MARTINEZ’S OPERATIONS AT NOOTKA BEFORE COLNETT’S ARRIVAL.
It was on the 5th[82] of May, 1789, that the Spanish ship anchored in
Friendly Cove of Nootka Sound bearing Martinez with his instructions
for occupying the port and planting a permanent colony that should be
a substantial proof of the Spanish claim and serve as a center for
spreading Spanish sovereignty over all the coast. Just ten days before
this[83] Colnett had sailed from China with instructions and equipment
to make it, an English port.[84] During the next two months, while
the Englishman was crossing the Pacific, the Spaniard was making good
use of the time. When the latter reached Nootka there seems to have
been no visible sign that the English had ever occupied the place or
even intended to occupy it. The only evidence of civilization was one
vessel under a Portuguese captain with Portuguese instructions and a
Portuguese flag. It soon became known that there was also an American
ship a few miles away up the sound.
It has never been conclusively proved that the house which Meares
built the summer before had entirely disappeared. In a letter written
three years later to the Spanish commandant at that time the American
captains, who had spent the winter of 1788-89 at Nootka, declared that
when Martinez arrived there was no trace of Meares’s house in the cove;
that there had been a house, or rather a hut, when they arrived in the
fall, but that, prior to his sailing for the Sandwich Islands, Captain
Douglas had pulled it to pieces, had taken the boards on board the
_Iphigenia_, and had given the roof to Captain Kendrick, who had used
it as firewood.[85]
While there is no proof that the statement of these gentlemen is not
true, yet they were too plainly prejudiced in favor of the Spanish
to permit their testimony to be taken for its full face value in the
absence of any corroborating evidence. There is, however, some indirect
evidence to support their statement, and its value is the greater
because of its being indirect, and still greater because it comes
from the side of the English to whose interest it would have been to
maintain the contrary. This appears in the extract which Meares quotes
from the journal of the _Iphigenia_. In the entry made two days after
his return from the Sandwich Islands and two weeks before the arrival
of Martinez the writer says: “[We] sent some sails on shore and erected
a tent to put our empty casks in.”[86]
If their house had still been standing they would doubtless have
used it for this purpose instead of erecting the tent. Further, the
fact that no mention is made of the house in this journal is pretty
conclusive proof that it was not in existence on their arrival.
Meares’s narrative of the departure of the _Iphigenia_ in the preceding
autumn is silent on the subject. In fact, there is no statement made
even in Meares’s memorial that his house was still standing; but the
memorial is so written, doubtless intentionally, that the casual
reader would infer that the house was still there and that evidences
of English occupation were unquestionable. This is doubtless what has
led most historians who have touched upon the subject, among whom are
some of the best, into the error of implying or openly declaring that
there was a substantial English colony when the Spanish expedition
arrived.[87]
It was also this failure of Meares to tell the whole truth that led
the British Parliament and ministry into the error of believing that
their rights to the place were unquestionable and that the conduct of
the Spanish commandant was little better than high-handed robbery.[88]
It is, then, pretty safe to assert that there was no indication
whatever of English occupation when Martinez arrived, and that he was
consequently perfectly justified in taking possession for Spain and in
maintaining his position by force if it should become necessary. The
question, therefore, is not, Was he justified in his first act? but,
Were his subsequent acts of violence necessary to maintain his position?
Captain Kendrick, of the American ship _Columbia_, which Martinez found
at Nootka, and Captain Gray, of her consort, the _Lady Washington_,
which was out on a trading cruise at the time, were slightly involved
in the relations between the Spanish and English commanders. But the
vessel under Portuguese colors furnishes the center of interest for the
first month of Spanish occupation.
This vessel was the _Iphigenia_, which had sailed from China in company
with the _Felice_, under Captain Meares, in the spring of 1788, but
which had separated from the latter vessel, had spent the summer in
trading on the coast of Alaska and had rejoined her consort in the
autumn at Nootka, where they again separated, the _Felice_, under
Meares, sailing for China with the furs collected by both vessels, and
the _Iphigenia_, under Douglas, accompanied by the small vessel, the
_Northwest America_, built at Nootka during the summer, going for the
winter to the Sandwich Islands.[89] Returning to the American coast in
the spring of 1789, the _Iphigenia_ had reached Nootka sixteen days
before the arrival of Martinez. Four days after her the little vessel,
her consort, arrived, and preparations were immediately made to send
the latter out on a trading cruise, that they might not be worsted
in competition by the American sloop, the _Lady Washington_, which
had just returned from a six weeks’ cruise to the southward and would
soon set out on a similar trip to the northward. In four days more the
necessary repairs were made, and on April 27 the _Northwest America_
set out to trade with the natives to the northward,[90] not returning,
and consequently not being of any further interest for six weeks, at
the end of which time she assumes considerable importance.
