from the governor of Macao. The commander of the Spanish frigate permitted her to depart, on signing a bond to pay the value of the vessel, should the government of Mexico declare it a lawful prize; all foreign trade with the Spanish colonies being prohibited. A vessel in company with the Iphigenia was detained; and two months after, arrived the Argonaut and the Princess Royal, English vessels, furnished with the requisites for establishing a temporary settlement. Against this the Spanish commander protested, the Englishmen persevered, and the Spaniard, as it was his duty, captured their vessels and sent them to St Blas, where the pilot of the Argonaut committed suicide. The viceroy of Mexico behaved with equal lenity and discretion; and on the plea, that the English trespassers were ignorant of the rights of Spain, and on account of the friendly relations between the two countries, the vessels were given up and allowed to refit. They were permitted to return to Macao, giving bonds to abide the decision of the new viceroy, who was shortly expected to arrive, the Count Revillagigedo, who on his arrival discharged the bonds. As soon as the news of the detention of the first vessel reached Madrid, the Spanish ambassador at London was directed to make it known to the British court, and demand the punishment of the trespassers. This was done February 10, 1790. In his memorial, the Spanish ambassador stated, that besides the general claim of Spain to the whole coast, her public ships had visited and taken formal possession of Nootka Sound in 1774; as they had in fact also done both there and at other places on the coast, in 1755 and 1779. Indeed, vessels had been seized by the Spanish cruisers on these coasts, as far back as 1692. A portion of the Spanish claim, as explained by the British government, was certainly unreasonable; that is, the right of Spain to monopolize the navigation and the fishery of the South Sea. This interpretation of their claim was, however, instantly disavowed by the Spanish government. The seizure of the British vessels, with the subsequent call on the British government to punish the offenders, was also an irregular proceedure, unfortunately too well calculated to enlist the unanimous feeling of the English people, against even the rights of Spain. The English ministry, accordingly, took up the matter on the point of honor, and refused to discuss any question of right, till reparation was made for the insult. An ex parte statement was made by the minister to Parliament, the papers in the case, though loudly called for, in both houses, were refused; and partly in resistance to that portion of the real or supposed pretensions of Spain which was unreasonable, but still more on the point of national honor, an almost unanimous support was at first given by Parliament to the government. A vast armament was immediately authorized, of which the expense amounted to about fifteen millions of dollars, and Spain was fairly frightened into the convention of the twenty-eighth of October, 1790. We shall presently recite the provisions of this convention, which bear on the question. When it came to be discussed in Parliament, it was severely censured. Its character may sufficiently be seen from the debate. The minister boasted, that ' a new continent was open to the commercial spirit of the English and a new sea declared free to their navigators.' Mr Pulteney made this memorable remark; If it was true, as had been stated, that the advantages obtained by the convention had been extorted from Spain, it was by no means improbable they might again become the subject of dispute. What had been unwillingly granted could not be expected to be satisfactorily or permanently enjoyed.' Mr, now Lord Grey observed, not less to our present purpose, that he was astonished to hear that the possessions ceded to this country by the convention had been obtained contrary to the engagements of former treaties. This was in effect to deny our right to those possessions, as the only criterion of that right must be the former treaties.'* In the house of Lords, the Marquis of Lansdowne was still more explicit. 'Some young gentleman in China,' said he, attached to geography and a little commercial advantage, fit out a vessel called the Sea Otter, for the North West coast of America. Some Bengal adventurers fit out two other ships, with fine names, under Portuguese papers and colors. Some speculative merchants, men of letters perhaps, fit out two other ships, and the whole sails under the command of a young gentleman of the name of Meares, who is instructed, and instructs his followers, in terms becoming the form and pomp of office, to violate a system regarding Spanish America, which it has been the policy of Europe and in particular of this country to adhere to for ages. Occurrences arising out of this enterprise of a few individuals, begun without any due war * New Annual Register for 1791. rant for it, form the ostensible ground of a dissension with Spain. We arm in a manner regardless of expense, and summon Spain to submit, in a manner alike unprecedented and insulting.' Such was the opinion of British statesmen, on both sides of the question; the ministry boasting that by a prompt and powerful demonstration of force, they had driven Spain to an all important concession; and the opposition denouncing this encroachment on rights, which the treaties and the acquiescence of two hundred years had guarantied to Spain. Such were the auspices under which this convention was negotiated and such its character, in the opinion of its friends and its enemies, in the British Parliament. The provisions of that convention, which bear on this question, are these. By its third article it was agreed, that the respective subjects of the two parties should not be disturbed or molested, either in navigating or carrying on their fisheries in the Pacific Ocean, or in the