withdraw. She does continue to protect, and, she must continue to protect, a people who are not to be abandoned merely because they are feeble and defenceless, after our Sovereign, during successive administrations in this country, has pledged the royal word that protection should be afforded them, unless we can, by our friendly interference, procure them a protection equal, at least, to that which is extended by means of the British ship-of-war which guards their coast, and from which, if necessary, an armed force might descend to repel any act of aggression. We cannot desert an ally on account of his feebleness, any more than we can crouch before a foe on account of his strength. But Mr. Buchanan did not stop here: he added, that although he would not insist upon Great Britain immediately resigning the settlement of Belize, which she held under a treaty with Spain above half a century ago, provided she complied with all the other conditions which the United States imposed upon her- he nevertheless exacted that she should at once abandon all additions which had been made to this settlement subsequent to the treaties to which we have alluded. In short, the original settlement was to be held for a time on sufferance— the extension which had been given to it, without a moment's delay surrendered. What right had Mr. Buchanan to hold this language with respect to Belize, either with or without the additions which during the last fifty years it had received?

The obligations imposed by the treaty of 1850 do not extend further than Central America; whereas the settlement of Belize is known to be in Yucatan. We have a treaty respecting it with Mexico-a State which does not and never did belong to the country called Central America. Nor is this all: as that part of Mexico in which the settlement of Belize is situated, is adjacent to one of the Central American States, Her Majesty's Government instructed the British Minister at Washington to make, at the time that ratifications were exchanged, a special declaration that Belize was not in anywise within the terms of the treaty,-a declaration which we venture to think was in no wise needed, and which has probably led to the idea that the settlement in question might have been included without such declaration, but which nevertheless was made expressly to avoid misconception: and the Secretary of the State Department not only acknowledged to Sir Henry Bulwer that it was not understood by the negotiators that the treaty included the British settlement of Honduras; he also declared, when communicating the treaty to the Senate (July 20. 1850), That the said treaty did not recognise, affirm, or deny the title

of the British settlement at Belize, which by the coast was 500 miles from the proposed canal, that settlement standing 'precisely as it stood before the treaty.'

In fact, unless as Mr. Clayton himself has since stated, in reference to this very point, the term Central America is confined to the five republics of Central America, which the two negotiators clearly understood to be the meaning of the word, it might extend to California just as well as to British Honduras- there would, in short, be no distinct limit to it. Nor can it be said that this construction merely guards Belize, as that settlement existed in 1786, without the extensions that were thereafter given to it, because none of such extensions have been carried within the boundaries which the Central American States possessed when they first assumed the title of Central 'American,' by forming themselves into the Central American Confederation. There is thus not a shadow of ground for any demand on the part of the United States with respect to Her Majesty's settlement at Belize, which demand could only have been thrown into the controversy as something that might be conceded if the other pretensions of the United States were allowed to prevail.

We now come to the only subject on which a case does arise of a somewhat complicated nature, and on which the United States Government might have asked that some impartial arbiter should express an opinion.

There is an island called Ruatan, with an important harbour, off the coast of Spanish Honduras, (which is not to be confounded with the Belize settlement called British Honduras,) surrounded by a certain number of small islands of little value. This island was held alternately by Great Britain and Spain, during their former history. Of late years it has been claimed by the State of Spanish Honduras, but inhabited by British settlers from the West Indian Islands, and governed by a magistrate named by the superintendent of Belize, who is himself under the Governor of Jamaica. The British Government so far took formal possession of this island, prior to 1850, as on one occasion to send a ship of war to haul down the flag of Honduras, which they had heard had been erected there, and hoist the British flag thereupon in its stead. But the island was not formally erected into a colony until 1852, when in conjunction with the other small adjacent islands, the whole establishment was called the Colony of the Bay Islands.'

Now the declaration made by Her Majesty's Government at the time of the ratification of the treaty was not confined to the

settlement of Belize, but embraced Belize and its dependencies. Mr. Clayton, in his reply acknowledged, as we have said, that British Honduras was not included in the terms of the treaty, nor the small islands adjacent thereto, known as its dependencies. Sir H. Bulwer, in order to prevent any limitation which Mr. Clayton by the words above cited might have meant to convey, replied thereto; concluding his note by the following observation:I understand that you fully recognise that it was not the intention of our negotiation to embrace in the treaty ' of April 19. whatever is Her Majesty's settlement at Honduras, nor whatever are the dependencies of that settlement; and Her Majesty's title thereto subsequent to the said treaty, will remain just as it was prior to that treaty, without undergoing any alteration whatever in consequence thereof.'

6

It was on this note of Sir Henry Bulwer, and not on the preceding note of Mr. Clayton, that the subject closed. It is clear, therefore, that the British negotiator, without intending to affirm that Ruatan was or was not a dependency of Belize a point indeed which is doubtful, since it might rather be considered one of the West Indian Islands, and has been designated as such by different geographers-extended the protection of the declaration he was instructed to make over whatever might legitimately be considered dependencies of the Belize settlement.

