So much for the spirit which presided over the Convention of 1850.

With regard to the literal meaning, this Treaty declares in words that the two Parties will not occupy, nor fortify, nor colonize, nor assume nor exercise any dominion over Nicaragua, Costa Rica, the Mosquito Coast, nor any part of Ceutral America; and that neither Party will make use of any protection which either affords or may afford, or any alliance which either has or may have with any state or people for the purpose of occupying, or colonizing Nicaragua, Costa Rica, the Mosquito Coast, or any part of Central America, or of assuming or exercising dominion over the same.“

Mr. Buchanan says, with regard to that portion of the foregoing sentence which restricts the use which Grea: Britaiu or the United States might make of any protection which either might afford to any state or people, it has been said that this Article of the Convention acknowledges by implication the Protectorate of Great Britain over Mosquito.

Now, Her Majesty's Government does not pretend that in this Article the United States acknowledged the aforesaid Prolectorate of Great Britain in Mosquito; it was never the inteution of Her Majesty's Government, or that of the British negotiator, to obtain indirectly that which was not asked for openly; but it is evident that this Article clearly acknowledges the possibility of Great Britain or the United States affording protection to Mosquito or any Central American State, and that the intention of the parties was not to prohibit or abolish, but to limit and restrict, such Protectorate.

But supposing all mention of protection in the Treaty had been omitted, and that the question at issue merely rested ou the words colonize, fortify, occupy, and assume or exercise dominion over," is there any one of these terms which excludes the right of protection, although each of them limits its capability?

Defending or protecting is a temporary act of friendship; occupying, colonizing, fortifying, or acquiring sovereignty, are acts which have a permanent result.

It has never been held that neutral territories or kingdoms over which other kingdoms are prohibited by Treaty from acquiring dominion which other kingdoms cannot colonize, occupy, nor fortify may not be defended by such kingdoms at the desire and request of the neutral State; although it would doubtless be necessary for any nation undertaking such defence to declare formally and promise clearly that it would not turn this transitory and allowable act into one of a continuous nature, which engagements bad prohibited.

No one will maintain that the bar to colonization or fortifying is a bar to all protection; no one will assert that to afford protection to a State and establish dominion over it are necestarily the same thing; no one will contend that to send a naval or military force for the purpose of expelling an enemy from

the territory of an ally, or of punishing his antagonist, is to hold or occupy the territory of that ally or of his enemy.

Were this the sense of the word as inserted in the Treaty of 1850, as that word is equally applied to all Central America as well as to Mosquito, it would have a far wider signification than Her Majesty's Government contemplated, or than the United States' Government would, in all probability, admit; for, in such a case, neither Great Britain nor the United States could, in any circumstance, employ force, naval or military, against any Central American State, however great or just the provocation they might receive.

Citizens of the United States, for instance, might on their way from California to Washington be arrested and confined on any suspicion or pretext, and the demands of the United States for their release refused. But is it to be argued, that under such circumstances the United States could not send an armed force into Nicaragua to compel the release of the citizens from California, and chastise those who had unjustly incarcerated them? The United States' Governinent, however, would be bound to state the object it had in view in sending a force into Nicaragua; it would be bound to declare that it did not mean to colonize, fortify, occupy, or establish its sovereignty over Nicaragua, and by adhering to this pledge its Trealy obligations would be fulfilled.

But surely this dispute as to the nature and meaning of protection is one that should not have arisen with respect to the Treaty of 1850.

The very object and nature of that Treaty ought to manifest that protection is not equivalent to occupation or sovereignty, and that it does not of necessity imply the acquisition of any exclusive advantages to the parties protecting, or give those parties exclusive control over that which is protected. Great Britain and the United States, by the said Treaty, bind themselves to protect certain canals, or railways, which may be formed through various independent States; Great Britain and the United States do not by this protection acquire any right of sovereignty or occupation over such canals or railways, whilst they carefully exclude themselves from having any exclusive control over them, and from deriving from them any exclusive privileges.