South 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.' By the fifth article, ‘it is agreed, that as well in the places, which are to be restored to the British subjects by virtue of the first article (Nootka Sound), as in all other parts of the Northwestern coasts of North America, or of the islands adjacent, situated to the north of the parts of the said coast already occupied by Spain, wherever 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.' On these provisions of the convention of Nootka Sound, the English government, at the present day, founds the following pretensions; (1.) The United States cannot claim under their treaty with Spain any greater right than Spain had; and as the Nootka convention has no reference to the discoveries of either party and is unlimited in its duration, the United States cannot resort to any Spanish discovery, in support of their title. (2.) Since, at the time of concluding the Nootka convention, Louisiana belonged to Spain, and she made no exception to *Parliamentary History, vol. xxxiii, p. 942. VOL. XXVII.--NO. 61. the provisions of the convention, as encroaching on the natural extension of the limits of Louisiana, or on the boundary fixed in the forty-ninth degree of latitude, in pursuance of the treaty of Utrecht, the United States can now claim nothing on the coast as a part of Louisiana. (3.) This convention is the national law of the Pacific Ocean, and threw open the coast to all nations for the purposes of trade and settlement. (4.) Actual occupancy and general convenience are therefore the only grounds, on which an arrangement can be made between England and America.* These are the British pretensions, which in other terms amount to this, that the United States have no more claim to the mouth of the Columbia river, and the adjacent coasts north and south, than Great Britain or any other nation. On the other hand the United States maintain, that they have succeeded to the right of Spain to an indefinite extension of the coast of California. The lowest southerly point, to which Spain ever brought this claim, was Prince William's Sound, in the sixtieth degree of north latitude. They maintain that, as the possessors of Louisiana, they have a claim at least to all the coast south of the forty-ninth degree of latitude, on the same principle of natural extension, on which the English colonial charters were granted from sea to sea. Finally they claim the mouth and course of the Columbia river, by the right of prior discovery, which was made by Captain Gray, in a Boston ship, who entered and named the river; by the right of prior exploration, which was effected by Lewis and Clark; by the right of prior settlement, which took place in the establishments at the mouth of the Columbia river, prior to any British establishment on the coast or in the interior, south of the fiftieth degree. Our limits will not permit us to follow out the arguments, by which these principles of our claim may be supported. We will confine ourselves only to one or two remarks, on the Nootka Sound convention. The first is, that to this instrument Spain and Great Britain were the only parties. It therefore does not bind the United States, except so far as their right is derived from Spain. It leaves untouched our right to the coast, as the western boun *Mr Gallatin's letter to Mr Clay, Nov. 16, 1826; in document No. 199 of the House of Representatives, in the first session of the twentieth Congress. dary of Louisiana, and our right as the first discoverers and explorers of the country. In the next place, the Nootka Sound convention was not intended to affect any territorial claim, but related to the right of fishing, trading, and making a settlement of commercial factories, on the coast. It could not have looked to the decision of any claims to sovereign jurisdiction. These were left in the state in which they were found, to be decided on their own principles. It provided only, that while the country remained in its state of nature, it should be open to the trade of all nations. It certainly could not have been the intention of either of the parties, that when a partition should come to be made, no regard should be paid to the rights of prior discovery and exploration, and juxtaposition. Were such the meaning of the convention, it would follow, that the Western coast of America was now to be divided, not between the United States, England, and Russia, but among all the powers of the civilized world, who choose to claim a pro ratâ share. This view of the subject is confirmed by some part of the debate on the Nootka convention. Though the language of ministers was not uniform, it was not distinctly pretended that Great Britain had obtained a jurisdiction over any part of the coast. Mr Fox stated the effect of the convention to be, that Great Britain was authorized to navigate the Pacific Ocean and South Seas unmolested, for the purposes of carrying on our fisheries and to land on the unsettled coasts for the purpose of trading with the natives.'* In the same manner, Mr Pitt stated, 'that though what Great Britain had gained consisted not of new rights, it certainly did of new advantages. We had before a right to the southern whale fishery, and a right to navigate and carry on fisheries in the Pacific Ocean, and to trade on the coasts of any part of northwestern America. But that right not only had not been acknowledged, but disputed and resisted; whereas by the convention, it was secured to us; a circumstance, which, though no new right, was a new advantage. † Lastly, we observe, that there is strong ground to deny the validity of the Nootka Sound convention. We will not take the British principle advanced on other occasions (although certainly valid against the British government), that the war between Spain and Great Britain abrogated the convention of *Parliamentary History, vol. xxviii, p. 992. +Ib. p. 1002. |