Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T04:39:26.938Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Social Origins of Protectionism and Free Trade in Nineteenth-Century Lima*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2009

Paul Gootenberg
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Nineteenth-century Peru is customarily taken as a hyperbolic example of how the triumph of economic liberalism in Latin America hindered prospects for sustained economic development. While historians now agree that guano-age liberalism triggered adverse economic and social consequences, the roots of Peruvian free trade policy remain shrouded in mystery. Most recently, dependency writers elevated free trade into a major component of their posited transition to ‘neocolonialism’ after Independence. However, this new periodization is not convincing for it fails to explain how liberal policies actually took hold, symptomatic of the insufficient attention given to internal dynamics of change.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Latin American Studies , Volume 14 , Issue 2 , November 1982 , pp. 329 - 358
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1982

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

1 For background on the Peruvian guano age (1845–70s), consult Jonathan, Levin, The Export Economies: Their Pattern of Development in Historical Perspective (Cambridge, 1960),Google Scholar chapters 1–2; Mathew, M. W., ‘Anglo-Peruvian Commercial and Financial Relations 1820–1865’ (Ph.D. thesis, University of London, 1964);Google ScholarJuan, Maiguashca, ‘A Reinterpretation of the Guano Age, 1840–1880’ (D.Phil. thesis, University of Oxford, 1967);Google ScholarHunt, Shane J., ‘Growth and Guano in Nineteenth Century Peru’ (Discussion Paper 34, Woodrow Wilson School, Princeton University, 1973);Google Scholar and Heraclio, Bonilla, Guano y burguesía en el Perú (Lima, 1974).Google Scholar

2 For dependency interpretations of the Peruvian case, see Ernesto, Yepes del Castillo, Perú 1820–1920: un siglo de desarrollo capitalista (Lima, 1971);Google ScholarHeraclio, Bonilla, ‘La coyuntura comercial del siglo XIX en el Perú’, Desarrollo Económico No. 46 (1972), pp. 255–79;Google ScholarHeraclio, Bonilla and Karen, Spalding, ‘La Independencia en el Perú: las palabras y los hechos’, in Bonilla, et al. , La Independencia en el Perú (Lima, 1972), pp. 15–65;Google Scholar and Bonilla, , Guano y burguesía.Google Scholar

3 For this broad criticism of dependency theory, see Robert, Brenner, ‘Origins of Capitalist Development: A Critique of Neo-Smithian Marxism’, New Left Review No. 104 (1977), pp. 25–92;Google ScholarFernando, Henrique Cardoso, ‘The Consumption of Dependency Theory in the U.S.’, Latin American Research Review, No. 12 (1977), pp. 7–25;Google ScholarPlatt, D. C. M., ‘Dependency in Nineteenth-Century Latin American: An Historian Objects’, Latin American Research Review No. 15 (1980), pp. 113–31;Google Scholar and Frederick, Stirton Weaver, Class, State and Industrial Structure: The Historical Process of South American Industrial Growth (Westport, 1980).Google Scholar

4 Mathew, W. M., ‘The Imperialism of Free Trade: Peru, 1820–1870’, Journal of Economic History, Vol. 21 (1968), pp. 562–79.Google Scholar Mathew argues that direct foreign influence was fairly limited in Peru. For the view of the weak state and foreign pressures see Hunt, , ‘Growth and Guano’, p. 101;Google ScholarBonilla, , Guano y burguesía, p. 171;Google ScholarHeraclio, Bonilla, Gran Bretaña y el Perú: los mecanismos de un control económico, Vol. 5 (Lima, 1977), p. 76;Google ScholarJulio, Cotler, Clases, estado y Nación en el Perú (Lima, 1978), p. 86;Google ScholarHeraclio, Bonilla, Lia, del Río, and Pilar, Oritz de Zevallos, ‘Comercio libre y crisis de la economía andina: el caso del Cuzco’, Histórica, No. 2 (1978), p. 11;Google Scholar and Alberto, Flores Galindo ‘El Militarismo y la dominación Británica, 1825–1845’, in Araníbar, et al. , Nueva historia general del Perú (Lima, 1980), p. 118.Google Scholar

