The Sun.
London, England, 1856-06-16 00:00:00

THE S.O

ON DON, MONDAY EVENING; JVNErfip, 1856.

business was alluded to—he (Mr. Crampton) had satisfied
me that bis Government bad no connection with it, and was
i❑ no way responsible_ for what was doing in the United
States to raise recruits for thelliitish army. But lam quite
certain that on no occasion has he intimated to me that the
British Government Grin)? of its officers were or had been in
any way concerned iu sending agentsinto the United States
to recruit therein, or to use any inducement for that purpose.
Nor did he even notify to mo that he was taking or in-
tended to take any part in furthering such proceedings.
Such a communication, timely made, would probably hails
arrested the mischief at its commencement. If he had

then apprised me of the system of recruiting which had at
that time been already arranged and put in operation
within the United States by British agents, and under his
superintending direction, he would have been promptly
notified in the most positive terms that such acts were
contrary to the municipal law, incompatible with the
neutral policy of the country, a violation of its national
sovereignty, and especially warned against the violation of
our neutrality laws. But he blames me now for not then
stating to him that my construction of that law differed
from his own ; but no such difference of opinion was then
developed.
" Mr. Crampton on that occasion manifested a coincidence
in opinion as to the provisions of that law which, I then held
and have since fully disclosed. He called on me to show a
letter which he had written on that day to the Consul at New
York disapproving the proceedings of a Mr. Angus M'Donald,
' because I (he) thought those proceedings would or might
be taken to constitute a violation of the Act of Eighteen—the
Neutrality Law of the United States.' What were the pro-
ceedings of Mr. M'Donald which Mr. Crampton thought might
constitute a violation of our neutrality? The simple issuing
of a handbill, specifying the terms on which recruits would
be received at Halifax into the Queen's service.

" This opinion of Mr. Crampton ascribes as much strin-
gency to our neutrality acts as has ever been claimed for them
by the Government or Courts of the United States I had
then no suspicion, nor did Mr. Crampton give any cause to
suspect, that ho was acting_ or intending to act upon an in-
terpretation of that law which would justify the act of Mr.
M'Donald, which he then condemned, and make the law but
little better than a dead letter. I could not but suppose ho
viewed it in the same. light as Lord Clarendon did when he
wrote his despatch to Mr. Crampton on the 12th of April
thereafter, in which his lordship declared it to be not only
very just, but very stringent.'
" To show that I was not mistaken in this respect, I quote
a passage from a letter of Mr. Crampton, dated the 14th of
March, to Sir G. Le Merchant Any advance of money by
her Majesty's agents or others in the United States would con-
stitute an infraction of the neutrality ltw.' The depos;tions
which accompany this despatch, made by some of the same
persons who have furnished the British Government with
affidavits 'to impeach Strobel and Hertz, prove conclusively
that Mr. Crampton did disburse various sums of money to
agonts employed in recruiting within the United States.
"It was; indeed, apprehended by me at the time that
violations of that law would ensue. It could not fail to be
seen that any organised scheme of a foreign government to
draw recruits from the United States, though by mere in-
vitation, would necessarily tend and result in violations of
the municipal law. So decided was my belief in this respect
that measures had already been taken by me, in behalf of.
the Government, as it happened, upon the very day of the
interview with Mr. Crampton, to institute prosecutions
against persons engaged in this business in New York ;and
Philadelphia. I then notified Mr. Crampton of thatfact, as
-he expressly admits in his report of that interview made to
his Government.

