CHAPTER XIV._The Nootka Sound Controversy: A dissertation

SUBSEQUENT NEGOTIATIONS AND FINAL SETTLEMENT OF THE NOOTKA SOUND

DISPUTE.

Although the convention was concluded in 1790, yet the Nootka Sound

affair was still far from settled. The first article of the convention,

agreeing to restore to British subjects the buildings and lands

which had been taken from them at Nootka, had to be carried out. The

agreement of the Spanish declaration of July 24 to indemnify the

parties concerned in the ships captured at Nootka was also still to

be fulfilled. It required a long arbitration and two new conventions

to accomplish these results, and in the meantime an intimate treaty

of alliance had been entered into for mutual protection against the

excesses of the French Revolution. It was more than four years before

these matters were finally adjusted. The present chapter will review

them briefly.

The English and Spanish Governments each appointed a commissioner to

go to Nootka and carry out the agreement of the first article of the

convention of October 28, 1790. The commissioners did not meet until

the summer of 1792. A brief statement should be made concerning the

establishment at Nootka between the events of 1789 and the meeting of

the commissioners three years later. Martinez’s abandonment of Nootka

in the fall of 1789 and his return to Mexico was discussed in a former

chapter. The plans of the Viceroy for sending a new expedition under

Eliza to reoccupy the post in the spring of 1790 were studied in the

same chapter.[451] The Viceroy feared that Nootka would be seized by

the English before his expedition could reach the place, or that an

English expedition might later attempt to wrest the post from the

Spanish.[452] His fears were not realized. The port was reoccupied

and held without opposition. During the three following seasons a

substantial Spanish settlement was formed, and, using this as a center,

exploring expeditions examined the neighboring coast.[453]

The British commissioner for carrying out the convention was Captain

Vancouver. He left England in 1791 and was to reach the Northwest

Coast in the spring of the following year. His principal business

was to explore that coast. Additional instructions concerning the

transfer of Nootka were to be sent to him later.[454] These reached

him during the summer of 1792 while he was engaged in exploring the

coast in the neighborhood of the island that later received his name.

He arrived at Nootka late in August. He found there Bodega y Quadra,

the Spanish commissioner. It would be of little value to follow in

detail the negotiations between them, since their mission accomplished

nothing. They could not agree, although, personally, a very strong

friendship sprang up between them. Vancouver expected that the entire

establishment would be transferred to England. Quadra, after careful

investigation, became convinced that the English had never purchased

nor taken possession of any land except the small plat of ground on

which Meares’s temporary house had stood in 1788. Consequently he

offered to transfer this, but no more. Vancouver refused to accept so

little and the whole matter was referred back to the Governments at

London and Madrid.[455] Having continued his survey of the coast for

two years longer, Vancouver returned to Nootka in the summer of 1794

expecting that new instructions would be awaiting him regarding the

transfer. He was disappointed. He waited two months at Nootka for them,

then went to Monterey, where he waited nearly two months more. The

English instructions still did not come, but the Spanish commissioner

had received his orders, and Vancouver was informed that a special

British commissioner had been sent for the purpose. On December 1 he

sailed for England.[456]

While the arrangements were being made to send the above commissioners

to Nootka to carry out the stipulations in the first article of the

convention, steps were also being taken to fulfill the agreement in the

declarations of July 24. The two Governments appointed commissioners

to decide on the amount of the indemnity which Spain should pay to

those interested in the ships captured at Nootka. Their negotiation

was conducted at London. The Spanish agent, Manuel de Las Heras, was

sent in May, 1791. Baron St. Helens [Fitzherbert] wrote on May 29

introducing him to Lord Grenville, who had succeeded the Duke of Leeds

in the foreign office. Heras was also consul-general to England. St.

Helens said:

He appears to me to be very sensible, well informed, and right

headed; so that I am persuaded that he will do his best in order to

execute the commission with which he is charged to the satisfaction

of both Courts.[457]

When the Spanish commissioner reached London he either misunderstood

his instructions or was intentionally very reserved regarding them. On

August 26 Grenville wrote to St. Helens:

The sending of M. Las Heras at last without any instructions is

really abominable, and would be reason enough, if we were so

disposed, to refuse to hear of alliance or anything else.

He appealed to St. Helens to “make those slow Spaniards send

instructions and powers, and, above all, liberty to refer the matter

to arbitration, by which the ministers of both Courts will get it off

their hands.”[458] On receipt of this letter the British ambassador

called the attention of Floridablanca to the commissioner’s delay

in negotiating. The Spanish minister thought that the instructions

to Heras were clear and explicit; nevertheless, he sent additional

instructions on September 8 authorizing the commissioner to settle

and liquidate the damages, with the concurrence of Campo, the Spanish

ambassador. He was to give the British Court to understand that in

case of difference the Spanish King was willing to submit the matter

to arbitration. The Count had given St. Helens a copy of these

instructions and the latter sent them to Grenville, saying that they

seemed satisfactory except that the commissioner did not have authority

to settle finally without submitting the matter to the Spanish King. He

remarked that such would have been an unprecedented power and said that

His Catholic Majesty had promised to act on it immediately.[459]

It seems that the commissioners failed to agree and that the matter

was referred to a court of arbitration, which sat at or near Madrid

in the early part of the next year. On May 14, 1792, St. Helens wrote

from Aranjuez that the Nootka arbitration business was “en bon train,”

and though it was going more slowly than expected he hoped to send

dispatches concerning it in a very few days.[460] A fortnight later the

business had taken a new turn. The British ambassador wrote:

I can not but hope that the proposal which goes by this messenger

for settling what the Count of Aranda[461] calls the fastidious

business of the Nootka claims by the payment of a round sum of money

as a discharge in full will strike your fancy as much as it does his

and mine.

The writer added that if the offer should be thought too small he was

confident that Spain would increase it ten, fifteen, or even twenty

thousand Spanish dollars. If Grenville should reject the offer and

wish the matter to revert to arbitration he said that Aranda would

facilitate it.[462] The amount offered was 200,000 Spanish dollars.

About two months later the Nootka claimants were called upon to decide

whether they wished to accept the offer or to have the matter referred

back to Madrid in hope of having the sum increased.[463] The claimants

apparently did not accept the offer. A month afterwards Dundas, the

home secretary, wrote:

The Nootka business, I take it for granted, will get on, but it

hangs rather unaccountably. I suspect that both sides are in some

degree to blame.[464]

After a delay of several months more, the Spanish Court increased the

offer by $10,000. On February 12, 1793, the following convention was

signed:

_Nootka claims convention._

In virtue of the declarations exchanged at Madrid on the 24th of

July, 1790, and of the convention signed at the Escorial on the

18th [28th] of the following October, Their Catholic and Britannic

Majesties, desiring to regulate and determine definitely everything

regarding the restitution of the British ships seized at Nootka, as

well as the indemnification of the parties interested in the ships,

have named for this purpose and constituted as their commissioners

and plenipotentiaries, to wit, on the part of His Catholic Majesty,

Don Manuel de Las Heras, commissary in His said Majesty’s armies,

and his agent and consul-general in the Kingdoms of Great Britain

and Ireland; and on the part of His Britannic Majesty, Mr. Ralph

Woodford, Knight Baronet of Great Britain; who, after having

communicated their full powers, have agreed upon the following

articles:

ARTICLE I.

His Catholic Majesty, besides having restored the ship _Argonaut_,

the restoration of which took place in the port of San Blas in

the year 1791 [1790], agrees to pay as indemnity to the parties

interested in it the amount of two hundred and ten thousand hard

dollars in specie, it being understood that this sum is to serve

as compensation and complete indemnification for all their losses,

whatever they may be, without any exception, and without leaving the

possibility of a future remonstrance on any pretext or motive.

ARTICLE II.

Said payment shall be made on the day on which the present

convention shall be signed by the commissioner of His Catholic

Majesty in the presence of the commissioner of His Britannic

Majesty, which latter shall give at the same time an acknowledgment

of payment consistent with the terms enunciated in the former

article and signed by the said commissioner for himself and in the

name and by the order of His Britannic Majesty and of the said

interested parties. And there shall be attached to the present

convention a copy of the said acknowledgment of payment, executed in

the proper form, and likewise of the respective full powers and of

the authorizations of the said interested parties.

ARTICLE III.

The ratifications of the present convention shall be exchanged in

this city of London within a period of six weeks from the date of

its signature, or before if possible.

