nd
by our ships, since possession of it was taken and made in our name,
holding it and possessing it, as now we hold and possess it, and having
power to surrender it, if supplication is made to us. It appearing
to fall within the demarcation of the most serene King of Portugal,
it follows from this, that supplication must be made to us by him,
and if it is found to lie within his demarcation, he must receive it
from us, and not we from him, in accordance with the said treaty,
which being understood to the letter, as the ambassadors petition,
thus proves and determines the question.

It was especially declared that we, in this reasoning, made no request
of the King of Portugal. And inasmuch as we were the defendant we
neither wished to, nor ought we to have any desire to assume the
duties of the plaintiff, because if the King wished anything from
us for which he should petition us, we were quite ready to fulfil in
entire good faith all the obligations of the said treaty.

Furthermore it was declared that, supposing--which is not at all
true--that the King of Portugal had found Maluco first, and that he
should claim that we should restore it to him, asserting that he had
been despoiled of it by our having taken possession of it on our own
authority, when we should have petitioned and received it from him;
or alleging that we did not disturb or trouble him in the possession
of what he does not have, nor ever had in his possession, it was quite
clear that the case was not comprehended in the said treaty. Neither
was it provided for nor determined in the treaty, which was not to
be extended, nor did extend to more than was expressly mentioned and
set down therein, which it did determine. Rather this appeared to be
a new case, omitted and unprovided for by the treaty, which must be
determined and decided by common sense or common law.

Accordingly, since this matter was outside of the said treaty, we
were not bound by the treaty, nor in any other manner to leave our
right unexamined, nor was it either reasonable or proper to restore
immediately in order to have to petition later, thus making ourselves,
contrary to all ideas of equity and good faith, original criminal,
prosecutor, or plaintiff; especially as it would be impossible or very
difficult to recover what we should restore. For this very reason even
the restitution of what was well known to be stolen was deferred by
law, until the case of ownership was decided.