Ships of the 1715 fleet

[ivan salis]

in the book --the funnel of gold -- there are referances to the Spanish rep vale not being fooled by English govenor Hamilton --since VALE KNEW that the capt of the "English prize" vessel taken by Echeverz's pataches off south America for illegal trading * had stated that the ship could not be seized because it was 25% owned by Hamilton. ( they took it anyway-- but sent it directly to Havana with a small prize crew to avoid any "leaks" about it being taken * ) the fact it was taken was kept under wraps so to speak --and Echeverz having already taken 2 other larger vessels (a dutch and French vessel) already as "prizes" and needing cash --sold the small English vessel to Ubilla when he arrived in Havana later on due to the fact that Ubilla had lost 4 patache class small vessels while in mexico.-- the original English name was MARI --IT WAS A GALARA CLASS VESSEL * OF THE ENGLISH BALANDRA TYPE BUILD -- with the name / class ---MARI / GALARA -- ECHEVERZ -- renamed it SAN MIGUEL DE EXCELSIS (SAN MIGUEL WAS ECHEVERZ'S PATRON SAINT--THUS THE MULTIPLE "SAN MIGUELS" IN HIS FLEET -- 3 OF THEM --THE TOBACCO HAULING NAO THAT STAYED IN HAVANA (SAN MIGUEL) #1 --THE DUTCH PRIZE VESSEL (OLANDESA) TAKEN OFF SOUTH AMERICA --( SAN MIGUEL #2) AND THE SMALLISH ENGLISH PRIZE VESSEL (#3 SAN MIGUEL DE EXCELSIS) the vessel was again "renamed" when it was taken over by Ubilla -- again the "patron saint" name was used but this time it was Ubilla's patron saint -- same as his fleet command vessel. AS TO THE NUMBER OF VESSELS IN THE FLEET -

-I would think that the Sept 20th ,1715 letter from SALMON (2ND IN COMMAND OF THE FLEET AT THE TIME OF WRECKING AND IN COMMAND OF SALVAGE OPERATIONS ) TO THE KING OF SPAIN ---WOULD BE THE PROPER ACCOUNTING --IT SAYS OF THE FLEET 9 ARE KNOWN TO BE WRECKED , AND 2 OF THE "GALLONES" ARE MISSING , BUT ARE THOUGHT TO HAVE BEEN LOST ON THE HIGH SEAS BECAUSE THE WRECKAGE OF A LARGE VESSEL OR VESSELS WAS FOUND ON THE (COAST NORTH / NORTH COAST?) OF ST AUGUSTINE ---(ECHEVERZ'S FLEET WAS KNOWN AS "THE GALLONES DE TERRA FIRME" --SO 2 OF HIS VESSELS WERE UNACCOUNTED FOR) --3 OF ECHEVERZ'S VESSELS BROKE AWAY FROM THE MAIN 8 VESSEL FLEET (ALL 5 OF UBILLA'S FLEET , BOTH ROYAL TREASURE VESSELS OF ECHEVERZ'S FLEET AND THE "DUTCH PRIZE" OLANDESA / SAN MIGUEL.) THE 3 THAT BROKE AWAY WERE -- #1 THE FRECH PRIZE VESSEL (EL CIERVO) #2 THE TOBACCO HAULING NAO (SAN MIGUEL) AND #3 THE "CONCEPTION" (WHICH REPORTLY SANK SOMEWHERE NEAR CAPE CANAVERAL --AS 4 MEN OFF IT WERE FOUND ON THE CAPE AREA --AFTER FLOATING ON A HATCH COVER DRIFTING AT SEA FOR 2 DAYS) --WITH THE 8 KNOWN SUNK (DOWN SOUTH) AND THE CONCEPTION ACCOUNTED FOR AS SUNK NEAR THE CAPE THATS 9 WITH 2 "MISSING IN ACTION" THAT ACCOUNTS FOR ALL 11 SPANISH VESSELS OF THE FLEET AND WITH THE GRIFFON THAT MAKES A TOTAL OF 12 VESSELS IN THE FLEET.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Diving for Pleasure and Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[Jolly Mon]

My idea is that Salmon did not include in his account the 4 ships that left the main flota in the days before the storm. He clearly did not include Le Griffon in his reckoning. This could be because she was a French vessel, yet apparently there were Spanish Dignitaries and possibly Spanish cargo aboard. It seems somewhat strange she was not mentioned by him at all.

