THE "ANNUAL SHIP" 339 Royal George-was delayed until 1721 by the Anglo-Spanish war of 1718. The resumption of the exercise of its privileges came at the time when the Company was just recovering from the disasters of the Bubble crisis. A reorganisation of the Company had followed, but the changes in personnel left the system of trade unchanged. The next four years were the best period of the Company's trade. Thus the third annual voyage took place in 1723, and the fourth in 1724. The fifth annual voyage started in 1725, and the ship was the last to get through before a new Anglo-Spanish war made another break. A sixth voyage was rashly begun by the Prince Frederick, but when she reached Vera Cruz, she was forced to remain there until 1729. The fall of Ripperdà in 1726 made a renewal of friendly relations possible. For the moment, it is true, the dominance of Königsegg was even more dangerous; but Patiño now came into office, and before long his devotion to the building up of Spanish trade and industry proved a great asset to England. Like Alberoni, Patiño hoped ultimately to make practicable a purely exclusive mercantile policy, but he saw that it was first necessary to build up Spanish industry, and in the interval his zeal for peace made him a friendly negotiator. In particular he maintained very good relations with Benjamin Keene, who, in his double position as English minister and Company's agent, was in charge of all the English interests at Madrid. In spite of this growing friendliness it was long before the obstacles to peace were overcome. The war which broke out in February 1727 was ended by preliminaries of peace in August: but there was no return to peaceful trade. Even the Convention of the Pardo of March 1728 did not achieve this, and the discussions at the Congress of Soissons seemed likely to do no more. Finally, in November 1729 the Treaty of Seville promised the restoration of Anglo-Spanish trade to the position of 1725, and full restitution for seizures. The details of the Company's claims were to be settled by Commissaries at Madrid.1 The discussions took two years, and meanwhile outrages in Spanish waters continued. This was the time of the episode of "Jenkins's Ear". At last an agreement was reached. In 1731 the possibility of a Franco-Spanish alliance, which had encouraged Elizabeth Farnese to hopes of independence, seemed unlikely to materialise, and she had already lost Austria, who made peace with England in 1731. The court of Spain therefore adopted a more conciliatory attitude. In July, Spain acceded to the Anglo-Austrian treaty; and at the beginning of 1732 an agreement concerning relations in the Indies was signed. Orders were to be issued against depredations, the confiscated ships were to be freed, and the right of the Company to obtain slaves in British colonies was recognised. Elizabeth in fact was buying peace and acquiescence in her Italian ambitions by her 1 See Brown, V., "The South Sea Company and Contraband Trade", American Historical Review, July 1926, pp. 662-78. commercial complacency, while Austria was paying the same price for her dynastic interests. The English Company gained the benefit of these distractions. The seventh annual voyage was started by the Prince William just before the agreement was signed. In October 1732 Newcastle declared that British trade was less interrupted than for many years past. Advantage was taken of this lull when in 1733 the Royal Caroline set out on the last annual voyage. It was impossible for the settlement to be more than temporary, for on neither side was there good-will. Spain, indeed, had to a large extent the whip hand. The concessions of the Asiento were a pound of flesh in more senses than one, since they could not be taken alone. It had been clear from the beginning that, if Spanish policy permitted it, she could make the whole grant of no effect. This was the lesson of the negotiations of 1713-16, and it was emphasised by the difficulties of the later period. The Asiento itself contained no stipulation as to the storage of goods, or the sale of goods or slaves inland. Yet without freedom to sell slaves inland from Buenos Aires, the trade there was bound to involve serious losses. In this as in many other minor points, the feasibility of the contract depended on a sympathetic interpretation of its clauses, and if this was lacking, the alternative was the unattractive one of extorting concessions by force. Not only did it involve a breach of the policy of peace, but from the standpoint of the Company it meant the certain seizure of its effects. The hostages held by Spain were too valuable to make the alternative popular. Good-will was no less necessary to settle the question of depredations. The guarda-costas still applied the old criterion of contraband trade, the presence on board of dye-woods, indigo, or Spanish dollars, although this had been invalidated long ago by the capture of Jamaica. In fact the rule was retained only because it made condemnation easy. A review of the period