5 Ciaudio, Véliz, ‘La mesa de tres patas’ Desarrollo Económico, Vol. 3 (1963), pp. 231–47.Google Scholar Recent works question this conception of Chilean tariff history. See Wright, Thomas C., ‘Agriculture and Protectionism in Chile, 1880–1930’, Journal of Latin American Studies, Vol. 7 (1975), pp. 45–58;CrossRefGoogle Scholar and José, Gabriel Palma, ‘Growth and Structure of Chilean Manufacturing Industry from 1830 to 1935’ (D.Phil. thesis, University of Oxford, 1979).Google Scholar The writings on Peru that stress the strength of export! import interests or absence of significant protectionist currents are Emilio, Castañon Pasquel, ‘Esquema de nuestra historia económica en el siglo XIX’, El Cornercio 28 06 1957;Google ScholarFredrick, Pike, The Modern History of Peru (New York, 1967), p. 65,Google Scholar and especially Pablo, Macera ‘La historia económica en el Perú’ in Trabajos de historia, Vol. 1 (Lima, 1977), p. 33,Google Scholar and Pablo, Macera, ‘Algodón y comercio exterior peruano en el siglo XIX, Trabajos de historia, Vol. 3, pp. 285–7.Google Scholar See also Bonilla, et al. , ‘Comercio libre’, p. 11.Google Scholar Two heterodox views are José, M. Rodriguez, Estudios económicos y financieros y ojeado sobre la hacienda pública del Perú y la necesidad de su reforma (Lima, 1895), pp. 460–1,Google Scholar which argues that liberalization reflected the successful establishment of protected industries; and William, Bollinger, ‘The Bourgeois Revolution in Peru: A Conception of Peruvian History’, Latin American Perspectives, No. 4 (1977), pp. 27–8, which posits a ‘bitter struggle’ over protectionism with liberalism favored by ‘foreign capital’ and Peru's ‘pre-capitalist expropriators.’Google Scholar

6 In depth (and rather conflicting) tariff periodizations for this period are Rodriguez, , Estudios económicos, Vol. 3;Google ScholarEmilio, Dancuart, Anales de la hacienda pública del Perú, Vols, 1–8 (Lima, 1902–1905)Google Scholar which includes major tariff legislation; Hunt, , ‘Growth and Guano’. pp. 101–6;Google Scholar and Carlos, Boloña, ‘A Brief Descriptive History of Tariffs in Peru: 1821–1979’ (MS., Oxford, 1979).Google Scholar

7 Hunt, , ‘Growth and Guano’, pp. 105–11.Google Scholar

8 Printed sources on the 1858 episode include Artesanos (Lima, 1859);Google ScholarJosé, Silva Santisteban, Breves reflexiones sobre los sucesos ocurridos en Lima y el Callao con motivo de la importación de artefactos (Lima, 1859);Google Scholar and Dictamen de la Comisión de Hacienda de la Cámara de Diputados sobre las representaciones de los gremios de Lima y Callao (Lima, 1859).Google Scholar

9 Timothy, Anna, ‘Economic Causes of San Martin's Failure in Lima,’ Hispanic American Historical Review, Vol. 54 (1974), pp. 657–81.Google Scholar

10 For dimensions of the oversupply crisis and merchant strategies, see Ricketts, to Canning, , 27 12 1826,Google Scholar in Humphreys, R. A., British Consular Reports on the Trade and Politics of Latin America, 1824–1826 (London, 1940), especially pp. 126–32;Google Scholar for Peruvian perceptions, José, Fethcher, Memoria de Ministro de Hacienda contestando al dictamen de los cuatro vocales de la junta (Lima, 1828).Google Scholar On aims of Creole merchants, Santiago, Távara (anon.), Análisis y amplificación del manifiesto presentado al Congreso del Perú por el honorable Señor Don José María Pando (Lima, 1832), part II or Bonilla and Spalding, ‘La Independecia.’Google Scholar

11 See, for example, ‘¡El Comercio!,’ Clamores del Perú, 13 03 1827.Google Scholar

12 This argument could be broadened if we assume that the supply curve was vertical (infinitely elastic). For the influence of merchants and producers or early trade policy, see José, de Morales y Ugalde, Manifestación del estado de la hacienda del Perú en fin de abril de 1827 presentado al soberano Congreso Constituyente (Lima, 1827).Google Scholar

13 Jorge, Basadre, ‘La riqueza territorial y las actividades comerciales e industriales en los primeros años de Ia República,’ Mercurio Peruano 17 (1928), pp. 25–7,Google Scholar and Dancuart, , Anales de la hacienda, Vol. 2, pp. 33–5 and 116–18,Google Scholar discuss these restrictions. The practice of restricting foreign merchants ports as consignatarios stems from late colonial efforts to diversify trade sources within a monopolistic system; see Mathew, , ‘Anglo-Peruvian,’ p. 7.Google Scholar

14 Smith, Robert S., El índice dci archivo del tribunal del consulado de Lima con un estudio histórico de esta institución (Lima, 1948);Google ScholarJorge, Basadre, ‘La Cámara de Comercio de Lima desde su fundación hasta 1938,’ in Basadre, and Ferrer, , Historia de la Cámaro de Comercio de Lima (Lima, 1963), pp. 10–11.Google Scholar The 1834 Constitution even recognized the powers of the consulado; Dancuart, , Anales de la hacienda, Vol. 2, p. 25.Google Scholar

