We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 17 June 2009
Early in the seventeenth century an English or Scottish buccaneer settled with a few companions at the mouth of a river in a deserted section of the coast of Central America. The man's name was Wallace, called ‘Valis’ or ‘Balis’ by the Spaniards. The river to which he gave his name was the Belize river, and the settlement which he founded ultimately became, in 1862, the colony of British Honduras.
1 Burdon, J. A., ed., A[rchives of] B[ritish] H[onduras] (3 vols., London, 1931–1935), i, pp. 2–3Google Scholar; Quijano, J. A. Calderón, Belice, 1663 (?)–1821 (Sevilla, 1944), pp. 33–34, 46–49, 61–62.Google Scholar
2 The Voyages and Travels of Captain Nathaniel Uring, ed. Dewar, Alfred (London, 1928), p. 241.Google Scholar
1 It was given up under the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle. See Pares, Richard, War and Trade in the West Indies, 1739–1763 (Oxford, 1936), pp. 103–4.Google Scholar
2 Dampier, William, A New Voyage Round the World, ed. Gray, Sir Albert (London, 1937), p. 17.Google Scholar
3 Uring, , op. cit., p. 159.Google Scholar
1 Account of the Mosquito Indians, by Laurie, J., Black River, 10 Nov. 1774.Google Scholar National Library of Scotland, Robertson-Macdonald Papers. James Laurie, or Lawrie, became the last superintendent of the Mosquito Shore.
2 Squier, E. G., The States of Central America (New York, 1858), p. 744Google Scholar, prints Hodgson's letter to Trelawny of 8 April 1740 containing the details of this interesting ceremony. See also Pares, , op. cit., p. 100.Google Scholar
3 Under the 17th article of the Treaty of Paris in 1763 Britain promised to demolish all fortifications in the Bay of Honduras ‘and other places in Spanish territory in that part of the world’.
4 Between the Hondo and the Belize, according to the Treaty of 1783, extended southwards to the Sibún by the Convention of London in 1786.
1 573 white and free persons and 1,677 slaves. A.B.H., i, pp. 162, 166.Google Scholar
2 57 Geo. III, cap. 53.
3 Note of 7 Nov. 1816, in Vaughan to Castlereagh, 12 Nov. 1816, P[ublic] R[ecord] O[ffice], F[oreign] O[ffice Archives], 72/188. For a Note of 1820 also referring to the settlement see my Diplomatic History of British Honduras, 1638–1901 (London, 1961), pp. 177–78.Google Scholar
4 Ibid., pp. 13–18, 21–22.
5 After the suppression in 1796 of a revolt of the Black Caribs in St Vincent a large number of them were transported to Ruatan, whence they spread to the mainland. But Spanish possession was only temporarily disturbed and Spain, in the early eighteen-hundreds, still maintained a small guard of soldiers on the island.
1 The Spaniards had occupied Black River on the northern coast of the Shore after the British evacuation. But they were driven out by the Mosquitos in 1796. Williams, M. W., Anglo-American Isthmian Diplomacy, 1815–1915 (Washington, 1916), p. 23.Google Scholar Black River was left desolate. Further south the port of San Juan de Nicaragua was officially established in 1796. Whether there was a permanent settlement there is doubtful, though there was a fort inland at Castillo Viejo and at one time a guard-post at the mouth of the San Juan itself.
