In the course of the conversation I observed to him, that the most serious difficulty between the governments might arise out of the Central American questions. He said that when two governments disagreed about the construction of a treaty, the best and most natural mode was to refer the question to a third power. At an early period of the negotiation he had made this suggestion; but I had jocularly replied that the Emperor of Russia was the only power sufficiently independent to act as an impartial umpire in the case, and they had gone to war with him.

*

*

Yours, very respectfully,

Hon. WILLIAM L. MARCY,
Secretary of State.

*

*

*

JAMES BUCHANAN.

Mr. Buchanan to Mr. Marcy.

[Extract.]

[No. 101.]

LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES,
London, November 9, 1855.

SIR: I had an interview with Lord Clarendon on yesterday by appointment.

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

He then said, About these Central American questions, the best mode of settling them is by arbitration. I replied there was nothing to arbitrate. He said the true construction of the treaty was a proper subject for arbitration. I told him I did not consider it a question for construction at all; the language was plain and explicit, and I thought this would be the almost unanimous opinion of the American people; but, in writing to you, I should mention what he had now said, as I had done what he had said at our former interview.

Ere this can reach Washington, you will have read the speeches of Lord Derby and Lord Clarendon in the House of Lords on Thursday evening last, which will speak for themselves.

Lord Clarendon says, in relation to the Central American questions: "In such a case correspondence is useless, and I lost no time in offering to refer the whole question to the arbitration of any third power, both sides agreeing to be bound by the decision. That offer has not yet been accepted; it has been renewed, and I hope that, upon further consideration, the government of the United States will agree to it."

*

*

*

*

*

It is, therefore, proper for me to state, as a matter of fact, that I have reported to you, in the most faithful manner, every conversation which has passed between Lord Clarendon and myself on the subject of a reference of these questions to a friendly power. As I have never learned that the British government has made any such offer to the government of the United States through Mr. Crampton, I infer that his lordship must have referred to the general conversations between him and myself, which would by no means justify the broad terms of his statement. Thus much merely to vindicate the truth of history.

[No. 120.]

LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES,
London, February 8, 1856.

SIR: On Wednesday last, the 6th instant, I had an interview with Lord Clarendon at the Foreign Office. I told him I desired to ascertain whether the statement he had made in the House of Lords on the evening of Thursday, the 31st ultimo, that the British government had made to the American government an offer, which has been recently renewed, to arbitrate the Central American questions, was founded on what had passed between him and myself in conversation; or whether he had instructed Mr. Crampton to make to you, in writing, a 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 a reference of these questions to arbitration; and he expressed the hope that I had communicated his propositions to my government. I informed him that I had faithfully reported to you all the conversations we had held in reference to an arbitration; but I had not believed that what he had said on these occasions amounted to such an offer as could be recognised by our government as a a foundation for specific action on so grave a matter. I added, that I did not doubt

you were of the same opinion, as I had never received a line from you on the subject. He observed, that before holding these conversations with me, he had consulted the cabinet, and spoke their sentiments as well as his own. I remarked that this fact had now, for the first time, been communicated to me. If he had informed me of it at the time, this would have given his conversation a more serious character, and caused it to make a deeper impression on my mind. He said he had thought that, as a matter of course, I would consider what he had said to me had been said after consultation with the cabinet. In reply, I observed that I 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 proposed to arbitrate the Oregon question. Besides, the President might, if he thought proper, consult the Senate on the question; and what would be thought by that body, if such a proposition were presented to them in the loose form of various conversations between him and myself, which, after all, I might, through mistake or inadvertence, not have reported correctly? He said that what he had done he considered the preliminary step; and if our government had indicated any satisfaction with it, they would have been prepared to proceed further; but from what I had said to him, he did not think they had received much encouragement. I told him that whenever I had spoken to him upon the subject, I had always been careful to assure him that I was expressing my own individual sentiments, without any instructions or information from my government; and that these remained unchanged. I also observed that his last letter to me, finally denying our construction of the treaty, and forming an issue between the two governments, might appropriately have contained a proposition for arbitration; and in this manner the question might have been brought in regular form before our government. He then, for the first time, informed me that he had addressed a despatch to Mr. Crampton on the subject, with instructions to him to read it to you. He then sent for it and read it to me. I 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. Crampton was, that the matter was in Mr. Buchanan's hands.

He proceeded to express a decided opinion in favor of arbitration, and said that when two friendly governments disagreed upon the construction of a treaty, the natural and appropriate course was to refer the question to a third friendly power. He had ever firmly believed their construction of the treaty to be correct. He then requested me to communicate to you their proposal for an arbitration, and how anxious they were that the question might be settled in this manner. I told him I should cheerfully comply with his request, but repeated that my own individual opinions remained unchanged. I considered the language of the treaty too clear for serious doubt; and such I believed was the opinion of public men of all parties in the United States. This had been evinced by the recent debate in the Senate on the President's message. Besides, the difficulty of selecting a suitable

sovereign as an arbitrator seemed insurmountable. But I said this was a question for my government, and not for myself.

[Received at the Department of State on the 27th of February, at 11 o'clock p. m.]

WASHINGTON, February 27, 1856.

MY DEAR SIR: Observing that some misapprehension seems to exist as to the offer made by Lord Clarendon to Mr. Buchanan, to submit the points regarding the interpretation of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty, upon which the two governments disagree, to arbitration, I think it well to send you the enclosed despatch, which I received from Lord Clarendon on the subject in December last. I regret not having made you this communication before; but the truth is, that the last paragraph of the despatch escaped my attention until I referred to it lately; and as I was aware that the negotiation of the question regarding Central America was in Mr. Buchanan's and Lord Clarendon's hands, I considered the despatch as meant merely for my own information as to what was going forward upon a subject in regard to which I inferred you were already informed. Believe me yours, very faithfully,

JOHN F. CRAMPTON.

P. S.-I send the original despatch, which I will beg of you to return to me, but I have no objection to your taking a copy of it.

Lord Clarendon to Mr. Crampton.

J. F. C.

[No. 258.]

FOREIGN OFFICE, November 10, 1855. SIR: Mr. Buchanan having, in the course of conversation a few days ago, adverted to the impression that would be created in the United States by the non-settlement of the Central American question, I again assured him that England had no wish to extend her influence, or to obtain any territory in that part of the world; and I reminded him that, as the difference between this country and the United States turned solely upon the interpretation of the treaty of 1850, I had of fered, on the part of her Majesty's government, to submit the case to the arbitration of a third power, but that he had declined the offer.

Her Majesty's government, I said, would still abide by that offer, and thought it would be the fairest and most amicable manner of arriving at a settlement of the question.

Mr. Buchanan said he would make it known to his government, and you are instructed to communicate this despatch to Mr. Marcy. I am, with great truth and regard, sir, your most obedient, humble servant,

J. F. CRAMPTON, Esq., &c., &c. &c.

CLARENDON.