The Washington union., 1857-05-08

the British title want Of title, in that region ante
rior to 1850, became comparatively unimportan The
question at issue question reconstruction under
the treaty. The convention just now deceased was
made to that question and since could not accom-
psh its purpose by doing less than is contemplated
in the Senate amendment. we repeat inquiry, why
should Great Britain have excepted to that amend
ment? This inquiry becomes still pertinent,
in view Of the statement of the London Morning Post
that @Great Britain has ceded the Bay Islands to the
republic of Honduras.p If she has done this, what
objection should she have to distinct and formal
recognition of the fact, proposed in the Senates
amendment? But, says the Post the British treaty
with Honduras provided certain rights and condi-
tions concerning the Bay Islands which are wholly
ignored by the Senate's amendment, The obvious
answer to this is, that with the arrangements and
conditions of the Honduras treaty this govern
ment had nothing to do. 1t may have had its own
impressions about the course which great and
generous and magnanimous nation ought to pur-
sue in its treatment of feeble power whom it had
wronged, but its purpose was answered If Great
Britain had dsne with respect to the Bay Islands
what it required TO do by the Clayton-Bul-
wer convention, and what the Morning Post even
now reiterates that it has done. The declaration
Of the Post about Sarery s the merest moonshne i'll
the world. What has this government to do with
the question Of slavery in the Bay Islands? We do
not own the islands, and never claimed to own them.
In our view, they belong to Honduras, and Hondu-
ras, suppose, is just capable of managing the
islands which belong to her the main land. II is
quite ludicrous, it to us, that England should
have much anxiety about the rights and independ-
ence of a part of Honduras the Morning Post
cribes to it, Our memory il, that these rights and
independence" have been chiefly in danger from
Great Britain herself 1t was England that seized
upon Ruatan in 1880, and then restored it again to
its owner 1t England that repeated this seizure
in 1S4l without shadow of right and against the
earnest protest Of Honduras 1t was England that
ten years later, added four other CentralAmerican
islands to Ruaan, and then completed its usurpation
and its wrong by erecting them into colony under
British officers. 1t is England that still keeps pos
session of this colony and renews the commission of
its governor 1t is England that fixes conditions for
Honduras with respect to the management of its
territory, and seeks apparently, to make this
g government party to those conditions 1t is Eng
ai that interferes with the subject of slavery in the
Bay Islands, and, by ,uendo at least desires sim
liar interference from the United States And when
this same England sets herself up protector of
e the rights and independence" of Honduras against
some apprehended interference on tho part Of the
United States she occupies, repeat, in the eyes
of the world, most ludcrous position. In the very
treaty just ended this government has proposed
nothing and said nothing and done nothing with re-
spect to slavery in Honduras, anywhere else. We
do not either why Great Britain should have
been SO much troubled about it; and if she really
meant to thrust Wilao provso into the treaty in
disguised form, and without any earthly necessity
for it. we must be permitted to add that we think she
was pursuing course of conduct quite unworthy of
her, and offensive not only to Honduras but to the
United States where slavery is known to exist What
if this government had undertaken to introduce into
the treaty stipulation that feature Of the British
government should ever have place in Ruatan--
King, Lords Commons, or established churcl--what
would Great Britain have said to that? What would
she have said had we inserted clause prohib-
iting the East India Company from poisoning the
future inhabitants of the Bay Islands with opium
What, if we had leveled blow at the cody trade
will made any fling whatever at the institutions or
practices of England, what would she have thought
of it, and what would she have replied to tg Tn
qnestionaby it would have awakened the same feel
ing of indignant scorn which similar course Of con.
duct must always awaken in the people and govern
mcnt of this country.
But we return to our inquiry, why was the Senate
amendment 30 fatally Objectionable to England if
England meant wholly to withdraw, in fact as well as
in appearance, from the Bay Islands of Honduras ?
We leave this question to readers. At another
time we may recur to it. But we repeat now our
conviction that if this full withdrawal was not intend
ed, if the proposed surrender to Honduras was so
cloggcd by conditions to be no surrender at ALL |
il the sovereignty of that republic the islands
only to be recognised in order to be nullifed
if English power there only to change its form
but not its substance and il thus the new treaty of
1856, like its predecessor of 1850 was adroity con-
trived this subject to keep the word of promise
to the and break it to the hope then il is most
fortunate circumstance alike for this coun
try and England and perhaps, also fortunate for the
peace of the world-that the treaty was permit
ted to die There has been quite enough of misun- |
derstanding on these Central American questions al
d,- Thoro bav baa 10