I admit this idea is to a degree a "rationalization", but there is some evidence, though not from the AI:

Boston News Letter 12-27-1716

Bernard Romans' map

 

[grossmusic]

what was a French warship doing there in the first place? Was there any subsequent history on D'Aire that could shed some light on this?

France & Spain had been allied during the 14-year war, which only officially ended in 1714 (while D'Aire was already in New Spain).


@ ivan salis:

I had never heard that Hamilton owned a portion of the English prize. Is there a bibliography/endnotes in Funnel of Gold or is it a novelization of events? I don't know how I could have not known about that book with all my research! Argh.

 

[aquanut]

France & Spain had been allied during the 14-year war, which only officially ended in 1714 (while D'Aire was already in New Spain). @ ivan salis: I had never heard that Hamilton owned a portion of the English prize. Is there a bibliography/endnotes in Funnel of Gold or is it a novelization of events? I don't know how I could have not known about that book with all my research! Argh.

That was the first book I ever bought on this subject. "Funnel of Gold" is the encyclopedia of the movement of treasure from the New world to the Old along the Spanish Main. A great resource, not only for treasure hunters, archeologists, historians and researchers, but for anyone interested in the subject.

 

[jorgeproctor]

Greetings Au_Dreamers,

The Registro that you included on your post was for the 'Nuestra Señora de Regla, San José y San Francisco Javier', from Ubilla's fleet. This was the other vessel also named 'Nuestra Señora de Regla', which traveled to New Spain with Ubilla's fleet (there were eight vessels on the incoming journey). Hence the discrepancy from your manifest page and what Salvor6 said about the correct number of cannons for the Capitana. This vessel did not travel back to Spain with the fleet in 1715.

Now, talking about Ubilla's Capitana, this was the 'Nuestra Señora de Regla, San Dimas y San Francisco Javier.' I am attaching below a copy of the front page of its Registro so you can see this one.

 

[jorgeproctor]

grossmusic,

Thank you for your post. If at some point you are able to add the references, I would be immensely grateful. I figured that these references, I am sure, are from the archives in France, and that is one that, to be honest, I am not too familiar with (have never done research there)...

 

[jorgeproctor]

Salvor6,

AS for what you wrote regarding Carl Claussen including the 'Nuestra Señora de Regla, San Dimas y San Francisco San Javier as owner by Gen. Ubilla, that is not completely true. He was only part owner. The Nuestra Señora de Regla, just like the Santo Cristo de San Roman, was loaned to Spain to serve under General Ubilla in the Carrera de Indias. Now, as for the Captain, I am not sure if it was Don Luis de Villalobos or not. The ship's master (maestre) was said to be Potflis (who was also serving as the ship's master of silver).

Now, as for "Sandy Point" wreck, the general consensus is that this could be the Capitana of Echevers' fleet (the Nuestra Señora del Carmen). So, yes, it is the Capitana, but not the Capitana you were thinking of.

 

[jorgeproctor]

Bum Luck,

Regarding the Griffon, and what was it doing in New Spain at the time, I finally found my answer as part of a 1995 article by John de Bry (reference below):

The Order of the Holy Spirit: An Important Decoration from a 1715 Plate Fleet Wreck
John de Bry
The Florida Historical Quarterly
Vol. 74, No. 1 (Summer, 1995), pp. 50-63

According to this article, the Le Griffon was sent to New Spain so that it could collect the payment owed for two other French vessels that had been used before as escorts to a previous fleet. This explains the mission of this French Warship.

