¹ In a discussion of a previous version of this article at the Annual Conference of the American Historical Association in December 1983, the ambiguous position of various foreign mercantile families which became resident (Boulton in Venezuela, Edwards in Chile, Gibson in Argentina) was touched upon by John V. Lombardi, who noted that the dichotomy ‘us–them’ was often not real, calling to mind Pogo's immortal parody, ‘We have met the enemy, and they is us.’

² The best conceptual discussion of historical dependency can be found in the English translation of the book by Fernando, Henrique Cardoso and Enzo, Faletto, Dependeny and Development in Latin America (trans. by Marjory, Mattingly Urquidi) (Berkeley, University of California Press, 1979).Google Scholar The polemic is best presented in Platt's, D. C. M. ‘Dependency in Nineteenth-Century Latin America: An Historian Objects’, Latin American Research Review, 15 No. 1 (1980), pp. 113–30.Google Scholar One of the works Platt criticized was Stanley Stein, J. and Barbara, H. Stein'sThe Colonial Heritage of Latin America: Essays on Economic Dependence in Perspective (New York, Oxford University Press, 1970). The Stems rebutted many of Platt's statements in the same issue of the journal, ‘Comment’, pp. 131–46, to which Platt made a brief answer, ‘Reply’, pp. 147–50. While neither position can claim to have vindicated itself, the concept of dependency and the role of Great Britain in the political and economic development of the new republics have continued to influence historical research.Google Scholar

³ Among recent studies of this period are Vera, Blinn Reber, British Mercantile Houses in Buenos Aires, 1810–1880 (Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1979);Google ScholarFormación y desarrollo de la burguesía en México, siglo XIX (introd. by Ciro F. S. Cardoso), (México, Siglo xxi, 1978); John, Mayo, ‘Before the Nitrate Era: British Commission Houses and the Chilean Economy, 1852–1889’, Journal of Latin American Studies Vol. 11 (1979), pp. 283–302;Google ScholarPlatt, D. C. M., ‘Finanzas británicas en Mexico (1821–1867)’, Historia Mexicana, 32, No. 2 (1982), pp. 226–61 and his ‘Foreign Finance in Argentina for the First Half-Century of Independence’, Journal of Latin American Studies, Vol. 15 (1983), pp. 23–47;Google ScholarPaul, Gootenburg, ‘The Social Origins of Protectionism and Free Trade in Nineteenth-Century Lima’, Journal of Latin American Studies, Vol. 14 (1982), pp. 329–58.Google Scholar

⁴ Perhaps the best source of information on nineteenth-century Venezuelan economic history is Polutica y economia de Venezuela, 1810–1976 (Caracas, Fundación John Boulton, 1976). Other useful accounts are Domingo Alberto, Rangel, Capital y desarrollo (2 vols., Caracas, Universidad Central de Venezuela, 1974 and 1977);Google ScholarFederico, Brito Figueroa, Historia económica y social de Venezuela (3 vols., Caracas, Universidad Central de Venezuela, 1973–75);Google ScholarGeorge, Edmund Carl, First Among Equals: Great Britain and Venezuela, 1810–1910 (Ann Arbor, University Microfilm International, 1980);Google ScholarLola, Vetencourt, El imperio británico en la economia de Venezuela, 1830–1870 (Caracas, Universidad Central de Venezuela\FACES, 1981)Google Scholar and Rolf, Walter, Venezuela and Deutscbland (1815–1870) (Wiesbaden, 1983).Google Scholar

⁵ The Casa Boulton is the oldest continuously functioning commercial firm in Venezuela; since 1861 the parent company has been known as H. L. Boulton and Company. The historical business records of the House are kept in the Fundación John Boulton in Caracas. The records consist of some 10,000 loose documents, arranged in files, as well as the bound account and letter books. Records for the years prior to 1850 are very incomplete; from that point the documentation is fairly comprehensive. Access to the archival material has been free of restrictions or conditions.