It is surely unnecessary further to discuss the construction of the Treaty with reference to the protection of Mosquito. That Her Majesty's Government merely expresses now that view of the Treaty which it entertained, and which it had understood that the Government of the United States entertained, when the Treaty was concluded, is evident from the fact that within little more than a month after the Treaty of 1850 had been ratified, Her Majesty's Minister at Washington entered into further negotiations with the Government of the United States relative to the position of Mosquito, interpreting the Treaty as Her Majesty's Government now interprets it. That there was nothing extraordinary, unnatural, or unfair, in the interpretation thus given to the Treaty by Her Majesty's Government, is equally evident from the fact that such interpretation was at once ac

epted by the Secretary of State, Mr. Webster, than whom no statesman at that time living, whether in Europe or America, was more fitted to comprehend the spirit or analyze the wording of any international obligation; and that Her Majesty's Government was not at that time, and is not now, animated by any such object as that of obtaining any peculiar influence or control over the River San Juan, or the canal that may be formed from its waters, is likewise demonstrated by the circumstance, worth noting, that the object which Great Britain had in view in pursuing these further negotiations with the United States was that of withdrawing her protection from the very town called Greytown, or San Juan de Nicaragua, and the adjoining territory, and of placing the same in the hands of some Central American State, on conditions in uowise beneficial to herself, or only beneficial in so far as such conditions tended to maintain a state of peace and tranquillity in that part of the world to which they related, and to preserve the Mosquitos in a territory bordering that which was to be ceded, in an inoffensive state of neutrality and security.

Indeed, when Her Majesty's Minister, in a conversation which took place about the end of July 1851 on this subject, agreed, on the part of the British Government; to assign Greytown to Nicaragua, upon her coming to a fair settlement with Costa Rica as to some of the points of convention between them, and upon her agreeing to leave the Mosquito people unmolested within certain portions of the territory which they now occupy, and over which the Spanish dominion never, otherwise than nominally, extended, Mr. Webster, whilst observing that the United States had no direct interest in any question concerning Nicaragua and Mosquito, except as respected the construction of a Canal and its free navigation, and that, consequently, he did not wish to take an active part in any negotiation extending beyond these limits, added, addressing himself to the Nicaraguan Minister, who was present, that he considered the offer made by the British Minister was one which the Nicaraguan Government might consider as a fair basis for an arrangement; and Her Majesty's Goverument then entertained the hope and belief that, by the friendly understanding subsisting between Great Britain and the United States, and the joint efforts of both, such a settlement would be speedily concluded between all the parties interested as would enable Her Majesty's Government to release itself from the duty of protecting or defending Greytown, in which, for the time being, a self-elected body, in a great measure composed of United States' citizens, was carrying on the Government in the name of the King of Mosquito.

The preceding observations comprise all that Her Majesty's Government has now to say with regard to that portion of Mr. Buchanan's statement to which they have been intended to reply.

But, although the connexion of Great Britain with Mosquito forms one of the subjects of Mr. Buchanan's communication, another subject, not less important, is the actual condition of British Honduras, Ruatan, and the Bay islands.

It was never in the contemplation of Her Majesty's Government, nor in that of the Government of the United States, that the Treaty of 1850 should interfere in any way with Her Majesty's Settlement at Belize or its dependencies.

It was not necessary that this should have been particularly stated, inasmuch as it is generally considered that the term ,,Central America" a térm of modern invention · could only appropriately apply to those States at one time united under the name of the,,Central American Republics," and now existing as five separate Republics; but, in order that there should be no possible misconception at any future period relative to this point, the two negotiators, al the time of ratifying the Treaty, exchanged declarations to the effect that neither of the Governments they represented had meant in such Treaty to comprehend the settlement and dependencies in question.

