The Establishment of Political Relations between Chile and Great Britain

Author(s): Theodore E. Nichols

Source: The Hispanic American Historical Review, Vol. 28, No. 1 (Feb., 1948), pp. 137-143
Published by: Duke University Press
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2508225
Accessed: 07-08-2018 15:47 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Duke University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
The Hispanic American Historical Review

This content downloaded from 158.170.10.44 on Tue, 07 Aug 2018 15:47:11 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 NOTES AND COMMENT

THE ESTABLISHMENT OF POLITICAL RELATIONS

BETWEEN CHILE AND GREAT BRITAIN

THEODORE E. NICHOLS*

The story of the recognition of the Latin-American republics by

the United States has long since been told. The facts involved in
Great Britain's recognition of some of these nations, while much less
familiar, are not unknown. However, historical works neglect to clarify
the British recognition of Chile. It is the purpose of this study to
consider the recognition process, and then to trace briefly subsequent
political relations between the two countries.
By 1822, when the independence of Latin America seemed inevitable
and the United States had recognized the main Latin-American nations,
British foreign minister Castlereagh decided upon a policy of commercial
recognition.' The Navigation Acts were extended to admit Latin-
American ships to British ports.2 Canning carried on Castlereagh's
policy. At about the same time as the famous memorandums of Can-
ning and Polignac and Monroe's statement to Congress, commercial
recognition was applied. On October 10, 1823, Canning appointed
Christopher Nugent consul-general to Chile.3
*The author is a candidate for the Ph.D. degree in Hispanic-American history at the
University of California, Berkeley.
1 By commercial recognition the writer means merely the appointment of consular
officers; by political recognition, the exchange of diplomatic representatives, i.e., ministers
or ambassadors in the main. "Before the complete de jure recognition of new states and
governments is accorded, partial or de facto recognition is sometimes extended for the
purposes of trade and practical needs. Recognition so accorded ... has something of a
conditional character" (Ellery Cory Stowell, International Law. A Restatement of Prin-
ciples in Conformity with Actual Practice [New York, 1931], p. 47).
2 A. W. Ward and G. P. Gooch, eds., The Cambridge History of.British Foreign Policy,
1783-1919 (3 vols., Cambridge, 1923), II, 65; Charles Kingsley Webster, The Foreign
Policy of Castlereagh, 1815-1822 (London, 1925), p. 429.
3 Webster, ed., Britain and the Independence of Latin America, 1812-1830; Select Docu-
ments from the Foreign Office Archives (2 vols., London, 1938), I, 351. On page 19 of the
same work Webster sa's that Mexico and Colombia received consuls-general, while
Argentina, Peru, and Chile received consuls. Barros Arana says that Nugent was a
consul-general (Diego Barros Arana, Historia jeneral de Chile [16 vols., Santiago de
Chile, 1884-1902], XIV, 369, footnote).

This content downloaded from 158.170.10.44 on Tue, 07 Aug 2018 15:47:11 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 138 THE HISPANIC AMERICAN HISTORICAL REVIEW

