The Nootka Sound Controversy

Chapter XIV 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 Aranda461 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.

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.) 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, 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 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 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, 7.

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 Register, XXXII, 296.)

219 See Chapters III and VI, ante, which show the falsity of these statements.

220 See footnote a, 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. See also work last cited, 95-97.)

272 Leeds to Auckland, May 18, 1790. (Brit. Mus., MSS. 34431, f^o 195. See also Narrative cited above, 97.)

273 Narrative of the Negotiations between England and Spain, 100 ff.

274 De Jonge, Geschiedenis van het Nederlandsche Zeewezen, V, 119-120.

275 Hertzberg to Ewart, Berlin, May 20, 1790. (Brit. Mus., MSS. 34431, f^o 205.) Stanhope’s Life of Pitt, II, 551, mentions the Prussian and Dutch assurances of friendship.

276 Floridablanca to Montmorin, January 20, 1790. (MS. Arch. Hist. Nacional, Madrid, Sec. Estado, 4291.) The same is published In Calvo, Recueil Complet des Traités de l’Amérique Latine, III, 341. This author quotes it from Cantillo, Collecion de Tratados de España. See p. 366 ante note c.

277 Floridablanca to Fernan Nuñez, April 6, 1790; Calvo, Recueil Complet des Traités de l’Amérique Latine, III, 342.

278 Fernan Nuñez to Floridablanca, Paris, May 11, 1790. (MS. Arch. Hist Nacional, Madrid, Sec. Estado, 4038.)

279 This episode of the recall of Vauguyon is treated at length by Grandmaison, L’Ambassade Française en Espagne pendant la Révolution, 21 ff. This author thinks that the suspicion originated with British emissaries in Paris, who wished to produce an estrangement between the Courts of France and Spain. This was, at least, its result. He quotes several letters that passed between Louis XVI and Charles IV regarding the matter. The Spanish King’s attitude unfortunately made it seem that there was some ground for the suspicion of Vauguyon. The French Court was considerably embarrassed thereby. There seems to be no doubt of the fact that Vauguyon was innocent, at least in so far as any complicity with the French Court was concerned.

280 On May 7 the British Court had given orders to Lord Robert FitzGerald, chargé at Paris, to make this explanation to Montmorin. (See Narrative of the Negotiations between England and Spain, 68)

281 Arch. Parl., first series, XV, 510, session for May 14, 1790.

282 Arch. Parl., first series, XV, 515-519 (May 14, 1790); Willert, P. F., Mirabeau, 164-170; Loménie, Les Mirabeaus, V, 144-149; Stern, Das Leben Mirabeaus, II, 151-164.

283 Arch. Parl., first series, XV, 526-661 (May 16-22, 1790). Cambridge Modern History, VIII, 188, discusses briefly the debate.

