Transcriber’s Note: Footnotes in this book have been renumbered
sequentially for the convenience of this e-text. Some, though, refer
to other footnotes by the original book’s footnote marker and/or page
number. Where this happens, the current number has been added in square
brackets (e.g. “see preceding page, note b [15]”) to enable the reader
to find the reference.
The University of Chicago
FOUNDED BY JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER
THE NOOTKA SOUND CONTROVERSY
A DISSERTATION
SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF ARTS
AND LITERATURE IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE
OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY)
BY
WILLIAM RAY MANNING
INSTRUCTOR IN HISTORY AT PURDUE UNIVERSITY; FELLOW OF
THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO, 1902 TO 1904
WASHINGTON
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
1905
XVI.--THE NOOTKA SOUND CONTROVERSY.
By WILLIAM RAY MANNING, Ph. D.
_Instructor in History at Purdue University; Fellow of the University
of Chicago, 1902 to 1904._
[The Justin Winsor prize of the American Historical Association was
awarded to the author of this monograph.]
THE NOOTKA SOUND CONTROVERSY.
By WILLIAM RAY MANNING, Ph. D.
CONTENTS.
Page.
CHAPTER I. Introduction 283
II. The English plans for occupying Nootka Sound 286
III. The Spanish plans for occupying Nootka Sound--The
conflicting claims before 1789 300
IV. Martinez’s operations at Nootka before Colnett’s
arrival 312
V. The quarrel and the seizure 331
VI. The English prisoners in Mexico 344
VII. Attempts at peaceable settlement 362
VIII. Europe prepares for war 380
IX. England’s first demand granted 395
X. America’s relations to the controversy 412
XI. The national assembly and the family compact--Effect
on the negotiation 424
XII. English ultimatum--Spanish defiance 439
XIII. The Nootka Sound convention--Its reception and results 450
XIV. Subsequent negotiations and final settlement of the
Nootka Sound dispute 463
Bibliography 472
PREFACE.
The French revolutionary period contains so much of greater importance
that historians have neglected the Nootka Sound incident. Of the
few writers who have discussed it, the majority have written from a
partisan standpoint, or, if impartial themselves, have drawn their
information from partisan pamphlets. The consequence is that many
errors regarding it have crept into the work of the best writers. The
purpose of this monograph is to give a more extended account, drawn
largely from unpublished sources, and to correct as many of the errors
as possible.
Besides working over the documents that have been published and the
accounts that have been written, a thorough search has been made in
the archives of the Indies at Seville, in the national historical
archives at Madrid, and in the British Museum and the public record
office at London. A less thorough search has been made in the archives
of foreign affairs at Paris and the archives of the Department of State
at Washington. More than 500 pages of unpublished documents relating to
the dispute have been transcribed and used. The classified bibliography
at the close will make clear the sources of information and their
relative value.
My acknowledgments are due to the following persons for valuable
assistance: To my wife, who worked with me continually for two and
a half months in the Spanish archives and the British Museum, and
who has criticised my manuscript and read the proof sheets; to Prof.
J. F. Jameson, whose untiring interest has been a constant source
of inspiration, and to whose aid and painstaking suggestions are
largely due any merits that the monograph may possess; to Prof. A. C.
McLaughlin, for research in the archives at Washington; to Prof. F. J.
Turner, for manuscripts and other material from his own collection.
Besides these, I wish to make special mention of the kindness and
assistance of Señor Pedro Torres-Lanzas, director of the archives
of the Indies at Seville, and of Señor Vicente Vignau y Ballester,
director of the national historical archives at Madrid.
CHICAGO, _July, 1904_.
CHAPTER I.
INTRODUCTION.
Nootka Sound is a small inlet on the western shore of Vancouver Island.
It was christened and made known to the world by Captain Cook in 1778.
A few years afterwards a flourishing fur trade sprang up between the
Northwest Coast and China. Nootka became the center of this trade,
though it remained for several years without any settlement except an
Indian village. On account of its sudden and growing importance, the
Russians, English, and Spaniards all laid plans for occupying the port.