The double national character of the expedition to which the
_Iphigenia_ belonged has already been discussed.[91] When, on May 5,
the Spanish ship appeared, it was evidently thought better--for reasons
which are not disclosed--to present the appearance of a Portuguese
rather than an English ship. During the first few days all of the
commanders seem to have been on the best of terms. According to the
journal of the _Iphigenia_, Douglas was invited to dine on board the
Spanish ship on the day of Martinez’s arrival. Three days later the
officers of the _Iphigenia_ and of the Spanish vessel all went to
dine with Kendrick, the captain of the American ship, and the next
day the officers of the American and Spanish ships dined on board the
_Iphigenia_.
Thus, up to the 9th of May the utmost harmony prevailed. Douglas had
acquainted Martinez with the distressed condition of his ship and the
latter had promised to relieve him as far as lay in his power. On the
8th the Portuguese instructions and passport of the _Iphigenia_ had
been presented to Martinez.[92] These seem to be what started the
difficulty. In his account to the Viceroy, Martinez says:
On my arrival in it [the port of San Lorenzo de Nootka] I found a
packet boat, with its captain (flag) and passport of the Portuguese
nation, but its supercargo (who was really the captain), its pilot,
and the greater part of its crew English.[93]
The passport was signed by the governor and captain-general of the port
of Macao, in China, and began:
Be it known that from the port of this city is sailing for the
coasts of North America the sloop named the _Iphigenia Nubiana_. It
belongs to Juan Carvalho,[94] a subject of the same master of this
port, and is of 200 tons burden having artillery, powder, balls,
arms, and munitions necessary for its defense, and carrying as its
captain Francisco Josef Viana, also a subject of the same Crown, and
of competent ability.[95]
The instructions were addressed to Viana, captain of the sloop
_Iphigenia Nubiana_, and signed by Juan Carvalho. Besides the
perplexity of the double nationality of the vessel, Martinez’s
suspicions were aroused by what he considered an obnoxious clause in
the instructions. It read:
In case of your meeting on your voyage with any Russian, Spanish,
or English vessels, you will treat them with the greatest possible
friendship and permit them (if they demand it) to examine your
papers that they may see the object of your voyage, taking care at
the same time to avoid surprise, if they should attempt to divert
you from your voyage. In such case you will resist force by force
and protest against such violent and illegal proceedings before
a tribunal at the first port in which you arrive, giving also an
estimate of the value of the ships and cargoes. You will send to us
at Macao a copy of said protest, with a narrative of all that shall
have occurred, and another such to Francisco Josef Bandieras and
Geronimo Ribeiro Nores, our correspondents at Lisbon, and likewise
to the Portuguese ambassador, at the Court of the nation of the
aggressor, in order that our Sovereign may demand satisfaction. If,
perchance, in such conflict you should have the superiority, you
will take possession of the vessel and its cargo, conducting them,
with the officers, to Macao, in order that they may be condemned as
legal prize and the officers and crew punished as pirates.[96]
Rightly or wrongly, Martinez thought that these instructions justified
him in demanding an explanation. Since this is the first of the vessels
seized, and in order to show that the Spanish commander considered that
he was acting under instructions and with full authority, the whole of
the first of a series of affidavits regarding the affair is here quoted:
On board the frigate of His Majesty named _Our Lady of the Rosary_,
alias the _Princesa_, on the 13th[97] day of the month of May,
1789, I, an ensign of the royal navy, Don Esteban José Martinez,
appointed commander in chief of this expedition by the most
excellent Señor Viceroy Don Manuel Antonio Florez for occupying and
taking possession of this port of San Lorenzo de Nootka, where I am
anchored, declare: That, in virtue of the Instructions and other
superior orders, dated the 23d of December of the year last passed,
1788, and according to an order of His Majesty in Arto. 17, Tito.
