Washington sentinel. [volume] (City of Washington [D.C.]) 1853-1856, 1856-03-04
sHouse Of Lords On the evening Of Thursday,

House of Lords On the evening OF Thursday,
the 3lst ultimo, that the British government
had made to the American government an
offer, which has been recently renewed, to arbi-
trate the Central American questions, was
founded on what had passed between him and
myself In conversation; or whether ne had IN
slructed Mr.. Champion to make to you, in
writing, formal proposal for arbitration. He
replied, that his statement was founded on our
different conversations; and that in these he
had several times proposed to me reference
of these questions to arbitration; and he ex-
pressed the hope that / had communicated his
propositions to my government. ] informed
him that had faithfully reported to you all
the conversations we had held in reference to
an. arbitration; but | had not believed that
what he had said on these occasions amounted
to such an offer as could be recognized by our
government as a foundation for specific action
on so grave a matter. / added that did not
doubt you were of the same opinion, as ! had
never received line from you on the subject.
He observed that before holding these CONVEX
sations with me he had consulted the cabinet,
and spoke their sentiments as well as his own.
remarked that this fact had now, for the first
tme been communicated to me. If be had
informed me OF it at the time, this would have
given his conversation more serious charac-
ter, and caused it to make a deeper impression
on my mind. He said he had thought that, as
a matter of course, would consider what he
had said to me had been said after consplta
ton with the cabinet. In reply, ! observed
that had thought when one nation desired
to propose to another the submission of an
international dispute to arbitration, this would
be done by writing, and in due form. Such
had been their own course when they pro-
posed to arbitrate the Oregon question. Be-
sides, the President might, if he thought
proper, consult the Senate on the question;
and what would be thought of that body if such
a proposition were presented to them in the
loose form ofvarious conversations between him
and myself, which, after all, might, through
mistake or inadvertcnce, not have reported
correctly? He said that what he had done he
considered the preliminary step; and if our gov
eminent had indicated any satisfaction with it,,
they would have been prepared to proceed
further; but from what | had said to him he
did not think they had received much en-
enlargement told him that whenever had
spoken to him upon the subject, had always
been careful to assure him that was express
ing my own individual sentiments, without any
instructions or information from my Gov
ernment and that these remained unchanged
also observed that his last letter to me, finally
denying our construction of the treaty, and
forming an issue between the two Govern
ments, might appropriately have contained a
proposition for arbitration and in this manner
the question might have been brought in regu-
lar form before our Government. He then,
for the first time, informed me that he had ad-
dressed dispatch to Mr.. Champion on the
subject with instructions to him to read it to
you. He then sent for it, and read it to me.
| believe it is dated in November; but a copy
being doubtless in your possession, it will
speak for ITSELF and he informed me that all
you had said about it to Mr.. Champion was,
that the matter was in Mr.. Buchanans hands.
He proceeded to express decided opinion
in favor of arbitration, and said that when two
friendly governments disagreed upon the
construction of treaty the natural and appro
pirate course was to refer the question to
third friendly power. He had ever firmly
believed their construction of the treaty TO be
correct. He then requested metu communicate
to you their proposals for an arbitration, and
how anxious they were that the question might
be settled in this manner. | told him i should
cheerfully comply with his request, but repeated
that my own individual opinions remained I'M
changed. ] considered the language of the treaty
too clear for serious doubt; and such believe
was the opinion ofpublic men of all partiesin the
United States This had been evinced by the
recent debate in the Senate on the Presidents
message. Besides, the difficulty of selecting
suitable sovereign as an arbitrator seemed
But ] said this was question
for my government, and not for myself.
Yours, very respectfully,
JAMES BUCHANAN.