" An attempt is made to deduce an excuse for Mr. Cramp-
ton's course in the business of recruiting in this country
from the alleged fact that he communicated to me on that
occasion the arrangements which had been made for that
purpose, and that I did not disapprove of them otherwise
than by insisting upon the observance of the neutrality law
of the United States. This allegttion is hardly consistent
with Mr. Crampton's own statement of what then passed.
in the defence of his conduct, recently sent by him to his
Government, he makes admissions, inconsistent with the
allegations, that there was no concealment on his part, and
that the recruiting arrangements were communicated to me.
He says :
" ' It is perfectly true that.l did not enter into any details
of means which were to be adopted by her Majesty's Govern-
ment to render available the serVices of those who tendered
them- to ns in such numbers There seemed to be obvious
reasons for abstaining from this ; and oven if it had occurred
to me, I should have been unwilling to do anything which
might have borne the appearance .of engaging Mr. Marcy in
any expression of favour or approbatidn of a plan favouring
the interest of one of the parties in the present war. All I
could desire on hii part was neutrality and impartiality.'
" His reasons for withholding from me the details of the
enlistment system—the most important part of it for this
Government—are not satisfactory. If Mr. Crampton be-
lieves that what he was doing, or intended to do, in the way
of recruiting was right, he could have had no reluctance to
communicate it to me, for his instructions required him to
make that disclosure. Acting in duo frankness, and with a
proper regard for the dictates of international comity, Mr.
Crampton should, it would seem, have disclosed to me all
measures intended to be pursued within the United States by
the agents of his Government, including himself, in execution
of the Act of Parliament for raising a foreign legion. Nay,
he was expressly commanded by his Government to practise
no concealment with the American Government on the sub-
ject. If he had obeyed these orders all misunderstanding be-
tween the two governments would have been prevented.
Mr. Crampton was the more imperatively called upon
to make full explanations on the subject, not only because he
was commanded by his Government to do-so, but for the fur-
ther reason that immediately after the breaking out of the
w,r between Great Britain and France on the one hand, and
Russia on the other, he had, by an official note addressed to
me, invoked the efforts of this government to enforce upon
the inhabitants of the country (citizens or others), the neces-
sity of observing the strictest neutrality towards the belli-
gerent parties, and especially to enjoin upon them to abstain
from taking any part in armaments for the service of Russia,
.or in any other measure opposed to the duties of a strict nett.
trality. To this application the undersigned, by exprese
direction of the President, replied, declaring that the United
States, while claim lag the full enjoyment of their rights as a
neutral power, will observe the strictest neutrality towards
each and all of the belligerents.
"Reference was made to the severe restrictions imposed
bylawnot only upon citizens of the United States, but upon
all persons resident within its territory, prohibiting the en-
listment of men therein for the purpose of taking a part in
any foreign war. .It was added that the President did not
apprehend any attempt to vio'ate the laws, but should hie
just expectations in this respect be disappointed, he will not
fail in hie 'duty to use all the poiver with Which he is in-
vested to enforde obedience to them. ' In view of this formal
and solemn appeal by Mr. Crampton to the American Go-
vernment, and of the assurance be received of his determi-
nation to maintain a strict neutrality, it was not for a mo-
ment suspected that Mr. Crampton could misunderstand its
ptirpoFes,- or believe he would bnpermitted to set on foot
and execute for a period of five consecutive monthi a syste-
matic scheme to obtain military recruits for the British ser-
TiCOU the United States.
" That Mr. Crampton did enter most deeply into this
Scheme is proved by evidence already submitted to her Att-
jesty's Govermnent, but is still More conclusively established
by the additional proofs which accompany this despatch.
Whatever detraction from the value of the testimony against
Mr. Crampton may result from the attempt to discredit Stro-
bel and Hertz, is much more than made up by the additional
proofs now adduced. This body of strong cumulative evidence
confirms the President's fornier conclusion as to the compli-
city of Mr. Crampton and the British consuls at New York,
Philadelphia, and Cincinnati in the illegal enterprise -of re-
cruiting soldiers for the iritish army within the United
States, and the President does not doubt that when this new
evidence shall be brought under the consideration of 11.2 r Ma-
jesty's dovernment it will. not longer dissent from this con-
clusion.
" The gratification which the President feels at the satis-
factory-settlement of the recruiting quest:on, iu so far as
yospects the action of the British Government itself, has
induced to examine the• case again with the view to
remove, ,if possible, from his mind the personal objections
againstber Majesty's Minister and Consnls. The examina-
tion has not produced that eft,ct ; but; on the; contrary, has
qtreNthened his conviction that the interests of both Go
Vcimniehts require Oat those—per Sons 'should 'cease dO holi
their present official positions in the United States: He S

cerelyre!,rets that Her ‘lajesty's Government ,has not bean
able to take the same view of the case, and to comply with
his request for their rocal; but it has not consented to do so.

" in the earnest desire to act with all possible courtesy
toward her Majesty's Government, the President could
have suspended his determination in the case in order to sub-
Jnit the new testimony Which he is confident would hay., been
found sufficient to induce conipliance with his request for the
. recal of the British Minister, he is precluded from any such
thought of delay by the exceptional charaeterbf the despatches
of that gentleman, copies. of which, having been recently laid
befiire Parliament, have thus come to the • knowledge of this
Government, and which are of a tenour to render further in-
tercourse between the Governments—through that Minister
,alikeAmpleasant and detrimental to their good understanding.
The President has, therefore, been constrained by .considera-
tions of the best. interests of bOth, countries reluctantly to
have recourse to the only remaining means of removing, with-
ant delay, these very unacceptable officers_ from the .connection
they now have with this Government.
" This course has been deemed necessary on account of
'their bnfitudes (or the positions they hold, arising froni the
very active part they have taken in'gettin..* up and carrying
out. .a system of recruiting which has been attended with
numerous infractions of our laws, which has disturbed our"
internal tranquillity, and endangered our peaceful relations to.
a nation with which this Government is most anxious to
maintain cordial friendship and intimate commercial and
social intercourse. •He has, therefore, determined to send to •
Mr. Crampton, her Majesty's Diplomatic Representative, his
passport, and.to revoke the exequaturs of Mr. Matthews, Mr,.
Barclay, and Mr. Bowecroft, British Consuls at Philadelphia,
New York, and Cincinnati.

