ments of Her Majesty's Government. On the whole, I did not think that my informal communication was as favorably received as the previous declarations of the President and the Secretary of State on this subject might have warranted me in expecting. I have, &c., The EARL OF MALMESBURY. NAPIER. No. 58.] 55.-Lord Malmesbury to Lord Napier. FOREIGN OFFICE, April 8, 1858. MY LORD: I have received your lordship's dispatch of the 22d ultimo, reporting your conversation with General Cass upon the disposition of Her Majesty's Government to concur in a proposal to set aside the Clayton-Bulwer treaty, and I have to acquaint your lordship that Her Majesty's Government entirely approve of your having placed on record, by delivering to General Cass copies of those dispatches, that they were ready to abrogate that treaty. In this state of things it will be proper that your lordship should abstain from any further discussion on that point, leaving the Government of the United States to appreciate as they may the announcement which you have thus made of the readiness of Her Majesty's Government to concur with the view of the subject expressed in the President's message; and your lordship, without further adverting to the question of abrogation, will only press for an early and decided answer to the proposal respecting arbitration which you have submitted to the Government of the United States. You will evince no eagerness for the acceptance of that proposal; neither will you exhibit anxiety for the abrogation of the treaty; and if the proposal is rejected you will not officially bring forward as the alternative the abrogation of the Clayton treaty, but announce your intention to report home and wait for instructions. Her Majesty's Government, if the initiative is still left to them by the unwillingness of the United States themselves to propose abrogation, desire to retain full liberty as to the manner and form in which any such proposal shall be laid on their behalf before the cabinet' at Washington; but, without pronouncing any decided opinion at the present moment, I think it right to point out to your lordship that the effect of such an article as that suggested in your dispatch as the second might be to perpetuate an entanglement with the Government of the United States, and to place that government in a position to question or control the free action of Her Majesty's Government in everything that relates to Central America. The Clayton-Bulwer treaty has been a source of unceasing embarrassment to this country and Her Majesty's Government, if they should be so fortunate as to extricate themselves from the difficulties which have resulted from it, will not involve themselves, directly or indirectly, in any similar difficulties for the future. Her Majesty's Government would have no objection to enter with the United States into a self-denying engagement, such as that suggested in your first article, by which both parties should renounce all exclusive advantage in the use of any of the interoceanic routes, and should bind themselves each to the other, not to interfere with free transit. Such an article would be a suitable substitute for the Clayton-Bulwer treaty, for it would secure, as regards the contracting parties, the avowed object of that treaty-the freedom of interoceanic communication. But beyond this Her Majesty's Government, as at present advised, are not prepared to contract any engagement as a substitute for the ClaytonBulwer treaty, and from the abrogation of that compact, if it should take place, they will hold themselves as free to act in regard to Central America in the manner most conducive to the advancement of British interests and the fulfillment of British obligations as if the treaty had never been concluded. Your lordship was, therefore, perfectly right in using decided language, such as that reported in your dispatch respecting the Bay Islands, and whenever the subject of the abrogation of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty is mooted in your presence, you will make it perfectly clear to the Government of the United States that to abrogate the treaty is to return to the status quo ante its conclusion in 1850; that Her Majesty's Government have no kind of jealousy respecting American colonization in Central America, which, indeed, it would help to civilize; and that we neither ask nor wish for any exclusive privileges whatever in those regions. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, SIR: These great avenues of inter-communication are vastly interesting to all commercial powers, and all may well join in securing their freedom and use against those dangers to which they are exposed from aggressions or outrages, originating within or without the territories through which they pass. But the establishment of a political protectorate by any of the powers of Europe over any of the independent States of this continent, or, in other words, the introduction of a scheme or policy which would carry with it a right to interfere in their concerns, is a measure to which the United States have long since avowed their opposition, and which, should the attempt be made, they will resist by all the means in their power. The reasons for the attitude they have assumed have been fully promulgated, and are everywhere well known. There is no need upon this occasion to recapitulate them. They are founded on the political circumstances of the American Continent, which has interests of its own, and ought to have a policy of its own, disconnected from many of the questions which are continually presenting themselves in Europe, concerning the balance of power, and other subjects of controversy arising out of the condition of its States, and which often find their solution or their postponement in war. It is of paramount importance to the States of this hemisphere that they should