actually occupied," alone became independent, and belonged to the new States. Wild lands, and the unsettled districts, between actually occupied districts, still remained under the anterior order of things! A city might become free, but not its dependent territories;-the settled portion of a province might become free, but not the province; a nation might become free, but not the territory of the nation! When the thirteen colonies sustained their independence against Great Britain, did she adopt this principle, and limit her acknowledgment of their independence to the "districts which the colonists actually occupied?" On the contrary, the thirteen free States were understood to comprehend the entire territory of the thirteen colonies, including many native tribes, any one of which was immeasurably superior, in all that goes to give a national character, or which is necessary to a national existence, whether in war or peace, to the miserable savages which his Lordship has the audacity to put on a footing with civilized nations ! When Spain acknowledged the independence of Mexico, and when her Cortez, on the 4th of December, 1836, by a solemn edict, recognized the independence of all her revolted colonies, did she make any reservations of the districts not actually occupied at the time the colonies threw off their yoke? Nothing of the sort! Neither common sense, common right, or common practice, sustains, but, on the contrary, they do wholly deny his Lordship's position.

Here we might meet this extraordinary assertion of his Lordship, so far as concerns the case before us, by the fact that the Republic of Central America, declared by the very first article of its constitution, that it comprehended all the territory which had belonged to the ancient kingdom of Guatemala; and that, under this declaration, it was recognized by Great Britain, -the same power, which now denies that the republic ever had a shadow of right to a section equal to one half of those territories! But that is a point which will claim more particular attention in a future page. We are obliged to notice the statements and arguments of his Lordship in the order in which they occur, and if, therefore, our observations, in refutation of the one, and in correction of the other, lack continuity,

the fault is not with us; for his Lordship rambles, as all men must do, when not pursuing the straight and even course of faithful narration and legitimate argument.

With this explanation, we beg to observe that his Lordship is sadly deficient in his knowledge of historical facts, to express, even in the indefinite form of a belief, that the independence of the Spanish revolted colonies was not acknowledged by Spain. Can it be possible that he is ignorant of the famous and eloquent report upon the subject, presented to the Cortez-General of Spain, on the 27th of November, 1836, and approved unanimously on the succeeding 6th of December, which, formally, and in a solemn act appended thereto, recognized the independence of all these States, and authorized the sovereign, who concurred fully in the action of the Cortez, to enter immediately into treaty relations with them? It is true, treaty relations were not established with all, simply from the force of circumstances; but the recognition was none the less actual in consequence. Said the Cortez: "we recognize in this mode," i. e. by the adoption of this report and act, "the entire independence of the new American States, so as to restore tranquillity to those regions, and render to humanity its rights."

It would be trifling with the common sense of our readers, to notice the remark of his Lordship, that "even though the rights of Spain over the Mosquito territory were admitted, Nicaragua might as well claim a derivative right of sovereignty over Mexico, New-Grenada, &c." Such stuff as this would not be tolerated in a schoolboys' debating club. The fact that the Mosquito coast belonged to the kingdom of Guatemala, and that portions of this coast fell within the boundaries of the provinces of Costa Rica, Honduras, and Nicaragua, which were included within the kingdom of Guatemala, which kingdom became, by revolution, the Republic of Central America,-each of the provinces retaining, as States, their original boundaries! say, these facts need only be recounted to place his Lordship in the light of a trifler with the plainest rules of reasoning.

we

But the basis of his Lordship's proposition is the assertion that "it is a well known historical fact that the Mosquito nation had, from time immemorial, and, up to the

period of the revolt of Nicaragua, been as free as they have continued to be from that period to this day." We will not say that the comparative or conditional form in which his Lordship has put this statement, is intended. If he means to say, (what elsewhere he does, in fact, say, and which is the claim that the English Government has set up, upon which to found their usurpation,) that the tribe of Indians, known as Moscos, or Mosquitos, on the Atlantic coast of Central America, are truly a free and independent nation, according to the standards of common sense, international law, and concurrent practice, then, and we now do, not only join issue with him, but engage to prove, to the satisfaction of every impartial man in Christendom, that his pretensions are unfounded, subversive of all international right,-impudent and dangerous innovations, and without a precedent in the history of the civilized world. We will also engage to show that Spain had jurisdiction over the Mosquito shore, by the double right of discovery and occupation, that England repeatedly and solemnly recognized that right, and that the Mosquito Indians never pretended to sovereignty, until excited to do so by British agents, for purposes as selfish as the means resorted to are base.

Says Palmerston: "I deny totally and entirely that Spain had any right to the Mosquito territory, and I therefore contend that there is no inheritance in that respect, which can become the subject matter of controversy."

To disprove this assertion we must inquire by what right any European nation held, or holds any portion of the American Continent; what acts were supposed to convey these rights, and whether Spain, by compliance with the same, acquired Sovereignty over the Mosquito coast. Upon the principle here involved we have fortunately the highest authority.