British trading interest backed Canning in urging the political rec-

ognition of the new nations. By 1826 commercial treaties had been
signed and diplomatic representatives exchanged between Britain and
Colombia, Buenos Aires, and Mexico.4 But Chile remained unrecog-
nized politically, and in the words of the United States minister, Heman
Allen, "[Mr. Nugent's] powers recognise [sic] this country merely as a
Province."'
Chile, like all Latin-American nations, greatly desired recognition
by Great Britain. The British fleet was a very vital factor. It alone
could protect Latin America from Europe. On the other hand, Spain
would need the help of the British fleet in order to reconquer her former
colonies. British trade was always important. Consequently it was
perhaps a result of wishful thinking that caused Chile to make a move
which embarrassed Great Britain, and especially Consul Nugent. In
a letter to Canning written on June 4, 1824, soon after his arrival at
Valparaiso, Nugent wrote that he had found the Chilean government
about to send a minister plenipotentiary to England.6 Nugent did his
best to delay the departure of Minister Mariano Egafia, but was un-
successful. Long afterwards, on February 25, 1828, President Fran-
cisco Pinto sadly told the Chilean Congress, "The Minister to the Court
of Great Britain not having been recognized that character, the Govern-
ment has considered it due to the national dignity to recal [sic] him.
A Consul-General has been nominated in his stead . .
In December of 1823 Canning had sent Nugent an extract of the
instructions given that year to the British commissioners to Mexico
and Colombia. The instructions included a questionnaire which Nu-
gent used in 1824 to try to delay Egafia, implying that recognition
might depend upon the answers. The questionnaire asked, Was Chile
an independent state, or a part of a federation? Did she intend to
4 For the provisions of these treaties see Great Britain, Foreign Office, British and
Foreign State Papers (Vols. I-, London, 1829-), XII, 29-37 (Buenos Aires), 661-673
(Colombia); XIV, 614-629 (Mexico) (hereinafter referred to as BFSP). For references
to the exchanging of diplomats, see Cambridge History of British Foreign Policy, II, 75;
Agustus Granville Stapleton, George Canning and His Times (London, 1859), pp. 445-447;
Edward J. Stapleton, ed., Some Official Correspondence of George Canning (2 vols., London,
1887), I, 308; William Ray Manning, ed., Diplomatic Correspondence of the United States
Concerning the Independence of the Latin American Nations (3 vols., New York, 1925), I,
650-651, 659; III, 1623 (hereinafter referred to as Manning, Diplomatic Correspondence-
Independence.
5 Heman Allen to Secretary John Quincy Adams, May 26, 1824, in Manning, Diplo-
matic Correspondence-Independence, II, 1097.
6 Webster, Britain and the Independence of Latin America, I, 353.
7 BFSP, XV, 1258. Charles W. Centner writes that the Chilean Government decided
to withdraw Egafia by November of 1824 ("The Chilean Failure to Obtain British Rec-
ognition, 1823-1828," Revista de historia de Am&rica, XV [December, 1942], 292-293).

This content downloaded from 158.170.10.44 on Tue, 07 Aug 2018 15:47:11 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 NOTES AND COMMENT 139

remain independent of Spain? Was her government in complete mili-

tary possession of the country? Had she abolished the slave trade?8
Diego Jos6 Benavente, ad interim Chilean minister of foreign affairs,
answered all of the questions in the affirmative. Chile indeed was inde-
pendent, and had a constitution. The slave trade had been abolished
in 1811. The fact that the Spaniards still held Chilo6 was passed
over lightly. 9
Britain continued to doubt the stability of Chile. Nugent wrote
to Canning in September of 1825 that Chile seemed undecided whether
its government should take a federal or a centralist form, and that he
had informed the Chilean government that Britain would delay politi-
cal recognition until one or the other type had definitely been established.
There was still wanting "that stability and political union in Chile
evinced in the States already recognized."'19 This opinion of the bad
state of Chile was not that of Britain alone. Earlier in the same year
United States Minister Allen wrote to Secretary Adams that Chile was
"in very great distress," without finances or credit, and containing a
populace which pretended to admire the institutions of the United
States but which was apathetic and inclined "to indolence and sleep.'11
In October, Nugent reported that a great deal of bickering was going
on among the provinces, and especially between Santiago and the other
provinces. Canning read this report and made a note: "The result is
that Chile is not yet ripe for recognition. G. C."'12
The United States was in the strange position of wishing from the
standpoint of the republican ideal that Great Britain recognize Chile,
but from the commercial point of view desiring to prevent the growth
of Britain's economic power in Latin America. This situation is shown
in a note to Secretary Clay by United States Charg6 d'Affaires Samuel
Larned, in May, 1828, in which he urged that the United States sign a
good commercial treaty with Chile, which would give the former trade
advantages over England but which might also cause the British to
sign a similar treaty with Chile."3 Such a treaty was signed in 1832.
The decade of the 1830's began with Chile still hoping for full recog-
8 Canning to- Nugent, December 15, 1823, and Nugent to Canning, June 4, 1824, in
Webster, Britain and the Independergce of Latin America, It 352, 354.
9 Ibid., II, 355.
Nugent to Canning, September 23, 1825, in ibid., I, 362.
Allen to Adams, February 9, 1825, in Manning, Diplomatic Correspondence-Inde-
pendence, II, 1102.
12 Nugent to Canning, October 30, 1825, in Webster, Britain and the Independence of
Latin America, I, 364-365; Canning's note in footnote, p. 365.
13William Ray Manning, ed., Diplomatic Correspondence of the United States: Inter-
American Affairs, 1831-1860 (12 vols., Washington, D. C., 1932-39), V, 34 (hereinafter
referred to as Manning, Inter-American Affairs).

