Part 2

“Several great lords of Castile, irritated against their king, whose avarice they could not endure, had passed into the kingdoms of Navarre and Aragon, after having renounced their right of naturalisation by a public deed, a means formerly in use amongst those nations, in order not to be regarded as traitors and rebels when they quitted the states of their sovereign.... Among the grandees who came to take refuge in Navarre, the most illustrious beyond dispute was Don Diego de Haro. This lord had excellent qualities: never were seen greater constancy, probity, or zeal for the public service than his; the slightest injustice irritated him. It was in order not to see his country and freedom oppressed, that he abandoned Castile.”—_Mariana, History of Spain_, book XIII.

“In the year 1276, Alfonso the Wise had defeated Yussuf, the Emperor of Marocco, and made peace with him with the assistance of Guzman: a tournament was held in Seville in celebration of it, and King Alfonso having asked who had most distinguished himself, was told D. Alonzo Perez. He asked which of them, and D. Juan Ramirez de Guzman replied: ‘Alonzo Perez de Guzman, my brother of profit.’ This answer seemed ill to all, and especially to Guzman, who saw that a slur was cast upon the illegitimacy of his birth, for at that time they named children of profit (_gananciu_), those who were born of unmarried women, and his mother had not been married. Guzman, irritated at being thus spoken of before the king and the court, then said: ‘You speak truth, I am a brother of profit, but you are and will be one of loss; and were it not for the respect due to the presence in which we stand, I would teach you the manner in which you should treat me; but you are not to blame for it, but rather he who has brought you up and taught you so ill.’ The king, against whom this complaint appeared to be directed, then said: ‘Your brother does not speak ill, for so it is the custom in Castile to name those who are not children of women married to their husbands.’ ‘So also,’ he replied, ‘is it the custom of the nobles of Castile, when they are not well treated by their sovereigns, to go abroad to seek those who will treat them well; I will do likewise; and I swear not to return until with truth they may call me a man of profit. Grant me, therefore, the term which the privilege of the nobles of Castile gives, that I may go out of the kingdom, for from this day I disnaturalise myself, and take leave of being your vassal.’ The king attempted to dissuade him, but his efforts being in vain, he had to grant him the term which he asked for; during which Guzman sold all that he had inherited from his father or acquired in the war, and went out from Castile, accompanied by thirty of his friends and servants.”—Quintana, _Vidas de Españoles Celebres_.

There seems to be some inconsistency on the part of those who refuse to admit of disnaturalisation, yet at the same time maintain that rebellion can be justified. If there is a justification of rebellion, the right of expatriation, or of withdrawal from amongst those who provoke rebellion, must exist; and there can be no doubt that the peaceable withdrawal of those who are oppressed or injured is preferable in the interests of all to armed insurrection. Even Bishop Osorio and Mariana would probably admit that the disnaturalisation of Prim and Serrano would have been better than their treason, which has plunged Spain in anarchy and bloodshed for so many years.[3] Rebellions have almost always been conducted by minorities; and as their justification does not depend upon the numerical importance of those engaged in them, it would follow that in the case of disnaturalisation, where numbers are not requisite, as in the case of armed insurrection, the right would exist equally even if the minority consisted only of one.

There are some writers on the Law of Nations, with whom I am agreed in general, who disapprove of the Naturalisation and Disnaturalisation Act of the Session of 1869. I am compelled to differ from them with respect to that measure, for the foregoing reasons, and also because it seems to me that they have lost sight of another circumstance which affects the question. So long as kingly power was a reality, personal allegiance and duty to the sovereign was a reality also. But now that modern innovation and corruption have substituted the rule of majorities for the kingly power, the feeling of the personal duty of the subject is almost lost; and the subject, or citizen, has become only one of an aggregation of individuals, or of an association of persons with equal rights; and each member of such an association has clearly the right to choose whether he will form part of it or not: so that whatever rights of expatriation may have existed in the times of Magellan, Grotius, and Vattel, have become much stronger at the present time, when the conscience of the subject is no longer considered by some as held bound by duty to the sovereign, who has become almost impersonal: instead of loyalty and fealty, we have the duty of fair dealing as between partners and associates on equal terms, as is exemplified by the argumentation of Condorcet in the passage quoted above. That this view is in accordance with the common sense and consent of mankind is shown by the general repudiation of the pretension of the northern portion of the United States to term the secession of the southern states a rebellion; and this pretension was seen to be especially illogical on the part of those who had repudiated the name of rebels when they departed from the duty of obedience to their lawful sovereign.

