No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 December 2009
1. Meeting of the Directors of the East India Company, 30 December 1761. I.O.R., B/77, Court Minutes (1761–1762), p. 251.
At a Court of Directors held on Wednesday the 30th December 1761, present Laurence Sulivan Esq., Chairman, Thomas Rous, Esq., Deputy….
The Chairman informed the Court that he had yesterday a conference with Lord Anson, when His Lordship was pleased to say that the government had an intention to order an attack to be made upon Manilha and desired to know what assistance the Company could give therein, when the Chairman assured His Lordship that this affair should be laid before the Court of Directors, the same being now debated, and the advantages and disadvantages that may result therefrom being duly considered, it was on the question
page 11 note 1 Sulivan was an influential and outstanding member of the Court of Directors. For his career in the East India Company see Sutherland, Lucy S., The East India Company in Eighteenth-Century Politics (Oxford, 1952), pp. 59–80.Google Scholar
page 11 note 2 At this time Anson was the First Lord of the Admiralty. He had made a reputation for himself by his circumnavigation of the world in 1740–4, during which he captured a Spanish galleon, the Covadonga, off the Philippines. See Williams, Glyndwr, Documents Relating to Anson's Voyage Round the World, 1740–1744 (London, 1967), pp. 181–225Google Scholar. He seems to have been greatly interested in British expansion into the Pacific. See Harlow, Vincent T., The Founding of the Second British Empire, 1765–1793 (London, 1952), I, 62–7Google Scholar, for British interest in South-east Asia. It is interesting to note that England had not yet declared war on Spain when Anson met with the East India Company officials to discuss the conquest of Manila, but Spain's refusal to clarify their relationship with France was taken as a declaration of war. See Holles Newcastle to Earl of Albemarle, New House, 27 Dec. 1761, Brit. Mus., Add. MSS., 32,932, fos. 371–2. Also Watson, J. Steven, The Reign of George III, 1760–1815 (Oxford, 1960), pp. 75–6.Google Scholar
page 11 note 3 The company had an elaborate system of committees. Most of the important matters passed through the committees for discussion before going on to the full Court.
page 12 note 1 More often called Luconia.
page 12 note 2 Early in January 1762 the Secret Committee of the East India Company and Lord Anson settled on a war plan against Spain. Anson's project of attacking Havana was approved and Egremont, the Secretary of State, introduced William Draper's plan for taking Manila. This also was agreed to. Corbett, Julian S., England in the Seven Years' War. A Study in Combined Strategy (London, 1907), II, 247–8.Google Scholar
page 13 note 3 Apparently the writer intended that the British establish permanent bases of operations at Manila and on another island. This idea was accepted in a modified form since later instructions from the king speak of a permanent base, not in Manila, but in Mindanao. It was foreseen that Manila, if captured, would eventually have to be returned. See Document 5, Number 6.
page 15 note 1 This is the first indication of the East India Company's opposition to the plan of conquering Manila. Draper would later accuse the company of deliberately trying to sabotage the expedition to Manila because it interfered with the company's commercial relations with Manila. See Document 68.
page 17 note 1 Probably Robert Wood, Under-secretary of State.
page 18 note 2 Alexander Dalrymple was a company agent who arranged a trade agreement with the Sultan of Jolo in 1761. He travelled through the Philippine Archipelago and subsequently published An Account of the Discoveries Made in the South Pacific Ocean Previous to 1764 (London, 1767)Google Scholar, and An Historical Collection of the Several Voyages and Discoveries in the South Pacific Ocean, 2 vols. (London, 1770–1771).Google Scholar
page 19 note 1 William Draper was a scholar turned soldier. He attended Bristol Grammar School, Eton, King's College, Cambridge, and took his M.A. there in 1749. He was a Fellow of King's College until 1756 when he vacated his fellowship on marriage. In 1757 he raised a regiment of 1000 foot for service in the East and he arrived at Madras on 14 September 1758. When Stringer Lawrence resigned on account of ill health in February 1759, command of the troops in Madras devolved upon Draper. However, he himself was too ill to assume command and returned home soon afterwards. His next trip to the East was for the conquest of Manila. Venn, J. A., Alumni Cantabrigienses Part I (4 vols. Cambridge, 1922–1927), II, 66Google Scholar; also Dictionary of National Biography(London, 1888), XVI, 4–7.Google Scholar
page 19 note 2 War was declared against Spain on 4 January 1762.
page 19 note 3 George Pigot was Governor of Madras from 1755 to 1763. He defended Fort St. George against the French and helped organize the forces sent against Manila. He obtained a peerage on his return to England.
page 23 note 1 Draper had devoted part of his sick leave after the Fort St. George action inquiring into the defences of the Philippines. He found them weak. Upon commencement of hostilities against Spain Draper laid this information before the ministers. Clowes, William Laird, The Royal Navy. A history from the earliest times to the present (London, 1898), III, 239.Google Scholar
page 27 note 1 The Dutch declined as a maritime power after the War of the Spanish Succession (1713). During the Seven Years' War (1756–63) they profited as neutrals but suffered considerable English interference with their seaborne trade. A Dutch expedition in 1759 to restore their position in Bengal miscarried and was defeated at Bedora by the English. Boxer, C. R., The Dutch Seaborne Empire, 1600–1800 (London, 1965), p. 298.Google Scholar
page 28 note 1 From 1750 to 1761 the Mahrattas were engaged in an ambitious attempt to obtain supremacy in India. They were decisively defeated in 1761 but squabbles with the East India Company followed. The French relinquished their last stronghold in India by surrendering Pondicherry on 16 January 1761. See Dodwell, H. H. (ed.), The Cambridge History of India (second Indian reprint), (Delhi, 1963), V, 166–80, 164–5.Google Scholar
page 28 note 2 The French had first occupied Mauritius in 1721. After the French defeat at Pondicherry the English governor of Fort St. George expressed willingness to attack Mauritius and deprive the French of their foothold in Asia. Col. George Monson to Draper, Fort St. George, 2 Mar. 1761. Brit. Mus., Add. MSS., 32, 919, fos. 416–20.
page 28 note 3 A Caffre was a South African black, while a Topass was a Portuguese Christian half-caste.
page 30 note 1 John Clevland (c. 1707–63) was secretary to the Admiralty. On him see SirNamier, Lewis and Brooke, John, The History of Parliament. The House of Commons, 1754–1790, 3 vols. (London, 1964), II, 220–1.Google Scholar
page 35 note 1 Apparently Draper changed his mind about attacking Cavite first. He would make a frontal attack upon the city and afterwards demand the surrender of Cavite.
page 40 note 1 After Manila was taken and the booty divided, the East India Company received ⅓ of three distributions. The first distribution amounted to 526, 306 pesos, collected in specie, jewels, gold and silver. The second was from confiscated naval stores, amounting to 92, 561 pesos. The third distribution amounted to 43, 280 Indian pagodas, coming from the sale of vessels and merchandise sold at Manila and Fort St. George. See also individual distributions to sailors and soldiers in ‘Affairs in England’, in The Scots Magazine (Edinburgh) (08, 1764), 455–6Google Scholar. However, the East India Company thought that they had lost money in the affair and as late as 1775 was petitioning the crown for £139, 877. See their memorial of 28 June 1775, P.R.O., Treasury I, 516; also Lord Weymouth to Lords of Treasury, 28 Nov. 1769, Calendar of Home Office Papers, No. 1354.