2 A.B.H., ii, pp. 314–15.Google Scholar The custom lapsed for a time in the eighteen-twenties.
3 Cf. Roberts, Orlando W., Narrative of Voyages and Excursions on the East Coast and in the Interior of Central America … (Edinburgh, 1827), pp. 146–49Google Scholar; Crowe, Frederick, The Gospel in Central America (London, 1850), pp. 208–9Google Scholar; Macgregor, Jonn, Commercial Tariffs and Regulations of the Several States of Europe and America … Spanish American Republics, P[arliamentary] P[apers], H.C., 1847, [769], lxiv, pp. 38–40.Google Scholar
4 A. Hasbrouck, ‘Gregor McGregor and the Colonization of Poyais, between 1820 and 1824’, Hispanic American Historical Review, vii (1927), pp. 438–59Google Scholar; A.B.H., ii, pp. 274, 275, 276, 278,282.Google Scholar Cf. Hastie, James, Narrative of a Voyage in the Ship Kennersley Castle, from Leith Roads to Poyais … (Edinburgh, 1823)Google Scholar, and, for the attempts of later speculators to profit by MacGregor's frauds, Griffith, W. J., Empires in the Wilderness: Foreign Colonisation and Development in Guatemala, 1834–1844 (Chapel Hill, 1965), pp. 21–22, 160.Google Scholar
1 See Lockey's, J. B.entertaining essay, ‘Diplomatic Futility’, Hispanic American Historical Review, x (1930), pp. 265–94Google Scholar. An American merchant, Henry Savage, took charge of the United States legation, though without any official rank whatever.
2 Mack, Gerstle, The Land Divided. A history of the Panama canal and other isthmian canal projects (New York, 1944), pp. 125–26, 173–77Google Scholar
3 See Naylor, Robert A., ‘The British Role in Central America prior to the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty of 1850’, Hispanic American Historical Review, xl (1960), pp. 361–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar. This article summarizes the author's unpublished doctoral dissertation, ‘British Commercial Relations in Central America, 1821–1851’ (Tulane, 1958)Google Scholar.
4 Thompson, G. A., who had served as secretary to the mission sent by Canning to Mexico. See his Narrative of an Official Visit to Guatemala from Mexico (London, 1829).Google Scholar
5 O'Reilly, John, Aug. 1825-Jan. 1828.Google Scholar
6 See the conditions for recognition laid down by Canning, in Webster, C. K., ed., Britain and the Independence of Latin America, 1812–1830: Select Documents from the Foreign Office Archives (2 vols., London, 1938), i, pp. 114, 435, 462Google Scholar, and by Dudley, , in 1828Google Scholar, ibid., i, p. 339.
1 Cf. Williams, , op. cit., pp. 31, 38Google Scholar. It is rejected by Naylor, op. cit., and by Karnes, T. L., The Failure of Union. Central America, 1824–1960 (Chapel Hill, 1961), pp. 112–25.Google ScholarRodríguez, Mario, A Palmerstonian Diplomat in Central America: Frederick Chatfield, Esq. (Tucson, Arizona, 1964), p. 366Google Scholar, concurs in the view that Chatfield was not responsible for the dissolution of the federation but believes that he ‘aligned himself against unionism’ once the federation had been dissolved. This, the only biography of Chatfield, is based on extensive research. But much of its argumentation is, in my view, conjectural and its author has been led into a number of highly questionable assumptions and deductions. Cf. the suggestion, implicit in his title, that there was a special relationship between Chatfield and Palmerston.
2 Cf. Rodriguez, , op. cit., pp. 178, 218, 236, 237, 366.Google Scholar
3 Chatfield to Palmerston, 7 Nov. 1834, F.O. 15/14.
4 Cf. Chatfield to Backhouse, 13 Oct. 1834, F.O. 15/14; Chatfield to Palmerston, 5 March 1839, F O. 15/22.
5 Cf. Chatfield to Palmerston, 23 Feb. 1838, enc., F.O. 15/20.
6 Cf. Chatfield to Palmerston, 17 Sept. 1834, F.O. 15/14; 12 Sept. 1835, F.O. 15/16.
7 Cf. Chatfield to Palmerston, 5 June, 5 July 1839, F.O. 15/22.
1 Chatfield to Palmerston, 20 Aug. 1839, F.O. 15/22. Cf. his letter of 19 Nov. 1839, F.O. 15/22: ‘sooner or later’ Britain must ‘interpose for the regulation of these republics’.