15 Clamores del Perú, 6 March 1827; Távara, , Análisis, part II, pp. 13–29; Publicación que hace ci ciudadano Miguel Rivera de los recursos quc ha presentado al Supremo Gobierno reclamando la renovación del decreto expedido con fecha 12 de febrero de 1830 por el cual se prohibe el establecimiento de las casas de remates; garantidas por el artículo 166 de la Constitución (Lima, 1832); Martillos o utilidad pública de estos establecimientos (Lima, 1832);Google Scholar and Juan, Oviedo, Colección de leyes, decretos y órdenes publicadas en el Perú desde ci año de 1821 hasta 1859, Vol. 16 (Lima, 1862), pp. 398–400, report of Consejo de Estado.Google Scholar

16 Lima, Matrícula de Patentes, II, 1834 (Archivo Histórico de Hacienda, Lima, H4 0167. Hereafter AHH.) All references to economic trends and quantitative data on the Lima business economy are from the author's study of Lima tax records (based on the Matrículas de Patentes de Lima of 1829, 1830, 1833, 1834, 1838, 1839, 1842–3, 1844, 1846–7, 1850, 1852, 1857, 1859, and 1861); Gootenberg, ‘Artisans and Merchants,’ chapters 1–2; for methodology and price deflators, appendices I and II.

17 Various episodes occurred in the 1820s, 1834, and 1836; see Bonilla, et al. , ‘Comercio libre.’Google Scholar

18 The best account of the anti-foreign climate under Gamarra is Mathew, , ‘Anglo-Peruvian,’ pp. 58–61.Google Scholar For British displeasure with Gamarra for restrictions on foreign merchants, see John, MacGregor, ‘Statistics of Peru,’ in Commercial Tariffs and Regulations of the Several States of Europe and America together with the Commercial Treaties between England and Foreign Countries; Spanish American Republics (London, 1847), pp. 356–7.Google Scholar For artisan protests of Gamarra's liberal tariff, El Comercio, 13 08, 18 August, and 23 September 1840.Google Scholar

19 Lima, Matrícula de Patentes, 1839 (AHH, R0240, 1839);Google Scholar for late colonial consulado Anna, ‘Economic Causes.’ For a similar conclusion on the growth of native merchants based on consular reports, see Mathew, , ‘Anglo-Peruvian,’ p. 90.Google Scholar

20 For a description of these operations by a native artisan, see El Comercio, 18 August 1840, ‘Un peruano arruinado.’ Their beginnings can be followed in tax records as sastres por mayor, carpinteros fabricantes, sombreseros, etc.; see Relacidn de Empresarios de Lima, 1838 (AHH, H4 0229).Google Scholar

21 ‘Oficio dirigido por el Ministro de Hacienda’ (Manuscripts, Sala de Investigaciones, Biblioteca Nacional, Lima, D1645, 25 April 1842); encompassing reports by the Finance Minister, the Tribunal de Consulado, the Supreme Court, and Consejo de Estado.

22 A comparison of import volume, locally induced demand, and Lima commercial profits is found in Gootenberg, , ‘Artisans and Merchants,’ p. 23Google Scholar and appendix IV. Secondary sources indicating the new foreign retail marketing are Dancuart, , Anales de la hacienda, Vol. 3, p. 46;Google ScholarEmilio, Romero, Historia Económica del Perú, (Buenos Aires, 1949), p. 261;Google ScholarMaiguashca, , ‘Reinterpretation of the Guano Age,’ p. 153. For artisan testimony, see El Comercio, 20 09 1853.Google Scholar

23 On tax strikes, see Lima, Matrícula de Patentes, 1839, p. 269; 1842 Matrícula de Patentes de Lima (AHH, H4 0277), pp. 244–54;Google ScholarOviedo, , Colección, Vol. 16, pp. 407–10;Google Scholar and Dancuart, , Anales de la hacienda, Vol. 4, p. 72.Google Scholar

24 From manuscripts attached to 1842 Matrícula de Patentes de Lima, pp. 329–45.Google Scholar

25 ‘Tesorería general, almacén de vestuarios para el ejército’ (AHH, 1846, O.L. 400, 1199–1235). See Romero, , Historia Económica, p. 399, for role of military supply contracts to artisans; for artisan protests of contracts to merchants, El Comercio, 28 12 1849, 9 July, 8 August, 16 August, and 17 August 1850.Google Scholar

26 Author's calculations from ‘Razón de los extranjeros que pagan patentes de industria’ (AHH, 1848, O.L. 342, 2339); Lima, MatrIcida de Patentes 1846–1847 (AHH, H4 HR00624); and ‘Padroncillos de contribuyentes del ramo industrial de Lima,’ 1848 (AHH, O.L. 342, 1331–1338). See Gootenberg, , ‘Artisans and Merchants,’ chapter 2 and appendix V.Google Scholar

