Chapter 12

[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 thePrince of Wales. (SeeChapter 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. (SeeChapter 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, fo67.)[269]Leeds to Auckland, May 4, 1790 (private). (Brit. Mus., MSS. 34431, fo81.)[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, fo195. 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, fo205.) 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 antenote 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, fo75.)[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. (SeeChapter 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 innote bon 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 thePrincess 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 cabove, 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. (SeeChapter 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, fo402.) 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 inlast 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, fo32-36): 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 innote don 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, fo42-44); the same, pp. 142, 143 of the Narrative, cited inlast 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]Seelast 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, fo46.)[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 ChaptersVIIandVIII.[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]SeeChapter VIII.[355]Narrative of the Negotiations between England and Spain, 57.

[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 thePrince of Wales. (SeeChapter 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. (SeeChapter 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, fo67.)

[269]Leeds to Auckland, May 4, 1790 (private). (Brit. Mus., MSS. 34431, fo81.)

[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, fo195. 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, fo205.) 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 antenote 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, fo75.)

[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. (SeeChapter 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 innote bon 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.

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 thePrincess 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 cabove, 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. (SeeChapter 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, fo402.) 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.)

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 inlast 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, fo32-36): 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 innote don 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, fo42-44); the same, pp. 142, 143 of the Narrative, cited inlast 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]Seelast 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, fo46.)

[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 ChaptersVIIandVIII.

[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]SeeChapter VIII.

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

Back to Index Next