284 Montmorin to Floridablanca, Paris, May 21, 1790. (MS. Arch. Hist. Nacional, Madrid, Sec. Estado, 4038.)

285 Arch. Parl., first series, XV, 705 (May 28); Id., XVI, 185 (June 12); Id., XVI. 206 (June 13).

286 Annual Register, XXXII, 294. It is published under a wrong title and date.

287 Id., 301. Same in Arch. Parl., first series, XVI. 503.

288 Montmorin to Fernan Nuñez, Paris, June 26, 1790. (MS. Arch. Hist. Nacional, Sec. Estado, 4038.)

289 Fernan Nuñez to Montmorin, Paris, June 25, 1700. (Ibid.)

290 Montmorin to Fernan Nuñez, Paris, June 30, 1790. (Ibid.)

291 Leeds to Merry, May 4, 1790. (Brit. Mus., MSS. 34431, f^o 75.)

292 Narrative of the Negotiations between England and Spain, 106.

293 Merry to Floridablanca, May 16, 1790. (MS. Arch. Hist. Nacional, Madrid, Sec. Estado, 4291.)

294 That of Campo to Leeds of April 20. (See Chapter VII.)

295 Campo to Leeds, February 10. (Chapter VII.)

296 Evidently that of Meares.

297 British memorial of May 16, 1790. (MS. Arch. Hist. Nacional, Madrid, Sec. Estado, 4291.) The reference cited in note b on the preceding page says that Merry sent with the memorial a copy of the original in English for fear of mistakes in the translation. The memorial in French and a copy in English are still to be found together in the archives.
Apparently no previous writer on the Nootka affair has seen this memorial nor any of the earlier documents. No reference is made to them except such as is drawn from later documents which give brief reviews of the earlier correspondence. Bancroft (History of the Northwest Coast, I, 229, note 46) says: “Up to this point the correspondence is not, so far as I know, extant in its original form, but is only known from citations and references in later documents.” For English and Spanish material the documents in the Annual Register seem to have been the only source used to any extent. In fact this work contains nearly all of the documents that have been published on the diplomatic phase of the incident. Greenhow has reprinted most of them in the appendix to his Oregon and California. Muriel, Historia de Carlos IV, I, 111, mentions this memorial.

298 Floridablanca to Merry, May 18, 1790. (MS. Arch. Hist. Nacional, Madrid, Sec. Estado, 4291.) Up to this time Floridablanca had evidently not read carefully all of the papers which he had received from the Viceroy five months before, or he would not have asserted that only one vessel had been seized unless, indeed, he was intentionally prevaricating. He seems to have become informed shortly after, for in his formal reply of June 4 he mentioned the Princess Royal.

299 Merry to Floridablanca, May 19, 1790. (MS. Arch. Hist. Nacional, Madrid, Sec. Estado, 4291.)

300 Narrative of the Negotiations between England and Spain, 111.

301 Letter from Madrid of May 25, Gazette de Leide, June 11, 1790.

302 Work cited, note c above, 113.

303 Narrative of the Negotiations between England and Spain, 113.

304 [Floridablanca] to Merry, June 4, 1790. (MS. Arch. Hist. Nacional, Madrid, Sec. Estado, 4291.) This is a brief note unsigned, but in the Count’s handwriting. It states that he is sending to Merry a reply to the latter’s of May 16.

305 Narrative of the Negotiations between England and Spain, 115-119. The same is published in full in the Annual Register, XXXII, 292, under a wrong title. On the same day Floridablanca issued his circular note to all the Courts of Europe. (See Chapter VIII.)

306 Narrative of the Negotiations between England and Spain, 119.

307 Id., 72.

308 Id., 83-90. In these pages is a discussion of the French attitude. Montmorin gave friendly assurances to the English representatives. The conflicting interests of the Government and the Assembly were discussed. On May 21 Earl Gower was sent as ambassador extraordinary to Paris. He was to reject mediation if offered. (See Id., pp. 91-94.) While in Paris Fitzherbert attempted to induce Lafayette and the Liberal party to support the English contention. He had failed to renew his acquaintance with Lafayette, but understood that the latter still wished to see free intercourse between the Spanish colonies and the nations of Europe, and believed that he would not acquiesce in a war undertaken on principles diametrically opposite. Fitzherbert to Pitt, Paris, May 20, 1790; (Smith MSS., Hist. MSS. Com. Rpt., 12, appendix 9, p. 367.)

309 Id., 72-82. These instructions order the ambassador to be firm in his demands, but express a desire, apparently sincere, to terminate the difficulty amicably. In case of his hearing that Spain had forced a breach, he was to proceed no further without new instructions. If after reaching Madrid he should be ordered to quit the place, he was to go to Lisbon. If Spain should declare war, but not order him to leave, he was to await new instructions at Madrid.

310 Id., 121.

311 Fitzherbert to Floridablanca, Madrid, June 10, 1790. (MS. Arch. Hist. Nacional, Madrid, Sec. Estado, 4245.) The credentials were dated Whitehall, May 7, 1790.