 

[ivan salis]

note in his book -"the funnel of gold "- Mendal Peterson * ( former director of the Smithsonian's underwater exploration program and curator of divison of historic archeology ) on page 362 - lists six ships in Echicies's fleet and 5 vessels in Ubilla's fleet for a total of 11 Spanish vessesl plus the French vessel "griffon" (which makes for a total of 12 ) with the French vessel not being a "official" part of the fleet , SO salmon dId not have to "account" to the king of spain about it --only THE 11 Spanish vessels mattered --and that 11 vessels jives with his letter of Sept 20th, 1715 to the king reporting 9 known sank /lost and 2 "missing" -- 8 vessels sank fairly close TOGETHER and the concepcion sank somewhere near the cape ( 4 men were found at cape Canaveral on a hatch cover after floating at sea for 2 days ) 8 +1 is 9 (SALMON KNEW OF THE CONCEPCION'S SINKING) --the two missing vessels were the French prize EL CIERVO and the tobacco hauling NAO SAN MIGEUL . the 8 that wrecked somewhat together --were all 5 of Ubilla's fleet plus the two main treasure vessels of Echeverz's fleet and the dutch prize "OLANDESA / SAN MIGUEL"


MY TAKE ON IT IS THUS -- with Ubilla being "in charge" and accountable for the fleet and treasure --when things got bad he wanted all vessels carrying royal treasure "together" so he ordered the two royal treasure vessels of Echeverz's fleet to "join up" with his fleet --which of course Echeverz like it or not had to do (he had to "obey orders") so Echeverz took 1 small patache (the dutch prize) and his two royal treasure vessels and joined Ubilla's fleet --the other 3 vessels of his fleet were not carrying royal treasures and thus were free for him to command as he pleased and he cut them loose to survive as best they could (which is why they like the griffon did earlier --broke away from the fleet) . please note that I was a 27 year merchant seaman from a 300 year long family history of seaman.

 

[Jolly Mon]

note in his book -"the funnel of gold "- Mendal Peterson * ( former director of the Smithsonian's underwater exploration program and curator of divison of historic archeology ) on page 362 - lists six ships in Echicies's fleet and 5 vessels in Ubilla's fleet for a total of 11 Spanish vessesl plus the French vessel "griffon" (which makes for a total of 12 ) with the French vessel not being a "official" part of the fleet , SO salmon dId not have to "account" to the king of spain about it --only THE 11 Spanish vessels mattered --and that 11 vessels jives with his letter of Sept 20th, 1715 to the king reporting 9 known sank /lost and 2 "missing" -- 8 vessels sank fairly close TOGETHER and the concepcion sank somewhere near the cape ( 4 men were found at cape Canaveral on a hatch cover after floating at sea for 2 days ) 8 +1 is 9 (SALMON KNEW OF THE CONCEPCION'S SINKING) --the two missing vessels were the French prize EL CIERVO and the tobacco hauling NAO SAN MIGEUL . the 8 that wrecked somewhat together --were all 5 of Ubilla's fleet plus the two main treasure vessels of Echeverz's fleet and the dutch prize "OLANDESA / SAN MIGUEL"


MY TAKE ON IT IS THUS -- with Ubilla being "in charge" and accountable for the fleet and treasure --when things got bad he wanted all vessels carrying royal treasure "together" so he ordered the two royal treasure vessels of Echeverz's fleet to "join up" with his fleet --which of course Echeverz like it or not had to do (he had to "obey orders") so Echeverz took 1 small patache (the dutch prize) and his two royal treasure vessels and joined Ubilla's fleet --the other 3 vessels of his fleet were not carrying royal treasures and thus were free for him to command as he pleased and he cut them loose to survive as best they could (which is why they like the griffon did earlier --broke away from the fleet) . please note that I was a 27 year merchant seaman from a 300 year long family history of seaman.

I am sure you are probably right, Ivan, and the "canonical" view of 12 vessels being in the fleet when it left Havana is the correct one.

