The Diplomatic History of British Honduras, 1638-1901

Citation preview

THE DIPLOMATIC HISTORY OF

R. A. HUMPHREYS

In this book the Professor of Latin American History in the University c i London discusses the origin and pro v. th of the Colony of British Honduras and investigates the diplomatic con­ troversies with Spain, Mexico, the United States of America, and Guate­ mala, to which that growth gave rise. Based primarily upon the Foreign Office and Colonial Office records, supplemented by other archival sources, it is a detailed historical study essential for any understanding of the present-day dispute between Britain and Guatemala over the territory of British Honduras.

Professor Humphreys is the author of The Evolution of Modern Latin America (1946) and Liberation in South America, 1806-27 (I9i2), and the editor of British Consular Reports on the Trade and Politics of Latin America, 1824-6 (1940). His Latin America History: A Guide to the Literature in English was published for the Royal Institute of International Affairs by the Oxford University Press in 19^8.

Price IN U.K. ONLY

35$.

net

THE

DIPLOMATIC HISTORY

OF BRITISH HONDURAS

1638-1901

The Royal Institute of International Affairs is an unofficial and non-political body, founded in 1920 to encourage and facilitate the scientific study of international questions. The Institute, as such, is precluded by the terms of its Royal Charter from expressing an opinion on any aspect of international affairs. Any opinions expressed in this publication are not, therefore, those of the Institute.

THE

DIPLOMATIC HISTORY OF

BRITISH HONDURAS 1638—1901 By

R. A. HUMPHREYS Professor of Latin American History in The University of London

Issued, under the auspices of the Royal Institute of International Affairs

OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS LONDON

NEW YORK

I96l

TORONTO

Oxford University Press, Amen House, London E.C.4 OLASGOW NEW

YORK TORONTO MELBOURNE WELLINGTON

BOMBAY CALCUTTA MADRAS KARACHI KUALA LUMPUR

CAPE TOWN IBADAN NAIROBI ACCRA

PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN

PREFACE The settlement of Belize, or, as it later became, the colony of British Honduras, was from the seventeenth to the twentieth century a centre of acute diplomatic controversy, first between Great Britain and Spain and later between Britain and Mexico and between Britain and Guatemala. The growth of a British settlement in Central America aroused also the opposition of the United States. The Anglo-Spanish dispute ended at the beginning of the nineteenth century, the Anglo-Mexican dispute at its close, by which time also the United States had ceased to take an interest in the affairs of the colony. The AngloGuatemalan dispute, however, which seemed, in 1900, to be dying of inanition, revived in the 1930’s, and, since then, no longer confining herself to the matters in dispute in the 1860’s, Guatemala has advanced a claim to the possession of the whole of British Honduras. The following pages investigate the origin and growth of the colony and analyse the diplomatic controversies to which that growth, together with the overthrow of Spanish dominion in the New World, gave rise. The narrative ends in 1901 because at that date the Anglo-Guatemalan dispute ceased, for the next thirty years, to be active, and because its subsequent history contributes nothing fresh to the issues already raised in the nineteenth century. I should like to express my gratitude to Mr. A. H. Anderson, the Archaeological Commissioner in British Honduras, who kindly examined on my behalf the Archives of Jamaica in Spanish Town and the records of the Belize Registry; to Mrs. H. L. Jenkyns, who prepared the maps; to my wife, who has made the index; and to Professor W. L. Burn and Dr. David Waddell, who have given me the benefit of their criticism and advice. I am most grateful also to Admiral Julio F. Guillen and Professor Lewis Hanke, both of whom have gone out of their way to help me. But my chief debt is to Miss Katharine Duff, whose assistance at every stage and more particularly in V

vi

Preface

examining the immense bulk of the Foreign Office and Colonial Office records, made it possible for me to write this book at all. I feel, indeed, that it is almost as much her book as mine; and I am glad to have the opportunity of saying so. R.A.H. December i960

CONTENTS page Preface

.......

v

List of Maps

......

ix

Abbreviations

......

x

i. The

Settlement of Belize, 1638-1798

.

1

.

10

.

20

iv.

Anglo-American Diplomacy in the 1840’s and 1850’s

47

v.

Preliminaries

11. hi.

The Growth

Settlement, 1798-1821

British Honduras and its Neighbours, 1821-40

vention of

vi.

of the

.

to

Anglo-Guatemalan Con­ . . . . -59

the

1859

The Anglo-Guatemalan Convention

of

.78

1859

.92

vii.

The Road and Boundary Surveys, 1860-1

.

viii.

The Supplementary Convention of 1863

.

.109

ix.

The Lapse of the 1863 Convention, 1863-9

•

.121

x.

The Northern and North-western Frontier, 1864-97............................................................................. z33

xi.

The Anglo-Guatemalan Controversy, 1869-1901 . Appendix I. The Problem Jurisdiction . .

Spanish Colonial . . . .167

of

Appendix II. The Uti Possidetis Principle Note on Sources .

.

.

.

. .

Index of Authors, Editors, and Short Titles

General Index

.

.

. vii

151

.

.

179

.183

.

185

.187

LIST OF MAPS at end 1.

Mexico and Central America

2.

Map to illustrate the Anglo-Guatemalan Dispute

3.

Mexican Yucatán Map D, annexed to the Colonial Office Memorandum of 25 Oct. 1834, and revised by the Superintendent of the Belize Settlement, 1835

4.

Land Titles on the North-west Frontier By J. H. Faber, Crown Surveyor, Belize, 4 Feb. 1861

5.

British Honduras, showing the Mahogany Works, the Crown Lands, the Indian Villages, near to the Western Frontier Line By Gordon Allan, Surveyor-General, 1886. The position of such villages as Icaiche was revised in later surveys

6.

Sketch Map showing the Position of the Indian Tribes From a drawing by Henry Fowler, Administrator of the Colony, 1887

ix

ABBREVIATIONS ABH Archives of British Honduras C.O.

Colonial Office Records, Public Record Office

F.O.

Foreign Office Records, Public Record Office

I

THE SETTLEMENT OF BELIZE

1638-1798

origins of the colony of British Honduras are to be found in the activities of logwood cutters, formerly buccaneers, in the seventeenth century. An English settlement in the neighbourhood of the Belize River is alleged to have been made as early as 1638, and the name ‘Belize’ is itself commonly derived from one, Peter Wallace, called ‘Wallis’ or ‘Balis’ by the Spaniards, who is said to have been the first Englishman, or Scotsman, to settle on the shore. But this is legend, or half-legend. The first settlements of logwood cutters for which there is clear evidence took place, not on the Belize River, but near Cape Catoche, on the deserted coast of Yucatán, and in the Bay of Campeche, and till late in the seventeenth century the two occupations of logwood cutting and buccaneering remained interchangeable. By the Treaty of Madrid signed in 1667 it was agreed that there should be perpetual peace between the Crowns of Great Britain and Spain.1 By a further treaty signed at Madrid in 1670 Spain acknowledged Britain’s title to Jamaica and other defacto possessions ‘in the West Indies, orinany part ofAmerica’, and it was agreed that the subjects of the two Crowns should abstain from all acts of violence.2 Thereafter Great Britain made a serious effort to repress buccaneering, and by 1682 the buccaneers, ‘the frontiersmen of the Caribbean’, had, for the most part, been dispersed, had turned pirate, or had settled down to the business of logwood cutting. On behalf of the logwood cutters it was urged by their defenders that since they were working in unoccupied territory, their business was legitimate and even, indeed, that their rights were confirmed by the treaty of 1670. This view, however, was certainly not he

T

1 F. G. Davenport [and C. O. Paullin], European Treaties bearing on the History of the United States and its Dependencies (4 vols., Washington, D.C., 1917—37), ii. 106. 2 Ibid. ii. 194. 1

2

The Diplomatic History of British Honduras

accepted by the Spanish Crown, and the settlers in the Bay of Campeche were subjected to attack and their ships to seizure. Possibly for this reason the centre of the industry now began to shift southwards, and the cutters found a greater degree of security on the desolate coast of what is now British Honduras, where they were protected both by distance from the seats of Spanish authority and by the difficulty of access caused by the coral reefs which guard the shore. There is evidence from Spanish sources of the existence of an English settlement in Belize before 1670,3 though it is not till 1682 that the first English official record of logwood cutting in the Bay of Honduras appears.4 In 1705 the Belize River was described as the place ‘where the English for the most part now load their logwood’;5 and in 1743 the number of white settlers there was given as 400.6 Captain Nathaniel Uring, who lived among them for four or five months in 1720, describes them as a ‘rude drunken crew’;7 and William Dampier’s earlier description of the logwood cutters in the Bay of Campeche was equally unflattering. Throughout the eighteenth century the status of these log­ wood cutters remained one of the points at issue in the repeated conflicts and controversies between Spain and England. At the time of the Treaty of Utrecht in 1713 it was proposed, on the British side, to insert an article permitting British subjects to cut logwood in the Bays of Campeche and Honduras.8 But, in so far as the logwood cutters were concerned, the treaty of 1713 did no more than reaffirm the treaty of 1670 ‘without prejudice to any liberty or power, which the subjects of Great Britain enjoyed before, either through right, sufferance or indulgence’,9 and this the Board of Trade, in 1717, interpreted as establishing the liberty of British subjects to cut logwood which they had enjoyed before the treaty of 1670 as well as a right in the Crown to certain parts of the Bay of Campeche.10 Spain, for her part, continued to complain of logwood cutting in the Bay of Campeche, on the coast of Yucatán, and in the Bay of Honduras. 3 J. A. Calderón Quijano, Belice i663(?)-id2i (Seville, 1944), pp. 49, 61. 4 J. A. Burdon, ed., Archives ofBritish Honduras [hereinafter cited as ABH] (3 vols., London, 1931-5), i. 57. 5 Ibid. i. 60. 8 Ibid. i. 70. 7 The Voyages and Travels of Captain Nathaniel Uring, ed. Alfred Dewar (London, 1928), p. 241. 8 ABH, i. 61-62. 9 Davenport, op. cit., iii. 237. 10 Calendar of State Papers, Colonial, America and West Indies, 1717-18 (London, 1930), no. 104.