312 Narrative of the Negotiations between England and Spain, 121, 123.

313 Fitzherbert to Floridablanca, June 13, 1790. (Brit. Mus., MSS. 34431, f^o 402.) The same is published in the Annual Register, XXXII, 298. The title to this, as well as to the two documents which precede it in the same work, is wrong.
The following comment on the unreasonableness of the English demand is to the point: “Es war das in der That eine eigenthuemliche Methode, Gewalt und Recht zu mischen, einer kuenstigen Eroerterung Alles vorzubehalten und zugleich das Resultat dieser Eroerterung zu anticipiren.” (Baumgarten, Geschichte Spaniens zur Zeit der franzoesischen Revolution, 289.)

314 Fitzherbert to Leeds, Aranjuez, June 16, 1790. (MS. from the public record office, London, Chatham MSS., bdle. 341.) The substance of the same, in Narrative of the Negotiations between England and Spain, 125.

315 Work cited in last note, 146.

316 Narrative of the Negotiations between England and Spain, 129.

317 Narrative of the Negotiations between England and Spain, 145-149.

318 Fitzherbert to Leeds, Aranjuez, July 1, 1790. (MS. Arch. Hist. Nacional, Madrid, Sec. Estado, 4291.)

319 Narrative of the Negotiations between England and Spain, 152.

320 Leeds to Fitzherbert, July 5, 1790 (Brit. Mus., MSS. 34432, f^o 32-36): Fitzherbert to Leeds, Madrid, July 15, 1790 (MS. public record office, Spain, XVIII, 159).

321 Memorial signed by Fitzherbert, July 17, 1790. (MS. Arch. Hist. Nacional, Madrid, Sec. Estado, 4291.)

322 Instructions cited in note d on foregoing page.

[323] Report submitted June 18, 1790, in consequence of a royal order of June 7. (MS. Arch. Hist. Nacional, Madrid, Sec. Estado, 2848.)

324 Spanish memorial of July 22, 1790. (MS. Arch. Hist. Nacional, Madrid, Sec. Estado, 4291.)

325 A French version is found in Narrative of the Negotiations between England and Spain, 156-158. There is an English version in An. Reg., XXXII, 300. A Spanish version is in Calvo, Recueil Complet des Traités de l’Amérique Latine, 347. Many other works have reproduced them.

326 Compare with draft of declaration and draft of counter declaration inclosed with Leeds to Fitzherbert, July 5, 1790 (Brit. Mus., MSS. 34432, f^o 42-44); the same, pp. 142, 143 of the Narrative, cited in last note.

327 Fitzherbert to Leeds, Madrid, July 29, 1790. (MS. public record office, Spain, XVIII, 273.)

328 Grenville to George III, August 4-5, 1790. (Fortescue MSS., 1, 603.)

329 Leeds to Fitzherbert, August 6, 1790. (MS. Arch. Hist. Nacional, Sec. Estado, 4243.) Several writers on the subject seem to have made the mistake of thinking that these declarations were intended as a final settlement but were rejected. Calvo, in his Recueil, says that the declaration was rejected by England and the armaments were continued.

330 Fitzherbert to Leeds, June 16, 1790. (MS. public record office, London, Chatham MSS., bdle. 341.) Also Merry to Leeds, June 4, 1790. (MS. public record office, London, vol. for Spain, 17.)

331 Baumgarten, Geschichte Spaniens zur Zeit der franzoesischen Revolution, 292.

332 Narrative of the Negotiations between England and Spain, 150.

333 Id., 151. Muriel, Historia de Carlos, IV, I, 112-121. This author gives an extended discussion of the Spanish fleet, giving the size of each vessel, its name, and the name of its commander.

334 Narrative of the Negotiations between England and Spain, 154.

335 Id., 66.

336 Report to the National Assembly. (Arch. Parl., first series, XVI, 692.)

337 See last chapter.

[338] [Floridablanca] to Merry, May 18, 1790. (MS. Arch. Hist. Nacional, Madrid, Sec. Estado, 4291.)