Magellan has not had the good fortune of Vasco da Gama, whose exploits have been narrated by Camoens and Gaspar Correa; he did not survive to give his own account of his great voyage, and the only accounts preserved were written by two Italians of very small literary capacity. There are, however, more documents concerning Magellan in existence than are to be found with respect to Gama.

The birth-place of Magellan is doubtful; according to his will executed in Lisbon, December 29th, 1504, in favour of his sister, Theresa de Magalhāes, wife of Joan da Sylva Telles, he was born at Villa de Sabroza, in the district of Villa Real, Traz os Montes; in his will of August 24th, 1519, he calls himself “Vezino de Porto,” or domiciled at Porto; documents quoted by M. Ferdinand Denis make him to be born at Villa de Figueiro in Portuguese Estremadura. His family was “hidalgo,” with a known coat of arms, of which a plate is given in this volume.

The book of noble genealogies of Portugal, by Bernardo Pimenta do Avelar Portocarrero, states, in the vol. M, done and copied in the year 1721, fo. 641, that Ruy de Magalhaēs, whose parents are unknown, was Alcaide-mōr of Aveiro. He married Alda de Mesquita, daughter of Martin Gonzalves Pimentel and Ignez de Mesquita. Antonio de Lima (another genealogist) represents her as the wife of Gil de Magalhaēs, fifth son of Gil de Magalhaēs; and he gives her the same children as others give to Ruy de Magalhaēs: who had

Genebra de Magalhaēs, wife of Pero Cāo.

Fernāo de Magalhaēs, who married Da. Brites Barbosa, daughter of his relation Diogo Barbosa, alcaidemōr of Seville, in the absence of D. Alvaro of Portugal; he had

Da. Anna de Magalhaēs, his heiress, the wife of D. Hernando de Henao e Avila, from whom his lineage continues. She was his only child.

This does not agree with the archives of Seville, from which it appears that Beatriz Barbosa was daughter of Diego Barbosa and Maria Caldera, and that Fernan Magalhaēs and Beatriz Barbosa had a son named Rodrigo; and that after the death of these three, Diego Barbosa became their heir; and he having died in 1525, his son Jayme inherited.

Fernan Magellan executed a will in Seville on the 24th day of August, 1519. He instituted by it a mayorazgo for his son, grandson, or relation, who should bear the name of Magallanes, and who should be bound to live in the kingdoms of Castille. He also bequeathed a sum of 12,500 maravedis to the Convent of N. S. de la Victoria in Triana.

Two facsimiles of the signature of Magellan are given, one taken from his signature to the protocol of the Council of War, held at Cochim in 1510; there is also a facsimile of the signature of another Magellan, taken from the book of Moradias or Palace stipends, attached to a receipt printed by Navarrete, who appears to have supposed it to have been that of the navigator: and a facsimile of the signature of Magellan’s brother-in-law Duarte Barbosa.

Gaspar Correa states, in his _Lendas da India_, tom. II, p. 28, that, in January of 1510, Alfonso d’Alboquerque despatched the ships from Cochim to the kingdom.

