(Inclosure.)—Extract from the Message from the President of The United States to the two Houses of Congress, at the commencement of the First Session of the 35th Congress.

THE diplomatic difficulties which existed between the Government of The United States and that of Great Britain at the adjournment of the last Congress have been happily terminated by the appointment of a British Minister to this country, who has been cordially received.

Whilst it is greatly to the interest, as I am convinced it is the sincere desire, of the Governments and people of the two countries to be on terms of intimate friendship with each other, it has been our misfortune almost always to have had some irritating, if not dangerous, outstanding question with Great Britain.

Since the origin of the Government we have been employed in negotiating Treaties with that Power, and afterwards in discussing their true intent and meaning. In this respect the Convention of April 19, 1850, commonly called the Clayton and Bulwer Treaty, has been the most unfortunate of all; because the two Governments place directly opposite and contradictory constructions upon its first and most important Article. Whilst, in The United States, we believed that this Treaty would place both Powers upon an exact equality by the stipulation that neither will ever "occupy, or fortify, or colonize, or assume, or exercise any dominion" over any part of Central America, it is contended by the British Government that the true construction of this language has left them in the rightful possession of all that portion of Central America which was in their occupancy at the date of the Treaty; in fact, that the Treaty is a virtual recognition on the part of The United States of the right of Great Britain, either as owner or protector, to the whole extensive coast of Central America, sweeping round from the Rio Hondo to the port and harbour of San Juan de Nicaragua, together with the adjacent Bay Islands, except the comparatively small portion of this between the Sarstoon and Cape Honduras. According to their construction, the Treaty does no more than simply prohibit them from extending their possessions in Central America beyond the present limits. It is not too much to assert, that if in The United States the Treaty had been considered susceptible of such a construction, it would never have been negotiated under the authority of the President, nor would it have received the approbation of the Senate. The universal conviction in The United States was, that when our Government consented to violate its traditional and time-honoured policy, and to stipulate with a foreign Government never to occupy or acquire territory in the Central American portion of our continent, the consideration for this sacrifice was that Great

Britain should, in this respect at least, be placed in the same position with ourselves.

Whilst we have no right to doubt the sincerity of the British Government in their construction of the Treaty, it is at the same time my deliberate conviction that this construction is in opposition both to its letter and its spirit.

Under the late Administration negotiations were instituted between the two Governments for the purpose, if possible, of removing these difficulties; and a Treaty having this laudable object in view was signed at London on the 17th October, 1856, and was submitted by the President to the Senate on the following 10th of December.

Whether this Treaty, either in its original or amended form, would have accomplished the object intended without giving birth to new and embarrassing complications between the two Governments, may perhaps be well questioned. Certain it is, however, it was rendered much less objectionable by the different amendments made to it by the Senate.

The Treaty, as amended, was ratified by me on the 12th March, 1857, and was transmitted to London for ratification by the British Government. That Government expressed its willingness to concur in all the amendments made by the Senate, with the single exception of the clause relating to Ruatan and the other Islands in the Bay of Honduras. The Article in the original Treaty, as submitted to the Senate, after reciting that these islands and their inhabitants "having been by a Convention bearing date the 27th day of August, 1856, between Her Britannic Majesty and the Republic of Honduras, constituted and declared a free territory under the sovereignty of the said Republic of Honduras," stipulated that "the two Contracting Parties do hereby mutually engage to recognize and respect in all future time the independence and rights of the said free territory as a part of the Republic of Honduras."

Upon an examination of this Convention between Great Britain and Honduras of the 27th August, 1856, it was found that, whilst declaring the Bay Islands to be "a free territory under the sovereignty of the Republic of Honduras," it deprived that Republic of rights without which its sovereignty over them could scarcely be said to exist. It divided them from the remainder of Honduras, and gave to their inhabitants a separate Government of their own, with legislative, executive, and judicial officers, elected by themselves. It deprived the Government of Honduras of the taxing power in every form, and exempted the people of the islands from the performance of a military duty, except for their own exclusive defence. It also prohibited that Republic from erecting fortifications upon

them for their protection-thus leaving them open to invasion from any quarter; and, finally, it provided "that slavery shall not at any time hereafter be permitted to exist therein."

Had Honduras ratified this Convention, she would have ratified the establishment of a State substantially independent within her own limits, and a State at all times subject to British influence and control. Moreover, had The United States ratified the Treaty with Great Britain in its original form, we should have been bound "to recognize and respect in all future time" these stipulations to the prejudice of Honduras. Being in direct opposition to the spirit and meaning of the Clayton and Bulwer Treaty, as understood in The United States, the Senate rejected the entire clause, and substituted in its stead a simple recognition of the sovereign right of Honduras to these islands in the following language:

"The two Contracting Parties do hereby mutually engage to recognize and respect the Islands of Ruatan, Bonaco, Utila, Barbaretta, Helena, and Morat, situate in the Bay of Honduras, and off the coast of the Republic of Honduras, as under the sovereignty and as part of the said Republic of Honduras."

Great Britain rejected this amendment, assigning as the only reason, that the ratifications of the Convention of the 27th August, 1856, between her and Honduras, had not been "exchanged, owing to the hesitation of that Government." Had this been done, it is stated that Her Majesty's Government would have had little difficulty in agreeing to the modification proposed by the Senate, which then would have had in effect the same signification as the original wording. Whether this would have been the effect; whether the mere circumstance of the exchange of ratifications of the British Convention with Honduras prior, in point of time, to the ratification of our Treaty with Great Britain would," in effect," have had "the same signification as the original wording," and thus have nullified the amendment of the Senate, may well be doubted. It is, perhaps, fortunate that the question has never arisen.

