contradiction in the American statement, into citizens or subjects of a really independent and sovereign nation.

The British statement also declines to furnish the,,grounds on which Her Majesty's Government made the capture of San Juan de Nicaragua ;" and it is therefore scarcely necessary to pursue this branch of the subject. If it were, it would be easy to add proofs to those contained in the former American statement, that this was never a Mosquito port in any sense; but always, together with the River San Juan, rightfully belonged to Spain, and afterwards to Nicaragua. Reference might be made to the report of Sir William Wise, the commander of the British ship of war,,Sophie," who visited the coast in 1820; and also to that of Mr. Orlando Roberts, who was carried as a prisoner up the San Juan in 1821. The latter describes the fort to which Captain Bonnycastle had referred, as then still mounting twelve pieces of large cannon, and containing accommodation for 100 men.

The two chapters in Crowe's central America, entitled British Encroachments," might also be cited. Of these the author presents a striking history, from the time of the numer– ous and formidable but unsuccessful expedition of Great Britain against Spain in 1780, for the purpose of wresting from that Power the port and river of San Juan, until they were finally captured from Nicaragua in 1848, and then first became a part of the Mosquito Protectorate.

3. The Territory between the Sibun and the Sarstoon.

The next portion of Central America which demands attention, is the territory between the Rivers Sibun and Sarstoon. Over this territory the British settlers from Belize have been encroaching for several years; but this, it was believed, without the authority of the British Government. It now appears that Great Britain claims the territory, and declines to withdraw from its occupation in obedience to the Convention.

In regard to it, the question need not be discussed whether the Convention embraces the entire isthmus geographically known as Central America, or is confined to the five States which formerly composed the Republic of that name. In either sense the country between the Sibun and the Sarstoon is included within Central America.

This territory is a part of the Province of Vera Paz, all of which constituted an integral portion of the State of Guatemala. At the date of the Treaty of 1786, and until the Spanish dominion terminated, the territory south of the Sibun was included within the ancient kingdom of Guatemala, of which, with the exception of Chiapas, the Confederated Republic was composed. This as a geographical fact, it is presumed, will not be denied.

The British statement contends that Mr. Clayton's declaration of the 4th July, 1850, not only embraces the Settlement of Belize Proper under the Treaty with Spain, but covers the territory south of it between the Sibun and the Sarstoon.

The language employed by Mr. Clayton is, the British Sett

lement in Honduras". Now whilst such a Settlement exists under the Treaty of 1786, to which this language is precisely applicable, it would be a most strained construction to extend its application beyond the Treaty limits and make it protect the encroachments of the British settlers over a larger territory_than that included within the Settlement itself.

Besides, Mr. Clayton states in a subsequent part of the same document, that the Convention of 1850 ,,was understood to and does include all the Central American States of Guatemala, Honduras, San Salvador, Nicaragua, and Costa Rica, with their just limits and proper dependencies". Then under this declaration itself, the territory in question, being within,,the just limits" of the State of Guatemala, is expressly embraced by the Convention.

Lord Clarendon considers himself more warranted" in concluding that Mr. Clayton's statement applies to this territory, from the fact that the United States had in 1847 sent a Consul to the Settlement, which Consul had received his exequatur from the British Government; ,,a circumstance," says his Lordship,,,which constitutes a recognition by the United States' Government of the Settlement of British Honduras under Her Majesty, as it then existed".

Now it would be easy to prove that a Consul is never sent to a whole Settlement or to an entire nation, but only to a single port for the purposes of superintending the commerce at that port; and, therefore, that no inference could be drawn from the fact that the United States had sent a Consul to the port of Belize within the Treaty limits, in favour of the claim of Great Britain to a country far beyoud these limits; but this would not be sufficient for the occasion. Mr. Buchanan emphatically denies the proposition that the appointment of a Consul to Belize was any, even the slightest, recognition of the right of Great Britain to this very port.

A Consul is an officer appointed to reside in a foreign country, for the purpose of facilitating, extending, and protecting the trade of his nation with that country. Such officers follow foreign trade wherever it may go, and afford protection to it, no matter whether the port, to which they are sent, be in the possession of the rightful owner or an usurper. The appointment of a Consul recognizes nothing more than the de facto possession of the port by the Power from which his exequatur is received. Such an appointment does not, in the slightest degree, interfere with the question of the right de jure of this Power to be in possession. This has ever been, and this must ever be, the law and practice of modern commercial nations. If it were otherwise, then before the appointment of a Consul, the Government of a nation must first carefully inquire whether the party in possession be the rightful owner of the port: and if they determine against its right, then the commerce with it must either cease altogether, or remain without Consular protection. This would be a novel doctrine to maint a in in the present age of commercial progress.

The laws and practice of nations have for a long period

been clear on this point, because Consuls are mere commercial and not political agents. At the present time even the appointment of a public Minister is wisely considered as a recognition of nothing more than the de facto possession of the Power to which he is accredited.

The British statement claims the territory between the Sibun and the Sarstoon by right of conquest, and observes,,that the Treaty of 1786 was put an end to by a subsequent state of war" with Spain, and that during that war the boundaries of the British Settlement in question were enlarged;" and that the subsequent Treaty of Peace not having revived the Treaties of 1783 and 1786, Great Britain is entitled to retain this territory.

