in pursuance of the interpretation of a convention, to which interpretation they cannot subscribe. The undersigned requests Mr. Buchanan to accept the assurance of his highest consideration. Hon. JAMES BUCHANAN, &c., &c., &c. CLARENDON. LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, The undersigned, envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary of the United States, has the honor to acknowledge the receipt of the note of the Earl of Clarendon, her majesty's principal secretary of state for foreign affairs, dated on the 28th ultimo, in reply to the note of the undersigned of the 11th ultimo, in reference to the Central American questions between the two governments; and he will not fail to transmit a copy of the same, by the next steamer, to the Secretary of State at Washington. Whilst far from intending to renew the general discussion of these questions, which has already been exhausted, the undersigned, in passing, would make a single observation in regard to the Earl of Clarendon's remark, that if the convention of the 19th April, 1850, had intended that Great Britain should withdraw from her possessions. in Central America, "it would have contained, in specific terms, a renunciation" to that effect; "and such renunciation would not have been left as a mere matter of inference." Now, it appears to the undersigned that an engagement by a party not "to occupy," "or exercise any dominion notto or exercise any dominion" over territory of which that party is in actual possession at the date of the engagement, is equivalent in all respects to an agreement to withdraw from such territory. Under these circumstances, this is not "a mere matter of inference;" because the one proposition is necessarily and inseparably involved in the other, and they are merely alternative modes of expressing the same idea. In such a case, to withdraw is not to occupy, and not to occupy is necessarily to withdraw. The undersigned needs no apology for briefly adverting to another argument of the Earl of Clarendon, because it has now for the first time been advanced. He states, that "if the position of the United States government were sound, and the convention was intended to interfere with the state of things existing at the time of its conclusion, and to impose upon Great Britain to withdraw from portions of territory occupied by it, a similar obligation would be contracted by other States acceding to the convention, [under the 6th article,] and the government of the Central American States would, by the mere act of accession, sign away their rights to the territories in which they are situated.' Confining himself strictly to this single view of the subject, the undersigned would observe, that, notwithstanding the general terms employed by the convention, an examination of its provisions, and especially of the sixth article itself, will prove it never intended that the Central American States should become joint parties to this treaty with the United States, Great Britain, and other governments, exterior to Central America. These States are the subjects on which the guarantees of the convention were to act, and the exclusion of all other powers from the occupancy of Central America, with a view to the security not only of this canal, but all other canals or railroads across the isthmus, was one of the main objects to be accomplished by the treaty. The Earl of Clarendon has himself indicated how absurd it would be for the Central American governments to become joint parties to this convention, according to the American construction. It would, however, be none the less absurd according to the British construction; because then no Central American State could accede to the treaty without confining itself forever within its existing boundaries, and agreeing not to add to its territory and extend its occupation under any possible circumstances which might arise in the future. Besides, were it possible for Nicaragua, for example, to become a party to this joint convention, she would then take upon herself the extraordinary obligation to use her own influence with herself, under the 4th article, to induce herself to facilitate the construction of the canal, and to use her good offices to procure from herself "the establishment of two free ports, one at each end of the canal," both these ports being within her own limits. Consequences almost equally extraordinary would result from other portions of the convention. But although the contracting parties could not have intended that the Central American States should become joint parties to the convention, yet they foresaw that it would be necessary to obtain stipulations from one or more of them, individually, providing for the security of the proposed canal, adapted to their anomalous condition and without interfering in any manner with their territorial possessions. Accordingly, in the sixth article, and in the clause next following that commented upon by the Earl of Clarendon, the convention provides as follows: "And the contracting parties likewise agree that each shall enter into treaty stipulations with such of the Central American States as they may deem advisable, for the purpose of more effectually carrying out the great