339 An. Reg., XXXII, 298.

340 Leeds to Fitzherbert, July 5, 1790. (Brit. Mus., MSS. 34432, f^o 46.)

341 Narrative of the Negotiations between England and Spain. 465.

342 Id., 194.

343 Narrative of the Negotiations between England and Spain, 199.

344 Id., 240.

345 Id., 234.

346 Id., 236.

347 Baumgarten, Geschichte Spaniens zur Zeit der franzoesischen Revolution, 294.

348 Baumgarten, Geschichte Spaniens sur Zeit der franzoesischen Revolution, 292.

349 See Lecky, England In the Eighteenth Century, V, 232-264. A number of letters between the King of Spain and the Queen of Portugal, running through the year, show that the latter power was offering her mediation to settle the quarrel with England; but this is a negligible influence. (See Arch. Hist. Nacional, Madrid, Sec. Estado, 4221.)

350 See Chapters VII and VIII.

351 Miranda to Pitt, London, September 8, 1781. (Am. Hist. Rev., VII, 711, 712.) This document and several others, which will be referred to in this chapter, were collected and published by F. J. Turner. In this letter Miranda recounts his relations with Pitt between February, 1790, and September, 1791. It seems that Pitt had made repeated promises of financial aid, but had delayed them from time to time, until the writer had become impatient. A small sum had been paid, but much less than had been promised. He tells of Russian offers of friendship and support. Later correspondence indicates that he received money from time to time.

352 Am. Hist. Rev., VII. 711, note 4.

353 Am. Hist. Rev., VII, 716-735.

354 See Chapter VIII.

355 Narrative of the Negotiations between England and Spain, 57.

356 Lord Dorchester to Major Beckwith, Quebec, June 27, 1790 (Can. Arch., 1890, p. 143); and same to same on same day (Id., 144). Very little is known of Beckwith besides his being sent on this mission. Douglas Brymner, in his introduction to this volume of the Canadian Archives, p. xl, gives a brief sketch. He says that the records at Washington reveal nothing regarding Beckwith or his mission.

357 Dorchester to Grenville, Quebec, July 7, 1790. (Id., 145.)

358 Hamilton, Works, IV, 31.

359 Id., 32. Also Can. Arch., 1890, p. xxxvi

360 Jefferson, Works, IX, 409.

361 Hamilton, Works, IV, 32. Also Can. Arch., 1890, p. xxxvii.

362 Can. Arch., 1890; p. 145. Inclosure with Dorchester to Grenville, September 25, 1790, marked “Supposed No. 7.” These inclosures and others similar, sent at various times by Dorchester to the British Cabinet, are designated as unofficial information. No names are given, but the speakers are indicated by number. Keys were sent from time to time showing for whom the numbers stood. A complete key is found in the introduction to this volume (p. xii). The above information reached Dorchester August 5.

363 Id., 147, No. 14. The key shows this to have been Mr. Scott.

364 Id., 162, 163, No. 7.

365 Jefferson to Monroe, July 11, 1790. (Jefferson, Writings, V, 198.)

366 Washington to Jefferson, August 27, 1790. (Id., 238.)

367 Jefferson to Washington, August 28, 1790. (Id.)

368 Jay to Washington, August 28, 1790. (Ford, The United States and Spain in 1790, 50.)

369 Adams to Washington, August 29, 1790. (Id., 45.)

370 Knox to Washington, August 29, 1790. (Id., 103.)

371 Hamilton to Washington, September 15, 1790. (Hamilton, Works, IV, 48.)

372 Jefferson to the United States secret agent, August 11, 1790. (Writings.)

373 Morris, Diary and Letters, I, 325, 326, 329; Life and Writings, II, 113.

374 Jefferson to [Morris], August 12, 1790. (Works or Writings, under date.)

375 Morris, Diary and Letters, I, 647; entry for September 15, 1790.

376 This rumor was traced to Miranda, who, it was reported, said that he had seen it in a letter to Campo, the Spanish ambassador. (See Hamilton to Washington, September 21, 1790, Hamilton, Works, IV, 71; see also Humphreys to the Secretary of State, London, October 20, 1790; Ford, The United States and Spain in 1790, 31.)

