Update this timeline entry

Spain treatied to England her American colonies

Source: Historical proof of the right of the Catholic King to the territory held to-day by the British King under the name of New Georgia #558

Project ID

Chapter

Timeline title

Start date

End date

Filename received

Filename assigned

Content

CHAPTER IV CONCERNING THE TREATY OF PEACE MADE IN 1670 BETWEEN THE TWO COURTS OF SPAIN AND GREAT BRITAIN

1. At the cost of much Christian blood and of vast expense and labor, the Spaniards were in possession, as has been seen in the preceding chapters, of the country included between Santa Elena in north latitude 32° 30', and 25°, where the Continent of Florida terminates on the east. 39. [Bolton note: This is essentially correct for the southeastern terminus of the Florida Peninsula.] They had settlements and missions on nearly all the islands and mainland of the coast, and in the interior in the provinces of Guale, Coava, Crista, Timucua, Santa Fe, San Martfn, San Pedro, Azile, Vitachuco, Apalache, Caueta, Apalachicolo, Talapuses, and others; 40. [Bolton note: Arredondo probably refers to Pardo's garrison at Coava (Jualla) and to the settlements made in the sixteenth century by Pardo and De Luna among the Talapoosas. At all the other places mentioned there were seventeenth century settlements.] while the English were undoubtedly owners from the cape and bay of Santa Maria as far as South Carolina, or South Charleston. Then the Most Serene and Powerful Charles II, King of Great Britain, and the Most Serene and Powerful Carlos II, Catholic King of Spain, solemnly concluded a treaty and amicable agreement for the purpose of restoring and establishing peace in the Western Indies and renewing the friendly intercourse which had been interrupted by various and mutual injuries and depredations which had occurred. 41. [Bolton note: This treaty was concluded July 18,1670. It was negotiated by Gaspar de Bracamonte y Guzman, Count of Penaranda, representing Spain, and Sir William Godolphin, representing Great Britain. One of the purposes of the treaty was to clarify certain provisions of the treaty of 1667. By this treaty of 1670 Spain for the first time recognized England's right to her colonies in the Caribbean and on the American mainland. Chalmers, A Collection of Treaties (London, 1790), II, 35; Calvo, Colecci&n Complete de Tratados (Paris, 1862), I, 162.]

2. By Article 7 of this treaty it was agreed that all the offenses,* [Arredondo note * Treaty of Madrid of 1670, Article 7.] losses, damages, and injuries which the Spanish and English nations had committed against each other in America in times past, for whatever cause or pretext, should be completely forgotten and erased from memory, as though they had never happened. Moreover, it was agreed that the Most Serene King of Great Britain, and his heirs and successors, should hold forever in plenary right of sovereignty, dominion and possession "all the lands, regions, islands, colonies, and dominions in the Western Indies or in any part of America which the said King of Great Britain and his subjects hold and possess at present, so that under this name or title, or under pretext of any other claim, there cannot be, and ought never to be, any force used or any controversy started in the future.” 42. [Bolton note: The English text of this article reads: "All offences, damages, losses, injuries, which the nations and people of Great Britain and Spain have at any time heretofore, upon what cause or pretext soever, suffered by each other in America, shall be expunged out of remembrance, and buried in oblivion, as if no such thing had ever past. "Moreover it is agreed that the most Serene King of Great Britain, his heirs and successors, shall have, hold, keep, and enjoy forever, with plenary right of sovereignty, dominion, possession, and propriety, all those lands, regions, islands, colonies, and places whatsoever, being or situated in the West Indies, or in any part of America, which the said King of Great Britain and his subjects do at present hold and possess; so as that in regard thereof, or upon any colour or pretence whatsoever, nothing more may or ought to be urged, nor any question or controversy be ever moved concerning the same thereafter." George Chalmers, A Collection of Treaties, II, 37.]

3. This clearly implies that the English are and will be owners of all the lands which they possessed and held at the time when the treaty was signed, and that they are not and cannot be owners of what they did not hold or possess at that time. And although in the year 1670 they only held and possessed the territory as far as South Charleston, on the east coast of Florida, it follows that up to this place they ought legally to hold and possess, and no contention should be made against them.

4. But it is asked for what purpose was the agreement made by this solemn treaty between the two contracting crowns, which is contained in Article 7? For if the English were legal owners the statement was naturally idle. From such an act one truly infers a total lack of confidence on the part of the British court. For it plainly concedes to the court of Spain absolute dominion over all the Western Indies, by consenting, as it did consent, to an article expressed in terms so plainly in favor of the right of the Catholic King. It admits directly that as he was lord over everything it was absolutely necessary that he should legalize the British possession, and that he should declare and proclaim in the treaty that the Most Serene King of Great Britain and his heirs and successors should possess and hold perpetually, with plenary right of sovereignty, dominion, and possession, all the lands, etc. This is the same as saying that without this safeguard, whenever the King of Spain wished he could dispossess the English, which is the same as to confess their lack of sound titles of possession, and to recognize positively that only his Catholic Majesty, as supreme owner, could grant them.

5. Is it possible to believe that the court of London, if it did not know that the complete sovereignty of the Western Indies belonged truly and legally to the monarchs of Spain, would admit it by ratifying such a formal act in prejudice of its own right, or that the court of Spain would appropriate that which did not justly belong to it? Neither the one nor the other assumption is reasonable, especially since the King of Great Britain sent as ambassador extraordinary for this purpose, with full power to conclude the treaty, Lord William Godolphin, member of Parliament and a man most fit and worthy of such a charge, while on the part of Spain Don Gaspar de Bracamonte y Guzman, Count of Peñaranda, member of the Council of State and of the Indies was sent, because of the combination in his person of the qualities of great ability and judgment; hence it cannot be presumed that through omission, lack of intelligence or any other defect, such wise ministers would agree to an article that would be repugnant to the honor and right of either power.