It may be observed that the statement does not mention at what period the boundaries of the British Settlement were enlarged. If this took place, as it is believed it did, after the date of the Treaty of Alliance between Great Britain and Spain in 1809, which terminated the war, then this argument falls to the ground. If before 1809, Great Britain, when concluding this Treaty, ought to have informed Spain that she intended to convert the encroachments of the settlers in Belize on Spanish territory into an absolute right. That she did not then intend to pursue such a course towards an ally in distress, is clear from her subsequent conduct.

In 1814 Great Britain revived all her pre-existing commercial Treaties with Spain; and what is the privilege granted to her by the Treaty of 1786, of cutting mahogany, logwood, and other dyewoods on Spanish territory, thus enabling her to extend British commerce in these articles, but a commercial privileg?

So far from the Treaty of 1786 being „put an end to" by the war, its continued existence in 1817 and 1819 was recognized by Acts of the British Parliament. These declare in so many words that Belize was not within the territory and dominion of His Majesty," but was merely,,a Settlement for certain purposes in the possession and under the protection of his Majesty".

For the nature of this „Settlement" and a knowledge of these certain purposes" we can refer nowhere, except to the Treaties of 1783 and 1786.

In addition to these Acts of Parliament, it is proper here to repeat that so late as 1826, Great Britain has, by her Treaty with Mexico, acknowledged the continued existence and binding force of the Treaty of 1786.

But no matter what may be the nature of the British claim to the country between the Sibun and the Sarstoon; the observation already made in reference to the Bay Islands and the Mosquito Coast must be reiterated, that the great question does not turn upon the validity of this claim previous to the Convention of 1850, but upon the fact that Great Britain has bound herself by this Convention not to occupy any part of Central America nor to exercise dominion over it, and that the

territory in question is within Central America, even under the most limited construction of these words.

In regard to Belize Proper, confined within its legitimate boundaries, under the Treaties of 1783 and 1786, and limited to the usufruct specified in these Treaties, it is necessary to say but a few words. The Government of the United States will not, for the present, insist upon the withdrawal of Great Britain from this Settlement, provided all the other questions between the two Governments concerning Central America can be amicably adjusted. It has been influenced to pursue this course, partly by the declaration of Mr. Clayton, of the 4th of July, 1850, but mainly in consequence of the extension of the license granted by Mexico to Great Britain under the Treaty of 1826, which that Republic has yet taken no steps to ter

minate.

It is, however, distinctly to be understood that the Government of the United States acknowledge no claim of Great Britain within Belize, except the temporary,,liberty of making use of the wood of the different kinds, the fruits and other produce in their natural state," fully recognising that the former Spanish sovereignty over the country belongs either to Guatemala or Mexico.

In conclusion, the Government of the United States most cordially and earnestly unite in the desire expressed by Her Majesty's Government,,,not only to maintain the Convention of 1850 intact, but to consolidate and strengthen it by strengthening and consolidating the friendly relations which it was calculated to cement and perpetuate". Under these mutual feelings it is deeply to be regretted that the two Governments entertain opinions so widely different in regard to its true effect and meaning.

United States' Legation, London, July 22, 1854.

XVII.

Traité, entre l'Autriche et la Toscane, relatif à l'entretien d'un corps de troupes autrichiennes dans la Toscane, signé à Florence, le 22 avril 1850*).

Son Altesse Impériale et Royale l'Archiduc d'Autriche, Grand-duc de Toscane, ayant, par suite des révolutions politiques qui ont récemment agité la Peninsule italienne, témoigné le désir de garder dans le Grand-duché, un corps de troupes autrichiennes pour le rétablissement complet et la consolidation de la tranquillité et de l'ordre, et Sa Majesté l'Empereur d'Autriche, ayant, confor mément à ce desir, consenti à mettre une partie de Ses troupes à la disposition de Son auguste parent et allié, aussi longtemps que cela sera nécessaire pour atteindre le but ci-dessus mentionné, Sa Majesté l'Empereur d'Autriche et Son Altesse Impériale et Royale le Grand-duo de Toscane sont convenus de conclure à ce sujet un traité spécial.

A cet effet Elles ont nommé Leurs Plénipotentiaires,
Savoir Sa Majesté l'Empereur d'Autriche,

le Baron Charles de Hügel, Major dans ses Armées, Chevalier de l'ordre imp. de Léopold, Commandeur de l'ordre royal de Wasa de Suède, Officier de l'ordre royal de Léopold de Belgique, Chevalier de l'ordre Constantinien de St. George de la première classe de Parme et de l'ordre royal de l'Aigle rouge de Prusse, Chargé d'affaires d'Autriche en Toscane etc. etc.

et Son Altesse Impériale et Royale le Grand-duc de Toscane,

Don André des Princes Corsini, Duc de Casigliano, Sénateur de Toscane, Chevalier de l'ordre religieux et militaire de St. Etienne Pape et Martyr, Grand-croix décoré du Grand-cordon de l'ordre religieux et militaire des Saints Maurice et Lazare de Sardaigne, Grand-croix de l'ordre royal et distingué de Charles III. d'Espagne, Chambellan de Son Altesse Imp. et Royale le Grand-duc et Son Ministre-Secrétaire d'Etat au département des af faires étrangères etc. etc.

*) L'échange des ratifications a eu lieu à Florence, le 20

mai 1850.