296) 
She likewife was detained, and fent 
to Port St. Blas, where the pilot of 
the Argonaut made away with him- 
felf. 
The viceroy, on being informed 
of thefe particulars, gave orders 
that the captain and the veffels fhould 
be releafed, and that they fhould 
have leave to refit, without declar- 
ing them a lawful prize; and this he 
did, on account of the ignorance of 
the proprietors, and the friendfhip 
which fubfifted between the two 
courts of London and Madrid. 
He alfo gave them leave to return 
to Macao with their cargo, after 
capitulating with them in the fame 
manner as with the Portuguefe cap- 
tain, and leaving the affair to be 
finally determined by the count de 
“Revillagigedo, his fuccefior, who 
alfo gave them their liberty. 
"As Fibon as the court of Madrid had 
received an account of the detention 
of the firft Englifh veflel at Nootka 
Sound, and before that of the fe- 
cond arrived, it ordered its ambaf- 
fador at London to make a report 
thereof to the Englifh minifter, 
which he did, onthe 1oth of February 
laft, and to require that the parties 
. who had planned thefe expeditions 
fhould be punished, in order to de- 
ter others from making fettlements 
on territories occupied and frequent- 
ed by the Spaniards fora number of 
years, 
In the ambaffador’s memorial, 
mention was only made of the Spa- 
nifh admiral that commanded the 
prefent armament, having vifited 
Nootka Sound in £774, though 
that harbour had been frequently 
vifited both before and fince, with 
the ufual forms of taking poffeffion. 
‘Thefe forms were repeated more par- 
ticularly in the years 1755 and 1779, 
all along the coafts as far as Prince 
William’ s Sound, and it was thefe 
ANNUAL REGISTER, 1750 
atts that gave occafion to the memo- 
rial made by the court of Ruffia, as 
has been already noticed. 
TheSpanifh ambaflador at Lon- 
don did not reprefent in this memo-~ 
rial at that time, that the right of 
Spain to thefe coafts was conforma- 
ble to ancieat boundaries, which 
had been guaranteed by England at 
the treaty of Utrecht, in the reign 
of Charles II. deeming i it to be un- 
necefiary ; as orders had been given, 
and velflels had attually been feiz- 
ed on thofe eatin, fo far back as 
1692, 
‘The anfwer that the Englifh 
miniftry gave, on the 26th of Fe- 
bruary, was, that iy had not as 
yet been informed of the facts ftated 
by the ambaflador, and that the ad 2) 
of violence, mentioned in his me- 
morial, neceflarily fufpended any 
difcuffion of the claims therein, till 
an adequate atonement had been 
made for a proceeding fo i injurious 
to Great Britain. 
~ Jn addition to this haughty lan- 
guage of the Britifh minifter, he far- 
. ther added, that the fhip muft in the 
firft place be reflored; and that with 
refpe& to any future ‘Ripulations, it 
would be neceflary to wait for a more _ 
full detail of ail the circumitances- 
of this affair. 
The. harfh and laconic ftile in 
which this anfwer was given, made 
the court of Madrid fufpeét that the 
king of Great Britain’s minifters 
were forming other plans; and th 
were the more induced to think fo, 
as there were reports that they were 
going to fit out two fleets, one for 
the Mediterranean and the other for 
the Baltic. This of courfe obliged 
Spain to increafe the {malt {quadron 
fhe was getting ready to exercife her 
marine. 
The-court of Spain then ordered 
her ambaflador at London to prefent 
a memorial 