27 See Luis, Pásara, ‘El rol del derecho en la época del guano,’ Derecho 28 (1970), pp. 11–33, a general application of the concept of ‘intermediary classes.’Google Scholar

28 Ministerio, de Hacienda, Memoria que presenta el Ministro de Hacienda al Congreso de 1847 (Lima, 1847). For foreigners in consulado,Google Scholar see Fuentes, Manuel A., Estadística general de Lima (Lima, 1858), p. 702.Google Scholar

29 For example, ‘Consejo de Estado,’ El Comercio, 24 10 1851.Google Scholar

30 See Gootenberg, , ‘Artisans and Merchants,’ pp. 75–90, on import competition, the tariff, and artisan production.Google Scholar

31 For quantitative evidence on small-services decline, see Gootenberg, , ‘Artisans and Merchants,’ pp. 21–9.Google Scholar For recognition of the problem in Lima, Echenique's speech of 28 July 1853 in Pedro Ugarteche and Evaristo, San Cristóval; Mensajes de los Presidentes dcl Perú;, Vol. I (Lima, 1943), pp. 273–82;Google ScholarEl General José Rufino Echenique a sus comnpatriotas (Lima, 1858);Google ScholarMinisterio, de Hacienda, Mcnloria que presenta al Congreso de 1860 el Ministro de Hacienda y Cornercio (Lima, 1860), p. 33;Google Scholar and ‘Extranjeros,’ Revista de Lima I (06 1860), p. 319.Google Scholar

32 For an overview of the Lima artisan guilds, see Gootenberg, ‘Artisans and Merchants,’ chapter 4.

33 Surveys of late colonial artisans include Emilio, Romero, Historia Económica y Financiera del Perú: Anti guo Perá y Virreinato (Lima, 1937), pp. 154–62;Google ScholarEmilio, Harth-Terré and Alberto, Marquez Abanto, ‘Las bellas artes en el Virreinato del Perú: perspectiva social y económica del artesano virreinal en Lima,’ Revista del Archivo Nacional del Perú 26 (1962), pp. 352–446;Google Scholar and jean, Descola, Daily Life in Colonial Peru (London, 1968), pp. 16–18.Google Scholar

34 See Clamores del Perú, 13 03 1827, or its echo in Observaciones sobre el proyecto de reglamento de comercio presentado al Congreso por la Comisión de Hacienda (Lima, 1828).Google Scholar

35 On price level in colonial Lima, see Tadeo, Haenke, Descripción del Perú (Lima,1901; originally 1799?), pp. 16–18.Google Scholar References to cost problems in the republican period are too vast to cite; see, for example, Távara, , Análisis, pp. 50–1, or ‘Informe de la Comisión del Consejo de Estado sobre el proyecto presentado por el Ministro de Hacienda,’ El Comercia, 14 08 1850, which dwells on price differentials between regions.Google Scholar

30 Gootenberg, , ‘Artisans and Merchants,’ chapter 4, on the impossibility of maintaining guild restrictions. On chaos among the lower orders and attempts to counteract it, see El Comercio,Google Scholar 10 June, 7 August (Gamarra decree), 13 August 1840, and all major artisan manifestos to the 1860s (‘Representación que han elevado los gremios ante las Cámaras,’ El Comercio, 17 10 1849;Google ScholarArtesanos; Dictamen de la Comisión de Hacienda; etc.). The origins of the labor crisis began with the dislocations of Independence; see Christine, Hünefeldt, ‘Cimarrones, bandoleros y milicianos: 1821,’ Histórica, No. 3 (1979), pp. 71–88. On liberal arguments to discipline lower orders, Silva Santisteban, Breves reflexiones. Author's calculations of labor costs for artisans from guild statutes are 51 to 71 per cent (from AHH, 248a, 2951 1836, sastres, 2952, zapateros).Google Scholar

37 See Viduarre's polemic in El Conciliador, 8 02 1832; ‘Leyes Prohibitivas,’ El Comercio, 25 11 1849, for an artisan view. Campaigns against the bread monopoly are relevant; see El Comercio, 14 01, 31 January 1840.Google Scholar

38 El Comercio, 25 07 1850, 3 January 1859, ‘Los Artesanos’; for liberal expression of this concept, see El Cornercio, 14 08 1850,Google Scholar and mathematical demonstrations in Santisteban, , Breves reflexiones, pp. 53–5, and Dictamen de la Comisión de Hacienda, p. 27.Google Scholar

39 The press was saturated with advertisements in the 1840s and 1850s proclaiming use of imported inputs. Figures for workshops, author's calculations from Matrículas de Patentes; Hunt, , ‘Growth and Guano,’ p. 91,Google Scholar for workers (original source: Fuentes, 1858). See Luis, Benjamín Cisneros, Ensayo sobre varias cuestiones económicas del Perú’ (Le Havre, 1866), pp. 30, 76, for confirmation that ‘effective protection’ was state policy.Google Scholar