Said Chief Justice Marshall, (Johnson vs. McIntosh, 8 Wheaton, 573, 574,) "Discovery is the original foundation of titles to lands in America, as between the different European nations, and gave to the nation, making the discovery, the sole right of acquiring the soil of the natives, and establishing settlements upon it. It was a right in which no Europeans could interfere." It was a right they all assert

ed for themselves, and to the assertion of which, by others, all assented. The relations which were to exist between the discoverer and the natives, were to be regulated by themselves.

"While the different nations of Europe respected the rights of the natives as occupants, they asserted the ultimate dominion to be in themselves; and claimed and exercised the power to grant the soil while yet in the possession of the natives. These grants have been understood by all to convey a title to the grantees, subject only to the Indian right of occupancy."

The same authority says in the same:

"The lands ceded by Great Britain to the United States were, in great part, occupied by numerous, warlike, and independent tribes of Indians; but the exclusive right of the United States to extinguish those titles, and to grant the soil, has never been doubted; and any attempt of others to intrude in that country, would be considered an aggression, which would justify war."

Again:

"The United States maintain, as all others have maintained, that discovery gave an exclusive right to extinguish the Indian title to occupancy, either by purchase or conquest, and gave also a right to such a degree of sovereignty, as the circumstances of the people would allow them to exercise." (Ib. 587.)

Discovery, then, is the basis of all territorial right, which any European nation possesses, or has ever possessed, in America; it has given a title indisputable, any invasion of which, by other nations, is a just cause of war. By it, the discoverer was left free to institute such relations with the natives as he pleased, or as the circumstances of the people would allow, without, however, any prejudice to his sovereignty.

The question then arises, what nation first discovered the section of continent, known as Central America, or that portion called the Mosquito coast? Unquestionably, the Spaniards.

50

In the month of August, 1502, Christopher Columbus, then sailing on his fourth voyage, discovered an island about miles north of Cape Honduras, called by the natives Guanaja, which name it still retains. He stopped there a few days, and proceeded upon his voyage. He next discovered a point which was cov

ered with trees, and to which he gave the name Punta de Casinas, which has since been changed into Cape Honduras. Upon Sunday, the 14th August, he went ashore, with many of his men, to hear mass, and on the Wednesday following (17th of August, 1502) he landed again, and formally took possession of the coast, in the name of their Catholic Majesties; calling it, from the circumstance of many of the natives having great holes in the lobes of their ears," through which an egg might pass," Costa de la Oreja,-Coast of the Ear. From this point he sailed, with great difficulty, along the coast eastward, where, on the 12th September, he discovered the Cape, which, in the language of the old historian," runs far out into the sea, when the land turns off to the south." This point he called Cabo de Gracias a Dios-or Cape Thanks to God. He went ashore at this point, as he had previously done, and on the 17th of September, he anchored before an island, called Quiribi, in which we recognize the modern Chiriqui, which gives its name to the Lagoon, or Archipelago, included in the southern division of what is claimed to be the Mosquito shore. Here he stopped for fourteen days, and held a good deal of intercourse with the Indians. He describes the Indians along the whole coast as generally naked, and speaking several languages. They presented him with young girls, and he purchased from them the gold and silver ornaments which some of them wore. (Herrera, Hist. America, vol. i., pp. 258, 268; also, vol. iii. p. 366.)

Thus much for the right of discovery. Columbus not only discovered this coast, but formally took possession of it for the crown of Spain. But not only so, settlements were speedily established in various parts of it; at Truxillo, San Gil de Buena Vista, Gracias a Dios, San Jorge, and other points.

Before the year 1526, the town of Truxillo was established at Cape Honduras, as it is expressly referred to in the sixth letter of Cortez, of that date, and about the year 1536 the Spaniards, who had been left in various parts of the coasts of Honduras, sent an urgent request to Pedro de Alvarado, the renowned General of Cortez in Mexico, then Governor of Guatemala, for his intervention to organize the country.

This he at once proceeded to do; and, says Herrera, (vol. v. p. 107,) "founded the town of Gracias a Dios, which proved a good situation, and drew an abundance of people there." He also founded another colony at Port Cavallos, now Amoa. Previously, Giles Gonzales had landed between Truxillo and Cape Camaron, where he established a colony called San Gil de Buena Vista.

We have thus shown that the northern part of what Lord Palmerston claims as the Mosquito coast, was not only originally discovered, but partially occupied by the Spaniards. We next propose to show that the same is true of the southern portion of the same coast.