Ultimately, my theory is based only on old rumors and innuendo, a 298 year old newspaper article, some scrawling on the margins of an old map and a hunch.

 

[jorgeproctor]

I do believe that the number of ships in the 1715 combined fleet was 12 (including the Griffon). Not to mention that sources from elsewhere could have errors (notice that the map above, which includes that 14 ships from this fleet were lost, also includes the year for the disaster as 1716). But with that said, and playing devil's advocate, I do have a question regards Salmon's statement. Since it is being said that Salmon only account for 11 vessels, as the French ship was not officially part of the fleet, then, is it possible that there could have also been a merchant or two taking advantage of the fleet to travel back to Spain under their protection? If this was the case, and under the premise that Salmon only needed to account for the vessels under Ubilla's command, then there would not have been a need to account for these separate vessels, as, technically, they would not have been part of the fleet. This question is being asked with the "Buen Jesus" from the 1622 fleet (the Tortuga wreck) in mind. This ship was a merchant travelling with the 1622 fleet, and as such, he was not included on any of the original accounts of the fleet disaster. Because of this, its identity was not discovered until much later. Is there a possibility of a similarly unaccounted vessel on the 1715 fleet? Any thoughts

 

[Dell Winders]

In my opinion, there were 14 ships of the 1715 fleet. The Griffon, which survived, another in the Bahamas, and 12 ships wrecked off the Florida coast. I think you will find more than one ship wrecked near Douglas beach. Dell

 

[O2ptima]

Any of these sink a bit offshore?

 

[grossmusic]

in the book --the funnel of gold -- there are referances to the Spanish rep vale not being fooled by English govenor Hamilton --since VALE KNEW that the capt of the "English prize" vessel taken by Echeverz's pataches off south America for illegal trading * had stated that the ship could not be seized because it was 25% owned by Hamilton. ( they took it anyway-- but sent it directly to Havana with a small prize crew to avoid any "leaks" about it being taken * )

Sorry if this is posted twice - my first carefully composed message never showed up after I posted.

Bottom line...I can't find confirmation of any of this info in The Funnel of Gold. Is there another source you found this info in? I'd love to see a connection between Hamilton & a prize ship of the fleet.

 

[grossmusic]

Only 6 ships in Tierra Firme...

I knew there was a reason I had firmly concluded long ago that Echeverz had 6 ships in his flota...other than the seeming general consensus of data. There was a promotion & commendation given to Echeverz in 1717 by King Philip V in which Philip mentions the six ships and two sons lost. I need better translation, but "seis" is clearly six.

Here is a write-up; you can judge for yourself. If you can translate better, please share:

(...) los servicios en la Provincia de Tierra Firme, sus
aportaciones para reparar fortificaciones de presidios, etc. ,
desalojo de los escoceses del Darien (...) el contratiempo
que padecisteis en el año 1715 en la Canal y sitio del
Palmar de Ays donde viniendo de vuelta para España desde
Portobelo y Cartagena con seis Bageles con 150 infantes,
seis piezas de artillería de bronce (...)y otras cosas de
mi Real Servicio fracasaron todos los seis Bageles con
temporal, en cuya fatalidad perdisteis también dos hijos
ahogados y cantidad de frutos y generos. He tenido en
haceros merced de la Presidencia de mi Audiencia de
Guatemala cuando cumpla Don Francisco Rodriguez de
Rivas. Por tanto es mi voluntad que en llegando el caso
de la vacante de la dicha Presidencia entréis vos a servirla
por tiempo de 8 años (...). Dado en Madrid a veinteydos
de noviembre de 1717 Yo el Rey".

source: Archivo General de Indias. (1721). Expediente de información y licencia de
pasajero a indias de Antonio de Echevers y Subiza, presidente de la Real Audiencia
de Guatemala y Gobernador. CONTRATACION,5471,N.3,R.29


Google translation:

(...) Services in the Province of Tierra Firme, their contributions to repair fortifications prisons, etc.. , Eviction of Scots Darien (...) the setback that padecisteis in 1715 on Canal at Palmar de Ays site where coming back to Spain from Portobelo and Cartagena with 150 Bageles six infants, six pieces of artillery bronze (...) and other things from my Real Service failed all six Bageles temporary, whose fate also you lost two children drowned and quantity of fruits and genres. I had to make you the mercy of the Presidency of my Guatemala Hearing you meet Don Francisco Rodriguez Rivas. Therefore it is my will that in reaching for the vacancy of the presidency that you go in time to serve for 8 years (...). Given in Madrid veinteydos November 1717 I the King ".

 

[Jolly Mon]

Only 6 ships in Tierra Firme...

I knew there was a reason I had firmly concluded long ago that Echeverz had 6 ships in his flota...other than the seeming general consensus of data. There was a promotion & commendation given to Echeverz in 1717 by King Philip V in which Philip mentions the six ships and two sons lost. I need better translation, but "seis" is clearly six.

Here is a write-up; you can judge for yourself. If you can translate better, please share:

(...) los servicios en la Provincia de Tierra Firme, sus
aportaciones para reparar fortificaciones de presidios, etc. ,
desalojo de los escoceses del Darien (...) el contratiempo
que padecisteis en el año 1715 en la Canal y sitio del
Palmar de Ays donde viniendo de vuelta para España desde
Portobelo y Cartagena con seis Bageles con 150 infantes,
seis piezas de artillería de bronce (...)y otras cosas de
mi Real Servicio fracasaron todos los seis Bageles con
temporal, en cuya fatalidad perdisteis también dos hijos
ahogados y cantidad de frutos y generos. He tenido en
haceros merced de la Presidencia de mi Audiencia de
Guatemala cuando cumpla Don Francisco Rodriguez de
Rivas. Por tanto es mi voluntad que en llegando el caso
de la vacante de la dicha Presidencia entréis vos a servirla
por tiempo de 8 años (...). Dado en Madrid a veinteydos
de noviembre de 1717 Yo el Rey".

source: Archivo General de Indias. (1721). Expediente de información y licencia de
pasajero a indias de Antonio de Echevers y Subiza, presidente de la Real Audiencia
de Guatemala y Gobernador. CONTRATACION,5471,N.3,R.29


Google translation:

(...) Services in the Province of Tierra Firme, their contributions to repair fortifications prisons, etc.. , Eviction of Scots Darien (...) the setback that padecisteis in 1715 on Canal at Palmar de Ays site where coming back to Spain from Portobelo and Cartagena with 150 Bageles six infants, six pieces of artillery bronze (...) and other things from my Real Service failed all six Bageles temporary, whose fate also you lost two children drowned and quantity of fruits and genres. I had to make you the mercy of the Presidency of my Guatemala Hearing you meet Don Francisco Rodriguez Rivas. Therefore it is my will that in reaching for the vacancy of the presidency that you go in time to serve for 8 years (...). Given in Madrid veinteydos November 1717 I the King ".

Very nice confirmation.

Interestingly, even the original newspaper account in the Boston News Letter states there were 6 ships in the "Cheves'" squadron.

 

[Jolly Mon]

I do believe that the number of ships in the 1715 combined fleet was 12 (including the Griffon). Not to mention that sources from elsewhere could have errors (notice that the map above, which includes that 14 ships from this fleet were lost, also includes the year for the disaster as 1716). But with that said, and playing devil's advocate, I do have a question regards Salmon's statement. Since it is being said that Salmon only account for 11 vessels, as the French ship was not officially part of the fleet, then, is it possible that there could have also been a merchant or two taking advantage of the fleet to travel back to Spain under their protection? If this was the case, and under the premise that Salmon only needed to account for the vessels under Ubilla's command, then there would not have been a need to account for these separate vessels, as, technically, they would not have been part of the fleet. This question is being asked with the "Buen Jesus" from the 1622 fleet (the Tortuga wreck) in mind. This ship was a merchant travelling with the 1622 fleet, and as such, he was not included on any of the original accounts of the fleet disaster. Because of this, its identity was not discovered until much later. Is there a possibility of a similarly unaccounted vessel on the 1715 fleet? Any thoughts

Your thinking is exactly the same as mine.

Certainly there would be tremendous motivation to under report the total number of ships in the Flota.

I am not so sure it is impossible that a few small, privately owned vessels might not have been allowed to "tag along", yet not be included in the official accounts. And since they were not "officially" part of the fleet, they would have been free to break away at the earliest opportunity.

The story of the Buen Jesus from the 1622 fleet is extremely interesting...it seems to be at least one precedent for such a scenario...

I believe there is much we do not know regarding the Plate Fleets.

The English Governor of one of the Lesser Antilles stated in a letter in 1716 that ships of the Spanish Flota would voyage to those islands after clearing the Bahama Channel in order to trade clandestinely with the French before eventually returning to Europe !! This sounds crazy until you take the sailing conditions in the Caribbean into account...

 

[Jolly Mon]

Sorry if this is posted twice - my first carefully composed message never showed up after I posted.

Bottom line...I can't find confirmation of any of this info in The Funnel of Gold. Is there another source you found this info in? I'd love to see a connection between Hamilton & a prize ship of the fleet.

Extract of a letter from Don Juan Francisco del Valle to the Marquis de Monteleon. Jamaica, 18th March,1715/16. The writer was sent by the Governor of the Havana to the Governor of Jamaica to complain, that he suffered ships to be fitted out in the Island,under pretext of cruising upon pirates, but that instead of that they committed many hostilities on the ships and dominions of the King of Spain. That some of them had landed near the Havana and committed hostilities there. That on 26th Jan. one of these vessels arriv'd at Jamaica, who in company with another had cast anchor in the Canal of Bahama on the coast of Florida, near the Spanish camp, under Spanish colours, they laid still till night, and then landed their people,who the next morning march'd to the camp with their arms; upon which the Spanish Commanding Officer ask'd them, if it was war, they answer'd no, but that they came to fish for the wrecks, to which the Officer said, that there was nothing of theirs there, that the vessels belonged to his Catholick Majesty and that he and his people were looking for the said treasure; but seeing that his insinuations were of no use, he profer'd them 25,000 pieces of eight, which they wou'd not besatisfy'd with, but took all the silver they had and strip tthe people taking likewise away four small cannon, two of them brass, and nail'd two large ones (all which wereto defend a parapet they had thrown up to defendthemselves from the Indians.) They carried away to the value of 120,000 pieces of eight, besides the wrought silver, this is what the captors own themselves, from whence it is inferr'd, that there was a great deal more. That he demanded of Lord Archibald (1) that he shou'dissue a Proclamation agst. those who shou'd fit outvessels on the like account. (2) That one of the two English men of war that were then in Jamaica shou'd be sent to their camp to order all the privateers to return. (3) That the silver taken by these two vessels shou'd be returned. (4) That the captors shou'd be punish'd. That the 7th of Feb. another Spanish vessel came into this Port from Vera Cruz and was boundfor the Havana; a few days after she sail'd from hence she met with bad weather, which oblig'd her to throw overboard her guns and some of her cargo and being come in sight of the Havana she met an English ship,who was one of them who had been at the Spanish camp, the English sent on board her, and finding thatshe was loaden with silver, corn etc. they took her,alledging that this vessel was taken by the Spaniards on the coast of Porto Velo, with several goods on board,and that they wou'd keep her till restitution was made. This vessel was taken by the Spaniards being she was trading to places where strangers are not suffer'd to trade. That the English Captain had told him that the Govn'r owned a fourth part of his vessel. This vessel was worth 150,000 pieces of eight, several Gentlemen of Jamaica say publickly that the Governor is part owner of all the vessels which have been sent to our camp. That the inhabitants of Jamaica still went on to fit out privateers in the most publick manner. That their final answer was that what the two privateers had taken should be put into the Royal Treasury, until the Spaniards had made satisfaction to the inhabitants ofJamaica, for what they had taken from them.

