¹ Rafael Dávila, a liberal pamphleteer, said that he ‘divided the common people, who would still like to see Iturbide on the throne, into two classes; one which is not convinced reasoning… with this class of men I do not speak because they act irrationally, only instinct; I do speak with those who give its proper place to reason and know how to convinced by truth’. California State Library, Sutro Branch, Occasional papers, Reprint series no. 17, The early pamphlets of Rafael Dávila, 1820–22 (San Francisco, California State Library, mimeo, 1940), ‘Sea el Iturbide a descubierto’ (1823), p. 51.

² The participation of popular groups in the Acordada revolt is clearly described in José, María Tornel y Mendívil, Breve rcseña historica de los acontecimientos más notable de la Naciòn Mexicana desde ci año de 1821 hasta nuestros dias (Mexico, 1852), pp. 383–94.Google Scholar

³ Richard Packenham, the British representative in Mexico, reported to Lord Palmerston on 11 June 1833 that the ‘Government having but few regular troops to depend upon, have called out and armed in great numbers the Civick Militia of the District, a force composed of the very dregs of the people, without discipline or subordination, and ready to take advantage of any opportunity to plunder and commit excesses’. London, Public Record Office, Archives of the Foreign Office, Mexico (hereafter F.O. 50), vol. if. 241−p6.

⁴ See Carlos, Macía de Bustamente, El gabinete Mexicano durante ci Segundo período de la administraciòn de… Anastasio Bustamente (2 vol., Mexico, 1842), II, 62–85.Google Scholar

⁵ Mariano Otero, in an analysis of social stratification in Mexico, argues that a class which could be properly called upper did not exist or was too weak; on the other hand he designates as proletarian all those who did not have other resources than ‘mercenary work’; thus reserving the term middle class for what would be better termed bourgeoisie or upper middle class. This class he claims to be very important, though not numerically, because it ‘represented the greatest sum of wealth, and included all the professions which cultivate the intellect’. Mariano, Otero, Ensayo sobre el verdadero estado de la cuestiòn social y política que se agita en la República Mexicana (Mexico, 1842), p. 47.Google Scholar By contrast, a detailed study of San Luis Potosí includes among the middle class the dependientes de cormercio and the macstros of the main trades, like silversmiths, carpenters, blacks iths and shoemakers. Ciriaco, Iturribarría, ‘Memoria geográfica y estadística del Departamento de San Luis Potosí’, in Boietín de la Socicdad Mexicana dc Geografía y Estadistica (hereinafter cited as BSMGE), I^a Epoca, VII (Mexico, 1859), 301.Google Scholar

⁶ Santiago, Ramírez, Riqueza minera de México (Mexico, 1884)Google Scholar gives a historical account of the main mining districts throughout Mexico. See also ‘Apuntes para formar la estadística minera de la República Mexicana’, BSMGE, Ia Epoca, II (3rd ed., Mexico, 1864), 163–219. Interesting individual descriptions of reales can be found in José, Burkart (wrongly printed as Juan Burkart), ‘Memoria sobre la explotaciòn de minas en los distritos de Pachuca y Real del Monte’, Anales de la Minerla Mexicana, I ( Mexico, 1861), 5–25, 41–65 and 81–113;Google ScholarJosé, Burkart, ‘Descripciòn del distrito de minas de Tlalpujahua y su constituciòn geològica’, BSMGE, 2^a Epoca, I (Mexico, 1869), 82–111;Google Scholar, L.E. (Los Editores), ‘El mineral del Fresnillo’, El Museo Mexicano, vol. I (Mexico, 1843);Google ScholarCastillo, M. Payno y A. del, ‘El Fresnillo y sus minas’, El Musco Mexicano, vol. II (Mexico, 1843);Google Scholar A Resident, Observations on foreign mining (London, 1838), pp. 16–41 (on Vetagrande). For the mining technology of the time, see Francisco, Hermosa, Manual de laboreo de minas y beneficio de metales (Paris, 1857).Google Scholar

⁷ Spanish mining regulations—maintained during the first decades of independence—allowed practically anyone to prospect for mines, in public or privately held land. The discoverer of a mine put in a denuncia, obtaining thus legal possession, as long as he maintained four workers and did not interrupt activities for more than forty days. He could not, however, monopolize the entire seam and he was obliged to allow others into parts of it. Mines not adequately covered in the above way could also be the subject of a denuncia by another individual who thus obtained legal possession. See Francisco, Xavier Gamboa, Cornentarios a las ordenanzas de minas (Madrid, 1761),Google Scholar chs. IV and V; also Walter, Howe, The mining guild of New Spain and its Tribunal General, 1770–1821 (Cambridge, Mass., 1949), chs. I and II.Google Scholar

