[194] Colnett, Voyage, 96-102, note.
[195] Colnett to [Revilla-Gigedo]. San Blas, July 8, 1790. (Arch. Gen. de Indias, Seville, Sec. Estado, Audiencia de Mexico, 1790.)
[196] Revilla-Gigedo to Floridablanca, Mexico, December 30, 1791. (Arch. Gen. de Indias, Seville, Sec. Estado, Audiencia de Mexico, 1791.)
[197] Colnett, Voyage, 96-102, note.
[198] The obscurity of the facts discussed in this chapter is illustrated by the following quotations:
“It has been generally supposed from later diplomatic correspondence that the Viceroy in restoring the vessels acted on his own judgment; but it appears from his own statement that he acted probably in accordance with orders from Spain, dated January 26, 1790.” (Bancroft, Northwest Coast, I, 223.) This author’s conclusion is exactly contrary to the fact, as has been shown above. The Viceroy did act on his own authority, finally, as has been shown; and this communication of January 26 gave no orders. The Viceroy’s statement, to which Bancroft here refers, is the Informe of Revilla-Gigedo, published by Bustamante, which is very brief and sometimes misleading. Bancroft devotes a little more than one page to discussing the subject-matter of this chapter. Besides this Informe he had the note in Colnett’s Voyage.
Greenhow, Oregon and California, p. 200, speaking of the restoration of the English ships, says: “It was at length decided that … they should be released, with the understanding, however, that they were not again to enter any place on the Spanish-American coasts, either for the purpose of settlement or of trade with the natives.” This was the Viceroy’s order at first, but in the passport he gave permission to touch at places not under Spanish control, as shown above. The same writer, speaking of Colnett’s failure to get the Princess Royal at Nootka, as promised, says: “On arriving at the sound Colnett found the place deserted.” The sloop was not there, but there was a substantial Spanish settlement, as will be shown later.
“La autoridad superior de Nueva España no sancionó el hecho [Martinez’s seizure of the English vessels]; apenas llegó á su noticia, atendiendo á las buenas relaciones en que estaban los Gobiernos de ambos Estados y á la ignorancia en que suponia á las proprietarios de los bajeles, ordenó la immediata soltura de estas con sus cargamentos.” (Duro, Armada Española, VIII, 10.) This work was published in 1902, and is considered the best on the Spanish navy.
The error, which is a common one, of thinking that they were released by the Viceroy immediately, doubtless arises from the Spanish minister’s statement in his memorial of June 13, 1790, to the British ambassador, published in the Annual Register, XXXII, 296. This states that the Viceroy released the vessels without declaring them lawful prize, and allowed them to return to Macao under bond as the Iphigenia had been disposed of. These two statements are exactly contrary to the fact. The Viceroy did declare them lawful prize, and did not place them under bond. What the Spanish minister said had been done was what Florez had said, in his second account to the home Government that he thought ought to be done, but which he left his successor, Revilla-Gigedo, to do. The Spanish minister had inferred that the new Viceroy would do this, but that official had not done it, as has been shown.
Oscar Browning, Cambridge Modern History, VIII, 290, says more correctly that they “were released by the Viceroy on the ground of the friendly relations existing between the two nations, and the probability that the traders were ignorant of Spanish rights.”