" lam, sir, respectfully, your obedient servant,
" W. L. MARCY.

" Geo. M. Dallas, Esq., Ste., London."

The following is the letter of dismissal to Mr.
Crampton :

Department of State, Washington, May 28.
Sir,—The President of the United 'States has directed
me to announce to you his determination to discontinue
farther intercourse with you as her Majesty's diplomatic
representative to the Government of:the United States.
'The reitsons which have compelled him to take this step.
at this lime have been communicated to your,Gevernment.
T avail myself of-this occasion to add that due attention
will be cheerfully given to any !communications a idreased
to this department from her Alajesty's Government affect-.
ing the relations between Great Pritain and the United
States, which may be forwarded to this Government
through any other channel. •
Should it be your 'pleasure to retire from the United
States, the President directs me to furnish-you with the
usual facilities for that purpose. •I consequently enclose
herawith-the passports in such cases. I avail myself -of
this opportunity to renew to you, sir, the assurance of my
respectful ?.onsideration. W. L. .MUICT.
John F.,Cranapton, Esq., ke., &c.

THE CENTRAL -AMERICAN QUESTION.
DDSPAICOHiFROM SECRETARY MARCY TO MR. DALLAS.

ff letter from Secretary Marcy to
following.
Mr, o,illas,
,treating of the Central American ques
tio,a and the, proposal to arbitrate, had been sent
by President Pierce to the American Senate :
, SECRETARY MARCY TO MR. DALLAS. _

„Demently:riofSt•ste, Washington, May. 4185'6. . ,
iSir,—l am directed by the President to address you on
th) subject of the *difference of opinion betvieen the British
Gpvernmeht Add-that of the United States -regarding the
construction 664 i-ft-id of the Convention of April 19.1856.
and the sulijio-eifYreutral America generally, and state to
veu the views Ohielithe President entertains of that qnes-
ben as it nosy :et/arras:in order that you.may communicate
the same to the Earl of Ciarendog, her Britannic Majesty's
w
principal Secretary :ofState for Foreign Aff4irs. You are
a aie that therebAsA)een
uo direct communication between
tho two Clove; nments on the main subject since the letter
ofiyour predecesser,-Mr. Buchanan, to the Earl of Claren-
dated'aptiali"l3ss, and his lordship's reply of the

28th of the same September, and the brief rejoinder by
Mr. Buchanan on the 4th of the following October. In his
letter of 11th of September, Mr. Buchanan, briefly reca-
pitulating the conclusiwis at which the President had ar-
rived on the whole case, and which had been fully ex-
plained to the British Government in his previous des-
patches, reminded Lord Clarendon that more than a year
had already elapsed, without any new step being taken by
the United States in the discussion, from an unwilling-
ness to press the subject while the attention of her Majes-
ty's Government was engrossed by war with Russia, and
he proceeded to say that the President had directed him,
before retiring from his mission, as he, was then about to
do, to request from the British Government a statement of
the position which it had determined to maintain, more
especially in regard to the Bay Islands, the Belize settle-
ment, and the Musquito Protectorate. To this communica-
tion, the Earl of Clarendon replied, stating as the fluid opi-
nion of her Majesty's Government, that the Convention of
April 19, 1850, was merely prospective in its operation,
and did not in any way interfere with the state of things
existing at the time of its conclusion. He repeats this idea
afterwards, in other forms of expression, saying in one
place that the Britirh Government consider that the design
of the contracting parties was not to disturb any state of
things then existing, and in another place that while the
British Government have no wish to extend the limits of
their possessions, or the sphere of their influence in Central
America they are not prepared to contract either the one
or the other in pursuance of the interpretation of a con-
vention to which interpretation they cannot subscribe.
Here, with the exception of a brief note from Mr. Bucha-
nan to Lord Clarendon—and that upon a single pointonly
—the correspondence touching the general question has
remained suspended. It will thus be perceived that
in his closing despatch the Earl of Clarendon desists
from all further discussion of the main objects of the
controversy which had previously occupied tie attention
of the two governments, and rests the case upon the single
position, then at length definitely assumed and expressly
announced—of particular hypotbesas touching the con
',traction of the convention. The President could not but
receive this announcement with equal surprise and regret.
He would, indeed, have been constrained to regard it as an
abrupt and complete termination of all correspondence on
the subject between the two governments, and as imposing
on this government the painful duty of solemnly declaring
that the convention had now ceased to be obligatory on the
United States, but for the following expressions in the
Earl of Clarendon's despatch : •
" The British Government share the conviction of the
President of the United States, that the interests of the
two countries, and their mutual desire to maintain the ex-
isting friendly relations, will alike inspire each party with
a conciliatory spirit, and enable them to overcome all ob-
stacles to a satisfactory adjustment of the central Ameri-
can questions. The British Government see no reason why
it should be otherwise."

This language on the part of her Majesty's Principal Se-
cretary for Foreign Affairs had the effect of preventing the
President from dismissing all hope of an amicable adjust-
ment of the serious misunderstanding which had grown up
between the two governments. He would have been better
satisfied if, in expressing the conviction that all obstacles
to a satisfactory adjustment of the controversy might, by a
conciliatory spirit on both sides, be overcome, his lor,lship,
had been pleased to indicate the means which, in his judg-
ment, were calculated to produce so desirable a consum-
mation. For want of this, the President has been left to
conjecture the precise idea of her Majesty's Government.
He cannot be certain that his conjecture concerning it is
well founded, but he is induced, by certain collateral inci-
dents whi h have occurred, to infer that it was the arbitra-
tion by a third power of the differences between the two
governments in relation to Central America.

It appears by the letter of Mr. Buchanan to this depart-
ment, of February 8, 1856, that on a recent occasion
Lord Clarendon had stated in the House of Lords he had
offered to refer the whole question to arbitration to any
third power, and that that offer had been renewed. In con
sequence of which statement Mr. Buchanan, not being
aware of any such offer having been formally made by the
-British Government, had an interview with the Eatl of
Clarendon for-the purpose of explanation. In that inter-
view Lord-Clarendon stated that the original offer of which
he had spoken in the House of Lords referred to an expres-
sion he had used in conversation -with Mr. Buchanan at an
early stage of the discussion on the subject of Central Ame-
rica, and that what he had said of a repetition of the offer
was in allusion to a despatch which he had addressed to
Mr. Crampton, and which Mr. Crampton had communi-
cated to this department, and he even proceeded to re-
count the answer which, on that occasion, it was alleged
Mr. Crampton had received from me. In relation to this
important matter, as has since been fully manifested,- there
was a misconception on both sides. In the first place,
although the note to Mr. Crampton had been written so far
back as the 10th of November, 1853, and in it Mr. Cramp-
ton had been expressly instructed to communicate it to this
department, he had neglected to do so, and it was not
until a late hour in the evening of February 27, 1856, and,
in consequence of discussions in the Senate of the United
3tatea on the subject, that Mr. Crampton executed his in-
structions in this respect, ned made a communication of
Lord Clarendon's note of the previous November. In the
second place, it had not been understo 4 either by Mr.
Buchanan or by his Government that the suggestloni of
arbitration which Lord Clarendon had made in conversa-
tion with Mr. Buchanan were intended by the'former as a
formal proposition to that effect on the part of her Majes-
ty's Government. If it had been so understood the propo-
sition would at once have received the respectful conside-
' ration of the President. It would be superfluous now to
dwell on the regret which the President entertains that a
proposition 'of this nature, which her Majesty's Government
intended as a final one, was not presented at the commence-
ment in such a shape as to have attracted to, and fixed upon
it the attention of this Government. The President has
never ceased to be sincerely solicitous to preserve unim•
paired the friendly relations of the two countries, and in
that spirit passing over all which there is of apparent in-
formality in the offer of the British Government, and as-
suming the late communication by Mr. Crampton of Lord
Clarendon's note of the 10th of November as a definite pro-
position, he instructs me to make the present response to
that proposition. At the very threshold is the question—
What is it which shall be submitted to arbitration ? Lord
Clarendon, in his letter to Mr. Crampton of the 10th Nov.,
seems to assume the difference between the two countries
is merely of the interpretation of the Convention of April
19, 1350 ; but that is not so understood by this Government.
If indeed it should be determined in any way that the
American construction of that treaty is correct., which is,
that wbs'ever may have been the state of things previous
to its date, yet after that neither the United States nor
G. eat Britain is to hold any possessions inCentral Atnerica
—that when the two Governments agreed that neither
will ever occupy, or fortify, or colonise, or assume, or
exereise
,any dominion over Nicaragua, Costa Rica, awl
the
MlTician
uit °at or any pelt of Central America, the
slpnacomprehends as to the acts enumerated, prohi
bition of their continuance as well as their initiation,
without which their could bo no effective neutralisation of
the American Isthmus. If, I say, such were the agreed
or settled interpretation of the treaty, then, indeed, such
determination would conclude all existing differences, and
settle it in accordance with the views entertained by the
United States. But, on the other hand, it is not easy to see
bow the wipers() construction, if it wore adopted by an arbi-
ter, could terminate the differenee. Lord Clarendon con.
ceives that the treaty was merely prospective, in its opera-
tion ; so it undoubtedly was in one sense, that is, its en-
gelements only took effect at the time of its execution,
and did hut apply to all future time. But when he goes
on to infer- that the treaty did not in any way interfere
with the state of things existing at the time of its
conclusion, he n only asiumee-
a consequence
which does nab flow from theprentises, but he also assumes
a state of facts which is controverted by the government,
and a determination of which cannot derive the least aid
from
fro thalnterpretation which he claiins for the-conven-
tion.

. The.. Earl of Clarendon here assumes, without distinctly
asserting it, that at the date of the treaty Great Britain had
posseseiens in Central America. The existence of such nos-
' 3-oisions, onus ho otherwise expresses it, the assumption of
those being portions of territory occupied by Great Britain
* in Central America, would appear to be what he more than
°nee sOalcS of as " the state of things existing at the time
of its conclusion," But this government does not under-
stand that at the date of the treaty, Great Britain had any
possessions or occupied any territory in Central Atnerica,
unless' the British establishment
neldisehsmenatby her treatiesatßeltzewit with s
hiits
pain
depen-
dencies (as the saute s
are to be considered ai British possessions or territory in
C ntral America. That is the only possible construction of
the declarations exchanged between the Secretary of State,
Mr. Clayton, and the British Minister, Sir It Bulwer, at
the time of exchanging the ratifications of the convention.
Independently of that cogent consideration, this govern•
ment supposes that as a matter of mere fact, the state of
things existing in this respect at the time of the conclusion
of the Convention was a thing _of indisputable notoriety.
I will not do her Majesty's Government the injustice of
presuming that when the Earl of Clarendon speaks of the
possessions of Great Britain is that quarter, or of portions
of territory occupied by it, he intends to be understood as
weaning anything bat rightful possessions, and rightful
• occupation, that is possessions and occupation based upon
principle's and conformed to the public laws which govern
the international relations of the Christian States of Eu-
rope and America; Had Great Britain at that time, any
such possessions or occupation in Central America ? If; so
it must have consisted either in her relation to the Mos-
quito Indians, to Belize, or to the Bay Islands.
Firstly.—As to the Mosquito Coast, it is not understood
I that Great' Britain now lays claim to any possessions or
any territory there; all she is supposed to claim is the
right to protect the Mosquito Indians. It cannot be al-
ledged by her that those Indians constitute, or are compe-
tent to constitute, an independent State, admissible as
such into the family of sovereign powers. Nor is it pre-.
tended by Great Britain that, in the name or on behalf of
those Indians, she herself can, without contravention to
the treaty, assume or exercise political sovereignty on any
part of. the Mosquito Coast:
Her Majesty's Government considers itself under obliga-
tions of honour to protect the persons of these Indians—
nothing more,—and declares it is ready and desirous to be
relieved of ;that duty in any manner which shall honour-
ably assure the future condition of these Indians. With-
out entering here into a discussion of the question whether
the- convictions of duty thus entertained by the British
Government are well or ill-founded, it seems sufficient to
say, there is-nothing in that branch of the subject which
merits the aoleinnity of arbitration by a third power, or
which ought to be regarded as incapable of being settled at
moment by direct intercourse between the respective
GoVernments of Great Britain and the 'United States. Nor
is it apprehended that her Majesty's Government is dis-
posed to claiin the possession, either -in her own name
directly or that of the Mosquito Protectorate, of the port
of S Juan de Nicaragua. It cannot but be admitted
that the port was the old possession of Spain,-her right to
which was as indisputable as it was to 'Vera Cruz and
Panama—that she had a port of entry and fort at or near
that place.so low, as she retained her sovereignty in Cen-
tral America, and that then her rights of sovereignty
there and of territorial possession passed to the Republic
of Central' rAinerica It is true that at a subsequent
period, and shortly before the date of the treaty now in
question, a British force landed at Son Juan, and expelled
the authorities of, the State of Niearagua, which then held
possession of it, and retained it for_ awhile against that
State in the name of the Mosquito Indians. It is true
that Great Britain afterwards relinquished the place to
the so-called people of Greytown ; but the original taking
of it was her act ; that is, she, in the words of Lord Clar-
endon, placed a people under her protection in the posses-
sion of6an Juan. A protectorship so exercised and in the
name of such persons as the Mosquito Indiana' world, it is
plain, amount to practical sovereignty. If admission under
the name of protectorship for one of the contracting parties
to tit- eolv *ion, it would be equally safer the other, and
the United States might be impelled for controlling reasons
to uodortke the counter protectorship of the Indians and
other persons in Central America. It is not supposed that
Great Britain desires to enter into any such line of policy
of conflicting protectorships in that quarter, or contend
for any construction of the treaty leading to such conse-
quences, and, of course, no difficulty between the two Go-
vernments is apprehended on this point any more than in

