The London Chronicle for February 28-March 2, 1765 (vol. xvii, no. 1279) says: “We hear the Spaniards want to deduct 1,230,000 piasters, or pieces of eight, out of the ransom of the Manillas, for the damages and losses the inhabitants sustained on the 6th of October 1762, when it was taken by storm by the English forces.”
“London, Jan. 25. By letters from Madrid we are assured that Lord Rochfort had, in consequence of orders from England, demanded the final sentiments of the Catholic ministry, respecting the payment of the Manilla ransom, in order to be transmitted home for the inspection of the grand council of the nation; and it was current there, that this long protracted affair would soon be amicably adjusted.” (Scots Magazine, 1766, p. 48.)
“London, May 20. They write from Madrid, that some dispatches, just received from Manilla, in the East Indies, which the court had impatiently expected, would possibly hasten the final payment of the ransom-bills; and that Lord Rochfort appeared to be on very good terms with the Catholic ministry.” (Ut supra, p. 270.)
“London, Aug. 29. According to letters from Madrid, one reason alledged for the non-payment of the Manilla ransom is the delay of the expected flotas from New Spain, which has rendered the treasury very bare of money.” (Ut supra, p. 441.)
“Paragraph of a letter from Madrid. Our politicians are at a loss to know what will be the result of the demand made by the English ambassador, for the payment of the Manilla ransom. If the English court are really in earnest, it is generally thought by those who pretend to be conversant in court-affairs, that the Spanish court would rather pay it, than venture another war with G. Britain. All I can say in the matter is, that it should be immediately insisted on, as, in all probability, this court will prevent the further progress of trade between Manilla and the South seas, as they seem to think the whole riches of the mines will be centered in China, with which this court has no trade. This seems probable enough since the expulsion of the Jesuits, as it was through their interests that trade has so long subsisted; and what confirms it the more is, that the court will not pay for the additional fortifications of that place (Manilla) since it has been given up by the English. But if one may add his thoughts, I believe two or three ships, properly authorised, to back the above demand, would be more powerful intercessors.” (Ut supra, 1767, p. 549.)
“London, Nov. 19. A letter from Madrid has this passage: ‘Sir James Gray, the British Minister, has already entered upon his negotiation, of which the Manilla affair and the West-India commerce are the first objects.’ ” (Ut supra, p. 605.) [↑]
[3] If this Ship was not admitted in the Capitulation by any Accident of Non Compliance with the Terms of the Vice Roy’s Letter in that Case, we agreed to take his Bills on the King of Spain, he assuring us they would be duly paid. (Note by Draper.) [↑]
[4] The damage sustained by the Inhabitants before the plundering could be stopped, was estimated and deducted from the Ransom. (Note by Draper.) [↑]
[5] A Spanish Galleon sailing from the Havannah a Month before the Arrival of Sir George Pocock and Lord Albemarle to attack that Place, and taken in her Passage to Cadiz by two English Cruizers off the Canary or Western Islands, might with the same Degree of Equity be claimed by the Spaniards under their Capitulation for the Havannah. (Note by Draper.) [↑]