⁶ A perfect example of the fluidity in terminology is presented by El Liberal, edited by Julián García and José María Rojas in Caracas from 1836 to 1848. The newspaper was liberal in economic terms and conservative (that is, supported the government) in political terms. The Liberal party had its best exponent in Antonio Leocadio Guzmán, who edited El Venezolano in Caracas from 1840 to 1845. This newspaper was economically conervative, advocating the revocation of laws such as the 10 April law which seemed to favour the commercial sector and promulgation of laws to protect and encourage agriculture. Politically, the Liberals concentrated on demanding alternation in power. For an excellent analysis of the misleading application of political labels in the nineteenth century, see Arturo, Muñoz, ‘The Táchira Frontier, 1881–1899, Regional Isolation and National Integration in the Venezuelan Andes’ (Unpub. Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University, 1977), chapter 5.Google Scholar

⁷ For a succinct account of his views see his Exposición del Secretario de Hacienda, 1833, reproduced in Historia de las finanzas públicas en Venezuela, comp. by Tomás Enrique Carrillo Batalla (Caracas, Banco Central de Venezuela, 1969), vol. 1, tomo 1, pp. 135—54. On page 154, for example, he states ‘Si se permite obtener todo el lucro que se pueda en una negociación de paños, de granos, ó de otros artículos comerciables que han sido comprados con dinero, no debe prohibirse que se pretenda lo mismo con el que se presta para estas mismas negociaciones.’ Tulio Halperón Donghi has noted the difficult situation of British merchants due to the variations in prices and the credit risks they were obliged to take in selling to retailers, causing frequent bankruptcies. He also noted that legislation, and even more, Spanish American commercial mores, were a trial to the British in terms of bankruptcy proceedings. See his Hispano América después de la independencia: consecuencias sociales y económicas de la emancipación (Buenos Aires, Paidos, 1972), p. 102. Chapter 2 of this book, ‘El nuevo orden comercial’ is a particularly insightful review of the changes attendant on independence.Google Scholar

⁸ An excellent review of this period can be found in his ‘El gobierno deliberativo; hacendados, comerciantes y artesanos frente a la crisis, 1830–1848’, in Politica y economia de Venezuela. pp. 35–88. The three laws mentioned are discussed on pages 71–4. Also useful are Snow, Lewis F. Jr, ‘The Páez Years: Venezuelan Economic Legislation, 1830–1846’ (Unpub. Ph.D. dissertation, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, 1970);Google ScholarButler, Robert W., ‘The Origins of the Liberal Party in Venezuela, 1830–1848’ (Unpub. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Texas, Austin, 1972),Google Scholar particularly chapter 3; and Lombardi, John V., The Decline and Abolition of Negro Slavery in Venezuela, 1820–1854 (Westport, Conn., Greenwood Publishing Corporation, 1971), chapter 5.Google Scholar

⁹ Sir Robert Ker Porter's Caracas Diaey, 1825–1842: A British Diplomat in a Newborn Nation (ed. by Walter, Dupouy) (Caracas, Editorial Arte, 1966), p. 291.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Interest rates prior to the 10 April law were evidently not as low as some people thought. Santos Michelena explained in his previously cited Exposición (p. 154 ) that to avoid the charge of usury, rates over 6% were calculated and included in the capital of a loan. According to José Rafael Revenga, interest rates in the late 1820s were as high as 10 per cent a month. See Banco Central de Venezuela, La Hacienda Páblica de Venezuela en 1828–1830, Misión de José Rafael Revenga como Ministro de Hacienda (Caracas, 1953), pp. 98, 99 and 109,Google Scholar as cited by Pérez, Vila, ‘El gobierno deliberativo’, p. 70. This may in fact be a misinterpretation of the interest rate because in the commercial documents reviewed, interest rates are frequently given with no reference as to whether they are monthly or annual. Thus rates of 1–2% are found on the same page with rates of 6–10%, and it is obvious from the amount of interest paid that the first are monthly and the second are yearly. Since paper money was rarely used in Venezuela and tended to be redeemed as soon as possible, the excessively high rates associated with a deteriorating currency and the consequent inflation were truly exceptional. Interest rates are taken from the documents preserved in the Archive of the Casa Boulton (hereafter ACB) and rates cited in government loan contracts as found in the various volumes of the Historia de las finanzas públicas. No significant change in the rates occurred in the nineteenth century.Google Scholar

¹¹ See Elke Nieschultz de Stockhausen, Periodismo y pollitica en Venezuela: Cincuenta años de historia (Caracas, Universidad Católica ‘Andrés Bello’, 1981) for a review of the period and an excellent listing of newspapers published between 1808 and 1858.

