His lordship innocently professes his ignorance of the time and manner in which Mosquito land associated itself with the destiny of England. Hear what he says:

"At what time, and in what manner, the connection between Great Britain and the MOSQUITO NATION first began, is not well known; but it is certain, and on record, that while the Duke of Albemarle was Governor of Jamaica, the Mosquito Indians made a formal cession of the sovereignty of their country to the King of England; and that, in consequence of that cession, the Chief of the Mosquitos received his appointment as KING, by a commission given him by the Governor of Jamaica, in the name and on behalf of the King of England."

This statement is confused, and confused evidently by design. His lordship's aim is two-fold. He desires to base English pretensions on a remote fact, the date of which he purposely involves in obscurity; and lest it may turn out untrue, or appear a swindle, or be denied as utterly invalid and preposterous, he takes shelter in what is called "prescription.' But these different claims conflict, and not only contradict one another, but contradict the indefinite allegation in the above denial of Spanish dominion.

If the idea conveyed in the allegation-" that there was, from the earliest history of America, a Mosquito King upheld and recognized by Great Britain"-be true, then the king-making of the Duke of Albemarle must be regarded by Lord Palmerston himself as a juggle. If, on the other hand, that performance was genuine, however patent an absurdity, then the idea of a prescriptive state and monarch, was an impudent and wilful fabrication. The assumption that the connection commenced in times of which there is no record, and the story of the king-making, cannot both be true; one or other must be untrue. We scarcely think his lordship believed either. He used both in the hope that two lies, like two negatives, would destroy one another.

If his lordship spoke of the character of the connection instead of its commencement, he could be more precise. That the intercourse was illicit, in the most degrading and damnable sense of the word, there is sufficient historical testimony. It was the intercourse of lawless buccaneers with savage prostitutes. From that intercourse has sprung Lord Palmerston's "Mosquito Nation," worthy of a designation in capitals in his diplomatic note.

Having tested his lordship's position by himself, let us now test them by the solemn acts of his government and nation. But first we give one brief extract to establish the actual relation that existed between England and the Mosquito Territory. We quote from a Dutch pirate who wrote in 1670:

"The Kings of Spain have on several occasions sent their Ambassadors to the Kings of England to complain of the molestations and troubles these pirates havə caused on the coasts of America, even in the calm of peace. It hath always been answered

"That such men did not commit these acts as subjects of his Majesty, and that therefore his Catholic Majesty might proceed against them as he should think proper, and it was adjoyned that the King of England never gave any commission to those of Jamaica to commit hostilities against the subjects of his Catholic majesty.""

The war of 1739 was the natural result of the piracies above described. It was long and bloody. The treaty of peace concluded in 1763 contains the following stipulation, which distinctly confirms the statement of the Dutch historian. England guarantees-Art. 17:

"That His Britannic Majesty shall cause to be demolished all the fortifications which his subjects shall have erected on the Bay of Honduras and other places in the Territory of Spain, in that part of the world, within four months."

Spain guarantees in the same article, that British subjects should not be molested, under any pretence, in their place, of cutting logwood.

The fortifications were demolished, but the turbulence of the settlers was unchecked, until some of them were seized and transported as pirates and smugglers in 1779.

Another war followed in 1780, which was terminated in 1783, when a definitive treaty of peace was concluded at Versailles. The foliowing is one of its main stipulations:

"That the intention of the two high contracting parties being to prevent as much as possible all causes of complaint and misunderstanding heretofore occasioned by the cutting of wood, and several English settlements having been formed and extended under that pretence upon the Spanish Continent, it is expressly agreed, that his Britannic Majesty's subjects shall have the right of cutting logwood in the district called Belize, (designated by limits in the treaty,) and his Catholic Majesty assures them of all that is expressed in the present article, provided that this shall not be considered as derogating in any wise from his rights of sovereignty. Therefore, all the English who may be dispersed in any other parts, whether on the Spanish Continent, or any island whatever dependent thereon, and for whatever reason it might be, without exception, shall retire within the district above described."

England, according to the testimony of her own favorable historian, having become aware of the "impolicy" of her first abandonment of her prey, resolved to regain by intrigue and evasion, what she failed to maintain by the strong hand. She did not retire within Belize. On the contrary, her freebooters made new and extensive settlements, especially on the "Mosquito Territory," no longer on pretence of cutting wood, but on pretence that it was not included in the Spanish Continent-an allegation precisely of the same import and truth, as would be a denial that Minnesota was on the United States Continent.

This assumption led to a further misunderstanding, and a definitive treaty, ratified in 1786. By that treaty England thus binds herself:

"His Britannic Majesty's subjects, and the other colonists who have enjoyed the protection of England, shall evacuate the Territory of the Mosquitos, as well as the Continent in general, and the islands adjacent, without exception."

This was the last time England pledged her faith on this subject, and consequently it was the last time she perjured it.

Let us here repeat Lord Palmerston's assertion—“ It is clearly established that the Mosquito Territory is, and for centuries has been, a separate state, distinct from the American possessions of Spain." We hesitate to characterize this most extraordinary allegation. Language does not supply a designation for its recklessness. Made in the face of those solemn

1851.]

instruments, executed by his lordship's predecessor in the name and on behalf of his nation, and made with the full consciousness of their existence and import, (for he appeals to, to falsify them,) it bespeaks an audacity in untruth irreconcilable to any motive of human action short of downright infatuation.

First-We have the evidence of history that England disavowed those king-making pirates who infested the dominions of his Catholic Majesty. Secondly-We have her engagement that the fortifications erected by her licensed plunderers should be demolished, on the condition that the English would be allowed to cut logwood on the Spanish coast.

Thirdly-This engagement having been violated, we have it covenanted between the two kingdoms twenty years after, that the English should confine themselves within the limits of Belize defined in the treaty, where they were to acquire no further right than that of occupancy. They bound themselves to retire from every other part of the Spanish continent and adjacent islands.

Fourthly-In defiance of this covenant they continued their depredations, on the shameless and preposterous pretence, that the Mosquito territory was not a portion of the Spanish continent. In the treaty which this evasion made necessary, England's bad faith was at last chained. We are tempted to reproduce the stipulation, it is so express, so unmistakable, so pregnant an evidence of the perjury it meant to check, and the indisputable right it was intended to establish. Read it, who can, and say what one word of Lord Palmerston's assertion is not knowingly untrue.

"His Britannic Majesty's subjects, and the other colonists who have enjoyed the protection of England, shall evacuate the territory of the Mosquitos, as well as the continent in general, and the islands adjacent, without exception."

To this engagement was set the seal of England; to it was pledged the faith of England's monarch through the signature of his minister; and it undertakes not only for British subjects, but for all who claimed the protection of Britain, to evacuate the Mosquito territory. Yet Lord Palmerston asserts that the separate and distinct independence of the Mosquito territory, "Mosquito NATION" and "Mosquito King," was clearly established; that they had co-existed with Spanish dominion, and were never subject to it, and that they were always upheld by Great Britain. The treaty does not contain a word of the "Mosquito King," nor a stipulation guaranteeing the maintenance of his crown and dignity to that great potentate of history; none for the integrity of the "Mosquito Nation," none for that separate "Mosquito State," which flourish so conspicuously in his lordship's despatch; not even the bare mention of their names.On the contrary, the British, and all whom they abetted, were to evacuate the said "STATE" and "NATION," and utterly repudiate, abandon and deny the said "KING." One stipulation there was: not that the king or nation or state should be recognized, but that Spain would "there not exercise any cruelty towards the revolted Mosquito Indians who had taken part with England in the war just then terminated. Over this stipulation his lordship pauses and triumphs. Lo! he says, is an act of substantial protectorship." Yes, truly, over a "King,"-not even named; over a "Nation," the idea of which is scouted, and a "State" abandoned and evacuted for ever.

Ah, my lord, if this be the reasoning which compelled the concessions of the Clayton Treaty, all we can say is, that your plenipotentiary's suavity must be invincibly seductive, for if addressed to a ragged urchin from one of our ward schools, he would laugh in your face for a fool or a blower. Possibly his lordship may remember, that when the British Parliament were compelled to repeal the American Stamp Act, with much inflated pomp they passed a resolution, declaring that they "had, and of right ought to have, the power to bind the colonies in all cases whatsoever;" thus recording in the same breath their own defeat, and a swaggering persistence in a proposition at once impotent and untrue. His "protectorship" is an act somewhat of the same kind.

It will be remembered that the right acquired by the British in Belize was only a bare right of occupancy, subject to the unrestricted sovereignty of Spain. When that title was evicted, the title of the occupants was evicted with it; the British, however, still hold the territory, which is of con siderable extent and value, upon no higher or other plea than the inability of the owners to dispossess them. But its occupation is only important to our present inquiry, in so far as it afforded a safe and convenient theatre for the infamies meditated and practised against the State of Nicaragua.

