Update this timeline entry

Newcastle wrote to Pozobueno that his most current orders indicated Spain ceded Altamaha to England

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

6. The court of London is not ignorant of the fact that the crown of Spain possessed the province of Guale, and that its subjects were inhabiting it in the year 1702, after the death of Senor Don Carlos II. In regard to this the Duke of Newcastle, in a letter of the 18th of December, 1724, to Don Jacinto Pozobueno,t [Arredondo note f In the Archives of San Agustin and of Havana.] says, that in the matter of the construction of the fort which the vassals of Great Britain had built on the River Tamaja, or Bocas de Talaje, he would have replied to him if Mr. Nicholson, at that time Governor of South Carolina, who was expected in London, as he had obtained permission from his British Majesty, had arrived; but since he was delayed, and since Don Jacinto insisted upon some special statement in this negotiation in order to report to his court, the Duke had orders from his Sovereign to reiterate the assurances which had previously been given to him to the effect that the King his master was ready to do everything possible to contribute to the termination of this controversy according to the most exact rules of justice; and he enclosed a copy of a report which had been made by the Council and Assembly of Carolina, in conformity with the orders that Governor Nicholson had received from his court, for the purpose of instructing his British Majesty on these matters. This reduces itself in substance to saying that*[Arredondo note * Report of the Council of Carolina, in the archives of San Agustin and Havana.] the fort under discussion had been constructed at the mouth of the Tamaha River, which, by decree or letter of the Most Serene Señor Don Carlos II (may he rest in glory) was ceded to his British Majesty—not only the said river, which lies in 31° 12', but also a great territory to the south of that river; that after this cession the Spaniards did not occupy or cultivate any lands whatever on it; and that in the year 1702 they abandoned that region, with the exception of some outposts which they maintained at the mouth of the San Juan River. The report added that for forty years the English nation had had considerable commerce with the Indians living on the banks of the river.

8. The same thing [Spanish possession of Guale post 1670] is confirmed by the declaration of the Council and Assembly of Carolina, which says that the Spaniards abandoned those lands in the year 1702. 67. [Bolton note: See above, paragraph 6, pp. 179-181.]

9. And as to the pretext which the Council and Assembly set up to the effect that by a decree of the Most Serene Senor Don Carlos II donation was made to his British Majesty, not only of the river in question [Altamaha], which lies in 31° 12', but also of a large district to the south of that river, their honorable members must permit this to be denied absolutely and stamped as cavilous and false. For in case it were true, the King of Spain would not demand the restitution of the region under discussion, nor would the King of England have had any need to ask for a report from the Council and Assembly of Carolina, or to await the arrival in London of Governor Nicholson in order to acquire information concerning this affair. For the presentation of the decree or letter of King Carlos II, with citation of its date and circumstances, would have been more than suificient to terminate the entire dispute. And it is to be believed that if Great Britain had had this document she would not have neglected a means as easy as it would have been efficacious for the purpose.

...11. The fact that the Spaniards after the year 1702, in which they abandoned those lands, had never occupied or cultivated them, as is stated by the Council and Assembly, does not take away from the crown of Spain its right of ownership in them, as every reasonable person knows. On the contrary, replying on this date with the testimony given before him, Don Antonio Benavides concludes that up to the year 1702 the Spaniards were in possession. Consequently, it would naturally be supposed that the alleged decree of donation of Señor Don Carlos II would exist, for the orders which his Majesty would necessarily have issued in order that his vassals who were indisputably inhabiting the country under discussion might retire and leave the English in possession, would be forthcoming.

12. Even better proof in confirmation of the preceding is the fact that the Duke of Newcastle, after giving the foregoing information, concludes his letter by saying that, without entering into a longer discourse, the King his master wished to suspend his judgment in regard to this affair until the arrival of Governor Nicholson, from whom he would receive any fuller information that he might have in this matter, in respect to which he would do everything that might be expected for the satisfaction of the crown of Spain; but that, nevertheless, with the object that nothing should be lacking on the part of his British Majesty to satisfy the desire of his Catholic Majesty, he had ordered that instructions should be written to those in charge of the government of Carolina during the absence of the said Nicholson, commanding them to go and have a talk with the Spanish governor, for the purpose of clearing up this matter as far as possible and of obtaining exact information, the outcome of which he would report to Don Jacinto de Pozobueno.

13. If the instrument, in the form of a decree or letter of donation from Señor Don Carlos II, actually existed in the archives of England, what doubts could there be to compel His British Majesty to suspend his judgment? Or what embarrassment could there be in his proving by his acts his desire to satisfy his Catholic Majesty? Or what would the arrival of Nicholson or of his report in London matter? Or of what use would the orders to the officials of Carolina be in a discussion of the affair with the Governor of Florida, since nothing more was required than the presentation of the decree itself? In view of all this, the answer is left to the English. The results in reality make it clear that there never was any such decree of gift.