FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTES[1]Schoell, Histoire des Traités de Paix, IV, 112.[2]See Humboldt, Alex. von, Essai Politique, II, 460.[3]Oscar Browning, the writer of Chapter X, in Volume VIII, of the Cambridge Modern History, recently published, gives the least prejudiced and most accurate account. However, it is very brief. He introduces the Incident as an important episode in the foreign policy of Pitt. He says: “An event occurred on the other side of the world which nearly brought about a European conflagration.” In preparing his brief discussion he consulted the documents in the public record office.[4]See Duro, Armada Española, VIII, 8-16.[5]See Hassall, The French People, 341.[6]Richard Cadman Etches to Captain Portlock, London, September 3, 1785. (Meares, An Answer to Mr. Dixon, 10.) The instructions were not carried out by this commander, but the same company was interested in the expedition which reached Nootka for that purpose in 1789. Nootka Sound was for a time called King Georges Sound by the English and San Lorenzo by the Spanish.[7]Bancroft, Northwest Coast, I, 172.[8]Sometimes written “Mears.”[9]Meares, Memorial, appendix to Voyages.[10]This condition and the terms on which relief was offered him by Portlock and Dixon, who reached the place in the spring, led to a bitter personal quarrel between Meares and Dixon, which produced several mutually recriminating pamphlets.[11]Meares, Voyages. Introductory voyage, i-xl. In this Meares quotes the letters which passed between him and Portlock in May, 1787, which gave rise to the quarrel.[12]Id. 2.[13]The Merchant Proprietors to John Meares, esq., Commanding theFeliceandIphigenia, China, December 24, 1787. (Id., Appendix I.)[14]Id.[15]SeeChapter IVbelow.[16]Meares, Memorial, Appendix to Voyages. He explains that this ruse was at first successful, but was later discovered through the financial failure of the Portuguese merchant who had allowed his name to be thus used.[17]Dixon, Further Remarks on Meares’s Voyages, 55. His hostility to Meares prejudices any statement made by him. See above, p. 287,note b.[18]Bancroft, Northwest Coast, 1, 193. This author devotes some 10 pages to a discussion of this expedition.Greenhow, Oregon and California, 172-178, attempts to prove that the expedition was purely Portuguese. His account is too prejudiced to be of much value. The chief purpose of his book was to prove that America had a better claim to the Oregon country than England. If this expedition had been purely Portuguese, England could have acquired no possible claim through it.[19]Meares. Voyages, 2, 3.[20]Id., 88.[21]Id., 104. This date should probably be changed to May 12. When the English and Spanish not at Nootka in 1789 their calendars were one day apart. (See below, p. 312,note a.) Since there are no conflicting dates given for the events at Nootka in 1788, those found in the journals of the English commanders are followed.[22]Id., 114.[23]The purchase is confirmed in the information of William Graham, London, May 5, 1790 (inclosure No. VI, with Meares’s Memorial, appendix to Voyages). It was also confirmed by Duffin in conversation with Vancouver in 1792. (Vancouver, Voyages, II, 370-372). Both of these have strong English prejudices. The purchase is denied by Gray and Ingraham. (Greenhow, Oregon and California, 414.) They strongly favored the Spanish. They say that the Indians denied having sold land to the English. That there was a purchase was practically conceded, however, even by the Spaniards, since Quadra offered to Vancouver in 1792 the land on which Meares’s house had stood in 1788. (See Vancouver, Voyages, II, 335 ff.)[24]Id., 115-116.[25]Id., 130.[26]Greenhow, Oregon and California, 175.[27]Meares, Voyages. 131.[28]Id., 146, and Memorial in appendix.[29]Id., 95.[30]Id., 204.[31]Meares, Voyages, 173, and Memorial in appendix.[32]Id., 173-179.[33]Id., 220.[34]Greenhow, Oregon and California, 172; and Bancroft, Northwest Coast, I, 194.[35]Dixon, Further Remarks on Meares’s Voyages, 24. This writer, in his controversial pamphlet, quotes from a letter of Captain Duncan, who had met Meares near the entrance to Nootka Sound in 1788. This letter makes the statement that Meares had “at that time a small vessel on the stocks at Nootka, where, he told me, he had a fort, guns mounted, and Portuguese colors flying.” It was written January 17, 1791, and can hardly be given absolute credence, since Dixon was so prejudiced against Meares. Greenhow is too partisan to be fair, and the Americans, Gray and Ingraham, and Haswell, whom Bancroft quotes on the point, were very pro-Spanish. On the other hand, Meares’s statements can not be taken for truth unless it is very plain that there is no reason for his telling anything else.[36]Meares, Voyages, 220. It is doubtful whether this testimony can be considered of any value. As to the truthfulness of the picture, it is interesting to notice the Indian village in the background. He had said that before this the entire village had been moved some 30 miles up the sound for the winter.[37]Meares, Voyages, appendix, Memorial, VI.[38]Meares to Douglas,Felice, Friendly Cove, in King Georges Sound, September 20, 1788. (Meares, Voyages, Appendix V.)[39]Id., 334.[40]Meares to Douglas,Felice, Friendly Cove, in King Georges Sound, September 20, 1788. (Meares, Voyages, Appendix V, p. 217.)