The Northern Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1856-07-07 00:00:00

THE CENTRAL AMERICAN QUESTION.

DEBATE 1N THE SENATE ON THE CLAYTON..
BULIVER TREATY.

SPEECHES OF MESSES. CLAYTON, PEARCE AND CASS.

Thursday, June 19, 1856

Mr. Clayton : Mr. President, I ask the indulgence of the
Senate for the purpose of correcting an error which appears
upon the report of a recent parliamentary debate in which
the Earl of Clarendon took an active part. Injustice is
done to this country by the statement which his lordship is
represented to have made. I am disposel to leave all
questions of diplomacy to the able Secretary of State, who now
manages our foreign affairs, and our ministers abroad.
Without any desire to interfere with them, I hold it a duty,
when his lordship, on the floor of the British House of
Peers, makes a statement erroneous and injurious to us,
(which is republished in this country) to correct it. The
effect of the republication in this country of such statements
as his lordship has chosen to make in Great Britain, is to
mislead not only his countrymen but mine. The statement
to which I refer will be found republished in nearly all the
important papers of the United States ; and I am about to
read it from the National Intelligencer of the 16th instant.
His lordship said—

With regard to the Central American question, your lord-
ships know what were the terms of the Claytou-Bulwer treaty.
I think it impossible that language could be more clear or
more precise in its meaning than the language employed in
that instrument. (Hear, hear). The treaty sets forth that
there should not be in future any colonisation, any occupation,
any fortifying or strengthening of places not already in possession
of either country. I do not see why there can be two
interpretations of its terms.

If that were the language of the treaty—if that were even
a tolerably fair paraphrase of the language of the treaty—l
should not have complained ; but every man who is not
perfectly conversant with the treaty will be astonished when
I do what I intend to do, place that language of his lordship
in a parallel column with the clause of the treaty of which
he professes to give us the very words. Now here are the
real words of the treaty .

The governments of the United States and Great Britain
hereby declare that neither one or the other will ever occupy,
or fortity, or colonize, or assume or exercise any dominion over
Nicaragua, Costa Rica, the Mosquito coast, or any part of
Central America, nor will either make use of any protection
which either affords, or may afford, or any alliance which
either has, or may have, to or with any state or people, for the
purpose of erecting or maintaining any such fortifications, or
of occupying, fortifying, or colonising Nicaragua, Costa Rica,
the Mosquito coast, or any part of Central America, or of
assuming or exercising dominion over the same.

Now read these quotations from the debate and the treaty
in parallel columns, and see how the British secretary of
foreign aff,irs has misapprehended, and so misstated, in the
presence of the British public and the world, the words of
the treaty—

TREATY. LORD CLARRNDON'S STATE-
The gover merits of the United stintr.
States and Great Britain, hereby The treaty sets forth that there
declare fit it nei her the one nor should not be in future any
the other will ever occupy, or occupa ion. any fortifying or
fortify, or r ssume. flr exercise any strengthening of p ices not
dominion over Nica aqua, Costa already in the possession of
Rica, he ?ilosqito coast, or any either country.
part of Central America.

He has first interpolated the words "in future." There
are no such words in the treaty. In the next place, his
lordship has interpolated other words, which entirely change
the whole construction and meaning of the treaty, to wit :
" Places not already in possession of either country."
These words are palpably added by his lordship for the
purpose of sustaining his own construction of the treaty,
which all just men must feel could not possibly be sup-
ported by its plain language. It is by these means that
his lordship makes it appear that Great Britain is not
bound to abandon places " already io her possession."
If this report of the noble earl's speech be correct, as it is
published iu the English papers, it is an outrage upon all
propriety, requiring no further comment from me. What
I think most extraordinary is, that such just men as the
Earl of Elgin, a descendant of the Bruce, and Earl Grey,
both highly honourable and very able men, wh3 made no
comment that was not worthy of their position, and whose
language was most amicable towards us—l say I think it
most remarkable that men of their high intelligence should
have beard his lordship thus grossly misrepresent this treaty
between the two countries, and made no attempt to disabuse
the House of Peers or the British public by referring to the
language of the treaty. His lordship proceeds thus to speak
of the treaty :

It was intended for a specific object : first, the construction
of a canal, and then its maintenance free for the use of the