⁸ See Proyecto para la forrnaciòn de una compañia que reúna el capital necesario… (Compañía de Minas Zacatecana), (Zacatecas, 1830); Escritura de asociaciòn de la Compañla de Minas Zacatecano-Mexicana (Mexico, 1835); Convenio celebrado entre don Mariano Medina y Madrid y don Martin Bengoa… para el establecimiento de una compañla (San Luis Potosí, 1838); Informaciòn, presupuesto, bases y condiciones de la compañla tIe minas restauradora de Temascaitepec (Mexico, 1838); Escritura de contrata y asociaciòn de los señores accionistas al mineral de Guadalupe (del Tajo) con ci pro picpietario de las minas… D. José Mariano Larrcategui (Mexico, 1849); Informe que la Junta Menor del mineral de Guadalupe (del Tajo)… produce a la general (Mexico, 1850); Plan de reorganizaciòn de la compania de minas denominada Rextauradora del Mineral de Catorce (Mexico, 1851).

⁹ Archivo, Històrico de Hacienda, Coiecciòn de Documentos Publicados bajo la dirccciòn de Jesús Silva Herzog (3 vols., Mexico, 1943–1944),Google Scholar III: Relacioncs estadisticas de Nueva E.cpaña (Mexico, 1944), 75–81.

¹⁰ Memoria en que ci gobierno del Estado Libre de los Zacatecas da cuenta … al Congreso del misrno estado (Zacatecas, 1833).

¹¹ Informe que da la Junta Menor Permanente de la Compañia de Minas Zacatecano Mexicana del estado de la negociaciòn del Fresnillo (12 parts, Mexico, 1837–42). See the Informes for Tercer Trimestre 1837, p. 49, and for Primer Semestre 1838, p. 34. See also Informe dado por Ia Junta Permanente de la Compañla Zacatecano Mexicana a la de Fornento y Adrministrativa de Minería, sobre la negociaciòn de minas de Fresnillo (Mexico, 1845), p. 12; and F.O. 50ò93, ff. 163–5.

¹² F.O. 50ò24, f. 147.

¹³ Archivo, Històrico de Hacienda, Colecciòn, loc. cit., III, 76–8.Google Scholar

¹⁴ ‘…no es por el jornal…sino por los partidos que se dan de ordinario a los barreteros, y por los hurtos y rapiñas que cometen… Ms parecen sefiores, y dueflos, quc sirvientes y jornaleros… todo lo disipan en un momento’. Francisco Xavier de Gamboa, op. cit., p. 337.

¹⁵ Ibid., ch. XVII. In the Diputaciòn de Minería of Guanajuato, during the year 1860, 122 denuncias of mines were made, almost all by different people. See Avales de la Mineria Mexicana, I (Mexico, 1861), 113–27.

¹⁶ Buscones is the name applied to workers searching already worked-out seams for particles of ore which had been overlooked.

¹⁷ This was Mexico's equivalent of the Peruvian mita, though in Peru it was applied more intensively, and Indians had to travel greater distances.

¹⁸ See Silvio, Zavala and María, Castelo, Fuentes para la historia del trabajo en la Nueva España (8 vols., Mexico, 1939–1945), VII, Document No. cxcii (for 1639) and VIII, Document No. LI (for 1687).Google Scholar

¹⁹ Ibid., VIII, Introduction, pp. xlii-xlvii, and also pp. xxiii-xxvii for a famous conflict in Pachuca connected with the reparrimiento system, which erupted into serious violence in 1766.

²⁰ General reports on the first British mining ventures in Mexico were sent by Ward to Canning in 1826, P.O. 50ò21, ff. 29–55; F.O. 50ò23, ff. 141−88; and F.O. 50ò24, ff. 43–167; by Packenham to Dudley in 1828, F.O. 50ò66 ff. 293−5; and by Packenham to Palmerston in 1831, F.O. 50ò66, ff. 76–85.

²¹ F.O. 50ò43, ff. 146−96 and ff. 239−43.

²² F.O. 50ò27, ff. 265−71.

²³ F.O. 50ò34, ff. 176−98 and if. 318−22; F.O. 50ò35, ff. 267−88; F.O. 50ò45, ff. 1–17.