[41]Note his reference to the killing of Callicum by the Spaniards in 1789. (Meares, Voyages, 118; also see 217, 218, referring to Colnett’s expedition of 1789.) His preface would lead one to think that the writing of his narrative was entirely an afterthought. He mentions as his motives the wishes of friends, the political circumstances of the moment [the diplomatic controversy with Spain], and public expectation. He says: “I little thought it would be my future lot to give this part of my maritime life to the world. If I had looked forward to the possibility of such an event I should have enlarged my observations and been more minutely attentive,” etc. But the fact that in his list of subscribers he gives the names of a number of men living in China shows that before leaving there, at least, he expected to publish his narrative. All of this tends to depreciate the value of his statements where his interests are at stake.[42]Gray and Ingraham to Quadra, Nootka Sound, August 3, 1792. (Greenhow, Oregon and California, 414.) (Prejudiced.)[43]Colnett, Voyage, vii.[44]Spanish translation of an extract from the “License from the governor and company of merchants of Great Britain for trading in the South Sea and other parts of America, to Richard Cadman Etches and Company to trade in the places where the South Sea Company has the privilege by an act of Parliament.” (MS. Arch. Gen. de Indias, Seville, 90-3-18.) It was signed by the secretary of the company and dated August 4, 1785. They were forbidden to trade south of 45° on the northwest coast. (See Colnett to the Viceroy, October 1, 1789; Arch. Gen. de Indias, Seville, 90-3-21.)[45]Spanish translation of Colnett to the Viceroy, October 1, 1789. (Id.)[46]Meares, Memorial, appendix to Voyages. Also Colnett to the Viceroy, October 1, 1789. (MS. Arch. Gen. de Indias, Seville, 90-3-21.) The latter represents Colnett as the chief promoter, while the former represents Meares in that capacity. Colnett says that thePrince of Waleshad broken her keel and was not in a condition to make another such a voyage, so that the correspondents of his company offered him theArgonaut. It seems that some difficulty had arisen over the fact that the license which Colnett bore was for his use on thePrince of Wales. He told the Viceroy that if he had apprehended any disadvantage arising from his change of ships it would have been easy to have named the new ship thePrince of Walesalso. He had not considered it necessary.[47]Meares, Memorial, appendix to Voyages. Inclosure II.[48]Translation of the instructions given by the owners of the English shipArgonautto its captain, James Colnett, not dated. (MS. Arch. Gen. de Indias, Seville, 90-3-18.)[49]This policy of protecting allied chiefs against their enemies was begun by Meares during the previous year. He loaned firearms and furnished ammunition to the Nootka Indians for an expedition against a neighboring tribe which had committed depredations on one of their villages. (See Meares, Voyages, 196.)[50]Nootka was not especially mentioned, but the intention was so evident that mention was unnecessary. The option as to the place in which it was to be established probably did not refer to a possible choice between Nootka Sound and some other part of the coast, but to the selection of the most favorable spot on the sound. As showing Meares’s tendency to distort facts, he says in his Memorial: “Colnett was directed to fix his residence at Nootka Sound, and, with that in view, to erect a substantial house on the spot which your memorialist had purchased the preceding year, as will appear by a copy of his instructions hereto annexed.”[51]Meares, Memorial, appendix to Voyages, Inclosure II; and MS. Arch. Gen. de Indias, 90-3-18.[52]Meares, Voyages, 106.[53]Meares, Memorial, appendix to Voyages, Inclosure II. It is seen that a majority of the settlers for the proposed colony were Chinese, conformably to the idea that Meares expresses in his narrative and to which reference was made in the early part of this chapter. There is a discrepancy in the statements concerning the number of Chinese. In several Spanish manuscripts the statement is made that there were 29. The name of each is given. (See MS. Arch. Gen. de Indias, Seville, 90-3-18.)[54]Martinez to Florez, San Blas, December 5, 1788. (MS. Arch. Gen. de Indias, Seville, 90-3-18.) La Perouse, of a French scientific expedition, had reported that Russian settlements were being made on the American continent north of California. The Spanish expedition was sent under a royal order of January 25, 1787. Martinez, of thePrincesa, was in command, and Lopez de Haro, of theSan Carlos, was subordinate. They reported six settlements, having in all about 500 inhabitants. An autograph copy of Martinez’s diary of this expedition, containing 213 pages, is in the same bundle as the above letter. It contains also the diary of Mendosia, second pilot. Greenhow, Oregon and California, 185, gives a short account of this voyage, which he says is based on a copy of Martinez’s diary obtained from the hydrographical office at Madrid. Bancroft, Northwest Coast, I, 184, also gives a brief account, likewise taken from a copy of Martinez’s diary.[55]Florez to Valdez, Mexico, December 23, 1788. (MS. Arch. Gen. de Indias, Seville, 90-3-18.)[56]Florez to Martinez, December 23, 1788. (Id.)[57]Florez to Valdez, Mexico, January 2, 1789. (Id.)[58]Florez to Revilla-Gigedo, Mexico, September 2, 1789. (Id., 90-3-14.) In this, mention is made of a royal order of April 14, giving approbation.[59]The ship was theColumbia. See the latter part of this chapter.[60]That of Jonathan Carver from Boston.[61]Florez to Valdez, Mexico, December 23, 1788. (MS. Arch. Gen. de Indias, Seville, 90-3-18.)[62]San Carlos el Filipinoseems to have been the full name. It is here and often elsewhere in the documents spoken of simply asEl Filipino. In English writings it is usually called theSan Carlos.[63]Florez to Valdez, Mexico, December 23, 1788. (MS. Arch. Gen. de Indias, 90-3-18.)[64]This reference to Cook’s Voyages reads: “But what was most singular, two silver tablespoons were purchased from them, which, from their peculiar shape, we supposed to be of Spanish manufacture.”