Reply to Reflexions on the case of Antonio Rivero and Sovereignty over the Falkland Islands

Extract

In response to John Muffty's critique of my communication concerning the case of Antonio Rivero, I would accept that my references to the whole document contained in P.R.O., HO 48/30 case 5 as ‘the opinion’ were misleading, given that most of it, as I noted in my original communication, consists of the presentation of the case. However, this is immaterial to the conclusion. The point is that the document contains statements which do not easily square with what was then the official British line on sovereignty over the Islands, namely that British sovereignty had been sustained ever since the evacuation of Port Egmont in 1774 by what Sir Herbert Jenner in 1829 had described as ‘the symbols of property and possession’, i.e. a single stone plaque. For example, the reference in the document to the attention of the British government having been ‘altogether withdrawn’ from the Islands between 1774 and 1829 seemed to me to suggest a sceptical view of Jenner's argument.