The Settlement of Belize

3

When, under the Treaty of Seville of 1729, British and Spanish commissioners were appointed to enquire into depredations committed by either party in the West Indies, and into various other disputes between the two nations, the Spanish com­ missioners took the line that the cutting of logwood 'was ‘a notorious and detestable abuse’ and that ‘the huts’ on the Belize River should be removed, the British commissioners, that the logwood cutters had operated long before the treaty of 1670, ‘by which their rights were established and confirmed’, that these rights were again confirmed by the Treaty of Utrecht, and that whether by right, tolerance, or indulgence, a definite right to occupation had been established.11 But no solution of the question was reached. The Baymen, who had been repeatedly subjected to Spanish attack, as, for example, in 1724 and 1733, were again attacked in 1747, in 1751, and in 1754, and this last attempt to secure their eviction nearly resulted, indeed, in an Anglo-Spanish war.12 The Government at Madrid was con­ strained to disavow the attack and to promise that restitution would be made.13 It was not, however, till the conclusion of the Treaty of Paris, signed on 10 February 1763, that Great Britain obtained from Spain plain and public recognition of the right to cut logwood in the Bay of Honduras. The treaty affirmed Spanish sovereignty in the clearest terms. Under it Great Britain undertook (Article 17) to demolish all fortifications which the settlers had erected in the Bay of Honduras. But at the same time it was agreed that British subjects should not be disturbed or molested under any pretext whatsoever in their occupation of cutting, loading, and carrying away logwood, and that they might build and occupy without interruption the houses and magazines necessary for them, their families, and their property.14 At two other points on the coast of Central America Great 11 ABH, i. 67, 68, 69. 12 J. McLeish, ‘British Activities in Yucatan and on the Moskito Shore in the Eighteenth Century’ [an unpublished thesis in the Library of the University of London] (1926), pp. 93, 99; Calderón Quijano, op. cit., pp. 88, 119, 142, 145; Sir Richard Lodge, ed., The Private Correspondence of Sir Benjamin Keene (Cambridge, 1933), P- 338 n-i ABH> i- 74, 8o13 Governor Knowles, ofJamaica, to the President of Guatemala, 12 Oct. 1754, Public Record Office, State Papers Foreign, Spain, 94/149. See also Calderón Quijano, op. cit., p. 146. 14 Davenport, op. cit., iv. 95.

4

The Diplomatic History of British Honduras

Britain had established a hold in the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries. These were the Mosquito Shore and the island of Ruatan. There is no evidence to suggest that the territory frequented by the Baymen was ever occupied by Spaniards. The nearest Spanish setdements were those of Bacalar15 to the north, of Omoa and Trujillo to the south-east, and, far to the west, of Peten. The Mosquito Shore, between Gape Honduras and the San Juan River, on the coasts of what are now Honduras and Nicaragua, was inhabited by Indians who had consistently refused to recognize Spanish authority. With these the English had long cultivated friendly relations.16 English settlers were dispersed among them, and in 1749 one, Robert Hodgson, was actually appointed as Superintendent of the Mosquito Shore. He had earlier been required to report on the condition of the Bay settlements and the islands of Ruatan and Bonacca.17 Of these the uninhabited island of Ruatan had on more than one occasion changed hands. It was restored to Spain in accordance with the terms of the Treaty of Aix la Chapelle in 1748, was again to fall into and out of English hands, but was overshadowed in importance by the Belize and Mosquito Shore settlements. To Ruatan and to the Mosquito Shore, however, the Baymen were accustomed to flee when some or all were driven out by the Spaniards, as in 1733, in 1747, and in 1 754j while ultimately the English settlers on the Mosquito Shore were to be transferred to the settlement on the Belize River. That settlement had now, in 1763, been given a recognized status. But there was no agreement on the precise area in which the logwood cutters might operate, there were no definite boundaries. The immediate consequence was that in December 1763 the Governor of Yucatán ordered the logwood cutters to cease their operations on the River Hondo and to retire to the 16 Bacalar was refounded in 1730, having been deserted for nearly a century. Calderón Quijano, op. cit., p. 54. 18 ‘They have no form of Government among them’, wrote Dampier in 1681, ‘but acknowledge the King of England for their Sovereign. They learn our Language, and take the Governour of Jamaica to be one of the greatest Princes in the World’. William Dampier, A New Voyage Round the World, ed. Sir Albert Gray (London, >937), P-1717 ABH, i. 69; McLeish, op. cit, p. 66; Richard Pares, War and Trade in the. West Indies, 1739-1763 (Oxford, 1936), pp. 97-101, 540. See also Vera Lee Brown, ‘Anglo-Spanish Relations in America in the Closing Years of the Colonial Era’, Hispanic American Historical Review, v (1922), pp. 352-8, and David Waddell, ‘Great Britain and the Bay Islands, 1821-61’, Historical Journal, ii (1959), p. 59.

The Settlement of Belize

5

River Belize, and in February 1764 the Commandant of Bacalar demanded their retirement from the New River. The Baymen at once protested. The matter was taken up at home. Orders were sent from Spain to permit the logwood cutters to re-establish themselves, and they were duly and formally reinstated.18 Their tribulations, however, were not at an end. When war broke out between England and Spain in 1779 they were at once attacked by an expedition led by the Commandant of Bacalar. Those who were not taken prisoner fled to the Mosquito Shore or Ruatan, and from then till 1784 the Belize settlement was practically non-existent. It remained for the Treaty ofVersailles, signed on 3 September 1783, to reaffirm the rights granted under the treaty of 1763 ‘of cutting, loading and carrying away logwood’. But this time definite boundaries were assigned within which this occupation might be carried on, the area being defined (Article 6) as that ‘between the Rivers Walliz or Bellese, and Rio Hondo, taking the courses of the said two Rivers for unalterable boundaries, so that the navigation of them be common to both nations’.19 A line between the two rivers was described and a map on which the boundaries were traced accompanied the treaty.20 It was expressly stipulated that these concessions were in no wise to derogate from Spanish rights of sovereignty and no fortifications were to be constructed within the treaty area. Boundary marks having been erected, formal delivery of the area to British commissioners appointed for the purpose was made by the Governor of Yucatán on 27 May 1784,21 though the Baymen complained that ‘the limits of their settlements and the privileges assigned them therein’ were ‘most unexpectedly and extremely diminished’.22 The final stage in this long story of diplomatic negotiations 18 ABH, i. 88, 90, 96, 97, 99; Brown, op. cit., pp. 364-6. 18 Davenport, op. cit., iv. 159. 20 Reproduced in ABH, i, at p. 137, in Calderón Quijano, op. cit., p. 262, in Isidro Fabela, Belice. Defensa de los Derechos de México (Mexico City, 1944), in Carlos Garcia Bauer, La Controversia sobre el Territorio de Belice y el Procedimiento Ex-Aequo et Bono (Guatemala, 1958), p. 158, and in the White Book. Controversy between Guatemala and Great Britain relative to the Convention of 1859 on Territorial Matters. Belize Question, published by the Guatemalan Government [hereinafter cited as White Book] (Guatemala, 1938). See also Appendix I, p. 171. « ABH, i. 142. 22 Ibid. i. 138-9.

6

The Diplomatic History of British Honduras

between England and Spain was reached with the Convention of London, signed on 14 July 1786. This provided for the evacuation by Great Britain of the Mosquito Shore and the islands adjacent to the American continent. In return the concessions granted to British subjects in the Bay of Honduras were enlarged and amplified. The limits in which the settlers might operate were extended southwards to include the area between the Rivers Belize and Sibún, and the Sibún, to its source, was now to be the southern boundary.23 They might cut not only logwood but mahogany, which was rapidly superseding logwood as an article of export, and all other wood. They might occupy the island of St. George’s Key. But Spanish sovereignty was carefully preserved. The settlers were not to establish coffee, sugar, or similar plantations, or to set up industries, nor were they to ‘meditate’ the formation of a system of government, military or civil, ‘further than such regulations as their Britannic and Catholic Majesties may hereafter judge proper to establish for maintaining peace and good order among their respective subjects’. No fortifications were to be erected, and twice a year a Spanish commissioner, accompanied by an English com­ missioner, was to be admitted to examine the state of affairs within the settlement. In 1787 an attempt was made to trace the boundaries on the spot, fresh boundary marks were erected, and the new territory was formally assigned to the settlers by the then Governor of Yucatán.24 Thus far the legal and constitutional position of the British settlers in the Bay of Honduras had been highly anomalous. It is apparent that at an early date the settlers had been accustomed to elect annually a number of magistrates and to enforce a kind of customary law.25 It is asserted also that the Governor of Jamaica from time to time granted commissions to certain persons to act as Justices of the Peace.26 In 1765, moreover, at the instigation of Admiral Sir William Burnaby, who was 23 The lines are marked in A Map of a Part of Yucatan, or of that Part of the Eastern Shore within the Bay of Honduras Alloted to Great Britain for the Cutting of Logwood, in consequence of the Convention signed with Spain on the 14th July, 1786. By a Bay-Man. London, William Faden, Feb. 1, 1787. This map is reproduced in ABH, i, at p. 154. The Convention is in Davenport, op. cit., iv. 162. The lines, as nearly as can be traced on a modern map, are shown in Map 2. Compare Maps 3 and 5. 24 Fabela, op. cit., pp. 132-6; Francisco Asturias, Belice, 2nd ed. (Guatemala City, 1941), pp. 61-66; ABH, i. 163. 23 ABH, i. 153. 28 Ibid. i. 110.