In witness whereof we, the undersigned commissioners and

plenipotentiaries of Their Catholic and Britannic Majesties, have

signed the present convention in their names and in virtue of our

respective full powers, affixing to it the seals of our arms.

Done at Whitehall, February 12, 1793.[465]

MANUEL DE LAS HERAS.

R. WOODFORD.

During all of the time that the negotiations were in progress over

the liquidation of the Nootka claims, a treaty of alliance and

commerce between England and Spain was being discussed. The British

Court attempted to induce the Spanish Government to accept duties on

English manufactures, “instead,” as Grenville said, “of paying an

army not to prevent their being smuggled.” In the same connection he

remarked, “but that, I fear, is a trait of wisdom far beyond their

comprehension.”[466] The negotiation dragged through 1791 and 1792 and

into 1793. In the meantime Spain had twice changed prime ministers. On

the fall of Floridablanca, Aranda had succeeded him. After holding the

position for about a year Aranda was succeeded by the Duke of Alcudia,

the famous Godoy, known as the Prince of Peace, the paramour of the

corrupt Queen. The impulse that finally brought the negotiations to a

crisis was the murder of the French King by order of the Convention.

A shudder of horror passed over Europe. Four days after the death

of Louis XVI the British Cabinet decided to authorize St. Helens to

discuss a permanent alliance with the Court of Spain against the

excesses of the French Revolution. The alliance was to be commercial,

offensive, and defensive.[467] Such an alliance was concluded May

25, 1793, and ratified by the British Court on June 21 following.

Ratifications were exchanged July 5.[468]

This alliance facilitated the settlement of the Nootka business. After

the failure of Vancouver and Quadra to agree in 1792 as to what should

be surrendered at Nootka, the Governments took up the matter again.

While the negotiations for this purpose were in progress a long letter

from Revilla-Gigedo, the Viceroy of Mexico, reached Madrid. This was

the informe of April 12, 1793, to which reference has frequently been

made. Godoy, the Spanish prime minister, wrote to the Viceroy that in

view of this and other letters from the same source he had concluded a

convention with St. Helens.[469] In this long letter the Viceroy, after

having given a brief history of the Spanish operations on the Northwest

Coast, and especially the Nootka expeditions, gave an extended

discussion, the purpose of which was to show that Nootka was not worth

retaining. He dwelt on the millions that had been spent during the

past twenty-five years in erecting and sustaining new establishments

in Upper California, and discouraged attempts to occupy more distant

places. He indorsed the idea of settling the Straits of Juan de Fuca

and southward, but he thought that settlements farther north would be

a cause of anxiety and fruitless expense and would afford occasions

for quarrels and misunderstandings with England. If England wished to

maintain possession of Nootka as a point of honor, he declared that

Spain ought to yield to her. He proposed a generous surrender of the

post to the English.[470]

The convention to which Godoy referred as having been concluded by

himself with the British ambassador was signed at Madrid on January 11,

1794, and was as follows:

_Convention for the mutual abandonment of Nootka._

Their Catholic and Britannic Majesties desiring to remove and

obviate all doubt and difficulty relative to the execution of

article 1 of the convention concluded between Their said Majesties

on the 28th of October, 1790, have resolved and agreed to order that

new instructions be sent to the officials who have been respectively

commissioned to carry out the said article, the tenor of which

instructions shall be as follows:

That within the shortest time that may be possible after the arrival

of the said officials at Nootka they shall meet in the place, or

near, where the buildings stood which were formerly occupied by the

subjects of His Britannic Majesty, at which time and in which place

they shall exchange mutually the following declaration and counter

declaration:

DECLARATION.

“I, N---- N----, in the name and by the order of His

Catholic Majesty, by means of these presents restore to

N---- N---- the buildings and districts of land situated

on the Northwest Coast of the continent of North America,

or the islands adjacent to that continent, of which the

subjects of His Britannic Majesty were dispossessed by a

Spanish officer toward the month of April, 1789. In witness

whereof I have signed the present declaration, sealing it

with the seal of my arms. Done at Nootka on the ---- day of

----, 179--.”

COUNTER DECLARATION.

“I, N---- N----, in the name and by the order of His

Britannic Majesty, by means of these presents declare

that the buildings and tracts of land on the Northwest

Coast of the continent of North America, or on the islands

adjacent to that continent, of which the subjects of His

Britannic Majesty were dispossessed by a Spanish officer

toward the month of April, 1789, have been restored to me

by N---- N----, which restoration I declare to be full and

satisfactory. In witness whereof I have signed the present

counter declaration, sealing it with the seal of my arms.

Done at Nootka on the ---- day of ----, 179--.”

That then the British official shall unfurl the British flag

over the land so restored in sign of possession. And that after

these formalities the officials of the two Crowns shall withdraw,

respectively, their people from the said port of Nootka.

Further, Their said Majesties have agreed that the subjects of

both nations shall have the liberty of frequenting the said port

whenever they wish and of constructing there temporary buildings

to accommodate them during their residence on such occasions. But

neither of the said parties shall form any permanent establishment

in the said port or claim any right of sovereignty or territorial

dominion there to the exclusion of the other. And Their said

Majesties will mutually aid each other to maintain for their

subjects free access to the port of Nootka against any other nation

which may attempt to establish there any sovereignty or dominion.

In witness whereof we, the undersigned first secretary of state

and of the Cabinet of His Catholic Majesty, and the ambassador and

plenipotentiary of His Britannic Majesty, in the name and by the

express order of our respective sovereigns, have signed the present

agreement, sealing it with the seals of our arms.

Done at Madrid, January 11, 1794.[471]

THE DUKE OF ALCUDIA.

ST. HELENS.

The two Courts proceeded to carry out this agreement. Godoy instructed

the Viceroy of Mexico to appoint some one as the commissioner for

Spain.[472] The British commissioner was appointed later, and sent

by way of Spain, Havana, Vera Cruz, and Mexico.[473] He arrived at

La Coruna about the middle of August, 1794.[474] On November 20 he

landed at Vera Cruz, and went by way of Mexico to San Blas.[475] From

this port both commissioners sailed for Nootka. The Englishman was Sir

Thomas Pierce; the Spaniard, Manuel de Alava. They met at Nootka and

on the appointed day, March 23, 1795, carried out the above agreement.

Alava had previously destroyed the buildings of the Spanish settlement.

After the prescribed ceremonies had been performed, both the Spanish

and the English deserted the place.[476] Neither nation ever reoccupied

it. Nootka is still inhabited by Indians.

FOOTNOTES

[1] Schoell, Histoire des Traités de Paix, IV, 112.

[2] See Humboldt, Alex. von, Essai Politique, II, 460.

[3] Oscar Browning, the writer of Chapter X, in Volume VIII, of the

Cambridge Modern History, recently published, gives the least prejudiced

and most accurate account. However, it is very brief. He introduces the

Incident as an important episode in the foreign policy of Pitt. He says:

“An event occurred on the other side of the world which nearly brought

about a European conflagration.” In preparing his brief discussion he

consulted the documents in the public record office.

[4] See Duro, Armada Española, VIII, 8-16.

[5] See Hassall, The French People, 341.

[6] Richard Cadman Etches to Captain Portlock, London, September 3,

1785. (Meares, An Answer to Mr. Dixon, 10.) The instructions were not

carried out by this commander, but the same company was interested in the

expedition which reached Nootka for that purpose in 1789. Nootka Sound was

for a time called King Georges Sound by the English and San Lorenzo by the

Spanish.

[7] Bancroft, Northwest Coast, I, 172.

[8] Sometimes written “Mears.”

[9] Meares, Memorial, appendix to Voyages.

[10] This condition and the terms on which relief was offered him by

Portlock and Dixon, who reached the place in the spring, led to a bitter

personal quarrel between Meares and Dixon, which produced several mutually

recriminating pamphlets.

[11] Meares, Voyages. Introductory voyage, i-xl. In this Meares quotes the

letters which passed between him and Portlock in May, 1787, which gave

rise to the quarrel.

[12] Id. 2.

[13] The Merchant Proprietors to John Meares, esq., Commanding the

_Felice_ and _Iphigenia_, China, December 24, 1787. (Id., Appendix I.)

[14] Id.

[15] See Chapter IV below.

[16] Meares, Memorial, Appendix to Voyages. He explains that this ruse

was at first successful, but was later discovered through the financial

failure of the Portuguese merchant who had allowed his name to be thus

used.

[17] Dixon, Further Remarks on Meares’s Voyages, 55. His hostility to

Meares prejudices any statement made by him. See above, p. 287, note b

[10].

