184 University of California Publications in History
Middleton, and manifested in the concession made by Russia in the
convention with the United States signed in 1824." She withdrew
at that time to the line of 540 40'.
 SPAIN'S ATTEMPTED EVASION
Such a conciliatory attitude as that evinced by Russia was not con-
templated by the Spanish officials in 1819, however, and in spite of
the counsel of other Powers they determined not to ratify the
Adams-Onis Treaty. Their decision was due more to court intrigue
and to lack of appreciation of the exigencies of the situation than
to justifiable objections.
 When the time limit prescribed in the treaty expired in August,
1819, Forsyth's ire increased, and in succeeding months the im-
perious tone of his notes mounted. The Duke of San Fernando (ap-
pointed foreign minister in September), on the contrary, suavely
carried on with the procrastination which had been agreed upon
as Spanish policy.
 Captain Read, of the sloop-of-war "Hornet," who had brought
Forsyth to Spain and hoped to take back the ratification, had
meanwhile returned home in disappointment. In September he
again arrived in Spain, bearing new instructions written by Adams
after the latter had heard of the Spanish delay, but before he knew
of the proposal to send a special envoy to Washington. The letter
advised Forsyth to accept ratification even though it should come
after the time limit, provided it could be returned in time for the
opening of Congress in December, 1819." In reply to the stated
desire of Ferdinand to consider the treaty "with deliberation,"
Adams went into a lengthy argument on the obligation of a sover-
eign to ratify a treaty signed by a minister who had full powers, as
did Onis, and who had not exceeded his instructions." This was a
generally accepted principle of international law at the time, so
far as absolute monarchies were concerned, though it has since
fallen out of favor owing to the rise of representative government
with its constitutional checks on executive authority.
 Adams went on to explain how the fact that the grantees of
Florida land had not actually fulfilled the conditions of occupation
was an additional argument against the validity of the grants, and
said that the minister should under no circumstances exchange
ratifications without presenting the declaration for signature.