Page images
[ocr errors]

potentiary, has received her majesty's instructions to declare that her
majesty does not understand the engagements of that convention to
apply to her majesty's settlement at Honduras, or to its dependencies.
Her majesty's ratification of the said convention is exchanged under
the explicit declaration above mentioned.
“Done at Washington the 29th day of June, 1850.


Memorandum touching Sir Henry Bulwer's declaration filed by Mr.

Clayton in the Department of State at Washington, July 5, 1850.


Washington, July 5, 1850. The within declaration of Sir H. L. Bulwer was received by me on the 29th day of June, 1850. In reply, I wrote him my note of the 4th of July, acknowledging that I understood British Honduras was not embraced in the treaty of the 19th day of April last; but at the same time carefully declining to affirm or deny the British title in their settlement or its alleged dependencies. After signing my note last night, I delivered it to Sir Henry, and we immediately proceeded, without any further or other action, to exchange the ratifications of said treaty. The blank in the declaration was never filled up. The consent of the Senate to the declaration was not required, and the treaty was ratified as it stood when it was made.

“JOHN M. CLAYTON. “N. B.—The rights of no Central American State have been compromised by the treaty or by any part of the negotiations.”

For the text of Mr. Clayton's note to Sir H. L. Bulwer of July 4, 1850, see

H. Ex. Doc. 1, 34 Cong. 1 sess. 119. The essential part of the note is quoted below, in Lord Clarendon's statement for Mr. Buchanan of May

2, 1854. When the declaration of Sir H. Bulwer, and the reply of Mr. Clayton, of

July 4, 1850, on the exchange of the ratifications of the treaty, were communicated with other papers to the Senate, a discussion took place, in which Mr. Cass bore the leading part. Mr. Cass denied the authority of Mr. King to speak for him, and offered a resolution instructing the Committee on Foreign Relations to inquire and report what measures, if any, should be taken by the Senate in regard to the correspondence. The committee reported that no measures were, in its opinion, neces

sary, and none were taken. (S. Rep. 407, 32 Cong. 2 sess.) See speech of Gen. Cass in the Senate, Jan. 11, 1854, Cong. Globe, 33 Cong.

1 sess., App., given in Smith's Life of Cass, 750. For Mr. Clayton's speech in the Senate, March 8 and 9, 1853, in which it is

maintained that Belize, or British Honduras, within its proper limits, originally constituted a part of Yucatan, and not of Central America,

see Cong. Globe, 32 Cong. 3 sess., App. 247. “It is believed that Great Britain has a qualified right over a tract of country called the Belize, from which she is not ousted by this


treaty, because no part of that tract, when restricted to its proper limits, is within the boundaries of Central America."

Mr. Marcy, Sec. of State, to Mr. Borland, min. to Central America, Dec. 30,

1853, Correspondence in Relation to the Proposed Interoceanic Canal (Washington, 1885), 247.

“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 term of modern invention—could only appropriately apply to those States at one time united under the name of the Central American Republic,' and now existing as five separate republies; but, in order that there should be no possible misconception at any future period relative to this point, the two negotiators, at 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 on this subject was ample and satisfactory, as the following extract from his note of July 4, 1850, will show:

"The language of Article I. 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, &c., 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 Ilonduras, as distinct from the State of Honduras), nor the small islands in the neighborhood 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 Honorable W. R. King, informs me that the Senate perfectly understood that the treaty did not include British Ilonduras.'

“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 Government of the 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 re-established 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 Ilonduras for regulating the limits which should be given to it, and which shall not henceforth be extended beyond the boundaries now assigned to them."

Statement of Lord Clarendon for Mr. Buchanan, May 2, 1854, 46 Br. & For.

State Papers, 267; H. Ex. Doc. 1, 34 Cong..1 sess. 89.

“In regard to Belize proper, confined within its legitimate boundaries, under the treaties of 1783 and 1786, and limited to the usufruct specified in these treaties, it is necessary to say but a few words. The Government of the United States will not, for the present, insist upon the withdrawal of Great Britain from this settlement, provided all the other questions between the two Governments concerning Central America can be amicably adjusted. It has been influenced to pursue this course, partly by the declaration of Mr. Clayton, of the 4th of July, 1850, but mainly in consequence of the extension of the license granted by Mexico to Great Britain under the treaty of 1826, which that Republic has yet taken no steps to terminate.