leaves no doubt that, except when Spanish policy required it, the necessary liberality was absent. But Spain was only partly to blame for this. It is true that the whole concession was abhorrent to Spanish policy and that Spain welcomed any chance to whittle it away, but there was little inducement on the English side to any other attitude. The Asiento treaty had granted the permission to send the annual ship on the specific understanding that illicit trade should cease, but in reality the annual ship served to increase fraud; and after, as before the grant of the Asiento, colonial shipping abounded in Spanish waters, carrying on lawful or unlawful trade. The ships were subject to seizure, and the connivance of Spanish officials could not always be obtained. The influence of the Company's factors at the ports was a valuable asset, and the constant arrival of slave sloops made the detection of illicit trade difficult; but the annual ship afforded a useful alternative method. The first annual ship was accompanied by a sloop carrying provisions to Jamaica. On later voyages there were frequently more than one subsidiary vessel, and PREVALENCE OF ILLICIT TRADE 341 they did not always stop at Jamaica. It was suspected, no doubt rightly, that goods were carried as well as provisions; and it is probably true that the annual ship was refilled secretly at night.1 In any case Spain believed this and in 1732 the sub-governor of the South Sea Company feared enquiry sufficiently to prefer resignation. In fact the prevalence of illicit trade could not be denied; and British ministers were not prepared to take the prohibitive measures which had been demanded for the suppression of the French trade in 1717-18. Neither French nor Dutch traders suffered so severely from depredations as the English, since in their case legal and illegal enterprises could easily be distinguished. The Dutch interlopers were armed for an avowedly illicit traffic; and peaceful French traders gave bond that they would not trade in Spanish ports. The English representative in Spain rebutted a proposal that English merchantmen should do the same, by saying that this would not be "consistent with our Constitution, or with the sense of the trading part of our nation". So long as this attitude was maintained, indiscriminate reprisals were inevitable. The final change from negotiation to war was due to the weakness of English diplomacy. It is true that at the critical moment, Spain had hopes of a French alliance, and England was stiffened by fear of it; but England's position was weak, and her conduct uncertain." In the first place the South Sea Company was a constant stumblingblock. It had a special standing among the mercantile interests of the time, since it had direct relations with the court of Spain, and employed the English ambassador there as its agent. Moreover, at the time of the final negotiations, it both owed money to the King of Spain (on account of duties and profits) and was owed money by him (on account of seizures in the wars of 1718 and 1727). The special claims of the Company had postponed a settlement with Spain both in 1715 and in 1728. In the end they were to prove fatal. Secondly, the Cabinet was not unanimous, for Walpole was not content to leave the matter in the hands of Newcastle, who as Secretary of State was primarily responsible. He tended increasingly to supplement Newcastle's instructions to the English ambassador, Keene, by letters written by himself; and in England he as well as Newcastle negotiated with the Spanish representative, Geraldino. Newcastle was always more readily influenced than Walpole by the outcry of English interests, and the dual control was embarrassing to the policies of both. Thirdly, there was the underlying distaste in England for the obligations of the Asiento treaty. Its true meaning had never been accepted by our commercial class. Spain had, in effect, in the treaty bought English recognition of the Spanish 1 See Brown, ut cit. * See Temperley, H. W. V., "The Causes of the War of Jenkins' Ear", Trans. Roy. Hist. Soc. (1909), pp. 197–236. policy of exclusiveness. England had accepted the bribe, but, like Bacon, thought it beneath her pride to be influenced by it. British merchants still held that the seas were free to all, and resented the Spanish exercise of a right of search to see that freedom was not abused. This is the explanation of Keene's reference to "our Constitution", and of the outcry of British merchants when peace seemed assured in 1738. Before that time five years of negotiation had seen a series of proposals put forward only to fail. The first negotiations had been carried on at Madrid in 1732-4, and had been stultified by the open desire of Spain to terminate the whole Asiento concession. To this perhaps the Company would have agreed, given favourable terms; but in the eyes of the English ministry the proposal was coloured by rumours of a new Pacte de famille, and the promise of French participation in the trade. Moreover, the Company became