This content downloaded from 158.170.10.44 on Tue, 07 Aug 2018 15:47:11 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
140 THE HISPANIC AMERICAN HISTORICAL REVIEW

nition, and with Great Britain still holding back. This reticence on
the part of Great Britain now seems strange, because from this period
on Chile was one of the most stable of the Latin-American republics,
with most of her presidents serving one or two full terms, and with no
major domestic disturbance occurring until 1891. Obviously Britain
could not know this in advance. Chile continued to wait and to hope.
The accession of the more liberal William IV in 1830 was seen as a
good sign. In July of the following year Miguel de la Barra, the Chi-
lean consul-general in London, informed his government that Great
Britain was ready to recognize Chile and sign a treaty of friendship
and commerce. This announcement was much celebrated in Chile,
but, according to Barros Arana, the government was in such bad finan-
cial straits at the time that it did not feel it could afford the expense of
sending a legation to London. Nothing was done.14
President Joaquin Prieto announced to his congress in 1832 that
Great Britain was about to enter into such a treaty with Chile, but the
treaty was not arranged.'5 Again, in 1834, Prieto proclaimed that Great
Britain had. given her consul-general in Chile power to negotiate a
"Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation" with the republic.
Again for some reason the treaty was not concluded.'6
Meanwhile important negotiations concerning the slave trade were
being carried on.' It is enough to say here that in 1839 Great Britain
and Chile signed a treaty which abolished the slave trade by Chileans
(although Chile had officially abolished it in 1811) and which provided
14 Ibid., XVI, 161. It is curious that Roberto Hernmndez Cornejo states, "El reco-
nocimiento de la independencia de Chile por la Gran Bretafna s6lo vino a obtenerse en
1831" (Valparaiso en 1827 [Valparaiso, 1922], p. 227). Perhaps Hernindez was misled
by the rumor mentioned above, or the date 1841 may have been misprinted. No repre-
sentatives of diplomatic rank were received before 1841. As for treaties, the present
writer has been unable to find any record of a treaty of amity and commerce before 1854,
with the exception of the unratified treaty of 1843, discussed below (pp. 141-142). Negative
evidence exists, on the other hand: "S61o en octubre de 1854 se celebr6 entre ambas
naciones . . . un verdadero tratado de amistad y comercio" (Barros Arana, op. cit., XVI,
161, footnote). The British and Foreign State Papers give no such treaty before 1854.
Javier Vial Solar, Los tratados de Chile (2 vols., Santiago de Chile, 1903-1904), gives none,
nor does A. BascufUn Mont6s, Recopilaci6n de tratados celebrados entre la Rep4iblica de
Chile y las potencias extranjeras (2 vols., Santiago de Chile, 1894), or Lewis Hertslet,
comp., A Complete Collection of the Treaties ... between Great Britain and Foreign Powers
(31 vols., London, 1840-1925). Probably one of the main reasons for nonrecognition was
the fact that Chile did not keep up payments on the British loan of 1822.
15 Prieto to Congress of Chile, June 1, 1832, in BFSP, XIX, 1219.
18 Same to same, June 5, 1834, in BFSP, XXII, 1136.
17 See James Ferguson King, "The Latin American Republics and the Suppression of
the Slave Trade," THE HISPANIC AMERICAN HISTORICAL REVIEW, XXIV (August, 1944),
387411; and the writer's British Economic Activities in Chile to 1854 (unpublished
M. A. thesis; Berkeley, California, 1946), pp. 3741.