377 Jefferson to Short, August 10, 1790. (Jefferson, Writings, V, 218.)

378 Jefferson to Carmichael, August 2 and 22, 1790. (Id., 216 and 225.)

379 See Am. Hist. Rev., VII, 720.

380 Short to Jefferson, Paris, October 21, 1790. (MSS. Dept. of State, Washington, Dispatches, France, Vol. II.)

381 Humphreys to the Secretary of State, Madrid, January 3, 1791. (Ford, The United States and Spain in 1790, 32.) It seems that very little news from Carmichael had been received, and that the Government at New York had become impatient at his dilatory conduct. He must have received a severe reprimand from Jefferson, if one can judge from his reply of January 24, 1791 (Id., 37). It begins: “SIR: Colonel Humphreys delivered to me your letter of the 6th of August on the 15th of last month. Nothing could equal my astonishment at finding that I have been employing my time in a situation that has been for many years disagreeable—so little to my own credit or to the satisfaction of my country.” The rest of the letter indicates that his dispatches had miscarried. He attributed the fact to personal enemies. He said that he was sending copies of some of his last dispatches.
This letter from Carmichael and that from Humphreys referred to above make interesting comments on the court intrigues in Spain—the dominance of the Queen’s corrupt influence and the decline of Floridablanca’s prestige.

382 See Chapter VIII.

383 Arch. Parl., August 2, 1790. (Muriel, Historia de Carlos IV, I, 122, mentions this letter of June 16.)

384 Arch. Parl., August 3, 1790. The observations of the two Deputies are appended to the minutes of the session. The one who presented the latter report was Le Couteulx de Canteleu, Deputy from Rouen.

385 Arch. Parl., August 25, 1790; Miles, W. A., Correspondence, I, 167.

386 Id., August 26, 1790. Muriel, Historia de Carlos IV, 123-126, discusses Mirabeau’s report of August 25 and the decree of August 26. Cambridge Modern History VIII, 189, 190, discusses the decree briefly. The latter reference says, “It is stated on the authority of Miles that Mirabeau received from the Spanish minister a thousand louis d’or for this service.” See also Mémoires de Mirabeau, VIII, 36; Loménie, Les Mirabeau, V, 269; and Correspondence Entre Mirabeau et La Marck, II, 147.

387 Montmorin to the president of the Assembly, August 30, 1790. (MS. Arch. Hist. Nacional, Madrid, Sec. Estado, 4038.) On October 10 the Assembly appropriated 5,000,000 livres to defray the expense of the armament. (See Arch. Parl., October 10, 1790.)

388 Montmorin to Fernan Nuñez, September 1, 1790. (MS. Arch. Hist. Nacional, Madrid, Sec. Estado, 4038.)

389 Oscar Browning, Cambridge Modern History, VIII, 290, says that “On June 23, 1790, he had notified the Court that if they wished to give effect to the family compact they must get it altered in form, as the nation would never support an agreement which was purely dynastic in shape.”

390 Montmorin to Luzerne, August 27, 1790. (MS. Arch. Hist. Nacional, Madrid, Sec. Estado, 4038.)

391 Same to same, August 28, 1790. (Id.)

392 Gower, Despatches, 26.

393 Id., 28.

394 Narrative of the Negotiations between England and Spain, 204.

395 Gower to the French Court, September 4, 1790. (MS. Arch. Hist. Nacional, Madrid, Sec. Estado, 4038.)

396 Narrative of the Negotiations between England and Spain, 218.

397 Id., 220, 221, 223, 226, 230, 232.

398 Stanhope, Life of Pitt, II, 56, 59; Hassal, The French People, 352; Cambridge Modern History, VIII, 291; Adams, E. D., The Influence of Grenville on Pitt’s Foreign Policy, 8, 9; Miles, W. A., Correspondence on the French Revolution, I, 170, 176, 178; and George III to Pitt, October 26, 1790. Smith MSS. (Hist. MSS. Com., report 12, appendix 9, p. 368.) The last two are the sources. The last is quoted by Adams and by the Cambridge Modern History.