[18] Bancroft, Northwest Coast, 1, 193. This author devotes some 10 pages

to a discussion of this expedition.

Greenhow, Oregon and California, 172-178, attempts to prove that the

expedition was purely Portuguese. His account is too prejudiced to be of

much value. The chief purpose of his book was to prove that America had a

better claim to the Oregon country than England. If this expedition had

been purely Portuguese, England could have acquired no possible claim

through it.

[19] Meares. Voyages, 2, 3.

[20] Id., 88.

[21] Id., 104. This date should probably be changed to May 12. When the

English and Spanish not at Nootka in 1789 their calendars were one day

apart. (See below, p. 312, note a [82].) Since there are no conflicting

dates given for the events at Nootka in 1788, those found in the journals

of the English commanders are followed.

[22] Id., 114.

[23] The purchase is confirmed in the information of William Graham,

London, May 5, 1790 (inclosure No. VI, with Meares’s Memorial, appendix

to Voyages). It was also confirmed by Duffin in conversation with

Vancouver in 1792. (Vancouver, Voyages, II, 370-372). Both of these have

strong English prejudices. The purchase is denied by Gray and Ingraham.

(Greenhow, Oregon and California, 414.) They strongly favored the Spanish.

They say that the Indians denied having sold land to the English. That

there was a purchase was practically conceded, however, even by the

Spaniards, since Quadra offered to Vancouver in 1792 the land on which

Meares’s house had stood in 1788. (See Vancouver, Voyages, II, 335 ff.)

[24] Id., 115-116.

[25] Id., 130.

[26] Greenhow, Oregon and California, 175.

[27] Meares, Voyages. 131.

[28] Id., 146, and Memorial in appendix.

[29] Id., 95.

[30] Id., 204.

[31] Meares, Voyages, 173, and Memorial in appendix.

[32] Id., 173-179.

[33] Id., 220.

[34] Greenhow, Oregon and California, 172; and Bancroft, Northwest Coast,

I, 194.

[35] Dixon, Further Remarks on Meares’s Voyages, 24. This writer, in his

controversial pamphlet, quotes from a letter of Captain Duncan, who had

met Meares near the entrance to Nootka Sound in 1788. This letter makes

the statement that Meares had “at that time a small vessel on the stocks

at Nootka, where, he told me, he had a fort, guns mounted, and Portuguese

colors flying.” It was written January 17, 1791, and can hardly be given

absolute credence, since Dixon was so prejudiced against Meares. Greenhow

is too partisan to be fair, and the Americans, Gray and Ingraham, and

Haswell, whom Bancroft quotes on the point, were very pro-Spanish. On the

other hand, Meares’s statements can not be taken for truth unless it is

very plain that there is no reason for his telling anything else.

[36] Meares, Voyages, 220. It is doubtful whether this testimony can be

considered of any value. As to the truthfulness of the picture, it is

interesting to notice the Indian village in the background. He had said

that before this the entire village had been moved some 30 miles up the

sound for the winter.

[37] Meares, Voyages, appendix, Memorial, VI.

[38] Meares to Douglas, _Felice_, Friendly Cove, in King Georges Sound,

September 20, 1788. (Meares, Voyages, Appendix V.)

[39] Id., 334.

[40] Meares to Douglas, _Felice_, Friendly Cove, in King Georges Sound,

September 20, 1788. (Meares, Voyages, Appendix V, p. 217.)

[41] Note his reference to the killing of Callicum by the Spaniards in

1789. (Meares, Voyages, 118; also see 217, 218, referring to Colnett’s

expedition of 1789.) His preface would lead one to think that the writing

of his narrative was entirely an afterthought. He mentions as his motives

the wishes of friends, the political circumstances of the moment [the

diplomatic controversy with Spain], and public expectation. He says: “I

little thought it would be my future lot to give this part of my maritime

life to the world. If I had looked forward to the possibility of such

an event I should have enlarged my observations and been more minutely

attentive,” etc. But the fact that in his list of subscribers he gives

the names of a number of men living in China shows that before leaving

there, at least, he expected to publish his narrative. All of this tends

to depreciate the value of his statements where his interests are at stake.

[42] Gray and Ingraham to Quadra, Nootka Sound, August 3, 1792. (Greenhow,

Oregon and California, 414.) (Prejudiced.)

[43] Colnett, Voyage, vii.

[44] Spanish translation of an extract from the “License from the governor

and company of merchants of Great Britain for trading in the South Sea

and other parts of America, to Richard Cadman Etches and Company to trade

in the places where the South Sea Company has the privilege by an act of

Parliament.” (MS. Arch. Gen. de Indias, Seville, 90-3-18.) It was signed

by the secretary of the company and dated August 4, 1785. They were

forbidden to trade south of 45° on the northwest coast. (See Colnett to

the Viceroy, October 1, 1789; Arch. Gen. de Indias, Seville, 90-3-21.)

[45] Spanish translation of Colnett to the Viceroy, October 1, 1789. (Id.)

[46] Meares, Memorial, appendix to Voyages. Also Colnett to the Viceroy,

October 1, 1789. (MS. Arch. Gen. de Indias, Seville, 90-3-21.) The latter

represents Colnett as the chief promoter, while the former represents

Meares in that capacity. Colnett says that the _Prince of Wales_ had

broken her keel and was not in a condition to make another such a voyage,

so that the correspondents of his company offered him the _Argonaut_. It

seems that some difficulty had arisen over the fact that the license which

Colnett bore was for his use on the _Prince of Wales_. He told the Viceroy

that if he had apprehended any disadvantage arising from his change of

ships it would have been easy to have named the new ship the _Prince of

Wales_ also. He had not considered it necessary.

[47] Meares, Memorial, appendix to Voyages. Inclosure II.

[48] Translation of the instructions given by the owners of the English

ship _Argonaut_ to its captain, James Colnett, not dated. (MS. Arch. Gen.

de Indias, Seville, 90-3-18.)

[49] This policy of protecting allied chiefs against their enemies was

begun by Meares during the previous year. He loaned firearms and furnished

ammunition to the Nootka Indians for an expedition against a neighboring

tribe which had committed depredations on one of their villages. (See

Meares, Voyages, 196.)

[50] Nootka was not especially mentioned, but the intention was so evident

that mention was unnecessary. The option as to the place in which it was

to be established probably did not refer to a possible choice between

Nootka Sound and some other part of the coast, but to the selection of the

most favorable spot on the sound. As showing Meares’s tendency to distort

facts, he says in his Memorial: “Colnett was directed to fix his residence

at Nootka Sound, and, with that in view, to erect a substantial house on

the spot which your memorialist had purchased the preceding year, as will

appear by a copy of his instructions hereto annexed.”

[51] Meares, Memorial, appendix to Voyages, Inclosure II; and MS. Arch.

Gen. de Indias, 90-3-18.

[52] Meares, Voyages, 106.

[53] Meares, Memorial, appendix to Voyages, Inclosure II. It is seen

that a majority of the settlers for the proposed colony were Chinese,

conformably to the idea that Meares expresses in his narrative and to

which reference was made in the early part of this chapter. There is a

discrepancy in the statements concerning the number of Chinese. In several

Spanish manuscripts the statement is made that there were 29. The name of

each is given. (See MS. Arch. Gen. de Indias, Seville, 90-3-18.)

[54] Martinez to Florez, San Blas, December 5, 1788. (MS. Arch. Gen. de

Indias, Seville, 90-3-18.) La Perouse, of a French scientific expedition,

had reported that Russian settlements were being made on the American

continent north of California. The Spanish expedition was sent under

a royal order of January 25, 1787. Martinez, of the _Princesa_, was

in command, and Lopez de Haro, of the _San Carlos_, was subordinate.

They reported six settlements, having in all about 500 inhabitants. An

autograph copy of Martinez’s diary of this expedition, containing 213

pages, is in the same bundle as the above letter. It contains also the

diary of Mendosia, second pilot. Greenhow, Oregon and California, 185,

gives a short account of this voyage, which he says is based on a copy

of Martinez’s diary obtained from the hydrographical office at Madrid.

Bancroft, Northwest Coast, I, 184, also gives a brief account, likewise

taken from a copy of Martinez’s diary.

[55] Florez to Valdez, Mexico, December 23, 1788. (MS. Arch. Gen. de

Indias, Seville, 90-3-18.)

[56] Florez to Martinez, December 23, 1788. (Id.)

[57] Florez to Valdez, Mexico, January 2, 1789. (Id.)

