Chapter 13

[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]SeeChapter 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]SeeChapter 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. (SeeChapter 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, fo349.)[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, theNorth-West America. (SeeChapter II.)[417]Narrative, 257-285. Also, the two drafts are inclosed in Leeds to Auckland, October 8, 1790. (Brit. Mus., MSS. 34433 fo252.)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, seeChapters 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]Seelast 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, fo14.)[440]Aust to Auckland, November 4, 1790. (Id., fo20.)[441]Leeds to Auckland, November 9, 1790. (Id., fo43.)[442]Narrative, 306.[443]Burges to Auckland, November 12, 1790. (Brit. Mus., MSS. 34434, fo58.) 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.

[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.

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]SeeChapter 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]SeeChapter 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.)

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. (SeeChapter 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, fo349.)

[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, theNorth-West America. (SeeChapter II.)

[417]Narrative, 257-285. Also, the two drafts are inclosed in Leeds to Auckland, October 8, 1790. (Brit. Mus., MSS. 34433 fo252.)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.)

[417]Narrative, 257-285. Also, the two drafts are inclosed in Leeds to Auckland, October 8, 1790. (Brit. Mus., MSS. 34433 fo252.)

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, seeChapters 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]Seelast 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, fo14.)

[440]Aust to Auckland, November 4, 1790. (Id., fo20.)

[441]Leeds to Auckland, November 9, 1790. (Id., fo43.)

[442]Narrative, 306.

[443]Burges to Auckland, November 12, 1790. (Brit. Mus., MSS. 34434, fo58.) 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.

Back to Index Next