This content downloaded from 158.170.10.44 on Tue, 07 Aug 2018 15:47:11 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 NOTES AND COMMENT 141

for reciprocal search of ships and for trials of violators by mixed courts.
An "Additional and Explanatory Convention" was signed in 1841, and
the treaty was ratified in 1842.
Perhaps connected with the slave trade treaty negotiations was the
very significant step taken by the British Government on May 24,
1841. The British representative in Chile, Lieutenant Colonel John
Walpole, who had served as consul-general at Santiago since 1833, was
given the additional rank of charg6 d'affaires.18 Thus a British repre-
sentative with diplomatic rank was now resident in Chile, and that
nation could consider herself recognized politically by Great Britain.'9

II

Recognition merely through the elevation of a consul-general to the

rank of charg6 d'affaires still left something to be desired from the
Chilean viewpoint. Mexico, Colombia, and Buenos Aires had signed
comprehensive treaties with Great Britain and had exchanged diplomats
holding the higher rank of minister with that nation. There remains
to be told therefore the story of how Chile received these and other
considerations from Britain.
Another step in the slowly warming friendship between Great Britain
and Chile occurred in 1841. On August 11, 1841, a British order in
council was announced which stated in brief that Chilean ships might
convey and sell Chilean goods to any of the British possessions, and
carry from those possessions any goods to sell in any foreign country,
provided that British subjects and British commerce in Chile should
continue to enjoy all of the privileges accorded nationals and trade of
any other nation.20 While this may have been the case before, it was
now in writing, and official.
On October 5, 1843, a treaty of "friendship, commerce, and naviga-
18 Manning, Inter-American Affairs, V, 175; Barros Arana, op. cit., XVI, 161; D. A.
Bigby to the writer, Foreign Office, London, August 16, 1946. Although Walpole was
still referred to in the Explanatory Convention of August, 1841, merely as consul-general
(BFSP, XXX, 301), it seems quite possible that Britain gave him diplomatic status the
previous May to facilitate the treaty negotiations with a reluctant Chilean government.
He may not have learned of his change in rank even by early August.
19 Ministers resident [see above] and charges d'affaires are recognized classes of diplo-
matic agents, which, by the regulations adopted at the Congress of Vienna in 1815, are
held to rank in that order after ambassadors, envoys extraordinary and ministers pleni-
potentiary. See Bigby to the writer,, cited above; Frederic Schoell, ed., Acte du Congr6s
de Vienne, du 9 Juin 1816, avec les pieces qui y sdnt annex6es; publi6 d'apres un des originaux,
depose aux Archives du Departement des Affaires Etrangeres de S. M. le roi de Prusse (Paris,
1815), pp. 26-27; Leonard Jak6b Borejko Chodzko, Le Congres de Vienne et les traitMs
de 1816, precede et suivi des actes diplomatiques qui s'y rattachent (4 vols., Paris, 1864),
II, 933-934.
20 BFSP, XXX, 507.

This content downloaded from 158.170.10.44 on Tue, 07 Aug 2018 15:47:11 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
142 THE HISPANIC AMERICAN HISTORICAL REVIEW

tion" was drawn up by Chile and Great Britain, and was signed and
presented to the Chilean Congress on September 9, 1844.21 The Congress
approved the treaty.22 Chile, however, was not yet to have her way.
On June 1, President Bulnes told Congress that Britain had found
"substantial objections" to the treaty, and would not ratify it. What
these objections were was not stated.23
On May 10, 1852, Great Britain and Chile signed a "Convention
for the reciprocal Abrogation of Differential Duties." This stated that
neither nation should impose duties of tonnage, harbor, or any other
type, on vessels of the other nation, if they were not imposed upon ships
of their own.24
It was not until October 4, 1854, that Britain and Chile agreed upon
a treaty of friendship, commerce, and navigation. The treaty filled
many pages with the language of diplomacy, and covered a broad scope.
Although it was little different from that of 1843, Britain agreed to it.
"Perpetual friendship" was to exist between the two nations. Citizens
of either country were to have the right to travel and trade freely in
"all places, ports, and rivers in the territories of the other," wherever
such was allowed any other nation, and could trade "in all kinds of
produce, manufactures, and merchandise of lawful commerce." The
provisions regarding payment of duties already referred to as being
agreed upon in the Convention of 1852 were included in this treaty.
A great deal of space was given over to the discussion of laws regarding
details of commercial procedure, e.g., loading and unloading of ships,
etc. Citizens of either nation residing in the territory of the other
were to be exempt from military service.
Very important were provisions for freedom of religion and right of
burial, for which Protestants in Chile had long been struggling. Other
clauses dealt with procedure in the event of war-embargoes, right of
nationals to liquidate their businesses, etc. The treaty was to hold for
a minimum of ten years. It might continue after that time, or could
be terminated at any time before or after ten years, if either party
declared so twelve months in advance.Y Ratifications were exchanged
"l Chile, Congreso, Sesiones de los cuerpos lejislativos de la RkpOiblica de Chile, 1811 a
1846, recopiladas... por Valentin Letelier (37 vols., Santiago de Chile, 1887-1908),
XXXIV, 408. This treaty which was not ratified, was so similar in content to the accepted
treaty of 1854 that only the provisions of the latter will be discussed.
"2Ibid., pp. 518-529.
23 Chile, Congreso, Documentos parlamentarios. Discursos de la apertura en las sesiones
del Congreso, y memorias ministeriales (9 vols., Santiago de Chile, 1858-1861), II, 347.
24BFSP, XL, 10-12.
25 The full text of the treaty may be found in BFSP, XLIV, 47-62; Hertslet, op. cit.,
IX, 948-962; BascufiAn Mont6s, op. cit., pp. 194-208.

This content downloaded from 158.170.10.44 on Tue, 07 Aug 2018 15:47:11 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 NOTES AND COMMENT 143

in Santiago on November 29, 1855.26 This treaty remained in effect

until May 31, 1897.27
This treaty marked the beginnings of a great increase in the already
considerable British influence in the economic, social, and political life
of Chile. However, it was some time before Britain's representative
in Chile was raised in rank. In 1861 Chile accredited an envoy ex-
traordinary and minister plenipotentiary to the Court of St. James,
but the death of Prince Albert delayed the presentation of credentials.28
Sometime between that year and 1868 this envoy was received.29 The
status of the British charg6 d'affaires and consul-general in Chile re-
mained unchanged, however, until October 24, 1872, when Mr. (after-
wards Sir) Horace Rumbold was appointed minister resident and consul-
general.30 A quarter century later the British representative was again
elevated in rank. On February 22, 1899, Mr. (afterwards Sir) Audley
Gosling was appointed envoy extraordinary and minister plenipoten-
tiary.31
The final chapter of the story was written on July 31, 1930, when
Sir Henry Getty Chilton, K.C.M.G., -was appointed to Santiago with
full ambassadorial rank.2 By this action, one hundred seven years
after the first step in her recognition policy, Great Britain acknowledged
Chile as one of the mature nations of the world.
26 Hertslet, op. cit., IX, 948, footnote.
27BFSP, LXXXIX, 440441.
28President Jos6 Joaqufn Perez to Congress, June 1, 1862, in BFSP, LIV, 986.
29 The first mention the writer could find of this official's being in London was in
to Congress, June 1, 1868, in BFSP, LIX, 1156.
30 Bigby to the writer, cited above.
31 Ibid.
32Mr. A. J. S. Pullan, Acting British Consul-General, to the writer, British Consulate-
General, San Francisco, September 26, 1946.

This content downloaded from 158.170.10.44 on Tue, 07 Aug 2018 15:47:11 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms