^{page 291 note *} I am grateful to the late Lord Walpole for his kind permission to work in, and quote from, the Walpole archives at Wolterton Hall, and to his heir, the present Lord Walpole for arranging my visit there. The Wolterton (Walpole) MSS have since been acquired by the British Library. The staff development fund of the University of Huddersfield generously provided some of my travel expenses.

^{page 291 note 1} The memoirs are preserved as duplicates, endorsed ‘Wrote Janry 1738. HW.’, in the Coxe Papers (Horatio Walpole), BL Add 9131, the first amounting to 51 folios, ff. 199–250, and the second to 20 folios, ff. 251–271. The originals are not in Horace Walpole's surviving papers. For cabinet discussions, see cabinet minutes in BL Add 32993, ff. 57–8 and the lists in BL Add 33007, ff. 122–4.

^{page 291 note 2} See e.g. Colley, Linda, In Defiance of Oligarchy: The Toy Party 1714–60 (Cambridge, 1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Black, Jeremy, British Foreign Policy in the Age of Walpoles (Edinburgh, 1985)Google Scholar; Woodfine, Philip, ‘The Anglo-Spanish War of 1739’, in Black, J.M. (ed), The Origins of War in Early Modern Europe (Edinburgh, 1987)Google Scholar; Harris, Michael, London Newspapers in the Age of Walpole: a Study in the Origins of the Modern English Press (1987)Google Scholar; Harris, Robert, A Patriot Press: National Politics and the London Press in the 1740s (Oxford, 1993).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 292 note 3} Examples included the taking of the Robert, Story King master, in 1728, on which petitions to the king were made in May and August 1731, the case still unresolved in 1738; BL Add 32774 ff. 118–20; 15 May 1731, SP 94/129, unfoliated. The cases of the Anne galley, Samuel Bonham, in 1728 and the Betty galley, Richard Copithorne, in 1727 were still being raised by the Opposition press in 1739; The Case of Samuel Bonham and the other Owners of the Anne Galley … (London, 1737)Google Scholar; Craftsman 24 Feb (OS) 1739.

^{page 292 note 4} List of British Merchant Ships, Taken or Plundered by the Spaniards, S P 94/128, p. 3.Google Scholar

^{page 292 note 5} The Memorial was sent 4 Nov (OS) 1737 and presented by Benjamin Keene, the ambassador in Madrid, on 10 Dec (NS) 1737; SP 98/129 unfoliated.

^{page 293 note 6} The Dutch received a reply to their Memorial in December 1737; Trevor to Harrington, 17 Dec (NS) 1737, SP 84/369, f. 102. La Quadra's reply to Keene came at the Pardo, 21 Feb (NS) 1738; SP 94/130, unfoliated. For the Commons’ resolutions, see BL Add 32797, ff. 257–261. A good impression of the press reaction can be gauged from, e.g. Craflsman 5, 12, 19 Nov (OS) 1737; London Magazine 27 Mar (OS) 1738; Common-Sense, or The Englishman's Journal 18 Feb (OS) 1738.

^{page 293 note 7} He finally obtained a yacht from Helvoet Sluys on 11 Dec (NS) 1737; SP 84/369 f. 60. His letters and scrawled notes at this time do suggest an unusual distress: see, e.g., SP 84/369 ff. 16, 18 & 44.

^{page 294 note 8} BL Add 9131, f. 245. The Cabinet later ruled that prizes taken by naval vessels between the general order for reprisals and the declaration of war should be divided between the captors and the suffering merchants. In time of war, captors would receive their prizes, in a manner to be announced by the king. Cabinet minutes, 11 Apr (OS) 1740, BL Add 33004, f. 31.

^{page 294 note 9} Philip Woodfine, ‘Ideas of Naval Power and the Conflict with Spain, 1737–1742’, in Black, Jeremy & Woodfine, Philip (eds), The British Nay and the Use of Naval Power in the Eighteenth Century (Leicester, 1988).Google Scholar

^{page 294 note 10} The best introduction to the subject of prizes and reprisals at this time is still Richard Pares' masterly Colonial Blockade and Neutral Rights 1739–1763 (Oxford, 1938)Google Scholar. The declaration of reprisals came in early March 1738; see BL Add 32797 ff. 142 & 154; Keene to Newcastle 12 Apr (NS) 1738, SP 94/130 unfoliated.

^{page 295 note 11} Newcastle to Walpole, 11 Sep (OS) 1739, BL Add 15946, ff. 34–5.

^{page 295 note 12} Newcastle to H. Walpole, Claremont, 3 Apr (OS) 1738, BL Add 32797, f. 219.

^{page 295 note 13} See e.g. BL Add 32801 ff. 137–40 for two manuscript gazetins of July 1739; printed gazettes were often filed among the State Papers Foreign now in the Public Record Office.

^{page 296 note 14} Pulteney to Colman, 25 Aug (NS), BL Add 18915, f. 8.

^{page 296 note 15} E.g. An Historical Ballad, humbly inscrib'd to the Duumviri (London n.d., 0.1730); The Negotiators. Or, Don Diego brought to Reason (London, 1738).Google Scholar

^{page 296 note 16} The hand in the margins matches that of Hardwicke in his voluminous legal notebooks, and in some undoubted holograph documents. E.g. BL Add 35870, ff. 18–28, attested by his son; Add 32692, ff. 280–82, 348–89; Add 34506, f. 174.

^{page 297 note 17} E.g. Hardwicke's comments on the memorial of la Quadra, the Spanish Secretary of State, to Keene, 21 Feb 1738 (NS), BL Add 35884, ff. 1–4. His comments on an earlier paper by Horace Walpole can be found in B L Add 32692, f. 300. A few examples of his range can be seen in e.g. BL Add 35875 passim, and his methodical approach to an extensive workload can be sampled in BL Add 36051 and 36052 passim.

^{page 297 note 18} Newcastle to Hardwicke, 25 Sep 1738, BL Add 35406, ff. 49–51.

^{page 297 note 19} BL Add 9131, f. 212. Hardwicke was trusted to offer his judgement on the most important matters too, as in his comment on a draft of the king's ratification of the Convention with Spain in January 1739: John Couraud, Assistant Secretary, to Hardwicke, 20 Jan 1739, BL Add 35406, f. 70.

^{page 298 note 20} Hardwicke to Newcastle, Carshalton, 10 Sep (OS) 1739, BL Add 32692, ff. 280–2.

^{page 298 note 21} Etough to Rev. Thomas Birch, 16 July 1746, BL Add 4306, fo. 74.

^{page 299 note 22} Walpole to Keene, The Hague, 3 Sep (NS) 1737, BL Add 32795, ff. 250–1. For other testy interventions see, e.g., same to same 31 Oct (NS) 1737, BL Add 32796, ff. 39–40; same to same, 7 Nov (NS) 1737, ibid. ff. 59–60.

^{page 299 note 23} See the Wolterton (Walpole) MSS, Original Draughts and Political Tracts (2 vols).

^{page 299 note 24} ‘Mr. Walpole's Apology’, Coxe Papers Vol LV, BL Add 9132.

^{page 300 note 25} H. Walpole to Hardwicke, 14 Oct (OS) 1739, BL Add 35586, ff. 202–5. Memorial SP94/129, unfoliated.

^{page 300 note 26} H. Walpole to Newcastle, The Hague, 26 Nov (NS) 1737, SP 84/369, f. 1.

^{page 300 note 27} See e.g. la Quadra to Keene, Aranjuez 26 May (NS) 1738; SP 94/130, unfoliated.

^{page 300 note 28} H. Walpole to Newcastle, The Hague, 26 Nov (NS) 1737; SP 84/369 ff. 1–6.

^{page 300 note 29} St. Gil to Geraldino 10, 24 & 31 Dec (NS) 1737; Geraldino to St. Gil 17 Dec (NS) 1737; SP 94/206 ff. 17, 45, 60–62, 27.

^{page 300 note 30} He did not of course have available a large body of diplomatic analysis or commentary on which to rely. He used in particular: Dumont, Jean, Corps Universel Diplomatique du Droit des Gens (Amsterdam, 8 vols 1726–1731)Google Scholar; Rymer, Thomas, Foedera Conventiones (London, 17 vols, 1704–1717)Google Scholar; Gamden, William, Annales Renan Anglicarum et Hibemitanm Regnante Elizabetha (1677).Google Scholar

^{page 303 note 1} As soon as Columbus first returned from the Americas in March 1493 the (Spanish) Pope, Alexander VI, issued bulls confirming Spain's exclusive title to the new hemisphere, extending, according to the bull Inter caetera, from 100 leagues west of the Azores. Vagueness about the exact whereabouts of America led the Spanish to be generous to their chief colonial rivals, though, and in June 1494 the Treaty of Tordesillas between Spain and Portugal moved this imaginary north-south line to 370 leagues west of the Azores, which in the event gave Brazil to the Portuguese.

^{page 304 note 2} This was a sore point for ministers at this time, since opponents made much of Cromwell's vigour and success, compared with the lameness of the Walpole administration. See e.g. The Craftsman 3 06 1738, 13 01 1739Google Scholar; (Anon) The British Sailor's Discovery. Or the Spanish Pretensions Confuted (London, 1739), 53–71.Google Scholar

^{page 307 note 3} It was a constant argument of the opposition in Parliament and press that the Elizabethan days were the truly glorious ones, in which trade and national honour were fiercely upheld. Horace Walpole constantly asserted that the way to real security and commercial growth was through treaty, a position for which he was often lampooned. See e.g. [Rev. James Miller] Are These Things So? The Previous Question, from an Englishman in his Grotto, to a Great Man at Court (London, 1741), 8.Google Scholar

^{page 308 note 4} An improved version of this treaty survives in an undated draft among the Wolterton papers; ‘Heads of Articles for Explaining the Treaty of 1670’, Political Tracts MSS. It seems to be designed in the hope of a settlement with Spain, and tries to secure against the main sources of friction which had hitherto taken place.

^{page 308 note 5} Walpole here accepts what was also the Spanish view, that steering a course to trade in a Spanish port was forbidden, and not only the being found trading in one. Since the clamour over Spanish searches was so great, this was a crucial concession. For the similar Spanish interpretation see Keene to Newcastle, 7 May (NS) 1738, BL Add 32797, ff. 321–5.

^{page 314 note 6} The Galeones and Flota were the two main trading fleets leaving Cadiz for the two Spanish New World Viceroyalties. The Flota sailed in the early summer, bound for Veracruz in New Spain. The Galeones sailed in late summer for Cartagena and Portobello, the chief ports and homes of the annual fairs in the Viceroyalty of Peru. Both fleets exchanged their cargoes for holds full of precious metals, and in the spring sailed back together from Cuba – a tempting prize, if they were in fact sailing together, or sailing at all, and if they were caught. In practice, by no means in every year were these fleets despatched. Register ships, registros, were single ships licensed to trade for specific purposes, and often carrying high-value luxury cargoes. An excellent modern treatment of Spanish trade is Walker, Geoffrey, Spanish Politics and Imperial Trade, 1700–1789 (London, 1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Pares, Richard, War and Trade in the West Indies 1739–1763 (Oxford, 1936).Google Scholar

^{page 314 note 7} Don José Patifio (1666–1736) was the man responsible for the revival of the Spanish navy from January 1717, when he was appointed Intendente General de Marina. A firm advocate of centralisation and rationalisation, he promoted economic recovery and became Philip V's most trusted adviser. In 1726 Patiño became Secretary of the Office of the Indies, as well as naval minister, and in 1732 he became Secretary of State and Chief Minister of the Crown, dying in office in 1736.

^{page 314 note 8} This point was later forcibly made in H. Walpole's influential pamphlet The Grand Question, Whether War, or no War, with Spain … (London, 1739), 16–17.Google Scholar

^{page 315 note 9} The Asiento de Negros was the exclusive concession of supplying slaves to Spanish overseas territories, granted in 1713 to the English South Sea Company. The 42nd article of the 1713 Asiento Treaty gave the Company the unprecedented right to send an annual ship of 500 tons along with the yearly fleets from Spain, to trade direct with Spanish ports. These trade goods were held by the Spanish colonial authorities in locked warehouses until the annual fairs, and company agents and stocks were always vulnerable to Spanish interference. In addition, the complex accounting of the Asiento and annual ship meant that the Spanish government had always on hand money and goods of the Company, which could be withheld or confiscated. This vexatious connection was one of the chief immediate causes of war in 1739, and was finally dissolved by the commercial treaty of October 1750.

^{page 316 note 10} On 17 March (OS) 1738 a draft letter was sent for presentation by Keene in Madrid, making these points very forcibly and protesting against Spanish legal procedures; B L Add 32797, ff. 182–5.

^{page 317 note 11} This whole paragraph was an interpolation by Lord Hardwicke in the first draft; BL Add 9131, f. 228.

^{page 317 note 12} In years when the main fleets did not sail (not least because of markets being flooded by illicit traders) the silver smelters in the New World still needed mercury for their process. The Azogues was the naval squadron – usually two ships – which took the mercury. On returning, they of course carried back whatever royal bullion had accumulated, and it was the return voyage which attracted British cupidity.