade with Spanish America to be affected in any way by the new law (Hansard, vol. xl (1819)Google Scholar, col. 909). The hollowness of the economic argument is suggested by The Times of 12 July 1819, which opposed the bill, but even before it passed took the view that the South Americans would surely not refuse to trade with Britain because of it.