²⁴ It was not uncommon at the time to blame the Alcaldes and the Ayuntamientos for alterations of labour discipline. See the Memoria presentada al Congreso primero constitucional de Puebia de los Angeles por el Secrctario del Despacho de Gobierno… sobre el estado de la administraciòn pública. Año de 1826 (Mexico, 1826). In this report labour scarcity in the haciendas is attributed to the numerous positions in the many and small Ayantamientos (into which the old Repúblicas had been converted) which occupied people who would otherwise be free to offer themselves as wage workers. More likely it was their interference with the practice of debt peonage that worried the local government, which proposed to cut drastically the number of ayuntamientos. The concern with ‘external’ interference with debt peonage can be seen in various articles in El Caducco (semiofficial publication of the State of Puebla), vol. IX, Supplement to no. 8, no. 12, and Supplement to no. 28 (of 8, 12 and 28 April 1826 respectively).

²⁵ By the end of the colonial period there were in the Repúblicas 10,065 Governors and I, 325 Caciques. Catalina, Sierra, El nacimiento de Mèxico (Mexico, 1960), p. 65.Google Scholar

²⁶ See Leslie, B. Simpson, The Repartimiento system of native labour in New Spain and Guatemala, in vol. II of Studies in the Administration of the Indians in New Spain (3 vols., Berkeley, 1934, 1938, 1940);Google ScholarJosé, María Ots de Capdequi, El Estado español en las Indias (3rd ed., Mexico, 1957);Google Scholar and Silvio, Zavala y María Castelo, op. cit. Though Simpson and Ots de Capdequi indicate that a law in the Rccopilaciòn (Libro VI, Titulo XII, Ley 2) exempted farmers and artisans from the repartimiento, this was not applied, according to Zavala's interpretation of the sources he publishes.Google Scholar

²⁷ Andes dcl Ministerio de Fomento, Industria agrícola, jabril, manufacturera y estadistica general de la Republica Mexicana (3 vols., Mexico, 1854), pp. 5–20.

²⁸ Towards the end of the eighteenth century two-thirds of the total amount of laborios were in the intendencia of Guatiajuato. See Deifina, Lopez de Sarrelangue, ‘La poblaciòn indi'gena de la Nueva España en el Siglo XVIII’, Historia Mexicana, 12, 4 (04–05 1963).Google Scholar

²⁹ Hugh, Hamill Jr, The Hidalgo revolt (Gainesville, 1966) has pointed out the importance of the high concentration of laborios in Guanajuato for an explanation of the rapid spread there of the Hidalgo revolt. In Peru and Bolivia the Tupac Amaru rebellion of the 1780s also found a prepared soil in the indios forasteros (roughly equivalent to the laborios) according to Oscar Cornblit, ‘Mass rebellions in XVIIIth century Peru and Bolivia’, in Raymond, Carr (ed.), St. Antony's Papers No. 22: Latin American Affairs, pp. 9–44.Google Scholar

³⁰ José, Maròa Luis Mora, México y sus revoluciones (vols. I, III and IV, Paris, 1836), IV, 27.Google Scholar

³¹ Ibid., pp. 28–34.

³² See José, M. Quiròs, Memaria de Estatuto: Idea de la riqueza que daban a la masa circulante de la Nueva España sus naturales producciones en los años de tranquilidad, y su abatimiento en las presentes conmociones (Veracruz, 1817);Google ScholarJuan, Lòpez Cancelada, Ruina de la Nueva España si se declara ci comercio libre con los cxtranjcros (Cádiz, 1811);Google Scholar and Archivo, Historico de Hacienda, Colecciòn, loc. cit., III, 83–4.Google Scholar

³³ Joseph, Antonio de Villaseñor y Sánchez, Theatro Americano (2 vols., Madrid, 1746, 1748), II, 35–8.Google Scholar

³⁴ Delfina, Lòpez de Sarrelangue, op. cit.Google Scholar

³⁵ This was already happening during the latter part of the eighteenth century. See José, Miranda, ‘La poblaciòn indigena de Mexico en el siglo XVII’, Historia Mexicana, XII, 2 (10–12 1962).Google Scholar

³⁶ See de Villaseñor y Sánchez, J. A., op. cit., II, 30–47, for the various Alcaldias Mayores of the Intendencia of Guanajuato; and I, 80–97,Google Scholar for those comprising the present state of Querétaro. An anonymous pamphleteer in 1821 attributed Hidalgo' decision to fight the Spanish Government to a recent decree which had prohibited wine production in New Spain, thus affecting Dolores and San Luis de la Paz. See Javier, Ocampo, Las ideas tic us dia: El pueblo mexicano ante la consumaciòn de su independencia (Mexico, 1969), p. 248.Google Scholar