The Mosquito dynasty seems to have been broken and forgotten in the minds of the British for a long series of years after the treaty of 1786. Nor even after the claims of that house were revived, do they appear to have received the undivided allegiance of the British cabal. A descendant of Rob Roy, Sir Gregor M'Gregor, assumed sovereign sway over some huts on the Mosquito coast. The history of his reign is not important. It was short and disastrous. But the struggle with Spain, and the more bloody struggle between the new republics, afforded time and opportunity for British diplomacy. One, two and three heirs of the Sambo dynasty were brought and crowned at Belize, in the midst of a blasphemous debauch, of which we give one sample, from Dunn's Central America. Dunn writes as an Englishman:

"Before, however, his chiefs could swear allegiance to their monarch, it was necessary that they should profess Christianity; and, accordingly, with shame be it recorded, they were baptized, in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.' They displayed total ignorance of the meaning of this ceremony, and when asked to give their names, took the titles of Lord Rodney, Lord Nelson, or some other celebrated officer, and seemed grievously disappointed when told that they could only be baptized by simple Christian names.

"After this solemn mockery was concluded, the whole assembly adjourned to a large school-room to eat the coronation dinner, when these poor creatures got all intoxicated with rum; a suitable conclusion to a farce as blasphemous and wicked as ever disgraced a Christian country."

The port of San Juan, as its name attests, is of Spanish origin. On the establishment of the independence of Central America, the federal Government had a fortification and custom port there. It belonged to, and was recognized as part of, the state of Nicaragua, during the existence of the republic. When Nicaragua became independent and sovereign, she held undisputed possession of it. His Lordship asserts that she seized it foreibly only in 1836. She could not seize it sooner, for she had no national existence, and the force was only such as was necessary to maintain excise regulations.

1851.]

These facts are indisputable. The right of Nicaragua to the port was recognized by Great Britain herself, in a solemn and terrible formula. She claimed certain debts alleged to be due to British subjects by the state of Nicaragua. In pursuance of this demand, she twice blockaded the port of The diplomatic declaration of the blockSan Juan, in 1842 and in 1844. ade was, that "the port of San Juan de Nicaragua was blockaded," &c. The very name of the port used in this formula of war, is abundant proof of England's recognition of Nicaragua's title. Lord Palmerston improves on the fable of the wolf and the lamb. When he wants to coerce Nicaragua, his talons are in the heart of San Juan. When he wants to despoil her, he denies her right to that very member of her body politic through which he was able most fatally to wound her. But we proceed with our history.

The Mexican war, the prospect of American acquisitions on the Pacific board, and the importance of commanding such positions in Central America as would control the projected canal, awoke the slumbering cupidity of England, and she resolved to employ all her resources and ability to attain her end. A letter was addressed to Mr. Chatfield, Consul at Guatemala, requesting a report on the boundaries claimed by the Mosquito King, and also "on the line of boundary which her Majesty's Government should insist on, as absolutely essential for the security and well-being of the Mosquito shore."

Mr. Chatfield promptly defines the line, in the terms proposed; and as if he felt at liberty to interpret the true intentions of his Government, he adds:

"Moreover, looking at the probable destinies of these countries, considerable advantages might accrue in after times by reserving for settlement with Central America and Costa Rica, beyond the San Juan River. In the meantime, CONSIDERABLE BENEFIT WOULD RESULT TO BRITISH INTERESTS, FROM THE EARLY ASSERTION OF THE RIGHTS of the Mosquito King to the terminus indicated."

This terminus is the River San Juan, within which is the port of that name. Here we have, undisguisedly, the motive of England to seize on the All regard to port of San Juan. The Minister desired to know the boundary line, which should be "insisted on," and the Consul points it out. right and justice is openly despised and rejected, and the boundary is seHe indicated a wider lected which the Consul thought should not alone be insisted on, but, "for the interest of England," should be asserted at once. territory, which may or may not be necessary to insist on, according as circumstances should determine; and without the least reference to its justice, or the slightest concealment of the utter villainy it involved, he says to his principal, in a later communication, in reference to a circular defining the boundary of Mosquito, addressed to the Government of Central America: "I have taken the precaution to insert, without prejudice to the right of the Mosquito King to any territory south of the River San Juan." This avowal of premeditated wrong is, perhaps, the most infamous on record. The palpable turpitude of the motive relieves us from the necessity of tracing the disgusting details, by which the crowning injustice of seizing on the port of San Juan was effected. No history contains a page more disgraceful than that which will record the sacking of that town by a British man-of-war, on pretences infamous, if true, but over which the pens of British agents have deliberately traced "

WILFUL FALSEHOODS."