The reason for the court's decision is closely linked to the question of whether the O Vaz de Lisboa was actually a Portuguese ship. In this context, it is important to note the country-specific flag laws. The following conditions had to be fulfilled in order to be allowed to sail under the Portuguese flag:  

A Portuguese ship had to be 1) of Portuguese construction, 2) of foreign construction acquired against payment of tonnage tax, or 3) legally captured and condemned in wartime. Furthermore, the ship had to be wholly owned by one or more Portuguese subjects or by a foreigner or foreigners naturalised in Portugal. Additionally, the captain and at least two-thirds of the ship's crew had to be Portuguese subjects (Testa 1882, pp. 59-60).

Important indications as to whether the conditions were met in the case of the O Vaz de Lisboa can be found in the transcripts relating to the interrogation of the crew members Joze Caravalho (‘official’ captain), John Davies (‘official’ first mate), Joze Deas Carvalho, and the ship’s boy John Davies on 21 May 1748.

The documents show that the brigantine previously sailed as the Enterprize under the British flag before being captured by the French in 1744, condemned as a lawful prize, and  then sold in Bayonne. Eleuterio Vaz Ferreira, a Portuguese merchant residing in Lisbon, is named as lawful and sole purchaser and shipowner, which seems to fulfil the conditions for origin and ownership. The information on the ‘nationality’ of the crew members, given in the interrogation transcripts, is not consistent, but it appears most likely that six of the nine crew members were Portuguese, including the ‘official’ captain Joze Caravalho. Two of the remaining men were said to be Irish and one - the ‘official’ mate John Davies – was Welsh. This suggests that the two-thirds ratio and the prescribed ‘nationality’ of the captain were likely maintained.However, a statement made by Joze Deas Carvalho is of great relevance:

“[…] [This] Deponent saith he knoweth not wether Jose Caravalho or John Davies was the master of the ship or vessel […], because the title of captain is generally given to them both. And whilst the ship was loading at Saint Lucar, the said Jose Caravalho worked and acted in the loading her as the mate of her, and the said John Davies lived all the while on shoar and sent his orders on board as master of her, and both of them paid him money there on account of his wages, and when she came to sea, the said John Davies was called mate, and the said Jose Caravalho was called master of her, and the said John Davies navigated her and carryed the command on board her and sometimes watched, and the said Jose Caravalho did not watch nor do any thing onboard her […].” (CP 4)

This statement indicates that John Davies acted as captain of the small merchant ship both on land and at sea, which leads to the assumption that he held this rank unofficially. A detailed examination of the Ship’s Papers confirms this. For example, certain wage agreements clearly show the ‘true hierarchy’ aboard the ship. While John Davies' monthly salary was 19,200 Réis, Joze Caravalho only received 10,500 Réis. The reason for the deception is obvious: as John Davies was not Portuguese, Joze Caravalho stepped into this position in a representative capacity. It is also apparent from the interrogation transcripts and confirmed by the Ship's Papers that Joze Caravalho was not the first man to hold this position aboard the O Vaz de Lisboa for such reasons. Previously, it was the Portuguese André Fernandez, a resident of Dublin, who officially held the position of captain due to his ‘nationality’.

Almost two and a half months had passed since the interrogations of the crew members on 21 May 1748, yet the High Court of Admiralty still not had reached a verdict. At present, Joze Caravalho seemed to have little hope a decision would be made soon, leaving him grappling with financial challenges. He had already tried to obtain financial assistance for his stay in Dover from the shipowner of the O Vaz de Lisboa and facing refusal, Joze Caravalho made a self-serving decision. On the evening of 5 August 1748, he approached James Goldfrap, who was present in the King's Head Tavern in Dover as an agent of the privateer Cambridge in a deputy capacity for her owners, with an offer: he and some of his crew would undergo another interrogation and testify in favour of the privateers in return for ten guineas for himself and seven or eight pounds for his crew. As reason for the offer, Joze Caravalho stated, ”[…] that it was to no purpose for him to stay there and be starved for that the agent for the owners of the ship and cargo would not supply him with necessary money to defray his and his crews expences.” (CP 14) Trusting the seriousness of the intention, James Goldfrap agreed to the terms and promised to pay out the money as soon as the “truth had been told.”  The very next day, on 6 August 1748, Joze Caravalho appeared accompanied by the two other crew members Joseph Mauriçio and Johan Francisco for the second interrogation.

The answers to the questions regarding the capture, crew and route of the ship are consistent to those given on 21 May 1748. The major and significant difference lies in the information about the ship and cargo owners. Instead of Eleuterio Vaz Ferreira, all three witnesses now named Phelipe Smith and Thomas Macores as owners of the O Vaz de Lisboa and the brandy. The transcripts provide the following information about the two men:

“[…] [They] are both natives of Ireland, naturalized in Spaine, and live with their wives and familys the said Philipe Smith at Cadiz and the said Thomas Macores at Seville in Spain and are subjects to the King of Spain”. (CP 12) Joze Caravalho added as a supporting argument that he had been appointed captain by Phelipe Smith and that the latter would pay the crew's wages. Furthermore, the document states about the brandy: ”And the said Phelipe Smith and Thomas Macores were the owners thereof, as he believes, because the said Thomas Macores and Bernard Fallon, who is the correspondent of the said Phelipe Smith and Thomas Macores, went to Seville in Spain and bought the same.” (CP12)

According to this information, both the ship and the goods would have been considered as having an enemy status owing to Spanish ownership, indicating a lawful capture. However, the credibility of this statement was greatly diminished by the fact that Joze Caravalho fled Dover the day after his second interrogation.

On 8 November 1748, John Davies was questioned about the second interrogation of Joze Caravalho. The associated transcript states:

“[…] and this Deponent also says that he has been credibly informed and verily believes that the said Caravalho was examined a second time before the Commission at Dover at the request of the agent for the privateer and that he was induced thereto for gain or reward for. He has been credibly informed that the said Caravalho received ten Guineas by the order of the agent for the Privateer and this Deponent also knows that a Debt of about Seven or Eight Pounds due to Sarah Fox Widow of Dover for the subsistence and Lodging of the crew of the O Vaz de Lisbon aforesaid was discharged by the order of the said agent for the Privateer.” (CP15)

With this statement, John Davies further undermined the credibility of Joze Caravalho's second interrogation, during which he officially provided the court with details of bribery. He also commented on Joze Caravalho's character, ”[…] that the said Caravalho, whilst he was at Dover, led a very loose, expensive and extravagant life.” (CP15) In doing so, he highlighted Joze Caravalho's selfish financial interest, which could have led him to provide false information against his employers. John Davies himself remained loyal during the entire court process. He consistently testified that Eleuterio Vaz Ferreira was the sole owner of O Vaz de Lisboa and that the brandy trade was legal.

The transcripts of the interrogations of 21 May 1748 show that, although John Davies was born in Wales, he had been residing in Dublin with his wife and children since at least 1746. Two letters give further insight into his family relationships.

On 21 March 1747, Eleuterio Vaz Ferreira wrote a Portuguese letter in which he expressed his confidence in John Davies, among other things. He stated: ”[…] pois por vossemecê ser meu afilhado emtendo que não poderey deixar de ser milhor satisfeito [...].” (”because you are my godson, I don't think I could have been happier […].“) (SPA5/9) Other sources show that John Davies himself could write Portuguese fluently and therefore probably also speak it. This proficiency in Portuguese suggests that he had strong ties to Portugal, which can be recognized in connection with the godfather relationship with Eleuterio Vaz Ferreira. Moreover, it is likely that this relationship is the reason why John Davies found his way onboard the O Vaz de Lisboa.

The second letter was written by William Fletcher on 5 April 1747. In it, he asks John Davies to visit him in Seville: ”If by any means you can come up to this town, I beg of you to do it […]. And if we shall not have the happiness, do intreat you, tho’ you’ve brought me letters from home, to sitt down for one half hour and write me an account of our family […]. (SP A5/11). In addition to the strong emotional value of letters as a connecting medium to home, it is clear from the lines that William Fletcher and John Davies not only had a close friendly relationship but were also both part of the same family circle. A fraternal relationship can be ruled out due to the different surnames and the greeting "your affactionate friend" used at the end of the letter. Furthermore, the letter states: ”I have wrote severall letters to your brother in law, but without answer, which was greatly surprizid as untill the other day, when I was informed, that was out of Madrid […], so if you write, send to me, and I will in charge it to friend in Madrid, who will forward it to whatever place he is in.” (SP A5/11) This sentence reveals that John Davies had a sister who lived with their family in Madrid. This means that John Davies' visible family network extends beyond Dublin to Lisbon, Seville and Madrid.

The information about John Davies' family relationships is not the only important aspect of the letter. Another detail is of particular relevance: The repeated mention of a ”rector” indicates William Fletcher's membership of San Patricio College in Seville, where he may have lived as a student of Catholic religious education. This, in turn, points to the integration of William Fletcher and, consequently, John Davies into the Irish networks in Spain.

The Irish in Spain

With the onset of the Anglo-Norman invasion in 1169, the history of Ireland and England (later Great Britain) was characterised for centuries by struggles for sovereignty and dominion. This was accompanied by religious conflicts that led to the oppression of the Irish in their own country (Murphy 2003, p. 560). While the reign of Elizabeth I (1533-1603) paved the way for Protestantism in England, the Irish clung to Catholicism (Greenblatt/Morrill). From the late 16th century onwards, the English-Irish conflict led to the emigration of many Irish people, which reached its peak in 1691, when Catholics were largely excluded from public life (Villar García 2006, p. 173; Murphy 2003, p. 560). Besides France, Spain emerged as a preferred immigration destination, which offered special privileges for the Irish due to and under the condition of Catholicism (Fernández Chaves/Gamero Rojas 2017, pp.149-151; Villar García 2006, p. 174). From 1701, for example, the Irish permitted to live and work in Spain without restrictions (Del Carmen Lario 2007, p. 211). They were also able to practise their religion freely in Spain and maintain the hope of bringing it back to Ireland one day. With this in mind, they founded colleges that promoted religious education for prospective priests at universities, like the San Patricio College in Seville (Murphy 2003, p. 569). However, students made up only a small proportion of the Irish in Spain. Far more Irish came to Spain to participate in international trade with the hope of prosperity - and many of them succeeded (Villar García 2006, pp. 173-175). In particular, their global networks, which were formed especially as a result of their expulsion, made the Irish in Spain successful merchants (Fernández Chaves/ Gamero Rojas 2017, pp. 146, 149).

Placed in this context, John Davies' family relationships appear in a different light. In regards to the function of marriage arrangements, it is possible that his sister was married with the aim of establishing connections in Madrid. Given that she had grown up in Carmarthen (Wales, Great Britain) like her brother, the geographical distance could be a further indication of this strategy. Additionally, the patronage between John Davies and Eleuterio Vaz Ferreira could also be understood in this context as a typical practice for the far-reaching networking of families.

The involvement of John Davies – and consequently, Eleuterio Vaz Ferreira as well – in Irish networks also explains their close contact with Phelipe Smith and Thomas Macores. It is known that both trading partners were among the more successful Irish merchants in Spain.

Literature recommendation: Fernández Chaves, Manuel Francisco/ Gamero Rojas, Mercedes: Nations? What Nations? Business in the Shaping of International Trade Networks, in: Herrero Sánchez, Manuel/Kaps, Klemens (Ed.): Merchants and Trade Networks in the Atlantic and the Mediterranean, 1550-1800. Connectors of Commercial Maritime Systems (Perspectives in Economic and Social History 47), London/New York 2017, pp. 145168.