399 See Chapter IX. Early in August, letters from Colnett had reached London by way of Fitzherbert at Madrid. These told of his detention in Mexico and of his release. Their influence on the negotiations was only indirect. (See Narrative, 166.)
In the instructions sent from London on August 17, Fitzherbert was asked to take up with the Spanish Court the matter of the liberation of the Chinese which were captured at Nootka. In the same instructions negotiations concerning a dispute over regulations for governing British subjects in the Honduras settlement were turned over to Fitzherbert. These had been in progress between Campo and Leeds at London in February, when the first Spanish note on the Nootka affair was handed to Leeds. The British Court immediately suspended all other discussions until Spain should have offered satisfaction for the insult which they felt that the British flag had suffered. The declarations of July 24 had been accepted as affording such, and consequently the usual diplomatic relations had been resumed. (See Narrative, 201, 208.)

400 Narrative, 168 ff.

401 An error in the month, as pointed out formerly. Martinez did not arrive at Nootka until May 5. (See Chapter IV, ante.) This error was embodied in the final treaty.

402 Fitzherbert to Floridablanca, inclosing projet with observations, September 8, 1790. (MS. Arch. Hist. Nacional, Madrid, Sec. Estado, 4291.) The private instructions of Leeds to Fitzherbert are to be found in the Narrative, 168-192.

403 Gazette de Leide, October 1, 1790.

404 Peace had been concluded between Sweden and Russia on August 15, but the news had probably not reached Madrid when the Count prepared this paper. See Lecky, England in the Eighteenth Century, V, 271.

405 Floridablanca to the principal ministers, September, 1790. (MS. Arch. Hist. Nacional, Madrid, Sec. Estado. 4291.) The same is published in Calvo, Recueil Complet des Traités de l’Amérique Latine, III, 350-355; also in Cantillo, Tratados de Paz y Comercio, 630.

406 Narrative, 242-245.

407 Id., 247-256. A manuscript copy of Fitzherbert’s projet and Floridablanca’s counter-projet is to be found in the Arch. Hist. Nacional, Madrid, Sec. Estado, 4291.

408 Cambridge Modern History, VIII, 189, says of the Spaniards: “Feeling how vain it was to trust an ally of this kind, they preferred to make terms with their enemy.”

409 Gazette de Leide, October 15, 1790.

410 Id., October 19.

411 Dundas to Grenville, September 27, 1790. (Fortescue MSS., I, 607.)

412 Leeds to Fitzherbert, September 10, 1790. (Narrative, 240.)

413 Leeds to Auckland, October 22, 1790. (Brit. Mus., MSS. 34433, f^o 349.)

414 In detaching the Netherlands from the French alliance and uniting them to England and Prussia by the triple alliance.

415 Storer to Auckland, October 22, 1790. (Auckland, Correspondence, II, 373.)

416 This shows that the British Ministry was resting the justice of its cause on the purchase of land which Meares claimed that he had made at Nootka on his arrival in 1788, and on the temporary hut which he had erected to shelter workmen while they were building his little vessel, the North-West America. (See Chapter II.)

417 Narrative, 257-285. Also, the two drafts are inclosed in Leeds to Auckland, October 8, 1790. (Brit. Mus., MSS. 34433 f^o 252.)
With these instructions Fitzherbert was also given orders concerning the case of Captain Macdonald. He was the captain of a vessel that had recently been seized by a Spanish frigate in the West Indies on the ground that she was carrying on contraband trade. Indemnity for this had to be assured before the Nootka matter could be settled. It was easily adjusted. (Narrative, 285.)

418 Id., 289-291.

419 For a full discussion of these facts, see Chapters II-V.

420 Floridablanca to Fitzherbert, October 16, 1790, inclosing notes on the English projet, and a Spanish counter projet. (MS. Arch. Hist. Nacional, Madrid, Sec. Estado, 4291.)

421 See last chapter.

[422] Conclusions of the junta of eight ministers, of October 21, 22, 24, and 25, 1790. (MSS. Arch. Hist. Nacional. Madrid, Sec. Estado, 4291; a copy is found also in bundle 2848 of the same section.) In the former bundle are also copies of all of the more important papers that had passed between Floridablanca and Fitzherbert since the signing of the declarations on July 24. They were submitted to the junta. In the latter bundle are also the following letters relating to the junta and its sessions: Floridablanca to Iriarte, October 19 and 23; and Iriarte to Floridablanca, October 21, 22, 24, and 25, 1790. Iriarte was secretary for the junta and one of its eight members. He belonged to the council for the Indies.