[65]An obvious error, since General Washington had nothing to do with it. This was theColumbia. Her consort was theLady Washington. Confusion arising from the name of the latter perhaps caused the error.[66]Florez to Martinez, Mexico, December 23, 1788. (MS. Arch. Gen. de Indias, Seville, 90-3-18.) In the above transcript of the instructions, sections 10 to 15, inclusive, are quoted in full since they were intended to guide Martinez in his intercourse with foreigners. It will be interesting later to compare his actions with these instructions. Only the substance of the other sections is given, since they have no important bearing on the subject.[67]Instrumento de posesion, June 24, 1789. (Id.) Revilla-Gigedo in his Informe gives the date February 19 for the departure from San Blas. (See Bustamante [Cavo], Los Tres Siglos, III, 127.)[68]Bancroft, Northwest Coast, I, 170-172; Greenhow, Oregon and California, 151-153; Cambridge Modern History, VIII, 289.[69]Deposition of the officers and men of theNorthwest America. (Inclosure X, with Meares, Memorial, appendix to Voyages.) They say that the sound was discovered by the late Capt. James Cook. Similar statements are made elsewhere.[70]Instructions of the Merchant Proprietors to John Meares. (Meares, Voyages, Appendix I.)[71]Bancroft, Northwest Coast, I, 173-181, gives an account of the most important.[72]Informe of Revilla-Gigedo, Bustamante (Cavo), Los Tres Siglos, III, 117-119. This gives a brief description of the voyage and the steps leading to it. Bancroft, Northwest Coast, I, 149-158, gives a description based on the diaries of the voyage. Greenhow, Oregon and California, also describes it.[73]Florez to Valdez, Mexico, December 23, 1788. (MS. Arch. Gen. de Indias, Seville, 90-3-18.) See also above transcript of the Instructions of Florez to Martinez.[74]Revilla-Gigedo, Informe, Bustamante (Cavo), Los Tres Siglos, II, 199; Bancroft, Northwest Coast, I, 158-166, gives a full account.[75]Id., 172.[76]Informe of Revilla-Gigedo, Bustamante (Cavo), Los Tres Siglos, III, 123; Bancroft, Northwest Coast, I, 172.[77]Cook, Voyages, II, 332, says: “Some account of a Spanish voyage to this coast in 1774 or 1775 had reached England before I sailed, but the foregoing circumstances sufficiently prove that these ships had not been at Nootka.”[78]Blas Gonzales to Juan Kendrick, Isla de Juan Fernandez, June 3, 1789 [1788]. (MS. Arch. Gen. de Indias, Seville, 90-3-18.)[79]Blas Gonzales later appealed to the Government of the United States to intercede in his behalf, and Jefferson, the Secretary of State, took up the matter. This will be referred to later. (See Jefferson to Carmichael, April 11, 1790, Writings V, 155.)[80]Royal order of November 25, 1692. (MS. Arch. Gen. de Indias, Seville, 90-3-14; Greenhow, Oregon and California, 184.)[81]See Razon de las Embarcaciones que han hecho Descubrimento al Norte de California. Firmado abordo de la FragataPrincesaen el Puerto de San Lorenzo de Nutca á 13 de Julio de 1789, Estevan José Martinez. (MS. Arch. Gen. de Indias, Seville, 90-3-18; Bancroft, Northwest Coast, I, Chs. VI, VII.)[82]This is the date according to the Spanish documents. The English give May 6. This difference of one day between the English and Spanish dates for the events at Nootka continues during the summer of 1789. For some time no explanation appeared. But Prof. C. H. Hull suggested that it was probably due to the fact that the English vessels came from Europe by way of China, while the Spanish came from Mexico. Since the present custom of dropping a day from or adding one to the calendar in mid-Pacific, or upon crossing the international date line, was apparently not observed at that time, the suggestion seems to be a plausible explanation. On the strength of it the Spanish dates have been adopted instead of the English. Since all previous writers in English have given the dates according to the English documents, the dates given in this monograph will disagree with those of all previous accounts.[83]Meares, Voyages, 106.[84]SeeChapter II, ante.[85]Gray and Ingraham to Quadra, Nootka Sound, August 3, 1792. (Appendix to Greenhow, Oregon and California.) Quadra was the Spanish commissioner sent in 1792 to carry out the Nootka convention, and was collecting evidence to strengthen the Spanish case.[86]Extract from the journal of theIphigenia, entry for May 22. (Inclosure XII, with Meares, Memorial, appendix to Voyages.)[87]See Lecky, England in the Eighteenth Century, V, 206-207, who says: “The Spaniards had never penetrated to it, but by virtue of a bull of Alexander VI they claimed a sovereignty over all lands comprised between Cape Horn and the sixtieth degree of north latitude; in other words, the entire western coast of both South and North America, and when, after a considerable interval, they discovered the existence of a British settlement in these parts they determined to suppress it. Two Spanish ships of war accordingly hastened to Nootka Sound, took possession of the British settlement, hauled down the British flag, replaced it by the flag of Spain, captured four English vessels, and treated their crews with extreme harshness and indignity.” His failure to investigate the subject is further shown by his statement in the next sentence: “These events took place in April of 1789.” This error in date is doubtless derived from the indefinite statement of the date in Article I of the Nootka convention of October 28, 1790.Worthington C. Ford, United States and Spain in 1790, p. 18, is still further in error. He says: “The Spaniards had laid claim to nearly the whole of the western coast of America, from Cape Horn to the sixtieth degree of north latitude, and had watched with a feeling of jealousy, aggravated by a sense of