the previous claim of Great Britain to her possessions in Central America has been since asserted in high quarters, it may not be improper to present the views of the government of the United States upon this subject.

It need scarcely be repeated that the United States have always denied the validity of this claim. They believe that Great Britain has surrendered nothing under the convention which she would not voluntarily have done, from her own magnanimity and sense of justice, as soon as the question was brought home to her serious consideration. It would be a vain labor to trace the history of the connexion of Great Britain with the Mosquito shore, and other portions of Central America, previous to her treaties with Spain of 1783 and 1786. This connexion doubtless originated from her desire to break down the monopoly of trade which Spain so jealously enforced with her American colonies, and to introduce into them British manufactures. The attempts of Great Britain to accomplish this object were pertinaciously resisted by Spain, and became the source of continual difficulties between the two nations. After a long period of strife, these were happily terminated by the treaties of 1783 and 1786, in as clear and explicit language as was ever employed on any similar occasion; and the history of the time renders the meaning of this language, if possible, still more clear and explicit.

This

The sixth article of the treaty of peace of September 3, 1783, was very distasteful to the king and cabinet of Great Britain. abundantly appears from Lord John Russell's "Memorials and Correspondence of Charles James Fox." The British government, failing in their efforts to have this article deferred for six months, finally yielded a most reluctant consent to its insertion in the treaty. Why this reluctant consent? Because the 6th article stipulates that, with the exception of the territory between the river Wallis or Belize, and the Rio Hondo, within which permission was granted to British subjects to cut logwood, "all the English who may be dispersed in any other parts, whether on the Spanish continent, ('Continent Espagnol,') or in any of the islands whatsoever, dependent on the aforesaid Spanish continent, and for whatever reason it might be, without exception, shall retire within the district which has been above described, in the space of eighteen months, to be computed from the exchange of ratifications." And the treaty further expressly provides, that the permission granted to cut logwood "shall not be considered as derogating in any wise from his (Catholic majesty's) rights of sovereignty" over this logwood district; and it stipulates, moreover, "that if any fortifications should actually have been heretofore erected, within the limits marked out, his Britannic majesty shall cause them all to be demolished, and he will order his subjects not to build any new ones."

But, notwithstanding these provisions, in the opinion of Mr. Fox, it was still in the power of the British government" to put our [their] own interpretation upon the words 'Continent Espagnol,' and to determine upon prudential considerations whether the Mosquito shore comes under the description or not."

Hence the necessity for negotiations which should determine precisely and expressly the territory embraced by the treaty of 1783. These produced the convention of the 11th July, 1786, and its very first article removed every doubt on the subject. This declares that "His Britannic majesty's subjects, and the other colonists who have hitherto enjoyed the protection of England, shall evacuate the country of the Mosquitos as well as the continent in general and the islands adjacent, without exception," situated beyond the new limits prescribed by the convention, within which British subjects were to be permitted to cut not only logwood but mahogany and all other wood; and even this district is "indisputably acknowledged to belong of right to the crown of Spain."

Thus what was meant by the "Continent Espagnol," in the treaty of 1783, is defined beyond all doubt by the convention of 1786, and the sovereignty of the Spanish king over the Mosquito shore, as well as over every other portion of the Spanish continent and the islands adjacent, is expressly recognized.

It was just that Great Britain should interfere to protect the Mosquito Indians against the punishment to which they had exposed themselves as her allies from their legitimate and acknowledged sovereign. The 14th article of the convention, therefore, provides that "his Catholic majesty, prompted solely by motives of humanity, promises to the king of England that he will not exercise any act of severity against the Mosquitos inhabiting in part the countries which are to be evacuated by virtue of the present convention, on account of the connexions which may have subsisted between the said Indians and the English; and his Britannic majesty, on his part, will strictly prohibit all his subjects from furnishing arms or warlike stores to the Indians in general situated upon the frontiers of the Spanish posses

sions.

British honor required that these treaties with Spain should be faithfully observed, and from the contemporaneous history no doubt exists but that this was done; that the orders required by the 15th article of the convention were issued by the British government, and that they were strictly carried into execution.