40 For taste changes in general, see Jorge, Basadre, Historia de la República del Perú (5th edn., Lima, 1961), Vol. 3, p. 1305; numerous travelers' accounts (Captain Basil Hall, Flora Tristan, etc.) tell the same story.Google Scholar

41 See agreement of early protectionists and liberals, Observaciones sobre el proyecto; Távara, Análisis, p. 51; El Conciliador, 15 02, 8 02 1832. Artisan ads stressing ‘foreign’ styles are commonplace in the Lima press; or see the survey of Lima businesses in El Intérprete del Pueblo, 3–9 04 1852. Artisan interest in a school of arts was based on this principle; El Comercio, 23 08 1849.Google Scholar

42 For export trends, Shane, Hunt, ‘Price and Quantum Estimates of Peruvian Exports,1830–1972’ (Princeton, 1973).Google Scholar For import composition, Heraclio, Bonilla, ‘La expansión comercial británica en el Perú,’ Revista del Musco Nacional 40 (1974), pp. 255–79.Google Scholar

43 See conditions described by the gremio de botoneros in Lima Matrícula de Patentes, II, 1834, pp. 230–6; or for sayeros, 1842 Matricula de Patentes de Lima, p. 48; or see the 1849 survey of guilds in ‘Representación que han elebado los gremios ante las Cámaras’.Google Scholar

44 For analysis of the effects of tariffs on artisans see Gootenberg, , ‘Artisans and Merchants,’ pp. 84–90.Google Scholar

45 For import diversification see Hunt, , ‘Growth and Guano,’ pp. 97–8.Google Scholar The artisan share of the Lima craft market fell from 66 per cent to 34 per cent from 1837 to 1857, while their absolute level of real production grew minutely. (Author's calculations from census and profit data; see Gootenberg, , ‘Artisans and Merchants,’ pp. 78–81 and appendix VI.)Google Scholar

46 The demand effects of guano are discussed by Hunt, in ‘Growth and Guano,’ pp. 59–85, and contrasts with the ‘luxury consumption’ enclave model of Levin, Export Economies.Google Scholar

47 Profit trends are author's calculations based on ‘Razón de los extranjeros que pagan patentes de industria’ and Matrículas de Patentes, 1830–1861;Google Scholar see Gootenberg, , ‘Artisans and Merchants,’ pp. 36–43.Google Scholar

48 A nonexhaustive list of such contracts is found in Dancuart, , Analcs de la Hacienda, Vol. 3, pp. 40–2; Vol. 4, pp. 172–3; Vol. 5, pp. 20–1; Vol. 6, p. 14 with a liberal analysis provided in Vol. 3, p. 46.Google Scholar See also Memoria que presenta al Congreso de 1860, sec. 14; and Francisco, García Calderón, Diccionario de la legisiación peruano (Lima, 1879), ‘Privilegio.’Google Scholar

49 See the argument of Norbeta Casanova, linking factory tariffs with artisan and former obrajes privileges; Juan, Norbeta Casanova, Ensayo económico-político sobre el porvenir de la industria algodonera fabril del Perú (Lima, 1849), pp. 95–8. For the paper factory, El Comercio, 5 10 1851.Google Scholar

50 Eduardo, Carrasco, Calendario y guía de forasteros de la República Peruana para el año de 1849 (Lima, 1848; also 1849 ed.), pp. 82–3;Google ScholarNorbeta, Casanova, Ensayo económico-político; Fuentes, Estadística, pp. 719–28;Google ScholarPedro, Cabello, Gula del Pert para ci aflo de 1860 (Lima, 1860);Google ScholarDirección, Nacional de Estadística, Extracto estadistico dcl Perr, 1940 (Lima, 1940), pp. 737–50;Google Scholar and J., Fred Rippy, ‘The Dawn of Manufacturing in Peru,’ Pacific Historical Review 15 (1946), pp. 147–8.Google Scholar

51 Norbeta Casanova, Ensayo económico-politico; this desarrollista ideology is pessimistically discussed by Pablo Macera in ‘Algodón y comercio exterior peruano en ci siglo XIX.’