¹² Fermín, Toro, Reflexiones sobre la ley de 10 de abril de 1834 (originally published in 1845) in Pensamiento politico venezolano del siglo XIX (Caracas, Ediciones de la Presidencia de la República de Venezuela, 1960), I, pp. 107–225, particularly pp. 207–9 and 213–14. In fact, as will be seen, the merchant pagarés also included a provision to apply the 10 April law. This difference between merchant credit and capitalist loans seems more nearly to have resided in the fact that the latter were usually immediately notarized whereas merchants would only require a notarized statement if the accumulated debt proved difficult to collect.Google Scholar

¹³ Tomás, Lander, ‘Amortización y auxilio a las industrias’, El Venezolano (18 de enero de 1845), reproduced in Pensamiento politico veneolano del siglo XIX (Caracas, Ediciones de la Presidencia de la República, 1961), IV, pp. 680–2. In the same article, Lander accused (Santos) Michelena, (George) Ward, General Soublette, J(ulián) García and José María Rojas of being responsible for the mistaken ideas (payment of the foreign debt, the to April law, the mercantile courts and the refusal to fund an agrarian bank) which he held were ruining the country. As will be seen, three of these figures, Ward, García and Rojas, were closely linked with the Casa Boulton at one time or another.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Butler, , ‘The Origins of the Liberal Party’, pp. 110–11.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Riddel, J. to Lord, Palmerston, Caracas, 31 03 1849, Great Britain, Public Record Office, Foreign Office 80 (Diplomatic and Consular Reports and Dispatches, Venezuela), vol. 66, fos. 96–9 and same to same, 17 February 1849, fos. 66–8. Ten of these new firms were located in the eastern section of the country and traded primarily with Trinidad. Of the thirteen firms located in the major ports of La Guaira, Puerto Cabello and Maracaibo, three were liquidated within months and two, Boulton Dallett and Company and Hall and Company, dealt almost exclusively in the American trade. Of great interest is that Riddel noted that there were seven German houses in La Guaira and two in Maracaibo which dealt primarily in British merchandise. The commerce in Puerto Cabello was dominated by the German houses, also dealing in British goods. The exports of these houses, on the other hand, went almost anywhere but Great Britain.Google Scholar

¹⁶ An excellent review of the Monagas period is found in Matthews, Robert P., ‘La turbulenta década de los Monagas, 1847–1858’, in Política y economía, pp. 93–127. References to the laws cited can be found on pp. 96–7.Google Scholar

¹⁷ The information on revenue, budgets and indebtedness has been taken from Ramón, Veloz, Economía y finanzas de Venezuela desde 1830 basta 1944 (Caracas, Impresores Unidos, 1945), pp. 95–114. Veloz cites all figures in bolívares, calculating four to the peso. See also ‘Exposición que dirige a la Convención Nacional de Venezuela, en 1858 el Secretario de Hacienda, Miguel Herrera’, reproduced in Historia de las finanzas públicas, vol. 9, pp. 343–6. It should be noted that the sterling exchange rate in Venezuela hardly varied throughout this period, ranging from 6.25 to 6.50 pesos to the pound, a rate mostly affected by seasonal demands for exchange.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Boultons gave an explanation of the utilization of vales or orders on the customs houses to their United States correspondents in 1855. They wrote that the orders were issued with a liberal hand (an unconscious pun?) to be admitted in quarter part payment for duties and at a value of from 80 to 85%. As they were not always admitted when presented, either because the government needed cash or the customs official was being difficult, Boultons viewed them as risky business. Noting they had not touched them during the last year, they added, ‘When we can do so to advantage without fear of loss or being exposed to a hundred vexations, we will purchase.’ Letter to Dallett, Brothers, Philadelphia, 10 01 1855 International Letter Book. (Hereafter ILB; only the recipient of these letters will be noted as all were sent by the House in La Guaira. See Table 2 on page 386 for a list of the various styles of the Casa Boulton.) The Cash Book (February 1848–March 1851) shows purchases of orders on the Customs House for a 25% discount on 30 June 1848 (fo. 16) and an order admissible for half payment of duties, received as partial payment for a debt, at a discount of 28% (31 August 1849, fo. 86).Google Scholar