The Settlement of Belize

7

Commander-in-Chief of the British naval squadron on the Jamaica station and had been ordered to visit the settlement, the settlers formally subscribed to a rudimentary code of laws.27 It was agreed that the Commanding Officer of any of His Majesty’s Ships of War should have power to enforce this code; but it remained true that great difficulties arose in the absence of a formal executive authority, and it was not till 1784 that the British Government at last appointed one, Colonel Despard, to ‘regulate and superintend’, under the direction of the Governor of Jamaica, His Majesty’s affairs within the district allotted to the logwood cutters by the treaty of 1783.28 Colonel Despard took office in 1786, and he then, at the instigation of one of the Spanish commissioners appointed under the 1786 Convention, abolished the existing system of govern­ ment by elected magistrates.29 The settlers at once complained, and in 1789 the British Minister at Madrid was instructed to ask the Spanish Government to appoint someone to join with Lt.-Colonel Hunter, who was about to replace Colonel Despard, to devise some form of government for the district, it being expressly understood that this system was not to derogate from Spanish sovereignty.30 The tension between the Courts of Madrid and St. James’s at this time over the Nootka Sound controversy would appear to have checked this approach, but Lt.-Colonel Hunter, who arrived in the settlement in 1790, lost no time in declaring the ‘Ancient System of Regulations to be restored’.31 From 1791 (when Hunter left the settlement) to 1796 the settlers were again governed by their annually elected magistrates, administering the Burnaby Code. But in the latter year a new Superintendent was appointed, and thereafter the office was permanent. Meanwhile, the system of inspection by Spanish com­ missioners, accompanied by English commissioners, as arranged under the 1786 Convention, had broken down, and the pop­ ulation of the settlement had been greatly swelled by the arrival of settlers and their slaves from the Mosquito Shore, itself evacuated in 1786-7 under the terms of the 1786 Convention. 27 Ibid. i. 100 ff. 28 Ibid. i. 149, 153. 29 Ibid. i. 172. For Despard see Sir Charles Oman, The Unfortunate Colonel Despard and Other Studies (London, 1922), pp. 1-21. 80 ABH, i. 178. 31 Ibid. i. 184. The whole subject of administration is treated in McLeish, op. cit.

8

The Diplomatic History of British Honduras

More than 2,000 persons arrived in the first half of 1787.a2 The existing settlers had already protested that the ex­ tended limits of the settlement under the 1786 Convention were insufficient, and there is no doubt that they quickly broke most of the Convention’s terms. There was considerable substance in the complaints of such violations which were made by the Spanish commissioners who visited the settlement between 1787 and 1793.33 But the inspection of the limits of the territory by joint commissioners in 1793s4 seems to have been the last formal inspection to have taken place. There is evidence of the presence of a Spanish commissioner in the settlement in 1794.35 In 1795 the Governor of Yucatán complained of con­ tinued violation of the Bay limits by the settlers; and in April 1796 a Spanish commissioner again arrived from Bacalar.36 But the outbreak of war between England and Spain later in the year finally put an end to this inquisitorial system. No Spanish official ever again visited the settlement to ensure that the arrangements concluded under the 1786 Convention were complied with. The war which broke out in 1796 had also other consequences. It was, of course, primarily a European war. But it was bound to have repercussions in the West Indies, and the settlement of Belize, now under the guiding hand of Lt.-Colonel Barrow, acting both as Superintendent and Commander-in-Chief, was at once put in a state of defence. Forts and barracks were built, and infantry, artillery, ammunition, and supplies sent from Jamaica.37 The expected attack came in 1798, when a Spanish flotilla of some thirty small vessels, with 2,000 troops on board, under the command of Field-Marshal Arthur O’Neill, the Governor-General of Yucatán,38 made the last and greatest Spanish attempt to overthrow the British settlement in the Bay of Honduras. On 10 September, after several small engagements, nine of the larger Spanish ships, engaged by a British vessel-ofwar and a few smaller vessels in an action off St. George’s Key, withdrew in confusion, and on the 16th the whole fleet retired.39 Thereafter, remarked Crowe, in his Gospel in Central America, 32 ABH, i. 161-2. 33 McLeish, op. cit., p. 143; ABH, i. 159, 162, 171-2, 203,204; Calderón Quijano, op. cit., pp. 322, 340-51. 31 ABH, i. 202. 35 Ibid. i. 209. 30 Ibid. i. 214; Asturias, op. cit., pp. 68-69. 37 ABH, i. 234, 236. 38 Ibid. i. 256-63. 39 Ibid. i. 252-63; Calderón Quijano, op. cit., pp. 352-5.

The Settlement of Belize

9

‘the settlements in the Bay continued to flourish, and the periodical visits of the commissioners being entirely discontinued, a sort of tacit concession on the part of the Spaniards seemed to sanction the idea partially entertained, and since often pleaded by the British settlers, that they now held these territories by right of conquest’.40 This argument, indeed, was already employed by the settlers in 1799,41 though neither then nor after was it used with any degree of consistency. The eighteenth century ended, therefore, with the defeat of the last attempt of Spain to dispossess the British settlers by force of arms, with the settlers securely ensconced in the area between the Hondo and the Sibun, already, apparently, over­ stepping, or prepared to overstep, those boundaries, and no longer subject to the supervision of Spanish officials, and with the establishment of the permanent office of Superintendent, under the authority of the Governor of Jamaica. 40 Frederick Crowe, The Gospel in Central America (London, 1850), p. 198. 41 ABH, i. 274.

II

THE GROWTH OF THE SETTLEMENT 1798-1821

the repulse of the last Spanish attack on the British settlers in the Bay of Honduras in 1798, a new epoch in the history of British Honduras opened. But while the territorial expansion of the settlement was to proce apace, the transition from acknowledged subordination to de facto independence was gradual, almost indeed haphazard. Already, it is true, in 1799, the settlers were inclined to argue that they now held the settlement by right of conquest; and this argument was one which the British Government, at a later date, itself employed. Thus, in a Note presented to the Spanish Government, the British Minister at Madrid stated in 1835 that whereas, up till 1798, the settlers enjoyed territorial occupancy while the right of sovereignty was reserved to Spain, after that date the country had been ‘held under a different title’;1 and in 1882 Lord Granville, then Foreign Secretary, in the course of correspondence with the United States, directly asserted that ‘the sovereignty of British Honduras was acquired by conquest’.2 But however convenient this argument, it was, historically, quite unjustifiable; it accorded neither with the facts of the situation between 1800 and 1814 nor with the terms of the treaties under which peace was restored with Spain. The first of these peace treaties bearing on the history of the Bay settlement was the Treaty of Amiens, of 27 March 1802, under which (Article 3) Great Britain agreed to restore to Spain all possessions and colonies occupied or conquered by British forces in the course of the war, with the exception of the island of Trinidad.3 On the face of it, therefore, whatever title to Belize might have been acquired by conquest in 1798 was lost

W

ith

1 George Villiers to Francisco Martinez de la Rosa, Madrid, 5 April 1835, F.O. 72/441. a British and Foreign State Papers (London, 1841-), Ixxiii. 912-13. 3 Davenport, European Treaties bearing on the History of the United States and its Dependencies, iv. 187. 10

The Growth of the Settlement

11

in 1802. The Governor of Yucatán, indeed, went further, and argued that under the treaty Great Britain was bound to surrender the Belize settlement altogether.4 War between Great Britain and Spain again broke out in 1804, but by the Treaty of London of 14 January 1809 Great Britain and Spain agreed (Article 1) to an ‘entire and lasting oblivion of all acts of hostility done on either side, in the course of the late wars’; and by the Treaty of Madrid (Additional Article 1), signed in 1814, it was agreed that all treaties of commerce which existed in 1796 between Great Britain and Spain were to be considered as ratified and confirmed.5 It was contended by Lord Clarendon in 1854 that the AngloSpanish Treaty of 1786 (which extended the boundaries of the settlement of Belize while reserving sovereignty over it to Spain) was ‘put an end to’ by the subsequent state of war with Spain ‘and that when peace was re-established between Great Britain and Spain no Treaty of a political nature or relating to territorial limits revived those Treaties between Great Britain and Spain which had previously existed’;6 and it is of course true that the treaties of 1802, 1809, and 1814 were not treaties relating to territorial limits, nor were the treaties of 1783 and 1786 specifically treaties of commerce. But it is reasonable to contend that they were in part of a commercial nature; it can hardly be denied that the treaty of 1802 restored the status quo ante 1796; and if it be argued that the renewed outbreak of war invalidated this, and that Lord Clarendon’s interpretation of the treaties of 1809 and 1814 was in accordance with their letter, it was certainly not in accordance with their intention. On this point the evidence is clear, for Sir Henry Wellesley, in reporting to Lord Castlereagh the ratification of the treaty of 1814, specifically stated that ‘the Convention signed at London, 14 July, 1786’ was among those treaties intended to be confirmed.7 The legal status of the Bay settlement thus remained quite unchanged by the convulsions which affected the relations of 4 e.g., Governor Pérez to Superintendent Barrow, 15 Feb., 1 June, 1 July 1803, C.O. 123/15. The same demand was made of Barrow’s predecessor, Basset, in 1802. 5 Davenport, op. cit., iv. 204. 9 Statement of Lord Clarendon to James Buchanan, United States Minister to Great Britain, 2 May 1854. W. R. Manning, ed., Diplomatic Correspondence of the United States. Inter-American Affairs, 1831-60 (12 vols., Washington, 1932-9), vii. 549. 7 Wellesley to Castlereagh, 31 Aug. 1814, F.O. 72/161.