involved at this time in a dispute with Spain over the rate of exchange; and it still further postponed agreement by refusing to produce its accounts for the last four years, which Spain required in order to estimate the value of the remainder of the concession. And when at last, in August 1736, an agreement was reached upon the questions of currency and seizures, Patiño's illness and death once more postponed peace: and incidentally ended the negotiations for the abandonment of the Asiento. It was not until June of the following year that Geraldino and a Committee of the Court of Directors agreed upon a "Plan" which covered all outstanding points of difference. The "Plan" of 1737 was an affair of the South Sea Company, and before it was confirmed other interests intervened. The long period of negotiation had been a time of especial vigilance on the part of Spanish guarda-costas, and the tale of depredations was growing daily. Moreover the strength of Walpole's administration was waning, and the Opposition found a valuable catch-cry in the dangers to British shipping. Newcastle reflected the attitude of Parliament and the pamphleteers when he sent the new Spanish minister, La Quadra, a long memorandum on outrages. This was in November, only five months after Geraldino had approved the South Sea Company's' "Plan." Keene was instructed to leave his negotiations for the ratification of the "Plan," and concentrate for the time on securing a favourable answer to the memorandum. The court of Spain found opportunity to delay both. The "Plan" was immediately set aside, and the memorandum was disposed of for the moment by a discovery that Newcastle had unfortunately cited the treaty of 1667 when he had meant that of 1670. The interval gave opportunity for further petitions to Parliament, and for the famous recital of his wrongs by Captain Jenkins on 17 March. Moved by these assertions, the Commons passed a resolution which reflected accurately the claims of the merchant class and the feeling THE WAR OF JENKINS'S EAR 343 of the nation: "It was the undoubted right of British subjects to sail their ships in any part of the seas of America", and the ministry was exhorted to take action to enforce this right. The ministry fell into line by sending Admiral Haddock in June to cruise in the Mediterranean. So strong was public feeling that the news of a settlement with Spain in August was greeted with more suspicion than rejoicing. The settlement was largely the work of Walpole, co-operating with Geraldino, now Spanish ambassador. After much discussion it was agreed that the sum of £95,000 should be paid by Spain, as representing the balance of Spanish depredations over those committed by England. This La Quadra approved, and the "Convention Treaty" was accordingly ratified. 1 The South Sea Company did much to make the Convention a failure, by refusing co-operation, for it would accept no liability unless the whole of the "Plan" were ratified. Its action was reinforced by the outcry of the merchants. The Convention gave it the practical benefit of compensation; it did not give it a Magna Carta of commercial freedom. It complained that its rights of navigation had not been recognised: these should have been stated "so plain that every country gentleman and every Spanish Governor could understand". The Opposition therefore condemned it. The last blow came from within the ministry itself, for secret news from Paris and Madrid roused fears of a Franco-Spanish treaty. This was in February. In March a draft of a proposed Pacte de famille was sent over from a secret source in France. The ministry replied by countermanding their previous orders to Admiral Haddock, and telling him to remain in the Mediterranean. It is hard to decide whether these orders, or the attitude of the South Sea Company, was the more responsible for the change in the tone of the Spanish court. Keene was instructed to deny the despatch of the counter-orders, but he deceived no one. In April the South Sea Company again insisted on its refusal to discuss any terms but those of the "Plan". In May Spain replied by suspending the Asiento. In June the English ministry was definitely informed that there was no hope of the payment of the sum proposed by Spain as compensation so long as Haddock remained in the Mediterranean. By this time the four months allowed for payment had lapsed, and the "Convention Treaty" was therefore definitely broken. After this the outbreak of war was only a matter of time. Newcastle, it was certain, would never resist the widespread demand for justice by the sword, and Walpole could not hold out against the united pressure of Parliament, the pamphleteers and his own colleagues. In October war was declared. Other factors besides those concerned with the trade of the Indies made for war. There had long been disputes over the boundaries of 1 See anonymous pamphlet History of the Convention Treaty (London, 1739). Cf. Hertz, G. B., British Imperialism of the Eighteenth Century, chap. ii, "The War Fever of 1739". |