52 Carrasco, , Calendario, p. 83.Google Scholar

53 For Castilia's guidelines on contraband, see Manuscripts, Biblioteca Nacional, Lima, D3015, 1848. The government version of the 1849 ‘Ley de Artesanos’ made guilds responsible for contraband use (Dancuart, , Anales de la Hacienda, vol.4, p. 389), while the artisan's original version lacks this section (El Comercio, 12 1849). García Calderón termed this episode the ‘inquisition of industry’; Diccionario, ‘gremio.’Google Scholar

54 For guano subsidies, see El Comercio, 19 October 1849, 29 October 1849, 25 July 1850, 5 October 1851.

55 El Comercio, 16 05 1850;Google Scholar for the same group favoring guano subsidies El Comercio, 24 07 1850.Google Scholar

56 Platt, , ‘Dependency in Nineteenth-Century Latin America,’ pp. 122–4,Google Scholar sums up this approach rather well. ‘Constricted internal markets’ is a very popular explanation in the Peruvian case; see Levin, , Export Economies, pp. 121–2,Google Scholar and Bonilla, , Guano y burguesía, where ‘lack of internal markets’ constitutes the core of analysis.Google Scholar

57 On capital requirements of early industry, Paul, Bairoch ‘Agriculture and the Industrial Revolution,’ in Cipolla, , ed., The Fontana Economic History of Europe, Vol. 3 (Glasgow, 1973), pp. 496–7; on the size of moneylenders' operations, Matricula de Patentes, 1842, pp. 329–37;Google Scholar on the fall in nominal interest rates, Pablo, Macera, ‘Las plantaciones azucareras andinas, 1821–1875,’ Trabajos de Historia, Vol.4 (1977), pp. 529–45; on stock shares in the glass factory El Comercio, 16 01 1850; on tax exemption policy, Matricula de Patentes, 1839,Google Scholar letters of 2 and 11 October 1839; for an estimate of commercial capital in Peru, , MacGregor, Statistics of Peru, p. 360; for Cándamo's role Alfonso Quiroz Norris, ‘La consolidación de la deuda interna peruana, 1850–1858; los efectos sociales de una medida financiera estatal’ (Tesis de Bachiller, Pontilica Universidad Católica del Pen's, 1980), pp. 205–6; Norbeta Casanova on capital needs, Ensayo económico-polItico, pp. 80–1; for mortgage banks, Echenique's speech of 28 July 1853 in Ugarteche and Cristóval, Mensajes de los presidentes, p. 285; for promises of state workshops, Elías manifesto, El Comercio, 15 10 1850.Google Scholar

58 See Palma, , ‘Growth and Structure,’ for pre-1879 advances in Chilean industry, and Arnold Bauer, Chilean Rural Society from the Spanish Conquest to 1930 (Cambridgc, 1975), for extent of nonmarket factor; see Rippy, ‘Dawn of Manufacturing.’ for Peru's industrial lag relative to population; Sarratea's silk factory was designed primarily for export, Extracto estadlstico, p. 740, and the textile factory held export rights; for Peru's colonial manufactured exports Romero, Historia Económica dcl Pertú, p. 150;Google Scholar on the question of tariffs and economies of scale, Shane, Hunt, ‘Peru: Economic History and Theory,’ in Cortés-Conde, and Stein, (eds), Latin America: A Guide to Economic History, 1830–1930 (Berkeley, 1977), p. 568.Google Scholar

59 Fuentes, , Estadística, p. 728, for annual production figures 1848–1852; for plant capacity, Extracto estadistico, p. 737. Imports of tocuyos from MacGregor, Statistics of peru, p. 359. This is clearly an underestimate of capacity versus national consumption; another source indicated that the factory could produce one million of ii million yards annually consumed; El Comercio, 27 12 1849.Google Scholar

60 On migrants to Lima, see José, María Córdova y Urrutia, Estadistica histdrica, geogrdfica, industrial y comercial de los pueblos quc componen las provincias del Departamento de Lima (Lima, 1839), pp. 35–6;Google ScholarFuentes, , Estadistica, p. 625;Google ScholarAlfredo, Leubel, El Pert en 1860 o sea anuario nacional (Lima, 1861), p. 266;Google ScholarManuel, Fuentes, Lima: apuntes históricos, descriptiuos, estadísticos y de costumbres (Lima, 1925), p. 10; all these sources indicate high population mobility. For a case against the possibility of guild restrictions on labor use, see Gootenberg, ‘Artisans and Merchants,’ chapter 4.Google Scholar

61 ‘Informe de Ia Comisión del Consejo de Estado sobre el proyecto presentado por el Ministro de Hacienda’ and ‘Representación del comercio de Arequipa al Gobierno,’ El Comercio, 14–15 August 1850.

62 The instability of merchant investment in industry due to their high mobility, sensitivity to relative price changes, and lack of specific commitment to industrial ventures has been stressed by Rosemary, Thorp and Geoffrey, Bertram in Peru 1890– 1977: Growth and Policy in an Open Economy (London, 1978) chapter 3.Google Scholar

63 Jorge, Basadre, ‘Antecedentes del Código Civil de 1852,’ Revista de Derecho y Ciencias Politicas, No. 3 (1939), pp. 283–319;Google Scholarcf, Paul Gootenberg, ‘The Patterns of Economic Institutional Change in Nineteenth-Century Peru’ (B.A. thesis, University of Chicago, 1978).Google Scholar

64 For a brief treatment of the hijos del pals law (November 1849) and its consequences, see Yepes, , Perd 1820–1920, pp. 67–8.Google Scholar

65 For Congressional debate on agricultural tariffs, see El Comercio, 23 December 1849; for views of hacendados, ‘Unidad del pueblo y rabia de los extranjeros,’ El Comcrcio, 29–30 December 1849.