injury, the establishment of a British settlement in Nootka Sound, on Vancouvers Island. This inlet of the sea had been first explored by Captain Cook in one of his voyages, and on the establishment of the English in India became a trading station, colonized by the English and recognized by grants of land from the natives. After three years of undisturbed possession the little settlement was surprised by the arrival of two Spanish ships of war from Mexico, which seized an English merchant vessel, theIphigenia, imprisoned her crew, looted the vessel, and pulling down the British flag on the settlement raised that of Spain, and subsequently treated all comers as intruders.”Baumgarten, Geschichte Spaniens zur Zeit der franzoesischen Revolution, 282, after speaking of the arrival of Martinez and his seizure of theIphigenia, says: “Martinez ergriff darauf Besitz von einer der kleinen Inseln, erbaute auf derselben eine Batterie, bemaechtigte sich der englischen Gebaeude, nahm die britische Flagge herunter and pflanzte die spanische auf.”[88]See discussion of the negotiations of 1790 below.[89]See ante,Chapter II.[90]Extract from the journal of theIphigenia. (Inclosure XII, with Meares, Memorial, appendix to Voyages.)[91]See ante,Chapter II.[92]May 9, according to the English account.[93]Martinez to Florez. San Lorenzo de Nootka, July 13, 1789. (MS. Arch. Gen. de Indias, Seville, 90-3-18.)[94]Variously spelled in the documents—“Cavallo,” “Carvallo,” “Caravallo,” “Caravalia,” and “Caravalho.”[95]Spanish translation of the passport of theIphigenia, signed Macao, October 17, 1787. (Arch. Gen. de Indias, Seville, 90-3-18.)[96]Spanish translation of the Instructions of Carvalho to Viana, Macao, October 23, 1788 [1787]. (MS. Arch. Gen. de Indias, Seville, 90-3-18.)[97]May 14, according to the English account, is the date usually given.[98]Bancroft, Northwest Coast, I, 115-118, gives an account of the supposed voyage of Fonte, which he thinks was never made. Nothing is said of Fonte’s being a Portuguese, and the expedition is said to have been under orders from Spain and the viceroys.[99]MS. Arch. Gen. de Indias, Seville, 90-3-18.[100]Appendix I to Meares, Voyages. It is interesting to compare the instructions of Meares, the English captain of theFeliceand commander of both vessels, with the instructions of Viana, the pretended Portuguese captain of theIphigenia. These two correspond much more closely than those of Viana and Douglas. The latter’s were subinstructions given by Meares at sea. It may be that Juan de Mata Montero de Mendoza, the pretended Portuguese captain of theFelice, bore subinstructions from Viana similar to those of Douglas. The differences between Meares’s and Viana’s instructions are more striking than their similarities. The former is told that the coast was first discovered by Drake, in 1570; the latter by Fonte, in 1640. The former is told to proceed alone to America if he finds himself retarded by the slow progress of theIphigenia; the latter is to do the same if detained by the bad sailing of theFelice. The former is instructed to direct Douglas to go to Prince Williams Sound, then to Nootka; the latter is directed to make this voyage. In the former’s instructions there is nothing corresponding to the latter’s instructions to report to the Portuguese correspondents at Lisbon, and to the ambassador at the court of the aggressor. There are other interesting contrasts. The minute instructions regarding trade are common to the two.[101]This is not exactly an untruth, but it is a deception. It would indicate that he had no instructions in English. His instructions are quoted in full a few pages before this extract from the journal of theIphigeniain Appendix II to Meares, Voyages. It is worthy of note that they do not direct him to seize vessels at all, but only to guard against surprise and repel force by force. It should be noted also that the extract quoted by Meares in the appendix to his Memorial, V, purporting to be from this letter to Douglas, does not agree with the full letter as quoted, but that Meares has, in this extract, added two sentences from his own instructions, which relate to his reporting the outrage if captured and to his seizing his opponent should he have the superiority.[102]Extract of the journal of theIphigenia. (Inclosure XII with Meares, Memorial, appendix to Voyages.)[103]Gray and Ingraham to Quadra, Nootka Sound, August 3, 1792. (Appendix to Greenhow, Oregon and California.)[104]Extract of the journal of theIphigenia. (Inclosure XII, with Meares, Memorial, appendix to Voyages.)[105]Gray and Ingraham to Quadra, Nootka Sound, August 3, 1792. (Appendix to Greenhow, Oregon and California.) The dates in this letter are not accurate. The more important agree with the Spanish dates, but the rest with neither Spanish nor English.[106]Vancouver, Voyages, II, 343.[107]Seenote a, p. 320, where it is pointed out that in the instructions of Douglas nothing is said about carrying vessels to Macao. In the journal of theIphigeniaDouglas says that the interpreter told Martinez in his presence that there was nothing objectionable in Douglas’s papers.[108]An English translation of this bond is given by Meares. (Inclosure IV, with Memorial, appendix to Voyages.)[109]All the papers relating to theIphigenia—her passport, instructions, the inventory, the bond, and the affidavits—are inclosed with Martinez to Florez, San Lorenzo de Nootka, July 13, 1789. (MS. Arch. Gen. de Indias, Seville, 90-3-18.)[110]This is an interesting comment, showing Douglas’s inconsistency in saying that the Spaniards had robbed the ship of everything of value.[111]Meares, Memorial, appendix to Voyages.[112]Gray and Ingraham to Quadra, Nootka Sound, August 3, 1792. (Appendix to Greenhow, Oregon and California.)

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

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

[3]Oscar Browning, the writer of Chapter X, in Volume VIII, of the Cambridge Modern History, recently published, gives the least prejudiced and most accurate account. However, it is very brief. He introduces the Incident as an important episode in the foreign policy of Pitt. He says: “An event occurred on the other side of the world which nearly brought about a European conflagration.” In preparing his brief discussion he consulted the documents in the public record office.

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

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

[6]Richard Cadman Etches to Captain Portlock, London, September 3, 1785. (Meares, An Answer to Mr. Dixon, 10.) The instructions were not carried out by this commander, but the same company was interested in the expedition which reached Nootka for that purpose in 1789. Nootka Sound was for a time called King Georges Sound by the English and San Lorenzo by the Spanish.

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

[8]Sometimes written “Mears.”

[9]Meares, Memorial, appendix to Voyages.

[10]This condition and the terms on which relief was offered him by Portlock and Dixon, who reached the place in the spring, led to a bitter personal quarrel between Meares and Dixon, which produced several mutually recriminating pamphlets.

[11]Meares, Voyages. Introductory voyage, i-xl. In this Meares quotes the letters which passed between him and Portlock in May, 1787, which gave rise to the quarrel.

[12]Id. 2.

[13]The Merchant Proprietors to John Meares, esq., Commanding theFeliceandIphigenia, China, December 24, 1787. (Id., Appendix I.)

[14]Id.

[15]SeeChapter IVbelow.

[16]Meares, Memorial, Appendix to Voyages. He explains that this ruse was at first successful, but was later discovered through the financial failure of the Portuguese merchant who had allowed his name to be thus used.

[17]Dixon, Further Remarks on Meares’s Voyages, 55. His hostility to Meares prejudices any statement made by him. See above, p. 287,note b.

[18]Bancroft, Northwest Coast, 1, 193. This author devotes some 10 pages to a discussion of this expedition.Greenhow, Oregon and California, 172-178, attempts to prove that the expedition was purely Portuguese. His account is too prejudiced to be of much value. The chief purpose of his book was to prove that America had a better claim to the Oregon country than England. If this expedition had been purely Portuguese, England could have acquired no possible claim through it.

[18]Bancroft, Northwest Coast, 1, 193. This author devotes some 10 pages to a discussion of this expedition.

Greenhow, Oregon and California, 172-178, attempts to prove that the expedition was purely Portuguese. His account is too prejudiced to be of much value. The chief purpose of his book was to prove that America had a better claim to the Oregon country than England. If this expedition had been purely Portuguese, England could have acquired no possible claim through it.

[19]Meares. Voyages, 2, 3.

[20]Id., 88.

[21]Id., 104. This date should probably be changed to May 12. When the English and Spanish not at Nootka in 1789 their calendars were one day apart. (See below, p. 312,note a.) Since there are no conflicting dates given for the events at Nootka in 1788, those found in the journals of the English commanders are followed.

[22]Id., 114.

[23]The purchase is confirmed in the information of William Graham, London, May 5, 1790 (inclosure No. VI, with Meares’s Memorial, appendix to Voyages). It was also confirmed by Duffin in conversation with Vancouver in 1792. (Vancouver, Voyages, II, 370-372). Both of these have strong English prejudices. The purchase is denied by Gray and Ingraham. (Greenhow, Oregon and California, 414.) They strongly favored the Spanish. They say that the Indians denied having sold land to the English. That there was a purchase was practically conceded, however, even by the Spaniards, since Quadra offered to Vancouver in 1792 the land on which Meares’s house had stood in 1788. (See Vancouver, Voyages, II, 335 ff.)

[24]Id., 115-116.

[25]Id., 130.

[26]Greenhow, Oregon and California, 175.

[27]Meares, Voyages. 131.

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

[29]Id., 95.

[30]Id., 204.

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

[32]Id., 173-179.

[33]Id., 220.

[34]Greenhow, Oregon and California, 172; and Bancroft, Northwest Coast, I, 194.

[35]Dixon, Further Remarks on Meares’s Voyages, 24. This writer, in his controversial pamphlet, quotes from a letter of Captain Duncan, who had met Meares near the entrance to Nootka Sound in 1788. This letter makes the statement that Meares had “at that time a small vessel on the stocks at Nootka, where, he told me, he had a fort, guns mounted, and Portuguese colors flying.” It was written January 17, 1791, and can hardly be given absolute credence, since Dixon was so prejudiced against Meares. Greenhow is too partisan to be fair, and the Americans, Gray and Ingraham, and Haswell, whom Bancroft quotes on the point, were very pro-Spanish. On the other hand, Meares’s statements can not be taken for truth unless it is very plain that there is no reason for his telling anything else.

[36]Meares, Voyages, 220. It is doubtful whether this testimony can be considered of any value. As to the truthfulness of the picture, it is interesting to notice the Indian village in the background. He had said that before this the entire village had been moved some 30 miles up the sound for the winter.

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

[38]Meares to Douglas,Felice, Friendly Cove, in King Georges Sound, September 20, 1788. (Meares, Voyages, Appendix V.)

[39]Id., 334.

[40]Meares to Douglas,Felice, Friendly Cove, in King Georges Sound, September 20, 1788. (Meares, Voyages, Appendix V, p. 217.)

[41]Note his reference to the killing of Callicum by the Spaniards in 1789. (Meares, Voyages, 118; also see 217, 218, referring to Colnett’s expedition of 1789.) His preface would lead one to think that the writing of his narrative was entirely an afterthought. He mentions as his motives the wishes of friends, the political circumstances of the moment [the diplomatic controversy with Spain], and public expectation. He says: “I little thought it would be my future lot to give this part of my maritime life to the world. If I had looked forward to the possibility of such an event I should have enlarged my observations and been more minutely attentive,” etc. But the fact that in his list of subscribers he gives the names of a number of men living in China shows that before leaving there, at least, he expected to publish his narrative. All of this tends to depreciate the value of his statements where his interests are at stake.