The British Government, immediately after rejecting the Treaty as amended, proposed to enter into a new Treaty with The United States, similar in all respects to the Treaty which they had just refused to ratify, if The United States would consent to add to the Senate's clear and unqualified recognition of the sovereignty of Honduras over the Bay Islands the following conditional stipulation:

"Whenever and so soon as the Republic of Honduras shall have concluded and ratified a Treaty with Great Britain, by which Great Britain shall have ceded, and the Republic of Honduras shall have accepted, the said islands, subject to the provisions and conditions contained in such Treaty."

This proposition was, of course, rejected. After the Senate had

refused to recognize the British Convention with Honduras of the 27th of August, 1856, with full knowledge of its contents, it was impossible for me, necessarily ignorant of the "provisions and conditions" which might be contained in a future Convention between the same parties, to sanction them in advance.

The fact is, that when two nations like Great Britain and The United States, mutually desirous, as they are, and I trust ever may be, of maintaining the most friendly relations with each other, have unfortunately concluded a Treaty which they understand in senses directly opposite, the wisest course is to abrogate such a Treaty by mutual consent, and to commence anew. Had this been done promptly, all difficulties in Central America would most probably ere this have been adjusted to the satisfaction of both parties. The time spent in discussing the meaning of the Clayton and Bulwer Treaty would have been devoted to this praiseworthy purpose, and the task would have been more easily accomplished because the interest of the two countries in Central America is identical, being confined to securing safe transits over all the routes across the Isthmus.

Whilst entertaining these sentiments, I shall nevertheless not refuse to contribute to any reasonable adjustment of the Central American questions which is not practically inconsistent with the American interpretation of the Treaty. Overtures for this purpose have been recently made by the British Government in a friendly spirit, which I cordially reciprocate; but whether this renewed effort will result in success I am not yet prepared to express an opinion. A brief period will determine.

DECRET Impérial portant promulgation de la Convention Consulaire, conclue, le 24 Octobre, 1856, entre la France et le Venezuela.-St. Cloud, le 12 Août, 1857.

NAPOLEON, par la Grâce de Dieu et la volonté nationale Empereur des Français, à tous présents et à venir, salut.

Sur le rapport de notre Ministre Secrétaire d'Etat au Département des Affaires Etrangères,

Avons décrété et décrétons ce qui suit:

ART. I. Une Convention Consulaire ayant été conclue, le 24 Octobre, 1856, entre la France et la République de Venezuela, et les ratifications de cet acte ayant été échangées à Caracas, le 23 Mai, 1857, ladite Convention, dont la teneur suit, recevra sa pleine et entière exécution.

CONVENTION.

Sa Majesté l'Empereur des Français et la République de Venezuela, désireux de rendre plus étroites les relations des deux pays, et reconnaissant que le manque de règles fixes en matière de facultés et de priviléges appartenant aux Consuls, devient, parfois, la source de différends qu'il convient et qu'il est désirable d'éviter, ont résolu de conclure une Convention qui comble cette lacune.

A cet effet, ont nommé pour leurs Plénipotentiaires :

Sa Majesté l'Empereur des Français, M. Léonce Levraud, Chevalier de l'Ordre Impérial de la Légion d'Honneur, et Consul Général et Chargé d'Affaires de France à Caracas;

Et son Excellence le Président de Venezuela, M. Jacinto Gutierrez, Secrétaire d'Etat aux Départements de l'Intérieur, de la Justice, des Finances et des Relations Extérieures ;

Lesquels, après avoir examiné et échangé leurs pleins pouvoirs, trouvés en bonne et due forme, sont convenus des Articles suivants :

ART. I. Il pourra être établi des Consuls-Généraux, Consuls et Vice-Consuls de chacun des deux pays dans l'autre, pour la protection du commerce. Ces agents seront réciproquement admis et reconnus, dès qu'ils présenteront leurs provisions selon la forme établie dans leurs pays respectifs. L'exqéuatur nécessaire pour le libre exercice de leurs fonctions leur sera délivré sans frais; et, sur l'exhibition de cette pièce, les autorités administratives et judiciaires des ports, villes ou lieux où ils devront résider, les y feront jouir immédiatement, ainsi que dans tout le reste de leur arrondissement respectif, des prérogatives et priviléges ci-après.

II. Les Consuls-Généraux, Consuls et Vice-Consuls, ainsi que les Elèves-Consuls, Chanceliers, Secrétaires attachés à leur Mission, jouiront, dans les deux pays, des priviléges généralement attribués à leurs charges, tels que l'exemption des logements militaires et celle de toutes les contributions directes, tant personnelles que mobilières ou somptuaires, à moins, toutefois, qu'ils ne soient citoyens du pays ou qu'ils ne deviennent, soit propriétaires, soit possesseurs temporaires de biens immeubles, ou enfin, qu'ils ne fassent le commerce; pour lequel cas, ils seront soumis aux mêmes taxes, charges et impositions que les autres particuliers.

Ces agents jouiront, dans tous les cas, de l'immunité personnelle; ils ne pourront être arrêtés, traduits en jugement ou mis en prison, excepté dans le cas de crime atroce; et, s'ils sont négociants, la contrainte par corps ne pourra leur être appliquée que pour les seuls faits de commerce et non pour causes civiles.

Ils pourront placer, au-dessus de la porte extérieure de la maison qu'ils occuperont, un tableau aux armes de leur nation avec une inscription portant, Consulat de France ou Consulat de Venezuela; et aux jours de solennités publiques, nationales ou religieuses, ils