12

The Diplomatic Histoiy of British Honduras

the European powers between 1796 and 1815. It is true that in 1800 the Law Officers of the Grown gave it as their opinion that the Bay of Honduras was now a British possession and that foreign vessels might be precluded from trading there.8 But this was an isolated opinion, not afterwards sustained. The instructions drawn up for Lt.-Colonel Barrow on his appoint­ ment as Superintendent of the settlement in 1802 strictly enjoined him to maintain a good understanding with the representatives of the Spanish Government.9 His subsequent correspondence with the Governor of Yucatán abundantly illustrated that the Governor recognized no change as having taken place.10 The settlers themselves continued to believe that the Crown of Spain, as ‘Lord Paramount’, possessed an undoubted right to the territory.11 Lord Gastlereagh gave it as his opinion that ‘the settlement of Honduras being a settlement under treaty, within the territory and jurisdiction of a Foreign Power,’ was not to be considered ‘in the nature of a colony’.12 In 1815 Lord Bathurst, as Secretary of State for the Colonies, explicitly told the Superintendent that the Grown had no territorial rights (a statement which he repeated in 1818) and had, therefore, no right to establish tribunals,13 and Parliament itself, in 1817, in the Act of 57 Geo. III, c. 53, ‘for the more effectual punishment of murders ... in places not within His Majesty’s Dominions’, described Belize as ‘a settlement, for certain purposes, in the possession and under the protection of His Majesty’, but as ‘not within the territory and dominion of His Majesty’. Spain, and the Spanish colonial officials in Yucatán, more­ over, continued to proclaim their authority. Thus, in 1808 and 8 Minutes of the Committee of Trade, 14 Feb. 1800, Public Record Office, B. T. 5/11. 8 Instructions to Lt.-Col. Barrow, 5 Oct. 1802, C.O. 123/15. 10 Barrow to Benito Pérez, 27 Jan. 1803; Pérez to Barrow, 15 Feb., 1 June, 1 July, 31 Aug. 1803, C.O. 123/15. See also Pérez to Superintendent Hamilton, 15 Feb. 1808, C.O. 123/18. 11 Magistrates to Hamilton, 30 Jan. 1810, in Smyth to Liverpool, 16 Sept. 1810, C. O. 123/19. 12 Smyth to Liverpool, 16 Sept. 1810, C.O. 123/19. 13 ABH, ii. 180, 214. See also ibid. ii. 209-13. The Law Officers of the Crown had reported in 1816 that ‘in order to constitute a legal British tribunal for the administration of criminal justice, either the sanction of the King of Spain must be obtained and an Act of the United Parliament must be passed, or such an Act must be passed without his sanction and agreement, which would be an infraction of the Treaty’. Law Officers’ Report, 22 July 1816, C.O. 123/25.

The Growth of the Settlement

13

1810 the Governor of Bacalar contested the right of the British settlers to cut on the northern rivers of the settlement, which they had left, apparently, in 1796, for reasons of safety, and when disputes over these northern limits continued,14 on 21 September 1813 Spain formally protested against infractions by the settlers of the limits laid down by the 1786 treaty both on the Hondo and on the Sibún.15 Lord Castlereagh replied that in consequence of this representation precise orders had been given to the Superintendent to take the most effectual measures for preventing any violations of the 1783 and 1786 treaties, and these orders were in fact sent on 1 October 1813.16 Once again, in 1816, Spain protested, this time against the crowning of the King of the Mosquito Shore ‘in the British settlement of Wallis’ and against the violation by the settlers of‘the Treaty of Versailles of 1783 by constructing three forts, contrary to what is stipulated in the sixth Article’.17 This Note, apparently left unanswered, would appear to represent the last attempt of Spain to maintain her rights.18 Thenceforth those rights were tacitly, though not formally, abandoned. In theory the British Government continued to regard sovereignty over the territory as inhering in Spain. In practice it exercised sovereign rights within it, while, at the same time, the boundaries of the settlement were being extended both southwards and westwards in an area certainly not covered by prior treaties. The exercise of defacto sovereignty by the British authorities within the Belize territory was, indeed, beyond dispute, despite the extreme reluctance of the British Government to alter or even to define the precise legal status of the settlement. Superintendents subordinate to the Governor of Jamaica were regularly appointed. Troops were maintained within the settle­ ment. Its fortification was continued. Justice was administered in accordance with customary law and a revised edition of 14 Hamilton to Eyre Coote, 24 March 1808, C.O. 123/18; Smyth to Governor of Bacalar, 22 July 1810, C.O. 123/19; Smyth to Liverpool, 11 March 1812, C.O. 123/21; Dyer to Hamilton, 28 June 1814, F.O. 72/168; ABH, ii. 139; Fabela, Belice. Defensa de los Derechos de México, pp. 152-5. IB Conde de Fernán Núñez to Castlereagh, 21 Sept. 1813, F.O. 72/149. 18 Draft to Fernán Núñez, 6 Oct. 1813, F.O. 72/149; Goulburn to Bunbury, 2 Oct. 1813, F.O. 72/155; ABH, ii. 165. 17 C. R. Vaughan to Castlereagh, 12 Nov. 1816, enclosing Note of 7 Nov. 1816, from José Pizarro, F.O. 72/188. 18 See, however, post, pp. 177-8, for a Note of 1820.

14

The Diplomatic History of British Honduras

the Burnaby Code,19 and under the Acts of 57 Geo. Ill, c. 53, and 59 Geo. Ill, c. 44, in 1817 and 1819, commissioners were appointed under the Great Seal to hear criminal causes. As early as 1807 titles to land appear to have been granted by the Superintendent,20 and in 1817 Lord Bathurst instructed him that all lands and mahogany works must be held under proper and secure title and that no occupancy of land should be permitted without his sanction. On 28 October 1817 a proclamation was accordingly issued by the Superintendent requiring registration of occupancy and its sanction by him, and thereafter the Superintendent, according to the form of land grant in use, was specifically empowered by royal authority to grant title to lands within the area covered by the treaties of 1783 and 1786.21 In the case of the Attorney-General for British Honduras v. Bristowe in 1880 the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council held that this fact afforded ample evidence that in 1817 at least the Crown had assumed territorial dominion.22 It was, however, only within the area covered by the treaties of 1783 and 1786 that land grants were made by the Superinten­ dent after 1817, always with the proviso that no claim for compensation could lie against the Crown in the event of further arrangements between Great Britain and Spain. Yet the boundaries laid down by the treaties of 1783 and 1786 were already in great part obsolete. Even in 1786 the Baymen had complained that the extended limits of the settlement granted in that year were insufficient.23 and already before the outbreak of war in 1796 the authorities of Yucatán had complained of trespass on these limits.24 It is notable that in 1801 the Merchants trading to Honduras petitioned that the settlers should be allowed more extensive boundaries to the west, to the sources of the Hondo and Sibún,25 and according to an account sent home 19 Revised in 1806-8. ABH, ii. 117, 119. 20 Ibid. ii. 104. 21 Arthur to Bathurst, 14 June 1819, G.O. 123/28; ABH, ii. 202; Cockburn to Aberdeen, 17 April 1835, enclosing Form of Land Grant in use since 1817, F.O. 15/17. The Form of Grant, it should be noted, specifically provided that no claim for compensation could lie in case of any future treaty between Great Britain and Spain or in case of abandonment or evacuation or any other measures taken for the general welfare of the settlement. 22 6 Appeal Cases [before the House of Lords and the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council], 1881, p. 143. 23 ABH, i. 158. 24 Ante, p. 8. 26 Merchants trading to Honduras to Lord Hawkesbury, 30 Nov. 1801, G.O. 123/15-