[42]Gray and Ingraham to Quadra, Nootka Sound, August 3, 1792. (Greenhow, Oregon and California, 414.) (Prejudiced.)

[43]Colnett, Voyage, vii.

[44]Spanish translation of an extract from the “License from the governor and company of merchants of Great Britain for trading in the South Sea and other parts of America, to Richard Cadman Etches and Company to trade in the places where the South Sea Company has the privilege by an act of Parliament.” (MS. Arch. Gen. de Indias, Seville, 90-3-18.) It was signed by the secretary of the company and dated August 4, 1785. They were forbidden to trade south of 45° on the northwest coast. (See Colnett to the Viceroy, October 1, 1789; Arch. Gen. de Indias, Seville, 90-3-21.)

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

[46]Meares, Memorial, appendix to Voyages. Also Colnett to the Viceroy, October 1, 1789. (MS. Arch. Gen. de Indias, Seville, 90-3-21.) The latter represents Colnett as the chief promoter, while the former represents Meares in that capacity. Colnett says that thePrince of Waleshad broken her keel and was not in a condition to make another such a voyage, so that the correspondents of his company offered him theArgonaut. It seems that some difficulty had arisen over the fact that the license which Colnett bore was for his use on thePrince of Wales. He told the Viceroy that if he had apprehended any disadvantage arising from his change of ships it would have been easy to have named the new ship thePrince of Walesalso. He had not considered it necessary.

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

[48]Translation of the instructions given by the owners of the English shipArgonautto its captain, James Colnett, not dated. (MS. Arch. Gen. de Indias, Seville, 90-3-18.)

[49]This policy of protecting allied chiefs against their enemies was begun by Meares during the previous year. He loaned firearms and furnished ammunition to the Nootka Indians for an expedition against a neighboring tribe which had committed depredations on one of their villages. (See Meares, Voyages, 196.)

[50]Nootka was not especially mentioned, but the intention was so evident that mention was unnecessary. The option as to the place in which it was to be established probably did not refer to a possible choice between Nootka Sound and some other part of the coast, but to the selection of the most favorable spot on the sound. As showing Meares’s tendency to distort facts, he says in his Memorial: “Colnett was directed to fix his residence at Nootka Sound, and, with that in view, to erect a substantial house on the spot which your memorialist had purchased the preceding year, as will appear by a copy of his instructions hereto annexed.”

[51]Meares, Memorial, appendix to Voyages, Inclosure II; and MS. Arch. Gen. de Indias, 90-3-18.

[52]Meares, Voyages, 106.

[53]Meares, Memorial, appendix to Voyages, Inclosure II. It is seen that a majority of the settlers for the proposed colony were Chinese, conformably to the idea that Meares expresses in his narrative and to which reference was made in the early part of this chapter. There is a discrepancy in the statements concerning the number of Chinese. In several Spanish manuscripts the statement is made that there were 29. The name of each is given. (See MS. Arch. Gen. de Indias, Seville, 90-3-18.)

[54]Martinez to Florez, San Blas, December 5, 1788. (MS. Arch. Gen. de Indias, Seville, 90-3-18.) La Perouse, of a French scientific expedition, had reported that Russian settlements were being made on the American continent north of California. The Spanish expedition was sent under a royal order of January 25, 1787. Martinez, of thePrincesa, was in command, and Lopez de Haro, of theSan Carlos, was subordinate. They reported six settlements, having in all about 500 inhabitants. An autograph copy of Martinez’s diary of this expedition, containing 213 pages, is in the same bundle as the above letter. It contains also the diary of Mendosia, second pilot. Greenhow, Oregon and California, 185, gives a short account of this voyage, which he says is based on a copy of Martinez’s diary obtained from the hydrographical office at Madrid. Bancroft, Northwest Coast, I, 184, also gives a brief account, likewise taken from a copy of Martinez’s diary.

[55]Florez to Valdez, Mexico, December 23, 1788. (MS. Arch. Gen. de Indias, Seville, 90-3-18.)

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

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

[58]Florez to Revilla-Gigedo, Mexico, September 2, 1789. (Id., 90-3-14.) In this, mention is made of a royal order of April 14, giving approbation.

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

[60]That of Jonathan Carver from Boston.

[61]Florez to Valdez, Mexico, December 23, 1788. (MS. Arch. Gen. de Indias, Seville, 90-3-18.)

[62]San Carlos el Filipinoseems to have been the full name. It is here and often elsewhere in the documents spoken of simply asEl Filipino. In English writings it is usually called theSan Carlos.

[63]Florez to Valdez, Mexico, December 23, 1788. (MS. Arch. Gen. de Indias, 90-3-18.)

[64]This reference to Cook’s Voyages reads: “But what was most singular, two silver tablespoons were purchased from them, which, from their peculiar shape, we supposed to be of Spanish manufacture.”

[65]An obvious error, since General Washington had nothing to do with it. This was theColumbia. Her consort was theLady Washington. Confusion arising from the name of the latter perhaps caused the error.

[66]Florez to Martinez, Mexico, December 23, 1788. (MS. Arch. Gen. de Indias, Seville, 90-3-18.) In the above transcript of the instructions, sections 10 to 15, inclusive, are quoted in full since they were intended to guide Martinez in his intercourse with foreigners. It will be interesting later to compare his actions with these instructions. Only the substance of the other sections is given, since they have no important bearing on the subject.