66 On politics of the period, see Basadre, , Historia de la Reptillica, Vol.2, pp. 741 (quote), 911–32;Google Scholar and Jorge, Guillermo Leguía, ‘Las ideas de 1848 en el Pert,’ in Legula, , ed., Estudios históricos (Santiago, 1939), pp. 113–54. The electoral reform of 1847 and amendments in December, 1849, were undoubtedly a boost to artisan politics.Google Scholar

67 ‘Representación que han elebado los gremios ante las Cámaras,’ El Comercio, 17 December 1849. All citations are author's translations.

68 El Comercio, ‘Representación.’

69 Ibid.

70 For artisan politicking prior to passage, see El Comercio, 30 October 7–8 December, 20 December, 27 December 1849.

71 See Dancuart, , Anales de la hacienda, Vol. 4, p. 189, for final amended law.Google Scholar

72 El Comercio, 14–20 12 1849. Poetry from Colección de Volantes, 1849 (Sala de Invesrigaciones, Biblioteca Nacional, Lima).Google Scholar

73 The Lima guilds' tariff schedule, encompassing hundreds of craft items and their prices, was published in El Comercia, 12 July 1850, ‘Proyecto del reglamento de comercio,’ article 74. Implementation was held up awaiting approval by the President and Consejo de Estado; El Comercia, 25 January 1850; on obstructionism by Consejo de Estado, see their ‘Informe’ in El Comercio, 14 August 1850. García Calderón, Diccionario, ‘Gremios,’ doubts that the artisan law was ever put into practice.

74 For artisan views on candidates, see El Cornercio, 28 December 1849, 12 January, 16 February, 18 February, 19 December 1850, 18 December 1851, etc.

75 For efforts to scrutinize electors, see El Comercia, 7–18 February 1850; protests to extend the vote 7 January, 9 February 1850; typical Jacobin pronouncements, 14 December 1849, ‘Señores Echeniques-Los Artesanos,’ or 12 December 1849, ‘Un Maestro de Artesano’; artisan attacks on radicals, 14 December 1849, ‘A. D. Miguel Guzmán’ on need to elect only artisans El Comercia, 27 December 1849, ‘Reunión de artesanos convocado por D. F. Grillo.’

76 ‘Reglamento de omercio-unos cursantes de economla poiltica,’ El Comercio, 23 July 1850; see also ‘Reglamento de Comercio: Señores Artesanos,’ 5 Augugst 1850.The ‘cursantes’ led debates against artisans; in 1850 the first chair of ‘political economy’ was established in Peru; Dancuart, , Anales de la hacienda, Vol. 5, chapter4.Google Scholar

77 ‘Consejo de Estado, Reglamento de Comercio,’ El Comcrcia, 22 July 1850.

78 For other types of liberal arguments, see ‘Consejo de Estado,’ El Comercio, 14 August 1850 (development policy); ‘Comisíón de Hacienda,’ 3 July 1851 (practical difficulties of tariffs); and Senate debates, 18–20 July 1851 (need to facilitate commerce, etc.). For artisan response to attacks, ‘Reglamento de Comercio-Los Artesanos,’ El Comercia, 5 January, 29 July 1850. On the need for immigrants, El Comercio, 23 August 1849, 7 January 1850.

79 See commentaries like ‘Leyes prohibitivas’ in El Comercio, 25 December 1849 or 20 August 1850.

80 For blame placed on political processes, see El Comercio, 27 12 1849,5 01 1850, 16 08 1851;Google Scholar for accusations between branches of government, El Comercio, 22–24 07 1850;Google Scholar for the liberal role taken by the Consejo de Estado, El Cornercio, 22 07 1850, 5 08 1851,Google Scholar and especially El Intérprete dcl Pueblo, 5 03 1852.Google Scholar

81 ‘El Reglamento de Comercio en el Senado,’ El Comercio, 5 August 1851.