[58] Florez to Revilla-Gigedo, Mexico, September 2, 1789. (Id., 90-3-14.)

In this, mention is made of a royal order of April 14, giving approbation.

[59] The ship was the _Columbia_. See the latter part of this chapter.

[60] That of Jonathan Carver from Boston.

[61] Florez to Valdez, Mexico, December 23, 1788. (MS. Arch. Gen. de

Indias, Seville, 90-3-18.)

[62] _San Carlos el Filipino_ seems to have been the full name. It is here

and often elsewhere in the documents spoken of simply as _El Filipino_. In

English writings it is usually called the _San Carlos_.

[63] Florez to Valdez, Mexico, December 23, 1788. (MS. Arch. Gen. de

Indias, 90-3-18.)

[64] This reference to Cook’s Voyages reads: “But what was most singular,

two silver tablespoons were purchased from them, which, from their

peculiar shape, we supposed to be of Spanish manufacture.”

[65] An obvious error, since General Washington had nothing to do with it.

This was the _Columbia_. Her consort was the _Lady Washington_. Confusion

arising from the name of the latter perhaps caused the error.

[66] Florez to Martinez, Mexico, December 23, 1788. (MS. Arch. Gen. de

Indias, Seville, 90-3-18.) In the above transcript of the instructions,

sections 10 to 15, inclusive, are quoted in full since they were intended

to guide Martinez in his intercourse with foreigners. It will be

interesting later to compare his actions with these instructions. Only the

substance of the other sections is given, since they have no important

bearing on the subject.

[67] Instrumento de posesion, June 24, 1789. (Id.) Revilla-Gigedo in his

Informe gives the date February 19 for the departure from San Blas. (See

Bustamante [Cavo], Los Tres Siglos, III, 127.)

[68] Bancroft, Northwest Coast, I, 170-172; Greenhow, Oregon and

California, 151-153; Cambridge Modern History, VIII, 289.

[69] Deposition of the officers and men of the _Northwest America_.

(Inclosure X, with Meares, Memorial, appendix to Voyages.) They say that

the sound was discovered by the late Capt. James Cook. Similar statements

are made elsewhere.

[70] Instructions of the Merchant Proprietors to John Meares. (Meares,

Voyages, Appendix I.)

[71] Bancroft, Northwest Coast, I, 173-181, gives an account of the most

important.

[72] Informe of Revilla-Gigedo, Bustamante (Cavo), Los Tres Siglos, III,

117-119. This gives a brief description of the voyage and the steps

leading to it. Bancroft, Northwest Coast, I, 149-158, gives a description

based on the diaries of the voyage. Greenhow, Oregon and California, also

describes it.

[73] Florez to Valdez, Mexico, December 23, 1788. (MS. Arch. Gen. de

Indias, Seville, 90-3-18.) See also above transcript of the Instructions

of Florez to Martinez.

[74] Revilla-Gigedo, Informe, Bustamante (Cavo), Los Tres Siglos, II, 199;

Bancroft, Northwest Coast, I, 158-166, gives a full account.

[75] Id., 172.

[76] Informe of Revilla-Gigedo, Bustamante (Cavo), Los Tres Siglos, III,

123; Bancroft, Northwest Coast, I, 172.

[77] Cook, Voyages, II, 332, says: “Some account of a Spanish voyage to

this coast in 1774 or 1775 had reached England before I sailed, but the

foregoing circumstances sufficiently prove that these ships had not been

at Nootka.”

[78] Blas Gonzales to Juan Kendrick, Isla de Juan Fernandez, June 3, 1789

[1788]. (MS. Arch. Gen. de Indias, Seville, 90-3-18.)

[79] Blas Gonzales later appealed to the Government of the United States

to intercede in his behalf, and Jefferson, the Secretary of State, took up

the matter. This will be referred to later. (See Jefferson to Carmichael,

April 11, 1790, Writings V, 155.)

[80] Royal order of November 25, 1692. (MS. Arch. Gen. de Indias, Seville,

90-3-14; Greenhow, Oregon and California, 184.)

[81] See Razon de las Embarcaciones que han hecho Descubrimento al Norte

de California. Firmado abordo de la Fragata _Princesa_ en el Puerto de San

Lorenzo de Nutca á 13 de Julio de 1789, Estevan José Martinez. (MS. Arch.

Gen. de Indias, Seville, 90-3-18; Bancroft, Northwest Coast, I, Chs. VI,

VII.)

[82] This is the date according to the Spanish documents. The English give

May 6. This difference of one day between the English and Spanish dates

for the events at Nootka continues during the summer of 1789. For some

time no explanation appeared. But Prof. C. H. Hull suggested that it was

probably due to the fact that the English vessels came from Europe by way

of China, while the Spanish came from Mexico. Since the present custom of

dropping a day from or adding one to the calendar in mid-Pacific, or upon

crossing the international date line, was apparently not observed at that

time, the suggestion seems to be a plausible explanation. On the strength

of it the Spanish dates have been adopted instead of the English. Since

all previous writers in English have given the dates according to the

English documents, the dates given in this monograph will disagree with

those of all previous accounts.

[83] Meares, Voyages, 106.

[84] See Chapter II, ante.

[85] Gray and Ingraham to Quadra, Nootka Sound, August 3, 1792. (Appendix

to Greenhow, Oregon and California.) Quadra was the Spanish commissioner

sent in 1792 to carry out the Nootka convention, and was collecting

evidence to strengthen the Spanish case.

[86] Extract from the journal of the _Iphigenia_, entry for May 22.

(Inclosure XII, with Meares, Memorial, appendix to Voyages.)

[87] See Lecky, England in the Eighteenth Century, V, 206-207, who says:

“The Spaniards had never penetrated to it, but by virtue of a bull of

Alexander VI they claimed a sovereignty over all lands comprised between

Cape Horn and the sixtieth degree of north latitude; in other words, the

entire western coast of both South and North America, and when, after

a considerable interval, they discovered the existence of a British

settlement in these parts they determined to suppress it. Two Spanish

ships of war accordingly hastened to Nootka Sound, took possession of the

British settlement, hauled down the British flag, replaced it by the flag

of Spain, captured four English vessels, and treated their crews with

extreme harshness and indignity.” His failure to investigate the subject

is further shown by his statement in the next sentence: “These events took

place in April of 1789.” This error in date is doubtless derived from the

indefinite statement of the date in Article I of the Nootka convention of

October 28, 1790.

Worthington C. Ford, United States and Spain in 1790, p. 18, is still

further in error. He says: “The Spaniards had laid claim to nearly the

whole of the western coast of America, from Cape Horn to the sixtieth

degree of north latitude, and had watched with a feeling of jealousy,

aggravated by a sense of injury, the establishment of a British settlement

in Nootka Sound, on Vancouvers Island. This inlet of the sea had been

first explored by Captain Cook in one of his voyages, and on the

establishment of the English in India became a trading station, colonized

by the English and recognized by grants of land from the natives. After

three years of undisturbed possession the little settlement was surprised

by the arrival of two Spanish ships of war from Mexico, which seized an

English merchant vessel, the _Iphigenia_, imprisoned her crew, looted the

vessel, and pulling down the British flag on the settlement raised that of

Spain, and subsequently treated all comers as intruders.”

Baumgarten, Geschichte Spaniens zur Zeit der franzoesischen Revolution,

282, after speaking of the arrival of Martinez and his seizure of the

_Iphigenia_, says: “Martinez ergriff darauf Besitz von einer der kleinen

Inseln, erbaute auf derselben eine Batterie, bemaechtigte sich der

englischen Gebaeude, nahm die britische Flagge herunter and pflanzte die

spanische auf.”

[88] See discussion of the negotiations of 1790 below.

[89] See ante, Chapter II.

[90] Extract from the journal of the _Iphigenia_. (Inclosure XII, with

Meares, Memorial, appendix to Voyages.)

[91] See ante, Chapter II.

[92] May 9, according to the English account.

[93] Martinez to Florez. San Lorenzo de Nootka, July 13, 1789. (MS. Arch.

Gen. de Indias, Seville, 90-3-18.)

[94] Variously spelled in the documents--“Cavallo,” “Carvallo,”

“Caravallo,” “Caravalia,” and “Caravalho.”

[95] Spanish translation of the passport of the _Iphigenia_, signed Macao,

October 17, 1787. (Arch. Gen. de Indias, Seville, 90-3-18.)

