HM Foreign Office Field Report (1928)

[caton]

Informe Field (1928)

The Foreign Office Report dated 29th February 1928 (by John W. Field) recognizes that:

“The believe that a secret compromise was carried out has been stated with decision both by British and Spanish historians, who had made a description of those transactions ”<br>
and states as follows:

“On 28th October 1790 a convention was signed between this country and Spain which article 6th established that none of the parts should establish in the future any settlement in the eastern or western coast of South America or adjacent islands to the south of those coasts and islands then occupied by Spain (...). By this article IT IS EVIDENT THAT GREAT BRITAIN WAS EXCLUDED OF OCCUPYING ANY PART OF THE FALKLAND ISLANDS. This treaty was abolished in October 1795 when Spain declared war against Great Britain BUT IT BECAME IN FORCE AGAIN by article 1 of the additional articles of the friendship and Alliance Treaty between Great Britain and Spain dated 5th July 1814, that was signed at Madrid on 18th july 1814”<br>

So much for your claim that not even the FO believes in it...

[Hutch]

Finally Javier, you return to writing about things connected with this forum. I thought we were doomed to get posts about the Iraq war, Churchill, Rhodes, UK- is- evil-and-i-have-proof, et al forever.

You've posted this before i remember. Its a nice little piece but not a 'smoking gun'

Lets look at it...

First of all whats the nature of the document? Is it a policy document? No. Is it a document from which action would be taken? No. Who is the report by? a JW Field-just who was he? The Foreign Secretary? Anybody important? Its a report-presumably internal- which contains the belief by some historians that there was a secret cluase in a previous treaty.

When is it dated? 1928. 77 years old-hardly representative of what the FO thinks now is it, or even in 1918 or 1938?

Is it representative of what the FO thinks? No. Its 77 years old and is not a policy document, but-as far as i can tell-an opinion piece.

"The believe that a secret compromise ..."

So its a belief not a fact then? And who believes this (in the report)?

"...both by British and Spanish historians..."

So essentially British and Spanish historians believe(d) that there was a secret clause. Not actually evidence is it, but belief? This report has relied on the belief of unnamed historians that there was a secret clause. No proof is presented.

What does the document refer to-events concerning Spain and GB-Argentina is conspicous by her absence.

If the treaty was abolished in 1795 and then reestablished in 1814 why would it still run when Spain has lost its S American Empire and left that part of the World?The treaty refers to Spain and Spain alone, not Argentina so when Spain left those lands the other power with a claim-GB's which precedes the existence of Argentina- would be free to come into force again.

This is certainly not proof that the FO does not believe in the claim. This is a decades old opinion piece which contains the belief of some historians and thats all. The most you can say is taht at least one person working for the FO in some respect in the late 1920's believed that some historians beliefs about the existence of a secret clause were correct.



Hutch

[Sea Eagle]

caton said:

Informe Field (1928)

The Foreign Office Report dated 29th February 1928 (by John W. Field) recognizes that:

“The believe that a secret compromise was carried out has been stated with decision both by British and Spanish historians, who had made a description of those transactions ”<br>
and states as follows:

“On 28th October 1790 a convention was signed between this country and Spain which article 6th established that none of the parts should establish in the future any settlement in the eastern or western coast of South America or adjacent islands to the south of those coasts and islands then occupied by Spain (...). By this article IT IS EVIDENT THAT GREAT BRITAIN WAS EXCLUDED OF OCCUPYING ANY PART OF THE FALKLAND ISLANDS. This treaty was abolished in October 1795 when Spain declared war against Great Britain BUT IT BECAME IN FORCE AGAIN by article 1 of the additional articles of the friendship and Alliance Treaty between Great Britain and Spain dated 5th July 1814, that was signed at Madrid on 18th july 1814”<br>

So much for your claim that not even the FO believes in it...

Javier,

I have really no idea why I should accept that a report made by a Foreign Office official in 1928 should influence current thinking on the situation of the Argentine claim given its content. As far as I can tell the report was never accepted or conceded by the then British Government as a recognition or proof of any Argentine Sovereignty over the Falklands. Nor has it been accepted as such by any British or Falklands Government ever since. Had it been you might have had a valid point to make.

This cannot possibly then have any bearing on the modern relationship between the United Kingdom, the Government of The Falkland Islands and the Republic of Argentina excepting that it confirms that the Convention was abolished in 1795 and as a generality along with others reinstated in 1814 at a time when it was completely irrelevant to the Falklands as Spain had no longer had any remaining recognisable authority over the Vice-Royalty of the River Plate since 1810. It was, as far as I can tell, merely the symbolic restoration of the status quo for previous Treaties as an act of reconciliation between the two States.

Certainly also it did not restore de-facto Spain’s previous status regarding North West North America from which Spain was now effectively excluded. In effect due to Spain’s weakness the Convention became a dead letter in 1795. If any other interpretation is to be put upon this event (1814) you would of necessity have to deny the validity of it for the very reason that Spain exercised no control over Argentina from 25 May 1810.

The situation is as it is de facto:-

' the Government of the United Provinces could not reasonably have anticipated that the British Government would permit any other state to exercise a right as derived from Spain which Great Britain had denied to Spain itself.'

It is one thing to claim inheritance from Spain, but quite another to claim retrospective inheritance.

I reiterate as I have before, there is no inheritance or obligation to honour or recognise treaties for colonies or states that have fought for and gained their independence from another state. They begin as a new nation with a clean state to make what treaties they will with whatever states they wish.

The claim of inheritance may well hold good for cultural matters but it means nothing for treaties and obligations. At best such a claim is merely a smoke screen to hide nationalist ambition and illegitimate claims of hegemony.

The 'Secret Promise' is another old canard that a man is reputed to have made to a man to which the Spanish king is reputed to have replied, when it was allegedly reported to him (not verbatim), 'O.K. lets restore the British to the Falklands and save our honour, we will negotiate their withdrawal at a later date'

What evidence of later negotiations?

Regards,

Ernie