5, Trato. 6, of the royal orders for the navy, I ought to order
and leave ordered to appear before me Don Francisco Josef Viana,
an inhabitant of Lisbon and captain of the packet boat named the
_Iphigenia Nubiana_ coming from Macao, which I found on the 5th of
the present month anchored in this aforesaid port, and likewise that
he should be accompanied by the so-called supercargo, M. William
Douglas, in order that each one, in so far as he is involved, may
vindicate himself, in view of the charges which I have to make
against them, according to the cited article of the royal orders,
on account of sections 18 and 19 of the instructions which the said
captain presented to me on the 8th of the present month.
This affidavit was signed by Martinez before the notary, Canizares.
Following it is one by the interpreter of the expedition saying that he
delivered the above order, and then comes a long one giving an account
of the interview that followed.
Viana, the captain, Douglas, the supercargo, and Adamson, the first
pilot, immediately answered the summons, and repaired on board the
_Princesa_. Martinez began by demanding an explanation for their
having anchored in a port of the Spanish dominions without a license
from that Monarch. They replied that they were there in virtue of their
passport from the governor of Macao; that, as to this port’s belonging
to the Spanish dominions, they were ignorant of it, since the fact
had not been published at the European Courts; and that they were
informed by the first article of their instructions that this coast
had been discovered by the Portuguese Admiral Fonte in 1640.[98] To
this last Martinez responded that Portugal was at that time under the
dominion of Spain. He likewise charged them to tell who this Carvalho
was that had given such despotic instructions as the minister of a
sovereign would hardly have given; to which they answered that he was
the owner of the vessel. He then charged them with articles 18 and 19
of their instructions (the objectionable clauses quoted above). They
replied that the articles in question had been misinterpreted; that
they ordered Viana, in case his crew mutinied and he met with the
vessel of a foreign nation, to appeal to that vessel for assistance
in imprisoning his own crew and conducting them to Macao, and that
the mutinous crew were the ones to be punished as pirates. Martinez
insisted that this was not the true import of the articles, but a
clumsy pretext. Considering their defense unsatisfactory, according to
the cited article of the orders for the royal navy, Martinez demanded
in the name of the King that they should surrender themselves as
prisoners of war. The affidavit giving account of this was signed by
Viana, Douglas, and Martinez before Canizares.[99]
This is Martinez’s account of the arrest, written at the time or very
soon thereafter, since it bears the signature of Viana and Douglas,
and they would have been most unlikely to sign it if they had not been
compelled to do so while in captivity. It is very doubtful whether
Martinez was truthful in his report of the clumsy fabrication offered
by Viana and Douglas in defense of the objectionable clause. To have
offered such, expecting it to be believed, they would have had to be
either very stupid or absolutely certain that Martinez and all his
associates were entirely ignorant of the Portuguese language--a very
unlikely circumstance. This false defense may have been invented by
the Spanish commander to give more color to the justice of the arrest.
It would be more charitable and possibly more just to suppose that
owing to his imperfect understanding of the language that they used,
or its imperfect translation by his interpreter, he understood them
to say this when they really said something very different. It is
quite evident that his first translation of what he considered the
objectionable clause in their instructions was incorrect. For in his
rendering of it in the above account of the investigation he makes the
clause read that Viana was to treat with respect all English, Russian,
and Spanish vessels whose force was superior to his own, but, if he
had the superior force, he was to seize them and carry them to Macao,
where their crews should be tried as pirates. This is what he referred
to when he spoke of their being so despotic. It is impossible to
understand how, in a correct translation, he could have seen anything
so obnoxious as he claimed to see. If, however, this rendering had been
the correct one, it would have made the _Iphigenia_ virtually a pirate
ship, and Martinez would have been fully justified. But if his first
translation was faulty, his later one was correct, as will be seen
by comparing the quotation from it given above with the instructions
of the Merchant Proprietors to Meares, the English commander of the
expedition. They correspond almost word for word, differing only in the
details necessary to give the appearance of a Portuguese instead of an
English expedition.[100]
This error of Martinez is brought out in Douglas’s account of the
investigation. He says:
[Martinez] told me my papers were bad; that they mentioned I was to
take all English, Russian, and Spanish vessels that were of inferior
force to the _Iphigenia_, and send or carry their crews to Macao,
there to be tried for their lives as pirates. I told him they had
not interpreted the papers right; that though I did not understand
Portuguese I had seen a copy of them in English at Macao,[101]
which mentioned, if I was attacked by any of those three nations,
to defend myself, and, if I had the superiority, to send the
captain and crews to Macao to answer for the insult they offered.