Mr. Clayton's declaration to Her Majesty's Government ou this subject was ample and satisfactory, as the following extract from his note of July 4, 1850, will show:

The language of the first Article of the Convention concluded on the 19th day of April last, between the United States and Great Britain, describing the country not to be occupied, etc., by either of the parties, was, as you know, twice approved by the Government, and it was neither understood by them, nor by either of us [the negotiators], to include the British Settlement in Honduras (commonly called British Honduras, as distinct from the State of Honduras), nor the small islands in the neighbourhood of that Settlement which may be known as its dependencies.

,,To this Settlement and these islands the Treaty we negotiated was not intended by either of us to apply. The title to them it is now, and has been my intention throughout the whole negotiation, to leave as the Treaty leaves it, without denying or affirming, or in any way meddling with the same, just as it stood previously.

,,The Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate, the Honourable W. A. King, informs me that the Senate perfectly understood that the Treaty did not include British Honduras."

Such having been the mutual understanding as to the exception of the Settlement of Belize and its dependencies from the operation of the Treaty, the only question relative to this Settlement and its dependencies, in reference to the Treaty, that can now arise, is as to what is the Settlement of Belize and its dependencies, or, in other words, as to what is British Honduras and its dependencies.

Her Majesty's Government certainly understood that the Settlement of Belize, as here alluded to, is the Settlement of Belize as established in 1850; and it is more warranted in this conclusion from the fact that the United States had, in 1847, sent a Consul to this Settlement, which Consul had received his exequatur from the British Government; a circumstance which constitutes a recognition by the United States' Governnent of the Nouv. Recueil gén. Tome XV.

P

Settlement of British Honduras under Her Majesty as it then existed.

Her Majesty's Government at once states this, because it perceives that Mr. Buchanan restricts the said Settlement within the boundaries to which it was confined by the Treaty of 1786; whilst Her Majesty's Government not only has to repeat that the Treaties with Old Spain cannot be held, as a matter of course, to be binding with respect to all the various detached portions of the old Spanish-American monarchy, but it has also to observe that the Treaty of 1786 was put an end to by a subsequent state of war between Great Britain and Spain; that during that war the boundaries of the British Settlement in question were enlarged; and that when peace was reestablished between Great Britain and Spain, no Treaty of a political nature, or relating to territorial limits, revived those Treaties between Great Britain and Spain which had previously existed.

Her Majesty's Government, in stating this fact, declares distinctly, at the same time, that it has no projects of political ambition or aggrandizement with respect to the Settlement referred to; and that it will be its object to come to some prompt, fair, and amicable arrangement with the States in the vicinity of British Honduras for regulating the limits which should be given to it, and which shall not henceforth be extended beyond the boundaries now assigned to them.

As to Raatan and the adjoining islands, all that can be debatable as to them is, whether they are island dependencies of Belize or attached to some Central American State.

Now it cannot be disputed that whenever Ruatan has been permanently occupied, either in remote or recent times, by anything more than a military guard or flag-staff, the occupation has been by British subjects.

It is true that the Republic of Central America declared that it had a flag flying in that island from 1821 to 1839; but this fact merely rested on that Republic's declaration, and all that is positively known is that when the British Government were aware that a foreign flag was flying at Ruatan, a British shipof-war was sent to haul it down, and since that time no attempt has been made to reestablish it; but, on the contrary when on two or three occasions complaints have been brought by the citizens of Central American States against the settlers in Ruatan to the Commandant of Truxillo, the Commandant has referred them to Belize, telling them that the island was British.

It is, moreover, a fact that Ruatan has been of late years, without any instigation on the part of Her Majesty's Government, spontaneously occupied by British subjects, and that the Superintendent of Belize has been in the habit of yisiting the island, appointing the magistrates in it, and generally managing its affairs. In going back to ancient times it is also well known that in 1742 the English were formally settled at Ruatan, and that in the atlas of the West Indian islands published by Jefferies, the King's geographer, in 1796, Rattan or Ruatan is coloured as a British possession; and although this island and