The Northwest America was also seized, for reasons not directly connected with any question of sovereignty, and was employed for nearly two years in the Spanish service.

In the month of June, 1789, two vessels, the Argonaut and Princess Royal, sailing under British colors, arrived at Nootka, and were seized by Martinez. It is unnecessary to enter into the details of this transaction. It is sufficient to say that it led to an animated discussion between the governments of Great Britain and Spain, in respect to their rights in the Pacific and the western coast of America, which, for several months, threatened to produce a war between the two countries, but which was finally terminated in October, 1790, by the Treaty of the Escurial, or the Nootka Sound Convention, as it is more frequently denominated with us. Before the negotiations were concluded, both vessels were voluntarily released by the Spanish authorities in Mexico.

As the Nootka Sound Convention constitutes an essential ingredient in the claim of Great Britain, it will be necessary to advert to such of its provisions as are made the foundation of her title to the qualified exercise of sovereignty which she asserts over the northwest coast of America, and to consider them in connection with the circumstances under which they were framed. The articles which relate particularly to the question under discussion are the 1st, 3d, 5th, and 6th.

The first article provides that

"The buildings and tracts of land situated on the northwest coast of the continent of North America, or on the islands adjacent to that continent, of which the subjects of His Britannic Majesty were dispossessed about the month of April, 1789, by a Spanish officer, shall be restored to the said British subjects."

The third article provides, that

"In order to strengthen the bonds of friendship, and to preserve in future a perfect harmony and good understanding between the two contracting parties, it is agreed that their respective subjects shall not be disturbed or molested, either in navigating or carrying on their

fisheries in the Pacific Ocean, or in the South Seas, or in landing on the coasts of those seas in places not already occupied, for the purpose of carrying on their commerce with the natives of the country, or of making settlements there; the whole, subject, nevertheless, to the restrictions specified in the three following articles."

The fifth article provides that

"As well in the places which are to be restored to the British subjects by virtue of the first article, as in all other parts of the northwestern coast of America, or of the islands adjacent, situate to the north of the parts of the said coast already occupied by Spain, whereever the subjects of either of the two Powers shall have made settlements since the month of April, 1789, or shall hereafter make any, the subjects of the other shall have free access, and shall carry on their trade without any disturbance or molestation."

The sixth article relates to the coast of South America; but it has an importance in containing a definition of the erections which may be made, confining them to such as may serve the purposes of fishing; and the provisions of the third article are expressly declared to be subject to the restrictions in "the three following articles," one of which is the sixth.1

1 On the 1st of March, 1825, Colonel Benton made an able speech in the Senate of the United States in favor of the occupation of the Oregon (Columbia) River. In this speech he examined the Treaty of the Escurial, (the Nootka Sound Convention,) and insisted that it was proved by its terms to be "a treaty of concession, and not of acquisition of rights on the part of Great Britain"; and "that the permission to land and to make settlements, so far from contemplating an acquisition of territory, was limited by subsequent restrictions to the erection of temporary huts for the personal accommodation of fishermen and traders only." These positions were enforced in his argument by a reference to the assertions of Mr. Fox, and the admissions of Mr. Pitt, when the Nootka Sound controversy was under discussion in the British Parliament. The following are some of the passages to which he referred: :

by Spain was of no consequence,) and
to what extent were they now secured
to us? We possessed and exercised
the free navigation of the Pacific Ocean
without restraint or limitation. We
possessed and exercised the right of
carrying on fisheries in the South Seas
equally unlimited." "This estate we
had, and were daily improving; it was
not to be disgraced by the name of an
acquisition. The admission of part of
these rights was all we had obtained.
Our right before was to settle in any
part of the south or northwest coast of
America not fortified against us by pre-
vious occupancy; and we were now re-
stricted to settle in certain places only,
and under certain restrictions.
was an important concession on our
part. Our rights of fishing extended
to the whole ocean; and now it was
limited and to be carried on within
certain distances of the Spanish settle-
ments. Our right of making settle-
ments was not, as now, a right to
build huts, but to plant colonies if we
thought proper. Surely these were
not acquisitions, or rather conquests,

This

I now proceed to state certain facts in respect to this convention, and to draw from them conclusions at which I have arrived with some diffidence. The facts I shall endeavor to present with a rigid regard to accuracy. If my conclusions are erroneous, the better judgment of the Senate will correct them; and I shall have the consolation of reflecting that my errors if they shall prove such-have led to the discovery of truth, which I am sure is the great object of every senator on this floor.

The first article was practically inoperative, from a total misapprehension of the facts which it supposed. There is no evidence that subjects of his Britannic Majesty had been dispossessed of buildings or tracts of lands in April, 1789, or at any other time, by a Spanish officer. In the message of the British King to Parliament, and in the earnest discussions between the two countries in respect to the seizure of the British ships, I find no mention of such dispossession. When Vancouver was sent out, in 1792, to receive possession of the buildings, &c. to be restored, none could be found excepting those erected by the Spaniards. No building occupied by British subjects remained at Nootka in 1789, when Martinez arrived there; and it was denied by the Indians that any tracts of land

as they must be considered, if we were
to judge by the triumphant language
respecting them, but great and im-
portant concessions." By the third
article we are authorized to navigate
the Pacific Ocean and South Seas, un-
molested, for the purpose of carrying
on our fisheries, and to land on the
unsettled coasts for the purpose of trad-
ing with the natives; but after this
pompous recognition of right to navi-
gation, fishing, and commerce, comes
another article, the sixth, which takes
away the right of landing, and erect-
ing even temporary huts, for any pur-
pose but that of carrying on the fish-
ery, and amounts to a complete dere-
liction of all right to settle in any way
for the purpose of commerce with the
natives."
- British Parliamentary His-
tory, Vol. XXVIII. p. 990.