2 Chatfield to Palmerston, 28 Jan. 1847, F.O. 15/45; 28 June 1847, F.O. 15/46, both in part printed in Aken, Mark J. Van, ‘British Policy Considerations in Central America before 1850’, Hispanic American Historical Review, xlii (1962), pp. 55–58.Google Scholar
3 Chatfield to Palmerston, 29 Jan. 1847, F.O. 15/45; 20 Dec. 1847, F.O. 15/47; 7, 28 March 1848, F.O. 97/88. From Realejo, he wrote in January 1847, a direct line of communication might be maintained with Europe by San Juan de Nicaragua.
4 Chatfield to Palmerston, 17 Jan. 1848, F.O. 15/51, printed in Aken, op, cit., p. 59; 7 March 1848, F.O. 97/88.
5 Chatfield to Palmerston, 17 Oct. 1849, F.O. 15/60.
1 Aberdeen to Chatfield, 1 Oct. 1845, Nos. 6 and 8, F.O. 15/40.
2 Chatfield to Palmerston, 28 Jan. 1847, F.O. 15/45; 25 April 1846, F.O. 15/42; 28 June 1847, F.O. 15/46.
3 Cf. Karnes, , op. cit., pp. 126–37.Google Scholar
4 Van Aken, , op. cit., p. 59Google Scholar, prints Palmerston's instruction to Chatfield of 1 November 1848 to the effect that the United States chargé d'affaires was understood to have been told to induce the Central American states to unite into a single state the better to resist the interference of Great Britain in the affairs of Mosquito, and that Chatfield should take such steps as might be necessary or useful to defeat United States policy in so far as its object was inimical to British interests. But this is evidence of an opposition, not to union as such, but to hostile American policy. Palmerston himself at this time favoured a re-union of the Central American states ‘in a friendly league and in connexion with Mosquito and our Honduras’. Van Alstyne, R. W., ‘The Central American Policy of Lord Palmerston, 1846–1848’, Hispanic American Historical Review, vii (1936), p. 351.Google Scholar
5 Palmerston's attitude on the question of claims is defined in his instruction to Chatfield of 15 July 1840. Rodriguez, , op. cit., p. 218.Google Scholar
1 See, for the indignant repudiation by the Foreign Office and the Colonial Office of the means proposed by Chatfield to dominate Santo Tomás, Griffith, , op. cit., pp. 58–59.Google Scholar
2 Palmerston to Chatfield, 19 Nov. 1839, F.O. 15/22.
3 Palmerston to Russell, 10 Dec. 1848, P.R.O., Russell Papers, 30/22/7D; Van Alstyne, , op. cit., p. 351Google Scholar (differently dated). The ‘refitting station’ Pal merston had in mind was San Juan del Sur. The Admiralty had no base from which the navy might operate in the eastern Pacific, only a storeship at Valparaiso. Bartlett, C. R., Great Britain and Sea Power, 1815–1853 (Oxford, 1963), p. 182.Google Scholar
4 Palmerston to Chatfield, 17 June 1848, F.O. 15/50; 1 May 1849, F.O. 15/56. Chatfield had suggested that the navy should examine and report upon the suitability of establishing a small naval base in the Bay of Fonseca. Palmerston asked the Admiralty to do this, and, when a favourable report was received, called for a map, which he returned without comment. Minute on Chatfield to Palmerston, 20 Dec. 1847, F.O. 15/47. This is slender evidence on which to suggest that at this time Palmerston favoured Chatfield's proposals. Rodríguez, , op. cit., pp. 281–84Google Scholar. A similar confidential survey of the Galapagos Islands had been ordered in 1844.
5 Williams, , op. cit., p. 71.Google Scholar
6 Palmerston to Lawrence, 13 Feb. 1850. Manning, W. R., ed., Diplomatic Correspondence of the United States: Inter-American Affairs, 1831–1860 (12 vols., Washington, 1936), vii, pp. 352–53.Google Scholar A minute by Palmerston dated 5 March 1850 on Chatfield to Palmerston, 12 Jan. 1850, F.O. 15/64, says: ‘H.M.G. do not wish to obtain possession of Tigre island and are only desirous that it should not be alienated to any other power’.
