Severing the Sinews of the Spanish Empire: British Naval Policy and Operations Regarding the Silver Fleets during the War of Jenkins’ Ear, 1737–1740

Abstract

ABSTRACTIn studies on the War of Jenkins’ Ear, a conflict between the British and Spanish empires, historians tend to focus on colonial expeditions, such as those against Porto Bello and Cartagena. On the other hand, operations against Spanish silver fleets, the mainstay of the Spanish imperial trade system, have attracted far less attention. This article examines these somewhat undervalued operations against the silver fleets as well as those concerning other Spanish shipping during the War of Jenkins’ Ear, giving their political and diplomatic backgrounds. This analysis demonstrates the significance of the issue of the silver fleets in Anglo-Spanish relations at the time. It also indicates the deep involvement of France in this issue and its influence on British naval operations. Finally, this article describes the development and implementation of British naval policy to put economic and financial pressure on the Spanish empire, arguing that the naval operations during this period were one of the earliest attempts at using blockades on both sides of the Atlantic, which Britain further developed in later imperial wars that took place during the long eighteenth century.KEYWORDS: BritainSpainFranceempireWar of Jenkins’ EarNavysilver fleetstradeblockade AcknowledgementsI am grateful to Professor N.A.M. Rodger, Professor Jeremy Black and the anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments on this article.Disclosure StatementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Notes1 In this paper, all dates are given in the Old Style of the Julian Calendar except where the date is specifically indicated as New Style by (n.s.) or both dates are used (e.g. 6/17 August). The new year is taken to have begun on 1 January, not 25 March.2 For example, see Richmond, Navy, i; Harding, Amphibious Warfare. However, it should be noted that Richmond was aware of the importance of intercepting the silver fleets. Richmond, Navy, i. 145, 277–8, vol. ii. 245.3 For the establishment of the Western Squadron, see, Duffy, “Establishment”.4 Torres Sánchez, Constructing a Fiscal-Military State, 138–40, 154, 214.5 Pares, War and Trade, 109–14.6 Woodfine, Britannia’s Glories, esp., 175–6, 214; Harding, Emergence, esp., 57–8. Chapman, Disaster, 67–6, 70.7 Wilson, “Empire,” 74–109.8 Regarding the period of the War of Spanish Succession, there is an article on the issue of the silver fleets by Kamen. Kamen, “Destruction,” 165–73.9 Walker, Spanish Politics, 4–5; Pares, War, 3, 112–3. In addition, ships called avisos sailed between Spain and her American colonies, but their duty was to carry official papers and information, not valuable cargo.10 In the Pacific, Manila Galleons, or vessels engaged in the trans-pacific trade between Manila and Acapulco, were another important target for the British navy. For Manila Galleons, see Schurz, “Mexico”; Walker, Spanish Politics, 6–7. During the War of Austrian Succession, Commodore Anson succeeded in capturing one of them. For this capture, see Williams, Prize, ch. IV.11 Satsuma, Britain, 100–4, 119–21. A similar expectation of intercepting the silver fleets was still present in the Napoleonic Wars. Hall, British Strategy, 