have no entangling union with the powers of the Old World; a connection which would almost necessarily make them parties to wars having no interest in them, and which would often involve them in hostilities with the other American States, contiguous or remote. The years which have passed by since this principle of separation was first announced by the United States have served still more to satisfy the people of this country of its wisdom and to fortify their resolution to maintain it happen what may. The progress of events has rendered the interoceanic routes across the narrow portions of Central America vastly important to the commercial world, and especially to the United States, whose possessions extending along the Atlantic and Pacific coasts demand the speediest and easiest modes of communication. While the just rights of sovereignty of the States occupying this region should always be respected, we shall expect that these rights will be exercised in a spirit befitting the occasion and the wants and circumstances that have arisen. Sovereignty has its duties as well as its rights, and none of these local governments, even if administered with more regard to the just demands of other nations than they have been, would be permitted, in a spirit of Eastern isolation, to close these gates of intercourse on the great highways of the world, and justify the act by the pretension that these avenues of trade and travel belong to them, and that they choose to shut them, or, what is almost equivalent, to encumber them with such unjust regulations as would prevent their general use. The United States do not seek either the control or the exclusive use of these routes. They desire that the advantages should be equally common to all nations. Nor do they claim to interfere with the local governments in the determination of the questions connected with the opening of the routes, and with the persons with whom contracts may be made for that purpose. What they do. desire, and mean to accomplish, is that the great interests involved in this subject should not be sacrificed to any unworthy motive, but should be guarded from abuse, and that when fair contracts are fairly entered into with American citizens, they should not be wantonly violated. Other nations will no doubt pursue the same course in relation to their citizens or subjects who may have similar interests. But besides these general considerations applicable to this subject, there are others which impose additional obligations upon these Isthmian Powers, and which bear with equal force upon their relations with other nations. Several of these powers, and Nicaragua especially, have in fact, by their public proceedings invited the co-operation of the capital, and industry, and enterprise of the world in order to open these lines of communication. The citizens of the United States have contributed their full share towards the accomplishment of the enterprise, and this government intends to use the means in its power to protect them in the enjoyment of their rights. The good faith of Nicaragua has been committed, and large sums have been expended looking to its faithful observance. A paper has recently appeared in the public journals, to which I have already referred, purporting to be a contract between the governmentsthe Presidents rather-of Costa Rica and of Nicaragua and M. Belly, a French citizen, and his associates, constituting a new canal-route company, and providing for its operations. Nothing is known here officially of the authenticity of this paper, but it carries with it a strong proba bility that it is genuine, and presuming it to be so it furnishes you with an occasion to lay before these governments the views of the United States respecting their own interests and the interests of their citizens involved in the contracts for opening transit routes. So far as regards the action of Costa Rica, the President adheres to the views laid down in the instructions to our special agent, Mr. Jones, a copy of which has been communicated to those governments, and also furnished to your self. And the United States, while they interpose no objection to an amicable adjustment by those republics of the question of their bound ary line, will recognize no arrangement which interferes with the existing transit interests as insisted on in those instructions. The United States no more claim for their citizens an exclusive right to form contracts for opening these transit routes than they claim for them the exclusive use of the routes when the work is completed. Their construction is a fair object of competition for the citizens and subjects of all other powers. The work is as open to M. Belly and his associates as to any other enterprising person. There are but two points connected with this matter which have any interest for the United States, or which would justify their intervention. The first is, that no contract with M. Belly, or with any one, indeed, should interfere with engagements previously existing with American citizens, but that all such engagements should be preserved inviolate; and the second is, that the regulations and conditions of the grant should be such as to render the routes free and safe to all nations, but controlled by no one, and upon moderate and reasonable terms. It would be equally impolitic and unjust for these governments, in a desire to make those great undertakings profitable to themselves, without furnishing any contribution towards their construction, to levy onerous charges upon the persons and property destined to pass over them, and by this means interpose serious obstacles to their general use. These local governments should look to the vast benefits which these enterprises will bring to the countries through which they pass, and not strive by excessive impositions to make them sources of revenue, and defeat, by this