1 See my Diplomatic History, pp. 29–30, 34–36, 38–40,181–82. The boundaries of the settlement were denned as the Hondo on the north, the Sarstoon on the south, and as far west as Garbutt's Falls.
2 Ibid., pp. 46, 49, 60.
1 Bennett to Horton, 13 June 1825, F.O. 15/4; A.B.H., ii, pp. 368Google Scholar; Cooke to Howick, 13 Aug., 12 Oct. 1831, F.O. 15/11; and see Waddell, David, ‘Great Britain and the Bay Islands, 1821–61’, Historical Journal, ii (1959), pp. 61–62.Google Scholar
2 In June 1830 Major John Anderson, calling at Ruatan, took off some French settlers who said they were starving. They were sent back from Belize in the same vessel in which they arrived when it was discovered they were not under the necessity they had represented, but with a supply of provisions. Dashwood to Backhouse, 3 Nov. 1830, with enclosures, F.O. 15/10. This incident was represented by Squier (e.g. The States of Central America, pp. 619–20) and others as a British seizure of the island, subsequently disavowed, and the legend is repeated by Williams, , op. cit., p. 37Google Scholar, Perkins, Dexter, The Monroe Doctrine, 1826–1867 (Baltimore, 1933), p. 17Google Scholar, and Karnes, , op. cit., p. 109.Google Scholar
3 Macdonald to Glenelg, with enclosures, 24 Oct. 1838, in Colonial Office to Foreign Office, 31 Dec. 1838, F.O. 15/21.
4 Manning, , op. cit., iii, p. 163.Google Scholar
1 Colonial Office to Foreign Office, 31 Dec. 1838; Symonds (H.M.S. Rover) to Douglas, 27 May 1839, F.O. 15/22.
2 Waddell, , op. cit., pp. 64–65.Google Scholar
3 Robert Charles Frederic to King of England, 25 Jan. 1837, F.O. 15/19; Macdonald to Glenelg, 12 Feb. 1837, F.O. 15/19; Macdonald to Chatfield, 20 Feb. 1837, F.O. 252/8; Hyde to Palmerston, 24 Oct. 1837, F.O. 15/19.
4 Chatfield to Palmerston, 13 Sept., 16 Dec. 1836, F.O. 15/18; 19, 26 Aug. 1837, F.O. 15/19. For the Central American attempt in 1836 to occupy Boca del Toro and the counter-expedition from New Granada, see Griffith, W. J., ‘Juan Galindo, Central American Chauvinist’, Hispanic American Historical Review, xl (1960), p. 44.Google Scholar
5 Christie to Palmerston, 15 May 1849, 16 May 1850, F.O. 53/45; Van Alstyne, , op. cit., pp. 341–43.Google Scholar
1 Henderson, Gavin B., ‘German Colonial Projects on the Mosquito Coast, 1844–1848’, English Historical Review, lix (1944), pp. 261–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Van Alstyne, , op. cit., p. 342.Google Scholar
2 Chatfield to Palmerston, 13 Sept. 1836, F.O. 15/18; Macdonald to Russell, 25 Aug. 1840, F.O. 15/24. On Mosquito claims to Boca del Toro and the Chiriquí Lagoon, see also the documents printed in Correspondence respecting the Mosquito Territory, P.P., H.C., 1847–48, [966], lxv, pp. 2–6, 36–40, 47–52.Google Scholar
3 Chatfield to Palmerston, 13 Sept. 1836, F.O. 15/18; 1 Sept. 1837, F.O. 15/19.
4 Macdonald to Russell, 29 Feb., 25 Aug. 1840, F.O. 15/24.
5 Palmerston to Chatfield, 15 Dec. 1837, F.O. 15/19.
1 Minute by Palmerston on Colonial Office to Foreign Office, 27 Nov. 1840; Foreign Office to Colonial Office, 15 Dec. 1840, F.C. 15/24.