¹⁹ For a study of government finances, see Francisco, Pimentel y Roth, Historia del créito público en Venezuela (originally published in 1873) (Caracas, Archivo General de la Nación, 1974). An excellent source of information is the previously cited Historia de las finanzas públicas. It should be noted that the foreign loans of 1862 and 1864 were in fact bond issues, but contemporaries both in England and Venezuela usually referred to them as loans.Google Scholar

²⁰ The correspondence can be found in ‘Empréstito de Londres’, Historia de las finanzas públicas, vol. 15, pp. 23–118. The Baring quote can be found on page 88. Once embarked, Barings evidently decided to make the best of the situation, as will be seen. Interestingly, Nadal's letters make it clear that the process of raising a loan coincided to a great degree with the acerbic account found in Jenks's, Leland H. book, The Migration of British Capital to 1875 (London, Nelson, 1971), pp. 272–8.Google Scholar The loan, for a nominal value of £1,000,000 was issued at 63; an additional £214,000 was funded into a 6% stock to cover arrears of interest since 1860. Published information relating to the loan can be found in Debt of Venezuela. Report of the Committee of Venezuelan Bondholders (London, Darling & Son, 1865) and Venezuela, Ministerio de Crédito Público, Resumen cronológico de las leyes y decretos del Crédito Público de Venezuela desde el año 1826; cuenta general basta 31 de diciembre de 1872… (Caracas, Imprenta de ‘La Opinión Nacional’, 1873), pp. 79–xcii. The latter is the complete work of Pimentel y Roth cited in n. 19.Google Scholar

²¹ Elias Mocatta was a particular friend of Sir Robert Ker Porter and references can be found to him throughout Porter's Diary, the first dated 29 November 1825. Mocatta was resident in Venezuela between 1823 and 1837, having a firm there and one in Liverpool, both of which failed in 1847. He continued to interest himself in questions of the Venezuela public debt, evidently with speculative ends in mind. An undated, unsigned note in the archive of Baring Brothers and Company, deposited in the Guildhall Library in London, indicates that Mocatta's father had been a partner in the firm of Mocatta and Goldsmid. The author of the reference wrote, ‘I consider him a man of good intelligence… and very competent to conduct a negotiation with them [Spanish Americans].’ An additional point in his favour was that although he had been brought up a Jew, he had ‘embraced the Christian faith’. Baring, HC 17.30 part iv [185].

²² See King, W. T. C., History of the London Discount Market (London, George Routledge & Sons, 1936), pp. 231–2Google Scholar for information on the company. Their special agent was Eastwick, Edward B.. His account of the mission and his later travels can be found in Venezuela or Sketches of Life in a South American Republic; with a History of the Loan of 1864 (London, Chapman & Hall, 1868).Google Scholar Additional published information can be found in the previously cited Résumen cronológico, pp. xcii–cxi (an account which favours Antonio Guzmán Blanco) and both the 1862 and 1864 loans are treated in Bigotte, Felix E., El libro de oro (Caracas, 1868) which attacks Guzmán Blanco for his machinations with both loans.Google Scholar

²³ By June 30, 1864, the domestic debt was 15,905,543.30 pesos and the foreign debt was 35,743,594.58 pesos. Aside from an unknown amount of internal debt which was always floating, the reason the internal debt was lower than the foreign debt was that great sums of the two loans had been used partially to redeem it.

²⁴ Letter to Dallett, and Son, , Philadelphia, 24 06 1864, ILB. These letters are not individually signed, but it is possible to discern the author at times, especially Schroeder, who wrote a somewhat fractured English and freely expressed fairly negative opinions about the Venezuelan government. Schroeder was German.Google Scholar

²⁵ Given this orientation in trade, it is probable that he had spent some time in the United States before going to Venezuela, or at least had been connected with a firm in the American trade, otherwise the logical step would have been to go into the trade with England. If the goods received were shipped on consignment, it is unlikely that the shippers would have entrusted them to an unknown youth who had just celebrated his twenty-first birthday. The House was one of many small firms established in the major ports of Venezuela, but by 1860 it ranked among the top three or four in the country, among the twenty most important houses.