Thomas Gage, an Englishman, in the year 1665, journeyed overland from Guatemala through San Salvador, and Nicaragua to Cartago, the capital of Costa Rica. From the latter place he crossed to the Atlantic coast, and embarked for Porto Bello, where he expected to find a vessel for Europe; but was captured by pirates, and obliged to turn back. He speaks of the coast as being inhabited by Spaniards, who had reduced the Indians, and who kept up a considerable trade through the ports of Suere and Anzuelos, which Lord Palmerston will find in the maps of this section, published by order of Parliament, designated "Swarree," and the " Port of Cartago." We quote the words of this traveller. (Gage's West Indies, pp. 426, 436, London, 1699): "Here (at Cartago) we learned that there was a vessel ready to set out at the mouth of the River Suere, and another from the Rio Anzuelos, but as the first was the best place to travel to by reason of more provisions by the way, more tribes of Indians, and Estancas of Spaniards, we resolved to go there. We found the country mountainous in some places, but here and there were valleys, where was good corn, Spaniards living in good farms, who, as also the Indians, had many hogs; but the towns of Indians we found much unlike those we had left in Nicaragua, and the people, in courtesy and civility, much differing from them, and of a rude and bold carriage; but they are kept under by the Spaniards, as much as any of those which I have formerly spoken of, in Guatemala. We came in so good time to the River Suere, that we stayed there but three days

in a Spanish farm near it, and then sailed."

"They had not," says this author, "sailed more than 20 leagues," when they were captured by pirates, who plundered them, and set them ashore. Here they were told that the vessel at Anzuelos had gone; but, by the charitable assistance of the Spaniards of the country, were enabled to return to Cartago.

At this time, we also know, that a direct trade was kept up between Grenada and the ports of Spain, through the river and port of San Juan. The author in question describes the establishments which were maintained to facilitate the navigation of that river. The ruins of the forts, then built to defend it, still frown upon the voyager as he passes. Indeed, as early as 1527, the plan of opening a canal across the Isthmus of Nicaragua, by way of Rio San Juan, and Lake Grenada, or Nicaragua, was suggested, and one of the strongest arguments used in supporting it was, according to Herrera, that thereby "His Catholic Majesty might open a way to the Spice Islands through his own dominions."

We have also the testimony of Equemeling, a pirate, who was here before Gage, that portions of this coast was occupied by the Spaniards. He says, (Narrative, p. 163, London, 1704,) that proceeding north from Boca del Toro, they arrived at the place called the Rio de Zuere, (Suere, or Swarree,) "where we found some houses belonging to the Spaniards, whom we resolved to visit. The inhabitants all fled, &c." From thence this party proceeded

to

the Bay of Bleevelt, so named from a pirate, who used to resort thither, as we did." This is the Bay of Bluefields, now occupied by men equally unscrupulous with those who named it.

Lord Palmerston, therefore, makes the assertion that the Indians of the Mosquito coast were always a free people, and that Spain had no rights there, in total disregard of historical facts, and of the principles laid down by civilized nations, for the regulation and determination of their territorial rights in America. The Mosquito nation, so called, or that fractional tribe named Moscos, were distinguished by no superiority in their social, or other organizations, to exempt them from the rules, which

every where else placed the aborigines under the sovereignity of the discoverer. On the contrary, they were, and the shattered remnants, which still exist, still are among the most degraded, physically, intellectually and morally, of all the savage hordes of America. The long protectorship, which Lord Palmerston asserts Great Britain has exercised over them, has had no elevating or beneficial influence. "Mosco," is a term of degradation, and a Mosco Indian is superior to nothing human, except an Anglo-Moscan.

A

We might rest the cause here, having proved the Spaniards to have been the original discoverers of the eastern Atlantic coast of Central America, thus acquiring a right which no subsequent interposition, by any other power, could invalidate, a right which was afterwards strengthened by actual occupation. If Great Britain set up any protectorship over the savage tribes of that coast, she violated a principle of international law, and committed an act of hostility against Spain. She acquired no rights thereby, nor were those tribes relieved from Spanish sovereignty. It is therefore immaterial to the real question at issue, whether the patrons of pirates in Jamaica, at any time pretended, or exercised, a protection over the Indians, amongst whom their piratical proteges had sought safety from the gallows and the yard-arm.

We now come to a comparatively late period, and one of peculiar difficulty to his Lordship. He asserts that Great Britain always recognized the independence of the Mosquito Indians, and never relinquished her protectorship over them. We assert, on the other hand, that Great Britain never, in any valid manner, recognized these Indians as a nation, and never exercised any real protection over them; or if she ever did, or intended to do so, that she has repeatedly, and in the most solemn manner, by her treaties, and her acts, disclaimed both.

We have elsewhere presented a historical sketch of English intercourse with the Mosquito shore. We have shown how English adventurers (pirates) obtained a footing there, and noticed the attempts which England made, at various times, to obtain possession of the country in absolute sovereignty, and how she formally, and by her treaties of 1671, 1736, 1763, 1783,