³⁷ These data are estimates, complementing Humboldt's information, made by José, Antonio del Raso, ‘Notes estadísticas del Departamento de Querétaro, formadas por la Asamblea Constitucional del mismo’, BSMGE, Ia Epoca, III (Mexico, 1852), 198–200.Google Scholar

³⁸ Romeo, Flores Caballero, La contrarrevoiuciòn en in independencia Los espaòoles en la vida politica, social y econòmica de México, 1804–1838 (Mexico, 1969), pp. 46 and 63.Google Scholar

³⁹ See Archivo Històrico de Hacienda, Coiecciòn, s: La libertad de comercio en la Nacva España en in segunda década del siglo XIX (Mexico, 1943),Google Scholar especially the introduction by Luis, Chávez Orozco, 3–8;Google Scholar Banco Nacional del Comercio Exterior. Colecciòn de documentos pora la historia del comercio exterior de México (ist series, 7 vols.), II, Controriersia que suscitò el comercio de la Nueva España con los poises extranjeros, 1811–1821, edited by Luis, Chávez Orozco (Mexico, 1959);Google Scholar and John, Lynch, ‘British policy in Spanish America, 1783–1808’, Journal of Latin American Studies, 1, pt. I (05 1969), 24–30.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ See the ordenanza de algodoneros (given in 1757) in Ordcnanzas de grernios de la Nueva España. Cormpendio de la cormpliiaciòn nueva de ordenanzas de la … ciudad de México. Hizolo el licenciado D. Francisco del Barrio Lorenzot, etc. (Mexico, 1921), p. 177. Also Departamento Autònomo del Trabajo, Legislaciòn del trabajo de los sigios XVI, XVII y XVIII (Mexico, 1938), pp. 66–74, for the regulation of obrajes, and pp. III–19 for the application of the textile ordenanzas to Puebla.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Mernoria quc presenta ci Gobernador de Guanajuato al Congreso Constituycnte… desde ci ro de Mayo de 1824 hasta el 31 de Diciembre de 1825 (Mexico, 1826), Annex No. 5.

⁴² This is confirmed by the fact that some two-fifths of the total number of fabricantes in the state are located in San Miguel, characterized by its wool obrajes and tanneries.

⁴³ Acāmbaro, formerly an important wool manufacturing centre, had decayed and did not recover very much by 1825. At this date the census shows it as having a predominantly rural occupational structure, though keeping still some obrajes. Its percentage of low-status occupational categories is 69%, thus coming near the figure for San Miguel. Presumably the large incidence of low-status groups in 1825 reflects their earlier predominance. But at the later date they were mostly rural, while before they may have had a larger urban composition. Because of the particularly marked decay of this town, data for it have not been included in Table I.

⁴⁴ A case in point, in a different though similar context, is that of the mine owners of Oruro (Upper Peru), whose economic predicament led them to participate in the Tupac Amaru rebellion, in 1781, hoping to retain leadership of the movement in their area. See Oscar, Cornblit, op. cit.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ de, J. A.Villaseñor, y Sánchez, op. cit., 1, 58–9. At the time the word barrio was used generally to indicate a congregation of people living at some distance from a town and dependent on it, and it is in this sense that Villaseñor employs it. It was sometimes also used in the sense of indicating a subdivision of a town, a neighbourhood.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ México por deinro y fuera baja ci gobierno de los virreycs, o sea Enfermedades politicas qua padece la capital de la Nueva España, edited by Carlos, María de Bustamante (Mexico, 1831), pp. 107-II.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ José, Gòmez, ‘Diario curioso de México, de 14 de agosto de 1776 a 26 de junio de 1798’, in Documenios para la historia de México (1st Series, 7 vols., Mexico, 1853–1854), VII, 93 and 401.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Agrícola, (pseud.), Plan provisional de arreglo de vinaterlas y puiquertas de esta Corte (Mexico, 1823).Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Unsigned article, ‘El populacho de México’, in El Museo Mexicano, III (1844), 450.

⁵⁰ Ordenanzas de gremios de la Nueva España. See the ordenanzas for carpinteros (1568), p. 80, for espaderos (1556), p. 127, and for herreros (1568), p. 147.