Mr. Pitt, in reply, did not deny the

accuracy of this construction of the treaty as to settlements and erections. But he maintained "that, though what this country (Great Britain) had gained consisted not of new rights, it certainly did of new advantages. We had before a right to the southern whale-fishing, and a right to navigate and carry on fisheries in the Pacific Ocean, and to trade on the coast of any part of Northwest America; but that right had not only not been acknowledged, but disputed and resisted; whereas by the convention it was secured to us, circumstance which, though no new right, was a new advantage.”—Ib. p. 1002.

- a

This subject has recently been further illustrated in a close and well-reasoned argument by Mr. Owen, of Indiana, in the House of Representatives.

had been ceded to British subjects. In fact, there were no traces of the occupancy which the article supposed. The only pretence of a cession of territory of which there was any evidence, was the right acquired by Meares, while acting in the name of a Portuguese citizen, and sailing under the flag of Portugal, to occupy temporarily a very small lot, which he himself admits he had agreed to restore when he should leave the coast.

After a long controversy on this subject between Vancouver and Quadra, the Spanish commander at Nootka, the former departed without receiving any restitution of buildings or lands, and the subject was referred to their respective governments. In 1796, Captain, Broughton arrived at Nootka, and found the place unoccupied.1 He nowhere states that he was sent out with instructions to adjust the, difficulty. But he says he was informed, by letters left with Maquinna, the Indian king, that "the Spaniards had delivered up the port of Nootka, &c. to Lieutenant Pierce, of the marines, agreeably to the mode of restitution settled between the two courts." But there is no proof of such restitution. The only authority relied on to show such a restitution, is one recently produced by the "London Times." I allude to De Koch, Vol. I. page He says:

126.

"The execution of the convention of the 28th October, 1790, [the Nootka Convention,] experienced some difficulties which delayed it till 1795. They were terminated the 23d of March of that year, on the spot itself, by the Spanish Brigadier Alava and the English Lieutenant. Poara, who exchanged declarations in the bay of Nootka; after which the Spanish fort was destroyed, the Spaniards embarked, and the English flag was planted there in sign of possession." 2

See his Voyage of Discovery to the North Pacific Ocean, p. 50.

2 See Histoire Abrégée des Traités de Paix, &c., par M. de Koch, continué, &c., par F. Schoell.

"L'exécution de la convention du 28 Octobre, 1790, éprouva, au reste, des difficultés qui la retardèrent jusqu'en 1795. Elles furent terminées le 23

Mars de cette annee, sur les lieux mêmes, par le Brigadier Espagnol Alava, et le Lieutenant Anglois Poara, qui échangèrent des declarations dans le golfe de Nootka même; apres que le fort Espagnol fut rasé, les Espagnols s'embarquerent, et le pavillon Anglais y fut planté en signe de possession."

De Koch has the reputation of being accurate; but there is certainly one error in his statement. There was no such name as Poara in the British Registers of that year. doubtless meant Pierce.

He

In opposition to this testimony of a foreign writer, we have the assertion, twice repeated, of the British historian, Belsham, that the Spanish flag at Nootka was never struck, and that the place was virtually relinquished by Great. Britain. If any restitution was ever made, the evidence must be in the possession of Great Britain. Señor Quadra, in 1792, offered to give Vancouver possession, reserving the rights of sovereignty which Spain possessed. There may have been a restitution with such reservation; but if there is any evidence of a restitution, why has it not been produced by the British negotiators, or at least referred to? Where are the declarations mentioned by De Koch as having been exchanged? Why, I repeat, has the evidence not been produced? Probably because, if there is any such evidence, it must prove a conditional and not an absolute surrender, such a surrender as she is unwilling to show, - a surrender reserving to Spain her rights of sovereignty. If there was a restitution, and she possesses the evidence of it, she probably secretes it, as she secreted the map of the Northeastern Territory with the red line, because it would have been a witness against her. When Vancouver went

1 "It is certain, nevertheless, from the most authentic subsequent information, that the Spanish flag flying at the fort and settlement of Nootka was never struck, and that the whole territory has been virtually relinquished by Great Britain, a measure, however politically expedient, which involves in it a severe reflection upon the minister who could permit so insidious an encroachment upon the ancient and acknowledged rights of the Crown of Spain." - Belsham's History of Great Britain, Vol. VIII. pp. 337, 338.

"But though England, at the expense of three millions, extorted from the Spaniards a promise of restoration

and reparation, it is well ascertained, first, that the settlement in question never was restored by Spain, nor the Spanish flag at Nootka ever struck; and, secondly, that no settlement has even been subsequently attempted by England on the Californian coast. The claim of right set up by the Court of London, it is therefore plain, has been virtually abandoned, notwithstanding the menacing tone in which the negotiation was conducted by the British administration, who cannot escape some censure for encouraging those vexatious encroachments on the territorial rights of Spain."-Ib. Appendix, pp 40, 41.