[96] Spanish translation of the Instructions of Carvalho to Viana, Macao,

October 23, 1788 [1787]. (MS. Arch. Gen. de Indias, Seville, 90-3-18.)

[97] May 14, according to the English account, is the date usually given.

[98] Bancroft, Northwest Coast, I, 115-118, gives an account of the

supposed voyage of Fonte, which he thinks was never made. Nothing is said

of Fonte’s being a Portuguese, and the expedition is said to have been

under orders from Spain and the viceroys.

[99] MS. Arch. Gen. de Indias, Seville, 90-3-18.

[100] Appendix I to Meares, Voyages. It is interesting to compare the

instructions of Meares, the English captain of the _Felice_ and commander

of both vessels, with the instructions of Viana, the pretended Portuguese

captain of the _Iphigenia_. These two correspond much more closely than

those of Viana and Douglas. The latter’s were subinstructions given

by Meares at sea. It may be that Juan de Mata Montero de Mendoza, the

pretended Portuguese captain of the _Felice_, bore subinstructions from

Viana similar to those of Douglas. The differences between Meares’s and

Viana’s instructions are more striking than their similarities. The former

is told that the coast was first discovered by Drake, in 1570; the latter

by Fonte, in 1640. The former is told to proceed alone to America if

he finds himself retarded by the slow progress of the _Iphigenia_; the

latter is to do the same if detained by the bad sailing of the _Felice_.

The former is instructed to direct Douglas to go to Prince Williams

Sound, then to Nootka; the latter is directed to make this voyage. In

the former’s instructions there is nothing corresponding to the latter’s

instructions to report to the Portuguese correspondents at Lisbon, and to

the ambassador at the court of the aggressor. There are other interesting

contrasts. The minute instructions regarding trade are common to the two.

[101] This is not exactly an untruth, but it is a deception. It would

indicate that he had no instructions in English. His instructions are

quoted in full a few pages before this extract from the journal of the

_Iphigenia_ in Appendix II to Meares, Voyages. It is worthy of note that

they do not direct him to seize vessels at all, but only to guard against

surprise and repel force by force. It should be noted also that the

extract quoted by Meares in the appendix to his Memorial, V, purporting

to be from this letter to Douglas, does not agree with the full letter as

quoted, but that Meares has, in this extract, added two sentences from his

own instructions, which relate to his reporting the outrage if captured

and to his seizing his opponent should he have the superiority.

[102] Extract of the journal of the _Iphigenia_. (Inclosure XII with

Meares, Memorial, appendix to Voyages.)

[103] Gray and Ingraham to Quadra, Nootka Sound, August 3, 1792. (Appendix

to Greenhow, Oregon and California.)

[104] Extract of the journal of the _Iphigenia_. (Inclosure XII, with

Meares, Memorial, appendix to Voyages.)

[105] Gray and Ingraham to Quadra, Nootka Sound, August 3, 1792. (Appendix

to Greenhow, Oregon and California.) The dates in this letter are not

accurate. The more important agree with the Spanish dates, but the rest

with neither Spanish nor English.

[106] Vancouver, Voyages, II, 343.

[107] See note a [101], p. 320, where it is pointed out that in the

instructions of Douglas nothing is said about carrying vessels to Macao.

In the journal of the _Iphigenia_ Douglas says that the interpreter told

Martinez in his presence that there was nothing objectionable in Douglas’s

papers.

[108] An English translation of this bond is given by Meares. (Inclosure

IV, with Memorial, appendix to Voyages.)

[109] All the papers relating to the _Iphigenia_--her passport,

instructions, the inventory, the bond, and the affidavits--are inclosed

with Martinez to Florez, San Lorenzo de Nootka, July 13, 1789. (MS. Arch.

Gen. de Indias, Seville, 90-3-18.)

[110] This is an interesting comment, showing Douglas’s inconsistency in

saying that the Spaniards had robbed the ship of everything of value.

[111] Meares, Memorial, appendix to Voyages.

[112] Gray and Ingraham to Quadra, Nootka Sound, August 3, 1792. (Appendix

to Greenhow, Oregon and California.)

[113] Deposition of Martinez before Canizares, on board the _Princesa_,

June 12, 1789. (MSS., Arch. Gen. de Indias, Seville, 90-3-18.) With this

is an inventory of the vessel and cargo, and other affidavits telling

of the helpless condition of the vessel. An English translation of the

inventory is given on the last page of the appendix to Meares, Voyages.

[114] Deposition of the officers and men of the schooner _North-West

America_, Canton, December 5, 1789, and information of William Graham,

London, May 5, 1790. (Inclosures VII and X, with Meares, Memorial,

appendix to Voyages.) The American vessel on which these men were shipped

was the _Columbia_.

[115] Hudson’s receipt to Funter for 203 sea-otter skins, July 2, 1789.

(Inclosure VIII, with Meares, Memorial, appendix to Voyages.)

[116] Martinez’s certificate of 96 skins being shipped on board the

_Columbia_, Nootka, July 14, 1789. (Appendix to Meares, Voyages.) The

English ship to which the furs, taken from the schooner, were at first

transferred had been seized in the meantime, so that the furs again fell

into Martinez’s hand. This was the _Princess Royal_, to be discussed

presently.

[117] John Kendrick’s receipt for provisions on board the _Columbia_, July

13, 1789. (Inclosure XI, with Meares, Memorial, appendix to Voyages.)

[118] Bancroft, Northwest Coast, I, 216, says, incorrectly, that

possession had been taken before the departure of the _Iphigenia_.

[119] Florez to Valdez, Mexico, August 27, 1789. (MS. Arch. Gen. de

Indias, Seville, 90-3-18.)

[120] Martinez to Florez, San Lorenzo de Nootka, July 13, 1789. (MS. Arch.

Gen. de Indias, Seville, 90-3-18.)

[121] Instrument of possession, San Lorenzo de Nootka, June 24, 1789. (MS.

Arch. Gen. de Indias, Seville, 90-3-18.)

[122] Martinez to Florez, San Lorenzo de Nootka, July 13, 1789. (MS. Arch.

Gen. de Indias, Seville, 90-3-18.)

[123] The Spanish flag had been changed by a royal decree of May 28, 1785.

The purpose was to remove the confusion due to the similarity between it

and those of the other Bourbon dynasties--France, Naples, Tuscany, and

Parma. Red and yellow were the colors adopted. (Fernandez Duro La Armada

Española, Madrid, 1901, VIII, 349.)

[124] Martinez to [Florez], San Lorenzo de Nootka, July 13, 1789. (MS.

Arch. Gen. de Indias, Seville, 90-3-18.)

[125] June 14 is sometimes given as the date. This probably arises from

the indefinite statement in the Information of William Graham that she

arrived on or about June 14. (See Inclosure VII, with Meares, Memorial,

appendix to Voyages.)

[126] Hudson to Florez, San Blas, September 18, 1789. (MS. Arch. Gen. de

Indias, Seville, 90-3-21.) With this letter are copies of the letters of

June 18 [17] and 19 [18] from Martinez to Hudson, and Hudson to Martinez

of the latter date, referred to above.

[127] See latter part of foregoing chapter.

[128] Martinez to Florez, San Lorenzo de Nootka, July 13, 1789. (MS.

Arch. Gen. de Indias, Seville, 90-3-18.) With this letter explaining his

dealings with the American ships, Martinez inclosed a copy of the passport

given to Kendrick by Blas Gonzales, governor of the islands of Juan

Fernandez.

[129] Muriel, Historia de Carlos IV, I, 106, touches upon the

subject-matter of this chapter.

[130] To save frequent repetition, one reference is given to all five of

these accounts. The particular source of the more important statements is

sufficiently clear from the text:

First. Martinez to Flores, San Lorenzo de Nootka, July 13, 1789. (MS.

Arch. Gen. de Indias, Seville, 90-3-18.)

Second. Colnett to Flores [written at San Blas in September, 1789]. (MS.

Arch. Gen. de Indias, Seville, 90-3-21.)

Third. Colnett, Voyages, 96-102, note.

Fourth. Duffin to Meares, Nootka Sound, July 12 [11], 1789; same to same,

July 13 [12], 1789; same to same. July 14 [13], 1789. (Inclosure XIII,

with Meares, Memorial, appendix to Voyages.)

Fifth. Gray and Ingraham to Quadra, Nootka Sound, August 3, 1792.

(Appendix to Greenhow, Oregon and California.)