82 As an eloquent example of this conversion, see the speech of Senator Seoane, El Comercio, 29 August 1851. This dilemma of escalating claims was also evident during the less open adoption of the 1840 tariff: ‘Para que lo que se establezca sea titil y duradero, es preciso cerrar los oídos a toda clase de reclamaciones que pueden hacerse por aquellos individuos o cuerpos cuyos intereses pueden ser heridos por el nuevo orden de cosas’; ‘Reglamento de Comercio,’ El Amigo dcl Pueblo, 24 May 1840. In the 1858–1859 tariff debates the same fears were expressed; Silva, Santisteban, Breves reflexioncs, p. 31.Google Scholar

83 See El Comercio, 25 11 1849, for artisan protests of agricultural tariffs; see 14–15 08 1850 for Arequipa complaints.Google Scholar

84 El Comercio, 25 07 1850, ‘Comunicados – los artesanos que condnuárn.’Google Scholar

85 El Comercio, 25 07 1850, industria del pacs protejida por el Sr. Ministro de acienda.’Google Scholar

86 El Comercio, 4 07 1857; the editorial stressed the need to convince wavering officials. It underlines the importance and timing of the issue, since this was the only editorial published by El Comercio in these years. See also El Comercio, 508 1857, for similar liberal pressures. This liberal argument first appeared in ‘Reglamento de Comercio’, 23 07 1850.Google Scholar

87 Fuentes, , Estadistica, p. 723, on ownership of the paper factory. Two months later, however, the paper factory managers would protest the government's moves; see El Comercio, 10 1857.Google Scholar

88 See El Comercio, 21, 23, 26 August, 24 October, 1851. For first suggestions that merchants draw up the new tariff, see El Comercio, 23 July, 1850, ‘Reglamento de Comercio’.

89 Dancuart, , Anales de la hacienda, Vol.5, pp. 120–30, for ‘1851 Reglamento de Comercio’, esp. articles 4 & 5. This struggle between Congress and the Presidency is revealed also in ‘Reforma del reglamento de comercio expedida por el Congreso de Ia República y refrendada por el Presidente de la Repiiblica’ (MSS., Biblioteca Nacional, D2182, 13 October, 1851). For specific links to tariff debates, see El Cornercio, 20–I 08 1851 (on lowering subsistence costs) and 14 08 1851 (on the need for strict ad valorem tariffs and increased effective protection).Google Scholar

90 Hunt, , ‘Growth and Guano’, pp. 106–7, 110–11.Google Scholar

91 On factory failures, see Fuentes, , Estadistica, pp. 719–23; contraband and government indifference are blamed. For the role of contraband, see El Comercia, 27 11, 1849, 18 10, 1851, and El Intérprete del Pueblo, 31 01, 1852. For allegations that liberals encouraged contraband, see El Comercio, 30 07, 2 08, 1850; for liberals' calls for merchants to ignore tariffs, El Comercio, 25 01, 1850.Google Scholar On difficulties caused by imports for the textile factory, seeToribio, Pacheco, ‘Dissertation sur les instruments qui concourent a Ia formation de Ia Richesse’ (Law thesis, Brussels, 1852), p. 51,Google Scholar and Silva, Santisteban, Breves reflexiones, p.47.Google Scholar That these factories were economically viable is demonstrated by the fact that, two decades later, the machinery from the failed textile factory was moved to Vitarte and served as the basis for Lima's successful textile industry from the mid-1870s: Basadre, , Historia de la Repr1blica, Vol. 4, p. 1813.Google Scholar The founder of this mill had been manager of the factory twenty years previously: see Damian de Schultz, G. and Juan, Moller, Gula de domicilia de Lima y del Callao para ci año de 1853 (Lima, 1853).Google Scholar

92 For example, in 1859 Dictamen de la Comisión de Hacienda, p. 15,Google Scholar or Silva, Santisteban, Breves reflexiones, p. 41. However, a new wave of protectionists after 1860 used this episode to point out the deficiencies of government policy; see Gootenberg, ‘Artisans and Merchants,’ chapter 5.Google Scholar

93 The name coined by Jorge Basadre. For a cogent contemporary analysis of the economic crisis caused by import dependence, see Juan, Capello and Luis, Pctriconi, Estudios sobre Ia independencia econdrnica dcl Peri (Lima, 1876).Google Scholar

94 Unfortunately, no convincing studies of nineteenth-century elite formation yet exist. Artisans perceived a connection between their defeat and the new ‘plutocracy’; see especially El Comercio, 25 July 1850, ‘Comunicados,’ and 29 November 1851, ‘Unos Artesanos’; and El Correo de Lima, 6 October 1851, ‘Estado de los Artesanos de Lima.’

95 Mathew, W. M., ‘Foreign Contractors and the Peruvian Government at the Start of the Guano Trade,’ Hispanic American Historical Review, Vol. 52 (1972), pp. 598–621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

96 See the Quiroz study of this group, ‘La consolidación,’ especially chapters and 5.

97 On artisan political disillusionment, see El Comercio, 19 December 1850, ‘Señores Electores de la Capital,’ and 20 December 1850, DIa de Felicidad o de Luto.’

98 ‘Unos Artesanos,’ El Comercio, 29 November 1851. Basadre notes the origins of mutual aid societies in 1851, but without the link to the lost tariff struggle (Hisroria de Ia Republica, Vol. 5, pp. 2045−7).