The Growth of the Settlement

15

by Superintendent Barrow in 1802 they had by then occupied not only both sides of the Belize River far inland but ‘the south side of Sheboon’ and other places ‘further to the southward, as Stand Creek, Deep River, etc.’26 At this time there were some 4,000 persons in the settlement. Both sides of the Sibun and Belize Rivers, the Superintendent remarked, were drained of wood, and not only had the settlers advanced high up the Belize and Sibun Rivers,27 it was even asserted that their southern advance had brought them ‘nearly in sight of the Spanish fortifications of Omoa’.28 A further report in 1806 stated that the Belize was occupied for about 75 miles in a direct course from the sea, and the Sibun, also in direct course, for about 60 miles, and that the mahogany cutters had proceeded as far south as Deep River without meeting any molestation;29 and at a public meeting in this year the settlers resolved that a memorial should be sent to the Governor of Jamaica soliciting protection (while the war with Spain continued) for the mahogany cutters in the southern rivers, Rio Grande, Golden Stream, and Deep River.30 Some further detail is available to corroborate the evidence of this movement of territorial expansion. Thus, it is known that in 1806 thirty-eight persons were living at Mullins River, to the south of the Sibun.31 Still further south, Stann Greek was the usual watering place for His Majesty’s ships,32 and ex­ Superintendent Barrow reported in 1809 that it had been occupied by cutters and that considerable quantities of wood were shipped from there.33 He added that Deep River had been occupied by the British in 1799 or 1800 and that the cutters worked there ‘to this hour where a number of shipping have received cargoes and continue so to do’. The settlers themselves, in a Memorial to the Prince Regent in 1814, asserted that cutting had advanced even beyond the Deep River to the 26 Barrow to Hobart, 31 March 1802, enclosing a ‘Short sketch of the present situation of the Settlement of Honduras . . .’, C.O. 123/15. 27 Ibid. 28 Honduras Merchants’ Committee to Hobart, 25 May 1802, C.O. 123/15. 29 Brig.-Gen. Montresor to Sir Eyre Coote, Belize, 22 Oct. 1806, C.O. 123/17. 30 ABH, ii. 92. 31 ‘Return of Inhabitants in Honduras’, Sept. 1806, in Montresor to Coote, 22 Oct. 1806, C.O. 123/17. 32 Montresor to Coote, 22 Oct. 1806, C.O. 123/17; Barrow to Cooke, 1 May 1809, C.O. 123/18. 33 Barrow to Cooke, 1 May 1809, C.O. 123/18.

16

The Diplomatic History of British Honduras

Moho River,34 and prayed that the limits of the settlement should, in future, be considered as the Hondo on the north and the Moho on the south. In this request Superintendent Arthur supported them, adding, in 1816, that the settlers had long been in quiet possession of the country as far south as the Moho and that he had felt justified in clearing cargoes of wood cut anywhere between the Hondo and the Moho.36 As one of the Honduras merchants expressed it, in a private letter: In the year 1807 the settlers were then of opinion that the southern limits should commence at the Sapodilla Lagoon running north to the River Honda. A lapse of seven years has induced them to extend their views as far south as the Moho River (which has been possessed by us during the late war and since the peace with Spain), as it must be obvious to all, that the intermediate country since that time is considerably exhausted.36

It was, therefore, with much indignation that, in 1815, the settlers and their Superintendent, who were anxious that the Moho should be established as the southern limit of the settlement, learnt that their agent in London had solicited the Government to negotiate with Spain for an extension of territory confined merely to the area between the Sibun and Mullins Rivers, and extending twelve Spanish leagues above the old boundary on the Belize.37 As it turned out, however, their hopes and fears were alike vain, for the Honduras settlement was ignored in the peace treaties of 1814-15. But the settlers, in 1816, continued to insist that should they be confined to the boundary limits laid down in 1786, three-fourths of them would be compelled to seek shelter elsewhere.38 31 Enclosed in Smyth to Bathurst, 24 May 1814, C.O. 123/23. See also ABH, ii. 167. Private Records, Book XY, in the British Honduras Archives (Registry, Belize), contains an appraisement of the estate of one, Charles Grey, in 1814, which itemizes an account of expenses for work done at the Rio Grande in 1812. 36 Arthur to Bathurst, 3 Dec. 1814, C.O. 123/23; Arthur to Bathurst, 28 May 1816, C.O. 123/25. Arthur also pointed out that ‘there is not one-eighth of the wood annually required to be procured within the limits of 1786, and that which is cut without will not bear the foreign duty’. Arthur to Bathurst, 4 July 1816, C.O. 123/25. 36 Marshal Bennett to Dyer, 1 April 1815, C.O. 123/24. 37 Arthur to Bathurst, 2 April 1815, C.O. 123/24; Dyer to Goulburn, 6 May 1814, F.O. 72/167; Dyer to Hamilton, 28 June 1814, F.O. 72/168. The office of agent was shortly afterwards temporarily suppressed. There seems to have been a belief that the agent himself was subserving the interests of one or two individuals as well as intriguing against the Superintendent. 38 Arthur to Bathurst, 4 July 1816, C.O. 123/25; ABH, ii. 184-5.

The Growth of the Settlement

17

By 1814, then, it is clear that the Belize settlers had advanced far to the west and far to the south of the old treaty lines. It is true that in 1813 the British Government ordered that the practice of wood-cutting outside the treaty limits be stopped,39 and that in 1817 the Superintendent ordered all who were guilty of so doing north of the New River and south of the Sibun to report their locations.40 But these orders were useless. The Bay settlement was now experiencing a genuine movement of pioneer advance. It might be compared, though the analogy cannot be pressed, with the contemporary movement of American frontiersmen into West and East Florida, a movement which led eventually to the acquisition of those two Spanish provinces by the United States. But there was this difference, among other differences. In the Floridas the American frontiersmen were penetrating into already occupied territory, the Spanish authorities were displaced by revolution and war, and American possession of the Floridas was eventually (in 1819) confirmed by treaty. The Baymen from British Honduras, on the other hand, advanced into unoccupied territory or territory solely occupied by Indians and where the writ of Spanish rule had never run. No protest was ever received from Spain after 1814 against this movement of frontier advance. No attempt was made to assert Spanish authority. In no case, except on the extreme northern limits of the settlement, did the frontiersmen come into conflict with Spanish colonial adminis­ trative authorities. Where for mile upon mile there was not, and never had been, the slightest evidence of Spanish rule, it was hardly likely that the Baymen would be restrained by legal niceties. It is, of course; true that frontier advance was not followed by rural settlement. On a conservative estimate the whole population of the territory in 1823 was not much more than 4,000,41 more than a half of them slaves. The wood-cutters penetrated to remote and distant areas and there made their locations. They would return to these year by year or make .fresh locations. This was the nature of the industry. But there was, of course, no following movement of agricultural settlers. The frontier was, in the expressive phrase of the geographers, a 39 Ante, p. 13. 41 ABH, ii. 279.

40 Proclamation of 5 Aug. 1817, C.O. 123/33.

18

The Diplomatic History of British Honduras

‘hollow’ frontier. If, however, the wood-cutters were on the Deep River in 1800 and on the Moho River in 1814, it would indeed be surprising if ten years later they had not reached the Sarstoon. This, indeed, is the boundary line to the south shown by Superintendent Codd on the map of the territory which he sent home for the information of the British Govern­ ment in 1825.42 It is the line affirmed in the first edition of the Honduras Almanack in 1826, which stated that the British occupied a line of sea-coast ‘of about 250 miles from the river under the ultimate boundary of the Mexican Republic, to the river Sarstoon’, while the second edition, in 1827, even gave the cost of freight from Belize to the Sarstoon. And the assertion of Codd and of others, that in 1825 the Sarstoon was the southern limit, was to be consistently maintained by successive Superintendents.43 Meanwhile effective Spanish sovereignty in Mexico and Central America had been swept away. In Mexico, on 24 February 1821, a young creole officer, Agustin de Iturbide, pronounced for the independence of his country, took possession of Mexico City, and was himself proclaimed emperor in May 1822, only to be compelled to abdicate and flee less than twelve months later. A republic was then established. The Constituent Act of the Mexican Confederation of 31 January 1824 declared: (Article 1) ‘The Mexican Nation is composed of the Provinces comprehended in the Territory of the Viceroyalty heretofore called New Spain, including the Captain-generalship of Yucatán . . and this declaration was repeated in the first constitution of the new republic promulgated on 4 October 1824. Inevitably these events affected the neighbouring CaptaincyGeneral of Guatemala. In September 1821 Chiapas declared its intention to throw in its lot with Mexico, and on the 15th of the same month a junta general convoked by the CaptainGeneral at Guatemala City, and composed of the leading officials, pronounced in favour of independence from Spain. In January 1822, however, the Captain-General, now referred to as the jefe politico, accepted an invitation from Iturbide to adhere to the cause of Mexico and in June a Mexican army 42 Codd to Horton, 8 July 1825, in Horton to Planta, 23 Sept. 1825, F.O. 15/4. This map, with an emendation made in the Colonial Office, is reproduced in ABH, ii. 292. 43 Post, pp. 21-22.

The Growth of the Settlement

19

entered Guatemala City. For a brief period Iturbide was able to extend his authority over the whole of the ancient Kingdom of Guatemala, but on his fall an assembly meeting in Guatemala City declared on 1 July 1823 that the provinces of which the Kingdom of Guatemala was composed were free and indepen­ dent both of Old Spain and of New Spain and that together they formed the United Provinces of Central America. Chiapas alone remained with Mexico. A constitution for the United Provinces of Central America was adopted on 22 November 1824, and this declared that ‘the territory of the Republic is that which formerly composed the Ancient Kingdom of Guatemala, with the exception, for the present, of the Province of Chiapas’. It was further declared that the limits of the territory of the five states composing the confederation, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, El Salvador, and Costa Rica, would be defined by a constitutional law, when the necessary information had been obtained. Formal organization of the State governments had meanwhile begun. That for Guatemala was set up on 15 September 1824, and a constitution for the State of Guatemala was adopted on 11 October 1825. This defined the territory of the state as follows: ‘on the north, all the towns and districts of Chiquimula, with Izabal, and the Castle of San Felipe in the Golfo Dulce, Verapaz, and Peten ...’ But what territory was in fact comprised within the provinces of Verapaz and Petén, and where these abutted on the British settlement of Belize and the Mexican province of Yucatán, the constitution did not stay to define.44 Presumably the necessary information had not been obtained, nor was it obtained. 44 Aaron Arrowsmith’s Map ofGuatemala (London, 1826), stated to bereducedfrom a survey in the archives of Guatemala, gives Peten a boundary passing to the north of 18° and then curving southwards to the sea, apparently about half-way between the Belize and Sarstoon rivers. Interestingly enough, John Arrowsmith’s Chart of the East Coast of Tucatan and the Bay of Honduras (London, 1830) marks as the ‘southern boundary of the British Mahagony Gutters’ a line to the south of the Sarstoon and about half-way between that river and the Golfo Dulce. The former of these maps is reproduced in the Guatemalan White Book.

Ill

BRITISH HONDURAS AND ITS NEIGHBOURS 1821-40

the dissolution of Spanish authority on the mainland of North America the settlement of British Honduras was left with the Republic of Mexico as its neighbour on the north, and, as its neighbour on the west a south, the United Provinces of Central America. The indepen­ dence of Mexico was recognized by the United States in 1822, by Great Britain in 1825, an i5on-> Í5G 15214, 31 ■¡"Batres, Antonio (Guatemalan Foreign 3, I55“7, ¡59, l6o> 165-6, i66n. Anglo-Guatemalan Convention, Ad­ Minister, 1886), 160 ditional (1863), 97, 108-20, Bay Islands Colony, 50, 51-52, 53, 54, 121-32, 155, 157, 160, 161 54nn-> 55, 56, 57, 58- See also bonacca and ruatan ■fAnguiano, F. (Guatemalan Foreign Bay Settlement, Baymen, 1-9, 10, 169; Minister, 1891), 162 Spanish attacks on, 2, 3, 4, 5, ■¡"Antonio y Zayas, Juan (Spanish rep­ resentative in Mexico), 65 8-9, 10, 13, 170, 172, 173; expanding frontiers of, 8, 13, fArce, Manuel J. (President of United 14-18, ign., 21-25, 32, 38, 60, Provinces of Central America), 61-62, 67, 68-70; petitions and 31 complaints of, 7, 14, 15, 16, ■¡"Arcos Moreno, Alonso (President of Guatemala, 1754), 170, 171 49, 5°, 91' See a^so british HONDURAS Arizona, 52 Belize (river), 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 15, 16, Arms traffic, 64-66, 145-6, 147, 149, ign., 21, 21 n., 22, 23, 24, 32, 150 Arrowsmith, Aaron, ign. 37, 38, 39, 42, 60, 61,68, 69, 70, 72, 76, 78, 98, 99, 100, 102, 104, Arrowsmith, John, ign. 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 176, Arthur, Major George, 16, 17, 21, Í77-8 177, 181 Belize (settlement). See bay settle­ Atlas Geográfico, Estadístico e Histórico de ment and BRITISH HONDURAS la República Mexicana (1858), Belize (town), 18, 32, 49, 82, 83, 84, 174,176 Attorney-General for British Honduras v. 94, 98, 99, 102, i i6n., 158, 160, 161, 163, 165, 170, 177 Bristowe (1880), 14 Bennett, Marshal, 21, 42 Audiencia de los Confines, 168-9 187

The Diplomatic History of British Honduras

i88

Blaine, James G., 153-4 Blanco, Colonel Santiago, 64 Blue Creek (river), 23, 240., 61, 63, 69. 6gn., 70, 70m, 71, 72, 74, 75, 76> 99» I0°» I02, 104, 105, 135, 138, ’4°, ’46-7, ’48 Bluefields, 50 Bonacca, 4, 39, 50; and see bay islands colony

Booth’s River, 70, 99, 148 Bravo (river), 24m, 63, 70, 99, 105, 135, 139 British Honduras, —Administrative institutions: elected magistrates, 6-7; Superinten­ dent’s office and powers, 7, 9, 12, 13, 14, 25; and Governors of Jamaica, 6-7, 9, 13, 15, 49, 61, 67, 170; settlement’s agent in London, 16, i6n.; Executive Council, 49; Legislative Assembly, 60; and see Law and justice below —Boundaries, —and Spain: limits specified in 1764 by Governor of Yucatán, 170; 1783 treaty limits, 5, extended by 1786 treaty, 6; Spanish complaints of en­ croachments, 8, 12-13, 17; British boundary proposal (1835) to Spain unanswered, 38-40, but Spain excludes British Honduran boundaries from negotiation of her treaty with Mexico, 28-29, 37-40 —de facto-, expansion beyond treaty limits (up to 1820), 8, 13, 1418, (in 1820’s and 30’s), ign., 21-25, 32, 60-62; Cockburn’s reports( 1833), 22,34-35, (1834), 37-38; judges’ and magistrates’ resolution (1834), 22-23,38,41; Stevenson’s reports (1854), 67, 70m, (1856), 62, 68-69, 99-100 —with United Provinces of Central America, 19, ign., 21-22, 31, 34-36, 37-38, 41-44, 48 n. —with Guatemala, 48, 48m, 54-55, 56» 57, 58, 59-63, 68-69, 70-77, 78-81, 8d, 98-106, 114, 143-4, I51» i5In-,_’54, ’55, 166; and see with United Provinces of Central America above —with Mexico, 26-29, 37-39, 60, 63-68, 68-78, 98-106, 133-50; and see also Guatemala and Mexico, boundary question —Fortifications and troops in, pro­ hibited under Anglo-Spanish

treaties, 3, 5, 6; in war of 1796, 8; Spanish Note of protest (1816) ignored, 13 —Indians domiciled in, 17, 139; see also Indians, Yucatecan —Land cultivation, restrictions on, 6, 25, 46, 49 —Land grants, British Crown: estab­ lishment of plantations for­ bidden under 1786 treaty, 6, 25 n.; Superintendents authorized (1817) to make land grants within treaty limits, 14, 24; Cockburn’s instructions (1829), 25; general authoriz­ ation (1839), 46; compensation clause, 14m, 24-25, 69, 104; grants beyond treaty limits from 1837, 24-25, 62, 67, 69, 70m; grantholders’ protests against boundary survey (1861), 61, 101-2, 103-4. Guatemalan, 37, 41-44 —Law and justice: customary law and Burnaby Code, 6-7, 13-14; establishment of legal British tribunals considered (1815-16) and rejected, 12; Acts of 1817 and 1819, 12, 14; complaints by Cockburn and by Colonial Office, 26, 45; Proclamation (1840) introducing the law of England, 46; Chief Justice appointed (1843), 49; recip­ rocal arrangements with Guatemala for surrender of fugitive criminals, 60n. —Petitions and complaints from settlers, 7, 14, 15, 16, 49, 50, 91 —Population (1743), 2; (1786-7), 7-8; (1802), 15; (1823), 17; (18354°), 45; (1861), 62 —Shipping, 12, 25-26, 34 —Slaves in, 7, 17; importation from British colonies declared illegal (1821), 25; dispute with United Provinces of Central America over fugitive slaves from Belize (1824-6), 30-31; slavery abolished(underAct ofi833),26 —Status, —and Spain: under Anglo-Spanish treaties (1670-1763), 1-5, (1783), 5, (1786), 6; Yucatecan authorities and, 4-5, 6, 8, n, 12-13, 169-73, 177, 1780., 181 ; Guatemalan Captaincy-General and, 167-70, 172-3, 177-8, 179-82; Spanish commis­ sioners’ inspections down to

General Index *796, 6, 8, 9, 39, 173; AngloSpanish wars (1796-1808), 811, and peace treaties (1802-14) restoring legal status quo ante, 10-13; Spanish Note (1816) and subsequent tacit aban­ donment of rights, 13; abortive Anglo-Spanish negotiations (1835-6), 26, 28-29, 37-41; Spanish opinion on AngloMexican treaty in 1849, 65 —and Great Britain: de facto sovereignty exercised by British authorities from 1796, 8, g, 10, ¡3-14» 25-26, 45-46, 49, 60; theory of British right of ‘occupation by conquest’ after 1798, 9» 10, 38-39, 142, 154; Clarendon’s interpretation of peace treaties of 1809-14, 11, and legal opinion (1800) that the Bay of Honduras was now a British possession, 12; but continued British recognition of Spain’s de jure sovereignty, 12, 25; request to Spain (1835) for cession of sovereignty ignored, 26, 38-41; unilateral assertion of sovereignty con­ sidered and rejected (1838-41), 45-46,49, (1850 and 1856), 50, 60; legal opinion (1861), and Letters Patent (1862) erecting British Honduras into a colony, 91; rebuttal of claims made by United Provinces of Central America, 30, 33 n., 35-36,44, by Guatemala, 59-60, 77, 79-80, 97-98, 107,126,131,132,151 n., and by Mexico, 27, 65-66, 134, 142, \46> 147 —and United Provinces of Central America, assertions of sovereignty by, 29-30, 31,34-36 —and Guatemala) assertions of sovereignty by, 44-45, 73~74> 79, 87, 88, 114-15, 117, 126, 131, 132, 132m, 151m, 155, 166 n., 179-82; and, for historical background, see CAPTAINCY-GENERAL OF

—and Mexico, assertions of sovereignty by, 26-27, 64-66, i33-4> 137» 147» 149» i50n-> 174; and, for historical back­ ground, see new spain ; yucatAn, Captaincy-General of —and United States of America, 43, 43 n., 50, 51, 53-58, 90-91,1534, 166

189

British Honduras Company, 61, 101, 103-4 Buccaneers, 1 Buchanan, James, 55, 56, 57, 58 Bulwer, Sir Henry Lytton, 53, 54, 54 n. Burnaby, Admiral Sir William, 6-7, 170 m Burnaby Code, 7, 14 ■fBustamente y Guerra, José (Cap­ tain-General of Guatemala, 1815), 177-8

Caamaño, Jacinto, 175, 176 Calatrava, José Maria, 40 Calderón Quijano, J. A., 174 California, 52, 167 Campeche, Bay of, 1,2 Campeche, Department of, 134, 135 n., 141, 147; Governors of, 135 m, 144-5, 170 Canning, George, 26-27, 30, 31, 32-33 Cano Madrazo, Lieut.-Colonel Manuel, 98, 99 Canul, ‘General’ Marcus, 135, 136, 137» 138-9» U1 Cape Catoche, 1 Cape Gracias a Dios, 30 Cape Honduras, 4, 51 Cape Tres Puntas, 168 Caribbean Sea, 1, 151 n. Carrera, Rafael, 45, 81, 121, 123 Cass, Lewis, 90 Castillo y Lanzas, Joaquín M., 66 Castlereagh, Robert Stewart, Viscount, 11» 12, 13 Cayman Islands, 50 Central American Confederation, see under united provinces of CENTRAL AMERICA

Chagres (river), 30 Chamberlain, Joseph, 162 Chatfield, Frederick, 35, 36-37, 41, 41 n., 43 n., 44, 47-49, 52 Chetumal, Bay of, 169 Chiapas, 18, 19, 20, 143, 167, 168, i68n., 175, 179 Chilillo, El Cerro del, 174, 175 Chiquimula, 19 Clarendon, George William Frederick Villiers, 4th Earl of, 10, 11, 28, 38-39> 4°> 55» 56, 57» 60,62, 67, 70, 71» 74-75» 123-4» .131» 153 f Clarke, Beverly L. (U.S. Minister in Guatemala, 1859), 90 Clayton-Bulwer Treaty (1850), 51 n., 54» 5255» 56» 57» 59-6o, 68, 71» 79-81, 90-91, 97, 107, 126, 147» 153-4» 166 Clayton, John M., 53-54, 54m

19°

The Diplomatic History of British Honduras

Clegem, W. M., 132 m Cobden, Richard, 52 Cockburn, Lieut.-Colonel Francis, 22, 24, 25, 26, 34-35, 37-38, 41 Codd, Major-General Edward, 18, 21, 23, 30-31 Collins, John, 24 Colombia, treaty with United Pro­ vinces of Central America (1825) and subsequent ex­ changes with Great Britain, 29-3° Comayagua, 168, i68n. Commerce Bight, 24 Corbett, Edwin, 128, 129-30, 15m. Corozal, 141 Cortés, Hernando, 169 Cortina, José Gómez de la, Conde de la Cortina, 174-7 Costa Rica, as constituent member of United Provinces of Central America (q.v.), 19, 20, 45, 179! requests British protection, 48 n.; Clayton-Bulwer treaty and,52-53 Cross Creek, 42 Crowe, Frederick, 8-9, 43 fCruz, Fernando (Guatemalan Minister in Paris, 1896), 163 Cuba, 170 fCuevas, Luis G. (Mexican Foreign Minister, 1837), 63 Dallas-Clarendon Treaty (1856), 5657, 58, 59, 60, 68 Dallas, George M., 56-57, 57 n. Dampier, William, 2, 4m Deep River, 15, 18, 24 Depósito Hidrográfico (Madrid), 173, 174, 175, 176 Derby, Edward George Geoffrey Smith Stanley, 14th Earl of, 85 Derby, Edward Henry Stanley, 15th Earl of, see Stanley, Lord Despard, Lieut.-Colonel Edward Marcus, 7 Díaz, Porfirio, 147-8 Diccionario Geográfico, Histórico y Bio­ gráfico de la República Mexicana, Dulce, Gulf of, see

golfo dulce

Eastern Coast of Central America Commercial and Agricultural Company, 42-43 Echeverria, Manuel, 113 Eco de España (Mexico City), 174 El Mico, 93

El Salvador, as constituent member of United Provinces of Central America (q.v.), 19, 20, 45, 179; and Anglo-Cuatemalan road project, 84; wars with Guate­ mala, 121, 1550. JEstacheria, José de (President of Gautemala, 1784), 172

Fabela, Isidro, 174 Faber, J. H., 61 n. Faden, William, 6n. JFish, Hamilton (U.S. Secretary of State, 1873), ’51 Floridas, the, 17 f Forsyth, John (U.S. Secretary of State, 1835), 43m Fowler, Henry, 144 France, and Cuatemala, 56, 62-63, i i6n. Frelinghuysen, Frederick T., 154 Fuca, Straits of, 175 JGainza, Gavino (Captain-General of Guatemala, 1821), 18, 29 Galindo, Colonel John, 37, 41-44 JGálvez, Mariano (Guatemalan Chief of State, 1832), 34 Garbutt’s Falls, 21, 22, 23, 24, 32, 38, 39, 4L 42, 60, 61,67, 68, 69, 70, 71,72, 73, 75, 76, 78,98,99,100, 101, 102, 104, 105, 106, 138, 140, 144, 148, 166 García y Cubas, Antonio, 174, 176-7 Gastrell, J. P. Harriss, 159, 160 Gehuchte, August van de, 92, 93 Gineta, El Cerro de la, 175 Gladstone, William Ewart, 97, 108, 118, 160 Golden Stream (river), 15, 24 Goldsworthy, Roger T., 144, 145, 1589, 161 Golfo Dulce, 19, ign., 32, 93, 169 ^González Mollindo y Saravia, Antonio (Governor of Guatemala, 1803), 177 ‘Gorda’ (river), 21, 2in. Gosling, Audley Charles, 162, 163 Gracias a Dios (town), 168 Gracias a Dios Falls, 62, 68, 70, 72, 76, 78, 98, 99, 103, 106, 166 Grant, Sir John Peter, 139-40 Granville, Granville George LevesonGower, 2nd Earl, 10, 141, 1523, 154 Great Britain, —Guatemala and: draft AngloGuatemalan treaty and Guatemalan Note (1847), 47,

General Index 48; commercial treaty (184g), 47-49, 159; Guatemala pro­ poses secret treaty and AngloFrench protection, 55-56, 6263; Stevenson’s boundary report (1856), 68-69, 99-’OO, 105, his negotiations with Martin, 63, 70-75, 77, and new out­ line (1857), 75-76, 100, 104-5; draft commercial treaty (1858), 77; Ouseley mission, 57-58, 76-77; Wyke’s instructions, 5960, 76, 80-82, and 1859 Con­ vention (q.v.), 58, 78-80, 87, 115; Article VII and WykeAycinena understanding, 7990, 94-97. 110-12, 115-16, 117; road survey, 88-89, 92-93. 125, and Wray’s reports, 93-97, 109; Wray’s partial boundary survey, 89, 92, 98-106; aban­ donment of Convention con­ templated by Great Britain, 106-8; negotiation on costs of road construction, 109-16; Martin’s memorandum and draft convention (1863), 116— 18, and negotiation with Wyke of Additional Convention (q.v.) 118-20; Guatemalan delays in ratification, 121-3, and failure to secure exchange of ratifica­ tions, 123-32; British Notes (1867, 1869) repudiating Guatemalan territorial claims and declaring 1863 Convention lapsed, 126-8, 131 ; Guatemalan complaints of boundary en­ croachments, and new constitu­ tion (1872), 151, 151 n.; missions of Koep and Negrete, 151-2; Medina’s Notes (1880, 1884), 152-3. ’55. ’59. 165; British legal opinions on obligations under 1859 ’ and 1863 con­ ventions, 156-7, 160; proposals and abortive negotiations for railway construction and a new convention (1884-1901), ’57-65; joint boundary inspec­ tion (1929) and exchange of Notes (1931), 166; Guatemala revives dispute over Article VII in 1933, 166, and re­ pudiates 1859 Convention in 1940, i66n. See also under United Provinces of Central America below —Honduras, Republic of, and, 50-51, 52-53. 56-57. 58. 84

Í91

—Mexico and: 1825 treaty (not ratified), 20, 26-27, 31, 33; 1826 treaty, 27-29, 34, 48, 48m, 60, 63, 65, 66, 67, 69, 70m, 73, 105, ’34., 136, 137. 138, 142; Mexican boundary commis­ sion (1828), 27-28, and treaty with Spain (1836), 28-29, 38, 40; British exchanges with Spain (1835, 1836) and, 37-39, 60; boundary dispute (1837) and British proposal of joint survey (1839), 63-64; exchanges arising out of contraband arms traffic between Belize and Yucatecan Indians (1849), 6466, and out of settlers’ en­ croachments (1854), 66-67; dispute over Ambergris Cay, 66; Stevenson’s negotiations with Guatemalan and Mexican representatives (1857-9), 6878; partial boundary survey (1860-1), 98-106. Maximilian’s Empire (1864-7), ’33-9, and territorial claims, 133-4—re­ pudiated by Great Britain, i34-5> 136-7; treaty (not rati­ fied) of 1866, 138; Indian unrest, 135-6, 138-9. Severance of diplomatic relations (186784) by President Juárez, 136, 138, 141, 145; British survey of northern frontier, 139-41; ex­ changes (1872-8) arising from Indian raids, 141—2; British survey of western frontier, 144-5; ’893 treaty and Addi­ tional Article (1897), 145-50, ’73. 174 —Nicaragua and, 50, 51, 52-53, 54, .56-57, 58, 77 —Spain and: see bay settlement; British honduras, Boundaries and Status; spain. —United Provinces of Central America and: British consular repre­ sentation in, 21, 30, 31,35; non­ recognition of, 20, 31, 32-34, 35-37> 4’, territorial claims of, 29- ;3°> 3’. 34-36; disputes on fugitive slaves from Belize, 30-31, on Ruatan, 32, on British Honduran shipping rights, 34, and on boundary encroachments and Guatemalan State land grants, 34-35, 3738, 41-44; exchanges on Guate­ malan State’s constituent de­ cree (1838), 44-45; British