The information of William Graham, London, May 5, 1790, and the deposition

of the officers and men of the _North-West America_, Canton, China,

December 5, 1789 (Inclosures VII and XI, with Meares, Memorial, appendix

to Voyages), give accounts, but add little of value to the others.

[131] See previous discussion of the voyage of Perez, 1774, in Chapter

III, ante.

[132] Meares, An Answer to Mr. George Dixon.

[133] All of these are inclosed with Martinez’s account to the Viceroy,

referred to above. (MS. Arch. Gen. de Indias, Seville, 90-3-18.)

[134] Martinez to Florez, San Lorenzo de Nootka, July 13, 1789. (1d.) This

letter is of the same date and appears in the same bundle as that referred

to above giving account of the _Argonaut_.

[135] See information of William Graham. (Inclosure VII, with Meares,

Memorial, appendix to Voyages.) He says that Hudson was beaten and thrown

down the hatchway by the Spanish crew, who said: “Get down, you English

dog.” This and other such extravagant statements were probably invented

to produce the desired effect on the English mind. This document is

dated London, May 5, 1790, which was only a week before the Memorial was

presented, and was the time when the excitement was at its height.

[136] There were also 8 officers on board. These with the 8 sailors were

all of the Englishmen that had come to Nootka on the _Argonaut_. The

Portuguese, Filipinos, Chinese, etc., were to be brought to San Blas later

on another vessel.

[137] Colnett to the Viceroy, San Blas [September], 1789. (MS. Arch. Gen.

de Indias, Seville, 90-3-21.)

[138] Florez to Valdez, Mexico, September 26, 1789. (MS. Arch. Gen. de

Indias, Seville, 90-3-14.)

[139] Id., Inclosing Comancho to Florez, San Blas, September 3, 1789.

Comancho was commandant of the port.

[140] Colnett, Voyage, 96-102, note.

[141] Revilla-Gigedo to Valdez, Mexico, December 27, 1789. (MS. Arch.

Gen. de Indias, Seville, 90-3-19.) There are several letters together of

the same date. This is No. 195. No. 194 states that a copy of Martinez’s

diary is inclosed, but a note on a small slip of paper inserted says that

the diary is not being sent on account of Martinez’s not having sent a

duplicate of it. The diary does not appear in the bundle and probably was

never sent. Bancroft, Northwest Coast, I, 212, says: “I have not been able

to obtain the original diaries of the Spanish expedition of 1789, nor has

any preceding writer in English seen them.”

[142] Revilla-Gigedo to Valdez, Mexico, December 27, 1789. (No. 198, MS.

Arch. Gen. de Indias, Seville, 90-3-19.)

[143] Bancroft, Northwest Coast, I, 212.

[144] Reference cited, note b [142] above, No. 195.

[145] Bancroft, Northwest Coast, I, 211, repeats Meares’s statement that

there were 70 Chinese.

[146] Muriel, Historia de Carlos IV, I, 107, treats briefly the seizure of

the _Argonaut_ and _Princess Royal_.

[147] Previous accounts give scarcely anything on this subject. This

account is drawn almost wholly from manuscripts in the Spanish archives.

[148] Florez to Valdez, Mexico, August 27, 1789. (MS. Arch. Gen. de

Indias, Seville, 90-3-18.)

[149] [Florez] to the commandant and commissary at San Blas, Mexico,

August 29, 1789. (MS. Arch. Gen. de Indias, Seville, 90-3-14.)

[150] Florez to Valdez, Mexico, August 27, 1789. (MS. Arch. Gen. de

Indias, Seville, 90-3-18.) This is another letter of the same date and

found in the same bundle as the one referred to in note b [148] on the

preceding page.

[151] Colnett, Voyage, 96-102, note.

[152] See Chapter III, ante.

[153] The King to the officials of New Spain, Madrid, November 25, 1692.

(MS. Arch. Gen. de Indias, Seville, 90-3-14.) The Viceroy of Peru had

reported that an English vessel had been encountered in the Straits of

Magellan. This order directs officials to exclude all foreign vessels from

the South Sea unless they carry a special license from the King of Spain.

[154] See his instructions in Chapter III, ante.

[155] Florez to Valdez, Mexico, September 26, 1789. (MS. Arch. Gen. de

Indias, Seville, 90-3-14.)

[156] Florez to Revilla-Gigedo, Mexico, August 27, 1789. (MS. Arch. Gen.

de Indias, Seville, 90-3-14.)

[157] Revilla-Gigedo to Florez, Veracruz, August 30, 1789. (MS. Arch. Gen.

de Indias, Seville, 90-3-14.)

[158] [Florez] to Revilla-Gigedo, Mexico, September 2, 1789. (MS. Arch.

Gen. de Indias, Seville, 90-3-14.)

[159] See preceding chapter, p. 333.

[160] Revilla-Gigedo to Florez, Veracruz, September 9, 1789. (MS. Arch.

Gen. de Indias, Seville, 90-2-14.)

[161] [Florez] to Revilla-Gigedo, Mexico, September 16, 1789. (MS. Arch.

Gen. de Indias, Seville, 90-3-14.)

[162] Informe of Revilla-Gigedo, Bustamante [Cavo], Los Tres Siglos, III,

130.

[163] Revilla-Gigedo to Valdez, Mexico, October 27, 1789. (MS. Arch. Gen.

de Indias, Seville, 90-3-21.)

[164] Chapters IV and V.

[165] Spanish translation of Colnett to Florez, San Blas [September 18],

1789. (MS. Arch. den. de Indias, Seville, 90-3-21.)

[166] Spanish translation of Hudson to Florez, San Blas, September 18,

1789. (MS. Arch. Gen. de Indias, Seville, 90-3-21.)

[167] Spanish translation of Colnett to the Viceroy, San Blas, October 1,

1789. (MS. Arch. Gen. de Indias, Seville, 90-3-21.)

[168] [Revilla-Gigedo] to Colnett, Mexico, October 21, 1789. (MS. Arch.

Gen. de Indias, Seville, 90-3-21.)

[169] See last chapter.

[170] Revilla-Gigedo to Valdez, Mexico, December 27, 1789. (MS. Arch. Gen.

de Indias. Seville, 90-3-19.)

[171] Revilla-Gigedo to Valdez, Mexico, February 26, 1790. (MS. Arch. Gen.

de Indias, Seville, 90-3-26.)

[172] Colnett, Voyage, 96-102, note.

[173] Id., 105.

[174] Colnett, Voyage, 96-102, note.

[175] Revilla-Gigedo to Valdez, Mexico, October 27, 1789. (MS. Arch. Gen.

de Indias, Seville, 90-3-21.)

[176] Informe of Revilla-Gigedo, April 12, 1793. (Bustamante [Cavo], Los

Tres Siglos, III, 132.)

[177] Valdez to Floridablanca, December 30, 1789. (MS. Arch. Hist.

Nacional, Madrid, Sec. Estado, 4291.)

[178] Valdez to Floridablanca, January 2, 1790. (MS. Arch. Hist. Nacional,

Madrid, Sec. Estado, 4291.)

[179] Florez’s plan, mentioned in the last chapter, for taking the Chinese

to Nootka and liberating them, had evidently not been carried out.

[180] Revilla-Gigedo to Valdez, Mexico, May 1, 1790. (MS. Arch. Gen. de

Indias, Seville, 90-3-21.)

[181] Revilla-Gigedo to Colnett, Mexico, April 27, 1790. (MS. Arch. Gen.

de Indias, Seville, 90-3-21.)

[182] Revilla-Gigedo to Bodega y Quadra, Mexico, April 27, 1790. (MS.

Arch. Gen. de Indias, Seville, 90-3-21.)

[183] Revilla-Gigedo to the commissary of San Blas, Mexico, April 27,

1790. (MS. Arch. Gen. de Indias, Seville, 90-3-21.)

[184] Revilla-Gigedo to Valdez, Mexico, May 1, 1790. (MS. Arch. Gen. de

Indias, Seville, 90-3-21.)

[185] Copies of this letter from Colnett to the British ambassador at

Madrid, one to Cadman, Etches & Co., one to Colnett’s mother, and one to

P. Stephens, of the Admiralty office at London, all dated May 1, 1790, are

in Madrid. (Arch. Hist. Nacional, Madrid, Sec. Estado, 4291.)

[186] Colnett to Revilla-Gigedo, Mexico, May 3, 1790, and answer,

Revilla-Gigedo to Colnett, Mexico, May 4, 1790. (MSS. Arch. Gen. de

Indias, Seville, 90-3-21.)