2 Russell to Macdonald, 8 Feb. 1841, F.O. 15/28.
1 Macdonald to Russell, 12 July, 8 Sept. 1841, F.O. 15/28; Hall to Palmerston, 18 Oct. 1841, F.O. 15/25; Colonial Office to Foreign Office, 24 Dec. 1841, F.O. 15/28; Manning, , op. cit., v, pp. 609–12Google Scholar; Rodríguez, , op. cit., pp. 239–44.Google Scholar The custom house was certainly in existence in the early eighteen-thirties.
2 Colonial Office to Foreign Office, 24 Dec. 1841, F.O. 15/28; Foreign Office to Colonial Office, 2 April 1843, F.O. 15/36. See also Manning, , op. cit., iii, pp. 187–88.Google Scholar
3 Macdonald to Aberdeen, 20 Dec. 1843, F.O. 15/36; Foreign Office Memoranda, 15 Dec. 1843, F.O. 15/36, 6 March 1845, F.O. 53/44; Aberdeen to Walker, 30 April 1844, F.O. 53/1.
4 Christie to Palmerston, 16 May 1850, F.O. 53/45.
1 Walker to Aberdeen, 21 July 1845, F.O. 53/44; Christie to Palmerston, 15 May 1849, F.O. 53/45; Foreign Office Memorandum, 6 March 1845, F.O. 53/44; Henderson, , op. cit., pp. 263–64, 267.Google Scholar
2 Sir Charles Grey to Lord Grey, 22 Nov. 1847, F.O. 53/14.
3 Chatfield to Aberdeen, 25 April 1846, F.O. 15/42; Walker to Aberdeen, 20 July 1846, F.O. 53/5; Chatfield to Palmerston, 15 April 1847, Walker to Palmerston, 20 May 1847, Correspondence respecting the Mosquito Territory, pp. 2–6, 36–40.
4 Foreign Office Memorandum, 28 April 1845, F.O. 53/44; Minute by Palmerston on Chatfield to Palmerston, 16 Nov. 1847, F.O. 15/47.
5 Palmerston to Chatfield, 30 June 1847, F.O. 15/44. But Chatfield, in announcing this decision, reserved such claims as the king might have to territory south of the river. Chatfield to Palmerston, II Sept. 1847, F.O. 15/47, Correspondence respecting the Mosquito Territory, p. 56.
1 Cf. Sir Charles Grey to Lord Grey, 22 Nov. 1847, F.O. 53/14.
2 Van Aken, op. cit., argues to the contrary. But the three most important documents which he prints reflect Chatfield's views, and these were not necessarily those of the British government. Cf. Van Alstyne, , op. cit., pp. 347–48Google Scholar, and Naylor, , op. cit., p. 381.Google Scholar
1 Foreign Office Memorandum, 28 April 1845, F.O. 53/44. See also Chatfield to Aberdeen, 25 April 1846, F.O. 15/42.
2 Palmerston to Grey, 9 March 1848, Palmerston Papers, GC/GR/2407.1 am indebted to the Trustees of the Broadlands Archives for their permission to use these papers.
3 Cf. Van Alstyne, , op.cit., pp. 347–48,351–52.Google Scholar Sir Charles Wood,however, writing in 1856, stated that when there was reason to suppose that a ship canal would be made through Lake Nicaragua it was thought desirable to have some hold on the country through which it passed and that the whole line should not be in the power of one nation. The claims of the Mosquitos to San Juan were then put forward. See Wood to Erskine, IO June 1856. British Museum, Add. MSS. 49, 566, fos. 11–18, cited in Bourne, Kenneth, Britain and the Balance of Power in North America, 1815–1908 (London, 1967),pp. 197–98.Google Scholar
4 Palmerston to Christie, 16 Nov. 1848, F.O. 53/11; Henderson, , op. cit., p. 270.Google Scholar
1 Manning, , op. cit., iii, pp. 30–35Google Scholar; Belknap, G. E., ed., ‘Letters of Bancroft and Buchanan on the Clayton-Buhver Treaty, 1849, 1850’; American Historical Review, v (10 1899), pp. 98–99.Google Scholar
1 Manning, , op. cit., iii, 36–51Google Scholar; Williams, M. W., ed., ‘Letters of E. George Squier to John M. Clayton, 1849–1850’, Hispanic American Historical Review, i (1918), p. 427.Google Scholar