regard to the general relationof the treaty to the Mosquito
Indians.

Secondly—As to Belize, it being conceded that in pur-
suaime of explanations interchancred b,tween Sir Henry
Bulwer anti Mr. Clayton, Great Britain is not precluied,
by any stipulation with the United States, from continu-
ing to exercise at that establishment all the rights which
she acquired frosu.Spain, it would seem also that there is
nothing in that part of the subject which it would become
the two Governments to say to the world they cannot settle
by themselves; for, although it is ce'min9n in English hooks
of geography and others to give to Bell.Ze the appellation
of British Honduras, still it is too well known to admit of

dispute that Belize is not, and never was, any part of Hon-
duras; and her Majesty's Government will not, it is as-
sumed as a matter of course, found on mere name any pre-
t-nsions of extendesi territory in that qii4ter t e the preju-
dice of the territcrial integrity of the republic of Honduras.
Finally, there remains the question of the Bay Islands,
as to which there is more of controversy, at least in ap-
pearance. It is due to perfect frankness to say that the
:set of her Majesty's Government, establishing, so late as
the year 1852 (and in apparent contradiction to the ex-
press letter of the convention of 1850) a colony at Bay
Islands, has left a disagreeable impression on the minds of
the Government and people of the United States.
Possessidn, as Great Britain does, numerous colonial es-
tablishments in all parts of the World, many of them in
the West Indies, it has not been readily seen what induce-
aients of interest she can have had to establish a new co-
lony under the peculiar circumstances of the time in the
insignificant territory of the Bay Islands. Nor, on look-
ing hack beyond the fact of her Majesty's warrant esta-
blishing the colony of the Bay Islands, and considering the
state of things existing in the question at the date of the
Convention of 1830, does this Government well see on what
ground it can be maintained that Great Britain at that

time had possession of the Bay Island; which could be
deemed rightful, either as respects the engagements with
+he United States or territorial sovereignty of the repub-
lic of Honduras. Ido not understand the Earl of Claren-
ton positively to assert that the Bay Isl inds are depen-
tencies of the British settlement at Belize. He indicates,
to bo sure, an inclination on the part of the British to
maintain such a claim, but concedes, at the same time,
that it is a debateable question. The President does not
permit himself for a moment to entertain the idea that the
Earl of Clarendon will insist upon any claim of right iu
Central America incompatible with sacred respect for all
the stipulations of the treaty as understood by her Ma-
jesty's Government. Of course he looks to see what are

the rightfal sources of the British title to the Bay Islands
suggested by the Earl of Clarendon. He finds them in
the statement from the Forign-office of May 2, 1854, as
communicated by Mr. Buchanan, and by him transmitted
to this department. Her Majesty's Government admits
on paper that Ruatan was claimed and militarily occupied
oy the former republic of Central America as successor of
the rights of Spain, but assorts at the same time the ad-
verse British claim manifested by acts of authority, mili
tary and civil, and by acts of actual possession. Occa-
sional acts of military authority by captains of British
ships of war, or of civil authority by the superintendent
Belize, are sufficient, it is obvious, to determine the
claim of the title as against the counter claims of the Re-
pisblic of Central America or State of Honduras. No re-
linquishment of title by the latter is alleged, except in cer-
tain declarations reported to have been made by the Cen-
tral American Commandant of Truxillo, who, whatever he
May have said, could have no power to cede away the ter-
ritory of Honduras.
The occupation of Ruatan by British subjects as its ori-
;in and character ars described in the statement, presents
aone of the conditions of rightful possession. Its language
in that point is : —" Ruatan has been, of late years, with-
out any instigation on the part of her Majesty's Govern-
ment, spontaneously occupied by British subjects." It is
not presumable that the spontaneous occupation of Ruatan
by British subjects, without instigation on the part of her
Majesty's Government—that is, an act of mere invasion,
ey unauthorised private persons, will he perseveringly in-
,eted neon by Lord Clarendon as a foundation claim by
Great Britain to the sovereignty or even rightful possession
of the B Islands. It cannot have escaped the attention
of her Majesty's Government that the political condition
of Belize, as fixed by the treaty, is not itself one of terri-
torial sovereignty. Therefore Great Britain could never
have acquired, in the right of Belize and the assumed de-
tendencies thereof, the territorial sovereignty of the Bay
Islands. In a word, this Government believes that the
Bay Islands belong to the state of Honduras, and that,
therefore, the occupation of them, and, still more, their
colonisation by Great Britain, aro contrary to the tenour of
her treaty with the United States, as being the occupation
and colonisation of a part of Central America. But the
British Government thinks differently, and upon the ques-
tion whether the Bay Islands are subject to occupation and
donisatien by Great Britain, notwithstanding her treaty
with the United states, the two Governments are at issue.
Upon this retrospect of the several points of diffe-
rence between the two Governments, the President is
not able to perceive that any useful result would
ensue, either from calling on a third Power to say
whether the convention is or is not prospective in its
operation, in the sense of that idea as expressed by
her Majesty's Government, for if that question should, by
any possibility, happen to be resolved in favour of Great
Britain, all the substantial points of difference between the
two countries would remain untouched ; as, being wholly
independent of the question of construction, the dispute
would still exist as to what rightful possessions, at the date
of the convention, Great Britain actually had in Central
luserica. And if it is now contended by the British Go-
vernment that in the name of the Mosquito In ians Great
Britain may take with military force and hold Sala Juan
or other points in Central America, such pretension would
be so totally irreconcileable with all idea of the independ-
ence and neutrality of the isthmus as to render the conven-
tion worse than nugatory to the United States. Instead
of submitting to arbitration a pretension involving such
consequences, or in other way consenting to restore to effect
the treaty, with such possible construction, it would, in
the judgment of the President, be his duty to propose its
amendment, so as to release the United States from obliga-
tions not attended by any benefits, and which obligations,
thus unattended, the United States did not intentionally,
incur, they having entered into treaty only on the suppo-
sition that absolute reciprocity of restriction was incurred
by Great Britain, I repeat, if the treaty could, by any
possibility whatever, have the construction of leaving
Great Britain in possession or military control of the At-
lantic coast of Central. America in the name of the MOs'
quito Indians, and with powers to colonise insular posi-
tions commanding it, on the ground of their having been
" spontaneously occupied by British subjects," while the
United States are restrained from all such rights of con-
trol and acquisition that, in the estimation of the Piesi-
tent, would be to deprive the treaty of moral force, both
because it would thus cease to have reciprocal effect, arid
because the United States did not intentionally enter
into any such engagement, and if such were a possible con-
struction, whether it would not then become the duty
of the United States to ,cek for the most honourable
means of being discharged from such obligations, and
render themselves perfectly free to re-establish their
nroper relation as an American power to the transit
routes of the American isthmus and the general indepen-
hence of America. In fine, the President cannot consent
to any act which implies the existence of a possible doubt
as to this point, as the convention of 1850, construed in the
sense above supposed, would not be the treaty into which
the United States entered, nor can ho do anything which
could he taken to admit, either directly or impliedly, that
there is a question in his mind relative to the truecon-
struction, and he feels bound to take 'care that, in enter-
taining the present proposition of arbitration, he shall not
be understood as actuate I by the slightest feeling of die-
trust regerding the treaty rights of the United States; but
the President is not prepared to say that some of the ques-
tions of fact, concerning which the two Governments dif-
fer, may not be conveniently determined by arbitration, or
by some analogous method. Of this class of objects of in-
quiry is the question; what are the rightful limits of esta-
blishment at Belize on the side of the State of Honduras,
he question whether the Bay Islands do or do not belong
to that republic, and the question as to what extent of
country is embraced in the term "Mosquito Coast," or is
in actual occupancy of Mosquito Indians, as Indians, and
with such territorial rights only as that description of per-
sons are entitled to claim according to the established pub-
lic law of Great Britain, of the United States, or of the
independent States which haVe succeeded Spain in Ame-
rica, remembering no power exists on the part of Great
Britain and the United States to dispose of the sovereign
rights of Nicaragua or of any other State of Central Ame-
rica.

