91 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 ■'^>. 
 
 
 IMAGE EVALUATION 
 TEST TARGET (MT-3) 
 
 k 
 
 A 
 
 
 / 
 
 < /^/. 
 ^ 
 
 1.0 
 
 11.25 
 
 bii "'•2.8 
 
 iiiiii 
 
 I.I f '^ IIIIM 
 
 U ill 1.6 
 
 V 
 
 <^ 
 
 /a 
 
 :> '> 
 
 
 
 !^ 
 
 Photographic 
 
 Sciences 
 Corporation 
 
 \ 
 
 V 
 
 ^ 
 
 ■1>' 
 
 \\ 
 
 
 '^A 
 
 6^ 
 
 23 WEST MAIN STREET 
 
 WEBSTER, NY. 1 4580 
 
 (716) 872-4503 
 
 ^ 
 
 
•P 
 
 CIHM/ICMH 
 
 Microfiche 
 
 Series. 
 
 CIHM/ICMH 
 Collection de 
 microfiches. 
 
 Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques 
 
Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographiques 
 
 The Institute has attempted to obtain the best 
 original copy available for filming. Features of this 
 copy which may be bibliographically unique, 
 which may alter any of the images in the 
 reproduction, or which may significantly change 
 the usual method of filming, are checked below. 
 
 n 
 
 n 
 
 n 
 
 Coloured covers/ 
 Couverture de couleur 
 
 I I Covers damaged/ 
 
 D 
 
 Couverture endommagde 
 
 Covers restored and/or laminated/ 
 Couverture restaur^e et/ou pellicul6e 
 
 Cover title missing/ 
 
 Le titre de couverture manque 
 
 Coloured maps/ 
 
 Cartes gdographiqu'js en couleur 
 
 □ Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ 
 Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) 
 
 I I Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ 
 
 Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur 
 
 Bound with other material/ 
 Reli6 avec d'autres documents 
 
 Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion 
 along interior margin/ 
 
 Lareliure serr6e peut cau< ir de I'ombre ou de la 
 distortion le long de la marge intdrieure 
 
 Blank leaves addod during restoration may 
 appear within the text. Whenever possible, these 
 have been omitted from filming/ 
 II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajout^es 
 lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte, 
 mais, lorsque cela dtait possible, ces pages n'ont 
 pas 6td film^es. 
 
 Additional comments:/ 
 Commentaires suppldmentaires; 
 
 The 
 to tl 
 
 L'Institut a microfilmd lp meilleur exemplaire 
 qu'il lui a 6t6 possible de se procurer. Les details 
 de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-dtre uniques du 
 point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier 
 une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une 
 modification dans la mdthode normale de filmage 
 sont indiquds ci-dessous. 
 
 □ Coloured pages/ 
 Pages de couleur 
 
 □ Pages damaged/ 
 Pages endommag^es 
 
 □ Pages restored and/or laminated/ 
 Pages restaur^es et/ou pellicul6es 
 
 (/ 
 
 Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ 
 Pages ddcolor^es, tachetdes ou piqudes 
 
 □Pages detached/ 
 Pages d6tach6es 
 
 / 
 
 Showthrough/ 
 Transparence 
 
 I I Quality of print varies/ 
 
 Quality indgale de I'impression 
 
 Includes supplementary material/ 
 Comprend du materiel supplementaire 
 
 Only edition available/ 
 Seule Edition disponible 
 
 n 
 
 Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata 
 slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to 
 ensure the best possible image/ 
 Les pages totalement ou partiellement 
 obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, 
 etc.. ont 6t6 filmdes d nouveau de fagon d 
 obtenir la meilleure image possible. 
 
 The 
 pos 
 oft 
 film 
 
 Orl( 
 beg 
 the 
 sior 
 othi 
 first 
 sior 
 or il 
 
 The 
 shal 
 TIN 
 whi 
 
 Mai 
 diff( 
 anti 
 beg 
 righ 
 reqi 
 met 
 
 This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ 
 
 Ce document est filmd au taux de reduction indiqu6 ci-dessous. 
 
 10X 14X 18X 22X 
 
 y 
 
 12X 
 
 16X 
 
 »X 
 
 26X 
 
 30X 
 
 24X 
 
 28X 
 
 n 
 
The copy filmed here has been rtjproduced thanks 
 to the generosity of: 
 
 University of British Columbia Library 
 
 L'exemplaire film6 fut reproduit grAce A la 
 gAnirositi de: 
 
 University of British Columbia Library 
 
 The imagss appearing here are the best quality 
 possible considering the condition and legibility 
 of the original copy and in keeping with the 
 filming contract specifications. 
 
 Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed 
 beginning with the front cover and ending on 
 the last page with a printed or illustrated impres- 
 sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All 
 other original copies are filmed beginning on the 
 first page with a printed or illustrated impres- 
 sion, and ending on the last page with a printed 
 or illustrated impression. 
 
 The last recorded frame on each microfiche 
 shall contain the symbol ^»- (meaning "CON- 
 TINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END"), 
 whichever applies. 
 
 Les images suivantes ont 6t6 reproduites avec le 
 plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et 
 de la nettetd de l'exemplaire filmi, et en 
 conformity avec les conditions du contrat de 
 filmage. 
 
 Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en 
 papier est imprim6e sont fiim^s en commen^ant 
 par le premier plat et art terminant soit par la 
 dernidre page qui comporte une empreinte 
 d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second 
 plat, salon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires 
 originaux sont filmis en commen^ant par la 
 premidre page qui comporte une empreinte 
 d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par 
 la dernidre page qui comporte une telle 
 empreinte. 
 
 Un des symboles suivants apparaitra sur la 
 dernidre image de chaque microfiche, selon le 
 cas: ie symbole — <^ signifie "A SUIVRE", le 
 symboie V signifie "FIN". 
 
 Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at 
 different reduction ratios. Those too large to be 
 entirely included in one exposure are filmed 
 beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to 
 right and top to bottom, as many frames as 
 required. The following diagrams illustrate the 
 method: 
 
 Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent dtre 
 film6s A des taux de reduction diffdrents. 
 Lorsque le document est trop grand pour dtre 
 reproduit en un seul cliche, il est filmd d partir 
 de Tangle supdrieur gauche, de gauche d droite, 
 et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre 
 d'images ndcessaire. Les diagram Ties suivants 
 illustrent la mdthode. 
 
 ! * / 
 
 i • * 
 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 5 
 
 6 
 
: 
 
 r 
 
*■ -:i. V>..«*'0>- 
 
 L E T T E R S 
 
 LATELY PUBLISHED llf 
 
 Cfte iP 31 3 E if», 
 
 oN THS StfBJtCT or 
 
 The prefent Difpute with Spain* 
 
 UNDZt THI SJONATUHX Of 
 
 ■f -'•! 
 
 E 
 
 y s. 
 
 L N D Ni 
 
 PRINTED FOR G. KEARSLEY, FLErT-STREET, 
 
 M.OCCiXC. 
 
r^ 
 
 ft 
 
 r '} 
 
 I 
 
 
 k 
 
 ♦ -i ■ -i 
 
 ^- 
 
1/ \ 
 
 f 
 
 k < , 
 
 •J I JR LJ'Iifc 
 
 . T<? ^ie P U B L I C K. ' 
 
 .> 
 
 1) • 
 
 T O repel flander and to 
 confute calumny — to fupport the 
 caufe of truth, and to hold up to 
 public fcorn the detedied efforts of 
 falfchood — thcfe I hold to be the 
 duties of every one, whofe leifurc 
 or whofe talents qualify him for 
 fuch a tafk. If fuch be the obli- 
 gations in the ordinary concerns of 
 of life— -if to fail in thefe be an 
 offence igainft the good order and 
 
 ftcurity of fociety the necefhty 
 
 of adiing up to this rule becomes 
 doubly ftrong, when the intercfts 
 
 the State, not thofe of individuals 
 
 are 
 
tnr 
 
 ( vi ) 
 
 are at ftake ; when the arrows of 
 falfehood are lev^elled at our coun- 
 try ; when the Liberty of the Prefs 
 is abufed for the purpofes of fup- 
 porting againft us the caufe of 
 our opponents. Adluated by thefe 
 principles, and filled with indigna- 
 tion at the bafe and libellous at- 
 tempts which have been fo long 
 made to fupport the caufe of Spain 
 againft this country, I hefitated not 
 to affert the juftice of the conteft 
 in which we are at prefent en- 
 gaged, and, by a fair ftatement of 
 the Britifh claims, joined to a juft 
 analyiis of the condud: of our Mi- 
 nifters, to convince the Publick of 
 ^"he validity of out pretenfions, and 
 of the daring arts which a difap- 
 pointed fadion can employ, to over- 
 turn a Government which they have 
 ''V not 
 
( vii ) 
 
 not been thought . worthy to con- 
 dudi. Such having been my mo- 
 tives, (whatever the merit of the 
 following Letters may be) I cannot 
 with propriety decline the propofal 
 which has been made to mc of col^ 
 lefting them together into one point 
 of view, and of fubmitting them 
 in the form of a pamphlet to the 
 Publick. By doing this, I aA in 
 the faireft manner by my oppo- 
 nents. The grounds of my argu- 
 ments, before difperfed in Vc'^rious 
 papers, and now coUeded together, 
 may more readily be appreciated, 
 and every one will be enabled to 
 determine, whether my propofiti- 
 ons or thofe of the Spanifh Advo- 
 cate are founded in truth. If 
 
 it be objected to me that I with- 
 hold myfelf from public view, and 
 
 that 
 

 ! :' 
 
 I 
 
 ]! 
 
 i 
 
 . ( , viJi ) 
 
 that I re-publi'fli thefer Letters un- 
 der a borrowed ;;(ignature,. I have 
 
 only to fay, th>\t;the caufe of truth 
 needs not the fupport of any name, 
 I do not hold the difelpflire of mine 
 to. be effential in a difcufiion of this 
 nature*. I, gloryhpwever too much 
 in .the 0;bje<!i;Qf jT^y kljor, to be par- 
 ticularly anxious to conceal fuch a 
 circ]ainj(lance, Jf, ' , therefoj^e, my 
 opponents arc equally confcious of 
 the integrity of their caufe, and 
 will boldly fet their names to their 
 performances, mine fhall no longer 
 remain a fecret. 'Till then I re- 
 
 ^Iflfclimv;; ) jAi lirT'^ '^'^r^ ^;-r<^', -, ;-«'• 
 
 iir^... u . vm .V E R U S. 
 
 
 > 
 
 r; rr;n; 
 
 
 >^^' • . 
 
 * 
 
LET 
 
 E R S. 
 
 W 
 
 Number I. 
 
 S I R, 
 
 Although little defirous of embarlving 
 as a Dilputant in the Ocean of Politics, and 
 averfe from principle to agitate great Public 
 Quedions, when the interefts of this country are 
 in Negociation, and when the conduft of Mini- 
 llers cannot, of courle, be the fair objec^l; either 
 of Crimination or of Applaufe, I am induced, 
 on feveral accounts, to defire you to infert in 
 your Paper the following Refledions, which have 
 occurred to me on the p(:'rufdl of the " Stric- 
 f.ires on the Spanifh Declaration," lately piib- 
 lifhed in the General Advertiferj a performance 
 not unmeritorious in point of ftyle and manner, 
 however deficient it may be in the valuable in- 
 gredients of Candor, Impartiality, and Truth. 
 
 As every Englifhman has an intereft in the 
 welfare of his country— the national honour be- 
 ing a colleflive mafs, formed from the indivi- 
 dual honor of the people— and, as upon that 
 honor is founded the well-being, not only of the 
 State, but of thofe who compofe if. it has ever 
 been the inherent right of Englifhmen, to watch 
 ever die condud of thofe to wiiom the pleafure 
 
 B gf 
 
( ^ ) 
 
 ^i tl'.c Sovcrelqii Ikis rlclc7j;atcd the linportiinf 
 tru!l of dirc'Sting Public Aifiiirs. As a confe- 
 qncncc of x\\h nfi;ht, no Knij^lilhrnan can be dr- 
 nic'l rhc privilf.pij of commnnicadng to his fel- 
 low rijl">jccl:s his fcritinients on tlioll' afTairs, and 
 gn the conducl o( thofe intriifLt-d wi h tlicir nia- 
 nagoiicnt ; provided he exercifts tliis privilege 
 with decency, and does not exceed the hue of 
 candor and f.iir rcj-rcfentation ; a line traced out, 
 not lei's by good fcnle, than by thole confidera- 
 tioiis which ought to a(51ii;ue every one who is 
 intcrelled for the weifdie of his country. 'I liis I 
 liolcl to be his indifputable right, and he who 
 does it with fliiinefs-— who endeavours by the 
 llatement of facfts lo dctc6t filf.'hood---who la- 
 bors by argunv.-nt iuid lound reafon to remo\c: 
 the veil of error---and who d(jes not, under the 
 pretence of all this, endeavour by fophifin, mil- 
 reprefentation, or direcft untruths, to miflead 
 that people whom he profelles to infi;rucl---luch a 
 one, Sir, I hold to be the friend of his country, 
 and deferving of the thanks of every one to whom 
 Jiis country is dear. 
 
 Would to God, Sir, that I were able to clafs 
 under this head of friends to his country, that: 
 perfon, whoever he may be, v/ho, in the daily 
 paper I have alluded to, has for fornc time pa(t 
 earncftly requefted the publick to attend to bis ftr'ic^ 
 lures en the SpaniJJ? Declaration. 
 
 Had he either reprefented fadls with fairnefs, or 
 rcafoncd on the fads lie has flated with common 
 candour— -had he not grofUy mifrepreftnted Both 
 the cafes which he has thought proper to biing 
 into comparifon— -had he not endeavoured, at the 
 expence of truth, to traduce the well earned fame 
 t>f tha: Minifter, who Hands his-di in the confi- 
 
 dcncc 
 
T 
 
 m 
 
 w 
 
 . ( 3 ) 
 
 ■dcnce and cflecni bjdi of his Sovcrciq-n and liis 
 fellow- llibjcdt:;, bcc:uiic he has icivfd tlicin with 
 a Fidelity only equalled by his uni iv.ilk'd talcnts--- 
 h;»d he not chofcn, for fuch a purj")or(.', the mo- 
 •ir.ent of all othci\s the moil iViCicd to the rt-il 
 J^atrioc— -tliC nioincnt of negotiation- --when tl.e 
 intcrefts of his country a.c at llake, and when its 
 credit, on wliirh tivj luccefs ot*ii\.i: Negotiation 
 riUiil main;/ depeikl, oiifrht not to be fliahen by 
 nillieprefentation, and factious arts---had he not 
 <lone all this^ 1 fliould not have thought it nc- 
 celfary to addicfs my fcilow-countiymen thiough 
 yoiM- channel. Feeling, as 1 do, the inrpor- 
 tan-je of the bufniefs at prefint in difer.flion, and 
 havin^j endeavoured to inform mvfclf ot thofc 
 f.i'fls, which hav'e cop.^c within the knowledt^e of 
 the publick fince the firll notification of our tiif[Hitt; 
 with vSp.iin, as well as of thofe which occuned oa 
 t!ie Falkland lUand affair, in the years 1770 anci 
 177 I, I pledge myfelf to you, and to the publick, 
 f-irly and diipafiionately to meet the iliicluies 
 iibove-miCntiojied, and to prove the fallacy, 
 infufhciency, and mifrcpicfentations, witii v.hich 
 they are replete. Wlio the v/ritcr of them may be 
 I know not. Of perfonal views, therefore, I 
 cannot be fufpe^ted. As an EngliHiman, how- 
 ever, it is my duty to prevent my fellow-fubjeifts 
 from being deceived; and 1 rejoice in thinking 
 iliat, to do this, Tiutli and fair Argument: will 
 I?.? lufficicnt. ' . . 
 
 I am, Sir, 
 
 your mod obedient, 
 
 Humble Servant, 
 
 V E R U S, 
 
 ^--j* 
 '•%. 
 
 E 
 
 NuM- 
 
( 4 ) 
 
 Number II. 
 
 
 n 
 
 F 
 
 i I 
 
 SIR, 
 
 XN purlliance of the promlfe I made of difcufling 
 the " Stri(5lures on the Spanifli Declaration," 
 referred to in my firll Letter, and of proving the 
 fallacy and mifreprefentations with which they are 
 replete, 1 now fit down to addrefs you. Let the 
 publick, whom the author of thofe Stri6lures has 
 endeavoured to miflead, determine between us. 
 Before that Tribunal, never wrong in its ultimate 
 decifion, though fometimes biafTcd for a moment 
 by the infidious arts of fadtion, I willingly (land 
 forward, on the ground of no information which 
 any obferving man in this country does not pofTeis 
 equally with myfelf, and ready to advance my 
 proofs of the grofs mifreprefentation which that 
 writer has thought proper to impofe upon the 
 world. 
 
 This gentleman fets out bv drawin;^: the atten- 
 tion of the publick to a comiparifon between the 
 affair of the Falkland's Iflands and the prefent dif- 
 pute with Spain ; and he obferves, that our claim 
 is much Jlronger on the frejent cccafion^ while the 
 KonduSi of Minifters has been much more reprehenfi^ 
 ble, and the DeclaraUon, which the^ have obtained,^ 
 much weaker, 
 
 Thefetwopropofitionshe takes as the bafls of his 
 argument j and undoubtedly he could not have 
 fele6led any thing fo likely to anfwer the purpofes^ 
 of diminifhing the confidence of the publick in 
 thofe, to whom his Majefly has thought proper to 
 delegate the charge of the Government, or of en- 
 ^oury^ing our enemies to take advantage of a 
 
 circuiu-^ 
 
. ( 5 ) 
 
 circiimftance fo much to be wifiied for by them, 
 had he been fo fortunate as to prove either of thefe 
 alfertions, by any thing like fair argument or con- 
 chifive evidence. I truft, liowever. Sir, that it 
 will not be a difficult talk to prove, that both thefe 
 piopofitions are founded on grofs mifreprefcnta- 
 tion ; that the claim of this country, ftrong as it 
 iindoubcediy is, is not ftronger on the prefent oc- 
 cafion that it was in the year 177 1 j that the con- 
 du(5L of our Minifters i:-. not more reprehenfible 
 vo'jo than the condud ofMinilters was //^d-//; and 
 that the Declaration which they have obtained is 
 a/i// weaker than that obtained at the former pe- 
 riod ; the truth indeed being prccifely the reverf^, 
 in tvi^xy one of thefe inllances, of what the 
 writer of thefe Strictures has been pleafed to ad- 
 vance. 
 
 I'his, Sir, is the propofition I have underta- 
 ken to prove. In doing fo, I will give my op- 
 ponent every pofTible advantage, by dating d^^^ 
 tindly and' Separately his own alTertions, and by 
 replying in the fame manr»er to each of them. 
 Should the refultof calm invertigation be a con- 
 viction in the minds of the publick, that the afler- 
 tions arc unfounded, that the facts are mifrepre- 
 fented, and that rhe dediidlions are not warranted 
 by thepremifes, I fhall have performed my pro- 
 mife, and have expofed to my countrymen a 
 part of thofe infidious arts, which a difcontented, 
 becaufe a difappointed. Faction has employed 
 to traduce the Execudve Government of our 
 pountry, and to impede the o})eration of thofe 
 wife and vigorous Counfels, which have made u^ 
 admired and refpedted abroad, while they have 
 r^ifed us to a pitch of lecurity, wealth, and hap:- 
 pinefs at home, unknown to any former period, 
 ^ V E R U S/" 
 
w 
 
 wm 
 
 i 
 
 i-i 
 
 I. 
 
 I; 
 
 >\\]^ 
 
 11: 
 
 ( 6 ) 
 
 Numb e r III. 
 
 S I R, 
 
 
 A H E firfl: afTertion, which the author of tha 
 Stridturcs brings forward in fiipport of his propo- 
 ficions, is this — 
 
 " Li the ajfair of Falkland's JJlands^ it ivas an 
 ** lindifj.uted facf, that ive-wera notthefir ft jet tiers-, 
 
 which is no'iv thought thi rnoft im-pGrlant point in 
 
 the qiieftion ofrlfht.'' 
 
 As a proof of this aHcition it is faid, that the 
 French had made a piior fecticment in thofe 
 illands, which they gave up to t'ac Spaniards, 
 years before the dif^'jce between England and 
 Spain ; and that the facl o^ priority in the dijco- 
 'very of thofe iflands were difpured : Vv hercas, 
 in the aiTair of Nootka Sound, it is an iindifputed 
 fact, that no fettleiiient exited there before ours ; 
 but that the priority of the difcovery feems to be 
 pow, as it was tlien, difputed. 
 
 The anfwer to this proportion depends upor; 
 matter of fact. . 
 
 In the year 17(^4, Commodore Byron v/as fent 
 out by Government (or the purpofe of making a 
 fettlement in the Falliland's Iflands. He a;rived 
 at his deltination early in the year foiknving; and 
 eft-abliftjiiig himfelf at a place to vvhich he }jave the ' 
 name of Port Egmont, in the moft weflerly of 
 thofe iflands, he took poifefiion in the name of 
 his Britannick Majefly in the ufual manner. He 
 ercded a fortv/ith four pieces of cannon. A large 
 quantity of Government ftorcs was depoflted 
 there ; the Britiili flag was hoifl:ed, and twQ 
 King's fliips were appointed to that ilation. 
 
 About 
 
 
( 7 ) 
 
 About the fame period, M. de Eoiigainvilld 
 flailed iVom France, on a private enterprize, with- 
 out anv fnpport fioni Government, for the pur- 
 pofe oi' forming a lettlement in the Falkhind's 
 Iflands. Havin^^ done this by the arfiRance of 
 fome Acadian fairiilies, he built a fort in the 
 eaiierrnoit of thofe iOands, which he called Pore 
 Louis, and hoiited the French flan;. 
 
 Such was the nature of the tv/o efl.iblifhments; 
 the one, a natirjnnl concern, executed by royal 
 authority, and becoming the llation of King's 
 Ihips ; the otht^r, an iiidividual enterprize, en- 
 couraged polTibiy, but certainly not fupported, 
 by the executive power. of the country. The 
 fcttlements were alfo perfectly diilind ; for they 
 were on difierent iflands, at tiie diilance of fome 
 hundred miles from each other ; with fo little 
 communication, that, extraordinary as fuch a 
 circumilance may appear, the Engliili and 
 French continued for more than four years mu- 
 tually ignorant of the formation of thefe rival 
 eftabliflirnxnts. 
 
 The two fjtdements v;ere not only on d:ffcren£ 
 iflands, but they were on iflands to which neither 
 country had, or could pretend to have^ any things 
 like a frior or exclufrce right. I fay this on a con- 
 viction, that no right but that of alHual fcjfcjjion 
 or prior occupancy^ can amount to an exclufion 
 of other nations ; and in this cafe, no fuch prior 
 occupancy could be arrogated either bv England 
 or France. On the ground indeed of prior dif- 
 covery, the right of England mull have been in- 
 difputable ; fur it is, beyond contradiction, that 
 thefe iflands v^ere orifvinally difcovered bv Eng-hfli 
 navigators more than two centuries ago. Tliis, 
 however, is a fpecies of clviiin too abfurd to be 
 
 .^pcn 
 
 ci 
 
 ed 
 
 K 
 
I 
 
 J! 
 
 I 
 
 -.! 
 
 •1)1 
 
 1 I 
 
 , I 
 • I 
 
 ; I 
 
 :»!:,[ 
 
 !:;!! 
 
 ( 8 ) 
 
 tIfiSpended upon in thefe days ; and, in the cafe or 
 the Falkland's Inlands, it was unnecenary, as the 
 circumftance of their having been unoccupied 
 before the fettleincnt in queftion was formed, 
 gave the firft fettlers a clear and undilputed title 
 againft the whole world. 
 