2 See Chatfield to Palmerston, 17 Oct. 1849, F.O. 15/60.
3 On this phase of Squier's career see Stansifer, Charles L., ‘E. George Squier and the Honduras Interoceanic Railroad Project’, Hispanic American Historical Review, xlvi (1966), pp. 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4 The Times, 13 June 1850.
5 Bulwer to Palmerston, 28 Jan. 1851, F.O. 5/527.
1 Memorandum by Palmerston, 17 Feb. 1851, F.O. 5/527.
2 Van Alstyne, R. W., ‘British Diplomacy and the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty, 1850–1860’, Journal of Modern History, xi (1939), pp. 162–63.Google Scholar I am much indebted to this valuable article. See also the earlier essay of Hickson, G. F., ‘Palmerston and the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty’, Cambridge Historical Journal, iii (1931), pp. 295–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1 Palmerston to Bulwer, 28 May 1850, F.O. 115/107; Miller, Hunter, ed., Treaties and other International Acts of the United States of America (8 vols., Washington, 1931–48), v, p. 792.Google Scholar
2 Palmerston to Russell, 5 March 1850, P.R.O., Russell Papers, 30/22/8D; Van Alstyne, ‘British Diplomacy …’, p. 163.
3 Van Alstyne, ‘British Diplomacy …’, pp. 163–4; Palmerston to Bulwer, 28 Oct. 1850, 25 June 1851, F.O. 5/510, F.O. 5/526; Bulwer, ‘History of the Mosquito Question’, p. 33, P.R.O., Granville Papers, 30/29/19.
4 Palmerston to Bulwer, 1 Nov. 1850, F.O. 5/510.
5 Palmerston to Treasury, 24 Sept. 1851, F.O. 53/27.
6 Cf. the extraordinary statement of Mario Rodríguez: ‘Great Britain's aggressive [sic] policy in Central America came to an end with the dismissal of Lord Palmerston from the Foreign Office …’. ‘The “Prometheus” and the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty’, Journal of Modern History, xxxvi (1964), pp. 277–78.Google Scholar
1 Crampton to Malmesbury, 2 Jan. 1853, F.O.5/563. And see Van Alstyne, ‘British Diplomacy …’, pp. 167–68.
2 Wyke to Malmesbury, 28 May 1852; James Green to Malmesbury, 3 June 1852, P.P. Correspondence with the United States respecting Central America, H.C., 1856, [c. 2052], lx, pp. 167–69.Google Scholar
1 Waddell, , op. cit., pp. 66–70, 74.Google Scholar Clarendon, in September 1853, was totally ignorant of the colony's existence. Manning, , op. cit., vii, p. 504.Google Scholar
2 Manning, , op. cit., vii, pp. 86–87.Google Scholar
1 Bulwer to Clarendon, 24 Jan., March 1854, Bodleian Library, Oxford, MSS. Clarendon, dep. c. 24; Addington to Clarendon, 5 March 1854, ibid.; Palmerston to Clarendon, 22 April 1845, ibid., dep. c. 15; Russell to Claren don, 14, 24 April 1854, ibid.; Aberdeen to Clarendon, 17 April 1854, ibid., dep. c. 14; Aberdeen to Clarendon, 5 Nov. 1854, Van Alstyne, R. W., ‘Anglo- American Relations, 1853–1857: British Statesmen on the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty and American Expansion’, American Historical Review, xlii (1936-1937), p. 498.Google Scholar
2 The Note is printed by Van Alstyne, ‘Anglo-American Relations …’, pp. 496–97, attributed to Clarendon and dated c. August 1854. It was in fact written some time in November. For Buchanan's authorship see Waddell, , op. cit., p. 70, n.Google Scholar The permanent under-secretary at the Foreign Office described it as a ‘most impudent’ production. Hammond to Clarendon, 28 Nov. 1854, MSS. Clarendon, dep. c. 25. Rodríguez, ‘The “Prometheus” …’, p. 276, and A Palmerstonian Diplomat, p. 363, repeats the error.