design of this convention, namely, that of constructing and maintaining the said canal as a ship communication between the two oceans, for the benefit of mankind, on equal terms to all, and of protecting the same," &c., &c. In order to arrive at the conclusion that the Central American States are embraced in the general language of the first clause of the sixth article, it would be necessary to overlook this second clause entirely, or at least to regard it as unnecessary and without meaning. The undersigned has the honor to renew to the Earl of Clarendon the assurance of his distinguished consideration. JAMES BUCHANAN. Right Hon. the EARL OF CLARENDON, &c., &c., &c. Statement for Mr. Buchanan. FOREIGN OFFICE, May 2, 1854. The substance of the case submitted to her majesty's government by Mr. Buchanan may be briefly stated as follows: 1. That Great Britain, prior to April, 1850, was "in possession of the whole coast of Central America, from the Rio Hondo to the port and harbor of San Juan de Nicaragua, except that portion of it between the Sarstoon and Cape Honduras, together with the adjacent Honduras island of Ruatan.' 2. That the government of the United States does not understand under what title Great Britain, having abandoned the greater part of these possessions in 1786, resumed them subsequently, nor does it know precisely at what period the protectorate of Great Britain over Mosquito was re-established, the first intimation which the United States government had received on the subject being from an American agent in 1842, and that, moreover, Captain Bonnycastle and other authorities had never represented the Mosquito shore as extending as far as the river and town of San Juan de Nicaragua, which latter the Spaniards had considered a place of much importance, and the key to the Americas. 3. That it appears to the United States government that Spain, in virtue of the treaty of 1786, had a right to object to Great Britain establishing herself on the Mosquito coast, or assuming the protectorate of Mosquito, and that Great Britain had, by her treaty with Mexico, recognized that the former colonies of Spain stood in the same position with respect to other States as old Spain herself, and inherited the advantages of the ancient treaties of the mother country; that the United States government had always contested the claim of Great Britain to all the possessions held by her in Central America, with the exception of that portion of the settlement of Belize which is situated between the Rio Hondo and the Sibun; that it had always resisted the right of Great Britain to establish a protectorate over the Mosquitos, and that it had learned with great surprise and regret that the British forces had, in 1848, expelled the Nicaraguan authorities, which held the port and town of San Juan de Nicaragua, in virtue of the old Spanish rights, and had then hoisted thereupon the flag of the Mosquitos. 4. That Mr. Monroe, when President of the United States, had, in 1823, announced in a public message to Congress that the American continents were not, henceforth, to be considered subject to colonization by European powers. 5. That no claim on the part of Great Britain to act in the name, or under the authority of the Mosquito Indians, could be well founded, inasmuch as that race, even if never conquered by Spain, were savages, who, according to the practice and principles of all European nations which had ever acquired territory on the continent of America, had no title to rank as independent States in the territory they occupied, but had a claim to mere occupancy thereon, such territory being the dominion of the discoverer of it, or even of the discoverer of territory on the same continent, though far distant from it, by whom, alone, this claim to mere occupancy on the part of the Indians was to be extinguished by purchase, as the advances of the white settlements rendered it necessary. And, finally, that Great Britain having declared by treaty, in 1850, that she would neither colonize, fortify, occupy, nor assume dominion over Mosquito or Central America, was thereby, at all events, bound to withdraw her protection from the people and territory of the Mosquitos, and moreover to deliver up Ruatan, which was an island belonging to Honduras, a Central American State, but which, nevertheless, had recently been colonized and occupied by Great Britain. Such are the main points brought forward by Mr. Buchanan in the statement which he has delivered to her majesty's government. If, in speaking of the possessions held by Great Britain previous to 1850 on the coast of Central America, (the settlement of Belize excepted,) Mr. Buchanan means that his expressions should apply to that district which is called the Mosquito country, it is proper that her majesty's government should at once state that her majesty has never held any possessions whatsoever in the Mosquito country. But although Great Britain held no possessions in the Mosquito country, she undoubtedly exercised a great and extensive influence over it as the protecting ally of the Mosquito king, that king or chief having occasionally been even crowned at Jamaica under the auspices of the British authorities. The United States government will, it is apprehended, scarcely expect that Great Britain should enter into any explanations or defence of her conduct with respect to acts committed by her nearly forty years ago, in a matter in which no right or possession of the United States was involved. The government of the United States would, it is conceived, be much and justly surprised if the government of Great Britain were now to question the propriety of any of its own long past acts by which no territorial right of Great Britain had been affected, nor would the American people consider any justification or explanation of such acts to foreign States consistent with the dignity and independent position of the United States. The government of the United States, therefore, will not be surprised if the government of Great Britain abstains, on this occasion, from entering into anything which might appear an explanation or defence of its conduct with regard to its long established protectorate of the Mosquitos. With respect to any right or any interference of the government of old Spain, on the subject of the Mosquito protectorate, it must be observed that since the peace of 1815, that government has never raised any question with respect to this protectorate; and as for Great Britain having by her treaty with Mexico recognized, as a principle, that the engagements between herself and Spain were necessarily transferred to every fraction of the Spanish monarchy which now exists, or may exist, on a distinct and independent basis, her majesty's government must entirely deny this assumption. Great Britain, in her treaty with Mexico, simply stipulated that British subjects should not be worse off under Mexican independence than under Mexico when a Spanish province. It was natural, in recognizing the independence of Mexico, that Great Britain should make such a stipulation, but the fact of her doing so rather proves that she thought a special stipulation necessary, and that she did not conceive that she would have enjoyed, under any general principle, the privilege she bargained for, and this stipulation, as indeed the treaty itself, is a proof that Mexico was not considered as inheriting the obligations or rights of Spain. But admitting that it may, in some cases, be expedient, although not obligatory, to recognize the rights and obligations of old Spain as vested in the new Spanish American States, and allowing that, in conformity with that policy, Great Britain might have thought proper to receive, concerning Mosquito, the remonstrances of those neighboring republics which have successively risen in America on the ruins of the Spanish empire, even then, it may be observed, that no remonstrance was made by any such republics for many years after the protectorate of Great Britain over Mosquito had been a fact well known to them; and moreover, that when such remonstrances were made, they were made with similar pretensions, not by one only, but by several of those governments, insomuch, that if the Mosquito Indians were at this moment withdrawn altogether from the portion of America which they now inhabit, and if it were permitted to the States of Spanish origin to inherit each respectively the claims of their parent State, it would still be a question on which of the claimants the territory thus left unoccupied would of right devolve. Whilst it is certain that such withdrawal, without previous arrangements, would lead to contests alike disadvantageous to the real interests of the several States, and to the general prosperity of Central America herself. Thus much with reference to the conduct and position of Spain and the Central American States with regard to the British protectorate in Mosquito; but with respect to the conduct and position of the United States relative thereto, Mr. Buchanan is mistaken in thinking that the United States government has always contested and resisted the position assumed by Great Britain on the Mosquito coast. It may be true that the United States were not informed of the position of Great Britain in respect to Mosquito until 1842, but they were then informed of it; and yet there is no trace of their having alluded to this question in their communications with her majesty's government up to the end of 1849. Nay, in 1850, when the President of the United States presented to Congress various papers relative to the affairs of Central America, it will be seen that, on introducing these affairs to the attention of Congress, the President's Secretary of State for foreign affairs expressly says that the government of Nicaragua, in November, 1847, solicited the aid of the United States government to prevent an anticipated attack on San Juan, by the British forces acting on behalf of the Mosquito king, but received no answer; that the president of Nicaragua addressed the President of the United States at the same time, and received no answer; that in April, 1848, the United States consul at Nicaragua, at the request of the minister of foreign affairs of that republic, stated the occupation of San Juan by a British force, but was not answered; that on the 5th November, 1848, M. Castillon, proceeding to London from Nicaragua, and then to Washington, addressed a letter to the United |