“Two ships of Bastian de Sousa and Francisco de Sá convoyed this fleet, and at night they both struck on the shoals of Padua, which are opposite the Maldive Islands, and remained aground, upright, and without breaking up. Upon this they prepared the boats as well as they could, and raised their sides, and put inside water and biscuit, and victuals which did not require cooking. The captains and pilots, and as many men as could, got into these boats and returned to Cochym. The people who remained in the ships set shores[4] on each side of the ships, with the yards, which they cut. All this was arranged and commanded by an honourable gentleman, who remained as overseer, named Fernan de Magalhaēs, who had been much wounded in Calecut. He took much care that the chests should not be broken, and that there should be no robbery, because the captains were going to request ships of the governor, with which to return to the ships to save what goods had not been wetted. These captains reached Cananor in eight days, from whence they sent a message to the governor, who at once sent Gonzalo de Crasto in a caravel, with two pilots; and they went to the ships and put the best things on board the caravel, until they could not load it any more, and having recovered all the men, they set fire to the ships, as they were already full of water. So they returned to Cochim. In this Fernan de Magalhāes worked hard, and did much service, and attended well to everything.”

“This Fernan de Magalhāes was of the king’s household, and came to India with the Viceroy Dom Francisco [d’Almeida], and he was in the action with the Turks; and he was always much wounded in the fleets and in Calecut; and in these ships he lost his small portion of property,[5] and he went away poor to Portugal, and went about with claims for his services, and begged of the king a hundred reis increase of his palace stipend,[6] which the king did not choose to grant, at which he was aggrieved, and went to Castile to live at Seville, where he married. As he had much knowledge of the art of navigation, and enterprise, and devoted himself to that, he came to an understanding with the directors of the House of Trade of Seville, so that the emperor gave him a fleet of five ships, with which he navigated, discovering a new way to Maluco, which was in the year 1519, as I will relate further on in its place; with which he caused great difficulties to Portugal.”

Correa again refers to the incident of Magellan remaining with the wreck, in his tome II, p. 625, where he says:

“Fernan de Magalhāes, an honourable gentleman, who served in these parts in the time of the Viceroy Afonso d’Alboquerque, of whom I made mention in the first book, with respect to two ships which were going to the kingdom, which were lost on the shoals of Padua, and their captains went back to Cochym in their boats, and this Fernan de Magalhāes remained in the ships with the men taking care of the ships until caravels came from Cochim in which much property, belonging to the king and to private individuals, was saved. This Fernan de Magalhāes, on going to the kingdom and bringing before the king his services, asked in satisfaction for them that he should have an increase in his palace stipend of a hundred reis a month, which the king refused him, because he did not find favour with him, or because it was so permitted to be. Fernan de Magalhāes, offended at this, because he much entreated the king to do it, and he would not, asked his leave to go and live with whoever would show him favour, where he might obtain more good fortune than with him. The king told him to do as he pleased; for which he wished to kiss his hand, which the king did not choose to give him.”

Castanheda, in relating the wreck on the Padua banks, says (lib. III, cap. v):

“There were disputes as to who should go away with the captains from the grounded vessels, and Magellan said that it was clear that all could not go away, and that to avoid strife, which was commencing, let the gentlemen and chief men go away with the captains, and he would remain with the sailors and other common people, provided they would promise to return for him, or get the governor to send for him. This they swore to, and Fernan de Magalhāes stayed behind, the common people consented to remain, for otherwise there must have been strife. As Magalhāes was in the boat, when it was nearly ready to go away, a sailor, thinking that he repented himself of remaining, said to him: ‘Sir, did you not promise to remain with us?’ He replied: ‘Yes; and see, I am coming;’ and went to them and remained with them. In this he shewed great courage, and confidence in the men.” Barros relates the incident of the two vessels wrecked on the banks of Padua, and says that Antonio Pacheco was sent with a caravel to their assistance; and that:

“As much honour as Antonio Pacheco gained in the method with which he recovered these crews, with the differences which he had with them on account of some goods which the men took with them, so much honour also did Magellan gain by the good management of these men, which he shewed whilst waiting with them till they came to fetch them. And if he had had as much loyalty to his king and country, as he observed with a friend of his, on whose account he would not go away in company with Bastian de Sousa [the captain]; for they did not take away the other man, as he was not a man of much importance, perchance he would not have lost himself with a name of infamy, as will be seen further on.”—_Decad._ II, lib. IV, chap. i.