²⁶ Information on the Dalletts has been drawn from Francis, James Dallett, ‘A Partial Account of the House of Boulton in Nineteenth Century Venezuela’ (unpub. manuscript, 1957)Google Scholar as well as a letter and enclosures sent by Dallett, to the author dated 1 07 1983. The manuscript is available in the Fundación John Boulton.Google Scholar

²⁷ According to the original partnership agreement of 1833, Dallett had placed 10,000 dollars in the House and Boulton only 3,000 dollars. Profits and losses were to be shared equally but Dallett was to receive 12% interest annually on the difference in capital between the two. In a letter discussing the renewal of the agreement, Boulton wanted to eliminate interest payments on the $7,000 as the difference in capital was compensated by Boulton's extra services and the fact that he was obliged to stay in Venezuela. The 1833 partnership agreement can be found in the ACB file ‘Dallett and Boulton’he letter, from John Boulton, La Guaira, to John, Dallett, Philadelphia, 7 08 1836, is in the possession of Francis James Dallett (a typewritten copy, the original being lost).Google Scholar

²⁸ Information regarding the Boultons and their firm is derived from the International Letter Books, a collection of letters bound together under the title ‘Copies of Some Original Letters Written to John Dallett, Philadelphia, Pa., by John Boulton, La Guaira…’ (held in the Fundación John Boulton), letters, copies of letters and abstracts in the possession of Francis James Dallett, as well as his manuscript history ‘A Partial Account’. Copies of the powers of attorney are in the ACB file ‘Escribanías y Protocolo Vargas’. The partnership agreement between Henry Lord Boulton, José María Rojas and Frederik Schroeder is in the ACB file ‘H. L. Boulton and Company’. The obligatory public notice of the new firm did not list Rojas as a partner although a separate notice announced that he held the power of attorney for the firm. See El Independiente, 2 de enero de 1861. Also, the letters of introduction which Henry Lord wrote for Rojas when he went to Europe in 1863 only indicate that he held the power of attorney (and to one particular friend that he was the writer's brother-in-law) but not that he was a partner.

²⁹ Information in this paragraph is derived from the general sources cited in the previous note as well as the appropriate ACB files and Ledger Books. The first reference to a credit from Barings appears in a letter from John, Dallett, Philadelphia,Google Scholar to John, Boulton, La, Guaira, 12 01 1841 in ‘The Copy Letter Books of John Dallett’, vol. 1 (on microfilm, deposited in the Library of the University of Pennsylvania). Profits seem to have varied considerably, from, for example, a mere 32,684.56 pesos in 1862 to 215,370.04 pesos in 1863 (ACB file ‘H. L. Boulton and Company’ and Profit and Loss Accounts in the Ledger Books). Judging by the sums assigned to the House by the government as their share of various loans, the firm was one of the three or four largest in the country by the late 1850s, yet their funds could not begin to compare with those wielded by similarly important houses in Mexico, the largest of which may well have had more funds than all the mercantile houses in Venezuela put together.Google Scholar

³⁰ In fact, pagarús functioned in the same fashion as bills in England. They were used as payment for other bills or debts, applying the appropriate discount if they were not mature. Some pagarés were more acceptable than others, depending on the reputation of the individual or firm. During periods of crisis, such pagarés could not be discounted easily. Boultons noted in 1864 that due to the pressing wants of the government, even at a discount of 2½% per month, the very best paper had few takers. (Letter to John, Dallett and Company, Philadelphia, 1 04 1864, ILB.)Google Scholar Although Boultons made every effort to select carefully the persons to whom they would extend credit, bad debts formed a constant and at times significant item in their balance sheets. They also informed Dalletts at one point that ‘You are under a mistake to suppose we collect interest for backward debtors – very rarely can we do it & thereby are no small losers.’ (Letter to Dallett, Brothers, Philadelphia, 23 03 1855, ILB.)Google Scholar