In this connexion a reference to the significant proceedings in the House of Lords on March 26, 1787, ought not to be omitted. On that day a motion was made by Lord Rawdon, "That the terms of the convention of July 14, 1786, do not meet the favorable opinion of this House." The motion was discussed at considerable length and with great ability. The task of defending the ministry on this occasion was undertaken by Lord Chancellor Thurlow, and was most triumphantly performed. He abundantly justified the ministry for having surrendered the Mosquito shore to Spain, and proved that "the Mosquitos were not our allies; they were not a people we were bound by treaty to protect." "His lordship repelled the argument, that the settlement was a regular and legal settlement, with some sort of indignation; and so far from agreeing, as had been contended, that we had uniformly remained in the quiet and unquestionable possession of our claim to the territory, he called upon the noble Viscount Stormant to declare, as a man of honor, whether he did not know the contrary."

Lord Rawdon's motion to condemn the convention was rejected by a vote of 53 to 17.

It is worthy of special remark, that all sides of the House, whether approving or disapproving the convention, proceeded upon the express admission that it required Great Britain, employing its own language, to "evacuate the country of the Mosquitos.' On this question the House of Lords were unanimous.

At what period, then, did Great Britain renew her claims to "the country of the Mosquitos, as well as the continent in general and the islands adjacent, without exception?" It certainly was not in 1801, when under the treaty of Amiens she acquired the island of Trinidad from Spain without any mention whatever of future acquisitions in America. It certainly was not in 1809, when she entered into a treaty of alliance, offensive and defensive, with Spain, to resist the Emperor Napoleon in his attempts to conquer the Spanish monarchy. It certainly was not in 1814, when the commercial treaties which had previously existed between the two powers, including, it is presumed, those of 1783 and 1786, were revived.

On all these occasions there was no mention whatever of any claims of Great Britain to the Mosquito protectorate or to any of the Spanish American territories which she had abandoned.

It was not in 1817 and 1819, when acts of the British parliament (57 and 59 Geo. III) distinctly acknowledged that the British settlement at Belize was "not within the territory and dominion of his majesty," but was merely "a settlement for certain purposes in the possession and under the protection of his majesty," thus evincing, with a determined purpose to observe, with the most scrupulous good faith, the treaties of 1783 and 1786 with Spain.

In the very sensible book of Captain Bonnycastle, of the corps of British Royal Engineers, on Spanish America, published at London in 1818, he gives no intimation whatever that Great Britain had revived her claim to the Mosquito protectorate. On the contrary, he describes the Mosquito shore as "a tract of country which lies along part of the northern and eastern shore of Honduras," which had "been claimed by the British." He adds, "the English held this country for eighty years, and abandoned it in 1787 and 1788."

Thus matters continued until a considerable period after 1821, in which year the Spanish provinces composing the captain generalship of Guatemala asserted and maintained their independence of Spain. It would be a work of supererogation to attempt to prove, at this period of the world's history, that these provinces, having by a successful revolution become independent states, succeeded within their respective limits to all the territorial rights of Spain. This will surely not be denied by the British government, which took so noble and prominent a part in securing the independence of all the Spanish American provinces.

Indeed, Great Britain has recorded her adhesion to this principle of international law, in her treaty of the 26th December, 1826, with Mexico, then recently a revolted Spanish colony. By this treaty, so far from claiming any right beyond the usufruct, which had been conceded to her under the convention with Spain of 1786, she recognizes

its continued existence and binding effect as between herself and Mexico, by obtaining and accepting from the government of the latter a stipulation that British subjects shall not be "disturbed or molested in the peaceable possession and exercise of whatever rights, privileges and immunities they have at any time enjoyed within the limits described and laid down" by that convention, Whether the former Spanish sovereignty over Belize, subject to the British usufruct, reverted of right to Mexico or to Guatemala may be seriously questioned; but, in either case, this recognition by Great Britain is equally conclusive.

And here it may be appropriate to observe, that Great Britain still continues in possession, not only of the district between the Rio Hondo and the Sibun, within which the king of Spain, under the convention of 1786, had granted her a license to cut mahogany and other woods, but the British settlers have extended this possession south to the river Sarstoon, one degree and a half of latitude beyond "the limits described and laid down" by the convention. It is presumed that the encroachments of these settlers south of the Sibun have been made without the authority or sanction of the British crown, and that no difficulty will exist in their removal.

