The Jacques Barbier-John Fisher exchange in the February 1978 issue of this journal, following upon Barbier's article of February 1977, further elucidates the difficult questions concerning continuity and discontinuity in colonial policy after the death of Jose de Galvez. The arguments they advanced and their points of difference, although pregnant with implications for the whole empire, were focused on Peru and to a lesser extent, in the case of Barbier, on New Spain. The experience of New Granada provides additional insights. Barbier argued that adjustments in colonial policy following the death of Galvez, although stressing a need to economize and representing a pragmatic retreat from unpopular political and fiscal initiatives, by no means signaled an end to Bourbon determination to pursue less controversial economic and commercial innovations and to harness the fruits of those innovations for the benefit of the imperial government. The fate of the Bourbon reforms in New Granada generally supports Barbier's thesis. The regime of Charles IV, acting through Antonio Valdes, elected to temper those policies which antagonized, or threatened to antagonize, the creole patriciate, but it did not bring the reforms to a halt. Certainly, there was no reluctance to exploit the opportunities afforded by a growing economy and expanding trade. The agent for policy adjustments was Viceroy Francisco Gil y Lemos, the same figure who, as described by Fisher, later caused the Peruvian mining reform so much difficulty. A confidant of Valdes, Gil served for seven months in New Granada during 1789 before transferring to Peru.' In New Granada, Gil acted simultaneously to defuse a difficult political situation and to correct a two-million peso deficit in the colonial treasury. Because the Comunero Rebellion of 1781 had
Read full abstract