112.12 Kamen, “Destruction,” 169–72.13 Black, “Anglo-Spanish Naval Relations,” 242; Satsuma, Britain, 222–33.14 British Library [hereafter BL], Add MS 32801 fos. 120–20v, Keene to Newcastle, 14 July 1739; BL, Add MS 19034, fos. 72–3, ‘Mr Dellift’s Acct of the Trade &c to La Vera Cruz’, [n.d. but, probably early 1741]; BL, Add MS 32692, fos. 290–290v, “Extract of the Papers” [submitted to Newcastle by William Woods], [n. d., but probably mid-1739]; The National Archives, Kew (hereafter TNA), SP 78/218, fos. 153–53v, Sicilian Abbots to Waldegrave, 1738. In addition, both the government and the opposition sometimes claimed that the interruption of Spanish imperial shipping could be injurious also to the French, who were benefiting from the Spanish American trade. Daily Gazetteer, 15 Jan. 1740; Cobbett’s Parliamentary History, xi. 254.15 As to the issue of British smuggling and the Spanish depredations, see McLachlan, Trade and Peace, 78–96; Nelson, “Contraband Trade,” 55–67; Finucane, Temptations, 23–8, 34–6, 85–96.16 Temperley, “Causes,” 209; Woodfine, Britannia’s Glories, 75.17 This is based on my survey of the correspondence between the Duke of Newcastle, Secretary of State for the South, and Sir Benjamin Keene, a British ambassador in Madrid, as well as other British envoys, which are in BL, Add MS 32794, 32795, 32796; TNA, SP 94/127, SP 94/128.18 For example, see, BL, Add MS 32795, fos. 51, 170–170v, 246–246v, 258–258v, Keene to Newcastle, 22 May, 29 July, 2 and 16 Sep. 1737; BL, Add MS 32796, f. 9v, Waldegrave to Keene, 14 Oct. 1737 (n.s.); fos. 14–14v, Keene to Newcastle, 14 Oct. 1737; fos. 136–136v, Keene to William Smith, [Secretary to the South Sea Company], 18 Nov. 1737.19 BL, Add MS 32796, fos. 243v–244, Keene to Newcastle, 13 Dec. 1737.20 BL, Add MS 32797, fos. 87v–89, 140v–141, Keene to Newcastle, 23 Feb. and 10 Mar. 1738.21 For example, see, BL, Add MS 32796, fos. 77–82, 284–7, Newcastle to Keene, 4 Nov. and 19 Dec. 1737; BL, Add MS 32797, fos. 10–11, Newcastle to Keene, 7 Jan. 1738.22 Richmond, Navy, i. 5–10.23 Temperley, “Causes,” 212–3. For the opposition’s criticism of the negotiations with Spain and their demand for tougher action against it in Parliament, see, for example, Cobbett’s Parliamentary History, x. 580–3, 593–4, 616–20, 633–5, 718–9, 759–60, 764–5, 777–80.24 BL, Add MS 32798, fos. 48v–49v, 142v–43, Keene to Newcastle, 26 May and 23 June 1738.25 For Anglo-French diplomatic relations in this period, see Wilson, French Foreign Policy, chs. IX, XI–XII; Black, Natural and Necessary Enemies, ch. 1, 36–40.26 Temperley, “Causes,” 203; Wilson, French Foreign Policy, 29–41, 60–61.27 For Franco-Spanish disputes at this time, see Pares, War, 133–4; Woodfine, Britannia’s Glories, 160–1. See also, BL, Add MS 32796, fos. 119–119v, Newcastle to Keene, 4 Nov. 1737; BL, Add MS 32796 fo. 237, Keene to Newcastle, 13 Dec. 1737; TNA, SP 78/223, fos. 41v–2, Waldegrave to Harrington, 1 June 1740.28 Stein and Stein, Silver, Trade, and War, 141–3.29 Cobbett’s Parliamentary History, x. 776, 826–7, 837, 947–8, 1418; Walpole, Grand Question, 18–20; Popular Prejudices, 9; Daily Gazetteer, 7 Mar. 1739. As seen here, the government also mentioned the interests of the British merchants trading with Spain and her colonies via Cadiz as a consideration to counter the opposition’s bellicose position. In fact, the British merchants were one of the major participants in the trade via Cadiz. This was still the case on the eve of the War of Jenkins’ Ear. Pearce, British Trade, 5–8. By contrast, the opposition were generally dismissive of the government’s concern over the interests of the British merchants trading via Cadiz. Cobbett’s Parliamentary History, x, 838, 856–58, 985; Lyttelton, Ministerial Prejudices, 20. Wilson argued that the opposition in this period incorporated into its political propaganda the aggressive expansionist demands of British mercantile interests, especially those engaged in American colonial trade, who were also often involved in direct illicit trade with Spanish colonies. Wilson, “Empire,” 96–8. On the other hand, McLachlan once suggested that, in this period, the interests of the merchants carrying on peaceful trade with Spain and her colonies via Cadiz were in conflict with those of the merchants engaged in direct trade with Spanish colonies. Jean O. McLachlan, Trade and Peace with Old Spain 1667–1750: A Study of Commerce on Anglo-Spanish Diplomacy in the First Half of the Eighteenth Century (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1940), 78, 121. Given this conflict of interest, it is possible that the former, who preferred peace with Spain, might have been more closely connected with the government, which adopted restrained policy, than with the opposition, which was sympathetic to the latter merchants’ demands and called for a more aggressive policy, although further investigation is needed to clarify this point.30 TNA, SP 78/218, fos. 164v–166, Waldegrave to Newcastle, 11 June 1738 (n.s.).31 Common Sense, 9 Sep. 1738; Craftsman, 9 Sep. 1738; Craftsman, 23 Sep. 1738.32 Cobbett’s Parliamentary History, x, 838–9, 853–58, 1416–7; Lyttelton, Ministerial Prejudices, 19–20; Craftsman, 31 Mar. 1739.33 Daily Gazetteer, 11 Oct. 1738.34 BL, Add MS 32798, fos. 258v–59, Keene to Newcastle, 2 Aug. 1738.35 BL, Add MS 32691, fo. 502, Wager to Newcastle 2 Dec. 1738; BL, Add MS 32800, fos. 72v–73, Newcastle to Keene, 26 Jan. 1739. However, the release of the register ship was taken up later by the opposition press and politicians, who criticised the government for being too soft in its negotiations with Spain. Craftsman, 17 Feb. 1739; Cobbett’s Parliamentary History, x. 1173.36 Sperling, South Sea Company, 47–8; McLachlan, Trade and Peace, 114–9.37 Historical Manuscripts Commission, Manuscripts of Egmont, iii. 24–5, 19 Feb. 1739.38 Temperley, “Causes,” 227–32, 234–5; Pares, War and Trade, 55–6, 59; McLachlan, Trade and Peace, 120; Woodfine, Britannia’s Glories, 207–9.39 Cobbett’s Parliamentary History, x. 885–8, 1159–61, 1172–4, 1209–13, 1286–7; Common Sense, 3 Mar. 1739; Craftsman, 27 Jan. 1739; Lyttelton, Considerations, 10–11, 20–1; Robins, Address, 18, 20–2.40 Historical Manuscripts Commission, Fourteenth Report, 249, Francis Hare to Francis Naylor, 30 June 1739.41 Woodfine, Britannia’s Glories, 208–9.42 TNA, SP 94/133, Keene to Newcastle, 27 Apr. 1739; Historical Manuscripts Commission, Fourteenth Report, 29–30, Horatio Walpole to Robert Trevor, 8/19 May 1739; BL, Add MS 32800, fos. 299v–300, Keene to Newcastle, 24 Apr. 1739.43 TNA, SP 94/133, Keene to Newcastle, 23 Mar. 1739.44 Temperley, “Causes,” 223–4; Hildner, “Role,” 338–41; Pares, War and Trade, 54–6.45 Historical Manuscripts Commission, Fourteenth Report, 29, Horatio Walpole to Robert Trevor, 1/12 May 1739.46 TNA, SP 78/220, fos. 234–35v, Newcastle to Waldegrave, 8 June 1739.47 TNA, SP 45/2, 3 and 11 June 1739.48 TNA, SP 78/220, fos. 235v–36, Newcastle to Waldegrave, 8 June 1739; Historical Manuscripts Commission, Fourteenth Report, 32, 33–4, Horatio Walpole to Robert Trevor, 1/12 June and 8/19 June 1739; BL, Add MS 32800, fos. 392v–93, [Newcastle] to [Keene], 8 May 1739.49 TNA, SP 78/220, fos. 250–51v, Waldegrave to Newcastle, 26 June 1739 (n.s.).50 TNA, SP78/221, fos. 40v–41, 101–101v, Waldegrave to Newcastle, 1 and 15 Aug. 1739 (n.s.).51 BL, Add MS 32993, fo. 59, “Considerations,” 3 June 1739; TNA, SP 45/2, 3 June 1739.52 TNA, SP 42/86, fos. 48v–49, “Dra. of Instructions for Rear Admiral Haddock,” 6 June 1739; TNA, SP 94/133, “Extract of Consul Cayley’s letter from Cadiz,” 2 June 1739; BL, Add MS 32801, fos. 48, 115–115v, 121, Keene to Newcastle, 15 June, 9 and 14 July 1739.53 BL, Add MS 32801, fo. 143v, Keene to Newcastle, 27 July 1739.54 BL, Add MS 32800, fos. 359–359v, Keene to Newcastle, 18 May 1739.55 BL, Add MS 32801, fos. 23, 72–72v, 180–180v, Keene to Newcastle, 9, 14 June and 10 Aug. 1739.56 TNA, SP 42/86, fo. 53, Newcastle to Haddock, 6 June 1739.57 Richmond, Navy, i. 54.58 TNA, SP 78/221, fos. 101v–102, Waldegrave to Newcastle, 15 Aug. 1739 (n.s.).59 BL, Add MS 35406, fo. 137v, Newcastle to Hardwicke, [n.d. but, c. 11 Aug. 1739]; fos. 138–138v, Newcastle to Hardwicke, 12 Aug. 1739.60 TNA, SP 42/81, fo. 265v, “Memorandum of Newcastle with Wager’s Observation,” 9 Aug 1739. Interestingly, a similar proposition was later made by the opposition. For example, the Duke of Argyll, one of the leading opposition aristocrats, argued for it in April 1740. Cobbett’s Parliamentary History, xi. 594.61 TNA, SP 42/86, fos. 72–3, 79v, Haddock to Newcastle, 14 Aug. and 6 Sep. 1739.62 TNA, SP 42/86, fos. 93–93v, W[illiam] Cayley [British consul in Cadiz] to Haddock, 23 Aug. 1739 (n.s.); fo. 110v, Haddock to Newcastle, 26 Sep. 1739.63 TNA, SP 45/2, 3 and 11 June 1739; BL, Add MS 32993, fo. 59, “Considerations,” 3 June 1739; TNA, SP 42/86, fo. 49v, “Dra. of Instructions for Rear Admiral Haddock,” 6 June 1739. Information about movement of the galeones among Walpole’s paper dated in June 1739 also seems to suggest that the government then paid some attention to the galeones as well as the flota. Cambridge University Library [hereafter CUL]: Cholmondeley (Houghton) Papers, Political Papers 26/130, “Memorandum about the Movement of Some Spanish Galleon,” June 1739.64 BL, Add MS 40827, fos. 11–11v, Wager to Vernon, 19 July 1739; Add MS 32692, fos. 140–40v, “Draft of a Secret Instruction for Vice Admiral Edward Vernon,” 16 July 1739.65 TNA, SP 42/81 fo. 255, “Mem. of Alteration & Addition for V.A. Vernon’s Instructions” [n.d., but probably July or Aug. 1739?]; BL, Add MS 32692, fos. 342–342v, “Drat to Vice Adm Vernon,” 28 Sep. 1739; Ranft, ed., Vernon Papers, 26, Wager to Vernon, 7 Oct. 1739.66 BL, Add MS 28132, fos. 18–19, 20 June 1739; TNA, SP 78/220, fo. 272, Waldegrave to Newcastle, 3 July 1739 (n.s.); TNA, SP 94/133, “Extract of a letter from Cadiz, dated 14th July 1739”.67 TNA, SP 42/86, fos. 49–49v, “Dra. of Instructions for Rear Admiral Haddock,” 6 June 1739; fos. 55–55v, Newcastle to Haddock, 20 June 1739; BL, Add MS 40827, fo. 11, Wager to Vernon, 19 July 1739; TNA, SP 42/81, fo. 249, 13 July 1739; TNA, SP 42/86, fos. 69–69v, Newcastle to Haddock, 8 Aug. 1739; TNA, SP 42/107, Vernon to Captain [Covil] Mayne of the Lenox, 15 Aug. 1739.68 BL, Add MS 32801, fos. 94v, 124v–25, Keene to Newcastle, 29 June and 14 July 1739; fos. 127v–128v, Keene to H. Walpole, 20 July 1739; fos. 143v–144, 158v, Keene to Newcastle, 27 July and 3 Aug. 1739.69 TNA, SP 78/221, fo. 9v, Waldegrave to Newcastle, 22 July 1739 (n.s.). The French attitudes towards the issue of the azogues was examined in more detail in Pares, War and Trade, 143–4. What I attempt here is to place this episode in the context of the entire British operations against the silver fleets.70 TNA, SP 78/221, fos. 9v–11v, Waldegrave to Newcastle, 22 July 1739 (n.s.).71 TNA, SP 78/221, fos. 50v–52v, Newcastle to Waldegrave, 27 July 1739; fos. 80–81v, Waldegrave to Newcastle, 15 Aug. 1739 (n.s.); BL, Add MS 32801, fos. 203–203v, Waldegrave to Newcastle, 23 Aug. 1739 (n.s.).72 BL, Add MS 32801, fo. 180, Keene to Newcastle, 10 Aug. 1739; TNA, SP 42/86, fos. 72–72v, Haddock to Newcastle, 14 Aug. 1739; TNA, SP 94/133, Keene to Newcastle, 17 Aug. 1739; CUL, Cholmondeley (Houghton) Papers, Correspondence, 1, 2913, Wager to Walpole, 16 Aug. 1739.73 TNA, SP 78/221, fos. 104–5, Waldegrave to Newcastle, 23 Aug. 1739 (n.s.); BL, Add MS 32801, fos. 231v–2, Waldegrave to Newcastle, 30 Aug. 1739 (n.s.).74 BL, Add MS 32692, fos. 249–49v, Harrington to Vernon, 21 Aug. 1739.75 TNA, SP 42/86, fos. 109–109v, 119–119v, Haddock to Newcastle, 26 Sep. and 4 Oct. 1739. According to Hussey, during the War of Austrian Succession, nine of the company’s ships were seized by the British. Hussey, Caracas Company, 77–8. As for the ships from Buenos Aires, they could have been register ships, though the British sources do not refer to them as such.76 TNA, SP 42/86, fos. 134–134v, Captain Cooper to Newcastle, Oct. 1739; TNA, SP 78/221, fos. 250, 258, Waldegrave to Newcastle, 9 and 13 Nov. 1739 (n.s.); Historical Manuscripts Commission, Fourteenth Report, 35–6, Horatio Walpole to Robert Trevor, 30 Oct./10 Nov. and 2/13 Nov. 1739.77 TNA, SP 78/221, fos. 255v–6, Newcastle to Waldegrave, 1 Nov. 1739; Historical Manuscripts Commission, Fourteenth Report, 253, Francis Hare to Francis Naylor, 4 Nov. 1739.78 TNA, SP 78/221, fo. 273, Waldegrave to Newcastle, 23 Nov. 1739 (n.s.).79 This point was briefly mentioned by Pares. Pares, War and Trade, 110–1. I examine this connection in more detail here.80 TNA, SP 42/107, Vernon to Newcastle, 1 and 31 Oct. 1739.81 The Vernon-Wager manuscripts in the Library of Congress [hereafter Vernon-Wager MSS], Edward Trelawny to Wager, 20 Sep. 1739; TNA, SP 42/85, fo. 50, “Treasure brought by the South Sea Fleet from Callao to Panama, being two Men of War and Four Merchant Ships … ,” 8 Aug. 1739. Hubert Tassell, a former factor of the South Sea Company, mentioned another possibility: that if the fair would be held at Panama, the money might be remitted from there to Acapulco and then transported to Vera Cruz, as happened in 1727 during the blockade by Hosier. BL, Add MS 32694, fo. 43v, [Hubert] Tassell to Sir Robert Walpole, 11 Sep. 1739.82 TNA, SP 42/107, Vernon to Newcastle, 31 Oct. 1739; Vernon to Newcastle, 5 Nov. 1739. It should be also remembered that, as Pares has pointed out, Vernon’s expedition was also intended to revive the direct trade with Spanish-American colonies via Jamaica by demolishing the fortifications in Porto Bello and making the town accessible to British merchants. Pares, War and Trade, 115–6.83 TNA, SP 42/107, “Copy of V.A. Vernon’s Orders to Capt Knowles, of the Diamond, 3 Nov. 1739; ‘Copy of the Order of Battle and general Plan for the attack of Porto Bello’, 7 Nov. 1739; ‘Copy of V. A. Vernon’s Orders to Capt Knowles, of the Diamond,” [11 Dec. 1739].84 TNA, SP 42/107, Vernon to Newcastle, 12 and 17 Dec. 1739. The idea of an expedition against Panama, as well as that against Cartagena and Manila, had been mentioned by Wager in the very early stage of the war. Vernon-Wager MSS, “Memorandum Respecting Proposed Expeditions to Manila and Cartagena,” [6 Nov. 1739].85 BL, Add MS 28132, fos. 143–4, 152, 28 Jan. and 25 Feb. 1740.86 TNA, SP 78/222, fo. 115v, Waldegrave to Newcastle, 2 Mar. 1740 (n.s.).87 TNA, SP 78/222, fos. 213v–214, “Advices from Spain’, 21 Mar. 1740 (n.s.); fo. 239v, ‘Advices from Madrid,” 4 Apr. 1740 (n.s.).88 TNA, SP 78/223, fos. 101v–102, Newcastle to Waldegrave, 10 June 1740; fo. 142, Waldegrave to Newcastle, 6 July 1740 (n.s.).89 TNA, SP 78/221, fos. 356v–7, Newcastle to Waldegrave, 27 Dec. 1739; TNA, SP 78/222, fos. 76v–77, Newcastle to Waldegrave, 22 Jan. 1740; fos. 78v–79, Newcastle to Waldegrave, 22 Jan. 1740; fos. 114–14v, Waldegrave to Newcastle, 2 Mar. 1740 (n.s.); fos. 131v–32v, Newcastle to Waldegrave, 27 Feb. 1740; fos. 156v–157v, Waldegrave to Newcastle, 12 Mar. 1740 (n.s.).90 BL, Add MS 28132, fos. 139, 145–6, 24 Jan. and 4 Feb. 1740; TNA, SP 45/2, 4 Feb. 1740; TNA, SP 42/81, fos. 316v–317, Feb. 1740.91 TNA, SP 45/2, 17 Apr. 1740; BL, Add MS 32693, fos. 227–227v, “Draft of a Letter to Vice Admiral Vernon (Most Private),” 18 Apr. 1740.92 BL, Add MS 28132, fos. 162–3, 164, 180, 25 Mar., 2 Apr. and 30 Apr. 1740; TNA, SP 45/2, 25 Mar. 1740; TNA, SP 78/222, fos. 320–320v, Waldegrave to Newcastle, 4 May 1740 (n.s.); Harding, Emergence, 69, 71.93 Ranft, ed., Vernon Papers, 91–2, Vernon to Wager, 21 and 25 Apr. 1740; 93–4, “Order to Captain Dent of the Hampton Court,” 6 May. 1740; 97, Vernon to Newcastle, 26–31 May. 1740; 100, Vernon to Wager, 26–31 May 1740.94 TNA, SP 42/107, Vernon to Newcastle, 12 and 17 Dec. 1739. Another plan of the Spaniards mentioned in Vernon’s letter to Wager was to have a fair in Panama, as had been done during Hosier’s blockade in 1726, or in Quito. Greenwich, National Maritime Museum, Caird Library [hereafter NMM], PHB/3/A, fo. 63, Vernon to Wager, 21 Apr. 1740; Vernon-Wager MSS, Vernon to Wager, 9 May 1740.95 TNA, SP 78/221, fos. 251v–252, Waldegrave to Newcastle, 9 Nov. 1739 (n.s.); fos. 356–7, Newcastle to Waldegrave, 27 Dec. 1739; Ranft, ed., Vernon Papers, 61, Vernon to Wager, 18–31 Jan. 1740. A reference to the prevention of the return of the galeones in Newcastle’s memorandum for the meeting at the Cabinet Council, written around March 1740, seems to suggest that this was part of the agenda of the government’s naval policy at the time. BL, Add MS 32993. fo. 75v, “State of the Nation,” [Mar. 1739/40].96 TNA, SP 42/85, fos. 104–104v, Vernon to Newcastle, 18–31 Jan. and 2 Feb. 1740; Vernon-Wager MSS, Trelawny to Wager, 29 Aug. 1740; NMM, PHB/3/A, fos. 62–3, Vernon to Wager, 21 Apr. 1740.97 For an in-depth analysis of this expedition, see Harding, Amphibious Warfare.98 BL, Add MS 28132, fos. 190–91, 193, 20 and 22 May 1740; Historical Manuscripts Commission, Fourteenth Report, 47, Horatio Walpole to Robert Trevor, 2/13 and 13/24 May 1740; TNA, SP 78/223, fos. 41–41v, Waldegrave to Harrington, 1 June 1740 (n.s.).99 BL, Add MS 40827, fos. 15–15v, Vernon to Newcastle, 3 June 1740.100 TNA, SP 78/223, fos. 101v–102, Newcastle to Waldegrave, 10 June 1740.101 TNA, SP 78/223, fo. 362v, Waldegrave to Newcastle, 3 Sep. 1740 (n.s.); BL, Add MS 35406, fos. 225v–226, Andrew Stone to Hardwicke, 26 Aug. 1740; fo. 230, Newcastle to Hardwicke, 28 Aug. 1740.102 BL, Add MS 32802, fos. 161–61v, Newcastle to Waldegrave, 15 July 1740.103 Original Letters, 18, Wager to Vernon, 6 Aug. 1740.104 TNA, SP 78/223, fos. 374–75v, Waldegrave to Newcastle, 5 Sep. 1740 (n.s.); fos. 382–3, Waldegrave to Harrington, 11 Sep. 1740 (n.s.); TNA, SP 78/224, fos. 72–3, Waldegrave to Newcastle, 28 Sep. 1740 (n.s.).105 TNA, SP 78/224, fos. 19v–20, 21–21v, Waldegrave to Newcastle, 17 Sep. 1740 (n.s.).106 Original Letters, 26, 34, Wager to Vernon, 11 Oct. 1740 and 24 Feb. 1741.107 NMM, VER/1/2/T, Trelawny to Wager, 16 Oct. 1740; Ranft, ed., Vernon Papers, 137–8, Vernon to Wager, 14 Oct. 1740; 140, ‘Order to Captain Rentone, Nov. 1740’.108 TNA, SP 78/224, fo. 161v, Waldegrave to Newcastle, 30 Oct. 1740 (n.s.); TNA, SP 78/225, fos. 139–39v, Sicilian Abbot to Thompson, 21 Mar. 1741 (n.s.).109 NMM, VER/1/2/T, Captain Armstrong to [Vernon?], [n.d.].110 Ranft, ed., Vernon Papers, 153–4, Vernon to Newcastle, 12 Dec. 1740; NMM, VER/1/2/D, Vernon to Josiah Burchett, Secretary of the Admiralty, 12 Dec. 1740.111 Ranft, ed., Vernon Papers, 141, Vernon to Newcastle, 7 Nov. 1740; TNA, SP 42/81, fo. 360, Wager to Newcastle, 6 Dec. 1740, fo. 362, ‘Extract of a Letter from Capt. Reddish & some Merchants at Antigua, of the 11th, 14th & 16th Oct. 1740’.112 Ranft, ed., Vernon Papers, 149–50, Vernon to Lord Cathcart, 10 Dec. 1740; NMM, VER/1/2/D, Vernon to Burchett, 12 Dec. 1740.113 NMM, PHB/3/A, p. 50, Lord Tyrawley to Wager, 5 Nov. 1740; TNA, SP42/89, fos. 4–4v, Sir Chaloner Ogle to Newcastle, 23 Dec. 1740; TNA, SP 78/225, fo. 22v, Thompson to Couraud, 21 Jan. 1741 (n.s.). Even after D’Antin’s squadron returned to Europe, some people in France still believed that this was its real aim. TNA, SP 78/225, fos. 243–43v, Thompson to Newcastle, 11 May 1741 (n.s.).114 NMM, VER/1/2/D, Vernon to Burchett, 12 Dec. 1740; Ranft, ed., Vernon Papers, 152, 154, Vernon to Newcastle, 12 Dec. 1740; BL, Add MS 28133, fos. 75–6, 29 Jan. 1741. Harding, Amphibious Warfare, 87–8. It seems that Vernon’s view about the intention of French forces was more correct than Norris. In fact, according to Pares, the initial order to D’Antin was far more aggressive than the British government imagined. D’Antin was ordered to attack Vernon’s squadron and the reinforcements sent to him and to later invade Jamaica with a land force from Saint-Domingue. Yet, several factors (such as the arrival of a large number of British reinforcements, shortage of victualling, and failure in cooperation with the governor of Saint-Domingue and the commander of the Spanish squadrons) prevented the execution of these instructions, as well as another possible service of helping the Spaniards to hold a fair and transport the