From: 'America and West Indies: May 1716, 16-31', Calendar of State Papers Colonial, America and West Indies, Volume 29: 1716-1717 (1930), pp. 76-101.

 

[grossmusic]

Thank you for the info, Jolly Mon. Yes - Hamilton definitely had a stake in those ships that came to the camps after the wrecks & he lost his governorship eventually in part because of it.

I am under the impression that the "taken" ship mentioned to be noted in "Funnel of Gold" was one of Echeverz's flota. I infer this assertion to apply to ships involved IN the wrecks, saying that one of the ships Echeverz took off Portobelo (there were 3) had belonged in part to Hamilton - this would have been in 1714, before the flota went to Havana. I think there was original mention of Maria Galante.

Perhaps there is more on this in Laura Strolia's book about Marigalera. For some reason, I can't get a copy (not even from her). If anyone has it to check, maybe she came up with some proof that this was one of the prize ships Echeverz brought to Havana & sold to Ubilla to complete his half of the flota, & maybe she found documentation to state that Hamilton had been a co-owner of that frigate (or whatever kind of ship it was). ?

If this is true, it's a GREAT detail to know about, and I'd love confirmation of this as a fact. It could help tell us a lot more about these lost prize ships.

If anyone has a copy of Laura's book, I'd appreciate seeing it, even if it doesn't mention a connection to Hamilton.

 

[Jolly Mon]

Thank you for the info, Jolly Mon. Yes - Hamilton definitely had a stake in those ships that came to the camps after the wrecks & he lost his governorship eventually in part because of it.

I am under the impression that the "taken" ship mentioned to be noted in "Funnel of Gold" was one of Echeverz's flota. I infer this assertion to apply to ships involved IN the wrecks, saying that one of the ships Echeverz took off Portobelo (there were 3) had belonged in part to Hamilton - this would have been in 1714, before the flota went to Havana. I think there was original mention of Maria Galante.

Perhaps there is more on this in Laura Strolia's book about Marigalera. For some reason, I can't get a copy (not even from her). If anyone has it to check, maybe she came up with some proof that this was one of the prize ships Echeverz brought to Havana & sold to Ubilla to complete his half of the flota, & maybe she found documentation to state that Hamilton had been a co-owner of that frigate (or whatever kind of ship it was). ?

If this is true, it's a GREAT detail to know about, and I'd love confirmation of this as a fact. It could help tell us a lot more about these lost prize ships.

If anyone has a copy of Laura's book, I'd appreciate seeing it, even if it doesn't mention a connection to Hamilton.

This is a minor point, but I disagree that Hamilton "definitely" had a stake in any and/or all the ships that went to/ near " the Spanish camps" as Valle put it. From everything I have read, practically every merchant vessel going up the Bahama Channel was dropping by the Spanish wreck sites and snooping about.

What alarmed the Council of Plantations was Hamilton's signing of commissions and his support for "fishing" the wrecks and capturing Spanish salvage vessels on the high seas. He even recruited Royal Navy sailors into taking part. This disrupted legitimate trade and potentially even peace with the Spanish. Hamilton signed at least 10 commissions from what I can gather. Let's face it, as Governor of Jamaica he could have profited, "sold" these commissions without having an actual ownership interest in the vessels themselves. That he was alleged to have actual ownership in one of the vessels the Spanish could identify was simply a sordid little detail---and certainly not unusual in the context of the times.

Anyway, I understand your point and actually posted the extract from the Valle letter because I believe it may well be the original source of the confusion concerning Valle, Hamilton and the supposed ship seized by Echeverz prior to the disaster. The details are so close it seems incredible the same thing would have happened twice. I think the timeline may have been confused.

Good luck in your continued research !