[187] Had Colnett and the Viceroy known of the feverish excitement in

Europe at this very time in expectation of a war over this quarrel between

sea captains this veiled threat would not have seemed so obscure.

[188] Colnett to Revilla-Gigedo, May 7, 1790. (MS. Arch. Gen. de Indias,

Seville, 90-3-21.)

[189] Passport signed by Revilla-Gigedo, Mexico, May 11, 1790. (MS. Arch.

Gen. de Indias, Seville, 90-3-21.)

[190] Revilla-Gigedo to Colnett, Mexico, May 11, 1790. (MS. Arch. Gen. de

Indias, Seville, 90-3-21.)

[191] Revilla-Gigedo to Valdez, Mexico, May 27, 1790. (MS. Arch. Gen. de

Indias, Seville, 90-3-21.)

[192] Informe of Revilla-Gigedo, April 12, 1793. (Bustamante (Cavo), Los

Tres Siglos, III, 132.)

[193] Revilla-Gigedo to Valdez, Mexico, June 26, 1790. (MS. Arch. Gen. de

Indias, Seville, 90-3-21.)

[194] Colnett, Voyage, 96-102, note.

[195] Colnett to [Revilla-Gigedo]. San Blas, July 8, 1790. (Arch. Gen. de

Indias, Seville, Sec. Estado, Audiencia de Mexico, 1790.)

[196] Revilla-Gigedo to Floridablanca, Mexico, December 30, 1791. (Arch.

Gen. de Indias, Seville, Sec. Estado, Audiencia de Mexico, 1791.)

[197] Colnett, Voyage, 96-102, note.

[198] The obscurity of the facts discussed in this chapter is illustrated

by the following quotations:

“It has been generally supposed from later diplomatic correspondence that

the Viceroy in restoring the vessels acted on his own judgment; but it

appears from his own statement that he acted probably in accordance with

orders from Spain, dated January 26, 1790.” (Bancroft, Northwest Coast,

I, 223.) This author’s conclusion is exactly contrary to the fact, as has

been shown above. The Viceroy did act on his own authority, finally, as

has been shown; and this communication of January 26 gave no orders. The

Viceroy’s statement, to which Bancroft here refers, is the Informe of

Revilla-Gigedo, published by Bustamante, which is very brief and sometimes

misleading. Bancroft devotes a little more than one page to discussing the

subject-matter of this chapter. Besides this Informe he had the note in

Colnett’s Voyage.

Greenhow, Oregon and California, p. 200, speaking of the restoration of

the English ships, says: “It was at length decided that … they should be

released, with the understanding, however, that they were not again to

enter any place on the Spanish-American coasts, either for the purpose of

settlement or of trade with the natives.” This was the Viceroy’s order at

first, but in the passport he gave permission to touch at places not under

Spanish control, as shown above. The same writer, speaking of Colnett’s

failure to get the _Princess Royal_ at Nootka, as promised, says: “On

arriving at the sound Colnett found the place deserted.” The sloop was not

there, but there was a substantial Spanish settlement, as will be shown

later.

“La autoridad superior de Nueva España no sancionó el hecho [Martinez’s

seizure of the English vessels]; apenas llegó á su noticia, atendiendo á

las buenas relaciones en que estaban los Gobiernos de ambos Estados y á la

ignorancia en que suponia á las proprietarios de los bajeles, ordenó la

immediata soltura de estas con sus cargamentos.” (Duro, Armada Española,

VIII, 10.) This work was published in 1902, and is considered the best on

the Spanish navy.

The error, which is a common one, of thinking that they were released by

the Viceroy immediately, doubtless arises from the Spanish minister’s

statement in his memorial of June 13, 1790, to the British ambassador,

published in the Annual Register, XXXII, 296. This states that the Viceroy

released the vessels without declaring them lawful prize, and allowed

them to return to Macao under bond as the _Iphigenia_ had been disposed

of. These two statements are exactly contrary to the fact. The Viceroy

did declare them lawful prize, and did not place them under bond. What

the Spanish minister said had been done was what Florez had said, in his

second account to the home Government that he thought ought to be done,

but which he left his successor, Revilla-Gigedo, to do. The Spanish

minister had inferred that the new Viceroy would do this, but that

official had not done it, as has been shown.

Oscar Browning, Cambridge Modern History, VIII, 290, says more correctly

that they “were released by the Viceroy on the ground of the friendly

relations existing between the two nations, and the probability that the

traders were ignorant of Spanish rights.”

[199] Tratchevsky, L’Espagne à l’Epoque de la Révolution française, Revue

Historique, XXXI, 5.

[200] Desdevises du Dezert, L’Espagne de l’Ancien Régime, II, 39.

[201] Grandmaison, L’Ambassade française en Espagne pendant la Révolution,

[202] Quoted by Tratchevsky, work cited above, p. 5. The Russian

ambassador was thoroughly familiar, in an official way, with

Floridablanca. The former had been at the Court of Madrid before the

latter became prime minister and remained until after the latter’s

retirement. He was an ardent admirer of the great Spanish minister.

His dispatches in the archives at Moscow were the chief source for

Tratchevsky’s article.

[203] Baumgarten, Geschichte Spaniens zur Zeit der franzoesischen Rev.,

268. Sandoz was the Prussian ambassador at Madrid. His dispatches sent to

Berlin furnish the chief basis for Baumgarten’s work.

[204] Id., 268-276. In these pages the author discusses the internal

conditions of Spain, the court intrigues and ministerial complications. On

April 25, 1790, there was a reorganization of the ministry. The department

of justice, which Floridablanca had hitherto controlled, was taken from

him, and with it went an extensive appointing power that had contributed

much to his prestige. He was even given an associate in the department of

foreign affairs, who should act when sickness or absence incapacitated the

Count.

[205] Desdevises du Dezert, L’Espagne de l’Ancien Régime, II, 14.

[206] Id., 18.

[207] Grandmaison, L’Ambassade française en Espagne pendant la Rév., 8.

This quotes the following from Comte de Vaudreuil to Comte d’Artois, July

2, 1790, published in Pingaud, Correspondance Intime pendant l’Emigration,

I, 219: “C’est un homme loyal, qui pursuit toujours et sans se rebuter ce

qu’il a une fois entrepris. Soyez sûr que M. Floridablanca est (sans en

excepter même M. Pitt) une des meilleures têtes de tous les cabinets de

l’Europe.”

[208] Baumgarten, Geschichte Spaniens zur Zeit der franzoesischen Rev.,

283.

[209] The Viceroy’s letters were addressed to Valdez. He was minister of

marine and, before the reorganization of the ministry mentioned above,

also treasurer for the Indies. At that reorganization the finances of the

Indies were transferred to the regular department of finance, at the head

of which was the ungrateful Lerena, who was the leader of the ministerial

opposition to Floridablanca in spite of the fact that he owed his entire

political advancement, and even his position in the ministry, to the

Count. Valdez was the man who was made associate to Floridablanca in the

foreign office. He also retained the ministry of marine. (See Baumgarten,

Geschichte Spaniens zur Zeit der franzoesischen Rev., 268-276.)

[210] See Chapter VI, ante, for a complete discussion of the contents of

these letters from the Viceroy. The first was written August 27, 1789,

on receipt of the news of the arrival of the _Argonaut_ at San Blas, and

the second, September 26, after the arrival of the _Princess Royal_. The

letters from Valdez of December 30 and January 2 give both numbers and

dates of the letters from the Viceroy, showing that they contained full

accounts.

[211] Merry to Leeds, Madrid, January 4, 1790. (A Narrative of the

Negotiations Occasioned by the Dispute Between England and Spain in the

Year 1790, 1.)

This Narrative is a very rare book, and very valuable for the subject

in hand. No previous writer on the Nootka controversy has consulted it.

Probably only a few copies were printed. The King’s own copy is now in

the British Museum. That obtained for use in this study is the only other

copy that Messrs. Henry Stevens, Son & Stiles, antiquarian booksellers

of London, have noted during the whole of their business experience.

Neither date nor name of publisher nor author is given. The British Museum

catalogue gives 1791(?) as the date. It is evidently an official account

prepared in the foreign office especially for the King. In a letter from

J. B. Burges, under secretary for foreign affairs, to Lord Auckland,

dated Whitehall, November 12, 1790, found in B. M. Add. MSS. 34434,

f58, he mentions an “interesting Narrative, which, at leisure hours, I

have prepared for the King, of the whole of this business.” A careful

comparison of the printed Narrative with the documents in the public

record office reveals the identity of the printed Narrative with the

Narrative mentioned by Burges in this letter. The comparison also revealed

the fact that the printed account is full and faithful. It is necessarily

condensed, but nothing of importance is omitted.