treasure back to Europe, which Maurepas, the French minister of Marine and Colonies, also regarded as an important task. Pares, War and Trade, 165–6, 172–6.115 Ranft, ed., Vernon Papers, 171, “Draft Resolutions of a General Council of War,” 8 Feb. 1741.116 Ibid., 173–5, “Draft Resolutions of a General Council of War,” 16 and 23 Feb. 1741.117 Cobbett’s Parliamentary History, xi. 777–80, 840.118 Operations of the War, 25–7, 29–30; Considerations on the Management, 21–3.119 Cobbett’s Parliamentary History, xi. 712–3, 787, 831–3. For a similar defence of the blockade policy in the ministerial press, see Daily Gazetteer, 15 Jan. 1740.120 Harding, Emergence, 96, 122, 129, 135.121 For example, see, TNA, SP42/93, fos. 351v–352, Mathews to Newcastle, 11 Oct. 1743; fos. 447–448v, Newcastle to Mathews, 23 Dec. 1743; SP 42/94, fos. 46–48v, Mathews to Newcastle, 14 Jan. 1744; fos. 69–73v, Newcastle to Mathews, 3 Feb. 1744; fos. 147–50, Newcastle to Mathews, 16 Mar. 1744; SP42/96, fos. 253–253v, Newcastle to Rowley, 27 July 1745, SP 42/97, fos. 167v–168v, Medley to Newcastle, 20 Jan. 1747; fo. 228, Medley to Newcastle, 28 Apr. 1747.122 TNA, SP42/89, fos. 24–24v, Ogle to Newcastle, 18 Jan. 1743; fos. 48–48v, Ogle to Newcastle, 22 Mar. 1743; fos. 104v–105, Ogle to Newcastle, 19 Feb. 1744; fos. 120v–121, Ogle to Newcastle, 21 Apr. 1744; fos. 131v–132, Ogle to Newcastle, 8 May 1744; fos. 193, 194, Ogle to Newcastle, 24 Nov. 1744; fo. 210v, Ogle to Newcastle, 3 Feb. 1745.123 TNA, SP42/96, fos. 243, 244–245v, Newcastle to Rowley, 18 Jan. 1745.124 Pares, War and Trade, 111.125 TNA, SP42/96, fos. 84–85, 86v–87, Rowley to Newcastle, 21 Feb. 1745. This connection between the lack of sufficient force in the Mediterranean and the failure to intercept Torres’s squadron was pointed out by Harding. Harding, Emergence, 207–9.126 TNA, SP42/89, fo. 56, Ogle to Newcastle, 30 Apr. 1743; fo. 83, Ogle to Newcastle, 31 July 1743; fos. 152–152v, Rowley to Newcastle, 2 June 1745.127 TNA, SP42/89, fos. 270v–271, Vice-Admiral Davers to Newcastle, 24 Nov. 1745; fo. 343v, Davers to Newcastle, 9 Mar. 1746; SP42/96, fos. 159–159v, Rowley to Newcastle, 3 July 1745. Pares, War and Trade, 111.128 Richmond, Navy, iii. 247–8.129 Pares, War and Trade, 111–4; Stein and Stein, Silver, 192–5; Walker, Spanish Politics, 211, 215–7.130 For the increase in the number of register ships as well as azogues sailing to Spanish-American colonies after the war started, see Walker, Spanish Politics, 277, Table 1. In this trade using register ships, foreign merchants, especially French ones, were heavily involved. Stein and Stein, Silver, 192–3.131 Stein and Stein, Silver, 195; Kuethe and Andrien, Spanish Atlantic World, 154–5.132 Pares, War and Trade, 111–2.133 Lamikiz, Trade and Trust, ch. 3; Pearce, Origins, 11–12, 126–34, 177–8.134 Later on, in the early nineteenth century, during the Napoleonic Wars, the blockade was again employed as a powerful weapon against Spain, which further contributed to crumbling Spain’s Atlantic trade system. For the impact that British blockade had on Spanish Atlantic trade system and Spain’s finance in the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars, see Pearce, British Trade, 119–21; Stein and Stein, Crisis, 178, 259.Additional informationFundingThis work was supported by JSPS KAKENHI [Grant Numbers JP15K16865; JP17K03158].