The padries and the clerk read the papers over, and said they had
interpreted the papers right.[102]
The American commanders say that the capture was due to a
misinterpretation.[103] If Martinez did make this mistake and later was
led to restore the vessel by the discovery of it, he remains entirely
silent regarding it, giving other reasons for the release, as will be
seen.
Between May 13, when the _Iphigenia_ was seized, and May 25, when she
was released, part of her officers and crew were detained on board
Martinez’s ship, the _Princesa_, and part on the _San Carlos_, the
other Spanish ship, which had reached Nootka a week later than the
commander’s. Of the conduct of the Spanish during these twelve days
while they held the _Iphigenia_ prisoner there are the most divergent
accounts in the different sources.
According to the account of Douglas, a deaf ear was turned to his plea
that he had been forced to enter the port because of the distress of
his vessel, which was such that, had he entered a port of the Spanish
dominions of South America he would have been allowed to repair his
damages and depart in peace, and that consequently to take him
prisoner in a port to which the King of Spain had never laid claim
was a piece of injustice that no nation had ever attempted before.
His offer to leave the port immediately in spite of his distress, if
permission should be granted, was refused; he and his crew were most
inhumanely treated, and their valuable personal effects and even their
very clothes were stolen; Spanish colors were hoisted on their vessel
and it was looted of its provisions and articles for trading with the
natives and anything else that the Spaniards fancied. When his vessel
was restored a very meager supply of provisions was sent on board, and
an account presented which listed five times the quantity actually
sent and charged five times their cost; he was compelled to sign a
paper saying that Martinez had found him in distress and in want of
everything, had supplied him with all necessary to take him to the
Sandwich Islands, and had not interfered with his navigation; another
paper was forced upon him by which he agreed that, if his papers should
be found to be bad, the vessel was to be delivered up at Macao, and
before he was allowed to sail a letter was demanded from him to Captain
Funter, of the _North-West America_, ordering the latter to sell the
schooner to Martinez; but, not having authority either to sell or to
order another to sell, he said nothing in the letter that he left
about selling the vessel, but advised Funter to act to the best of his
judgment for the benefit of his employers.[104]
According to the account of the American captains, on the other hand,
the officers of the _Iphigenia_ “were treated with all imaginable
kindness, and every attention paid them.”
The vessel while in the possession of the Spaniards, from being a
wreck was put in complete order for the sea, being calked, rigging
and sails repaired, anchors and cables sent from the _Princesa_,
etc. On the 20th Don Martinez supplied them with every kind of
provisions they were in need of, for which Captain Douglas gave him
bills on Cravalia, the before-mentioned merchant of Macao. On the
31st the _Iphigenia_ sailed and was saluted by the Spanish fort,
and the commodore accompanied them out of the harbor, giving every
assistance with boats, etc. When Captain Douglas took his leave of
the commodore he declared he should ever entertain a sense of Don
Martinez’s kindness, deeming his conduct relative to the vessel
no more than his duty as a King’s officer. Upon the whole, we both
believe the _Iphigenia’s_ being detained was of infinite service to
those who were concerned in her.[105]
Vancouver, in giving the substance of a letter written later by Viana
to Quadra, represents Viana as saying that he was imprisoned, was well
treated, and on being liberated his vessel and cargo were completely
restored and he was furnished what he needed.[106]
It is plain that neither the account of Douglas nor that of the
American commanders can be accepted for its full value, but that the
truth lies between them. The fact that the former on his release turned
northward and spent a month trading, and later made a successful trip
to the Sandwich Islands and China, shows that his ship was not so
destitute of provisions as his journal would make it seem; and the
fact that he purchased a cargo of furs from the natives shows that he
had not been so nearly robbed of his articles of trade as he declared.
Further, knowing that this journal passed through Meares’s hands before
it was published, and knowing this gentleman’s tendency to distort the
truth, when there was a possibility of thereby strengthening his case,
one can not help suspecting that the journal was tampered with so that
it would exhibit Martinez’s treatment of the vessel in as unfavorable
a light as possible. But the testimony of the American commanders must
be discounted also, since their prejudice in favor of the Spaniards is
very conspicuous. This would be suspected because of their intimacy
with Martinez; but the extravagant statements of the letter itself show
a decided prejudice. It was written three years after the events which
it discusses, and errors in date indicate that it was produced merely
from memory. The statements from Viana’s letter are too indirect to be
of much value.