The British chargé is the same Merry who, later, as minister to the United

States, was connected with the Aaron Burr conspiracy.

[212] This news reached London January 21. It is usually stated that the

British Court knew nothing of the matter before receiving the Spanish note

of February 10.

[213] “Narrative” cited on foregoing page.

[214] Id., 9.

[215] That these instructions were written January 20 is stated in Campo

to Floridablanca, London, February 28, 1790. (MS. Arch. Hist. Nacional,

Madrid, Sec. Estado, 4291.) The date is significant when it is noticed

that on the same day he wrote a querulous letter to Montmorin, minister

for foreign affairs at Paris. He expressed pity for France and her King

and complained that in the present circumstances that country was not in

a condition to support Spain as she should. He made no mention of the

Nootka affair or of the sharp protest which he was sending to the British

Court the same day. But he evidently had it in mind and was thinking of

the complications to which it might lead. (See Floridablanca to Montmorin,

Aranjuez, January 20, 1790, MS. Arch. Hist. Nacional, Madrid, Sec. Estado,

4291.) The same is printed in Calvo, Recueil Complet des Traités de

l’Amérique Latine, III, 104.

[216] Narrative of the Negotiations between England and Spain in 1790, 12.

[217] Id., 8.

[218] Translated from a manuscript copy in French found in the Archives

des Affaires Etrangères, Paris; Espagne 1790, 5 P^{ers} Mois, f. 96. The

contents of the note are partially reflected in published memoirs written

subsequently. (See Floridablanca to Fitzherbert, June 13, 1790, Annual

[219] See Chapters III and VI, ante, which show the falsity of these

statements.

[220] See footnote a [211], p. 365.

[221] Narrative of the Negotiations between England and Spain, 12.

[222] Leeds to Campo, Whitehall, February 26, 1790. (MS. Arch. Hist.

Nacional, Madrid, Sec. Estado, 4291.) Oscar Browning, Cambridge Modern

History, VIII, 290, says that the original of this reply, now in the

public record office, is in Pitt’s own hand.

Muriel, Historia de Carlos IV, I, 108-109, gives briefly the substance of

the Spanish note of February 10 and the British reply of February 26.

[223] Campo to Floridablanca, London, February 28, 1790. (MS. Arch. Hist.

Nacional, Madrid, Sec. Estado, 4291.)

[224] Id.

[225] Miranda to Pitt, London, September 8, 1791. (Am. Hist. Rev., VII,

711, 712.)

[226] Narrative of the Negotiations between Great Britain and Spain, 13,

14.

[227] Id., 15.

[228] Minutes of the supreme junta of state, March 22, 1790. (MS. Arch.

Hist. Nacional, Madrid, Sec. Estado, 4291.)

[229] Report of Valdez to the supreme junta of state, dated March 28,

presented March 29, 1790. (MS. Arch. Hist. Nacional, Madrid, Sec. Estado,

4291.)

[230] Narrative of the Negotiations between England and Spain, 17.

[231] Minutes of the supreme junta of state, March 29, 1790. (MS. Arch.

Hist. Nacional, Madrid, Sec. Estado, 4291.) In these minutes is a Spanish

rendering of the instructions sent to Campo. They will be studied in the

form of a letter in French which Campo presented to Leeds.

[232] Baumgarten, Geschichte Spaniens zur Zeit der franzoesischen Rev.,

287. This is based on a dispatch of April 19 from Sandoz. The author says

that not only Merry but even Sandoz, who knew Floridablanca’s character so

well, believed this. Shortly afterwards the Prussian ambassador considered

everything so peaceable that he left his post for a time, turning over the

business to his attaché, “a condition,” says the author, “to which is due

the fact that we are less exactly informed concerning the further progress

of these important negotiations.”

[233] Narrative of the Negotiations between England and Spain, 18-20.

[234] Id., 36-38.

[235] Id., 39.

[236] Id., 69.

[237] Not before published, though later memoirs give a partial account.

[238] An error. Colnett’s license was for the _Prince of Wales_. (See

Chapter II.)

[239] MS. Arch. Hist. Nacional, Madrid, Sec. Estado, 4291. The same with

slight modifications is to be found in Narrative of the Negotiations

between England and Spain, 20. But this work is so rare that it is little

more accessible than the manuscripts. Muriel, Historia de Carlos IV, I,

109, mentions this letter.

[240] Narrative of the Negotiations between England and Spain, 24.

[241] Id., 35.

[242] Grenville to George III, May 1, 1790, inclosing cabinet minute of

April 30, 1790. (Fortescue MSS. I, 579; Hist. MSS. Com. Report, 13, App.

3.) This gives the names of the seven cabinet members who were present.

[243] George III to Grenville, May 1; Grenville to George III, May 2, and

George III to Grenville, May 2. (Fortescue MSS., I, 579, 580.)

[244] Leeds to Campo, Whitehall, May 5, 1790. (MS. Arch. Hist. Nacional,

Madrid, Sec. Estado, 4291.) In English and apparently the original.

Muriel, Historia de Carlos IV, I, 110, reviews this reply briefly.

[245] Narrative of the Negotiations between England and Spain, 44.

[246] Haldimand’s Diary, May 5 and May 14, 1790. (Canadian Archives, 1889,

p. 281 ff.) A letter from London of May 7 in Gazette de Leide, May 14,

1790, says: “Les fonds, depuis le message du Rol, ont continué de baisser.”

[247] Parl. Hist., XXVIII, 765; also Annual Register, XXXII, 285. The

latter work incorrectly gives the date May 25. This error is repeated in

many of the books that treat of the subject, since this work has been the

chief source.

[248] This statement was true as far as the English knew or could know,

but there was at least an attempt to justify the procedure. Martinez took

goods from the captured ships and applied them to his own use, but made

provision for their restoration in Mexico. (See Chapter V.) A schooner had

been appropriated to the Spanish service with less show of justice.

[249] Parl. Hist. XXVIII, 766-782. The address of the Lords with the

incorrect date, May 26, is given in the Annual Register, XXXII, 286.

[250] Morris, Diary and Letters, 1, 325.

[251] Parl. Hist., XXVIII, 784.

[252] Letter from London, May 7, in Gazette de Leide, May 14, 1790

[253] Vancouver, Voyages, I, 48.

[254] See Dalrymple, The Spanish Pretensions fairly discussed, London,

1790; also [Etches]. An Authentic Account of all the Facts Relative to

Nootka Sound, etc., London, 1790. Meares’s Memorial was also made public.

[255] Miranda to Pitt, September 18, 1791. (Am. Hist. Rev., VII, 712.)

Haldimand’s diary during May and June, 1790, confirms Miranda’s statements

of his intimacy with the governmental authorities. The writer makes

frequent mention of being with the King, with Grenville, and of being

consulted on Canadian affairs, showing that he was intimate in Court

circles. During the same months he speaks frequently of Miranda’s being

with him, dining with him, driving with him, etc. (See Can. Arch., 1889,

p. 281 ff.)

[256] Parl. Hist., XXVIII, 784.

[257] Official Papers relative to the Dispute between the Courts of Great

Britain and Spain, 42.

[258] Parl. Hist., XXVIII, 805.

[259] Id., 807.

[260] Parl. Hist., 815-822

[261] Id., 875.

[262] Grenville to Westmoreland, May 3, May 7, and May 9; and Westmoreland

to Grenville, May 10 and May 14. (Fortescue MSS., I, 580-584.)

[263] Narrative of the Negotiations between England and Spain, 56. These

orders were given May 6.

[264] Narrative of the Negotiations between England and Spain, 59-62.

These orders were given May 6 and May 22.

[265] Id., 62-65. Orders dated May 12.

[266] Id., 57. Orders dated May 6. See also Can. Arch., 1890, pp. 130-133.

[267] Grenville to George III, May 25, and George III to Grenville, May

26. (Fortescue MSS., I, 586, 587.)

[268] Leeds to Auckland, May 4, 1790. (Brit. Mus., MSS. 34431, f^o 67.)

[269] Leeds to Auckland, May 4, 1790 (private). (Brit. Mus., MSS. 34431,

f^o 81.)

[270] Narrative of the Negotiations between England and Spain, 70.

[271] Auckland to Grenville, Hague, May 15, 1790. (Fortescue MSS., I, 585.