423 Duro, Armada Española, VII, 16, makes the mistake of saying that a majority of the junta favored the convention, though it met with some opposition. He had evidently not seen the conclusions of the junta, or had not examined them carefully.

424 Narrative, 297-303.

425 Fitzherbert to Floridablanca, October 23, 1790. (MS. Arch. Hist. Nacional, Madrid, Sec. Estado, 4291.)

426 Narrative, 303.

427 Id., 291.

428 Narrative, 304.

429 Fitzherbert to Floridablanca, October 20, 1790. (MS. Arch. Hist. Nacional, Madrid, Sec. Estado, 4291), and same to same, October 27, 1790 (Id.).

430 Narrative, 292; An. Reg., XXXII, 303.; Calvo, Recueil, III, 356.

431 Calvo adds the secret article, but it has not been published in any other work.

432 Floridablanca to Iriarte, October 27, 1790. (MS. Arch. Hist. Nacional, Madrid, Sec. Estado, 2848.)

433 Iriarte to Floridablanca, October 28, 1790 (Id.), inclosing notes mentioned above, and Fitzherbert’s letter to the consuls of October 26.

434 Floridablanca to Iriarte, November 21, 1790. (MS. Arch. Hist. Nacional, Sec. Estado, 2848.)

435 Reflections submitted to the junta. (Id.)

436 Iriarte to Floridablanca, November 24 [29], 1790. (Id.)

437 St. Helens to Grenville, May 16, 1791. (Fortescue MSS., II, 74.) Fitzherbert had been raised to the peerage as Baron St. Helens. Grenville had succeeded Leeds in the foreign office.

438 St. Helens to Grenville, February 28, 1792 (id., 256), and inclosure dated Madrid, March 21, 1792, in a letter of Auckland to Grenville, January 19, 1793 (id., 368).

439 Leeds to Auckland, November 4, 1790. (Brit. Mus. MSS., 34434, f^o 14.)

440 Aust to Auckland, November 4, 1790. (Id., f^o 20.)

441 Leeds to Auckland, November 9, 1790. (Id., f^o 43.)

442 Narrative, 306.

443 Burges to Auckland, November 12, 1790. (Brit. Mus., MSS. 34434, f^o 58.) This quotation taken with the sentence which follows shows that Burges considered about as much of the success due to himself as to Fitzherbert. Continuing, he said: “This has been a very fortunate business for him, for though undoubtedly he has had some trouble, his instructions were so full and so positive, that little more on his part was necessary than a literal adherence to them. From the turn things have unexpectedly taken, I am apprehensive you must for some time give me credit on this head.” It was in this letter that Burges made the statement which assisted in identifying him as the compiler of the anonymous Narrative of the Negotiations between England and Spain, to which frequent reference has been made. (See p. 365, antea, note a.)

444 An. Reg., XXXII, 305.

445 Parl. Hist., XXVIII, 891.

446 Id., 893.

447 Id., 899-906.

448 Id., 933-948.

449 Id., 949-1003. It would be interesting to discuss these long debates in detail, but of little value. The arguments of the opposition are much more extended than those of the supporters of the Government. This is doubtless what has led many writers into making the misleading statement that the treaty was unfavorably received. The statement is true only in so far as it applies to the opposition. Such criticism would be expected from them, no matter how favorable the treaty really was.

450 In bundle 2848, Sec. Estado, Arch. Hist. Nacional, Madrid, is a bunch of documents, about an inch thick, marked “Subsequent references and notes on the convention concluded on October 28, 1790, regarding fisheries, navigation, and commerce in the Pacific Ocean and the South Seas.” They were collected by Iriarte and presented to the Prince of Peace [Godoy]. They bear a variety of dates, some as late as 1797, and are quotations from various European newspapers, reports of conversations, and copies of letters. Their purpose seems to have been to show the injustice of England in demanding such extravagant terms.