Thus Castanheda and Barros, who are both of them very hostile to Magellan, have preserved one of the finest traits of his life. Whether the motive of Magellan in remaining by the wreck was fidelity to the interests of his friend, or devotion to the common seamen, or the repugnance of an officer and a gentleman to abandon a ship which had not broken up, this trait is alone sufficient to show that he was incapable of disloyalty, or of being influenced by pique, as the Portuguese historians have represented.

The next mention we find of Magellan is in the following document, preserved in the archives of Lisbon, which contains an account of a Council of War held by Albuquerque respecting his attack on Goa. This document confirms what Correa says of Albuquerque’s departure from Cochym for Goa.

_Council held by Alfonso d’Albuquerque with the Captains with respect to going to Goa._

Torre do Tombo. Corpo Chron. Part 2_a_, Maç 23, Doc. 190.

Thursday, which was the tenth day of the month of October, of five hundred and ten, the captain-major ordered all the captains of the king our sovereign to be summoned in Cochim, in order to hold a council with them, to which council there came those named below, and no others. This council was as to whether, whilst the ships of burden remained in Cochim taking in their cargo, it seemed good to them to carry all their crews with them to the action of Goa, or not.

* * * * *

Fernan de Magalhāes said that it seemed to him that the captain-major ought not to take the ships of burden to Goa, inasmuch as if they went thither they could not pass this year to Portugal, since we are at the twelfth of October; and that, making their shortest course without touching at Cananor, nor at any other port, it was not possible to lay the fleet before the port of Goa before the eighth of November,* as the winds were now contrary for that place: and with respect to the crews, let his worship say whether it was well that they should go, that it seemed to him that he ought not to take them, since there did not remain time for them to lay out their money, nor to do anything of what was necessary for the voyage; and this said Fernan de Magalhāes.

The following gave an opinion:

Nuno Vaz, captain of the Rumesa. Antonio da Costa ... Rei Pequeno. Duarte da Silva ... Galé Grande. *Simāo Martins. *D. Joāo de Lima ... Sta. Maria d’Ajuda. *Sebastian de Miranda ... Galé Pequeno. Fernan de Magalhāes.[8] Jeronimo Teixeira ... Sta. Maria do Campo. *Jorge da Silveira. Francisco de Sousa ... Boa Ventura. *Manuel da Cunha. *Garcia de Sousa ... Sta. Clara. Francisco Corvinel ... Sant-Iago. Lourenço de Paiva. Antonio Real, alcaìde-mór and captain of Cochim. Gonzalo de Sequeira, captain-major of the fleet which had just come from Portugal. Affonso d’Albuquerque said at the end what he determined to do.

(N.B. Albuquerque said at the end of these opinions that he was determined to sail on the following day, the eleventh of October, with the captains who wished to accompany him. Therefore, _we are at the twelfth of October_, means that that day was close at hand, and not that the council was held on that day.)

Gaspar Correa says, tome II, p. 138:

“When this was thus ended, the governor told all the captains that he was going immediately, and that he would sail from Cananor with all the ships and men that he could take, and go and take Goa, as he trusted in the Lord’s Passion that He would assist him; and he gave them notice that so he would act, and not occupy himself with anything else: and he gave them all this notice, because he trusted in the Lord, that he should be able to send news to the king in these ships, that he was taking his rest inside the city of Goa: and, as it was already October, whoever had the will to serve the king, and win such great honour, as it would be to find oneself in such a noble action, would still have time enough to witness the action and return to embark in his ship, carrying away so much honour from having been present in the action: and each one was to act according to his own will, for he would give an account of all to the king in his letters. But the captains, occupied with their profits of selling and taking in cargo, set little store by this, and the governor departed, saying that he was not going to take anyone away with him against his will.”

Albuquerque then went to Cananor, which G. Correa says he again left on the 3rd October for Goa (tom. II, p. 140); _tres_ is probably an error for _treze_, the 13th, which would be in accordance with the statement of the document that Albuquerque sailed from Cochim on the 11th of October. Gaspar Correa gives the following names of captains who accompanied Albuquerque against Goa.

