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. He doubtless meant Pierce.

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.1 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.

out in 1792, he carried an order from the Spanish Government to the commander at the port of St. Lawrence (Nootka) to restore the buildings and districts or parcels of land which were "occupied" by the subjects of Great Britain at Nootka and Port Cox, and of "which the English subjects were dispossessed." Quadra refused to execute it. No occupation -no dispossession was proved. The treaty did not name Nootka nor Port Cox. Quadra considered, doubtless, the occupation and dispossession as facts to be proved. Though the treaty was absolute in its terms, its execution depended on a contingency assumed to have happened, -a contingency to be shown. In the absence of any such proof, we have a right to insist on the evidence of a restitution, full, formal, unconditional, absolute. Broughton, in 1796, says the restitution was made agreeably to the mode "settled between the two courts." This was a mode settled on the reference of the subject to the two governments after the refusal of Quadra to surrender Nootka to Vancouver. Vancouver, in his "Journal," Vol. VI. page 118, says that on the 12th September, 1794, Señor Alava told him at Monterey that the matter had been adjusted by their respective courts "nearly on the terms which he (Vancouver) had repeatedly offered to Quadra. Even this statement, coming from Vancouver, shows that there was a new agreement between the courts. What was the agreement? We have a right to call for its production.

Such was the practical execution of the first article of the Nootka Sound Convention. One fact is undeniable. Great Britain never occupied Nootka. From 1796 to the present day, no attempt has been made to reoccupy it by civilized men. Captain Belcher, a British naval officer, visited the place in 1837, while making a voyage round the world. In his "Narrative," page 113, Vol. I., he says:

"No vestige remains of the settlement noticed by Vancouver, nor could I discern on the site of the Spanish battery the slightest trace of

stones employed for building. The chiefs pointed out where their houses stood, and where the potatoes grew, but not a trace remains of a European."

The third article, besides stipulating for an unmolested enjoyment of the right of navigating and fishing in the Pacific and South Seas, and landing on the coast, conceded in express terms to the subjects of both nations the right to form settlements in places not already occupied; but this right was subject to the restrictions of the three following articles, one of which was to limit its exercise to the parts of the coast, or the islands adjacent, north of the parts already occupied by Spain. It had, by the terms of the compact, no application whatever to parts of the coast of North America south of the places occupied by Spain at the time the treaty was made. The important question arises, what was the most northern point occupied by Spain in 1790? This became a matter of disagreement between the Spanish and British authorities at a very early day after the Nootka Sound Convention was formed. Vancouver claimed not only the whole of Nootka Sound, but also Port Cox, south of it; and he insisted, to use his own phraseology, that "the northernmost spot on the Pacific coast of America, occupied by the Spaniards previous to the month of May, 1789, was the Presidio of San Francisco, in latitude 37° 48'." Now, it will be observed that an attempt was made to give to the Nootka Sound Convention a construction wholly unwarranted by its terms. Vancouver endeavored to fix the month of April, 1789, as the time when the question of the most northern occupation of Spain was to be settled. The language of the convention, in respect to the right of forming settlements, is, "north of the parts of the said coast already occupied by Spain"; fixing the time, according to every just rule of construction, at the date of the treaty, the 28th of October, 1790. This construction is strengthened by the fact, that a subsequent article concedes the right of forming

temporary establishments on the coast of South America, south of parts "already occupied" by Spain, and referring indisputably to the date of the treaty. The words 'already occupied" are the same in both articles, and they must be considered as referring to the same period of time.

66

The question then recurs, what was the most northerly point occupied by Spain in October, 1790, at the conclusion of the treaty ?

Martinez, as has been seen, took possession of Nootka Sound on the 6th of May, 1789, and immediately landed materials and cannon for building and arming a fort on a small island at the entrance of Friendly Cove. In November he returned to St. Blas, and, in the spring of 1790, Captain Elisa took his place. A permanent establishment was formed, vessels were sent out on exploring expeditions, and, during the negotiations between Vancouver and Quadra in 1792, the Spaniards were in possession of houses and cultivated lands. Vancouver again found them in possession in 1793, under Señor Fidalgo, and in 1794, under Señor Saavadra, and the post was maintained without interruption until 1795.1 By turning to page 336, Vol. II., of "Vancouver's Journal," a view of the Spanish establishment at Friendly Cove, on Nootka Sound, will be seen, from a sketch taken on the spot by one of Vancouver's party, in September or October, 1792; and it exhibits ten

Vancouver arrived at Nootka Sound on the 2d September, 1794, and found Brigadier-General Alava in command. He left without resuming the negotiation which he had commenced with Quadra, in 1792. On the 12th November, 1794, he was informed by General Alava, at Monterey, where they met, that instructions had been sent to adjust the matter in an amicable way, and nearly on the terms which he (Vancouver) had repeatedly offered to Señor Quadra in September, 1792. But of this, as has been seen, there is no satisfactory evidence. See Vol. VI. p. 118.

roofed buildings, with several enclosures of cultivated land. It also exhibits, totally distinct from these lands and buildings, a cove adjoining, and a reference to it, stating that it includes "the territories which, in September, 1792, were offered by Spain to be ceded to Great Britain." This was the site of the hut occupied by Meares, and the Spanish commander refused to make a formal and absolute surrender to Great Britain of any other land.

Thus it is established, by proof not to be impeached, that the Spaniards were in the occupation of a post at Nootka Sound in 1790, when the convention was negotiated and concluded; and I submit, therefore, whether this must not be regarded as the southern limit of the region within which the right of forming settlements, recognized or conceded by the convention, was to be exercised. This point was strenuously and perseveringly insisted on by Quadra in his negotiation with Vancouver, and with obvious justice. To use Vancouver's own language, page 342, Vol. II., of his "Journal," Quadra observed that "Nootka ought to be the last or most northwardly Spanish settlement; that there the dividing line should be fixed, and that from thence to the northward should be free for entrance, use, and commerce to both parties, conformably with the fifth article of the convention; that establishments should not be formed without permission of the respective courts; and that the English should not pass to the south of Fuca." Such was Quadra's construction of the treaty; and he uniformly refused to make any formal surrender of territory or buildings, excepting the small cove referred to. Nootka Sound is midway between the 49th and 50th parallels of latitude; and south of this point, if Quadra's position was well taken, Great Britain could claim no right by virtue of the convention, though it were still in force.

That Great Britain would have had the right, under the convention, at any time during its continuance, to form a temporary establishment on any part of the northwest coast,