 It follows from this, that both Jdtkments were 
 valid Jo far as the territory occupied extended. It 
 would indeed be an extravagant propofition to 
 affirm, that the poirefTion of one ifland necefTarily 
 induces the poflelTion of every ifland in its neigh- 
 bourhood ; as the obvious confequence muft be, 
 that the firfl occupier of any of the Caribee 
 Iflands muft have had an exclufive right to them 
 all J whereas they have been acknowledged as 
 the undifputed property of various European na- 
 tions J and the argument would hold equally good 
 when applied to a continent, and would admit 
 the exclufive right of any nation, whc had firft 
 fettled on the fea-coaft, to the whole territory in 
 every direction. This is a kind of argument 
 /which even the Spaniards, of all others the moft 
 ' ready to advance exclufive claims, never dreamt 
 of maintaining j as appeals from the various fet- 
 tlements formed by other European nations in 
 other parts of North and South America. And 
 yet, without fuch an argument as this, it is not 
 pofTible to eftablifh the propofition in queftion, 
 namely, that the French, by forming a fettle- 
 ment in one of the Falkland's iflands, acquired 
 a dominion over them all ; and that fuch a rights 
 fo acquired, was transferred by them to luc 
 Spaniards. 
 
 The fadl was, that England was intitled to 
 the fovereignty of Port Egmont Ifland, and 
 France to that ofSolidad or Port Louis i and 
 
 the 
 
 I 
 
 f 
 
 
( 9 ') 
 
 the right of each to their refpetfVive lettlc merits 
 was clear, indifputable and exclufive. On thilj 
 ground, the claim of England was limited in the 
 negotiation " to the Port and Tort of Egmont," 
 while Spain confelTcd that claim, by giving orders 
 for the delivering of it up to his Majelly's Officer. 
 Why the F.nglifli Miniftry of that day immedi- 
 ately afterwards abandoned this principle, or 
 why they amufed the publick by a pretended reco- 
 very of a fettlement v^hich they had determined 
 (nay probably had fecretly engaged) fliortly to 
 abandon, is a different queftion, and vvill more 
 properly come under my difcuiilon at a future 
 period. 
 
 It is evident, therefore, diat the afiertion in 
 quefiion, viz. Thai we were not the Firft Settlers -, 
 is either fallacious or unfounded ; fallacious, if 
 applied to all the Falkland's I Hands unfoun- 
 ded, if applied to Port Egmont. In this latter 
 place we were, upon every principle of the Law 
 of Nations, and upon the eltabhfned ufage in all 
 fimilar cafes, the Firfi Settlers ; we had the ex- 
 clufive right to that eftablilhment, and to the 
 idand on which it was fituated. Nor did the 
 fubfequent ceflion of the French fettlement to the 
 Spaniards in the year 1766, in any degree dimi- 
 nilh the right of the Englifl-j. Spain had no 
 kind of original pietenfions (for it never was 
 even infinuated that fhe had made an eftablifh- 
 ment there) and could derive no more from the 
 French than they had to beftow. What this was 
 had been fecn. The Spaniards therefore ftood 
 exaftlyin their place; but could nor, by any 
 mode of reafoning, acquire a tide, wliich did 
 not belong to thofe from whom their fettlement 
 itlelf was derived. 
 
 C Let 
 
I 
 
 i 
 
 
 
 Uili; 
 
 ^^/' 
 
 
 ^^ 
 
 \.v 
 
 ( to ) 
 
 Let us now confider the nature of our cflst-* 
 blifliment ar Nootka. 
 
 Some pri\^:itc Englifh Adventurers, having, 
 fitted out fome vefiels on a l|)eculation of the ad- 
 vantages vy'hich niiglit be derived from a new 
 brand? of trade in the Pacific Ocean, formed an" 
 aifociation with other perfqns of the fame de- 
 fer iption, who had obtained a licence to trade 
 from the Eaft India and South Sea Companies. 
 Finding that the furs on the North Weft Coaft of 
 America were valuable and eafy to be procured 
 in large quantities, they purchafed of the natives 
 :' tradt of country j of which having taken pof- 
 feflion in the name of his Maj<'fty, they built 
 tipon it and hoifled the Br'tilh Flag. 
 
 That this,, on the principle I have mentioned^ 
 gave them an undoubted title to the place in 
 queftion, is beyond difputc. 
 
 As the firil: occupants, they had a juft right to> 
 tlie' .lands on which they were thus eftablilhed* 
 This would become a national right, whenever 
 it fhould pleafe his Majefty to adopt the under- 
 taking, and take it into his own jprotedlion. Had 
 the writer of the Stridurcs been fatisfiedwith aflert- 
 ing this fa6ly it would have been onneceffary for mc 
 to have troubled you on thefubjed} as his Majeily's 
 Minifters have not only all along faid e^iiacStly the 
 fame thing, but have adlually taken this principle 
 as the bafis both of the negotiation for peace and 
 their preparation for war, as appears by his 
 Majeily's MefTage to Parliament. To have ftopc 
 here, however, would not have anfwered that 
 Writer*s purpofe of mifleading the public ; the^ 
 natural dedudlions from the a&rtion being, that 
 the King and his Minifters have vindicated, in 
 
 the 
 
1 
 
 ''>/p' 
 
 I 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 the mod fpiriced manner, the Rights of tlic 
 Crown and of the People, and that they have not 
 luffered even the moit remote and the moll in- 
 confiderable of the fubjefts of this Kingdom to 
 be injured, without exacting from the aggrcflbr 
 an adequate redrefs. He therefore finds himrdf 
 obliged to diftort the truth of the tranladion, and 
 to attempt to miflead the world into a belief, 
 that the kind of diftindion he mentions exids 
 between the nature of die two fettlements. Such 
 an attempt nothing certainly but the grolTeft 
 ipirit of mifreprefcntation could have fuggelled, 
 and no informed man, untindured by the cretin- 
 lity of fadlion, can pofTibly agree to the ccnclu- 
 fion he draws. That a diftindtion between the 
 two cales iices exifl: is indeed certain ^ but it 
 goes only to prove that, of two fetdcments for- 
 ined by Britilh fubjects, the one was a private, 
 individual, concern, the other a Royal and na- 
 tional undertaking ; that at Nootka, the fettle- 
 ment was formed by unknown adventurei s, fo far 
 from being fpecially protecfted by Government, 
 as to be totally unheard of, till brought into notice 
 by the violent a6t of the Spaniards, and adopted 
 by his Majefty, who took them into his protec- 
 tion ; while, on the other hand, the fettlemcnt 
 at Falkland's I (land was a public tranfadlion, 
 executed by authority of Government, paid for 
 by the People of England, and immediately un- 
 4ier the protedion of his Majeliy's diips of 
 
 w^f* 
 
 V E R U S. 
 
 C 2 
 
 N U Nf- 
 
( It ) 
 
 N UMBER IV. 
 
 
 ' 
 
 SIR, 
 
 Jlj. a V I N G expofcd the Hillacy o,nd mifre-- 
 prefentation of the firit aflfertion advanced 
 by the Writer of the Strictures, I now proceed 
 to an examination of his fecond aflertion, which 
 I truft the Public will, when fairly ftated, confi- 
 der as equally unfounded with the former. The 
 proportion is this— 
 
 " In the difpute relative to the Falkland's 
 *' Iflands, zve certainly were the firft aggref- 
 " /crs, though we did not proceed to any adual 
 hoftility : Whereas in the difpute about 
 Nootka, Spain is confefTcdly the aggrefTor." 
 To prove this, we are told that, " Captain 
 Hunt, who comm.anded at Port Egmont, 
 falling in with a Spanifh fchooner on a cruifey 
 *' warned the Spaniards to depart from that coaft, 
 as belonging to the Crown of England :" that 
 afimilar meJTage was Jenl to the Spanijlo Go- 
 *' 'ver nor cf Port '-Trinidad ;" and that ** the fole 
 " dominion of his Majefty to the iflands was 
 « afferted." 
 
 That, in the prefent difpute, Spain is confef- 
 fecly the aggrcflbr, is a propofition, which I do 
 not mean in any manner to controvert. I deny 
 hovv'ever that, in the year 177 1, IVe were rhe 
 firft aggrejfors. On the contrary, I affirm that 
 Spain was then the firft ciggrejj'or.i and that her 
 agprcfiion then was more atrocious and more in- 
 Jutting to our national honour^ than any thing 
 >fvhich occurred in the late affair at Nootka. 
 
 The 
 
 <( 
 
 cc 
 
 (C 
 
 (C 
 
 <c 
 
 <c <c 
 
 
tn- 
 
 ( 13 ) 
 
 The firft of thcfe aflertions I mean to prove 
 in this letter ; the lecond will form the fubjec^t 
 of my next, when I enter on the difcuflTion of the 
 third aflfertion advanced by this Writer. 
 
 A recoiirfc to matter of fad will alfo, on this 
 
 occafion, be the propciefb anfwer both to the 
 
 ^ifiertion, and to the evidence on which it is foun-t 
 
 ded. '• 
 
 On the aSth of November, 1769, Captain 
 
 Hunt of the Tamar Frigate, who was Rationed 
 
 at Port Egmont by Royal Authority, fell in with 
 
 a Spanifli fchooner, belonging to Port Solidad, 
 
 which was not cruifingy as this Writer affirms, 
 
 but was adually taking a Jiirvey of the Coaft 
 
 fettled by the Englijh ; which in fa61: was making a 
 
 claim upon theiflatui, and in an offenfive manner. 
 
 Captain Hunt, like an adive and diligent 
 officer, and in obedience to the orders he had re- 
 ceived, warned' the Spanifh Captain to depart 
 from that coaft, as belonging to his Majefty. 
 
 On the principles laid down in my preceding 
 letter, it evidently appears, that, fo far from this 
 h<Lm^-^'i\ aggreffion on our part, it was nothing 
 more than what was abfolutely neceffary for the 
 maintenance of our rights and for repelling an 
 offenfive claim. We had the exclufive right to 
 Port Egmont, and to the territory of the illand 
 on which it was fituated ; and, of courfe, the 
 conducl of the Spaniffi Officer was unjuftifiable 
 on the plainetl principles of the Law of Nations, 
 which forbids fuch an enterprifc, and which per- 
 mits the punifhment of any one who prefumes to 
 undertake it. The aggreffion therefore was on the 
 fart of Spain j and the notice taken of it by Cap-, 
 tain Hunt was as temperate, as was at all con- 
 fh^ent either vyith his duty, or with the honour 
 
 *n4 
 
M; 
 
 
 'K' 
 
 ■,i 
 
 i 
 
 ! 
 
 ( H ) 
 
 and intercil of the Crown, under whofe Com- 
 miflion he adled. 
 
 Had fuch a circumflance happened on the 
 coall of England, there can be no doubt that the 
 Foreign Officer, deteded in fuch an enterprize, 
 would have been liable to have been imprifoned, 
 and to be brought to punifliment for his offence; 
 and, unlefs the Writer of the Stridlures can ftiew, 
 that a diftindion in point of Sovereignty, and 
 the right to maintain and protect that Sovereign- 
 ty, exilts between the coaft of England and the 
 coaft of any other part of his Majefty's domini- 
 ons, the principle I have laid down muft be 
 admitted, and the firft aggreffion on the part of 
 the Spaniards mult necellarily follow as a fair 
 conclufion from it. 
 
 Let us fee whether the following fteps which 
 were taken, in any refpedt altered the com- 
 plexion of the bufinefs. 
 
 Within a few days after the Spanidi fchooner 
 was warned to depart, fhe returned with a Spa-r 
 7njh Officer, who brought letters from the Govern- 
 nor of Pert Solidad, 
 
 In thefe, the Governor, afFeding not to bcT- 
 lieve the account he had received from the Cap- 
 tain of the fchooner, and attributi/ig Captair^ 
 Hunt's being in thofe feas to chance or diftrefs 
 of weather, offered him, in that cafe, hisfriend- 
 ihip and affiftance; but, if it Jhould be otherwife, 
 reminded him of the 'violation of treaties -, ajjerted 
 his mafler's dominion ; charged him with an infult 
 to hisflagi and authorijed the officer to warn him in 
 form to depart. To this he required a written 
 ^nfwer. 
 
 Captain Hunt replied by aflerting again the 
 fplg dotninion of his Majefty, on the double 
 
 right 
 
 4 
 
 :4 
 

 ( 15 ) 
 
 fight of difcovcry and of fcttlemcnt, and b/ 
 warning the Spaniard, in the King's name, ta 
 quit the ifland. On which the Spanifli officer 
 made a formed proteft. This was repeated aboiic 
 two inontl>s afterwards in a more folemn manner ; 
 when Captain Hunt again afTertcd his Majefty's 
 right, and again warned the Spaniards to depart. 
 
 In this tranfa6tion, the aggreflion of the Spa- 
 niards is yet more manifed. Here we have a di-» 
 re6l aflertion of the Spanifli dominion over Port 
 Egmont ; a declaration that an infult had been 
 olfered to the Spanilh flag, by a king's fliip, 
 adcxng under royal authority ; and a pofitive in- 
 jundlion from the Spanilli Governor to furrender 
 his Majefty's fettlement. To all this, Captain 
 Hunt replied by a declaration of his Majefty's 
 right to the territory in queftion, and by a warn- 
 ing to the Spanifh officer to depart. Yet, tliis the 
 writer of the Strictures ispleafed to call ^frjl ag- 
 grejjion on our part. 
 
 The fubfequent trr:nfa6tions at Port Egmont, 
 though they moft evidently prove that, through- 
 out the whole affair, the Spaniards were theyj?/<f 
 aggreffors, and, of courfe, ftill more decidecily 
 evince the groundiefs nature of the aflertion in 
 queition, are not neceflary to be (tated at prefent ; 
 as an account of them will fall more naturally 
 within the fcope of my fecond propoficion, name- 
 ly, that the aggreffion of Spain in 177 1, was 
 nrK)re atrocious and more infult ing to our natio- 
 ftai bo>}our th^n any thing which occurred in the 
 late affair at Nootka. The public will deter- 
 Eninc on the candid ftatement of the tranfa6tioii 
 which I have now given ; and to its cool judg- 
 ment I willingly refer ; and I believe no man of 
 cooiKnon knik will deny tliat the aflertion of our 
 
 having 
 
( »6 ) 
 
 having been sXxzfirfiaggreJfors in the year T77 r, ji 
 totally void of foundation. Of coiirfe, the infidious 
 comparifon this writer attempts to make lietwcert 
 that adair and the bufinefs at Nootka, iiuifb fill 
 to the ground : for, /;/ both cajcs^ the Spaniards 
 were the firlt aggrelTbrs j in both cajes^ the ho-» 
 nour of this country was infulted ; but, in the af- 
 fair of Falkhind's 1 (lands, the iiifult was propGr- 
 tionably greater t as the open poireHion of the crown 
 of Great Britain, publickly maintained ("or fevc- 
 ral years, w.is invaded; while at Nooika Sound, 
 the pollelnon of his Majelly's fubjedls, wh.ich had 
 not been prcvioufly avowed, and which was then 
 unknown at the feat of Government, was the ob- 
 ie6l of the attack. This fa6l being clearly afcer- 
 tained, 1 trufl: that the attempt now made to mif- 
 reprefent the condu6l of his Majefty's Minifters 
 by an unfair (latemcnt of a plain matter of fadl, 
 inftead of anfwering the purpofes of its flibricator, 
 muft tend to open the eyes of a difcerning pub- 
 lick to the infidious arts employed by a deligning 
 fa{5lion,to impede the operations of Government, 
 to increafe the confidence of our enemies, and t.^^ 
 deceive the people. 
 
 V E R U S. 
 
 N U M B E R 
 
( '7 ) 
 
 Number V» 
 
 S. 
 
 S I R, 
 
 I NOW proceed ^o difcufs the tliird aflertion 
 of the writer of the Strictures, which contains a 
 variety of circunirtanccs very ingeiuoully tortu- 
 red and mirrejjrefcnted^ for the purpofe ot prov- 
 ing th.it the infult ollered by the Spaniards in 
 1770 was not fo injurioiu. to the honour of this 
 country, as that ofieied by them in the affair at 
 N'oorka. As this is a que(lion(jf faCt, it might 
 be JufHciciU for me to prove tliat it is unfaii ly 
 Ihited, and that no fuch confequcncc can be de- 
 duced from a comparifon of the two tranfafli- 
 ons. The caufe however in which I have enga- 
 ged dlfdains fo circumfcribed a vindication. I 
 have taken up the gauntlet thus arrogantly throv;n 
 <Jown J 1 have entered the lifts v/ith this bold ad- 
 vcrfary, and, before we pai t, I will prove to the 
 people of England that Spain, in the affliir of 
 Falkland's Klands, was not only ihtfrji butthc^/^ 
 ■dggrejfor ; and that her aggreifion then was niorc 
 atrocious and more injult'wg to cur national hcucur 
 than any thing which occurred in the late affair 
 at Nootka, When 1 fliall have done that, mv 
 next Hep will be to overturn the remaining hraucb 
 of this writer's original propofition, and to prove 
 the propriety, the wifdom, and the fplrit of the 
 fleps, which oin* Minithrs have taken in the exill- 
 ing difpuce, whether c<^nfidered as a Icparate 
 ■tranfidion, or as contralled with the condudt of 
 Minillers in 177 i. 
 
 The afleruon in queftion is this 
 
 D '' In 
 
a 
 
 ihM 
 
 il 
 
 ( 18 ) 
 
 " In the afi-air of Falkland's Iflands, the Sfxt-* 
 '^ niards gave all o"ur people pernrrifiion to depart, 
 *^ and to convey away all the flores, and other 
 *^ property, v^liich the (hips could carry. Inven- 
 *^ tones were exchanged, oi all things which 
 could not be ib carried away -, and far thefe 
 the Spanifh Guvernor of Port Trinidad was to 
 *' become anlwcrable. Till thefe inventories 
 could be reguLirly drawn out, every thing was 
 to be kept under lock and key by the Enghfh. 
 The principal circunijlance offcnfivc to the ho^ 
 nmtr of this .oiintry^ and which the Lords Pro^ 
 teft calls an unparalleled and moft audacious injulty 
 *' ijoas the detention cf a/Jjip of zvar of his Majeftys 
 *' for twenty drys after the fur render of Port Eg^ 
 mcnty and the indignity of forcibly taking away 
 her rudder. Tet both of thefe atJs were done 
 under the capitulation accepted by our officers,'* 
 " Whereas the Spaniards now have '^ized 
 every thing, by the coiifefiion of their own de- 
 claration, dated from Aranjuez on the 4th 
 June. They have condemned and confifcated 
 " one of our vefiels, the Argonaut, and l^^ve ta- 
 ** ken fecurity from another, to pay the full va- 
 " lue, if declared lavy'ful prize. It is alfo faid, 
 *^ that the crew of the Argonaut were fentenced 
 " to fiavery in the Mines." 
 
 A recurrence to matter of fa£b will alfo here 
 be ar anfwer to the affertion, and to the evidence 
 brought in fupport of it. 
 
 After the tranfa6tions flated in my preceding 
 letter. Captain Hunt returned homej and his 
 Majefly's (loops, the Favourite, Captain Malt- 
 by, and the Swift, Captain Farmer, were em- 
 ployed upon that llation. The latter of thefe 
 Yeflels being unfortunately loft, Captain Farmer 
 
 remained 
 
 cc 
 
 <i 
 
 <c 
 
 <( 
 <c 
 
 (C 
 
 « 
 
 <c 
 
 cc 
 
 cc 
 
 « 
 
( 19 ) 
 
 remained at Port Egmont wlch the Favou- 
 rite. 
 
 In the month of June following, five Spanifli 
 frigates arrive J ar PorC Pgrnont, carrying 134 
 pieces of camion, ati^in of artiiiery, and about 
 1700 men. 
 
 Captain M.ikby endeayoiiring on theii appea- 
 rance to bring the Favourite nearer into the Cove, 
 the Spaniih Aniballador fent an- ofHcer on board 
 him, to fi-iy that, if he weigiied, h^ 'iVGuIdfire into 
 km. 
 
 He got under fail however, wJien the Spa- 
 n'ard immediately j^/Y J two Jhois^ which fell to 
 leeward of him, and three of the frigates got un- 
 der way, and worked to windward as he did. 
 
 The Spanifh Commander tlien wrote to Cap- 
 tain Maltby, requelling him to confider the 
 great power employed againll him, and the de- 
 fcncelefs condition of his own people ; and ad- 
 vifing him to quit the place, in order to avoid 
 the confequences of hofcilities. He offered iiim 
 favourable term.s if he would abandon the place, 
 but threatened, that if, contrary to expedation, 
 he fhould endeavour to maintain the lettlement, 
 he then would proceed to the accomplifhment of 
 his orders ^ that he ivculd attack hi:n and his Jet~ 
 tlement by fea and land, whot all the fatal conje^ 
 quenccs by fire and Jwwd might be apprehended. 
 He allowed him fifteen minutes, after the receipt of 
 his letter, to give a categorical anfiver. 
 
 Captain Maltby replied, ly reprefenting the un- 
 jufiifable nature cf Juth a proceeding, and by de- 
 claring his intention of defending the charge in^ 
 trufted to him. 
 
 The Spaniards immediately warped their fri- 
 gACes in clofe to the fliore, landed their troops 
 
 D 2 arci 
 
.f.« 
 
 ' 't, 
 
 )5„ .■I'- 
 ll , 
 
 i yi 
 
 ( CO ) 
 
 and artillery^ and cannonaded the fort. On which^ 
 Captain Maltby, after firing a few fliot^ hung 
 out a flag of truce, and dtinanded articles of ca- 
 pitulation. 
 
 By tlielc it was agreed that, at a time difcre- 
 tionary on the pare of the Spanilh Commodore^ 
 the Englifli fhould be permitted to depart in the 
 Favourite, with luch pait of the ftores as they 
 could conveniently carry ; that, an inventory ha- 
 ving been taken of the remainder, they fliould 
 be depofited with the Governor of Solidad, who. 
 fhould be aniwerable for them ; that the En- 
 glifh flag ftiould continue flying on ihore and on 
 board the floop i that the Englilh Ihouid excrcife 
 no jurifdidlion except with their own people; and 
 that they fliould march ofi^, on thcii- embarkati- 
 on, with the; honours of war, after having given 
 due notice to the Spanifli comiTiander. 
 
 '1 he Spaniards having thus g(jt poffeffion of 
 the ftttlemcnt, immediately unjbippcd the rudder 
 of the Favourite i which they kept on (hore for thir- 
 ty-four daysy the period which elapfed before 
 Capt. Maltby failed for England. 
 
 Such is the /r//^ ftoiy. Let the reader con- 
 trail it with that told by the writer of the Stric- 
 tures. / undertook to prove, that the Spaniard* 
 were \ihQfcle aggreflbrs. / have proved that they 
 caiTiC in great force upon the coail ; that they 
 threatened to fire into Capt. Maltby's fliip if he 
 prefumed to move; that, on his moving, they 
 aflually did fire, and attempted to purine him ; 
 that they fumnioned him to furrcnder, on pain 
 of all rhe fatal confcqucnces to be apprehended 
 f orn (ire and Iwoid ; that tlicy inveitcd and can-* . 
 nonaded the fort ; that they took it on artir- 
 cles of capitulation ;( which they ihamefully and 
 
 i^lfukingly 
 
 'J 
 
( *I ) 
 
 infultingiy difrcgardcd by a treatment of one of 
 his Majtily's ihips, fo degrading to the honour of 
 this country, antl fo derogatory from the dig- 
 nity of our King, as to demand a fatisfaftioPi 
 written in Irtrers of blood, and not to be atoned 
 for by any tiling ihort of a fubmiflion, as humi- 
 liating and as cutting in its nature to the Spanilh 
 crown, as the in lii It offered by them was to the honour 
 of England. Having thus prove^i the firi"l part of 
 what I undertook, 1 now proceed to contrail 
 this narrative with the condud of the Spaniards 
 in the late affair at Nootka^ and to fatisfy the 
 public that their aggrefllon at that place, though 
 violent, unjuilifiable and infulting, was neither 
 fa atrocious, nor fo infulting to our national 
 honour, as tiiat committed by them in the 
 year 1770. 
 