3 Addington to Clarendon, 5 March 1854, MSS. Clarendon, dep. c. 24.
4 Wyke to Clarendon, 27 Nov. 1853, F.O. 15/79.
1 Clarendon to Palmerston, 31 July 1855, Palmerston Papers, GC/CL/ 675/1.
2 Wyke to Clarendon, 28 Nov. 1855, F.O. 15/85; British and Foreign State Papers, xlvi, pp. 784–803Google Scholar; Marcoleta to Clarendon, Paris, 4 Sept. 1856, F.O. 15/92.
3 Howden to Clarendon, 1 June 1856, F.O. 72/893.
1 Bourne, , op. cif., pp. 182–3, 186–7.Google Scholar
2 Douglas, George, eighth duke of Argyll, Autobiography and Memoirs (2 vols., London, 1906), ii, pp. 47, 49Google Scholar; Bourne, , op. cit., pp. 196–200.Google Scholar
1 Cf. Napier to Clarendon, 7 June 1857, F.O. 5/672, 23 June 1857, MSS. Clarendon, dep. c. 81; to Malmesbury, 31 July, 31 Dec. 1858, F.O. 5/693, F.O. 5/695.
2 Napier to Clarendon, 23 June 1857, MSS. Clarendon, dep. c. 81.
3 Palmerston to Clarendon, 7 July, 30 Sept. 1857, MSS. Clarendon, dep. c. 69; Clarendon to Ouseley, 30 Oct. 1857, P.P. Further Correspondence with the Government of the United States respecting Central America., H.C., 1860, [c. 2748], lxviii, pp. 48–51Google Scholar; Napier to Cass, 30 Nov. 1857, Manning, , op. cit., vii, pp. 720–23.Google Scholar
4 Palmerston to Clarendon, 7 July, 30 Sept., 22 Dec. 1857, MSS. Clarendon, dep. c. 69.
1 Clarendon to Palmerston, 13 Oct. 1857, Palmerston Papers, GC/CL/ 1106/1.
3 Napier to Clarendon, 23 June 1857, MSS. Clarendon, dep. c. 81; Pal merston to Clarendon, 15 Dec. 1857, ibid., dep. c. 69; Clarendon to Palmerston, 30 Dec. 1857, Palmerston Papers, GC/CL/1131, printed in Bourne, Kenneth, ‘The Clayton-Bulwer Treaty and the Decline of British Opposition to the Territorial Expansion of the United States, 1857–60’, Journal of Modern History, xxiii (1961), pp. 289–90.Google Scholar
4 Clarendon to Palmerston, 25 Sept. 1857, Palmerston Papers, GC/CL/ 1098.
1 Palmerston to Clarendon, 31 Dec. 1857, printed in Bourne, ‘The Clayton-Bulwer Treaty …’, pp. 290–91.
2 Cf. Ouseley to Malmesbury, 20 March 1858, F.O. 15/98, and Williams, , op. cit., p. 251.Google Scholar
3 Napier to Malmesbury, 31 Dec. 1858, F.O. 5/695.
4 Napier to Clarendon, 23 June 1857, MSS. Clarendon, dep. c. 81.
1 Addington to Clarendon, 16 Nov. 1853, MSS. Clarendon, dep. c. 11.
2 Williams, , op. cit., p. 268 n.Google Scholar; Rippy, J. F., Latin America in World Politics (New York, 1931), pp. 103–4, 108Google Scholar; Bourne, , Britain and the Balance of Power, pp. 200–5.Google Scholar
3 Palmerston to Clarendon, 31 Dec. 1857.
4 Malmesbury to Napier, 8 Dec. 1858, F.O. 5/689.
