I flatter myself that the Spaniards will not copy that great Nation in its Defects, but imitate its Virtues.
It is also asserted, that the Ransom Bills were given and accepted only to preserve the private Property of the Inhabitants; But I do most solemnly aver, my Lord, that the Ransom was general, as well as particular. Can Six Hundred Pieces of Brass and Iron Ordnance? can the Fortifications of the Citadel and Town of Manila, with those of the Citadel and Port of Cavite, the publick and royal Magazines, Store-houses, Docks, &c. be called private Property? They belonged, most undoubtedly, to his Catholic Majesty, and by the stern Rules of our Profession, might have been destroyed, had the Admiral and I been disposed to have carried on the War with that Barbarity, of which other Nations have more than once set us the Example: But we considered rather how Englishmen should act, than what our Enemies might have suffered. But let us, for a Moment, admit that the Bills were drawn for the sake of preserving private Property only: Even in that Case the Spaniards are bound in Honour to oblige the People of Manila to pay the Money; and they are now very able to discharge the Debt, since they have received all the Treasure of the Philippina Galeon.
Our Court has shewed them a most bright and laudable Example, by taking Care that all the Ransom Bills, due even to the Enemy’s Privateers, should be most punctually paid, since the Conclusion of the Peace. Surely such upright Proceedings on our Side will infuse the same religious Observance of good Faith in all concerned in this Business. Otherwise we must say with Grotius, ab Injustitiâ excusari nequeunt, qui, cum pacta improbent, tamen retinent, quæ, sine pactis non haberent. “They cannot avoid the Imputation of Injustice, who disapprove of Treaties, and yet keep Possession of what they could not have been possessed of, but by the Means of those Treaties.”
We have an indisputable Right to Manila, and all its Dependencies, if the Ransom Bills are not faithfully paid.
I do therefore, my Lord, in the Names of all concerned (the Navy, Army, and East India Company) implore the Assistance and Protection of the Government, and its effectual good Offices, to maintain our most just Rights, and recover the Part of the Ransom as yet unpaid.
[Here follow the “Proposals” and “Conditions,” q.v., ante, pp. 75–80.]
[1] The title-page of this pamphlet (which is without date of publication, or author) reads as follows: “A plain narrative of the reduction of Manila and the Philippine Islands.” This is listed in the bibliography issued by the Library of Congress, Books of the Philippine Islands (p. 124), under the joint authorship of Sir Samuel Cornish and Sir William Draper, because the signatures of both are appended to the several “Conditions” and “Proposals” inserted at the end (which we publish elsewhere). It is probable, however, that the latter alone is the author of the Plain narrative, as is evident if it be read in conjunction with the following pamphlet, Colonel Draper’s answer, which is signed by the latter. From the internal evidence furnished also by the latter pamphlet, we are inclined to believe that the Plain narrative was published at London in 1764, and prior to Colonel Draper’s answer. [↑]
[2] The following items from various British magazines contemporary with the siege show the considerable place taken in English politics by the question of the ransom:
The Gentleman’s Magazine for 1764 (vol. xxxiv, p. 544) says, under date of November 15: “A categorical answer came over from the courts of France and Spain, relative to the payment of the subsistance money due for the prisoners of the former, and the ransom of the Manillas, both which, according to this report, have been absolutely refused by the said powers.”