 The length to which this letter is already car- 
 ried renders it, however, necefiary for me to 
 poftpone this till my next, when 1 hope to be 
 able to convince the public of the elfential difte- 
 rence fubfifting between the two tranfadions. I 
 ought perhaps to apologize for encroaching fo 
 much on your patience and that of your readers; 
 but, as it is my objedl to convey to the world ^ 
 juft and true ftatcment, not only of the depend- 
 ing bufinefs, but of the condud of thofe to whom 
 
 the management of jt has been entrufted a$ 
 
 it is my widj to counterad the infidious 
 arts of thofe, who, by depreciating the merits 
 of his Majefty's fervants, and by mifrepre- 
 fenting the (tcps they have taken for the main- 
 tenance of the honour of his Crown, and 
 the intereib of his people, endeavour to tarnifh 
 the well-earned fame, and to encourage the efforts 
 of our enemies, I truft, Sir, that ti.e people of 
 pngland will not deem thofe nionients milpent, 
 
 which 
 
( ai ) 
 
 ^hich are employed in a refearr.h Co congenial tc* 
 the feelings, and fo intinnately connecled widi 
 the intereils of every man, wlio has either pro- 
 perty to iofej or honour to maintain. 
 
 V E R U S. 
 
 if'i 
 
 ' P. S. I ha^^e juft fecn in the General Adver- 
 tiferof the 25th inflant, a continuation of thefe 
 ftridlures, containing a fiefh comparifon between 
 the condu6l of our Miniilers in the depending 
 bufinefs, and that of the year 1786, when the 
 Convention refpcfting the Mofquito Shore was 
 concluded between tins country and Spain. 
 
 The writer may be afifured of my meeting him 
 upon this ground alfo before we part. He has 
 now completely thrown off the mafk, and ma- 
 nifefted himfelf in his real iha.pcy---tbe avowed 
 ndvocafe of the Court of Spain, and the enemy, not 
 enly of the p'ejcnt admimfiration, hut of his coun^ 
 try. As fuch, it is no lefs my duty than my in-^ 
 clination to purfue him through all his fallacies, 
 and to expofe the fhailow but mifchievous arts 
 which faction can employ againfl the honour and 
 ^he inter eft of our country. 
 
 Number 
 
( 23 ) 
 
 Number VI. 
 
 m 
 
 SIR,. 
 
 JlIA V I N G, in my laft- letter ftated vvhaS 
 pafTed at Port Kgmont, I now proceed to relate 
 the feveral occurrences which took place at 
 Nootka Sound, in the months of May and June 
 1789, when a Spanilh fliip of war from St. Bla.', 
 called the Princefla, commanded by M. Marti- 
 nez, and mounting 26 guns, anchored there. 
 The various avocations of trade having led the 
 greater part of the [lerfons employed at this Set- 
 tlement to different parts of the Coaft, the only 
 Englilh trading fliip remaining in the Sound was 
 the Iphigenia. The Princeffa was foon joined 
 by a Spanilh fnow of 16 guns ; and, for fomc 
 timiC, mutual civilities pafled between the Spa- 
 niards and Englidi. Thefe, however, were at 
 length interrupted, by Capt. Douglas (the 
 Commander of the Iphigenia) being ordered on 
 board of the Princeffa j when he was informed, 
 by M, Martinez, that he had the King of 
 Spain's orders to fcize all vefiels v/hich he mighc 
 find upon that Coaft, and that he (Capt. Dou- 
 glas) was his prifoner. In confequence of this, 
 M. Martinez took poflefTion of the Iphigenia in 
 the name of his Catholic Majelly, and conveyed 
 the crew prifoners on board the Spanilh fhipg, 
 -where they were ironed. M. Martinez alfo took 
 poireffion of the fettlement—^hoifted the Spanilh 
 flag— and proceeded to ere<51: various buildings, 
 on which he employed, together with his own 
 men, fome of the crew of the Iphigenia. He 
 
 afterward* 
 
s}^'>-^ 
 
 iV <i-' 
 
 '/■ 
 
 i 
 
 I 
 
 ^ 
 
 K 
 
 ( ^^4 ) 
 
 afterwards permitted Captain Douglas to rcfiiilitf 
 the command of his fhip ; and, on his reprcien- 
 ting, that he had been itript of his merchandize 
 and othtr (lores, M. Martinez gave hiiTi a fmall 
 Ibpply of (lores and provifions, (for which he 
 took bills on the owners) by means of which 
 about a fortnight after he was firit detained, he 
 was unable to proceed to China. 
 
 Shortly afterwards, the Englifh vc(rcls, the 
 North Weft America, the Argonaut, and the 
 Princefs Royal, arriving feparately from their 
 trading voyages at Nootka, were captured by 
 M. Martinez, their crews were made prilbners, 
 and tlieir cargoes i'eizcd. After Tome detention, 
 the crew of the North Weft America were (ent 
 to China, the two other ve(rels, with tlieir crews, 
 were Tent to St. Bias, and fome Chinefe, who 
 had been brought to the Settlement by our peo- 
 ple, were detained and employed as labourers. 
 •"■ Of the North Weft America, (ent to China, 
 no authentick account has been received ; bur, on 
 the arrival of the two veflels at St. Bias, a repre- 
 lentation of their cafe having been made to the 
 Spanifh Governor, the ftiips were reftored (on 
 the OfHcers giving fecurity to indemnify the Go- 
 vernor, fhould it be proved they were lawful 
 prize) the crews were furnifhed with provifions, 
 (lores, and money, to enable them to refume 
 their voyage. 
 
 Let us now contraft this tranfaclion with that 
 ■which occurred in the year 1770. 
 
 The Settlement at Port Egmont was formed 
 by the authorityof Government, and at the pub- 
 lick expence, on an Ifland never previoudy oc- 
 cupied, not only by any European, but by any 
 human beinji:. Of courfe, as (irft occupants. 
 
 lak 
 
 m 
 
 :i- 
 
 » 
 
( 25 ) ■ . 
 
 taking an a-ftual pofieflion of the foil, converting 
 it to our ov/n ufe, and enjoying it uninterruptedly 
 as well as publickly, for more than hvf. years, we 
 had the belt title of all others to itsexclufive pro- 
 perty-— a title which could not, oh any principle 
 of law, or by any mode of reafoning, be difpu- 
 ted. His Majefty was as completely Sovereign 
 of that IJlandy as he was of England^ or any other of 
 his pcrffeffiovs ; and he had not only a right, buc 
 he was bound to defend that part of lus dominions 
 f^gainft any hollile attack made upon it. ' ^ 
 
 The Settlement at Nootka was formed by 
 private individuals. The plan->-the outfit — 
 theri(l< — the expence---the enterprise, and the 
 taking poffefTion, were all thofe of private indi- 
 viduals. Neither the King, nor the publick, 
 knew of the tranfaclion in any one ftagc of it, 
 till, as I have mentioned, the violence commit- 
 ted by the Spaniards, brought it into notice. 
 
 There is alfo another obvious diilinftion in the 
 nature of the two cafes. At Port Eprmont, the 
 right of England was certain, avowed and exclu-^ 
 ^\^t^ the Court of France never having difputed 
 the fad of our prior occupancy in that Ifland, 
 and Spain having clearly never made any fettle- 
 ment on any of the iflands. At Nootka, it wa.--, 
 on the principles 1 have laid down, equally ex- " 
 ciufive ; but, as it had not been avowed, and 
 as the Court of Spain advanced a pretenfion of 
 prior iettlement, until that point fliould be af- 
 certained, it could not, as a matter between the 
 two countries, be pronounced equallv certain. 
 Confequentlv, the aggrefllon at Nootka could 
 not be confidered as lo great a national infult as 
 that at Port Kgmont, tho' undoubtedly it was an 
 a<fl perfcdly unjuitifiable, and an aggreflion of 
 amofl: violent and injurious nature. 
 
 E This 
 
i 
 
 li! 
 
 < 2^ ) 
 
 . This aif^ument applies equally to the othcf 
 objech o[' the Spanifli aggrenion in tiie two caff s^ 
 viz. the luuklingSj the Ihips, the ftorcs, the ofii- 
 cers and the feaiiien. In 1770, the former of 
 thcfe <vere the f^ropcrty of the crown, the latter 
 bore the King's commi (Hon, and a6led by his 
 authority. In 1789, ths former were the pro- 
 perty of individuals, and the latter had no com* 
 mifljon from the crov/n, nor aded under any. 
 prdcrs but thofe of their owners. 
 
 There is another obvious di(lin6lion betwccjt 
 ihemoiks of aggrcjjion in the two cafes. In 1770 
 the aggrefiion of the Spaniards was a declaration 
 of war, both -in fa6l and in form. 'The Jole and 
 avowed purpofe of it was to take the fettlement 5 
 and this was adually done with all the pomp and 
 parade of war, with all rhe circumftances of fiege, 
 lummons, furrendcr and capitulation. In 1789 
 the avowed purpofe of the aggreffion was to pre- 
 vent contrabarwil trade ; and their alledgc^d right 
 to do fo was founded on their interpretation of 
 treaties, and on a pretenfion of prior fettlement* 
 They even denied any knowledge of the exiftence 
 of our fettlement, previous to the arrival of M. 
 Martinez atNootka; and, from fome circumftances, 
 ^t is pjfible that aflertion may be true. It is 
 however certain, that the orders given to M* 
 Martinez did not warrant the coadu6l he adop- 
 ted, and that they gave him no licence either for 
 the robbery or the cruelty of which he was 
 guilty : the Court of Madrid, immediately on 
 ^z news reaching Spain, having difdvowed his 
 conduct in that rcfped:, and direded hiiri to be 
 brought to trial for his offence, before any appli^ 
 cation was made upcn the hifinejs fro-m our Court, 
 
 ... . Bui 
 
 -u 
 
 « - VM * -M I. tff i ' . ^^ 
 
 .'.'V 
 
 

 ■m 
 ,1 , '1 
 
 ( 27 ) 
 
 But there yet remains one point in the Pori; 
 Egmont afFair, on which no compurifon can be 
 made, as nothing at all like it occurred at Noot- 
 ka. I ir.can the circumftance of unfhipping 
 the rudcl'.T of his Majcfty's Ibip the Favourite, 
 and conij elling her to contiiiiie in that dirirraceful 
 fituation for thirty four days. Were there no 
 other difference between the two cafes, and 1 
 have fliewn there were many, this alone woulcj 
 fix their diftinflion. ' 
 
 Upon the whole, T have proved beyond con- 
 tradidion, that the infult committed at Pon Eg- 
 mont was much greater than that at Nootka ; 
 and that, though the latter was undoubtedly grofs 
 and URJuilifiable, the former was much more 
 fo. 
 
 I now proceed to a comparative inveftigation 
 of the condud: of IviiniRers at thofe two periods ; 
 in the courfe of which I truft I fhail be able very 
 fufficiently to prove, that the fatisfadion now 
 obtained is more complete than that which was 
 procured in 1771, and that the condu6t of Ad- 
 miniftration has been fuch, as to entitle them to 
 the approbation and confidence of the public. 
 
 V E R U S. 
 
 E t 
 
 NuM- 
 
#! 
 
 nil 
 
 • • 
 
 - \> 
 
 ( iS ) 
 
 Number Vil. 
 
 SIR, 
 
 1 HE writer of the Stridnres on the Spanifh 
 Declaration, having finifhed his comparifon of 
 the Icttlements and the aggrefTions in the years 
 1770 and 1789, proceeds to lay before the Pub- 
 lic a comparative ftatement of the condud of 
 Minifters at thofe two periods j with a view of 
 proving the inferiority of theprefent Adminiftra- 
 tion, in fpirit, in wifdom, and in the fatisfadtion 
 they have obtained for the infult offered to the 
 national honour. To do this he afferts that, 
 '^ in the years 1770 and 177 1, the complaint 
 " againft Minifters was, that they did not in- 
 ** ftantly make preparations for war, when they 
 *' were fii It acquainted with the mellages which 
 «^ had pafied between Capt. Plunt and the Spa- 
 *' nifh Governor : but that they waited three 
 " months longer, 'till they knew that the. blow 
 *^ was atflually ftr uck. They then immxcdiately 
 ** exerted themfelves with a vigour, which was 
 *' the fubj^»5t of much panegyrick to their friends, 
 *' and was not denied by their adverfaries. 
 " Whereas in the prefent year, Minifters were 
 " informed fo early as the tenth of February that 
 " the blow was adlually ftruck ; yet they made no 
 *' preparations for three months afterwards— -*tili 
 '* the 4th of May, when they heard that confide- 
 ^^ rable armanrer.ts were carrying on in the ports 
 " of Spain. In the mean time, on the 19th of 
 " April, Mr. Pitt gave fuch affurances of peace, 
 *' ai> made the ilocks rife to S 1 ." 
 
 4 . I fliould 
 
( 29 ) 
 
 • I fliouki fiippofc, that, if this kind of compa- 
 rifon means any thing, it nnu(t mean that thcMi- 
 nifters in 1770, though they atftcd ic'rr/;;'/y in not 
 arming ;;t the lirft notice of the chfpucc, aikd 
 ncverthiicfs very properly in their jlibfccjiicnt cxcr- 
 lion. It may however be a difficult matter to 
 reconcile this kind of reafoning with what I 
 have already commenced upon, and which was 
 the bafis of tiic com[)arifbn between tue two tranf- 
 adtions ; namely, tliat at Falkland's I Hands ive 
 luere thcfirfl iiggreffors. I f that had been true, we 
 furely could have no right to any fatisfa6tion at all; 
 the Minifters had no pretence to demand any, or to 
 make any warlike preparations, unlefs indeed to 
 jurtifythe wrong we had committed; a m.ode of 
 conduct: which even my opponent mult have con- 
 fefTed to be indefenfible : on the contrary, had 
 we been the aggreflbrs at Falkland's I Hands, 
 this country ought to have given fatisfadion to 
 Spain. The fadl is, diat the Writer of the Stric- 
 tures, having a defperate caufe to fupport, was 
 obliged to brino- forward fuch aflertions, a:> he was 
 able to fabricate for his momentary purpofe of 
 traducing government ; and, as truth is ever the 
 fame, and incapable of taking a colour foreign 
 from itfelf, fo the oppofite of that virtue is 
 very apt to lead him who employs it, into con- 
 tradiction and abfurditv. That fuch is the cafe 
 of the writer of the Stri(5tures on the prefent occa- 
 fion is evident ; and the choice of his two propo- 
 fitions is but a choice of difficulties. If he per- 
 fifts in afferting our firft aggrelTion, then he muTc 
 
 nament 
 
 propriety 
 
 quent 
 
 for the purpofe of obtaining fatibfa6tion, as well 
 
 as the whole of Lord 
 that occafion, which he 
 
 lam s argument on 
 
 Chathi 
 
 properly terms convin- 
 cing 
 
t';! 
 
 I - H* - 
 
 ( 30 ) 
 
 vincing and unanfvvcrable ; if, on the otlicr hancf, 
 he iulinits that the Spaniard': were the firfl: agfrref- 
 fors, he nmif grant, on his own principles llated 
 in die paffage nov/ quoted, that li.e then admini- 
 ftraiioi) weie incxcufable for not aiming innme- 
 diately on tlicir firft knowledge of the Spanifli 
 attempt, that their fublequent vigour was a fniall 
 apology forfogrofs aneglc6V, anddnt Lord Chat- 
 ham was perfedly right in all his fevere reflexions 
 on both thele circumflances. To reconcile this 
 contradidion I leave the gentleman j merely ob- 
 ferving, that the comparifon he has thus at- 
 tempted mull of couiie fall 10 the ground, and 
 that, unlcfs the criminality of the prefent Mini- 
 flers can be deduced from the faints, which 
 he takes upon him to aficrt in the latter 
 part of the paffage above cited, the people of 
 England will not believe them to be criminaU 
 To invcftigate thoie fa<!?Ls I now proceed. 
 
 I ft. That in the prefjnt year, Minifters were 
 informed fo early as the loth of February, thac 
 the blov/ was a6lually ftruck. 
 
 2d. That they made no preparations till the 4th 
 of May following, when they heard that confider- 
 able armaments were carrying on in the ports of 
 8pain. 
 
 3d. That on the 19th of April IVTr. Pitt gave 
 fuch alll:.ances of peace, as made the Stocks rife 
 to 81. ' 
 
 I really do not know. Sir, from what chan- 
 nel of information the confident aflertor of thefc 
 propofitions has derived his intelligence,-— whe- 
 ther from any emilTary of the Spanifh Court, 
 whofc interefts he has undertaken to fupport in 
 oppofition to thofe of his country j or whether, 
 Hlcc the argument and comparifon of which I 
 
 havf 
 
 m 
 
( 3' ) 
 
 hiive jud diipofal, they may be th? ofTspringof 
 his own prolilic brain -, but Hire I am, iluit no 
 information of which the public is in poilcHioa 
 can warrant any one of ihcfc aflertions. On the 
 contrary, 1 am warranted from that information 
 to adcrt, /bat thcfc p-opofitions are falje ; that 
 Minijlers ii'crc not informed on the loih of Febru- 
 ary^ of the blow having been firuck ; that they 
 were not gi'Mty of negligence in not arming at that 
 periody or till a confiderahle time afterwards j and 
 that Mr, Pitt's fpeecb did not occafion a rije of the 
 Public Funds, 
 
 I know but oUhree papers from which any in- 
 formation on this fubjed can be derived, viz^ 
 His Majeily's MefTageto Parliament on the 5th 
 of May, and the two papers which have been pub- 
 lifhed in the newfpapers, under the title of 
 Spanifii Declarations, and dated the 4th of June. 
 The authenticity of thefe laft I do not mean to 
 difpute ; though, from the contradictions with 
 which they arc replete, it appears Ibmewhat li- 
 bellous on the Court of Spain to attribute them 
 to her. As, however, they are all we have, it 
 will be per fed iy fair to look to them for the infor- 
 mation in quelHon. His Majedy's Mefiage is 
 a ftate paper of a very different nature. No 
 one, 1 prefume, will think proper to impeach 
 its authencity, or to difpute the fads which it 
 communicated to the publick. By thefe autho- 
 rities let us therefore examine the aOertion be- 
 fore us. 
 
 Willi regard to tlie time when Adminiftration 
 firft knew of what had happened at Nootka, and 
 iliefpecies of informal ion they received, the Spa- 
 nifii Declarations aflert in to have been on the 
 loth of February j but they fay little gf the con- 
 contents 
 
Is:; 
 
 ■^ 
 
 m 
 
 I 
 I 
 
 ll 
 
 
 ( r- ) 
 
 tents of M. del Campo's note, further than that! 
 it gave a fincere account of what had happened, 
 and required the Enghih aggreffors (as they were 
 llylcd) to be puniflied, in order to prevent a re- 
 petition of a fimilar condu6l. The fadt of its 
 being the loth of February reds upon thofc 
 Sjianifh papers ; for his Majefby fays no more, 
 fhan that the capture of one Engliih veflel had 
 I^iffore been notified by the Spanilli Ambaflador* 
 'i'hc exa6t day, however, v/ill be of fmall impor- 
 tance, Ihould it tarn out that the informatiGn 
 ifjelfi whenever delivered, was very different 
 from what this writer has aflerted it to be. He 
 affirms, that Minifters were then informed of 
 the blozv having been aEliially firuck. His Ma- 
 ji'jiy fays, that the capture: of one vejfel was noti- 
 fied by the Spanifn AmbafPador, who, at the 
 fame time, defired, tiiat meafures might be ta- 
 ken for preventing Britifli fubjefts from frequen- 
 ting thofe coalls, which Vv^ere alledged to have 
 hccn previoujly cccupied and frequented by the Jub- 
 jecls of Spain, A fimilar complaint was, at the 
 fame time, made of the incroachments of Britiih 
 fubjecSts on the coafts of the Spanifh continent, 
 iHider pii^tence of fifl-jery. But not a word was 
 mentioned of the robbery and cruelty of M, Mar^ 
 iinez—-o{ the other vcffl'ls which had been taken 
 — -or of the important circumftance of our ^n'i/r 
 right and poffeffion j a facl: which, i*^ I liavc alrea-' 
 dy mentioned, was totally unknown, as was tlu: 
 enterprize to Nootka itfelf, till difcovered in the 
 courfeof this bufinefs. 'The public, from this 
 authentic information, will be able to judge, 
 what intelligence was thus given of a blow ha^ 
 ving been firuck ', ^tid whether from fuch a 
 communication, Miniilers would have been 
 
 warranted 
 
:!iis 
 
 ( 33 ) • 
 
 warranted in makinn; ofTenfive preparations, am} 
 involving their country in a precipitate war. 
 The f;i£t is, as every tolerably informed man 
 "well knows, this information was precifely of 
 the fame nature as a thoufand other finiilar com- 
 plaints, which have been i ecriprocally made by 
 the two countries for an hundred years pall, on 
 the trite and tiiread- bare fubjedl of contraband 
 trade, and the difficulty of precifely afcertaining 
 relative boundaries in a very extenfive continent. 
 Informations and complaints of exadly the fame 
 nature, concerning contraband trade, and the 
 feizure of fmuri^riins; velTels, as we all know, 
 have been made, no^ only between us and S{nun, 
 but between us and France, almofl every month 
 fince the laft peace ; yet no one, 'till now, ever 
 pretended to afiert, that fuch matters were a 
 ground for war, and that the detention or even 
 conhfcation of a trading veHel (the faft of fmug- 
 gling being proved) was an adequate caufe o{ 
 hoftilities. Yet fuch was the information in 
 queftion, fo far as the affertion of the Spanifli 
 court (that \^ Jo far as the inforniaticn itfeif) exten- 
 ded. His Majefty, however, watchful for the 
 interefts of his fubjects, and aware that t!ie fli<5t 
 of criminality on their part depended {o\c\y on ihe 
 Spanifh alTertion, required the refiitution of the 
 veflel, and an adequate fatisfa6lion. Beyond 
 this it was imnofiible for him to <io. The Spa- 
 
 niards might polTibly have proved the two facls 
 they advanced-'-the excrcife of a contrab^ind 
 trade, and the property of the place where it had 
 been carried on ; and, in that cafe, a firtlier pro • 
 fecution of our d^^ nand would not have been 
 
 ififl 
 
 CO nlihent either with jultice or v.itu decency. 
 The anlV/er given by ihe court of Sp.iin to this 
 \ 1?' demand. 
 
■ 
 
 ( 34 ) , • . 
 
 demand, as alfo appears from his Majcdy's me{*- 
 fage, was fuch as by no means warranted any vio- 
 lent meallires; on the contrary, it contained an 
 nlTurance that, this vejfel and her creiv had been 
 Jet at liberty by the vice-roy of Mexico ; on a fup- 
 pofition, indeed, that nothing but the ignorance 
 of the rights of Spain encouraged the individuals 
 of other nations to frequent thofe coaltsj but at 
 the fame time, /';; conformity to his previous infiriic^ 
 tionsy which required him tofhew allpoffiblc regara 
 to the Britijh nation. The public will decide 
 •whether this was the language of holtility, and 
 how far it warranted an immediate preparation 
 for war. ^ 
 
 Such appears to have been the ftate of his Ma- 
 jefty*s Miniiters* iriformntion, //// ih" 2>^th of 
 Jprily when Captain Mears preU] ^^' Is Me- 
 morial to Mr. Grenville. This paper indeed 
 conveyed an intelligence of a very diiferent nature 
 from that which had been previoufly received. 
 It was now founH that various vejfels had been 
 Jeized \ that a). EngUfh Settlement had been taken, 
 and that Englifpmen had been treated with unjuj* 
 tifiable cruelty. His Majeily, on hearing their 
 cafe, avowed the pofleflion which had been ta- 
 ken by his fubjeds ; the bufaefs became a natio- 
 nal concern, and the ftrength and refource ; of 
 the country were called into a6lion. Withu ^ ,'J 
 iveek after the affair was communicated, the u:o^c 
 adive and formidable preparations were made ; 
 a-pofitive demand of preliminary fatisfadlion and 
 reititution was fent to Madrid, and the people 
 of England were called upon to adopt the na- 
 tional vindication. To .lat people I leave it to 
 determine on the merits of our Minifter.^ , and 
 
( 3S ) ■ . 
 
 to repel with deferved ignominy the injurious 
 afperlions of the Advocate of the court of I'pain. 
 
 The fafts I have advanced mufl, of courfe, 
 confute the lad of thefe aflcrtions, namely, that 
 Mr. Pitt, knowing, on the icth of February, 
 that the blow had afluaily been ftruckj impofcd 
 upon the public on the i9Ch of April, by aflu- 
 ranees of pjace, which made the flocks rife to Si. 
 The fa^ was impojfible ; for no fuch information 
 reached him till the jodi of that month. // is 
 hefides untrue that the language he ujed on that day 
 had fuch a tendency j a matter already too often 
 and too openly difculTed to be worth refuting 
 again : though, had he actually exprelTed himfelf 
 in fuch a manner, the circumfiances I have menti- 
 oned would have warranted his ajjertion in its full 
 extent. In this inltance, however, the writer of 
 the Strictures is peculiarly unlucky, as, by an 
 appeal to dates, the diredt fuifehood of his afier- 
 tion is apparent ; it having happened (as Lloyd's 
 lift, or any Broker on the exchange could !iave 
 told him) that the immediate conjequence of the 
 language held by Air, Pitt on that day was <? De- 
 clension OF THE Funds. 
 
 V E R U S. 
 
 F 2 
 
 N U M-» 
 
( 36 ) 
 
 Number VIII. 
 
 (c 
 
 <c 
 
 <c 
 
 <c 
 
 SIR, * 
 
 A N O W proceed to follow the Advocate of the 
 ourt of S fain ^ in the comparifon he thinks pro- 
 per to make between the fpecies of lacisfacliori 
 *^btained in 177 1, and that which has lately been 
 ^omnuinicated to the public ; and to difcufs the 
 Propriety of the inference he draws from thefe 
 ^ocumentSj viz. " That Mr. Pitt has compro- 
 mifed away what he, in a high and menacing 
 tone, infrfted upon as an intolerable infuk to 
 the honour of His Majefly's Crown and 
 People." 
 
 To prove this, he gives at length the Declara- 
 tion ligned on the 22d of January, 1771, by 
 Prince Maferano, and that figned by Count 
 Florida Blanca, on the 24th of July, 1790; from 
 which, as the whole of tkcfc two tranja^ions, he 
 draws conclufions as groundlcfs and unwarranta- 
 ble as they are malicious. 
 
 Had this writer been difpofed to treat the mat- 
 ter fairly, lie would have given all the htflruments 
 ■which were exchanged on thefe feveral cccafions, 
 and would not have withheld the Count cr-Decla- 
 rations of Lord Rochford and Mr. Fitzherbert; 
 "which, as containing the fentiments of our Court 
 Hill more decidedly than the declarations them-- 
 lelves, would have enabled the public to draw a 
 juft inference as to the comparative merit? or de- 
 feds of the two traniaclions. This however he 
 feared to do, well knowing that fuch a difclofure 
 mud compleatly overturn his hypothefis, and 
 ^deat all the pains lie had taken to lupport the 
 
(' 37 ) 
 
 fafciiof Spain agalnil this country. As I how- 
 ever have no cccafion, when maintaining the 
 caufe of our National Honour, to make ule of 
 fuch a difgraceful fubtcrfugCi as I fed tliar, the 
 more the truth is known, the more certainly the 
 arts of this SpauiJJ.) JdvocrJe muft be defeated ; 
 1 take the liberty of begging you to iiifert, at full 
 length, the two Counter- Declarations, that the 
 public may have an opportunity of judging for 
 itfcif, on the whole of thefe inftruments, bcfor*^ 
 I proceed to difcufs their comparative mei its, and 
 to prove the cfiential points on which they differ, 
 whether as applied to the two periods, or to the 
 fatisfadion which they contained for the infukcti 
 dignity of the Crownjj and of the people. 
 
 THE FOLLOV/ING ARE THE TWO 
 
 ENGLISH COUNTER-DECLARATIONS 
 
 Faithfully Iranjlatcd from the Originals, 
 
 Counter-Declaration in 1771. ^ , 
 
 His Catholic Majefty having audioriled the 
 Prince of Mafcrano, his A mbaifador Extraordi- 
 nary^ to ofrer, in his Majefly's name, to the 
 King of Great Britain, a fatisfadion for the in- 
 jury done to his Britannic Majefty by difpolTef- 
 fing him ot the Port and Fort of Port Elgmont ; 
 and the faid Ambaffador having tliis day figned 
 ji declaration, which he has juft delivered to me, 
 exprefRng therein, that his Catholic Majclly, 
 being defirous to reftore the good harmony ar.d 
 friendfhip which before fubfifted between the two 
 Crowns, does difavow the expedition againft Pore 
 Egmont I in which force has been uled againH; 
 \(\^ Britannic Majefty's poffcflionsj Commander 
 
Xi'." 
 
 € 
 
 m 
 
 ¥t \\ 
 
 • 'i^ 
 
 ( 33 ) - 
 
 and rubjedls ; and does alfo engage that all things 
 fliall be immediately reftorcd to the precife fitii- 
 ation in which they ftood before the loth of June, 
 1770. And that his Catholic Majefty Ihall give 
 orders, in confequence, to one of his officers to 
 deliver up to the officer, authorized by his Bri- 
 tannic Majelly, the Port and Fort of Port Eg- 
 mont, as alfo his Britannic Majefty's artillery, 
 Itores and effedls, as well as thofe of his fubjedts, 
 according to the inventory which has been made 
 of them. And the faid Ambaflador having 
 moreover engaged in his Catholic Majefty's name, 
 that what is contained in the faid Declaration 
 fhall be carried into efFe6l by his faid Catholic 
 Majefty ; and that duplicates of his Catholic Ma- 
 jefty's orders to his officers ftiall be delivered in- 
 to the hands of one of his Britannic Majefty's 
 principal Secretaries of State within fix weeks; 
 his laid Britannic Majefty, in order to fhew the 
 fame friendly difpofttionon his partjjhas authorifed 
 nie to declare, that he will look upon the faid 
 declaration of Prince de Maferano, together with 
 the full performance of the faid engagement, on 
 the part of his Catholic Majefty, as a fatisfadlion 
 ibr the injury done to the Crown of Great Bri- 
 tain. In witnefs whereof, I ur;dcrwritten, one 
 of his Britannic Majefty's principal Secretaries 
 of State, have figned thefe prefents with my ufual 
 fignature, and caufed them to be fealed with our 
 P^rms. London, 2 2d day of January, 1771. 
 
 (L. S.) Signed, 
 
 ROCHFORD, 
 
 Counter,* 
 
( 39 ) 
 
 Counter-declaration in 1790. 
 
 His Catholic Majefty having declared that he 
 was willing to give fatisfadion for the injury done 
 to the King, by the capture of certain veflcls be- 
 longing to his fubjedts in the Bay of Nootka, 
 and the Count de Florida Blanca having figned, 
 in the name and by the order of his Catholic 
 Majefly, a declaration to this effccl j and by 
 which his faid Majefty hkewife engages to n^ako 
 full reftitution of the veiTels fo captured^ and to 
 indemnify the parties interefted in thole vcfTcls 
 for the lofles t'ney fhall have fuflained. The un- 
 derfigned Ambaflador Extraordinary and Pleni- 
 potentiary of his Majeity to the Catiiolic King, 
 being thereto duly and exprefsly authorifed, ac- 
 cepts the faid Declaration in the name of the 
 King ; and declares that his MajeRy will confi- 
 der this Declaration, together with the perfor- 
 mance of the engagements contained therein, as 
 a full and entire jatisfadion for the injury of which 
 his Majefty has complained. 
 
 The iinderfigned declares at the fame time, that 
 it is to be underfiocdy that neither the faid Decla- 
 ration ftgned by Count Florida Blanca, nor the ac- 
 teftance thereof by the under-fignedy in the name cf 
 the King, is to preclude or prejudice, in any refpctJy 
 the right vohich his Majefly may claim to an efla- 
 hlijhment which his Majeflfs fubje'ls may have 
 formed, or fhould be defirous of forming in future at 
 ihe faid of Bay Nootka. 
 
 In witnefs whereof I have figned this Counter- 
 Declaration, and fealed it with the fcal of my 
 arms, at Madrid, the 24th of July, 1790. 
 (L. S.) . Signed 
 
 ' . Allevne Elitzherbert. 
 
 V E R U S. 
 
( 40 ) 
 
 . Number. IX» 
 
 V: 
 
 m 
 
 ,, il.r.' 
 
 5^ 
 
 a 
 
 S I R, 
 
 1. H E whole of the inflrumcnts which pafltct 
 in the years 1771 and 1790 being now before the 
 pubiick, as well as a fair flatenient of the feveral 
 tranfaftions which gave occafion to them, I pro- 
 ceed to difcufs their ellential ditlerences, and, 
 fi oni them, to confute the injurious aflertions ad- 
 vanced by the Adzwcate of the Court of Spain. 
 
 The faired, as well as the moft perfpicuous, 
 way of doing this, will be to examine the two 
 documents feparately ; to confider them as ap- 
 plied to the exifcing circumftances, and to 
 afcertain how far each of them accompllflied its 
 avowed purpofe. When that fliall be done, the 
 comparilbn of their refpe6live merius will be fa 
 obvious, as to render it unneceflary for me to 
 intrude, at any confiderable length, on the pa- 
 tience of the public. - - 
 
 In 177 1, thequeftion related to the capture of 
 an Englifh fettlement which was avowed, certain 
 and exclufive, and which had been openly en- 
 joyed, under his Majelly's authority, for more 
 than five years;— to an aggrefTion authorifed by 
 the Court of Spain, and conduced with every 
 circumftance of national preparation ;— to an in- 
 fult the niofl difgraceful to the Britirti flag ;—- 
 and to a broad, exclufive pretenfion of the Court 
 of Spain to an unlimited right over the wliole of 
 the American continent and feas. The objed of 
 fhe Minifters was the compleat reftoration of the 
 tJfementand the property which had been cap- 
 
 ,# 
 
e the 
 vera), 
 pro- 
 and, 
 IS ad- 
 n. 
 
 uous> 
 e two 
 s ap- 
 nd to 
 led its 
 e, the 
 be fo 
 me to 
 le pa- 
 in re of 
 :erta"m 
 ly en- 
 more 
 fed by- 
 eve ry 
 an in- 
 
 Court 
 
 lole of 
 )]e6l of 
 ^ of the 
 n cap- 
 
 ( 41 ) 
 
 tiircd J an adequate fatisfa6i:Ion for the infult 
 which had been offered j and a decifive fctde- 
 ment of the refpedive claims of the two countries, 
 in order to afcertain precifely their relative 
 boundai ies and rights, and to remove all future 
 caufes of difpute. Let us fee how far this obje6t 
 was obtained. ^ 
 
 A reftoration of the fettlement could be com- 
 fleaty only by its extending to the whole of the 
 J>oJ]!e£icn captured. This, as I have proved, was 
 the Ijland on which Port Egmont was fituated, 
 o^ all which his Majefty was as compleatly So- 
 vereign, as he was of England, or any other of 
 his poflelTions. 'The reftoration cf the Ijland was 
 therefore the point on which the then Adminift ra- 
 tion was pledged. 
 
 What they got appears from Prince Mafera- 
 no's Declaration, viz. " A reftoration of things 
 " in the Great Malouine, at the Port called Eg- 
 " monty precifely to the ftate in which they were 
 " before the loth of June, 1770 ; and the deli- 
 " very, to a Britifh officer, of the Fort, and Fort 
 " called Egmont-, with its ftores and artillery." 
 The whole Ifland was his Majefty's right ; the 
 whole 1ft and had been feized ; Port Egmont , and 
 Port Egmont alone, was reftored. To this por- 
 tion of his Majefty's rightful poffefTion the refti- 
 turion was confined ; though the Spanllh aggref- 
 fion was made under a pretence of title to the 
 whole ; though Spain he 1 elf, in the outfet of 
 this bufinefs, a(5lually offered to reftore the whole ; 
 tliough flie declared to Mr. Plarris, after the 
 negotiation was begun, that ihe defired nothing 
 fo much as peace ^ and thac, having fo little to 
 get, and fo much .0 lofe, by a war, nothing but 
 the laft' neceflity could reduce her to fo violent a 
 ' • ■ * G meafure; 
 
I yfyii 
 
 r^} 5J 
 
 ( 4« ) 
 
 meaflire ; and though our Miniftcr s knew, from 
 unquertionable authority, not only the weak and 
 cjfhaufted ftate of Spain, but that France 
 had pofitively refufed to fupport her in cafe of a 
 war. 
 
 Without offering a comment on this ftatement 
 of fads, I proceed to confider the kind of Jatisf ac- 
 tion which was accepted for the injult offered to 
 this country. This infult confided of an aflem- 
 blageofoffenfiveadts — diefeizure of his Majefly's 
 fettlement— the detention of his officers and fea- 
 mcn— the indignity fhewn to a King's fliip, by 
 depriving her of her rudder, and keeping her 
 in that difgraccful ftate for thirty-four-days. 
 
 The aggregate of thefe circumftances amoun- 
 ted to the groflcft and moft offenfive indignity 
 ever offered to this country, and of courfe re- 
 quired the moft compleat and fatisfactory repara- 
 tion, which one country could make to another ; 
 which might wipe out every veftige of the offence, 
 and might fatisfy the injured honour of a great 
 King, and an high fpirited people. 
 
 The Jatisfa5tion accepted appears fiom 
 the Declaration. His Catholic Majefty decla- 
 red " he had feen with difpleafure an expedition 
 " tending to dijlurb the good harmony between him 
 " and his Britannick Majefty j and that he difa- 
 *' vowed^the faid violent enterprize." '^ 
 
 When I affert this to be the whole of the fa- 
 tisfaftion, fo pompoufly brought forward by the 
 Advocate of the Court of Spain y as an obje^fl of 
 comparifon between thofeMinifters who accep- 
 ted it and the prefentAdminiftraiion, and as an 
 evidence that his Majefty's prefent fervants have 
 comparatively fhewn themfelves more regard- 
 kfs of the intereft and honour of the ftate, I 
 
 fhould 
 
( 43 ) 
 
 (hould feel apprehcnfive that my aflfcrtiori would 
 be laughed at, by every intelligent reader, were 
 I not able to refer to the Declaration itfelf. 
 This authentick inftrument contains my evi- 
 dence J and further proves, that even this Jatis- 
 f anion was not compleat, as it is cxprefsly decla- 
 red to have been given on a confideration, that 
 this event might interrupt that peace, which 
 Spain had repeatedly declared it her abfolute 
 intereft to maintain, and by no means from a 
 convidion of the impropriety of what had been 
 done— of attention to the dignity of this country 
 —or of a defire to atone for the infult. 
 
 As to the difavowal of the King of Spain, 
 which the Spanijh advocate aflerts, " did away the 
 offence," it was a fpecies of reparation inadequate 
 to the infult, and derogatory from the dignity of 
 this country to accept. The Court of Madrid 
 dif avowed indeed the a6l of hoftility, as proceed- 
 ing from particular inJiriUlions j but (hcjuftified 
 it, in every ftep of the negociation, under her 
 general injlru^icns to her Governors j under the 
 oath by them taken, and under the eilablifhcd 
 laws for the government of her American pofTef- 
 fions. This general order was never difavowed 
 nor explained i nor was any difavowal or expla- 
 nation of it ever demanded by the Minillers. 
 On the contrary, the public was impofed upon 
 by a general phrafe, implying a dilapprobation 
 and a difavowal, while the exprefs terms, on which 
 the negociation was condudted, were a declared 
 approbation and avowal of the whole tranfadlion. 
 
 Nor could this difapprobation and difavowal 
 be conftrued in any manner to extend to the in- 
 fult offered to his Majefty, by unlhipping the 
 
 G 2 rudder 
 
>t^ 
 
 U' 111 
 
 ( 44 ) 
 
 riulder of his Majefty's fliip j for it is cert ..., 
 that this degrading circumllance never formed 
 a part of the negociation ; no fatisfadion was 
 ever required for it; nor is it even hinted at in 
 the Declaration. This was an a6t which could 
 not be fupported on any idea of its being necef- 
 fary for the redudlion of the fort ; nor indeed did 
 the Spaniards ever pretend fuch a necclTity, or 
 ever attempt it. Tbis tinpcirallded and auda- 
 cious Injult therefore was wholly winoticed -y the 
 country remained without atonement j and the 
 Britifli flag was ftaincd with impunity. * 
 
 So much for the reftoration of the fcttlement, 
 and the fatisfa6lion for the infult. On the re- 
 maining point, namely, the final fettlement of 
 the refpedtive claims of the two countries, the 
 ■whole may be faid in very few words. There was 
 tjot a fy liable upon the matter^ either in the Decla- 
 ration or the Counter Declaration, On the con- 
 trary, there is the mod direct and unequivocal 
 aflertion on the part of Spain, \v ?r difputed 
 nor qualified, and therefore adiT....vJ, on the 
 part of England, that the reftoration of Port 
 Egmont, could not, nor ought, in any wife to affetl 
 the quejiion cf the prior right of Jovereignty of the 
 Malouine or Falkland's Jflands ; a right which, 
 as I have fliewn, never did. .nor could exill-— 
 which this country in juflice might and ought 
 to have denied; but which the Miniflers of that 
 day, inftead of finally fettling, or at lead putting 
 in a counter claimx againft ir, fludioufly avoided 
 to touch upon from the beginning to the end of 
 the tranfa^tion— a tranfadtion which (to vSc. 
 the emphatical words of the protefting Lords of 
 that period ) /t///c^^ no contef, ojferted no right ^ 
 
 exa^cd 
 
( 45 ) 
 
 e%a^ed no reparation^ afforded no fecurity ; lut 
 Jicod as a monument of reproach to the ivijJom 
 of the national councilsy of difljonour to the ejjential 
 dignity of his Majefifs Croivn, and of difgrace to 
 the hitherto untainted honour of the Britijh flag. 
 
 Number X. 
 
 S I R, 
 
 Bi 
 
 ►EFORE I enter upon the difcuflion of tlic 
 Declaration and Counter-Declaration, figned on 
 the 24th ofjiilylaft, I muft advert to a very 
 material diftindlion between thofe inflrunnents 
 and the Declaration and Counter-Declaration of 
 1771 ; viz. that the latter formed the mily fettle- 
 ment of the tranfacStion in qucflion, and were 
 neither followed nor meant to be followed 
 by any thing more definitive j whereas the 
 former were no other than a preliminciiy 
 fiep to an ulterior and conclufrje negcciaticn, 
 in w^hich the feveral matters in difpute between 
 the two Courts might be fully difcufied and fi- 
 nally arranged. Ihis diftindtion the Spanifh /id- 
 vocate very ingenioufly forbears to notice ; though 
 it is very eflcntial to the fair difcufTion of the 
 queftion between us j and he argues upon the two 
 Declarations as if they were both conclufivci 
 tranfadlions, abfolutely terminating the feveral 
 negociations. He has even the haidinefs to af- 
 fert, that " Mr. Pitt pledged himfelf and his 
 ♦* Royal Mailer, to infift on the full and final de- 
 
 *' termination 
 
n 
 
 { 46 ) 
 
 " termination of the quejlion of right previous to 
 " the negociation j" an aflcrtion diredtly and pofi- 
 tively untrue. From the firft communication >f 
 this bufmefs, by his Majefty's mefl?,ge to Pr*r- 
 liam.ent, two ohjefts, in their natures perfe6lly dif- 
 tlndt, were brought forward; the firft, a fatisfa^lion 
 ior the national infult and for the individual injury 
 which was declared to be Tifwe qua noa , and to 
 be antecedent to any other difcuffion : The fc- 
 V ond, an inveftigation of the refpe6live claims 
 aiid demands of the two countries, by which 
 their feveral interefts might be afcertained, and 
 ^11 occafion of difpute in future might be remo- 
 ved. This was the language of the King's mef- 
 ^age on the 5th of May ; and it was afterwards 
 the language of Mr. Pitt, in moving the Ad- 
 drefs to his Majefty, as well as in his reply to 
 Mr. Fox in the Houfe of Commons j on this 
 principle it appears that Mr. Fitzherbert nego- 
 ciated \ that, conformably to ir, the Declarati- 
 on and Counter-Declaration were interchanged, 
 and that upon it the negociation itfelf is now 
 proceeding, I therefore confidently fubmit to 
 the public the diftindlion I have drawn, between 
 the nature of the inftruments which were exchan- 
 ged at the two periods; and fhall proceed to 
 Jhew how far the objeft which was held out at 
 the beginning of this bufinefs, that is, a JatisfaEiion 
 freliminary to a negociation on our rights and pri^ 
 vllegeSy has beenfucccfsfully accomplilhed. 
 
 The aggreflion of the Spaniards at Nootka 
 confifted in the feizure of feveral Englifh veflels, 
 gind the property on board of them ; in the im- 
 prifonment and cruel treatment of the failors ; 
 which were followed by the Icizure of a diftridt, 
 
 which 
 
•>( 
 
 . ( 47 ) 
 
 -which had been purchafed of the natives, and on 
 which a building had been ereAcd. Thefe failors, 
 however, had no royal commifllonj the fettle^ 
 ment, the veflels, and the property, were thole 
 of private individuals, unauthorifed by, and un- 
 known to Governmenti whole eiuerprife and 
 poffeflion had not been avowed by his Majefty, 
 and who, confequently, had no other title to his 
 p:ote6tion, or to a national interference in their 
 behalf, than what arofe from the general ground 
 of their being Britilh fubjeds. Nor did all the 
 parts of this aggrefllon prove to be the objcdls of 
 fuch an interference j as, antecedently to any dif- 
 cuflion, a compleat fatisfa(5tion, as it appears, 
 had been given on the fubje6t of the cruelties ex- 
 crcifed upon the failors. Thefe the Court of 
 Spain difavowed, and adually ordered M. Marti- 
 nez, who had perpetrated them, to be arrefted 
 and tried for his mifconduct, immediately on the 
 firfl intelligence arriving at Madrid, and before 
 any reprelentation was made on the fubjed by 
 our Court, Of courfe, this country had al- ~ 
 ready received every poflible degree of fatisfafli- 
 on on that point, vvhich juftice could require, or 
 which even the moft punflilious delicacy could 
 conceive to be neceflary. The Court of Spain 
 had not only denied the exiftence of any order for 
 the commilTion of this offence j but had volunta- 
 rily ordered the offender to be brought to puniih- 
 ment; and that too ^c?i7^r^i//y for having difobey- 
 ed his general orders, which, far from warrant- 
 ing the leverities he had inflidled, required him 
 to Ihew all poffibk regard to the Britifh nation, 
 r The remaining fubjecls of difcuffion, imme- 
 diately arifingfiom the tranfadtions at Nootka, 
 
 were 
 
 \ 
 
!|! 
 
 ( 48 ) 
 
 were therefore the feizure of the fettlement and of 
 the vtiTels and property. For the latter of thefc 
 ag^7;:'efrions the Spaniards had alfo, antecedently 
 to any difcuffion, made a fpecies of atonement ; 
 for ihe Vice-Roy of Mexico had fct one fhip at 
 liberty, immediately on its arrival in that govern- 
 iiicnt, as we learn from his Majefty's meflage 
 to Parliament ; and, as appears from informa- 
 tion fince received, the other captured fhips were 
 alfo fet at liberty by the Vice-Koy, and their 
 crews were fupplied with provifions, (lores, and 
 money, to ena,ble them to purfue their voyages* 
 This, however, was a reparation extremely in- 
 adequate to the offence J as it was made on an 
 afllimption, that nothing but ignorance of the 
 Rights of Spain had encouraged them, or could 
 encourage others to vifit thole coalls, for the pur- 
 pofe either of making eflablilhments or of carrying 
 Gil trade ; although it v/as repi-efented to have been 
 done by the Vice-Roy in conformity to his pre- 
 vious infbrudlions, requiring him to Ihew all pof- 
 fible regard to the Britifli Nation. It is evident 
 that fuch an affumption implied both a right in 
 the Court of Spain to do this, and the exiitence 
 of orders toinforce fuch aright; the firftof thefe 
 this country could not, on any principle, admit -, 
 and the orders of a monarch could not be done 
 away by the adt of an individual, however high 
 his fituation might be. An attention to the ho- 
 nour of their country made it therefore neceffary 
 for our Minillers, to call upon the Court of 
 Spain itfelf to give dire6l fatisfacSlion for an inju- 
 ry, committed by an officer ailing under its im- 
 mediate commifTion, and grounded on its preten- 
 fion <i{ an ejxlufive right to the whole continent 
 • 5 - of 
 
■ r 49 ) 
 
 of America. To do this, it was neccflary for his 
 Catholic IVIajefly to acknowledge thatylv^:/? au in- 
 jury had been committed j an exprtllion which 
 implied an acknowledgment that the Court of 
 Spain had no right to ufe force, in preventing 
 Britifh fubjedts from vlfiting the coafts in quefli- 
 on for the purpofes of trade and fettlemenc. This 
 interpretation is the only one which ihe expreiTiori 
 will bear, whether applied to the cafe of an indi- 
 vidual, or to that of the public j an injury to the 
 former being definable only as an infiingment or 
 privation of private or civil rights i and an injury to 
 the latter only as a breach and violation of pub- 
 lic rights, affefting a whole community, confi- 
 dered as a ftate. Such an acknowledgment is 
 contained in the Declaration figncd by Counc 
 Florida Bianca; for, by the exprefiion "His 
 Catholic Majefty is willing to give fatisfa6lion to 
 his Britannic Majcfty for the injury of which h(i 
 has complained," as perfect and compleat a fatif- 
 fadion vvas given, as could be expeded from a 
 crowned head; as it necelfarily implied an admifTi- 
 on, in the King's own name, that tlie act com- 
 plained of was an injury y as well as his difpofition 
 to give fatisfaC'"^n tor it as Jucb. I'o have de- 
 manded more, ^ wuld have been to havf r* quired 
 an unnecefTary humiliation \ and wouk' lavc been 
 going beyond the object of vindi iting the ho- 
 nour of the country. 
 
 It mull however be obferved, that t! *: nreten- 
 fions which we thus alierted to v ifit and fettle at 
 Nootka, though avowed andexclulive, were not 
 certain. On the contrary, apretenfion, whether 
 well or ill founded, was advanced '^" the King of 
 Spain to the whole of the north wcil coafc of Am.e- 
 rica. Such a claim, when once ihe a6t of force 
 was done uv.-ay, could not but be cntitkd to a 
 
 H fair 
 
( so y 
 
 fair difcufTion, in the fame manner as if it had" 
 been originally advanced by a peaceable repre- 
 fentation. Flowevef much it was the intereft of 
 this country to eftablifhitsown right, in contra dif- 
 tinflion to the Spaniih pretenlion, and however 
 firmly our Minifters might be relblved to aicer- 
 tain it beyond any danger of future moledation, 
 it was impofTible for it to be dcfinilivelj afcertain- 
 ed by any thing . Ihort of a formal negociation. 
 This, however^ confiftently with the dignity of 
 his Majef.y's Crown, and the public engagement 
 of his Minifters, could not be entered upon till 
 after the Preliminary Satisfadion was obtained ; 
 nor could it properly be made a^ r-rt of that fa^ 
 tisfadion, as it was diftindt in its nature irom the 
 infult which '^ad been received, and not, like 
 that, capable of being exadly defined in the firft 
 inflance. It was neceffary,. in the firft place> to- 
 carry that point ; the ulterior difcufllon of intereft 
 and claims afterwards became open to both par- 
 ties ; and> as a public evidence of the exiflence of 
 fuch reciprocal claims to the territory in queftion, 
 a claufe of refervation, exprejily dijfinguijhing them 
 from the 'preliminary jatisfailion^ wa« mutually in- 
 ferted in the feveral inllruments exchanged by 
 Mr. Fitzherbert and Count Florida Blanca. 
 
 Thefe claufes of refervation,, the very mention 
 of which has been avoided by the Spaniih Advo- 
 cate as completely overturning his argument, 
 require a particular difcufiion, and would carry 
 me beyon 1 thofe lir;it>, which an attention to 
 your other correfpondents could afibrd me. 
 I will therefore. Sir, poftpone this fubjedl till my 
 riext letter, in which I hope to conclude what T 
 have to fay on the companfon fo invidioufly at- 
 
 t£m|5ted> 
 
•( 5t ) 
 
 ■tempted by the Advocate of the Court cfSpain^ 
 'becween the affairs of Falkland's Ifland and 
 Nootka Sound. When I fhall have done that, 
 the public may be aniii cd that I will not fail to 
 make good nnypromire, of meeting this Spanifo 
 Lniifary on his new ground, and otinvefligating 
 tlic docflrine he thinks proper to lay down ref- 
 peding the Convention of the year 1786 ; a doc- 
 Ti ine of a nature fo unwarrantable, as to call for the 
 indignation of every Englilliman i and exceeded 
 in its fophifiT:s and abfurdity only by its dange- 
 jrous public tendency. 
 
 V E R U S, 
 
 Number XL 
 
 SIR, 
 
 vJf all the various and eflential points in which 
 the prefent tranfadion with the Court of Spaia 
 differs from that of 177 1, there is not one fb 
 material, or fo deferving of being particularly ' 
 explained, as that arifing from the claufe of Re- 
 fervation contained in our Counter-declaration. 
 Were the two tranfadions in all other refpeds 
 alike j were there no diftindtidn between the 
 right, the aggreffion, or the degree of fatisfac- 
 rionj. were both of them to be confidered with- 
 out any reference to any ulterior negotiation ; 
 riiis claufe would eftabliOi a contrail of the moft 
 ■eiTcntial importance. 
 
 I have fliewn that, in the affair of 1771, our 
 
 H 2 Minifter* 
 
'! 
 
 !i 
 
 I 
 
 !! 
 
 it 
 
 r.'i 
 
 1 
 
 ■ ■; 11 
 
 I 
 
 I 
 
 'K 
 
 
 : I 
 
 MM 
 
 i 
 
 C 52 ) 
 
 Minifters admitted a refervatlon, on tne part of 
 the Court of Spain, of her prior right of fove- 
 reignty, without eithei^ putting in a counter- 
 claim, or even hinting at fuch a pretenfion on, 
 our part; by which they virtually acknov/ledged 
 the txclufive right of the Spanilh Crown. For^ 
 on the principle of exclufion alone, fuch a re- 
 fervation of right could be founded j the Spa- 
 niards neither having, nor pretending to have,, 
 made any fettlemcnt in thofe I (lands. And this 
 too was fufiered by the then Minifters, though 
 they knew all the circumdances I have before 
 mentioned, and were convinced that Spain, weak 
 and exhauiled as fhe was, neither defired nor 
 was ready to engage in a war. 
 
 In tiie prefent bufinefs, though the difficulties 
 of conducting it were in feme refpecls compara- 
 tively gre.iter ; though the call upon the natio- 
 nal honour, however flrong, was in a degree lefs 
 cogent ; and though the llrength and refources 
 of Spain were much more formidable j our Mi- 
 niHers have more fuccefsfully maintained the 
 rights and interefts of their country. The fame 
 pretenfion of exclufive right to the Coafl: of 
 America flill inOuenced thecondudl of Spain: on 
 that arrogant afilimption the qnairel originally 
 began, and was juftified in the two declarations 
 of the 4th of June. TJie Britifli Cabinet, how- 
 ever, v/as no longer guided by the timid coun- 
 cils v^hich influenced the adminiftration of 1771. 
 The extravagant pretenfion of Spain was now 
 denied ; her exclufive right was not admitted to 
 extend beyond her adlual pofTeffion ; and the 
 right of Britiflifubjetfls to vifit andoccupyjtheun- 
 fettled parts of the Am.erican Continent was afiert- 
 cd. On tliefe principles, our demand of prelimi- 
 nary 
 
( S3 ) 
 
 niry fian^niflion was made; the right of his Ma 
 jcily'n fubjecls to fettle on the North Welt coaft 
 of America, in places not previoufly occupied 
 by any o^her power, was afllimed as the ground 
 of that elcmand ; and from that right was dedu- 
 ced the complaint of the injury, arifing from the 
 feizuie and detention ofBntifh fubje6ls and pro- 
 pel ty. i'hc force of this reafoning, and the 
 principle on v/hich it was founded, were necefTa- 
 rily admitted by 5)pain, by the fact of making the 
 fatisfaclion requiicd for the injury done by the 
 aggrelTion of her o£Bcers ; and, had the inltrii- 
 ments exchanged gone no farther, liad the 
 tranlaction refled here, the exclufive right of 
 die Crown of Spain could no longer have been 
 maintainable. A claim of a Britifh Monarch, 
 however, of a nature fo important to his dignity 
 and to the interelts of his people, called tor a 
 ftronger acKnowledgm^Nir, than w hit arofe merely 
 from implication cr from a conpLTucftion of phra- 
 fes, however jult and undeniable fuch a conitruc- 
 tion miight be. Ccnfcious of the juflice of his 
 claim, it became a great and powerful King to 
 aflert it, in direct and pointed terms ; it became 
 him to require the acceptance, and confequent- 
 ly the acknowledgment of it, from the power 
 which had denied it. His Majefty has ajjcrted 
 this claim ; he has alTerted it to extend to the 
 right of his fubjefts to any eftablifoment which 
 they may have fonnedy or fuould be defired of for- 
 ming in future^ at Nootka ; and he has pflerted 
 it in thefe terms, retroJpeElive as well 2.%prcJpeC' 
 tive, in marked and emphatical cojitradiitinc- 
 tlon to the refervation of the Spanilh Monarch, 
 which is abfoliitely^rc//)^J?iz;^, or, in his Catho- 
 lic Majefty's own words^ " to any right which 
 
 '' his 
 
* 
 
 ( 54 •) 
 
 ^^ his Majefty may claim to form an exclufivc 
 •*' eftabliihment at the Port of Nootka." 
 
 Having thus gone through the whole of thefc 
 two tranfadions, and having, as I trull, fatis- 
 •fadorily proved the mifreprefentations and fal- 
 lacies obtruded on the puljlic by the Advocate of 
 ihe Court of Spahty I willingly leave the decifion 
 of the queiHon to a candid and difcerning pub- 
 lic. From the fair ftatement of* facts which I 
 have brought forward, and from the confequen- 
 ces refuhing fiom^them, it furely muft be par- 
 ticularly pleafing to ev^rry lover of his country., 
 who can blulh for her humiliation, or who can 
 triumph in her glory, to refledt on the flriking 
 and proud diftindlion which marks the prefent 
 iranfadion. That which was negk^ed when our 
 right was indif put able ^ has been done when our 
 right was liable to difcuffion ; what the exhaufted 
 Hate of Spain intimidated former Minifters from 
 inforcing, has now been gained when her 
 l^rength and refources were great j what /i?^/ ad- 
 minillration did not dare to ajky this adminiftra- 
 tion has obliged the Court of Spain to grant. 
 The proud pretenfionr the exclu five, claims of 
 that engrofTmg monarchy, are now reduced to 
 €\\Q. level of a -calm difcuilion, and the idle vaunt 
 of an unlimited aad undefinable right is lowered 
 toan admiiTion of the claims and pretenfions of 
 the Britifli Crown. 
 
 On this footing do we now proceed to negotia- 
 tion, trom a knowledge of what has already 
 been done, a fair judgment may be formed of 
 ■what is yet to be expeded. As a fteady adhe- 
 rence to the rights of this country, as vigilance, 
 inrmnefs and refolution have already obtained 
 ftbr us the iatisficlion which we claimed, we arc 
 
 juftificd 
 
( =5 y 
 
 juRlfied in hoping that a continuance of fuch exv 
 ertions will bring this bufinefs to a happy con*^ 
 clufion, and finally remove the occafions of fu- 
 ture wars. That our' caufc isjuft no true En- 
 glifliman willdeny. Let us therefore confident* 
 ly hope diat peace, the fiifl and grcateft of 
 bleffings, may be the end cf our negotiation ; ler, 
 us unite, hand and heart v in every meafure 
 which can tend to {o dcfirable a conclufion j net 
 inviting war, but not avoiding i': by diflionoura^ 
 ble concefTions i not invading the. rights of othcp 
 narions, but vigoroufly maintaining our own. 
 
 V E R U S. 
 
 Number XIL 
 
 S I R, • 
 
 -tlAVING- gone through, and, as I truft',, 
 fairly confuted the arguments advanced by thti 
 Spanijb Aduocate, in ibpport of his comparifoil 
 between the affair of Falkland's Illands and^ 
 Nootka Sound, 1 now proceed to fulfil my pro - 
 mife of difcuffing the merits of his more receni 
 propofitions, viz. 
 
 " That in the prefent inftance we have en- 
 croached upon a coalt which, by our acknow'- 
 ledgment, in the convention of 1786, belonged 
 to the Crown of Spain." 
 
 " That, though the late L,ord Chatham cal- 
 led the commerce widi Jouth Am.erica a fmug- 
 gling trade, and f^ud he trullcd no BritiUj Mi- 
 nifler would dare to avow fuch a trade in the face 
 4. &k 
 
I 
 
 
 m 
 
 f- 
 
 m 
 
 ¥' 
 
 Hi 
 
 P.- 
 
 vm 
 
 r 
 
 wl 
 
 ^• 
 
 mm 
 
 1- 
 
 mrii 
 
 /■■ 
 
 i 
 
 ( 56 ) 
 
 of Parliament, his fon, our prcfcnt Miiilfter, hus 
 not only dared to avow it, but, afccr conHrrnin,^ 
 tlie right of Spain to the cxclufive dominion iii 
 that coad and ifles adjoining, and the navigation 
 of the South Seas, by the Convention of 17^6, 
 has dared to break the Faith of Treaties, by cllab- 
 lilhing a fetdement, and even building Ihips iit 
 Nootha Sound, for the pur])ofe of carrying on 
 that very commerce which his father fo fcverely 
 reprobated. 
 
 " That, when he had thus drawn the nation 
 into the neceflity of arming in defence of its ho- 
 nour, not its right, Mr. Pitt, with the precipi- 
 tancy of a (hallow, incautious, and unexperienced 
 polidcian, pledged himfelf and his Royal Mafter 
 to the Kcprefentatives of the Nation, not to en- 
 ter on any negociation until rcfatution vv-as made 
 for the infult offered to the Britifli (lag, and the 
 qucftion of right was clearly and finally adjufced.'* 
 
 And thefe charges, as well as the abfurdity of 
 Mr. Pitt's folemn promife to Parliament, and 
 the injuftice of his condutl in the whole proceed- 
 ing, the writer undertakes to, prove by the Con- 
 vention of the year 1786, whether confidered by 
 itfelf, or as contrafted with the treaty of 1783, 
 from which and from the arguments to be dedu- 
 ced from them, this writer wiflies the public to 
 determine what degree of confidence is due to a 
 Minifter, who has thus violated the faith of treaties, 
 and the lavv^ of nations. 
 
 Such, Sir, isafairltatement of the heavy char- 
 ges brought by this anonymous accufer againft 
 that man, who, for nearly feven years, has en- 
 joyed the favour of his Sovereign, and the fup- 
 port of his fellow fubjtds 3 whofe adminiftra » 
 
 tion 
 
tion has proved the blcfling of this country, and 
 i/i whofc hands the comiiKTce, the finances, the 
 honour and profperity of this kingdoni have arilcn 
 to a degree of fplendour, never furpaiTed, if in- 
 deed equalled, at any fornner period of our hiflo- 
 ry. The Englifh nation, cohfcious of this truth, 
 will furely fpurn at this daring, and, I will add, 
 fcandalous attempt to blaft his fame. They will 
 mark with meritetl indignation and contempt the 
 falfe aflertions and the fophiftical arguments 
 of this SpaniJ}) emijfary^ who has prefumcd to de- 
 bafe the Englifh Charii(5l:er as well as Language, 
 by difleminating do<5lrines difgraceful to the na- 
 tional honour and good faith— falfe both in their 
 premifes and conclufions— deftrudive to ourin- 
 terefts and our glory— and, in a word, avowed- 
 ly and fhamelefsly calculated to promote the 
 caufe of Spain, by furnilning tliat court with a 
 hew argument againfl us, and thereby fortifying 
 any oppofition flie may be inclined to make to the 
 juft demands of England. Thar, under the 
 mildeft and bed governments, men liave been 
 found fufficiently defperate to attempt their 
 fubverfion, is a truth which the experience of 
 mankind has too ftrongly confirmed j but it is 
 furely novel in the hiftory of mankind, that fuch 
 attempts fliould appearwith impunity in'open day, 
 and that the freedom of the prefs fliould be abu- 
 fed for the fervice of that very country, between 
 which and ourfelves a difcufllon of the moll deli- 
 cate, as well as important nature, is acflually de^ 
 pending. 
 
 The accufation of this Spanifli emiflliry may 
 be reduced to four proportions. 
 
 I ft. That, by the Convention of 178^, w 
 
 I 
 
 'C 
 
 \ 
 
 acknow 
 
• 
 
 i: 
 
 $ 
 
 ■If 
 I' 
 
 i. ' 
 
 ( 58 ) 
 
 acknowledged the territory of Nootka Sound t© 
 belong to the Crown of Spain. 
 
 2d,' That Mr. Pitt, in oppofition to the doc- 
 trine held by his father, has dared to avow a 
 fmuggling trade on the territory fo acknowledged 
 to belong to Spain> with various circumltances 
 of aggravation. 
 
 3d, That, by fo doing, he has drawn this 
 country into the neceflity of arming in defence of 
 its honour, not of its right. 
 
 4th, That he pledged himfelf and his Royal 
 Mafter to the Reprefentatives of the nation, not 
 to enter into any negociation until reftitution was 
 made for the infult offered to the Britilh flag, 
 and the queftion of right was clearly and finally 
 adjufted. 
 
 Thefe propofitions I purpofe thoroughly to 
 difcufs i and before I conclude, I truft I Ihall be 
 able to convince the public, beyond the poffibi- 
 lity of contradiftion, of the futility of the argu- 
 ments, as well as the grofs fallacy of the fafts, 
 which this writer has dared publicly to advance. 
 I have already driven him from one ftrong hold ; 
 and I pledge myfelf not to quit him, till I hive 
 compleatly taken off his mafque, and Ihewn him, 
 in his true fhape, the advocate and emijary of the 
 Court of Spain. 
 
 V E R U S. 
 
 Number 
 
( 59 ) 
 
 Number XIII. 
 
 SIR, 
 
 .1 HE firfl propofition of the Spanijp AdvotaU 
 ^^> that, by the Convention of 17 16, we acknow- 
 ledged the territory at Nootka Sound to belong 
 to the Court of Spain. 
 
 As an evidence of this, he quotes the pream- 
 ble of the Convention ; and, from the wilh which 
 is there exprcfled by the Kings of England and 
 Spain, to prevent even the Ihadow of mifun- 
 derftanding, which might be occafioned by 
 doubts or other caufes of mifconception, between 
 their fubje6ls on the Frontiers of the two Monar* 
 chiesy efpecially in diftant countries, fuch as are 
 thofe in Ameiica, he argues that the exdu/ive 
 right to the North Weft coaft of America was 
 abandoned by us to the Spaniards i though as he 
 immediately after fays, this humane wifli was cer- 
 tainly confined, in this inftance, to the South- 
 'Eaft coaft of chat continent, and the avowed ob- 
 jedl of the Convention did not extend beyond a 
 fmall portion of that coaft. 
 
 This appears rather to be an abfurd mode of 
 reafoning, and tolerably fubverfive of the propo- 
 rtion it is brought to fupport. And indeed the 
 Writer himfelf feems fomevvhat of that opinion, 
 as he fuddenly quits it for the firft article of the 
 Convention itfelf, from which he threatens us 
 with convincing proof Let us fee, fays he, in 
 •what manner this fpeculative wifti is to be carried 
 into pra6lice. It is done thus— His Britannic 
 Majefty declares that his fubjedls (hall evacuate 
 
 I 2 tk 
 
m 
 
 cc 
 
 €C 
 
 <t 
 
 (Co ) 
 
 tkt country of the Mofquitos as well as the Con^ 
 tinent in general, and the iflands adjacent, with- 
 out exception, beyond a given line, which was 
 to be confidered as the Frontier of the Territory 
 granted by his Catholic Majefty to the ErigJifh. 
 
 Here indeed, unhappily for him, the force of 
 truth fceripd to be too ftrong even for the defire 
 this Writer had to impeach our national charac- 
 ter. By fome ftrange inconfift<^ncy, the follow- 
 ing fentence immediately fucceeds this quotation, 
 affording the moC decided anfwer to his affertion, 
 and proving beyond contradi6tion that this Con- 
 venticn did fjot amount to the acknowledgment 
 of the Spanilli right to Nootka. " The only 
 queftion," fays he, " between the feveral na- 
 tions refpedlod merely the country of the Mof- 
 quitos in particular.*' What ! was this the 
 only queftion ? Was it indeed true that the Con- 
 vention was made folely on the bufinefs of the 
 Mofquito country ? and was this the fingle and 
 particular ground on which the negociation pro- 
 ceeded ? The Spamjh Advocate fays it was. I fay 
 fo too. Where then can be the difference be- 
 tween us, as the whole queftion turns on this 
 point, the inftrument itfelf, and every part of it 
 being to be conftrued folely by its fubjedl matter 
 and the intention of its framers ? Oh 1 fays the 
 ingenious gentleman, I have feveral ways of con- 
 ftruing this matter; by which ! will make it ap- 
 pear, that, though the only queftion between the 
 two countries refpedled merely tlie country of the 
 Mbfquitoi, in particular i. the evacuation of the 
 continent in general and the ijlards adjacent^ with- 
 out exceptiofy was the great and prominent objed 
 of the convention j that the conjunulion copulativey 
 
 .' . •• 
 
 1'* 
 
 €1$ 
 
 li w 
 
( 6i ) 
 
 as 'JL^ell, contains a transfer of every inch of land 
 on the continent of America to the Spaniards ; 
 and that, though the letter of the ccnvention does 
 not go minutely to the prefent cafe, and though, as 
 aforefaid, the only queftion between the two coun- 
 tries refpedled merely the Mofquito fhore in par- 
 ticular , yet the ^/r// and t\\e principle off he con- 
 vention immediately and mod powerfully apply 
 to cede the whole of America, both north and 
 fouth, to Spain. All thefe matters this flupen- 
 dous reafoner affures us will be perfedlly clear, 
 when we come to confider the Spanijh claim, on 
 which this convention was founded. 
 
 As a Ihort enquiryinto the nature of this Spa- 
 }iijh Claim will greatly fliorten our difcuffion, I 
 willingly enterupon it in the firfl place. The Spa- 
 niflo y/dvocate afferts it to have been general, to the 
 whole of America, fubje6t only to the limitation of 
 cxprefs treaties, or the long uninterrupted pofTef- 
 fion of other powers : and this he affirms on the 
 autliQrity of Mr. Fox, in his fpeech on the King's 
 Meflage of the 5th of May, who, as this writer 
 aflures lis, ajferted it frsm his own official know* 
 ledge, in his fiegociations on this Jubjeti. ' -^, 
 
 The artcrtion itfelf is fo ex.eflively abfurd, t/fat 
 I fhould have thought it unworthy of any ferious 
 notice, had not the fort of weight which it may 
 derive from the authority of a Gentleman, who 
 was Secretary of State when the Definitive 
 Treaty with Spain was concluded, given it 
 a fpecies of importance it could not other wile 
 have been entitled to. I therefore do not 
 hefitate diredly to contradift the aflertion ; and 
 I call upon that Gendsman, or any of his adhe- 
 rents, to meet me on this ground, and to dif- 
 prove, if they can, the circumflanccs I Ihall ad- 
 vance. 
 
 The 
 
fo ;h 
 
 • ( 64 ) 
 
 • 
 
 The real nature of the Spanifli Claim on this 
 occafion may eafily be explained, by a fliort refe- 
 rence to the nature of our fettlement on the 
 Mofquito Shore, and to fome tranfadions 
 •which took place on the affair of the Definitive 
 Treaty in 1783, of which Mr. Fox cannot 
 yet have loft the recolledbion, and which there- 
 fore, I fhould hope, muft have prevented him 
 from aflerting v/har this ofHcious partizan fo pe- 
 remptorily attributes to him. 
 
 The Mofquito country is fituated in the heart 
 of the Spanilh American fettlcments, immediate- 
 ly conne6ted with, and apparently forming part 
 of, thofe rich territories known by the name of 
 Mexico or New Spain. Some EngliQimen fixed 
 themfelves there towards the end of the laft cen- 
 tury ; but no regular eftablifhment was formed 
 till the year 1730. Since that time, perpetual 
 difputes arofe betv^een this country and Spain, on 
 the ground of a territory having been occupied 
 by the former, which the latter, with fome ap- 
 pearance ofreafon, afferted to ''^ a part of their 
 Own pofTelTions, as being infe}. ably conne6ted 
 with the kingdom of Mexico. The Spaniards alfo 
 loudly complained of the facility, with which a 
 contraband trade v;as carried on by thefe fettlers 
 throughout their American dominions, to fuch 
 an extent as made it appear, more than any thing 
 elfe, the dired objed of the eftablifhment, and 
 ■which it was impofTible to prevent lb long as the 
 fettlement lafted. A trade of this nature every 
 difpafiionate man, and particularly the late Earl of 
 Chatham, reprobated as being inconfiftent with 
 good f^.irh and our national charader. Thefe 
 reafons, which ought to have had weight with a 
 juft and wife Government, were little attendedj 
 
 K to 
 
(63) 
 
 to; and it was not till thejealoufy, which the 
 amazing fuccefs of thele fettierr, in the raifing of 
 fugars occafioned in our Weft I nd ia 1 Hands, raifed 
 an outcry among our planters ther<r, that our ru- 
 lers thought proper to abandon the fettlement. 
 This event took place after the peace of 1763. 
 The friends of the then adminiftration indeed 
 endeavoured to apologize for this extraordinary 
 condu(5l-; by alTuring the public that it happened 
 in confequence of a fmall miftuke of the Mini- 
 fters, who allowed themfelves to be pcrfuaded that 
 the country of the Mofquitos formed a part of 
 the Bay of Honduras. From whatever caufe, 
 however, it proceeded, the fad Was, that the 
 iTiilitary and civil eftablilhrneiit were removed, 
 the fortifications were deftroyed,, and the coun- 
 try was complete y abandoned by England. Af* 
 ter this derelidlioii, the Molquito iLore continu- 
 ed unnoticed by this country tor 13 years ; at the 
 end of which time, in 1776, a {on of government 
 was again eftabliflied there; which continued 
 to exift, feebly indeed, and without much advan- 
 tage to us, during the American War. 
 
 The grievances, however, of which Spain had 
 complained, revived with the rc-eftiiblifhment of 
 the fettlement j its proximity to the Mexican do- 
 minions, of which the Spanifli government had 
 always been jealous, and the impoflibility of pre- 
 venting an enormous contraband trade, v/ere 
 points which could not be indifferent to that 
 country. The abandonment of the Mofquito 
 Shore by the Englifli, was therefore ftrongly ur- 
 ged by her, when the negociation for a peace was 
 opened in 1782 ; and there is reafon to behevc 
 that a degrct of attention was paid to the appli- 
 cation by the then adminiftration. Mr. Fox» on 
 
 whofe 
 
m 
 
 m 
 
 m 
 
 ml 
 
 1' • , 
 
 it 
 
 i^ 
 
 k 
 
 ( 64 ) 
 
 whole author ity the Spanijh Advocate founds his 
 aflcrtion, knows, I prefume much better than I, 
 or other lefs-informed men can be fuppofed to do, 
 how far this bufinefs made part of the negocia- 
 tion. I have indeed heard, though it is a matter 
 on which I muft of courfe fpeak diffidently, that 
 a noble Lord, whofe talents and amiable charac- 
 ter defervedly entitled him to thediftinguifliedpolt 
 he then filled, and whofe lofs every one who 
 knew him muft lament, went very far in admit- 
 ting the juftice of the Spanifli requeft, and in an 
 engagement to comply with it. . I do not mean 
 to fay that this went further than a private intima- 
 tion J though even a private intimation, on an 
 official bufinefs, from a Secretary of State, may 
 be, and perhaps was then, confidered as in a 
 great degree binding on the honour of this coun- 
 try. Mr. Fox, however it is certain, ivas of a diffc^ 
 rent opinion^ for we know that he did not think 
 it incumbent upon him to carry this engage- 
 ment, of whatever nature it might be, into effe<fl ; 
 but that he left it as an unfettled point, and, 
 though fuch might not be his real intention, (of 
 which, however, there is fome reafon to doubt), 
 as a good ground of quarrel, whenever either 
 this country or Spain might think a favourable 
 opportunity prefented itfelf Be this however as 
 it may, the negociation undoubtedly went 
 through Mr. Fox's hands ; he perfectly knew die 
 nature and extent of the Spanilh claims; variou3 
 other gentlemen, now daily converfant with bu- 
 finefs, knew them too. To him, to them, to 
 every man who remembers the tranfadion 
 and the debates to which it gave rife, nay, to the 
 Spaniards themfelves I appeal, whether the 
 claims of the Court of Spain, on thisoccafion, were 
 not limited to the Dijlricts pojfejfcd by the EngliJJi 
 
 on 
 
( 6j ) 
 
 cnthe Mofquitos and Honduras Shores ; and whether 
 the 6tk article of the definitive treaty with Spain 
 was ever meant, either by that country or by us> 
 to eftablifli any claim of the Spaniards to any 
 thing beyond that part of America^ which had 
 been acknowledged to belong to them, and 
 which they themlelves defined by the title ofSpa^ 
 nijh America, Thefe are fadts which 1 am 
 convinced no well informed man will deny -, bur, 
 as I do not wifh to leave a doubt in the breads of 
 my countrymen on this important fubjedt, I pro- 
 pofe topurfUc it further in my next letter. 
 
 V E R U Si 
 
 MM 
 
 Number XIV. 
 
 S I R, 
 
 T 
 
 HE propofitidns, with which 1 concluded 
 my laft letter, are perfectly decifive of the quef- 
 tioHi and, unlefs they can be overturned, the 
 affertion attributed to Mr. Fox muft fall to the 
 ground. Although I am well affured that that 
 Gentleman, accuftomed as he is to efcapc fron^i 
 a conclufion ^vhich fubverts his argument, will 
 never openly alTert that what I have advanced is 
 not well founded, I know there are others, who 
 fcruple not to bring forward, as facSts, propofi- 
 tions made for the lervice of the moment, which 
 they confidently impofe upon the publick as 
 truth, and which they either maintain or defert> 
 as beft fuits their immediate purpofc. How far 
 
 & theic 
 
( 66 ) 
 
 fhefe arts may be Carried, the Spanifi Advocate, 
 whofe fallacies I have for fome time been en- 
 gaged in detefling, affords a Itrong proof. To 
 deltroy fuch fophifms is the duty of every well- 
 wifher to his country. With that view, there- 
 fore, and to prevent the publick from being 
 mifled by groundlefs affertions, I proceed to 
 fhew, by irrefiftible evidence, that it never was, 
 at any period of the negotiation, in the contem- 
 plation of Spain to aflert a claim to any thing 
 more, than thofe diftri6ts which had been pof- 
 fefled by the Englilh on tiie Mofquito and Hon- 
 duras fhores j that nothing beyond this was either 
 advanced or admitted by the Englifli or the 
 Spanifh Minifters ; and that there does not ap- 
 pear, in any of the inftruments which palTed on 
 the occafion, any paffage, to which, in fair con - 
 llruftion, a different fenfe can be given. 
 
 Had the Spaniards entertained the idea of an 
 txclufive right to the American Coniinent and the 
 Jflands adjacent, which is attributed to them by 
 their Emijfaryy and which Mr. Fox is declared to 
 have afferted, there can be no doubt but that they 
 would have taken good care to ftate it in broad 
 and precife terms, when the negotiation for a 
 peace beg;"m in 1782; and, had fuch a claim been 
 admitted by us, it is equally evident that it 
 would have been diftindly mentioned in the Pre- 
 liminary Treaty. For a matter of this impor- 
 tance can neither be demanded nor conceded by 
 implicaticn ; exprefs and poiitive terms are ne- 
 celj'ary to afcertain a right, which, in its confe- 
 quences, goes to an extent unheard of in hiftory, 
 and is totally fubverfive of thofe ellablifhed prin- 
 ciples, on which not only the laws, but the domi- 
 nion of nations are founded. Let us therefore 
 infped the Preliminary Treaty, and let the 
 
 claufe 
 
( 67 ) 
 
 chufe be produced in which this demand and 
 concefllon are contained. I affirm that, from tlie 
 beginning to the end of it, there is not one word 
 which can, even by any quirk, quibble, or 
 falfe interpretation, be tortured into any thing 
 like fuch a meaning. On the contrary, there 
 are exprefs fajfages which directly militate 
 againft fuch an idea, and which prove that an 
 exchifive right to the American Continent and 
 Iflands was not in the contemplation of Spain. 
 Such is the reftorarion of the Providence and Ba- 
 hama Iflands to his Majefty ; fuch is the general 
 reftoration of all countries and territories which 
 had been conquered by Spain j an article 
 which, it it applied at all, could apply folely to 
 America, as no other quarter of the world af- 
 forded an obje6t on which the claufe could ope- 
 rate. But if the exfreffions of the Treaty prove 
 the aflertion attributed to Mr. Fox to be ground- 
 lei's, the ftlence of the Spaniards on the very 
 point in queftion proves it yet more ftrongly. 
 We were then de fa5fo compleatly in poiTeflion of 
 the Mofquito country. This' formed a part of 
 the continent, particularly valuable to the Spa- 
 niards, and which had been for many years the 
 foiirce of infinite complaints from that Court. 
 J.n exdufive right to the American Continent miift 
 have included this Settlement^ which was fiiuated 
 in the heart of it ; and, of courfe, its CefTion 
 muft either \\2.wq formed a part of the Treaty ^ or, 
 on the principles of the Spanijh Advocate^ its 
 immediate abandonment muft have been the una- 
 voidable confequence. As an anfwer to this theory, 
 I a{3pe-al to the h^. Was the celTion of the. 
 Mofquito Shore mad a part of the Treaty? or 
 did fuch an event appen in confequence of 
 
 K 1 its 
 
( 68 ) 
 
 being figned ? We know that the contrary of 
 both thele was the truth ; and therefore the con • 
 fequence is evident, that the exclufive right of 
 the Spaniards was never brought forward by 
 them or admitted by us. The Preliminary 
 Treaty affords us yet another proof of the propo- 
 rtion I have advanced. When, in fettling the 
 fourth article, the queftion of the Spanifh fove- 
 reignty in America was adtually agitated, the 
 Spanifh Right was not extended further than to 
 the portion of the Honduras Coaft, on whicl\ 
 the fubjedts of England were permitted to cut 
 logwood. And even heie that right was not 
 affirmed to be exclufive j the exprcflion, by whicl^ 
 it was declared, being as limited and confined to 
 the Honduras Coaft as polTible, The words of 
 it are, " provided that thefe ftipulations" (i. e. 
 the right of cutting logwood on the Honduras 
 Coalt) ". Ihall not be confidered as derogatory ii^ 
 " any refpedt from the rights of his Catholic 
 ^' Majefty's fovereignty." A declaration ex- 
 tremely neceffary, and proper for a Sovereign to 
 infifl upon, when a liberty of fettling on his own 
 territory was given to the fubje(^s of another 
 power. 
 
 It is therefore evident, that the expre/s words 
 of this Treaty with regard to the Providence and 
 Bahama Iflands militated direiftJy againfl this 
 exclufive claim i that thtfdence of the Spaniards 
 concerning the Mofquito Shore was an implied 
 dereli<5lion of it ; and that, when tlie Right was 
 agitatedy it was exprejsly confined to the Honduras 
 Settlement. The conclufion therefore is, as I 
 have already alferted, that the Preliminary Trea- 
 ty does not contain a fyllable which can prove 
 fhe (xclufive right of Spain to the American 
 
 Continent; 
 
( 69 ) 
 
 Continent and Iflands. In my next letter I 
 mean to fhew, that the definitive treaty is equally 
 void of evidence to that purport, 
 
 . VERUs/ 
 
 Number XY, 
 
 S I R, 
 
 As the preliminary treaty with Spain afFords, 
 Mr. Fox no ground for the aflcrtion attributed ta 
 him by the Spanijh AdvocatCy fo the definitive^ 
 treaty with that power, which enters flill morq 
 particularly into the nature of the claim in qucf- 
 tion, affords an additional proof that it was not 
 intended to be exclufivey and that the aflertiun was 
 one which Mr. Fox will probably never infill 
 upon, fhould the bufinefs before us come intoi 
 public difcuflion. 
 
 In the Definitive Treaty, we have the fame 
 exprefs words, with regard to the ceflion of the 
 Providence and Bahama Iflands, and the reflo- 
 ration of the territories which had been conquered 
 by Spain, toprove thenon-exiftenceof this^,vf//(/rj^ 
 ^laim, which were ment;ioned in my preceding Letr 
 ter ; we have alfo the {a.mcjilence of the Spaniards^ 
 on the bufinefs of theMofquito Shore. The fixtl^ 
 article, however, which exprefsly treats of the 
 Honduras Coaft, proves that that, and that 
 alone, was in the contemplation of the negocia-. 
 tors, and that the exc/ujive right of Spain was, 
 {pecifically limited to that diftrid. This treaty 
 was the performance of Mr. Fox himfelf. It was 
 
 indeed 
 
indeed grounded on the Preliminary Treaty ; 
 but the whole of the article I have mentioned 
 (the only one which at all treats of the fovc- 
 reignty of Spain) was entirely new modelled, and 
 fabricated into its prefent fliape by that gentle- 
 man. If therefore 1 fhall be able to fliew that, 
 fo far from containing an exclufive claim to the 
 whole of America, it exprcfsly limits the Spanijh 
 claim to the Honduras Coaft, it mud be admitted 
 the alTertion attributed to him is totally void of 
 foundation, and confequently that the deducflions 
 of the Sfanijh .Advocate are idle and fallacious. 
 
 The preamble of this article exprefsly Hates 
 the grounds on wliich it was made. " The in- 
 tention of the two high contracting parties be- 
 ing to prevent, as much as poflible, all the 
 *' caufes of complaint pnd mifunderflanding 
 " heretofore occaH -led by the cutting of wood 
 *^ for dyeing, or logwood ; and feveral Englifh 
 *' fettlcments having been formed and extended, 
 *' under that pretence, upon the Spanilh conti- 
 *' nent." Nothing can be fo evident, as that 
 the fole objedls of this article were the preven- 
 tion of difputes in confequencr of the pradice of 
 cutting logwood, and the future Limitation of the 
 diftridt within which logwood v/as to be cut. 
 
 We accordingly find that boundaries were mar- 
 ked out, beyond which the Enghfh vvere not to 
 pafsj and within thefe, the King of Spain afTures 
 to them the enjoyment of all which is exprelled 
 in thii article j " provided, that thefe ftipulations 
 •* fhall not be confidered as derogatory in any 
 " wife from his rights of fovereignty. ** What 
 rights of Ibvertignty? Undoubtedly thofe which 
 extended over the diilrid on which the Englifh 
 logAood cutters were thus permitted to fettle. 
 
 It 
 
 t( 
 
 €€ 
 
iC 
 
 << 
 
 <c 
 
 f< 
 
 t( 
 
 re 
 
 ( 71 ) 
 
 It is impofublc, by any rule of conflrudVion, to 
 extend this right further; and here I might fafely 
 reft the cafe, and appeal to the decifion of the 
 publick for the jullice of iny conckifion, ditl not 
 this very article, in the palfage immediately fol- 
 lowing the words laft quoted, contain another 
 and an irrefragable proof of it. The paflage I 
 allude to is this -** Therefore all the Englilh, who 
 may be difperfed in any otjier parts, whether on 
 the Spanilh continent, or in any of the iflands 
 whatfoever, dependent on the aforefaid Spa- 
 nilh continent, and for whatever reafon it might 
 be, without exception, fliall retire within thedif- 
 tridl which has been above defcribcd." As 
 this evacuation of the Spanifli continent, and the 
 iflands dependent upon it, actually took place, a 
 true knowledge of that fact muftlead us precife- 
 ly to know what was meant by thole phrafes, 
 and whether they were intended tobe^c^/z^r^/and 
 exclujjve, or were meant as merely indicative of 
 what was aftually the property ot the Crown of 
 Spain in thofe latitudes. Had the former been 
 the cafe, the evacuation of the whole 
 continent muft have fucceeded, and of courfe the 
 Englifli muft have retired from the Mofquito 
 country, which conftitutes a confiderable por- 
 tion of that Continent, as it extends in a line of 
 Coaft nearly five hundred miles in length, and 
 is fituated immediately in the centre of the ac- 
 knowledged Spanifh territories. We know, 
 however, that fuch was not the cafe ; the Mof- 
 quito fhore was not quitted. Of courfe, the Spa^ 
 nijh claim was neither general nor exdiifrjc. Yet, 
 the Englifli did retire from the Spanijh Contir.ent 
 
 C 3U\d 
 
 ^ 
 
( 7^ ) 
 
 «nd the iflands dependent upon it. And thij 
 Spanifh Continent was the dillri(5t fituatcd be* 
 tween the river Bellize, which formed the f«u- 
 thern boundary of the Honduras Territory^ 
 granted by this treaty, and the Cape of Hondu- 
 ras, which formed the Wellern boundary of the 
 Mofquito country, comprehending a coaft of 
 about four hundred miles in lengthy on which 
 z variety of iflands, fome of confiderable magni- 
 tude were dependent, and to which the right of 
 Spain had never been difputed j from this the 
 Englifli fettlers did retire, in exprefs and imme- 
 diate conformity to the treaty. By this appeal 
 to fadts we, therefore, have a compleat explana- 
 tion of the nature and extent of the Spanifh claim. 
 We have feen to what it adluallv iiid and to what 
 it iiid not .extend j and of courfe the only confe- 
 quence to be drawn from the tranfaftion in 
 queftion is, that the Spanijh claim was not exclu^ 
 ftvey or extending to the whole of the American 
 continent and iflands adjacent 5 but that it was 
 fpecifi^ally limited, by the intention of the negoci- 
 ators, by the words of the treaty, and by the 
 mode in which it was executed, to that part of the 
 4^ontinent, to which the right of the Spaniards 
 had long been acknowledged, and which the En- 
 glifli logwood cutters had been in the ufe of 
 vifiting. 
 
 Such, fir, is the plain and undifguifed account 
 of a tranfadion, from which the Spanijh Advocate 
 has ventured to draw a conclufion fo perfectly er- 
 roneous, and for the truth of which he has 
 thought proper to bring forward Mr. Fox as his 
 voucher, afluring us that this gentleman made 
 the aflertion in quefl:ion, not merely as a Member 
 of Parliament, but as one who had been Secretary 
 
 of 
 
( 73 ) 
 
 «/■ State at the time when the treaty was made, 
 /peaking from his 0wn official knowledge ^ the nego- 
 ciations on the Jubje^, I leave it to that Right 
 Hon. Gentleman and to the Advocate of the Court 
 cf Spain to fettle together their account of obliga- 
 tions. The people of England will, perhaps, 
 draw a conclufion from this alTociation not very 
 favourable to the views of either party. I have 
 done my duty> by proving the faJfehood of the 
 aflcrtion, and of the inferences fo artfully obtru- 
 ded on the publick ; and I now proceed in my 
 jfollowing letters, to inveftigate the truth of the 
 Spanifh Advocate's rcafoning on the Convention 
 concluded in the year 1786. 
 
 
 V E R U S. 
 
 
 
 
 
 \.. .. ^ ■. • ■> :- h ; 
 
 r ;lf .( 
 
 /.'U- ^u-^" .r . ^ s '-.;> , . 
 
 (. 
 
 -.1 ... ' . . ' 
 
 
 ':• , •■• '"' ■• .t ^^- i ■• 
 
 '« f.^n. ! ■ , . » -_' 
 
 .'-.* 
 
 w 1 (- *« 
 
 i.*,i«j#v< fii'- 
 
 iiH 
 
 r 4^^aj4 
 
 I. 
 
 N V M- 
 
( 7+ J 
 
 A ' 
 
 \? 
 
 N U M » E R XVL 
 
 v\. 
 
 SIR, 
 
 '\ ""'1 03 f:::- - rOf'.'rivO .iicl i 
 
 H 
 
 AVING afccrtained Che nattrre of the Spa- 
 xiifh claim, I mufl now recal the attention of 
 the pubhc to thbfe propofirions which the Spa- 
 nijh Advocate affertcd would be clear, when that 
 claim, on which he affirmed the Convention of 
 1786 was founded, fhould be confidered. I 
 perfectly agree with him, that, on this claim the 
 convention of 1786 was founded \ and I hav 
 frovedy that the claim itjclf was not general nor 
 excluftve. It will therefore be fomewhat difficult 
 for him to convince the public, that, though the 
 Spanifh claim was limiied by the Treaty of Peace 
 to particular diltrids ; though the Convention of 
 1786 was founded on that claim ; and though, as 
 he exprefsly afferts, the only queftion between the 
 two countries refpeflcd merely the country of the 
 Mofquitos in particular ; it will, I fay, be diffi- 
 cult for him to convince the public, that, (as he 
 alfo exprefsly aflerts) the evacuation of the Conti^ 
 nent in general and the IJlands adjacent without ex- 
 ceptiony was the great, the prominent objedl of the 
 convention j that the conjunction copulative, as 
 ivell, contains a transfer of the whole Continent of 
 America to the Spaniards j or that, though the 
 letter of the Convention does not go minutely to 
 the prefent cafe, yet the fpirit and the principle 
 of the Convention immediately and moll pow- 
 erfully apply to cede the whole of America, both 
 North and South, to Spain. This however is 
 the tafk which thl5 Spanifh Emijfary has engaged 
 to execute. The extreme ablurdity of fuch pro- 
 
 ^ pofitions, 
 
( 75 
 
 po'fitions, and tlie evident impoffiblllty of dedu- 
 cing any thing like a rational conclufion from 
 fuch ridiculous premilTes, might well excufe mc 
 from drawing them out of the conten:iptuous ob- 
 livion into which they probably are already fallen. 
 My abicrvrition on the policy of facflton has how- 
 ever convinced me, that, to treat wirii a difdain- 
 ful Clence the efRifions of falfehood or of malice, 
 is, in truth, to ferve the very piirpofe for which 
 they nre intended. The fadl: which is not con- 
 tradifled, is immediately proclaimed to be invin- 
 cible ; and an argument, the abfurdity of which 
 made a reply '-ppear unneceffary, is direftljT 
 vaunted to be unanfwerable. To prevent this, 
 and to Ihcw the world that, the more this bufinefs 
 is fifted to the bottom, the more evidently the 
 propriety of the meafures adopted on the pre- 
 fent occasion by government mull appear, I will 
 pafs over the contemptible reafoning of this writer, 
 and will proceed to Ihew that, by the convention 
 of 1786, no further claim of the Court of Spain 
 was recognized by this country, than had been 
 acknowledged by us in the Definitive Treaty of 
 
 1783. 
 The reader will recoiled, chat, in my Thirteenth 
 
 Letter, I Hated that Mr. Fox, not thinking it 
 incumbent on him to carry into effcdl Lord 
 Grantham's engagement to give up the Mof- 
 quito fhore to the Spaniards, preferred leaving 
 it as an unfettled point, and as a good ground of 
 quarrel, whenever this country or Spain might 
 think a favourable opportunity prefcnted itfelf. 
 This great Statefman may pofTibly conceive him- 
 lelf juftifiable for having a6ted thus : though, 
 till he gives a better reafon for it than any of hi^ 
 friends have hitherto done, the public will per- 
 haps be inclined to think it a mealure of no very 
 
 L 2 cxtraor- 
 
( 76 ) 
 
 extraordinary politipal wifdom. To avow, ot\ 
 the Dutch bufmefs, as a iSecrctary of State, the 
 weaknels of this country to be fuch, as to make 
 the further profecution of a war impradicable, at 
 the moment when a negociation for a peace was 
 beginnin^^i and to leave a fubjeft of endlefs dif- 
 quiet and complaint, to ferve as a ground of 
 quarrel, and as the feed of a future war, when to 
 his management had been left the charge of con- 
 cluding a definitive and lafting peace :— Thefe 
 are points, by which the minifterial charaftei of 
 that gentleman may be judged j and frorp whicl^ 
 undoubtedly both the prefent age and pofte- 
 rity will draw unerring conclufions. The 
 firft of thefe has already been often difcufled. 
 The efFed of the latter may perhaps not be fo 
 generally known. In truth, its fuccefs was 
 fully equal to the expeflations which that great 
 Statefman had forrned of it. The peace was 
 hardly concluded, before the ground cf quarrel he 
 had left us began to operate. The contraband 
 txade oftheEnglilh flourirticd with redoubled vi- 
 gour. The fmugglers, whom Mr. Fox refufed 
 to abandon, and whom, on the contrai /, he 
 projected by refufing to give up the diftridt from 
 which they carried on their illicit traffic, increafed 
 in numbers and audacity. With rhem increafed 
 the grievance and the complaints of the Spani- 
 ards. Thev fek acute) v the intolerable effects 
 of a lawlefs afTociation, formed, in the midlt of 
 their richcll and moft valuable territories, for the 
 almo.l exclufive purpofe of exercifing a contra- 
 band trade j they remonflrated againft a conti- 
 nuance of fuch illicit pradlices ; and they even 
 declared their fettled purpofe of appealing again 
 to arms, to vindicate their rights, and to prevent 
 a continuance of rhe unlawful commerce exerci- 
 fed by the Englifli icttk-rs. 
 
 Happily 
 
fo 
 
 ( 77 ) 
 
 Happily for England, the Councils which 
 •dictated the prefervation of a ground of qudirel 
 when a negotiation for a peace was depending, 
 no longer directed the affairs of this kingiom. 
 His Majefty had now appointed an AdminiOra- 
 tion, who thought tlie national honour was 
 i^ound by the engagement of a Secretary of 
 State i who, inftead of preferving, wifhed to ob- 
 viate every ground of difpute between England 
 and Spain i but who, inltcad of revealing the 
 weaknefs either of our fituation or cur right, 
 endeavoured to avail themfclves of every favou- 
 rable circumilancej to obtain as much ibr t.'jis 
 country, as either juitice* or a regard for peace 
 eouid warrant thein in infiRing upon. The en- 
 gagement of Lord Grantham had, beyond a 
 (Jueftion, afforded the Spaniards a fair ground 
 to infift on the cefTion of the Mofquito fliore. 
 The intercfts of that kingdom compelled them 
 to avail themfeives of this circumilance, as the 
 only means of preferving the commerce, and 
 perhaps the fovereignty of their Mexican pofief- 
 fions. For this, they were ready to proceed to 
 any extremities j and we know that, early in the 
 year 1764, they adlually took fuch meafurcs, as 
 denoted a fettled intention of inforcing their de- 
 mand by arms, (hould a peaceable line of nego- 
 tiation prove unfuccesful. OurMiniRer.Sj there- 
 fore, on whom the tafk of pcrfedling tlu' Treaty 
 of Peace with Spuai had fallf*n, in coiu'eqiience 
 of the policy of dieir predeceffors, made no fcru- 
 ple of propofing to the Court of Spain a fair dii- 
 cufTion of a queftion, which furnifhtd n perpe- 
 tual object of jealoufy between the two coun- 
 tries, and which required a determination, not 
 jTierely to obtain a momentary degree of quiet, 
 
 but 
 
 f'y 
 
( 73 ) 
 
 but cfTcdiially to prevent the c.iiifcs of jealoufy in 
 future. As England W.1.S, de faSlOy in poflefTion 
 of the Mofquito fl-jore, our Minifters demanded 
 a proper compenration for it on the part of Spain ; 
 and they declared, that they would accept, as 
 fuch, a farther extent of territory in the province 
 of Yucatan, together with fome additional pri- 
 vileges for the Englifli lettlers in that country, 
 and fome fettled regulations for their fecurity. 
 To this the Spanifh Minillers replied, that, their 
 cbje(fl being to get rid of foreign eftabliflbmenta 
 on the Mofquitc Coaft, and to acquire that which 
 tliey conceived we were bound in good faith not 
 to detain from them, they were ready, on thefe 
 terms, to go beyond the line which had been 
 drawn on the Coaft of Yucatan, and to agree to 
 ti)e terms of the Englidi Miniftry. 
 
 Thele were the grounds on which the conven-» 
 tion of 17S6 was founded; by which it will ap- 
 pear, tlat nothing but the Jiimmder of the Mojqui- 
 to Jh Grey and that oidy^ was in the contemplation 
 of cither England or Spain-— that the exclufive 
 right of the latter, or any right at all, except to 
 her Mexican poflefTions, was not brought forward, 
 or in any manner agitated, by either party j and 
 that the Duke of Leeds, by figning this conven- 
 tion, fecured to us a continuance of peace, main- 
 tained our np.tional good faith and honor, and 
 obtained for us a valuable and undifputed benefit, 
 by the furrender of what we could not keep with- 
 out a violation of pofitive engagements, and v;hich, 
 if kept, whilil it v/as produdive of only doubtful 
 advantages to the nation, expo fed us to perpetual 
 jealoufies, and to the hazard of being involved in 
 im unjufl and consequently a difgraceful war. ^ 
 . - .^ •■ - »^- ■ . Oit 
 
( 79 ) 
 
 On chefe grounds, and thefe alone, the Con- 
 vention was founded. By them, thcrctbre, the 
 provifions contained in it muft be conftrucd. 
 
 We accordingly find the two Kings exprelTing 
 their mutual deiire, to confolidacc the friendlhip 
 lubfilling between them and their kingdoms, and 
 to prevent every occafion of future millinderltand - 
 ingi and for this purpole Oating, that they hail 
 thought proper to fettle, by a new convention^ 
 the points which might be produdliveoffLich in- 
 convenience. What thele points were I have al- 
 ready fliewn. They were the celfion of the Mof- 
 quito Shore, for which Lord Grantham had en- 
 gaged, and the prevention of the contraband 
 trade carried on bv the Ens^lifli lettlers there. 
 For this purpofe, his Majelty agreed that liis 
 fubjeifls (liould evacuate the Mofquito Shore, ;is 
 well as the Continent in general, and the iflands 
 adjacent; that is, as I before obferved, the dil- 
 triil lying between the Mofquiro Shore and the 
 boundary of the Honduras didricl, with a varie- 
 ty of iflands dependent upon it, which, by thede- 
 iinitive treaty of peace, the Engl ifli had agreed 
 to abandon. 
 
 Should i\\c Advocate cf the Ccur* ofSpabi, who 
 cxercifes that honourable function by pubiiflKng 
 in the General Advertifer, deny the truth of this 
 interpretation, I refer him to his oJienftbU colleu^uey 
 the Spanijh Advocate ex rjficio, the Marquis Del 
 Campo ; who negotiated this convention on the 
 part of his Catholic Majefty. Let that AmbafJa- 
 dor be alked whether my interpretation, or wh.e- 
 ther any other be the truth i let him dy, whe- 
 ther aiiv thing more than the Mofquiio Shore, 
 and the Continent lying between tliat and tiiC 
 boundary marked gui for the Lii^lilh lettlers on 
 
 tlic 
 
( 80 ) 
 
 the Honduras coafl, was in his contemplation 
 when this treaty was made. I know the perfo- 
 nal honour of that Minifter, and cortfidentlv reft 
 the queftion on the anfwer hefhall give. There 
 cannot indeed be a more convincing proof of the 
 jiiftice of my interpretation, than the total filence 
 both of the Marquis Del Campo, and of the 
 Court he reprefents on this fubje^l, from the firft 
 moment of the prefent rtegociation. They were 
 too well aware of the futility offuch an argument, 
 even to think of bringing it forward. So abfurd 
 a pretenfion was left to the Englijh Advocate of the 
 Court of Spain, who, rifquing no charadter by an 
 over-officious zeal to ferve a foreign Court, ven- 
 tured to obtrude on the publick a pretenfion, 
 whichthatcourtitfelf would have blufhed to ad- 
 vance. 
 
 Let the publick now determine, whether, by 
 the Convention of 1786, the whole Continent of 
 America was ceded to Spain j and whether the 
 territory at Nootka was thereby acknowledged to 
 be the property of that Power. 
 
 Permit me. Sir, to offer only one obfervation: 
 more, on the mode of reafoning adopted by this 
 writer, before I proceed to invefligate the other 
 charges which he has thought proper to bring for- 
 ward on this occafion. 
 
 It cannot be forgotten, that, in his compari- 
 fon between the affairs of Falkland's Iflands and 
 Nootka Sound, the Spanifh Emijfary founded his 
 argument on the following affertion~-viz. " In 
 ** the affair of Falkland's Iflands we certainly 
 •* were the firll aggreffors j in the affair of Nootka, 
 " Spain is confeffcdly the aggreffor. " Thefe are 
 his own words. I wifh to afk this ingenious writer, 
 how he is able to reconcile this affertion with that 
 4. he 
 
( 8i ) 
 
 he has fince made, viz. thaty by the convcnficn of 
 1786, 'uje acbiowledged the territory at Noctkci 
 8ound to belong to the Court of Spain? Were this 
 true, the former propoficion mud be falfe ; for, if 
 we had lehnquiflied all right to Nootka, the Spa- 
 niards, by eje<5ling the Britiih fettlers, could not 
 have been guilty o^ an aggrefiion 5 the law of na- 
 tions, as well as common fenfe and daily uMge, 
 giving permifllon to every nation, as well as to 
 every individual, to prevent the enchroachmcnt 
 of thofe, who have no rie^ht to interfere with what 
 is their known and acknowledged property. la 
 fuch a cafe, it v;ould even have been incumbent 
 on us to have given a fatisfadlion to Spain, inflead 
 of infixing upon one from her j and our 
 queftion of Right, which this acute reafoner fays 
 we ought to have coupled with our demand of 
 fatisfaction, would not have exifted. If, on the 
 other hand, he fliall perfilt in faying, diat the 
 Spaniards were the aggreflbrs at Nootka, his fe- 
 cond propofition mult full to the ground i for, to 
 conftitute their aggrefllon, our right to fettle there 
 mull previouUy be admitted : and, in that cafe, 
 it is impoITible that we could, by the convention 
 of 17S6, have acknowledged the territory at 
 Nootka to belong to Spain. 
 
 To the choice of thefe two propofition.s, and to 
 get out of a difficulty pcrfefftly fubverfive of hl'j 
 whole argument, I leave the Spanijh Jd-vocate. 
 The impartial public will no doubt treat, wiih a 
 merited indignation and contempt, the aboicise 
 though mifchicvous arts he has pieiumed to em- 
 ploy, for thepurpofcof warping their ji'.dgmcnrs, 
 and lending them into an erroneous ccnclufion. 
 On a matter bf as high importance, with icijiedt 
 bodi to our inf^reRs and our honour, as ever en- 
 
 XT 
 
 ■■00 -«4 
 
( 8i ) 
 
 engaged the Councils, or called for the unani- 
 moi exertions of England. 
 
 V E R U S. , 
 
 Number XVII. 
 
 S I R, 
 
 H E Advocate of the Court of Spain, after 
 trying to evince the injuflice of our proceedings 
 hi the prefent bulinefs, goes on with his attempt 
 to prove that, whether our right be good or bad, 
 a fettlennent at Nootka, or on any part of the 
 North Weft Coaft of America, is improper and 
 difgracefuj to this country, as being the bafis of 
 a contraband trade with the Spanifh Colonies, 
 and as being an encroachment on the territories, 
 which his patron Count Florida Blanca has 
 thought proper, in his Royal Mafter*s name, to 
 aflert to be the fole property of Spain. 
 
 How far either of thefc proportions is foun- 
 ded, I now proceed to (hew. My prefent Letter 
 will be confined to the firft of thefe aflTertions, viz. 
 That a Britilh Settlement at Nootka is improper 
 and difgraccful to this country, as being the 
 bafis of a contraband trade with the Spanifh 
 Colonies. This the writer undertakes to prove, 
 by a feries of arguments, well worthy the atten- 
 tion of the publick, as fhewing the true charac- 
 ter both of his EmiJJaryy and of his Employ crs^ 
 and the anxiety with which they endeavour to 
 catch at every circumflance, which can be con- 
 verted 
 
( 8j ) 
 
 veftcd into an engine of mifchief to this country, 
 or be made a means of aflfefling its credit and 
 profperity. Unfortunately, however, for the 
 very creditable caufe in which this gentleman is 
 engaged, the greater part of his arguments are, 
 by fome ftrange accident, tolerably ar.fwered by 
 the paflages immediately following th^^m. Thi^ 
 accident is the more extraordinary, as it un- 
 doubtedly was not the effeft of defip^n. 't can- 
 not be fuppofed, that he, who atrempts to llab 
 his country, would willingly apply a balm to the 
 "wound. \Ve muft therefore attribute this cirr 
 cumftance to the nature of tiie caufe itfclf, in 
 which this Writer is employed j which, from its 
 radical abiurdity, induces involuntary contra- 
 diftions ; and of which the auxiliary arguments, 
 congenial to the fyftem which gives them bii th, 
 become parricides of the alTertion from which , 
 they fpring. 
 
 As a proof of thisjl bring the ground or hafis of 
 the charge which the Spanifli Emiffiiry has 
 thought proper to advance againfl: Mr. Pitt ; on 
 which he founds the decent accufatir^n of that Mi- 
 nifter having ^^r^^ to avow a fmuggling trade by 
 his conduS on the Nootka bufinefs. This 
 ground is no other than the aflTcrtion attributed to 
 the Lord Chancellor—" that it was. ncceirury to 
 " relinquifli the Mofquito fhore, becaufc it was 
 " the depot of a contraband trade againft the 
 " commercial and known laws of Spain, which 
 *' no Britifh Minlfter could avow in the f.icc of 
 Parliament, or in negotiation with any forcig:i 
 power whatfoever." 
 
 This ground of accujation the public!: will rea- 
 dily perceive is, in itfelf, the mod compleat an- 
 fwer to all the abufe which the Spanijh Fjn'rfJ'ary 
 - ••. : M 2 throws 
 
 (C 
 
 cc 
 
( U ) 
 
 throws upon the prcfent Adminlilratlorij for 
 having given up the iVIorquito Ihore by the con- 
 vention (>r 1786. If \vc analyts the propofition, 
 i; is merely this. A Hritifh Miniltrr cannot 
 maintain a trade dircclly and pofitively contra- 
 UhkI.. — 'I'he Mofquito fettlement was the depot 
 of fiich a trade-— a Britifli miniiier therefore 
 could not maintain it. If this be true, the cef- 
 fion oft'ic Mofquito fliore was indifpenfably ne- 
 ccii'ary. If ii were neceilary, the abufe thrown 
 upon thofe who ceded it, is wortliy only of the 
 i'-'panijb /lihccate. 
 
 The aflertion of the Lord Chancellor which 
 is thus brought as ?i ground of accujation^ though 
 it fails as to one point, may pofTibly however gp- 
 ply to another \ it may, as this writer infifts, be 
 ^n unanfvvcrable argument againfl the forma- 
 tion of an eftablilhment at Nootka. For, fays 
 he, a contraband trade is carried on with the 
 Spaniards on the other fide of Cape Hornj and 
 mull nor this trade be greatly increaled by fuch 
 a fettlement ? and does not a fimilar contraband 
 trade flourifh between our Weft India I Hands 
 and the Kaftern Coaft of Spanifli America, and 
 would not the fame oppoi tunitiesproduce the effefl-s 
 on the oppofite fhore of the Continent ? To this 
 I anfwer-— It may be true, that a contraband 
 trade is carried on with the Spaniards on the 
 other fide of Cape Horn, and between our Weft 
 India I Hands and the Eaftern Coafls of Spanifh 
 America ; but it does not follow, that fuch a 
 trade mud be greatly increafed by a fettlement at 
 Nootka ; or, if fuch a confequence v/ere in a de- 
 gree probable, that it would be a leafon for not 
 maintaining a Biitifii ft ttlement there. I wifh, 
 yi my turn, to aflc this karaed geographer, whe- 
 ther 
 
( 85 ) 
 
 tlicr he is of opinion that, becaufc a contrabnnd 
 trade is carried on between the Coalls of SulVcx 
 and Normandy, and between Cornwall and the 
 irie of Guernley, (''ch a trade would be gready 
 incrcafed by a ietrleiuent made at Tripoli, or in 
 the Canary inands---in the Azores, or on the 
 «oaft of Morocco ? He probably will laugh at the 
 abfurdity of fiich a queftion, and will alfure mc 
 that fuch an apprehenfion would be in the hjgheft: 
 degree ridiculous. I admit the qucllion to be 
 abfurd, and the apprelieiifion to be ridiculous ; 
 yet are they p'ec[[ely his oivn qiiejlion and his 01071 
 apprehenj.cn. The four places I have mentioned 
 are each of them twenty degrees, or twelve hun- 
 dred miles, fiom the coalc of Kngland ; a difi-ance 
 furely fufficient to '-^bviarc every lealonable fear of 
 a fmuggling crade being cdi ricd on, at leafl: to any 
 confidi-iablr extent betwceii diem. The diilance 
 between Nood^a Sound, and tlie nioft northern ly 
 part of the VVellcrn oalt of Ame; ica occupied by 
 the Spaniards, is precfely the fame \ the danger 
 of a contraband trade being carried on between 
 them is therefore at leafl not greater than the 
 former ; though, a^ the four places I have men- 
 tioned arc fruitful, and productive of variou*; 
 commodities, extremely acceptable in England, 
 and liable to heavy duiies, the danger of a con- 
 traband trade between them and our coafl muH 
 be much greater, than it can be between the 
 Spanifn Weil American fettlcments and Nootka, 
 which, fo far as we know, produces nothing ve- 
 ry valuable, except furs, whicli cannot be in 
 nuich etlimation in a hot country, and of courle 
 cannot be a tempting or lucrative objec^l to tht 
 Spanifn fniuggler. 
 
 So much for the probability of a contraband 
 
 traiic 
 
^. 
 
 V] 
 
 ^. 
 
 ^P;. 
 
 
 '/ 
 
 IMAGE EVALUATION 
 TEST TARGET {MT-3) 
 
 1.0 
 
 I.I 
 
 ■-IM 
 
 Mi, 
 
 IL25 II 1.4 
 
 127 
 20 
 
 1.6 
 
 Photographic 
 
 Sciences 
 
 Corporation 
 
 • 
 
 /, 
 
 .* 
 
 % 
 
 
 
 r/.i 
 
 m 
 
 iV 
 
 (V 
 
 N> 
 
 ^9)^ 
 
 
 
 '<y.^ ^^ 
 
 73 \;/ST MAIN STIIE<«T 
 
 W»-riSTEK,K Y. MbOO 
 
 ;7I6) 872-4S03 
 
■ 
 
 
 /a 
 6 
 
 t 
 
 h^ 
 
 ci^ 
 
( 86 ) 
 
 trade with the Spanifh Colonies being ificrcafed 
 by a Britifh fettlennent at Nootka. 1 have faid, 
 that, were fuch a confequence in a degree 'probable, 
 it would not be a reafon for not maintaining a 
 Britifh fettlement there, ^he Spanijb Advocate, 
 who grounds his charge againft Mr. Pitt on the 
 bafis of his having encouraged a contraband trade 
 by avowing fuch a fettlement, is of the fame opi^ 
 Tiion, He even goes much farther than I ihould 
 ever think of going, and to a point aflliredly un- 
 juftifiable i for he extends my do6lrine to the cafe 
 of a fettlement, adiually the depot cf a contraband 
 trade^ againft the commercial and known laws of 
 Spain. I have no doubt but that this ingenious 
 "writer, who already appears (from his two laft 
 publications) to be extremely fore, and to wince 
 under the force of my arguments, will exclaim 
 againft fuch an affertion, and appeal very earneftly 
 againft my want of candour. As my purpofe in 
 addrefling the publick is not that of litigating 
 Juch queftions "^ixk^Juch an adverfary, but merely 
 to Ihe 7 the fallacious arts of tiic enemies nurtured 
 in our own bofom, and to counteract the 
 poifon they endeavour to inftill into the 
 minds of my fellow-citizens, I fhall neither con- 
 defcend to any fuch altercation with him, nor 
 adopt any other mode for proving my afiertion, 
 than that of producing his own words, as pub- 
 lilhed in the General Advertifer of Wednel^Jay 
 the I ft of September. 
 
 In that publication, the writer, having quoted 
 the Lord Chancellor's aiTertion already mentio- 
 ned, as the bafis of his charge againft Mr. Pitt, 
 proceeds in tkefe v;ords — , • , 
 
 cc 
 
 Wc 
 
« 
 
 fC 
 
 (( 
 
 C( 
 
 *.< 
 
 « 
 
 tc 
 
 <c 
 
 ( 87 ) 
 
 " We do not hold this arguqient to be quite 
 fathifa6bory, however fpecious a fhew it may 
 bear of liberal honefly. It is to be feared, that 
 as long as we continue to enjoy our prefent fu- 
 periority in manufa6lures, fuch a principle 
 would nearly go the length of reftriding us 
 from having any fettlement conterminous with 
 any other European colony. We are not 
 guarantees of the commerce and revenues of 
 rival nations againft our own fubje(5ts. Every 
 " State mud be the guardian of its own laws," 
 
 I thank the writer for this doftrine, and I 
 adopt it, as confirming my arguments and deci- 
 dedly overturning his own. There is not a 
 doubt but that, by this mode of realbning, our. 
 fettlement at Nootka was highly proper, and 
 that the prefent Adminiftration aded ftridly well 
 in avowing it. Were the reverfe the truth, all 
 our Weft Indies Iflands, all our polTeffions in 
 Canada, every eftablifhment hereafter to be 
 made either on the North American Coaft, or 
 in the Iflands in the South Sea, would be illegal, 
 and we iliould be under the obligation of giving 
 them up. Upon the fame principle, we Ihouid 
 be bound to iurrendcr to France all thofe parts 
 of the Englifli coaft, from which a contraband 
 trade with her dominions is carried on; and 
 France, in return, would be under an equal ob- 
 ligation to give up to us the correfponding parts 
 of her dominions. A fimilar reciprocity would 
 exift between England and Holland; and the 
 principL- would equiilly apply to England and 
 America, as a contraband trade is in all proba- 
 bility carried on between thofe countries. The 
 evident abfurdity of fuch propofitions is too 
 
 glaring 
 
m 
 
 ( 88 ) 
 
 ft 
 
 laring to admit of a comment ; and yet all this 
 follows dircdlly from the argumcnf of the Spanijb 
 Advocate himfclf. 
 
 In this inftance, however, that Emijfary is 
 more than ordinarily unfortunate j as it happens, 
 that the conduft of Adminiftration with regard 
 to the Settlement at Nootka, and the afTertion of 
 the Lord Chancellor in the Houfe of Peers, are 
 both ftriftly and compleatly right. A Settle- 
 ment formed for national and commercial pur- 
 pofes is an obje6l to be maintained, although in- 
 cidentally it may become the m.eans of exerCifing 
 a fmiiggling trade with other counirieG : a Settle- 
 ment made for the exprefs -purpofe of carrying on a 
 contraband trade, and from which fuch a trade is 
 carried on to fuch an extent as to manifeft thuc 
 cxprefs purpofe, is difgraceful to the national ho- 
 nour, and ought not to be fupported either in 
 Parliament or in negotiation. It follows there- 
 fore that, on the firft of thefe principles, the con- 
 du6t of Adminiftration in avowing the Settle- 
 ment at Nootka was proper and dtferving of na- 
 tional fupport; and on the fecond it is equally 
 clear, that the ceflion of the Mofquito Siiore was 
 a meafure founded in juilice, and a regard to the 
 honour of this country. In both thefe inftanccs, 
 therefore, his Majelly's prefent Minitlers adk'd 
 well, and in a manner which proved them to be 
 deferving of the confidence repofed in them by 
 their Sovereign and the pubhck. And this un- 
 deniable confequence refuits, diretfly and i-nmc^ 
 diately from the argument of the Spanijh ./fu^vo^ 
 cate himfelf. What his er.ploycrs may think of 
 this circumllance, is a matter for their and his 
 confideration. To themfclves, therct\:)rr, I Icr.ve 
 
( 89 ) 
 
 it to be fettled i as I alfo do to the publick to 
 determine, whether a fufficient anfwer has been 
 given to this Spanijh Emijfary^s daring accufa- 
 tion. , 
 
 V E R US/ 
 
 Number XVIII. 
 
 SIR, ^ 
 
 _ HE faireil way of proving that our Settlement 
 at Nootl cannot be deemed an Incroachment 
 on the Territories of Spain, will be to confider 
 the Spanilh Declaration or Manifefto of the 4th 
 of June, which that Court has, with a confide- 
 rable diligence, taken care to difperfe, both in 
 this country, and in the different Courts of Eu- 
 rope, with a view undoubtedly to influence the 
 opinions of men in its favor, and to make an ap- 
 peaiance of having fomething like a ground for 
 its violent proceeding towards Engknd. A dil- 
 cuffion of this fort forms indeed a part of my 
 original plan J as, oil this Manifefto, the Spanijh 
 Advocate founds a confiderable portion of his falla- 
 cious reafoning. ^ '• ;. -1 ' 
 
 TheSpanifh Court begins with aflerting, that, 
 by all the Treaties made between Spain and the 
 other European powers, particularly with En- 
 gland, during a courfe of more than two hun- 
 dred years, the cxclufive navigation, commerce 
 and property of the Weft Indies has been fecu- 
 red to her; an afiertion pofitively untrue in the 
 
( 9° ) 
 
 general fcnfe of the words here ufed. The ex- 
 ckifive Navigation, Commerce, and Property 
 of the Well- Indies (that is, 1 fuppofe, of Ame- 
 rica) never was fecured to Spain. Iff however, 
 it be meant by this paflage to aflert, that this fe- 
 curity was limited to the Spanijh fojfejfwns in 
 America, the aOertion is certainly true j and it 
 is alio true, that the Englijh ylmerican pojfejftons 
 were fecured equally, and by the very fame in- 
 llrument, namely, the Treaty of 1667. This 
 aflertion, therefore, proves nothing in favor of the 
 prefent Spanifli claim j nor can even an inference 
 of that fort be drawn from it, unlefs a proof fhall 
 be advanced, that, in the polTeflions fo fecured 
 to Spain, the territory of Nootka was included. 
 If the Spaniards can prove this fa£l, we certainly 
 cannot have a better right to Nootka, than we 
 have to Peru or Mexico; if they cannot, fome 
 other reafon mud be afligned, before this coun- 
 try can admit fuch a conclufion. 
 
 Apparently fenfible of this truth, the Court of 
 Spain proceeds to inform the world, that, by the 
 8th Article of the Treaty of Utrecht (fubfcribed 
 by almoll all the powers of Europe) England and 
 Spain declared it to have been eftablifhed by 
 common confcnt, and as a principal and funda- 
 mental rule, that the navigation and exercife of 
 commerce in the Spanifli Weft-Indies, Ihould 
 fubfifl: in the fame ftate it was in the time of his 
 Catholic Majefty Charles II. and that this rule 
 ihould in future be obferved inviolably, and 
 without contradiction ; that Spain, on her part, 
 fhculd never grant to any other nation, either a 
 permifiion, or the means of navigating or trading 
 in her An.erican poflefljons; and diat fl:e Ihould 
 never fell, cede, exchange, or otherwife engage 
 ^«v^ -* to 
 
(C 
 
 <c 
 
 <c 
 
 ( 9« ) 
 
 to any other nation, any of her dopn'mions or 
 pofTefTions there j ihat, in order to pi efeive en- 
 tire the Spanifh dominion in America, England 
 voluntarily offered that Court her powei"ful aniit- 
 ance, to re-eftablifli her American poflefnons 
 on the footing abovementioned. 
 
 It may be proper to obferve, that the real 
 words of this engagement are, " That the antient 
 limits of the Spanifh dominions, in the Weft- 
 Indies, be reftored and fettled, as they Hood in 
 the time of King Charles 11." Admiiting 
 therefore this engagement, it cvkiently cannot ex- 
 tend beyond thofe antient limits, and cannot be 
 conftrued to apply to more modern difcoveries. 
 The Court of Spain, cfcourfc, in order to avail 
 herieif ofthel reaty fhe thus quotes, muft ncccfiurily 
 prove what was the extent of thofe limits, and that 
 they a(ftually covered the Nootka Territ jry. This 
 is indifpenfable, as otherwife the engagement can- 
 not poifibly apply. Aware of this necefilty, the 
 Court of Spain endeavours to afcertain thefe fli6ls, 
 and to demonftrate the extent and nature of the 
 dominions and rights in quelfion. The obvious 
 difficulty of this attempt (at leaft fo far as at all 
 applies to the matter in difpute) plainly appears 
 from the mode of proof fhe findsher(('f obliged to 
 adopt. Inllead of demonftrating an acflual 
 pofTeffion of the Wellern Coaft of America by 
 occupation, and by an acktrwledgcd Sovereignty^ 
 which muft have been eafy, and of which there 
 rnuft have been indifputable and well known evi^ 
 dence, had fuch a circumflance exifted ; the 
 Court of Spain fatisfies herfelf v/ith general affer- 
 tions, and with a mafs of vague and undefined 
 claims, unfupported by dates, authorities, or 
 any thing which, either in law or in ccmmon 
 
 N 2 knfe, 
 
 
( 9i ) 
 
 fenfc, can give them authenticity. With this 
 view, fhe brings forward, in loofe and general 
 terms, and without attempting to particularize 
 any thing, ift. Authentic Documents ; ad, 
 Antient and repeated laws j 3d, Royal Cedulas j 
 4th, Particular inftruments of Government ; 
 5th, The laws of Difcovery i 6th, Other formal 
 a6ts of polTelTion, in the time of King Charles 
 II. 7th, Tht great extent of her limits, her 
 navigation and dominion on the Continent of 
 America and the adjoining ifles and feas in the 
 Pacific Ocean : though of thefe documents, laws, 
 cedulas, &c. &c. not a fingle iota is Ipecified, 
 nor is there the fmallcft ground afforded forjudg- 
 ing either of their authenticity, or their applying 
 in any degree to the matter in quellion. It is 
 indeed perfectly impoflible that any inftrument 
 or memorial, proving this affertion of the Spa- 
 niards, ihould be in exiftence ; as will decidedly 
 appear in the courfe of my prefqnt inveftigation. 
 The reafons of that Court, for thus merely giving 
 a lift of inftruments which, if they exift, contain 
 nothing upon the fubjefb, will, perhaps, be 
 more evident, than the propriety and decency of 
 fuch an enumeration ; which appears to be a 
 iliallow artifice, to impofe upon the general opi- 
 nion an idea of fome evidence, which neither does 
 nor can exift. Such an enumeration is, in fa6t, 
 the moft convincing proof of the futility of the 
 claim which it is brought to fupport ; for, as the 
 ilipulation contained in the Treaty of Utrecht 
 has never been brought in queftion, and as the 
 only point in agitation is, whether Nootka 
 Sound, and the other places occupied by the 
 Englilh, were or were not the property o his 
 Catholic Majefty, exclufively of the Eng ifh 
 
 or 
 
( 93 ) 
 
 or of any otb.er nation, the obvious mode of eRa* 
 blifliing fuch a clainn was by a proof of the occu- 
 pancy and poffeflion of the Spanifl;i Ciown, a(5lu- 
 ally extending to the fcttkmcnt in tjucdion, and 
 that too anttcedentlyy to any occup^incy or icciic- 
 rnentof the hnghih. The proof of fuch a cir^ 
 cumftance nnult have been finiple in its nature, as 
 depending folely on a matter of fad. If jMOved, 
 of courfe the light of Spain to the territory in 
 queftion would have been tfiablillicd, ar.d the 
 only remaining points would h jve been the infulc 
 offered to the Britifh flag, the rcR'.cution of tlie 
 captured veflels, and the incien^nification of the 
 parties injured. Infbcad of thi.s, hov,evcj-, the 
 Spanifh Court, aware of the Impoilibiiity of efta- 
 blilhing fuch a propofition, taices refuge in gene* 
 ral terms, and evades the only point at ifiue, by 
 recurring to matters totally toreiga to the prefenc 
 queftion, and which the Court of St. James's 
 .never attempted to difpute. 
 
 The Court of Spam, however, in the next 
 paragraph, endeavours to fupply the want of 
 proof by an affeition of great extent. Slic de- 
 clares that, in fpite of any attempt whicli m:i7 
 have been made on her American pofjefiiur.s by 
 adventurers or pirates, flic has alv/ays niaintaincd 
 her pofiefTion \ and that, with this view, ihe has 
 employed her (hips in coafling, and in renev.ing 
 the marks of Sovereignty in proper places, b/ 
 leaving every v/here indifputable tokens ot her 
 dominion along the whole coait, as fir as the 
 commencement' of the RuiTian fettkinents, or, iii 
 other words, from Terra del Fuegc;, in latitude 
 55 fouth, to beyond Prince William's Sound, in 
 latitude 6i north ; a dillrict comprehending it > 
 degrees of latitude, the exclufive pofiefiion of 
 
 which 
 
( 94 ) 
 
 which (he infifts upon, in the firfl place on the 
 reafon above-ftatcd, and, in the fecond, on the 
 ground of a tranfaflion which the Manitefto pro- 
 ceeds to relate. 
 
 In confequence of information being received 
 within thefe few ytais of a contraband trade ha- 
 ving been carried on in thefe feasjby fome adven- 
 turers, the Vice Roy of Peru and Mexico, ap- 
 prehenfive that thefe new and illegal enterprizes 
 might end in ufurpations injurious to Spain, fent 
 out, as It is alledged, frequent expeditions to vifit 
 thefe feas, coalb and iQands. Finding in the 
 courfe of thefe, that fome Ruflian veffels had 
 attempted to extend their commerce and efta- 
 blifhments over part of the Spanifh dominion, 
 the Court of Spain immediately complained to 
 the Court of St. Peterfburgh of this violation, * 
 recommending, at the fame time, that their n?ivi- 
 gators fhould abf. ain from touching at any part 
 of America, " hich the Spaniards had been the 
 firft pofTeflTors, ^^nd which they ftated to extend 
 beyond Prince William's Sound) in order to pre- 
 vent difputes, and to preferve the exifting har- 
 mony and friendfliip between the two Courts. 
 To this the Court of Ruflia anfwered, that Ihe 
 had long fince iffued orders to her navigators at 
 Kamfchatica not to eftablifli themfelves in any 
 place belonging to any other power, which or- 
 ders (he fuppoled had been obeyed j were the cafe 
 however, othervvife, and fliould Spain meet any 
 Ruflians in any part of America Ijelonging to her, 
 the Emprefs defired the King of Spain would 
 prevent fuch a pradlice in an amicable manner. 
 
 To this anfwer the Spaniards replied, that, 
 though the Court of Madrid was defirous of ter- 
 minating amicably every tranfadtion of this nature, 
 
 (lie 
 
 i 
 
( 95 ) 
 
 ihe could not be anfwcrablc for the confequenccs, 
 ihould any of her officers in thofe latitudes, t^ke 
 the meafurcs to prevent fuch ellabliihments oa 
 the Spanilh Territories, which they were juftifi- 
 ed in doirig by Law, and by their general inllruc- 
 tions, founded on treaties. 
 
 Thus, according to the Spanifh account, en- 
 ded the tranfa(ftion i an event certainly of l^nall 
 importance either to this country or to the pre- 
 fent quellion ; as it proves nothing more, than 
 that Spain afierted an extravagant claim, which 
 Ruflia did not chufeto dilpute. For it does not 
 prove that the claim of Spain was founded; not 
 a fingle fad tending that way having been addu- 
 ced i nor does it afford an argument why Eng- 
 land, having in fa6t the rights of occupancy and 
 pofieflion at Nootka, and at other places on the 
 weftern coaft of America, fhould imitate the con- 
 duct of Ruflia, who afierted no claim of any 
 kind to the places vifited by her fubjeds. The 
 public will alfo perceive, that this tranlaflion 
 falls very Ihort of eftablilhing the exclufive right 
 of Spain to the whole coart, from Terra del Fue* 
 go to Piince William's Sound; as, admitting the 
 fad that (he adually did pofTefs beyond ajdifpute 
 both thefe places (which it is moll certain Ihe 
 did not) it cannot follow that the whole interme- 
 diate Ipace was her's alio. There is no principle 
 either of national law or of common fenfe which 
 can be brought in lavour of a claim to the pof- 
 feflion of a vvTiole continent, from the pofTcifioa 
 of any component part of it : the neceflary con- 
 fequence being that abfurdity, v/hich I fully dif- 
 culicd in a former Letter, namely, that the Firft 
 pofleflion of any part of America muft, in fuch 
 cafe, induce a right tg tlie Whole of the continent in 
 
 every 
 
( gs ) 
 
 every direcllon ; apropofition too ndiculousever 
 to become a matter of ferious dfJcuflion. The 
 inanifclloof thtr Court of Spain has not, there- 
 foic, yet proved tlie only point in queftion, the 
 prior occupancy nnd pofTefiion of the Nootka 
 terriiory. Aware, however, of the weak ground 
 on which fhe had Hated her pretenfions, that 
 Court proceeds to adduce another aflertion ap- 
 parently more decifive of the prefcnt queftion, 
 but equally vague and unfupported by evidence. 
 She declares that flie was ignorant of any elta- 
 blifiiments having been made or attempted by 
 the F.nglifh on the noith v/ell ccaft of America, 
 till iMr. iMartincz, with a Spanilh fquadron, made 
 theufual vifit, for the purpofe of conveyingyw^r- 
 iours to the port of ^u Lauienr, that is, Nootka, 
 ivhere he and other Spanifh fubjedls had fre- 
 quently been, to repeat the j^^s of PoJfeJJion re- 
 lative to the antient limits and difcoveries. 
 
 The conveyance of fuccours undoubtedly im- 
 plies a pre-exifting fetilcment— a repetition of adts 
 ofpoflfefllon is a proof of poflefllon having been 
 taken---and the application of thofc afls of pof- 
 lefiion to untient limits is a prefumption of thofe 
 limits having been long known. On thefc 
 three grounds tlie quefcion may be fecureJy reftcd; 
 it being certain that, no fuch fecclement having 
 been made, no fuccours could have been carried 
 to it by M. Martinez— -that no pofieflion of 
 Nootka having been taken by the Spaniards, 
 ads ofpolTcfiion could not have been frequently 
 repeated by them— -and that the limits of the 
 North Weft Coalt of America, between Cape 
 Blanco in latitude 43, and fome harbours in 
 latitude ^^^ having not been afcertained by the 
 Spaniards,- the application of repeated ads of 
 ^ : ^ : . poITeflioa 
 
( 97 ) 
 
 never have 
 
 beea made to 
 
 pofTeflioil could 
 them. 
 
 That Nootka and the adjacent territory could 
 not have been an antient polfcfnon of Spun, and 
 that even the whole of the North Well Coaft of 
 America, beyond the latitude ';f 43, was unknown 
 to the Spaniards previous to the year 17 'jy, ap- 
 pears beyond a doubt from their own authority, 
 and from the evidence thev themfelves have 
 given us, by a celebrated publication of their 
 Own, intituled, ^* i^oticia de California," a book 
 of high authority, printed in that year at Madrid, 
 dedicated to the King of Spain, and nubliPned 
 Avith the approbation of the Council of -I'le In- 
 dies and with all formal licenfcs. The author, 
 whofe avowed purpofc, and whofe exprcfs ob- 
 ject i<- v,'as to ftate the Spaniui prcienfions, and 
 to defcribe the nature and extent of their pOiTef- 
 fions in that part of the world, concludes his 
 work with thefe memorable words ;-— " To 
 '^ the queflion, what fcas, what coails, what 
 " rivers, lakes, provinces, nations and people 
 *' are there in North America, from llv^ faitheft 
 extremity atCalifornia, &c. tot'ie North, for 
 a fpacc of fi fey degrees ? i. e. in all the great 
 (pace of Am.erica, which in cur map ive inclcfe 
 with a dott:d line ? (beginning on the Weft 
 Coafl:, about the latitude of 43 North) except 
 wliat is knov/n on the fide of our Atlantic 
 ocean, and the little v/hich the Ruffian naviga- 
 " tions have afcertained to us on the fide of the 
 '*' South Sea? I arSwcr readily y in one word, IG- 
 " NORO.— NESCIO. — -I KNOW NOT. 
 , This is a pofitivc proof, that the Spaniards 
 were totally unacquainted with any part of this coaft 
 beyond the latitude of 43^ north, previous to 
 
 O the 
 
 iC 
 
 cc 
 
 <( 
 
 cc 
 
 cc 
 
 cc 
 
 cc 
 
 1 
 
( 98 ) 
 
 the year 1757, and it alfo completely proves the 
 impoflibility of thecircumftance abovementioned, 
 viz. the aflcrtion of their exclu five claim to, and 
 including, Prince William's Sound; as this 
 author exprcfsly declares his total ignorance of 
 even the exillence of fuch a place, except on the 
 authority of Kuflian navigators, whom confe- 
 quendy he admits, in contra-diftindiion to the 
 Spaniards, to have been the difcoverers of it. 
 
 There is alfo a negative proof, nearly as 
 llroDg, that they did not know, and certainly 
 that they did not poflefs any part of that diftridb 
 between the 43d and 55th degrees of north lati- 
 tude, previous to the tranfadlion which occa- 
 fioned the prefent difpute. In the year 1775, 
 the Spaniards, as we are told, vifited and exa- 
 mined feveral harbours between the latitudes of 
 55° and 58° north; but they did not vifit any 
 part of the coaft between 43° and 55° north la- 
 titude, between which Nootka and the other 
 places occupied by the Engliih are fituated, nor 
 have they ever diredlly afierted fuch a circum- 
 ftance. The whole account ever given of thefe 
 parts was that of our countryman Captain Cook, 
 in the narrative of his voyage in the year 1778. 
 The difcovery and firft poireflion of Nootka and 
 the adjacent coaft by this great circum-navigator 
 was publickly announced by him to the world ; 
 and remained uncontradided, until the Sparniards, 
 for the firft time, in the prefent year, thought'pro- 
 per to juftify the violence offered to his Majefty's 
 ilibjeds by a bold afTertion, unfounded in fadt, 
 and unfupported by evidence. 
 
 As a corroborating proof of the truth of this 
 
 ftatement, it further appears, from Capt. Mears's 
 
 , , -, Narrative, 
 
( 99 ) 
 
 Narrative, that, when he firft vifited that coad, 
 no ei'lablifliment of the Spaniards, or of any other 
 European nation, exided there ; that no build- 
 ing was ere6ted, or any other proof of pofleflTion, 
 or of Sovereignty was to be fcen j that he actually 
 purchafed from the natives the tra6l of country 
 on which he raifed a fort, and hoifted the Britifli 
 flag i that he and his people occupied this terri- 
 tory, till the month of May 1789, v/ithout inter- 
 ruption, and without being vifited by the Spani- 
 ards. From all thefe circumftances it evidently 
 refults, 
 
 ift. That the limits of the north-w^eft coaft of 
 America, between the latitude of 43° and 55° 
 had not been afcertained by the Spaniards. 
 
 2d. That Nootka, which lies within t'lefe li- 
 mits, was not a difcovery, ftill lefs a polTcflion of 
 the Spaniards. 
 
 3d. That they confequently could not have re- 
 peated their a6ts of poflTelTion there. 
 
 And 4thly. That the vifit of M. Martinez to 
 that place could not have been for the purpofe of 
 carrying fuccours j the application of that phrafe 
 to a non-exifting fettlement implying an abfur- 
 dity. 
 
 Such then^are the grounds, on which the Court; 
 of Spain finds herfelf obliged to rcR her preten- 
 (ions, and to juftify her conduct to the other pow- 
 ers of Europe, On thefe, liov/cver, flie leems 
 anxious to repel an idea, which might naturally 
 arife froin the exclufive nature of her claim to the 
 navigation, territory and commerce of the Weft- 
 ern Coall of America, and of the Pacific and 
 South Seas j namely— -//;«/ her claim extended to 
 (he whole of that ocean- How any limit can be 
 
 O 2 givea 
 
( 100 ,) 
 
 givca to an cxcluQve claim— what portion of this 
 yaft trad of fea fhe calls her own —and what part 
 ofitfhe leaves to others— -thcfe are queftions 
 which fhe fcems willing not to agitate fn words, 
 while the evident tendency of her proceedings 
 appears to leave no doubt, of her arrogating an 
 exclufive dominion from the coaft of Mexico to 
 the Phillippine Iflands. 
 
 The remainder of this Manifefto contains a 
 kind of narrative of what had paffed between the 
 Courts of London and Madrid, from the firft of- 
 ficial paper delivered by the Marquis del Carinpo 
 to the Duke of Leeds, to the communication 
 made on the i6th of May by Mr. Merry to Count 
 Florida Blanca j intermingled with various oh- 
 fervations tending to prove the juftice, the mo- 
 deration, the pacific fentiments and the veracity, 
 of the court of Spain, and to influence other 
 powers to confider the condudt of his Majefty, as 
 founded on injuftice and a difregard to treaties. 
 
 From this candid invefligation of the Spanifh 
 Manifeflo, let the people of England determine 
 on the validity of the cafe made out by the Court 
 of Spain ; let them fairly decide upon the ground 
 taken by that power, to difpute the right of his 
 Majefty 's fubje£ls to vifit and to fettle in the pla- 
 ces In queflion. That the Spanifh Minifters have 
 already in a great meafure given up this point, 
 by the Declaration and Counter Declaration of 
 ' the 24th of July, I have before fhewn. It re- 
 mains now to be feen, whether they will, in fpite 
 of the weaknefs of their cafe, and after that de- 
 j-eli(5lion, difpute the undoubted right of this 
 country to the territory of Nootka. A few days 
 will probably decide this important queftion. 
 
 I look 
 
ri 
 
 * < 
 
 f 
 
 "^ ( loi ) 
 
 I look with painful anxiety for the deternnination 
 of that and the other objefts of the depending ne- 
 gociation ; deprecating indeed the dreadful alter- 
 native of appealing to the fword for the vindica- 
 tion of our rights ; yet fatisfied of the juftice of 
 our caufe, and confidently looking forward to an 
 honourable and happy termination of a conteft, 
 originating in the violent proceedings and un- 
 founded clainas of the court of Spain. 
 
 ^ V E R U S. 
 
 T H P E N ■! 
 
 1