“It is, however, distinctly to be understood that the Government of the United States acknowledge no claim of Great Britain within Belize, except the temporary ‘liberty of making use of the wood of the different kinds, the fruits and other produce in their natural state,' fully

recognizing that the former Spanish sovereignty over the country belongs either to Guatemala or to Mexico.

“In conclusion, the Government of the United States most cordially and earnestly unite in the desire expressed by 'Her Majesty's Government, not only to maintain the convention of 1850 intact, but to consolidate and strengthen it by strengthening and consolidating the friendly relations which it was calculated to cement and perpetuate.' Under these mutual feelings it is deeply to be regretted that the two Governments entertain opinions so widely different in regard to its true effect and meaning.”

Remarks of Mr. Buchanan, min. to England, July 22, 1854, in reply to Earl

of Clarendon, 46 Br. & For. State Papers, 295; H. Ex. Doc. 1,34 Cong. 1

sess. 113. See Mr. Marcy, Sec. of State, to Mr. Buchanan, min. to England, June 12,

Aug. 6, 1855, H. Ex. Doc. 1, 34 Cong. 1 sess. 67, 69; and President Pierce's annual message of Dec. 31, 1855, id.

Great Britain had not, at the time of the convention of April 19, 1850, “any rightful possessions in Central America, save only the usufructuary settlement at the Belize, if that really be in Central America;” and at the same time, “if she had any, she was bound by the express tenor and true construction of the convention, to evacuate the same, so as thus to stand on precisely the same footing in that respect as the United States."

Mr. Marcy, Sec. of State, to Mr. Dallas, min. to England, July 26, 1856, MS.

Inst. Gr. Brit. XVII. 1, 10. The whole of this instruction is of great

See, also, Mr. Marcy to Mr. Dallas, March 14, April 7, May 24, 1856, MS.

Inst. Gr. Br. XVI. 468, 471, 480.
See S. Ex. Docs. 12, and 27, 32 Cong. 2 sess.; S. Ex. Doc. 1, 34 Cong. 1 sess.


$ 353.



Belize, July 17, 1852. “This is to give notice that her Most Gracious Majesty the Queen has been pleased to constitute and make the islands of Roatan [Ruatan], Bonacca, Utilla, Barbarat, Helene, and Morat to be a colony to be known and designated as the Colony of the Bay Islands.'


" Acting Colonial Secretary. “God save the Queen!” Correspondence in relation to the Proposed Interoceanic Canal (Washington,

1885), 245.

“I believe Great Britain has never defined the character of her claim to possess what is called the colony of the Bay Islands.' It does not appear to be one of her organized colonies. She has not, in explicit language, claimed sovereignty over it, though her acts have indicated such a purpose. Whatever may have been her rights or pretension to rights over this colony, they were all given up, according to the view here taken of the subject, by the Clayton and Bulwer treaty. .

"It is presumed that the only part of that colony to which England will be disposed to attach much value, or have any inducement to retain, is the island of Ruatan. From an intimation made to me it may be that she will take the position that this island does not belong to any of the Central American States, but is to be regarded in the same condition as one of the West India Islands. By reference to the treaties between Great Britain and Spain, you will find this island clearly recognized as a Spanish possession, and a part of the old viceroyalty of Guatemala."

Mr. Marcy, Sec. of State, to Mr. Buchanan, min. to England, Sept. 12, 1853,

H. Ex. Doc. 1, 34 Cong. 1 sess. 49, 50. “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."

Statement of Mr. Buchanan, min. to England, to the Earl of Clarendon,

Jan. 6, 1854, 46 Br. & For. State Papers, 244, 251; H. Ex. Doc. 1, 34 Cong.

1 sess. 55, 57, 61. In a statement, dated May 2, 1854, in reply to Mr. Buchanan's statement,

Lord Clarendon said that the only question that could be debatable with regard to the Bay Islands was, whether they were dependencies of Belize or of some Central American state. It was true, he said, that the Republic of Central America declared that it had had a flag flying

« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »