Chapter 11

[113]Deposition of Martinez before Canizares, on board thePrincesa, 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 schoonerNorth-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 theColumbia.[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 theColumbia, 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 thePrincess Royal, to be discussed presently.[117]John Kendrick’s receipt for provisions on board theColumbia, 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 theIphigenia.[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 offoregoing 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 theNorth-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, inChapter 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 theArgonaut.[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 theArgonaut. 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 babove, 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 theArgonautandPrincess 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 innote bon the preceding page.[151]Colnett, Voyage, 96-102, note.[152]SeeChapter 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 inChapter 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]Seelast 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 thePrincess Royalat 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 theIphigeniahad 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]SeeChapter 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 theArgonautat San Blas, and the second, September 26, after the arrival of thePrincess 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 PersMois, 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 ChaptersIIIandVI, ante, which show the falsity of these statements.[220]Seefootnote 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.)

[114]Deposition of the officers and men of the schoonerNorth-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 theColumbia.

[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 theColumbia, 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 thePrincess Royal, to be discussed presently.

[117]John Kendrick’s receipt for provisions on board theColumbia, 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 theIphigenia.

[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 offoregoing 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 theNorth-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.

[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 theNorth-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, inChapter 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 theArgonaut.

[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 theArgonaut. 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 babove, 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 theArgonautandPrincess 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 innote bon the preceding page.

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

[152]SeeChapter 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 inChapter 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]Seelast 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 thePrincess Royalat 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 theIphigeniahad 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.”

[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 thePrincess Royalat 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 theIphigeniahad 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]SeeChapter 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 theArgonautat San Blas, and the second, September 26, after the arrival of thePrincess 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.

[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 PersMois, 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 ChaptersIIIandVI, ante, which show the falsity of these statements.

[220]Seefootnote 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.

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.)

Back to Index Next