In the series of affidavits which Martinez submitted to the Viceroy
concerning the arrest and detention of the vessel, there is what
appears to be a wholly unimpassioned account. These affidavits seem
to have been written and sworn to before the notary, each on the
day on which the event that it records occurred. The first one, in
which Martinez gives his reasons for calling to account the officers
of the _Iphigenia_, is quoted in full above. The second, in which
the interpreter says that he delivered Martinez’s orders, has been
referred to, and the substance has been given of the third which
recounts the investigation of Douglas and Viana and their arrest. The
fourth tells of the formal act of seizing the vessel, the replacing
of the Portuguese colors by the Spanish, and the imprisonment of the
crew. These four are dated May 13. A letter to Martinez, dated May 15,
written by Tovar, who had been placed in command of the captured ship,
tells of a bundle of papers which he had found belonging to Douglas.
In the fifth affidavit, dated May 16, Martinez says that in view of
this letter of Tovar he had ordered the papers of Douglas to be taken
in charge, and the sixth affidavit, of the same date, is signed by the
English interpreter and says that no suspicion attached to Douglas’s
papers.[107]
On May 17, in the seventh affidavit, Martinez says that on account of
the difficulty of sending the captured vessel to San Blas, owing to the
scarcity of men to man her, he has concluded to release her, but has
ordered an inventory to be made, that he may bind the owner to pay the
value of the ship and cargo in case the Viceroy shall declare her to
have been good prize. The inventory was completed May 22, and signed on
board the _Iphigenia_ the same day by Tovar, the temporary commander,
and by Viana, the Portuguese captain, in whose presence it had been
made. The eighth affidavit, signed on May 25, declares that the
inventory should be embodied in the account. An itemized list follows,
covering five pages of manuscript and indicating that the _Iphigenia_
was by no means destitute of general supplies, though there might have
been a lack of those necessary to man the ship. Immediately following
the inventory is the bond signed by Viana and Douglas, captain and
supercargo of the _Iphigenia_, for Juan Carvalho, the owner, and by
Kendrick and Ingraham, of the American ship, as witnesses, and finally
by Martinez, all in the presence of Canizares, the notary. This
obliges the owner to pay the value of the ship and cargo, as shown by
the attached inventory, in case the Viceroy should decide that the
vessel was good prize on account of having been found anchored in the
port of Nootka without having a passport, permission, or license from
His Catholic Majesty for navigating or anchoring in seas or ports
belonging to his dominion.[108] The ninth affidavit, signed May 26,
formally submits to the Viceroy the preceding account of the measures
taken in view of the instructions submitted by the captain of the
_Iphigenia_.[109]
On May 31, after a dinner on board the Spanish commander’s ship,
at which the _Iphigenia’s_ officers and those of the American ship
were present, the _Iphigenia_ was accompanied out of the harbor by
the officers of the other two, and, after a farewell salute from the
Spanish guns, sailed away, ostensibly for Macao, by way of the Sandwich
Islands. At midnight Douglas gave orders to turn north for a trading
cruise, having, as he says, “no idea of running for Macao with only
between 60 and 70 sea-otter skins which I had on board.”[110]
* * * * *
The next occurrence of interest at Nootka was in connection with the
_North-West America_. Mention has been made of Martinez’s futile
attempt to get a letter from Douglas ordering Captain Funter to sell
the schooner to Martinez. It will be recalled that this vessel, on
returning from the Sandwich Islands, had reached Nootka four days
later than her consort, the _Iphigenia_, had been repaired as soon as
possible, and had set out on a trading trip before the arrival of the
Spanish commander. Having carried on a profitable trade for six weeks,
and being seriously in need of provisions, she returned to Nootka June
8 in hope of meeting there the vessel that was expected from Macao
with stores. For some reason not wholly plain Martinez took possession
of the schooner as soon as she arrived. Meares says that the Spanish
commander was angered when he learned that the letter which Douglas
had left for Funter was not the desired order for the latter to sell
his schooner, and gave vent to his anger by seizing the vessel.[111]
The American captains say that when Martinez learned later of the
bankruptcy of Carvalho, on whom he had accepted bills in payment for
supplies furnished to Douglas, he justified himself as holding the
schooner in security for the debt.[112] Martinez gives a partial
explanation in an affidavit of June 12. Learning, he said, that the
schooner belonged to Carvalho and was connected with the _Iphigenia_,
which he had seized on account of her instructions, he therefore took
possession of this vessel also, and submitted an inventory to the
Viceroy, together with that of the larger ship. He fails to explain
why he did not release her; but he doubtless considered explanation
unnecessary, since he had given as his only reason for not detaining
the larger vessel his inability to man her.[113] He would not have been
consistent in not detaining her unless he had released her also on
bond; and there was no need for doing that, since she required so few
men. Doubtless the other two motives suggested had their influence also.
The English commanders give the same extravagant account of robbery
and barbaric treatment at the hands of the Spaniards that were given
in the case of the other vessel--the Spanish flag was hoisted; the
officers and men were imprisoned; the vessel was repaired, refitted,
rechristened the _Gertrudis_ and sent on a trading trip for the benefit
of the Spaniards, in which they bartered away the articles of trade
that they found on board; every possible effort was made by bribery and
intimidation to induce Funter and some of his men to man the vessel for
the Spaniards and show them where trade was good, but without avail;
the men were kept in confinement for a month and then shipped for
China on board one of the American vessels, which they were compelled
to assist in manning to keep from being wrecked.[114] It must be
admitted that at the best the provocation was sufficient to excuse some
exaggeration, which is the more to be expected when it is noticed that
the account was not written until several months after the occurrence
of the events recorded. But that the Spanish commander meant to show
a certain amount of justice and even generosity is evident from the
fact that he later transferred to another English vessel all of the
furs collected by the schooner except twelve, which were either lost
or detained by the Spaniard.[115] And still later, when Funter and
his men were sent to China on the American vessel, Martinez shipped
to their credit 96 skins to pay their wages besides the cost of their
passage.[116] He also transferred provisions from an English ship to
the American captain for the maintenance of Funter and his men.[117]
The purpose seems to have been to punish the owners, but to avoid
working immediate hardship to the officers and crew.
* * * * *
Another event of the Spanish operations is the taking formal possession
of the port, which occurred June 24.[118] In the seven weeks that had
intervened since the arrival of the Spanish expedition, besides the
seizure and disposition of the two vessels just discussed, a fort had
been constructed on the top of a high hill which commanded the entrance
to the port, and had been occupied by a garrison and a battery of ten
cannon. Three houses had also been built--a workshop, a bakery, and a
lodging house.[119] The ceremony had not been performed earlier because
they were awaiting the arrival of the _Aranzazu_, that it might be
given greater solemnity; but that ship not coming, it was decided to
delay no longer.[120] The instrument of possession is a long, very
formal, and high-sounding document. The right of Spain is based on the
discovery of Nootka in 1774 and the bull of Pope Alexander VI of May
4, 1493. The instrument bears the signatures of Martinez and Haro,
commanders of the two vessels; of Tovar, the first pilot; of the two
chaplains, and of the four missionaries, and is attested by Canizares,
the notary.[121] From the fort and the vessels a salute of 21 cannon
was fired in honor of the King, and at a splendid banquet on board the
commander’s ship all of the officers of the Spanish ships, and several
foreigners, drank to that sovereign’s health.
These foreigners, Martinez says, were of the English nation and the
American Congress [Colonies], and the ceremony was performed without
any contradiction by them.[122] Through Kendrick and Ingraham, officers
of the American ship, he had made the Englishmen understand that the
Spaniards had been the first discoverers of the port. He had proved
this by having the Americans--since they also understood the Indian
dialect--talk with the natives, who had described the clothes of the
first comers. And as a further and more conclusive proof he laid before
the Indians the flags of various nations, including the old Spanish
flag,[123] and the last was recognized by the old chief as the one
borne by the first vessel.[124]
One more occurrence should be noted before the arrival of the English
expedition under Colnett that gave rise to the most important event
of the summer. This occurrence is the coming of the _Princess Royal_,
commanded by Hudson, subject to the orders of Colnett. This vessel
left China earlier than her consort and reached Nootka on June 15[125],
where she remained a little more than two weeks. A letter written by
Hudson, a copy of which is in the Spanish archives, gives a detailed
account of his stay at Nootka on this occasion. On his approach in
the evening he was met by two launches. Being alarmed, he demanded
to know whether they were armed and received answer in English that
they were, but only with a bottle of brandy. Martinez, of the Spanish
ship, Kendrick, of the American, and Funter, of the captured English
schooner, came on board and remained all night. The next morning,
the 16th, they were towed into the harbor, and saluted by the guns
of the two Spanish ships and the fort. In the afternoon Hudson and
Martinez accompanied Kendrick up the sound 6 miles to his vessel, the
_Columbia_, where they remained that night. On the 11th Hudson returned
to his vessel, where he received a note from the Spanish commander
demanding his motive for anchoring in the sound, and informing him that
the port belonged to the King of Spain. On the 18th Hudson replied
that during his voyage of sixteen weeks and three days from Macao
in continual storms his ship had been badly damaged; this, with the
failure of wood and water, had caused him to anchor where he was, and
he hoped that Martinez would permit him to supply his losses, upon
which, with permission, he would depart. In a note of the same day
Martinez replied that Hudson’s explanation was perfectly satisfactory
and that he might supply his needs and depart when he wished.
This shows that the utmost harmony and good will prevailed. Hudson’s
vessel was present when the Spaniards took formal possession of
the port, and he was doubtless one of the Englishmen who were at
Martinez’s sumptuous banquet and are mentioned as not disputing the
act of possession. This is the English vessel, also, to which Martinez
transferred the furs taken from the _North-West America_, as mentioned
above.
On July 1, his ship being ready to leave, Hudson notified Martinez
that he intended to sail the next morning. The latter, after a little
hesitation, gave his consent, and also furnished Hudson with a circular
letter to all commanders of Spanish ships which he might encounter
ordering them to let him pass. The next morning, July 2, the launches
from the American ships towed the _Princess Royal_ out of the harbor;
and having had to wait all day for a breeze she sailed away at 10
o’clock in the evening, returning eleven days later, at the close of
the important events to be discussed in the next chapter.[126]
Comparing the actions of Martinez, which have been discussed in this
chapter, with his instructions given in the foregoing chapter, it is
seen that it would not be difficult for him to justify his seizure of
the _Iphigenia_ and the _North-West America_. The last clause of the
eleventh article orders him to endeavor, as far as possible, to prevent
intercourse and commerce with the natives. It is difficult to see how
he could have carried this out in any other way. Knowing the general
policy of Spain, which was to prevent all foreigners from trading with
the Spanish dominions, and feeling himself responsible for maintaining
that policy along this whole coast, he might easily have felt it his
duty to employ harsh means, being satisfied that nothing less would be
effectual. Having in mind the recent treatment accorded to the governor
of the islands of Juan Fernandez because he allowed a vessel that had
been in his power to continue its voyage to these very coasts, it is
not strange that he should be unwilling to incur similar disgrace
because of too great leniency.[127] It would seem, however, that he
was inconsistent in not seizing also the _Princess Royal_, unless,
indeed, he believed what he embodied in the circular letter which he
gave to Hudson for other Spanish commanders. In this he declared that
the purpose of the voyage was discovery; that he had seen Hudson’s
commission to that effect. Martinez may have known nothing to the
contrary at the time, and what he said was doubtless true; but it was
not the whole truth. But if he was too lenient this time, he did not
err in that direction on Hudson’s return, as will appear.
If Martinez felt it necessary to treat the English ships with such
harshness, can his mild treatment of the American ships be justified?
These are the very ships that are referred to in articles 14 and 15
of the above-mentioned instructions. It will be recalled that he was
there given authority, in case of his meeting with them, to deal
with them as appeared proper. The suspicion was mentioned in another
place that the purpose of these ships was to find a port in which to
establish a colony. On encountering them at Nootka, Martinez inspected
their papers and found that this was not their purpose. He says that
his interpreter found nothing in their papers derogatory to the rights
of Spain; that their purpose was to circumnavigate the globe; that
there seemed no reason for interfering with their course nor placing
them under bond, as he had done the packet boat from Macao; but that,
nevertheless, he had required them, in the name of his Sovereign, not
to return to these seas or coasts without bringing a passport and
special permit, since that Monarch had prohibited every foreign nation
from navigating the coasts of America.[128] His allowing the American
ships to trade unmolested for the two months hardly seems consistent,
unless his reason was what might be implied from the latter part of
the letter just referred to. He tells of the assistance afforded him
by the American commanders in his dealings with the English and the
Indians, since they conversed in both of those languages. He might
have considered it better to allow them for a time to violate the
letter of the strict Spanish regulations than to lose their services in
establishing himself in a position to prevent all such violations in
the future. His intimacy with the Americans was so noticeable that the
Englishmen frequently accused the latter of collusion with the schemes
of the Spaniard.[129]