it would have imposed upon the government of the United States a selfdenying obligation which was not equally contracted by Great Britain, and that such a state of things could not have been in the intention of the contracting parties; because, if the convention did bear the meaning attached to it by the United States, it would then have imposed upon Great Britain the obligation to renounce possessions and rights without any equivalent renunciation on the part of the United States. If the government of the United States can complain in the one case of the convention as presenting an unilateral character unfavourable to the United States, with much greater reason might the government of Great Britain, in the other case, if the assumption of the United States were to be acted upon in the construction of the convention, complain of it as prejudicial to England.

But, looking to the object which the contracting parties had in view at the conclusion of the convention-namely, the security of the proposed shipcanal-the British government consider that the design of the contracting parties was not to disturb any state of things then existing, but to guard against the future creation of a state of things which might by possibility interfere with the security of the proposed canal. That such was the true design of the convention is obvious from the provision in the sixth article, by which the contracting parties engaged to invite every state to enter into stipulations with them similar to those contained in the convention. But 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, and the governments of the Central American states would, by the mere act of accession, sign away their rights to the territories in which they are situated.

The Britith government share the conviction of the President of the United States, that the interest of the two countries, and their mutual desire to maintain existing friendly relations, will alike inspire each party with a conciliatory spirit, and enable them to overcome all obstacles to a satisfactory adjustment of Central American questions. The British government see no reason why it should be otherwise. The British government neither have the wish to extend the limits of their possessions or the sphere of their influence in that quarter, nor would any British interest be promoted by doing so; but the British government are not prepared to contract either the one or the other 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, CLARENDON.

The Hon. JAMES BUCHANAN, &c., &c., &c.,

LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES,

London, October 4, 1855.

The undersigned, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of the United States, has the honour 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 goverements, 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" 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 governments 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 for ever 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 cxtraordinary 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 6th 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 6th article, it would be necesssary to overlook this second clause entirely, or at least to regard it as unnecessary and without meaning.

The undersigned has the honour to renew to the Earl of Clarendon the assurance of his distinguished consideration.

The Right Hon. the EARL of CLArendon,

&c., &c., &c.

JAMES BUCHANAN.

612249

2

Now Published, in One Volume, royal 8vo, 484 pp. price 12s. with original Maps and Illustrations,

NOTES ON CENTRAL AMERICA.

Particularly the States of Honduras and San Salvador; their Geography, Topography, Climate, Population, Resources, Productions, &c. and the proposed Honduras-Inter-Oceanic Railway.

By E. G. SQUIER,

Formerly Chargé d'Affaires of the United States to the Republics of Central America.

In Preparation,

TRÜBNER'S BIBLIOTHECA GLOTTICA.

I.

A BIBLIOGRAPHY OF AMERICAN ABORIGINAL
LINGUISTICS.

Compiled and Arranged by HERMANN E. LUDEWIG.

With an Appendix, being a Monograph of the Aboriginal Languages of Central America, by E. G. SQUIER.

In One Volume, 8vo.

LONDON: TRÜBNER & CO., 12, PATERNOSTER ROW.