*Joan de Lima. Jeronymo de Lima, his brother. Manuel de Lacerda. Fernan Peres d’Andrade. Simāo d’Andrade, his brother. Diogo Fernandes de Beja. *Manuel da Cunha. Duarte de Mello. Francisco de Tavora. Vasco Fernandes Coutinho. *Gracia de Sousa. Gaspar Cāo. Lopo Vaz de Sampayo. Ayres da Silva. Diniz Fernandes de Mello. Joan Serrano. Diogo Mendes de Vascogoncellos. Pero Coresma. Baltesar da Silva. Mice Vinete Cerniche. Antonio Raposo. *Simāo Martins. Gaspar de Paiva. Francisco Pantoja. *Bastian de Miranda, d’Azevedo. Afonso Pessoa. Jorge Martins de Liāo. Francisco Pereira. Twenty-eight ships, and 1,700 Portuguese.

* The names marked with an asterisk are among those who gave an opinion at the Council of War above mentioned.

He also mentions, p. 145, the following gentlemen as being with Albuquerque in the attack on Goa:

Fernan Gomez de Lemos. Nuno Vaz de Castello Branco. *Jorge da Silveira. Ruy de Brito. Luis Coutinho, brother of Vasco Fernandes. Simāo d’Andrade, brother of Fernan Peres. Gonzalo d’Almeida. Simāo Martins Henriques. Payo Rodrigues de Sousa. Diogo Pires de Miranda. Duarte de Mello. Alvaro Paçanha. Luis Preto. Pero d’Afonsequa. Antonio de Matos. Antonio Diniz. And other gentlemen.

The supposition may be hazarded that it was this opinion which Magellan gave at the Council of War in opposition to Alfonso d’Albuquerque, which set D. Manuel against him. Such opposition was enough to have made Albuquerque write unfavourably of Magellan to D. Manuel; and the ill-will of D. Manuel to Magellan, and his refusal to grant him a due recognition of his services is not otherwise sufficiently accounted for. On the other hand, Gaspar Correa, who was Albuquerque’s secretary at one time, does not indicate this; but Correa is the most friendly to Magellan of all the Portuguese historians, and does not appear, like the others, to have taxed Magellan with treason.

After this, Magellan appears to have left India, and to have been stationed at Azamor in Morocco, where, in a skirmish with the Arabs, he was wounded in the leg by a javelin, which left him somewhat lame. After that, some disputes arose as to the distribution amongst the townsmen of some cattle that had been captured from the Arabs. When João Soarez, Captain of Azamor, left that place, and was succeeded by D. Pedro de Sousa, Magellan left Azamor without leave from D. Pedro de Sousa, and came to Portugal; his petition with regard to the increase of his palace stipend had already been sent to D. Manuel; but D. Pedro de Sousa having written to the king of Magellan having left Azamor without leave of absence, and of the complaints made about the cattle, the king refused to receive Magellan, and commanded him to return at once to Azamor, and there give himself up as he was accused. When he arrived there, as Barros says, either because he was free from blame, or, as was mostly asserted, because the frontier officers of Azamor, in order not to vex him, would not accuse him, he received a sentence of acquittal, and returned with it to Portugal; but the king always bore ill-will to him, and, Magellan’s requests not being granted, he set about that business of which he had written to his friend Francisco Serrano, who was in Maluco.

After Magellan had disnaturalised himself, he took refuge in Spain, accompanied by the astrologer Ruy Faleiro, and having arrived at Seville on the 20th of October, 1517, he entered upon negotiations with the ministers of Charles V; and the King of Portugal did his utmost, through his agents, to thwart him; Osorio says that the king would have succeeded in dissuading Charles V from employing Magellan, had not the Spanish nobles persuaded him not to lose such an opportunity of increasing the Spanish empire. Charles V then ordered ships to be provided for Magellan, by which he might discover a new way to the east.