⁵¹ Ibid., compare the ordenanza for sombrereos (1571), p. 98, as an example with no differentiation between macstros and oficiales, with those for doradores (1570), p. 17, fundidores (1685), p. 59, carroceros (1706), p. 89, zapateros (1749), p. 114, and lozeros (1677), p. 173, as cases with explicitly marked differences. The ordenanza for doradorcs bans the formation of cofradias of oficialcs.

⁵² Robert, Potash, El Bunco de Auto de México (Mexico, 1959), pp. 74–5 and 79.Google Scholar

⁵³ Ibid., ch. xi. A list of the large scale factories in existence at a somewhat later date can be found in Direcciòn General de Agricultura e Industria, Memoria sobre el estado de la agricultura e industria … en el año de 1844 (Mexico, 1845).

⁵⁴ Discusiòn habida en la Sala de sesiones de H. Con greso de Ia Puebia, sabre ci proyecto del ciudadano J. M. Godoy y Cia, etc. (Puebla, 1829), in Banco Nacional del Comercio Exterior. Coiecciòn, loc. cit. (2nd series vols.); El comercio exterior y ci artesano, 1825–1830. edited by Luis Chavez Orozco (Mexico, 1965), PP. 182 and 195.

⁵⁵ ‘Apuntes estadísticos del distrito de Orizaba, formados por D. Manuel de Segura, prefecto del mismo distrito en 1839’ BSMGE, la Epoca, IV (Mexico, 1854), 3–75. The low status of aibañil is confirmed by several other references. See Iturribarría, C., op. cit., p. 301; and ‘El populacho de México’, op. cit., p. 450. In some documents, however, when salaries are quoted, an aibañil may appear with a high income: in those cases it is a maestro (see F.O. 50ò24, ff. 68 and 85–6). In this trade the difference between the maestro and the rest is particularly marked. See the ordenanza de aibañiles (1599), in Ordenanzas de grelnios de la Nueva España, op. cit., pp. 181–4, which obviously refers to builders, and regulates their contracting for construction jobs.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ José, Antonio del Raso, op. cit. See also Estadistica dcl Departamento de Qucrétaro rclativa a la poblaciòa, prescntada a la Excma Asambica Departamcntal (Querétaro, 1846) by the same author; and Juan María Balbontín, ‘Notas formadas para la geografia y estadistica del Departamento de Querétaro’, BSMGE, a Epoca, VII (Mexico, 1859), 493–534.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ With the arricros (muleteers) a similar Situation obtains as with the albañiles, in that there is a marked difference between the manager of a tropa and its workmen, both known by the same term of arriero.

⁵⁸ The study of Orizaba (mentioned in note 55) excludes from the enumeration of commercial establishments the ';small tendajos of the barrios, commonly called changarros, consisting of a glass of tepache, four tomatoes, and a few bundles of firewood, the capital of which does not amount to fourteen reales, and which can be found in every corner, because they come as soon as they disappear, their owners having no fixed residence …’ (p. 31).

⁵⁹ See, for example, José, Agustín Escudero, Estadistica dcl Estado de Chihuahua (Mexico, 1834), pp. 19–20 and 119–20, who clearly takes it for granted that the labradores are renters of the hacienda lands.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ In less densely populated areas their equivalents were the squatters or free occupants. See Rclacioncs del siglo XVIII. Relativas a Oaxaca: Ocuapán y otros pueblos, edited by Francisco, del Paso y Troncoso (Mexico, 1950), pp. 9et seq. for illicit tobacco planters in the eighteenth century.Google Scholar

⁶¹ See José, M. Garcòa, ‘Breves noticias estadòsticas de Guadalupe Hidalgo’, BSMGE, la Epoca, VII (Mexico, 1859), 277–9. Occupational categories of an artisan type, as usual in most censuses, are given in a lump sum including maestro: and their menestrales. For the main artisan activities (carpenters, shoemakers, blacksmiths, etc.) 25% have been considered maestros, following the proportions in the Orizaba study (note 55). In a few cases (watch. makers, silversmiths, etc.) the whole number has been put in the middle strata. A few rural categories (labradores and jornaleros del campo) have been included in the total, because of what appears to be their urban residence, and due to their small numbers, which do not alter signiiicantly the percentages. Only male occupations have been considered.Google Scholar

⁶² Luis, M. Servo, ‘Apuntes estadòsticos del puerto de Mazatlén’, BSMGE, la Epoca, VII (Mexico, 1859), 323–37.Google Scholar