451 Chapter VI.

452 Instructions from Bodega y Quadra to Eliza, San Blas, January 28, 1790. (MS. Arch. Gen. de Indias, Seville, 90-3-26.)

453 Voyage of the Sutil y Mexicana in 1792, Introduction; México á Través de Los Siglos, II, 879; Informe of Revilla-Gigedo of April 12, 1793, in Bustamante (Cavo), Los Tres Siglos, III, 330; Pedro Feger, Nouvelles Annales de Voyages, CI, 19.

454 Vancouver, Voyages, I, 47-49 and 58-75.

455 Id., 335 ff.; Bustamante (Cavo), Los Tres Siglos, III, 133-140; Greenhow, Oregon and California, 241-246.

456 Vancouver, Voyages, VI, 65-95, 117, 126. The commission was to him first and to the special commissioner in Vancouver’s absence. (See Id. p. 118.)

457 St. Helens to Grenville, May 29, 1791; Fortescue MSS., II, 86.

458 Grenville to St. Helens, August 26, 1791. (Id., 176.)

459 St. Helens to Grenville, October 3, 1791. (Id., 203.)

460 Same to same, May 14, 1792. (Id., 268.)

461 The new prime minister, appointed on the fall of Floridablanca.

462 St. Helens to Grenville, May 29, 1792. (Fortescue MSS., II, 275.)

463 Grenville to Dundas, August 4, 1792. (Id., 297.) Dundas was home secretary.

464 Dundas to Grenville, September 2, 1792. (Id., 307.)

465 Translated from the Spanish copy published in Calvo, Recueil Complet des Traités de l’Amérique Latine, III, 364.

466 Grenville to St. Helens, August 26, 1791. (Fortescue MSS., II, 176.)

467 Cabinet minute, January 25, 1793. (Id., 373.)

468 Grenville to St. Helens, June 21, 1793. (Id., 398.) The documents relating to the negotiation are found in bundle 4221, Sec. Estado, of the Archivo Historico Nacional at Madrid.

469 [Alcudia] to Revilla-Gigedo, January 29, 1794. (MS. Arch. Hist. Nacional, Madrid, Sec. Estado, 4291.)

470 Revilla-Gigedo to Alcudia, Mexico, April 12, 1793. (Bustamante (Cavo), Los Tres Siglos, III, 112-164.)

471 Translated from a Spanish copy in Calvo, Recueil, III, 386. A manuscript copy is in bundle 4291, Sec. Estado, Arch. Hist. Nacional, Madrid.

472 [Alcudia] to Revilla-Gigedo, January 29, 1794, inclosing instructions to Bodega y Quadra, or the one whom the Viceroy should appoint. (MS. Arch. Hist. Nacional, Madrid, Sec. Estado, 4291.)

473 Grenville to Dundas, February 22, 1794 (Fortescue MSS., II, 511), concerning the appointment of a commissioner; and Jackson to Alcudia, April 17 and 20, 1794 (MS. Arch. Hist. Nacional, Madrid, Sec. Estado, 4287), both of which relate to the commissioner and the route which he is to take. Jackson was at the time in charge of the British legation at Madrid.

474 Jackson to Alcudia, August 16, 1794. (MS. Arch. Hist. Nacional, Madrid, Sec. Estado, 4287.) This announces the British commissioner’s arrival at La Coruna and requests a passport for him.

475 Mexico á Través de Los Siglos, II, 880. This work gives a very good brief account of the transfer and abandonment.

476 Alava to Alcudia, San Blas, April 23, 1795. (MS. Arch. Hist. Nacional, Madrid, Sec. Estado, 4287.) In this letter the Spanish commissioner reports to Godoy the final ceremonies at Nootka. He gives as the date of the ceremonies March 28; but since an error may have been made in copying, and since other accounts agree on the above date, that has been adopted. Bancroft, Northwest Coast, I, 301-303, discusses the final settlement.