ill-judged measure, the very object sought to be obtained. It is not necessary that I should enter into a detailed examination of M. Belly's contract. There are physical and financial obstacles, as well as political ones, in the way of its execution, some of which can hardly be overcome. I shall, therefore, only advert to one of the provisions, rather with a view to the future proceedings of these governments than from any practical bearing it will have in this case. But previously to doing so I will bring to your notice one extraordinary stipulation which it could scarcely have been expected would be acceptable to the United States, and which must have been entered into in the anticipation of their objections to it. Those objections are insurmountable. This obnoxious arrangement provides that the French Government shall have the right to keep two ships of war stationed in the waters of Lake Nicaragua for the entire duration of the works. I am persuaded that this proposition will meet no favor from the French Government, and that its name has been introduced here unwarrantably and without its knowledge. The equality and security of these interoceanic routes constitute a great portion of their value to the world, and all commercial powers are interested in their maintenance. An exclusive right in one of these powers to exercise a permanent armed intervention would give serious cause of dissatisfaction to all the others, and the United States freely avow their determination to oppose such a measure should the Governments of Costa Rica and Nicaragua attempt to carry it into effect. But there are additional conditions applicable to this contract with M. Belly and to other contracts for similar purposes entered into by the Government of Nicaragua which commend themselves to the Government of the United States, and will not be disregarded. There are several American citizens who, with different interests, claim to have formed engagements with the proper authorities of Nicaragua for opening and using the transit routes, with various stipulations defining their privileges and duties, and some of these contracts have already been in operation. This government has neither the authority nor the disposition to determine the conflicting interests of these claimants; but what it has the right to do, and what it is disposed to do, is to require that the Government of Nicaragua should act in good faith towards them, and should not arbitrarily and wrongfully divest them of rights justly acquired. and solemnly guaranteed. The United States believe it to be their duty, and they mean to execute it, to watch over the persons and property of their citizens visiting foreign countries, and to intervene for their protection when such action is justified by existing circumstances and by the law of nations. Wherever their citizens may go through the habitable globe, when they encounter injustice they may appeal to the government of their country, and the appeal will be examined into with a view to such action in their behalf as it may be proper to take. It is impossible to define in advance and with precision those cases in which the national power may be exerted for their relief, or to what extent relief shall be afforded. Circumstances as they arise must prescribe the rule of action. In countries where well-defined and established laws are in operation, and where their administration is committed to able and independent judges, cases will rarely occur where such intervention will be necessary. But these elements of confidence and security are not everywhere found, and where that is unfortunately the case the United States are called upon to be more vigilant in watching over their citizens, and to interpose efficiently for their protection when they are subjected to tortious proceedings, by the direct action of the government, or by its indisposition or inability to discharge its duties. But there is yet another consideration which calls for the attention of this government. These contracts with their citizens have a national importance. They affect not ordinary interests merely, but questions of great value, political, commercial, and social, and the United States are fully justified by the considerations already adverted to in taking care that they are not wantonly violated, and the safe establishment of an interoceanic communication put to hazard or indefinitely postponed. The course of the Government of Nicaragua with relation to these engagements contains nothing in it reassuring, for the future contracts duly executed with all the forms of law, carrying with them important vested rights, have been arbitrarily set aside by executive decrees-a mode of proceeding not recognized in the contracts themselves-and without resorting to the action of judicial tribunals. The facts in dispute have been unjustly assumed, and the hand of violence has been laid upon solemn engagements which ought to have found their security in the good faith of the government. I am not aware that in any case has the forfeiture of a contract been declared in any other way than by an arbitrary executive decree. This is a state of things to which no nation is bound to submit. It is vain to expect that the means of men and money required from other nations for the execution of these works will be furnished in the face of such manifestations of bad faith. Without confidence these great enterprises must fail; nor is it prob able that one of them requiring a heavy outlay would now be undertaken and completed without some surer guarantee for their protection than would be furnished by the engagements of these Central American States. The danger of violation is too well known and appreciated to justify the expectation of the investment of capital under such unpropitious circumstances. So long as a pecuniary object is supposed to furnish a motive for re |