It happened that all planned to carry out the project in the year 1789,
a year that meant so much for the subsequent history of the world.
Though the Nootka incident can make no claim to rank in importance with
the great events of that year, yet it was destined to have an influence
on the movements then started and to be influenced in turn by them.
The Russian plans were not acted upon, but the plans of the other two
were. An English expedition from India and a Spanish from Mexico each
sailed in the spring of 1789 to establish a colony at Nootka. The
promoters of neither knew anything of the other. The Spanish commander
arrived first and took possession. Nearly two months later the
Englishman came. A quarrel ensued. The Spaniard seized the Englishman,
imprisoned him, his officers and crew, and sent them to Mexico as a
prize. A consort vessel arrived a few days later and met the same
fate. Two other English vessels had been seized earlier. One of them
had been released on bond and the other had been confiscated without
adjudication.
The Viceroy of Mexico, instead of acting on his own responsibility,
reported the matter to the Government at Madrid. The Spanish Court
complained to the British that subjects of the latter had violated the
territorial sovereignty of the former, and demanded that the offenders
be punished to prevent such enterprises in the future. The British
Cabinet rejected the Spanish claim to exclusive sovereignty over the
territory in question, and suspended all diplomatic relations until
Spain should have offered a satisfactory reparation for the insult
which His Britannic Majesty felt that his flag had suffered. Each Court
refused to grant the demand of the other and stood firmly on the ground
originally taken. To support their respective claims, both Governments
made the most extensive armaments. Each nation also called upon its
allies for assurances of support and entered negotiations for forming
new alliances. For a time it seemed that all Europe would be drawn
into war over what, on the face of it, appeared to be an insignificant
quarrel between two obscure sea captains.
Speaking of the controversy Schoell says that a few huts built on an
inhospitable coast and a miserable fortification defended by rocks were
sufficient to excite a bloody war between two great European powers
and gave birth to a negotiation which for several months absorbed
the attention of all of the maritime powers of Europe.[1] Similar
statements were made by other writers within a few years after the
incident.[2] Most historians who have touched upon it have either
treated it from a partisan standpoint or have considered it of too
little importance to merit careful inquiry into the facts.[3]
But far from being merely a dispute over a few captured vessels and a
comparatively unimportant trading post, it was the decisive conflict
between two great colonial principles, of which England and Spain
were, respectively, the exponents. Spain still clung to the antiquated
notion that the fact of the Pacific Ocean’s having been first seen by
a Spaniard gave his Government a right to all of the lands of the
continent which were washed by it. This fact, added to the gift of
the Pope, was sufficient to convince the Spanish mind that Spain had
a valid title to the whole of the western coast of both Americas. On
the other hand, England had long been acting on the now universally
accepted principle that mere discovery is an insufficient title, and
that land anywhere on the globe not controlled by any civilized nation
belongs to that nation which first occupies and develops it.
The controversy is of further importance because of the fact that
it tested the triple alliance of 1788 between England, Prussia, and
the Netherlands. It also afforded the occasion for overthrowing the
Bourbon family compact of 1761. It marked the end of Spain’s new brief
period of national greatness, which had resulted from the wise reign
of Charles III. It was also the beginning of the collapse of Spain’s
colonial empire. Duro, one of the leading Spanish historians of the
present, says that it inaugurated a period of degradation disgraceful
to Spanish history, and began a series of pictures which cause anyone
to blush who contemplates them with love for the fatherland.[4]
The settlement of the controversy determined the subsequent position
of England and Spain on the Northwest Coast. Later, after the United
States had bought the Spanish claim, the Nootka Sound affair became
a part of the Oregon controversy. For a time the dispute threatened
to change the course of the French Revolution.[5] It menaced the
existence, or at least the expansion, of the United States. It promised
to substitute English for Spanish influence in Latin America.