[67]Instrumento de posesion, June 24, 1789. (Id.) Revilla-Gigedo in his Informe gives the date February 19 for the departure from San Blas. (See Bustamante [Cavo], Los Tres Siglos, III, 127.)

[68]Bancroft, Northwest Coast, I, 170-172; Greenhow, Oregon and California, 151-153; Cambridge Modern History, VIII, 289.

[69]Deposition of the officers and men of theNorthwest America. (Inclosure X, with Meares, Memorial, appendix to Voyages.) They say that the sound was discovered by the late Capt. James Cook. Similar statements are made elsewhere.

[70]Instructions of the Merchant Proprietors to John Meares. (Meares, Voyages, Appendix I.)

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

[72]Informe of Revilla-Gigedo, Bustamante (Cavo), Los Tres Siglos, III, 117-119. This gives a brief description of the voyage and the steps leading to it. Bancroft, Northwest Coast, I, 149-158, gives a description based on the diaries of the voyage. Greenhow, Oregon and California, also describes it.

[73]Florez to Valdez, Mexico, December 23, 1788. (MS. Arch. Gen. de Indias, Seville, 90-3-18.) See also above transcript of the Instructions of Florez to Martinez.

[74]Revilla-Gigedo, Informe, Bustamante (Cavo), Los Tres Siglos, II, 199; Bancroft, Northwest Coast, I, 158-166, gives a full account.

[75]Id., 172.

[76]Informe of Revilla-Gigedo, Bustamante (Cavo), Los Tres Siglos, III, 123; Bancroft, Northwest Coast, I, 172.

[77]Cook, Voyages, II, 332, says: “Some account of a Spanish voyage to this coast in 1774 or 1775 had reached England before I sailed, but the foregoing circumstances sufficiently prove that these ships had not been at Nootka.”

[78]Blas Gonzales to Juan Kendrick, Isla de Juan Fernandez, June 3, 1789 [1788]. (MS. Arch. Gen. de Indias, Seville, 90-3-18.)

[79]Blas Gonzales later appealed to the Government of the United States to intercede in his behalf, and Jefferson, the Secretary of State, took up the matter. This will be referred to later. (See Jefferson to Carmichael, April 11, 1790, Writings V, 155.)

[80]Royal order of November 25, 1692. (MS. Arch. Gen. de Indias, Seville, 90-3-14; Greenhow, Oregon and California, 184.)

[81]See Razon de las Embarcaciones que han hecho Descubrimento al Norte de California. Firmado abordo de la FragataPrincesaen el Puerto de San Lorenzo de Nutca á 13 de Julio de 1789, Estevan José Martinez. (MS. Arch. Gen. de Indias, Seville, 90-3-18; Bancroft, Northwest Coast, I, Chs. VI, VII.)

[82]This is the date according to the Spanish documents. The English give May 6. This difference of one day between the English and Spanish dates for the events at Nootka continues during the summer of 1789. For some time no explanation appeared. But Prof. C. H. Hull suggested that it was probably due to the fact that the English vessels came from Europe by way of China, while the Spanish came from Mexico. Since the present custom of dropping a day from or adding one to the calendar in mid-Pacific, or upon crossing the international date line, was apparently not observed at that time, the suggestion seems to be a plausible explanation. On the strength of it the Spanish dates have been adopted instead of the English. Since all previous writers in English have given the dates according to the English documents, the dates given in this monograph will disagree with those of all previous accounts.

[83]Meares, Voyages, 106.

[84]SeeChapter II, ante.

[85]Gray and Ingraham to Quadra, Nootka Sound, August 3, 1792. (Appendix to Greenhow, Oregon and California.) Quadra was the Spanish commissioner sent in 1792 to carry out the Nootka convention, and was collecting evidence to strengthen the Spanish case.

[86]Extract from the journal of theIphigenia, entry for May 22. (Inclosure XII, with Meares, Memorial, appendix to Voyages.)

[87]See Lecky, England in the Eighteenth Century, V, 206-207, who says: “The Spaniards had never penetrated to it, but by virtue of a bull of Alexander VI they claimed a sovereignty over all lands comprised between Cape Horn and the sixtieth degree of north latitude; in other words, the entire western coast of both South and North America, and when, after a considerable interval, they discovered the existence of a British settlement in these parts they determined to suppress it. Two Spanish ships of war accordingly hastened to Nootka Sound, took possession of the British settlement, hauled down the British flag, replaced it by the flag of Spain, captured four English vessels, and treated their crews with extreme harshness and indignity.” His failure to investigate the subject is further shown by his statement in the next sentence: “These events took place in April of 1789.” This error in date is doubtless derived from the indefinite statement of the date in Article I of the Nootka convention of October 28, 1790.Worthington C. Ford, United States and Spain in 1790, p. 18, is still further in error. He says: “The Spaniards had laid claim to nearly the whole of the western coast of America, from Cape Horn to the sixtieth degree of north latitude, and had watched with a feeling of jealousy, aggravated by a sense of injury, the establishment of a British settlement in Nootka Sound, on Vancouvers Island. This inlet of the sea had been first explored by Captain Cook in one of his voyages, and on the establishment of the English in India became a trading station, colonized by the English and recognized by grants of land from the natives. After three years of undisturbed possession the little settlement was surprised by the arrival of two Spanish ships of war from Mexico, which seized an English merchant vessel, theIphigenia, imprisoned her crew, looted the vessel, and pulling down the British flag on the settlement raised that of Spain, and subsequently treated all comers as intruders.”Baumgarten, Geschichte Spaniens zur Zeit der franzoesischen Revolution, 282, after speaking of the arrival of Martinez and his seizure of theIphigenia, says: “Martinez ergriff darauf Besitz von einer der kleinen Inseln, erbaute auf derselben eine Batterie, bemaechtigte sich der englischen Gebaeude, nahm die britische Flagge herunter and pflanzte die spanische auf.”

