of navigation should not be disturbed. These stipulations incontestably prove that the Spaniards were inclined to favour the English, by conniving at, though they did not permit the trade: and such were the effects of this memorable treaty.

In virtue of those treaties, the Spaniards claimed a right, which they continually exercised, of searching the British merchant ships, which passed near their American ports.

From the conclusion of the treaty of 1670, to the death of Charles the Second, king of Spain, a strict friendship and union subsisted between the two crowns, both in Europe and America; and a flourishing, although illicit trade, was, by connivance and indulgence, carried on between the English and Spanish plantations. The reason for this favourable treatment is evident. The great opposition and rivalry which then subsisted between France and Spain, and the desire of France to become mistress of the Low Countries, inclined Spain to consider the English as her most useful friends, and the most capable of protecting or incommoding, by their maritime force, her foreign dominions. It was no wonder, therefore, that the Spaniards not only strictly observed their treaties, but even extended their indulgence, with respect to trade, farther than could be claimed by specific stipulations.

It was easy to foresee that the accession of a prince of the house of Bourbon to the throne, would affect the British trade to Spanish America. The consequences of this event would

have been immediately visible, had not the war of the succession, in which Spain became the theatre of bloody hostilities, rivetted the attention of Philip the Fifth to his European dominions. But he was no sooner firmly established, than he turned his views to the American trade. The treaty of commerce which was concluded at the peace of Utrecht, between Great Britain and Spain, introduced a material alteration in the intercourse between the two nations. The 9th article in the treaty of 1670, which granted permission of trade to the ports and places in the West Indies, with the licence of the sovereign, was annulled; a contract, commonly called the Asiento treaty, for supplying the Spanish colonies with a certain number of negroes, was granted to the South Sea company, for thirty years, with the privilege of annually sending a single ship, of a certain burthen, to Spanish America, laden with European merchandise. Excepting these alterations, the treaties of 1667 and 1670 were confirmed, and although those treaties were broken during the two short wars which took place between Spain and England in 1718 and 1727; yet as they were renewed by the quadruple alliance, and the treaty of Seville, the trade to America was nominally placed, in all other respects, upon the same footing as it stood under Charles the Second, king of Spain.

Soon, however, new principles were adopted in the Spanish counsels, exactly the reverse of their former proceedings. The letter of the American treaty was now followed, and the

spirit by which it was dictated, abandoned. Although the English retained the liberty of putting into the Spanish harbours, for the purpose of refitting and provisioning, yet they were far from enjoying the same advantages of carrying on a friendly and commercial intercourse. They were watched with scrupulous jealousy, strictly visited by guarda costas, and effectual means adopted to prevent any commerce with the colonies, except what was allowed to the annual ship. The cause of this alteration was evident. Spain was governed by a sovereign connected with France by blood and policy; deprived of the Netherlands, she no longer considered England as her natural ally; and was not interested to obtain her friendship by commercial sacrifices. The influence of these considerations was occasionally suspended, during the temporary misunderstandings between Spain and France. At those periods, a more friendly intercourse was permitted, and this variation in the policy of Spain gave rise to a variety of miscon

structions.

From the long continuance of this trade, the British merchants began to consider it as a prescriptive right, not an indulgence, and were unwilling to renounce so profitable a branch of commerce, which many of them pursued in an open and daring manner. Their vessels continually put into the Spanish harbours, under pretence of refitting and refreshing; and in many places almost publicly disposed of European merchandise, in exchange for gold and

silver. Others sailing near their ports and harbours, were repaired to by smugglers, or sent their long boats towards the shore, and dealt with the natives,

The Spaniards complained that the Asiento annual ship, was followed by several other vessels which moored at a distance, and continually supplied it with fresh goods, that the fair of Panama, once the richest of the world, where the Spanish merchants were accustomed to exchange gold and silver for European merchandise, had considerably fallen, and that the English monopolised the commerce of America.

It was no wonder, therefore, that the guarda costas, and other armed vessels, used vigorous exertions to prevent this illicit traffic, that some illegal captures were made, and occasional acts of violence and cruelty committed. The distance from Europe, the insolence of the English sailors, the delays of the Spanish tribunals, and the interest of the governors in declaring the vessels confiscated, because they had a share in the forfeiture, rendered frequent redress of grievances extremely difficult, if not impracticable. The merchants who suffered, made violent clamours, over-rated their losses, and exaggerated the accounts of insult and barbarity committed by the Spaniards.

Volumes and volumes have been written by the two people on the subject of these depredations but as each side endeavoured to pervert facts, and gave different constructions to the

* Desormeaux Histoire d'Espagne, tom. 5. p. 448.

most simple expressions, the dispute could never be finally settled. The state of these differences, and the difficulty of adjusting them, are well explained in a few words by Mr. Keene, in a letter to the duke of Newcastle :

་་

"Upon the whole, the state of our dispute seems to be, that the commanders of our vessels always think, that they are unjustly taken, if they are not taken in actual illicit commerce, even though proofs of their having loaded in that manner be found on board; and the Spaniards on the other hand presume, that they have a right of seizing, not only the ships that are continually trading in their ports, but likewise of examining and visiting them on the high seas, in order to search for proofs of fraud, which they may have committed; and till a medium be found out between these two notions, the government will always be embarrassed with complaints, and we shall be continually negotiating in this country for redress, without ever being able to procure it.”*

While the question of depredations was agitated, other differences arose between England and Spain. The right of cutting logwood in the bay of Campeachy, and of collecting salt in the island of Tortuga, was called in question; and some disputes took place in regard to the limits of Carolina and Georgia. Geraldino, the Spanish agent in London, delivered a strong memorial, claiming part of those colonies which

Benjamin Keene's dispatch to the duke of Newcastle, Madrid, December 13th, 1737. Walpole Papers.