³¹ See the document registered in the Registro Principal, Protocolo Vargas, 1867, 6, 1, a copy of which is in the ACB file ‘Escribanías y Protocolo Vargas’. Boultons paid more than two-thirds the value of the properties. Boultons did at times hold title to properties which had been offered as guarantees for outstanding debts. Thus the liquidation of Boulton, Sons and Company was a drawn-out affair because the debt guaranteed by the properties could not be collected without great loss, but, as was noted, ‘Meanwhile the houses pay rent and we continue our best endeavours to quicken collections from other morose [sic] debtors.’ (Letter to William, Bliss, Philadelphia, 23 10 1861, ILB.) The interference from Spanish in the letters was fairly common. The term in Spanish for a debtor in arrears is moroso, but they were undoubtedly morose as well!Google Scholar

³² Information in this paragraph is derived from Historia de las finanzas púlicas, vols. 13 and 16, as well as the ACB files ‘Empréstitos de 1860’, ‘Boulton, Sons and Company’, and ‘Ministerio de Hacienda’. Interestingly, Pardo and Company, headed by Isaac Pardo, had formed the Compañía de Accionistas in 1855, whose main object was to lend money to the government. The company failed in 1857 as the government was unable to meet its obligations. Its failure may well have prompted the caution displayed by most merchants in lending money to the government. Boultons received an agent's commission of 1% for effecting the redemption of the loan. Other short-term loans were effected by Pardo and Company (the only truly financially oriented firm in the country; its source of funds was a family firm in Amsterdam, but after its failure with the Banco de Venezuela in 1862, the funds were cut off, although Isaac Pardo stayed on in Venezuela), and George Blohm and Company, with commissions between 2½ and 5% and at interests rates of 1½% per month. See the Memoria of the minister of Hacienda, reproduced in Historia de las Finanzas Públicas, vol. 12, pp. 287–98.

³³ Information in this paragraph is derived from the International Letter Books, and the ACB files ‘Empréstito de 1862’ and ‘Elias Mocatta’. A letter from Elias Mocatta, Caracas, to H. L. Boulton and Company, La, Guaira, 15 12 1862,Google Scholar gives the impression that Boultons was obliged to recompense Mocatta for having obtained the agency of the loan for them: ‘I acknowledge with gratitude your very kind letter of 13 inst., the recompense you tender me is consonant with your known liberality & personal friendship to me; I was only acting on that basis when I took measures to procure you the appointment for which there were (partially unknown to you) many aspirants here and in Europe…’ One of the aspirants was the British Chargé, Frederick Doveton Orme, but Barings thought that the collection of duties would have to be handled by a mercantile house. See Barings, to Elias, Mocatta, Caracas, 1 11 1862 (Letter Book 34).Google Scholar

³⁴ He explained the situation to Barings, who evidently had no objections. Boulton took all the necessary steps to protect the bondholders' interests, and was obliged to repeat them in 1867 with reference to the new loan. In none of the literature or archival material was the firm's integrity ever questioned; England itself in the mid-1860s was not exactly a paragon of commercial or financial virtue, as a review of the bankruptcy and money market listings in The Times reveals.

³⁵ See Historia de las finanzas públicas, vols. 13 and 16 as well as the ACB files ‘Empréstitos 1864’ and ‘Ministerio de Hacienda’. When Venezuela suspended payments on the 1862 loan it also defaulted on its part of the Colombian loans. See the Corporation of Foreign Bondholders, Fourth Annual Report for the Year 1876 (London, 1877), Appendix ‘Loans in Default’.Google Scholar

³⁶ Such decisions had been made in earlier years as well. In a memorial to the Foreign Oflce in 1852 by the bondholders, the following plaint is expressed: ‘It appears from the communications which the Committee have received from their agent at La Guayra, that the interest on the Domestic Debt is punctually paid, and even a part of the principal of that debt has been liquidated, whilst the Foreign Creditor has not received a single dividend for above five years.’ Report of the Proceedings in Relatioñ to the Foreign Debt of Venezuela. Presented at a general meeting of the Bondholders, held at the London Tavern, on Monday, 20 February 1854. (London, Printed by R. Clay, n.d.), pp. 6–7.

³⁷ Richard, Edwardes to Thomas, Baring, 25 07 1865 (Baring, HC4.4\22.1).Google Scholar