Worthington C. Ford, United States and Spain in 1790, p. 18, is still further in error. He says: “The Spaniards had laid claim to nearly the whole of the western coast of America, from Cape Horn to the sixtieth degree of north latitude, and had watched with a feeling of jealousy, aggravated by a sense of injury, the establishment of a British settlement in Nootka Sound, on Vancouvers Island. This inlet of the sea had been first explored by Captain Cook in one of his voyages, and on the establishment of the English in India became a trading station, colonized by the English and recognized by grants of land from the natives. After three years of undisturbed possession the little settlement was surprised by the arrival of two Spanish ships of war from Mexico, which seized an English merchant vessel, theIphigenia, imprisoned her crew, looted the vessel, and pulling down the British flag on the settlement raised that of Spain, and subsequently treated all comers as intruders.”

Baumgarten, Geschichte Spaniens zur Zeit der franzoesischen Revolution, 282, after speaking of the arrival of Martinez and his seizure of theIphigenia, says: “Martinez ergriff darauf Besitz von einer der kleinen Inseln, erbaute auf derselben eine Batterie, bemaechtigte sich der englischen Gebaeude, nahm die britische Flagge herunter and pflanzte die spanische auf.”

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

[89]See ante,Chapter II.

[90]Extract from the journal of theIphigenia. (Inclosure XII, with Meares, Memorial, appendix to Voyages.)

[91]See ante,Chapter II.

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

[93]Martinez to Florez. San Lorenzo de Nootka, July 13, 1789. (MS. Arch. Gen. de Indias, Seville, 90-3-18.)

[94]Variously spelled in the documents—“Cavallo,” “Carvallo,” “Caravallo,” “Caravalia,” and “Caravalho.”

[95]Spanish translation of the passport of theIphigenia, signed Macao, October 17, 1787. (Arch. Gen. de Indias, Seville, 90-3-18.)

[96]Spanish translation of the Instructions of Carvalho to Viana, Macao, October 23, 1788 [1787]. (MS. Arch. Gen. de Indias, Seville, 90-3-18.)

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

[98]Bancroft, Northwest Coast, I, 115-118, gives an account of the supposed voyage of Fonte, which he thinks was never made. Nothing is said of Fonte’s being a Portuguese, and the expedition is said to have been under orders from Spain and the viceroys.

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

[100]Appendix I to Meares, Voyages. It is interesting to compare the instructions of Meares, the English captain of theFeliceand commander of both vessels, with the instructions of Viana, the pretended Portuguese captain of theIphigenia. These two correspond much more closely than those of Viana and Douglas. The latter’s were subinstructions given by Meares at sea. It may be that Juan de Mata Montero de Mendoza, the pretended Portuguese captain of theFelice, bore subinstructions from Viana similar to those of Douglas. The differences between Meares’s and Viana’s instructions are more striking than their similarities. The former is told that the coast was first discovered by Drake, in 1570; the latter by Fonte, in 1640. The former is told to proceed alone to America if he finds himself retarded by the slow progress of theIphigenia; the latter is to do the same if detained by the bad sailing of theFelice. The former is instructed to direct Douglas to go to Prince Williams Sound, then to Nootka; the latter is directed to make this voyage. In the former’s instructions there is nothing corresponding to the latter’s instructions to report to the Portuguese correspondents at Lisbon, and to the ambassador at the court of the aggressor. There are other interesting contrasts. The minute instructions regarding trade are common to the two.

[101]This is not exactly an untruth, but it is a deception. It would indicate that he had no instructions in English. His instructions are quoted in full a few pages before this extract from the journal of theIphigeniain Appendix II to Meares, Voyages. It is worthy of note that they do not direct him to seize vessels at all, but only to guard against surprise and repel force by force. It should be noted also that the extract quoted by Meares in the appendix to his Memorial, V, purporting to be from this letter to Douglas, does not agree with the full letter as quoted, but that Meares has, in this extract, added two sentences from his own instructions, which relate to his reporting the outrage if captured and to his seizing his opponent should he have the superiority.

[102]Extract of the journal of theIphigenia. (Inclosure XII with Meares, Memorial, appendix to Voyages.)

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

[104]Extract of the journal of theIphigenia. (Inclosure XII, with Meares, Memorial, appendix to Voyages.)

[105]Gray and Ingraham to Quadra, Nootka Sound, August 3, 1792. (Appendix to Greenhow, Oregon and California.) The dates in this letter are not accurate. The more important agree with the Spanish dates, but the rest with neither Spanish nor English.

[106]Vancouver, Voyages, II, 343.

[107]Seenote a, p. 320, where it is pointed out that in the instructions of Douglas nothing is said about carrying vessels to Macao. In the journal of theIphigeniaDouglas says that the interpreter told Martinez in his presence that there was nothing objectionable in Douglas’s papers.

[108]An English translation of this bond is given by Meares. (Inclosure IV, with Memorial, appendix to Voyages.)

[109]All the papers relating to theIphigenia—her passport, instructions, the inventory, the bond, and the affidavits—are inclosed with Martinez to Florez, San Lorenzo de Nootka, July 13, 1789. (MS. Arch. Gen. de Indias, Seville, 90-3-18.)

[110]This is an interesting comment, showing Douglas’s inconsistency in saying that the Spaniards had robbed the ship of everything of value.

[111]Meares, Memorial, appendix to Voyages.

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

Back to Index Next