conformable with truth and honor, wherefore Don Esteban José Martinez seized the vessels of Colnett, the Iphigenia and the Northwest America? What establishment or building did Mr. Meares have, on the arrival of the Spaniards? What territories are those which he says that he purchased from Maquinna, Yuquiniarri, or any other chief of these tribes? With what objects were the crew of the Northwest America transferred to the Columbia; and were ninety-six skins placed on board that ship? Finally, what was the whole amount of skins carried by you to China, and to whom did they belong?*

Your most obedient and assured servant,

JUAN FRANCISCO DE LA BODEGA Y QUADRA. To Captains ROBERT GRAY and JOSEPH INGRAHAM.

(2.)

Reply to the preceding letter.†

NOOTKA SOUND, August 3, 1792.

SIR: Your esteemed favor was handed to us yesterday, requesting from us information relative to the transactions between the English and Spaniards in this sound in the year 1789, which we will do with great pleasure, and impartially, as you request.

On the 5th of May, 1789, when Don Estevan Jose Martinez arrived in Friendly Cove, he found riding at anchor there the Iphigenia only; the ship Columbia being at Mahwhinna, five miles up the sound. The sloop Washington and Northwest America (schooner) were on a cruise. This information is necessary in order to regulate the sequel of the present. After the usual ceremonies of meeting were over, Don Martinez requested the papers of each vessel, and demanded why they were at anchor in Nootka Sound, alleging it belonged to his Catholic Majesty. Captain Viana, who passed as commander of the Iphigenia, answered, they had put in, being in distress, having but little provisions, and in great want of every necessary, such as cables, anchors, rigging, sails, &c.; that they were in daily expectation of the arrival of Captain Meares from Macao to supply them, when they should depart. Captain Meares was expected to return in the same vessel he sailed in from hence in the year 1788, which was under the Portuguese colors, and had a Portuguese captain on board; this vessel with the Iphigenia were said to belong to one Cravalia, or Cavallo, a merchant of Macao, in whose name the Iphigenia's papers were made out. Seeing the Iphigenia was in such want, Don Martinez gave them a temporary assistance, by supplying them with such articles as they were most in want, till the vessel before mentioned should arrive. At this

*The original letter is attached to the Journal of Captain Ingraham, which is now in the office of the Secretary of State, at Washington.

+ Copied from Ingraham's Journal. This letter is now for the first time published. An incorrect synopsis of it may be found in the Journal of Vancouver's Voyage, vol. i, page 389. Some of the discrepancies between which and the letter will be here indicated by the notes.

Vancouver renders this passage as follows: "Captain Viana, of the Portuguese vessel, answered, that he had put in there in distress, to await the arrival of Captain Meares from Macao;" omitting, as he does throughout his synopsis, all the particulars calculated to show the miserable condition of the Iphigenia, and the extent of the assistance afforded by the Spaniards.

time there was not the least suspicion of any misunderstanding or disturbance among us, as Don Martinez was apparently satisfied with the answers each vessel had given to his request.

However, on the 10th of May, the San Carlos, Captain Arrow, [Haro,] arrived. The same day the American officers came to Uquot, or Friendly Cove, to welcome them in, and the next morning, the 11th of May, Don Martinez captured the Iphigenia, and his reason, as we understood, was, that, in their Portuguese instructions, they had orders to capture any English, Spanish, or Russian subjects they met on the northwest coast of America. This, at the time, seemed improbable, as she was a vessel of small force, and it was afterwards found to have been a mistake, owing to their want of a perfect knowledge of the Portuguese language. However, after the vessel was taken, the officers and seamen were divided, some on board the Princesa, and some on board the San Carlos, where they were treated with all imaginable kindness and every attention paid them.

*On the 24th of May the abovementioned mistake being discovered, the Iphigenia was returned again and the Portuguese flag hoisted on board her; the same day, Captain Douglas, with the Portuguese captain and seamen, repaired on board. The Iphigenia, while in possession of the Spaniards, from being a wreck was put in complete order for sea, being calked, rigging and sails repaired, anchors and cables sent from the Princesa, &c. On the 26th Don Martinez supplied them with every kind of provisions they were in need of, for which Captain Douglas gave him bills on Cravallia, the beforementioned merchant of Macao. On the 31st the Iphigenia sailed, and was saluted by the Spanish fort; and the commodore accompanied them out of the harbor, giving every assistance with boats, &c. When Captain Douglas took his leave of the commodore, he declared he should ever entertain a sense of Don Martinez's kindness, deeming his conduct relative to the vessel no more than his duty as a king's officer. Upon the whole, we both believe the Iphigenia's being detained was of infinite service to those who were concerned in her. This must be plain to every one who will consider the situation of the vessel when the Princesa arrived, and the advantages reaped from the supplies and assistance of the Spaniards. The detention, if it may be called so, could be no detriment; for, had nothing taken place, she must have remained two months longer at least, having, as has already been mentioned, put into port, being in distress; of course they could not have sailed till supplies arrived, which was not till July, as will appear in the sequel; whereas, being early fitted as above mentioned, she sailed on the coast northward of Nootka Sound, and there being no other vessel there, they collected upwards of seven hundred sea-otter skins; which has been often represented to us by Captain Douglas and his officers, after our arrival in China. This may suffice for the transactions relative to the Iphigenia. Before Captain Douglas sailed, he gave Don Estevan Martinez a letter to Mr. Funter, master of the schooner Northwest America, telling him, from Cap

* Of the whole of this paragraph, all that is said by Vancouver is: "The vessel and cargo were liberated, and Martinez supplied the Iphigenia's wants from the Princesa, enabling her, by so doing, to prosecute her voyage without waiting for the return of Mr. Meares." The extremity of distress to which the Iphigenia was reduced on her arrival at Nootka, the seven hundred sea-otter skins, and the other advantages derived by her owners from the supplies furnished by the Spanish commandant, are carefully kept out of sight.

justice to his conduct. While speaking of others of your nation, we can never be unmindful of you; your kind reception and treatment of us has made an impression that will not be easily erased; and we hope you will bear in mind how very sincerely we are, sir, your most humble servants, ROBERT GRAY,

JOSEPH INGRAHAM.

To Don JUAN FRANCISCO DE LA BODEGA Y QUADRA.

E.

RESPECTING

THE SUPPOSED SETTLEMENT OF BOUNDARIES BETWEEN THE FRENCH AND BRITISH POSSESSIONS IN AMERICA, AGREEABLY TO THE PROVISIONS TO THAT EFFECT IN THE TREATY OF UTRECHT. (SEE PAGE 150.)

No allusion to the settlement of boundaries between the British and French possessions in America, agreeably to the tenth article of the treaty concluded at Utrecht, in 1714, or to the appointment of commissaries for that purpose, has been found in any of the following works, which have been all carefully examined with reference to the subject, viz :

Corps Diplomatique, by Dumont; Collection de Traités, by Martens; Collections of British Treaties, by Wilkinson and Hertslet; Actes, Mémoires, &c., concernant la Paix d'Utrecht; Actes, Negociations, &c., depuis la Paix d'Utrecht, by Rousset; Mémoires des Commissaires Anglais et Français, &c., published in 1754; Collection des Edits, Ordonnances, &c., concernant le Canada; Histoire de la Louisiane, by Dupratz; Histoire de la Louisiane, by Marbois; Mémoire sur la Louisiane, by Dumont; Mémoire sur la Louisiane, by Vergennes; Histoire des Indes, &c., by Raynal; the Encyclopédie Méthodique; Histories of England, by Smollett, Belsham, Lord Mahon, and Wade; Parliamentary History of England; History of the British Empire in America, by Wynne; History of Hudson's Bay, by Dobbs; Boyer's Political State-the volume for 1721 contains memoirs of Louisiana, and a map of that country; American Traveller, by Cluny; the large historical and geographical atlas by Mitchell and Senex, published at London in 1721, containing particular accounts and maps of the British and the French possessions in America; Civil and Natural History of the French Dominions in America, by Jeffries-a comprehensive work, containing numerous maps, published in 1760; American atlas, by Jef fries, published in 1778; Alcedo's Dictionary of America; map of North America, (the largest and most beautiful ever published,) by Henry Popple, which appeared in 1738, under the auspices of the Colonial Department of Great Britain; map of America, published in 1794 from the materials of Governor Pownal;-or in any other works or maps which could be considered as authorities on the subject, except those now to be mentioned.

Charlevoix, in his Histoire de la Nouvelle France, says that commissaries were appointed in 1719 by the Governments of Great Britain and

Alluding to disputes between the British and the Indians in Nova Scotia, Charlevoix says, (vol. iv, page 124:) "La France n'entrait point dans ce demêlé, pour ne point donner le moindre pretexte de rompre la bonne intelligence qu'il avait tant couté de rétablir, entre les deux Couronnes; on cessa même de negocier dans les deux Cours, le reglement des limités, quoique dès l'année 1719 il y eut des commissaires nommés pour cela de part et d'autre."

France to determine the limits between the possessions of the two Powers in America; but that all negotiations on that subject ended in 1722, in consequence of the desire of those Courts to avoid causes of dissatisfac-. tion. Whether or not any settlement of boundaries was effected, he does not directly say; but from his language it is to be inferred that those questions were left undetermined. In the maps attached to his work, no line appears as the limit between the Hudson's Bay territory and the possessions of France.

The Dictionary of Commerce, translated by M. Postlewhaite from the French of Savary, with alterations and amendments, and published in 1751, contains no allusion to the southern limits of the Hudson's Bay territories, although a large portion of the work is devoted to the subject of the British and French possessions in America; but in the large map of America, attached to the Dictionary, which is there stated to have been copied, with corrections, from one then recently published at Paris (in 1746) by D'Anville, a line is laid down as the limit between the Hudson's Bay countries and the French dominions. The part of this line extending north and northwest of Lake Superior, runs nearly, but not exactly, along the 49th parallel; and a note on the map says "the line that parts French Canada from British Canada was settled by commissaries after the peace of Utrecht, making a curve from Davis's Inlet, in the Atlantic Sea, down to the Lake Abitibis, to the Northwest Ocean; therefore M. D'Anville's dotted line east of James's Bay is false." No copy of D'Anville's map has been found; but the above note appears to show that the line west of James's Bay is given by Postlewhaite as represented by the French geographer.

Postlewhaite's assertion is, however, directly contradicted by John Mitchell, whose large map of America, published in 1755, under the immediate patronage of the Colonial Department of Great Britain, is generally considered as the best authority with regard to the political geography of America, at that period. In this map, a line drawn irregularly from the Atlantic along the highlands, or supposed highlands, dividing the waters falling into Hudson's Bay from those emptying into the great lakes, the St. Lawrence, or the Mississippi, is given as "the bounds of Hudson's Bay by the treaty of Utrecht." This line runs around Hudson's Bay, nearly at the same distance from the shores of that sea only, in its whole course; and a very small part of it passes as far south as the 49th parallel. The boundary, thus given by Mitchell, is adopted in the map prefixed to Russell's History of America, in those published by Bennet in 1770, by Faden in 1777, and in other maps.

In a map of the British possessions in America, as settled by the treaty of 1763, published at London in 1775 by Eman Bowen and John Gibson, a line running along the 49th parallel, from a point immediately south of the southern extremity of James's Bay, westward to the Red River, and then northward, down that stream, to Lake Winnipeg, is given as the southern limit of the Hudson's Bay territory, agreeably to the treaty of Utrecht; and this is the earliest distinct declaration which has been discovered of the adoption of any part of that parallel precisely, as a boundary in North America.

Thus it appears that all the most accredited authorities, with the exception of Mitchell, are against the supposition that any boundary between the British and the French dominions in America was settled agreeably

to the treaty of Utrecht; and that Mitchell represents the Hudson's Bay territories as separated from the French possessions by an irregular line drawn along the course of the highlands surrounding, or supposed to surround, that sea.

In support of the opinion that no such boundary was settled, may be cited the following remarks upon that article, extracted from Anderson's elaborate History of Commerce, vol. iii, page 267: "Though the French King yielded to the Queen of Great Britain, to be possessed by her in full right, for ever, the Bay and Straits of Hudson, and all parts thereof, and within the same, then possessed by France, yet leaving the boundaries. between Hudson's Bay and the north parts of Canada belonging to France, to be determined by commissaries within a year, was, in effect, the same thing as giving up the point altogether; it being well known to all Europe, that France never permits her commissaries to determine matters referred to such, unless it can be done with great advantage to her. Those boundaries, therefore, have never yet been settled, though both British and French subjects are by that article expressly debarred from passing over the same, or thereby to go to each other by sea or land. These commissaries were likewise to settle the boundaries between the other British and French colonies on that continent; which, likewise, was never done." The correctness of the concluding part of these remarks is well known; and it is scarcely probable that either of the Powers would have assented to a partial determination of boundaries. The remarks of Anderson are incorporated in Macpherson's Annals of Commerce, published in 1805.

Maps, which are so frequently consulted on the subject of boundaries, and which, therefore, ought to be the best authorities, are, unfortunately, in general the very worst, as they are for the most part made by persons unacquainted with political history. Of the truth of this assertion innumerable instances might be adduced. In a large and beautifully engraved map of the United States, published at Philadelphia in 1821, “from the most undoubted authorities, by geographer and draughtsman," the northern boundary of the part of the United States west of the Mississippi, is represented by a line drawn westward from the sources of that river nearly under the latitude of 47 degrees and 40 minutes; the country north of this line being stated to be "in dispute between Spain and Great Britain." Now, three years before this map appeared, the boundary between the United States and the British possessions in that part of America, had been fixed by treaty; according to which, the dividing-line followed the course of the 49th parallel; and two years before the date of the map, Spain had also, by treaty, ceded to the United States her rights to all territories in America north of the 42d parallel. These treaties had been published; and it is scarcely credible that they should have been unknown to an American geographer engaged in preparing a map of the United States. The French have made great use of maps, and have had maps made for use in their negotiations about boundaries with Great Britain. Books of geography are also in general incorrect as regards boundaries. In the Encyclopædia of Geography, published at Edinburgh in 1834, by Hugh Murray, and other scientific persons, we find it stated, (page 1374,) that "the whole region west of the Rocky Mountains, extending between the 42d and the 49th parallels of latitude, has, by discovery and treaty, been assigned to the United States." A statement to the same effect may be found in the London Quarterly Review for January, 1822.