commissions as privateers, and did not extend to the crew.

Sailors were

a thoughtless race, and it would be cruel and unjust to punish them as pirates for taking such service, when they often might do it from want and necessity.

3. The British law claims all who are born as British subjects to be British subjects forever. We naturalize them and protect them as American citizens. If the treaty were concluded, and a British cruiser should capture a Russian privateer with a naturalized Irishman on board, what would be the consequence? The British law could not punish him as an American citizen under the treaty, because it would regard him as a British subject. It might hang him for high treason; and such an event would produce a collision between the two countries. The old and dangerous question would then be presented in one of its worst aspects.

4. Whilst such a treaty might be justly executed by such nations as Great Britain and the United States, would it be just, wise or humane to agree that their sailors who took service on board a privateer should be summarily tried and executed as pirates by several powers which could be named ?

5. Cui bono should Great Britain make such a treaty with France during the existing war. If no neutral power should enter into it with them, it could have no effect during its continuance.

6. The time may possibly come when Great Britain, in a war with the despotisms of Europe, might find it to be exceedingly to her interest to employ American sailors on board her privateers, and such a treaty would render this impossible. Why should she unnecessarily bind her hands?

7. The objections of the United States to enter into entangling alliances with European nations.

8. By the law of nations, as expounded both in British and American courts, a commission to a privateer, regularly issued by a belligerent nation, protects both the captain and the crew from punishment as pirates. Would the different commercial nations of the earth be willing to change this law as you propose, especially in regard to the crew? Would it be proper to do so in regard to the latter?

After I had stated these objections at some length on Friday, the 17th of March, Lord Clarendon observed that when some of them were stated the day before, they had struck him with so much force after reflection, that he had come to the office from the House of Lords at night and written them down and sent them to Sir James Graham. In his own opinion the treaty ought not to be concluded, and if the cabinet came to this conclusion the affair should drop, and I agreed I would not write to the Department on the subject. If otherwise, and the treaty should be presented to the Government of the United States, then I was to report our conversation.

In the conversation Lord Clarendon said they were more solicitous to be on good terms with the United States than any other nation, and that the project had not yet been communicated even to France.

(Vide 1 Kent's Commentaries, 100. United States Statutes at large, 175,

Act of March 3d, 1847, to provide for the punishment of piracy in certain cases. Mr. Polk's message to Congress of December 8, 1846.)

General conversation about privateering.

The object of the treaty was to change the law of nations in this respect, and Lord Clarendon said that if England, France and the United States should enter into it, the others would soon follow. The project contained a stipulation that the person who took a commission as a privateer should give security that he would not employ any persons as sailors on board who were not subjects or citizens of the nation granting the commission.

March 22, 1854. At her majesty's drawing-room this day, Lord Clarendon told me that they had given up the project of the treaty, etc., etc.

The whole object of the negotiation in reference to the affairs of Central America was to develop and ascertain the precise differences between the two governments in regard to the construction of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty. As the negotiation had become interrupted by the war with Russia, and as it was not probable that it could be brought to a definite issue while that war continued, Mr. Buchanan desired to return home. But Mr. Marcy earnestly desired him to remain, saying in answer to his request to be relieved: "The negotiation cannot be committed to any one who so well understands the subject in all its bearings as you do, or who can so ably sustain and carry out the views of the United States." Mr. Buchanan therefore remained and pressed upon Lord Clarendon a further discussion of the subject, saying in a formal note:

"The President has directed the undersigned, before retiring from his mission, to request from the British government a statement of the positions which it has determined to maintain in regard to the Bay Islands, the territory between the Sibun and Sarstoon, as well as the Belize settlement and the Mosquito protectorate. The long delay in asking for this information has proceeded from the President's reluctance to manifest any impatience on this important subject whilst the attention of her Majesty's government was engaged by the war with Russia. But as more than a year has already elapsed since the termination of the discussion on these subjects, and as the first session of the new Congress is speedily approaching, the President does not feel that he would be justified in any longer delay."

There had been submitted by Mr. Buchanan to Lord Clarendon on the 6th of January, 1854, a detailed statement of the views of the United States, which was not answered until the

2d of May following. On the 22d of July Mr. Buchanan made an elaborate reply, containing a historical review of all the matters in dispute. It reduced the whole controversy respecting the Clayton-Bulwer treaty to the following points:

What, then, is the fair construction of the article? It embraces two objects. 1. It declares that neither of the parties shall ever acquire any exclusive control over the ship canal to be constructed between the Atlantic and the Pacific, by the route of the river San Juan de Nicaragua, and that neither of them shall ever erect or maintain any fortifications commanding the same or in the vicinity thereof. In regard to this stipulation, no disagreement is known to exist between the parties. But the article proceeds further in its mutually self-denying policy, and in the second place, declares that neither of the parties will occupy, or fortify, or colonize, or assume, or exercise any dominion over Nicarauga, Costa Rica, the Mosquito coast, or any part of Central America.'

We now reach the true point. Does this language require that Great Britain shall withdraw from her existing possessions in Central America, including 'the Mosquito coast?' The language peculiarly applicable to this coast will find a more appropriate place in a subsequent portion of these remarks.

If any person enters into a solemn and explicit agreement that he will not "occupy" any given tract of country then actually occupied by him, can any proposition be clearer, than that he is bound by his agreement to withdraw from such occupancy? Were this not the case, these words would have no meaning, and the agreement would become a mere nullity. Nay more, in its effect it would amount to a confirmation of the party in the possession of that very territory which he had bound himself not to occupy, and would practically be equivalent to an agreement that he should remain in possession -a contradiction in terms. It is difficult to comment on language which appears so plain, or to offer arguments to prove that the meaning of words is not directly opposite to their well-known signification.

And yet the British government consider that the convention interferes with none of their existing possessions in Central America; that it is entirely prospective in its nature, and merely prohibits them from making new acquisitions. If this be the case, then it amounts to a recognition of their rights, on the part of the American Government, to all the possessions which they already hold, whilst the United States have bound themselves by the very same instrument, never, under any circumstances, to acquire the possession of a foot of territory in Central America. The mutuality of the convention would thus be entirely destroyed; and whilst Great Britain may continue to hold nearly the whole eastern coast of Central America, the United States have abandoned the right for all future time to acquire any territory, or to receive into the American Union any of the states in that portion of their own continent. This self-imposed prohibition was the great objection to the treaty in

the United States at the time of its conclusion, and was powerfully urged by some of the best men in the country. Had it then been imagined that whilst it prohibited the United States from acquiring territory, under any possible circumstances, in a portion of America through which their thoroughfares to California and Oregon must pass, and that the convention, at the same time, permitted Great Britain to remain in the occupancy of all her existing possessions in that region, there would not have been a single vote in the American Senate in favor of its ratification. In every discussion it was taken for granted that the convention required Great Britain to withdraw from these possessions, and thus place the parties upon an exact equality in Central America. Upon this construction of the convention there was quite as great an unanimity of opinion as existed in the House of Lords, that the convention with Spain of 1786 required Great Britain to withdraw from the Mosquito protectorate.

As Lord Clarendon in his statement had characterized "the Monroe Doctrine" as merely the "dictum of its distinguished author," Mr. Buchanan replied that "did the occasion require, he would cheerfully undertake the task of justifying the wisdom and policy of the Monroe doctrine, in reference to the nations of Europe as well as to those on the American continent;" and he closed as follows:

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 facts 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 on 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 terminate.

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 products in their natural state,' fully recognizing that the former 'Spanish sovereignty over the country' now 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.

In this attitude the controversy was necessarily left by Mr. Buchanan, when his mission finally terminated; and its further history, so far as he is concerned in it, belongs to the period when he had become President of the United States.