Lima, 3rd March, 1823[1]
I have more than once, my dear friend, within these few days past, heard the exclamation, "happy are the countries that enjoy a settled and secure government." The truth is, we have just experienced one of those occurrences which frequently happen in revolutionary times. I wrote you formerly, that three individuals of the members of Congress were exercising the executive power in this place. From events which have lately occurred, a general dissatisfaction towards this triumvirate was felt by the army in the neighbourhood of this city. The consequence of this was, that the troops drew near to the walls and shut the gates, sending at the same time a message to the Congress, requesting, or rather ordering, a change in the government. After a good deal of deliberation, the triumvirate was removed by the Congress. Another step was yet necessary, as a certain individual was pointed out as the only person capable of filling the vacant situation. There was no alternative in this more than in the other proposition, as a part of the troops kept their station as before mentioned, whilst the rest or the greater part came into the great square in the centre of the city. Indeed the public opinion, not of the army only, but also of the great majority of the people, seemed clearly expressed in favour of the person proposed. The individual in question was accordingly appointed by the Congress as "President of the Republic of Peru." This was done on the first current. The troops have retired, and there seems to be a general satisfaction with this appointment. Our President's name is Don José de la Riva Agüero.
You will naturally wish to know how our new President is likely to act regarding the schools, and other such matters. Respecting what his conduct will be in these things, I have great confidence. I have known him, and visited him occasionally since my arrival in Lima, in consequence of a letter of introduction to him, with which I was favoured on my leaving Chile. I have uniformly found him very obliging, and much interested in our concerns. In short, he is the very individual I should have named, had I been asked what person I wished to have in this high station. I called on him this afternoon in company with my clerical friend, whom I formerly mentioned to you. We were well received, and encouraged to go forward in our work, with the assurance of his protection and support.
I forgot to mention to you in my last quarterly letter, that I had about that time got one added to the number of my friends. This person is a very respectable clergyman, and a member of the Congress. We have had several conversations together, in a very open and friendly manner. I have been much pleased with his candour and frankness. He told me that when he first heard of my having come to Lima, he resolved to oppose me, but that when he learned that I was not an opposer of religion, but a friend to it, he changed his mind, and resolved to befriend rne as far as lay in his power. There is a kind of idea among several of those who are the most religious in this country, that many or most foreigners who arrive here are deists or atheists, or at least men no way friendly to religion. Grounds have, no doubt, been given for forming this opinion, although I think it is generalized among the class of people I mentioned, with some degree of illiberality, as is, indeed, commonly the case. The books which come here in favour of deism and atheism strengthen the opinion. Most of these are printed in France, but some of them, I am sorry to say it, are printed in England. From all I have seen here, both in the Congress, and out of it, I am strongly inclined to think that those who oppose toleration, or at least many of them, do so with a view to prevent the influx into the country of such as oppose or scoff at religion. As a proof of this, I refer to the member of Congress, of whom I have just been speaking. This man opposed toleration when it was discussed in the Congress, and spoke publicly against it; yet when conversing with him upon the subject, he told me that he was not opposed to the toleration of Protestants in the country. I have taken occasion at different times to point out to some of the members, in private conversation, that their law prohibiting the public religious exercises of those who differ from the Catholic church, does not hinder atheists and deists from settling in the country, as these have no form of religion they wish to practise; and that this law serves only to prevent the coming of those men who are sincerely religious and moral, and who, as they themselves admit, would be of great use in the country, by bringing into it many branches of the arts and manufactures. I think I have observed some good effects arising from these conversations, and I wish it may so appear when the subject comes before Congress a second time.
[1] James Thomson. Letters on the Moral and Religious State of South America. (London: James Nisbet, 1827), pp. 76-79.