Yet in view of all these antecedents, the island of Ruatan, belonging to the State of Honduras, and within sight of its shores, was captured in 1841 by Colonel McDonald, then her Britannic majesty's superintendent at Belize, and the flag of Honduras was hauled down and that of Great Britain was hoisted in its place. This small State, incapable of making any effectual resistance, was compelled to submit, and the island has ever since been under British control. What makes this event more remarkable is, that it is believed a similar act of violence had been committed on Ruatan by the superintendent of Belize in 1835; but, on complaint by the federal government of the Central American States, then still in existence, the act was formally disavowed by the British government, and the island was restored to the authorities of the republic.

No question can exist but that Ruatan was one of the "islands adjacent to the American continent, which had been restored by Great Britain to Spain under the treaties of 1783 and 1786. Indeed, the most approved British gazetteers and geographers, up till the present date, have borne testimony to this fact, apparently without information from that hitherto but little known portion of the world, that the island had again been seized by her majesty's superintendent at Belize, and was now a possession claimed by Great Britain.

When Great Britain determined to resume her dominion over the Mosquito shore, in the name of a protectorate, is not known with any degree of certainty in the United States. The first information on the subject, in the Department of State at Washington, was contained. in a dispatch of the 20th January, 1842, from William S. Murphy, esq., special agent of the American government to Guatemala, in which he states that in a conversation with Colonel McDonald at Belize, the latter had informed him he had discovered and sent documents to England, which caused the British government to revive their claim to the Mosquito territory.

According to Bonnycastle, the Mosquito shore "lies along part of the northern and eastern shore of Honduras," and, by the map which accompanies his work, extends no further south than the mouth of the river Segovia, in about 120 north latitude. This respectable author certainly never could have imagined that it extended south of San Juan de Nicaragua, because he describes this as the principal seaport of Nicaragua on the Caribbean sea; says there are "three portages" between the lake and the mouth of the river, and "these carrying places are defended, and at one of them is the fort, San Juan, called also, the castle of Neustra Senora, on a rock and very strong; it has thirty-six guns mounted, with a small battery whose platform is level with the water; and the whole is enclosed on the land side by a ditch and rampart. Its garrison is generally kept up at a hundred infantry, sixteen artillery men, with about sixty of the militia, and is provided with batteaux, which row guard every night up and down the stream.'

Thus it appears that the Spaniards were justly sensible of the importance of defending this outlet from the lake of Nicaragua to the ocean, because, as Captain Bonnycastle observes, "This port (San Juan) is looked upon as the key of the Americas; and with the possession of it, and Realejo on the other side of the lake, the Spanish colonies might be paralyzed, by the enemy being then master of the ports of both oceans. He might have added, that nearly sixty years ago, on the 26th February, 1796, the port of San Juan de Nicaragua was established as a port of entry of the second class by the king of Spain.

Captain Bonnycastle, as well as the Spaniards, would have been greatly surprised had they been informed that this port was a part of the dominions of his majesty the king of the Mosquitos, and that the cities and cultivated territories of Nicaragua surrounding the lakes Nicaragua and Managua had no outlet to the Caribbean sea, except by his gracious permission. It was therefore with profound surprise and regret the government and people of the United States learned that a British force, on the 1st of January, 1848, had expelled the State of Nicaragua from San Juan; had hauled down the Nicaraguan flag, and had raised the Mosquito flag in its place. The ancient name of the town, San Juan de Nicaragua, which had identified it in all former time as belonging to Nicaragua, was on this occasion changed, and thereafter it became Greytown.

These proceedings gave birth to serious apprehensions throughout the United States, that Great Britain intended to monopolize for herself the control over the different routes between the Atlantic and Pacific, which, since the acquisition of California, had become of vital importance to the United States. Under this impression it was impossible that the American government could any longer remain silent and acquiescing spectators of what was passing in Central America.

Mr. Monroe, one of our wisest and most discreet Presidents, announced in a public message to Congress, in December, 1823, that, "the American continents, by the free and independent condition which they have assumed and maintained, are henceforth not to be considered subjects for future colonization by any European powers."