But it matters little whether Ruatan is a dependency of Belize, or a West Indian island; the whole question is whether it is the property of Great Britain. Mr. Buchanan in his memorandum declares that it is not, but that on the contrary it belongs to Spanish Honduras; and that as Spanish Honduras is now a Central American State, any territory belonging to it is also within Central America, and cannot be made a colony of by Great Britain, as this island was made a colony in 1852, without an infringement of the treaty of 1850. Let arbiters, let any one decide this question between the two governmentsnothing can be more simple-and every legitimate subject of discussion and difference ceases.

Here, indeed, we have disposed of the whole case of Central America; but we think it right, before concluding our remarks, to notice an error under which most persons with whom we have conversed on this matter seem to labour, viz. that the two negotiators of the treaty have differed to any considerable extent upon its construction. We allude to this error because we think, while maintaining our own view, it is due to the good faith of Mr. Clayton to show that

we differ little, if at all, from the views which that gentleman, who was one of the negotiators, has maintained. In the first place, then, with respect to the British settlement of Honduras, no one can state more openly than Mr. Clayton has done in the United States, or show more conclusively, that Belize never was or could be within the limits of the treaty, even setting the declaration which accompanied it entirely aside. In a most able speech he proves, we think beyond controversy, what we contend for-namely, that Belize not being in Central America, could not be touched by the treaty which only alluded to Central America. In the next place, with respect to the assertion that the treaty he negotiated did away with the protection of Great Britain over the Mosquitos, he expressly says that the 'protectorate was not disavowed by the treaty, but disarmed by it:' such is the fact, for the obligation not to fortify or have an army of occupation in right of such protection, did for all aggressive purposes clearly disarm it. Lastly, he acknowledges that he knew that Great Britain had possession of Ruatan at the time of the treaty, and that he had meant to leave the question as to whether it was or was not a lawful possession of Great Britain an open question. The only point of importance on which Mr. Clayton differs from Her Majesty's Government, judging from his speeches which we have taken the pains to peruse, is one of those speculative points which are as frequently introduced into political controversy as into theological dispute, although they have in reality little practical bearing on the subject under discussion. Her Majesty's Government happened to say that the treaty was prospective and not retrospective; and, to speak literally, it is only prospective, since the contracting parties state that they will not do certain things, and 'will' is the future tense of the verb To be against this conclusion, however, Mr. Clayton strenuously contends, because, were it admitted, his countrymen would imagine that by the sly introduction of this little word 'will,' he had been ingeniously outwitted, and Great Britain enabled to retain a great number of valuable rights and possessions which she would otherwise have had to resign. If, however, we here refer to the original source from which the disputed passage in the treaty was drawn, and to which we have already more than once alluded, we shall see that 'will' employed to convey the sense of intend.' Mr. Lawrence asked Lord Palmerston if the British Government in

was

See Mr. Clayton's speech in Senate (Jan. 16. 1854).
VOL. CIV. NO. CCXI.

U

tended to do certain things, which Lord Palmerston said the British Government did not intend to do. It is clear, therefore, that Mr. Lawrence did not consider that these things had then been done, or he would not have inquired whether there was an intention of doing them. A contracting party who says he will not do a thing implies equally that he has not done it. Thus the question as to whether the treaty is prospective or retrospective is a mere matter of words; for Great Britain does not acknowledge that she had at the time of the treaty done what she declared she would not do after it. She was suspected at the time of the treaty of an intention to occupy the Mosquito Coast, but she did not occupy it in 1850, and has not occupied it since 1850. The settlement of Belize was not within the limits of Central America in 1850. Great Britain has not extended that settlement into the limits of Central America since 1850. As to Ruatan and the Bay Islands, there was no recognition of their being within Central America in 1850; it has not been established that they are within Central America at this time. If they are, we must have taken them unjustly from some Central American State. This fact, we consent to submit to arbitration, and if it is decided against us, their restitution would be an act of justice equally obligatory upon us if we had made no treaty at all with the United States.

We think that any one who has taken the trouble to go with us through this long-protracted controversy, of which we have endeavoured to condense into as small a space as possible the substance, will perceive how the United States Government has step by step advanced in its pretensions as we have consented to its demands. In the first instance its object is a canal and the freedom and neutrality of that canal. We meet its wishes by granting everything which could favour the construction of the projected canal or the general establishment of inter-oceanic communication across the Central American Isthmus, and the independence or neutrality of that isthmus. No special obligation to the United States forced us to do this; we did it from good will, and from desire to live in harmony and friendship with them, and from a belief that our interests on this subject might be united with theirs. There was only one thing we could not do, abandon our engagements with a poor and friendless people, merely for the sake of allowing the United States Government to boast that it had compelled us to this act of dishonour. For a time these concessions are deemed satisfactory; we enter into further negotiations, on our common understanding of them, with a view of complying with the