All these questions of political geography regard, in the
first instance, the sovereignty and jurisdiction of the inde-
pendent States of Central America. Great Britain and the
United States have no pretension thus to interfere, except
for the purpose of defining their own mutual obligations,
arising out of the engagements they may have contracted
in order to assure how far they concerned the neutrality
and independence of the American isthmus. Regarded
only as collateral considerations affecting the construction
of the treaty between the United States and Great Britain,
they are question. which, if not determined by agreement
setween the two Governments themselves, the President
wou'd not decline to refer to arbitration. He is aware of
the existence of many practio d obstacles to the adjustment
of any international difference of this nature by arbitration,
of which difficulties Great Britain and the United States
had experience in the attempt to settle by such means a
previous controversy on the subject of the boundary be-
tween the United States and the British provinces in Noll h
America.

The President does not doubt that any one of the
powers of Europe which should consent to undertake the
task of such arbitration as is now proposed would perform
the duty with perfect impartiality ; but to apply to any
power to do this would be to ask of them an act which, if
grante I, would add to their own domestic duties the
labours and burden of settling the complicated differences
of other Governments. lie would greatly prefer that, in a
controversy like the present, turning on points of political
geography, the matter should be referred to some one or
more of those eminent men of science who do honour to
theintellect of Europe and America, and who, with the
previous consent of their respective Governments, might
well undertake the task ef determitair,g suck questions to
the acceptance as wtllof her Majesty'. Government as that
of the United States. You aro instructed, therefore, to
enter into communication with her Majesty's principal
Secretary, of Foreign Affairs, in relation to Central Ame-
rica, in order to ascertain, in the first place, whether the
existing differences cannot be promptly terminated by
direct negotiation, and if they cannot, then to discuss the
conditions of arbitration upon those points of difference
a; to which alone this method of settlement seems requisite
or applicable ; it being assured that other points of differ-
ence would, after that, yield, as a matter of course, to con-
ference between the Earl of- Clarendon and yourself, con-
ducted in the spirit of cordiality and frankness which
belongs to your personal relations, and which is dieteted
by the true interests both of the United States and Great
Britain.

I atn' Sir, respectfully, your obedient servant,
Geo. 1.1. Dallas, Dq., London. W. L. Maßcv.

ADDL'ESS IN PARLIAMENT ON THE
BEGTUITING QUESTION. •

The following are the terme.of the addrees which Mr,
liaillie will move in the House of Commons on Thurs-

nay evening next :
"'that an humble address be Prpsenled to her Majasty,
thanking- her Majesty for haVi-rg b,,en graciously pleased
to communicate to the house papers relating to recruiting
in the United States of America.
" To inform her Majesty that we observe it is admitted
that the law of the United States, with respect to foreign
enlistment, is no less just than stringent ; and that, in
making this admission, her Majesty's Government declared
that on no account would they run any risk of infringing
this law of the United States :.
"To express to her. Majesty our conviction that h.r sonic
weeks, both beforo and after this declaration, recruiting
was carried on within the United States by her Majesty's
officers without any communication of the measures tak
by them to the Government of that country, but with the
knowledge and co-operation of her Majesty's 'savoy at
Wasilingtou ; and thpt proviedinge layo occurred which

were at variance with our international obligations, and
which her Majesty's advisers were unable or have failed to
prevent :
" That, accordingly, while we perceive with satisfaction
that during the course of thes3 actions some measures have
been adopted by the MiListry in a spirit of conciliation,
we are unable to declare the complaints of the Ainerio4u
Government, that thelaws and rights of that country have
been violated, to have been advanced without cause :

" That, while we assure her Majesty of our firm deter-
mination to assert now as heretofore, if justice shall re-
quire it, the rights and dignity of the Crown, we have to
expres3 our conviction that we shall be best prepared to
acquit ourselves of that duty by the frank admission and
complete reparation of wrong :
" That, with these views, and, moreover, having regard
to the means which appear to be available for composing
other matters in dispute, we humbly beseech her Majestr
to adopt such measures, with reference to the correspond-
ence on foreign enlistment and its consequences, as in her
judgment shall, while carefully guarding the bonen/ of the
Crown, promote the restoration of a good understanding
and of close and cordial amity between Great Britain and
the United States of America."

Sr De Lacy Evans- -Amendment on motion of Mr.
Ba llie, on recruiting in the United States, to leave out
from the first word "That" to the end of the question,
in order to add the words " in the means resor;e I to by
Government for reinforcing our army in the field, it •is
the opinion of this house that, instead of inviting enlist-
ments from the United States, it had been more politic
to have entertained such offers as were made by highly-
respectable parties for raising corps from amongst loyal
Canadian.fellow-subjects,"in,tead thereof.