It is evident, from this Account being seen in 1742, it is not the same from which the Translation is made which we now have, that being published in 1708. And as _Mons. de Lisle_ asserts, that the Letter is conformable with what _Mons. Ulloa_ said at _Paris_ three Years before, with this Difference only, that he said positively at that Time, that the Relation which he had seen at _Peru_, and of which he had taken a Copy, was of Admiral _de Fonte_, this Manuscript, which contained the Account of the Voyage, may rather be supposed to be a Relation, or Journal kept by some Person, who was aboard Admiral _de Fonte_'s Ship, a Friend or Ancestor of _Morel_, than a Copy the same with this Letter, as it only mentioned the Purport of the Voyage, seems not to have the particular Circumstances as to intercepting the _Boston_ Men. This Account is an Evidence so far in Favour of this Letter, as it proves that this Letter is not the only Account that there is of this Voyage, and that another Account was seen and copied at _Peru_ many Years after this Letter was published in _England_. But if it be supposed that it is one and the same Account, and that from the _English_, it would not have been accepted of and kept by _Morel_, and shewed as a Curiosity, unless he was satisfied that it was a true genuine Account of such Voyage, and as to which he would naturally inquire, being on the Spot, where he might probably be informed, and unless he was at a Certainty that what that Account contained was true, would he have produced the Manuscript, or permitted his Captain to take a Copy of it as genuine; yet we may with greater Probability suppose, that this Manuscript which _Morel_ had was no Translation from the _English_, but in itself an Original. Mons. _Ulloa_ speaking of _Morel_ as an antient Seaman, cannot mean that he was in the Expedition of _de Fonte_, only implies his being acquainted with some one who was, with whom, from his Course of Years, he might have sailed, and attained this Journal.
What is said in the Letter of Mons. _Ulloa_, that he forgot the Name of the Author of the Manuscript, but believes it was _Bartelemi de Fuentes_, that the Author of that Manuscript gave an Account of. It must be considered, that when Mons. _Ulloa_ wrote he was in _Old Spain_, many Years after he had seen the Account, and three Years after he was at _Paris_; and though he genteelly answers the Inquiries sent him, agreeable to his Conversation at _Paris_, yet does not express himself so positively as when at _Paris_, as in the Letter he only believes it to be _Bartelemi de Fonte_. _Mons. Ulloa_ would sooner not have answered the Letter than deny what he had formerly said; and if Mons. _de Lisle_ had advanced that for which he had no proper Authority, both as a Gentleman and an Officer he would not have submitted to such a Falshood: But from Mons. _Ulloa_ being tender in the Account, being of a Matter which might not make any great Impression on him at the Time he received it, ten Years since, out of his Hands, and three Years after he was at _Paris_, this Account is more worthy of Credit, and he might be more cautious, now he was to give it under his Hand, to soften the Reproach of his Countrymen for his not acting like a true _Spaniard_, in being so communicative in this Matter. The Account which Mons. _de Lisle_ hath given, was with a Permission of Mons. _Ulloa_ to make Use of his Name, as the Letter Mons. _Ulloa_ sent testifies. Where Mons. _de Lisle_ hath not the Liberty to mention the Name of his Author, he only says, that there was a Person equally curious, and as well instructed in the Affair as Mons. _de Ulloa_, who assured him positively that there was such a Relation.