The Diplomatic History of British Honduras

192

occupation of Ruatan (1839) and support of Mosquito Indians (1841-8), 50-51 —United States of America and: U.S. directive on Belize (1835), 43, 43 n.; U.S. consular repre­ sentation in Belize (1847-50), 50, 51, 51 n.; conflict over extension of British influence in Central America in 1848, 51-52; Clayton-Bulwer treaty (1850), 52-53, 59, and declara­ tions exchanged on Belize, 53-54, 54 n.; controversies and diplomatic exchanges (1853-6), 54-56; Dallas-Clarendon treaty (not ratified) of 1856, 56-57, 58, 59, 60, 68; British decision to avert U.S. abrogation of Clayton-Bulwer treaty by direct negotiations with Central American States, 57-58; Clay­ ton-Bulwer treaty, as a factor in Anglo-Guatemalan treaty, 5960, 71, 79-8i> 9b 97, 107, 126, and in Anglo-Mexican negotia­ tions, 68, 147; U.S. approval of British treaties with Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua, 58, 90-91, and formal recognition of colonial status of British Honduras in Anglo-American Postal Convention (1869), 154; U.S. proposal ( 1881 ) to abrogate Clayton-Bulwer treaty, rejected by Great Britain, and contro­ versy of 1882-3, 153-4> U.S. dis­ position to support Latin American grievances against Great Britain, 161 ; 2nd HayPauncefote Treaty (1901), 166. Bay Islands Colony and, 51-52, 53 j 54, 56, 57- Grey town, bombardment of, 55. Mosquito Protectorate and, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56 See also bay settlement; british Honduras; colombia; costa RICA

Grey, Charles, i6n. fGrey, Sir Charles (Governor of Jamaica), 51, 61 Greytown, 51, 55; see also san juan Guatemala, as constituent member of United Provinces of Central America (q.v.), 19, 20, 29-30, 3 b 4I-43, 44-45, 179; Con­ stitution of (1825), !9> constituent assembly of (1838-9), and invitation to inhabitants

of British Honduras, 44-45. Consular representation in Belize, 49, and reciprocal arrangements for surrender of fugitive criminals (1853), 60 n.; seeks British and French pro­ tection (1855), 56, 62-63; Con­ stitution of 1872, 15m. —Mexico and: I tur hide’s Empire and, 18-19; boundary question and, 20, 27-28, 43-44, 48n., 67, 68, 69, 70-71, 72, 7476, 78, 98, lo6, 1 '4, !29, 133, I34-35> i36, ’37, 140-41, J45, 147, 167-78, 179, 181; Mexican invasion of Petén, 143; 1882 treaty with, 143-4, i50n., J73-4 —Spain and, 37, 40, 121, 182 —United States ofAmerica and, 54-57, 62-63,90-91, 110, 116, ii6n., I5b 158 See also great Britain and Guate­ mala Guatemala, Captaincy-General of, 18-19, 20, 167-78, 179, 181 Guatemala City, 18-19, 3b 45, 78, 82, 92, 93, "9, 120, 121-2, 158, 159,160,161,164,165,168,179 Guillen, Admiral Julio F., 176 m

Hall, William, 87, 89-90, 92, 95 Hammond, Edmund, 1st Baron, 126 Hayes, Rutherford B., 153 Herschell, Farrer, 1st Baron, 160 Hodgson, Robert (the elder), 4 Hondo (river), 4, 5, 9, 13, 14, 16, 21, 22, 23, 24, 32, 37, 38, 39, 41,42, 44, 48 n., 55, 60, 61, 63, 64, 67, 68, 69, 70, 7b 72, 73, 75, 98,99, 100, 101, 103, 104, 105, 114, !34, ’35, *38,140, !46, ’48,169, i7b 172, 173, 177, 181 Honduras Almanack, 18 Honduras, Bay of, 70, 72, and see bay SETTLEMENT

Honduras, Gulf of, 168, 170 Honduras, Republic of, as constituent member of United Provinces of Central America (q.v.), 19, 2°, 45, 50; and ClaytonBulwer and Dallas-Clarendon treaties, 52-53, 56—57; see also great Britain and Honduras Honduras-Higueras, Province of, i68> Humboldt, Alexander von, 176 Hunter, Lieut.-Colonel Peter, 7 Hyde, James, 23

General Index Icaiche, 135 m See also Indians, Yucatecan Indians, Mosquito, 4, 13,32, 50-51,54, 56, 58 —San Pedro, 13g —Yucatecan, 17, 64-66, 68, 70, 100-1, 102-3, 105-6, I33> "35-6, 1449, 169; Icaiche (Chichanha), 70n-> "35, i35n-> i38-9, I4Ï-2, 144-5, 146, 148; Santa Cruz, 64, 70m, 103, 135, 146, 147-8; Tulum, 146 Informe del C. Ignacio Mariscal, 173-4 Intendancies, Royal Ordinance of . (1786), 167, 175 Iturbide, Agustin de, 18, 19, 179 Izabal, 19, 82, 83, 84, 92, 93, 112, 113, "59

Jamaica, 1, 8, 32, 152; Governors of, 6^7, 9, "3, "5, 49, 61, 67, 170 Jefferys, Thomas, 2in. fjenner, G. F. B. (British Minister in Guatemala, 1898), 164 Juárez, Benito, 138 King, William R., 54 King’s Advocate, opinion of (1825), 25 fKnowles, Sir Charles (Governor of Jamaica, 1754), 170 Koep, Conrad, 151-2

La Antigua, 168 fLafragua, José M. (Mexican Foreign Minister, 1872), 141-2 Lake Nicaragua, 52 Lake Petén, 169 Law Officers’ reports, (1800), 12; (1816), 12m; (1839),45; (1851), 60; (1861), 91, 91 n.; (1884), 156-7, 160. See also king’s advocate, opinion of (1825); lord chancellor, opinion of (1886); privy council, Judicial Committee of (1880). Layard, A. H., 83 ■fLettsom, W. G. (British chargé d’affaires in Mexico), 74, 75 Livingston, 43 Logwood cutters, in Bay of Campeche, i, 2; in Bay of Honduras, 2, 3, 4-10; and see bay settlement London, Convention of (1786), 6, 7, 8, 11, 13, H, 24, 25, 25 n., 26, 28, 31, 35, 36, 43, 55, 65, 66, 67, 68, 71, 73, 79, 133, 135, 136, 137, 150m, 172 Lord Chancellor, opinion of ( 1886), 160

75, 76-77, 86, 107, 11619, 121-2, 123-31 Martinez de la Rosa, Francisco, 38, 40 Mathew, George B., 86, 109-10, 112-17 Maximilian, Ferdinand Joseph (Arch­ duke of Austria, Emperor of Mexico), 133, 136, 138 Medina, Crisanto, 152-3, 155 Mee, Billing & Company, Messrs., 165 Memoria del Secretario ... de Fomento . . . D. Manuel Siliceo, 174 Mendizabal, Juan Alvarez, 40 Merchants trading to Honduras, 14, 16 Mérida de Yucatán, Intendancy of, 167, 176, 177; and see Yucatán, Captaincy-General of f Metcalf, Sir Charles T. (Governor of Jamaica, 1841), 49 Mexicana, Spanish frigate, 175, 176

194

The Diplomatic History of British Honduras

Mexico, independence from Spain declared, 18; Iturbide’s Empire, 18-19, 179; Constituent Act of Mexican Confederation (1824), 18; recognition by U.S.A. (1822), 20, by Great Britain (1825), 26-27, 31, and by Spain (1836), 28-29; war with U.S.A., 52; civil wars, 64, 101, 133; Maximilian’s Empire, 133-9; President Juárez, 138; recipro­ city treaty (inoperative) with U.S.A., I5gn. See also arms traffic; great Britain and Mexico; Guatemala and Mexico; Indians, Yucatecan; newspain; Yucatán, CaptaincyGeneral of Mexico City, 18 Mexico, Gulf of, 168 Miller, Thomas, 26, 26 n., 38 Miller, William, 144m Moho (river), 16, 18, 24 Monroe doctrine, 55 Mora, José María Luis, 65-66 Morazán, Francisco, 36, 45 Mosquito Kings, 13, 32, 50, 51 Mosquito Protectorate, 50-51, 52, 53, 54, 56, 58 Mosquito Shore, 4, 5, 6, 7, 13, 29-30, 32, 50; and see mosquito protectorate

Motagua (river), 89, 93, 119, 120; Guatemalan canalization project and, no, 116, 121, and Franco-American Motagua Company, u6n. Mullins River, 15, 16

Napier, Francis, 9th Baron, 58 Negrete, General Pedro R., 152 Netherlands, Kingdom of the, 44 Newcastle, Henry Pelham Fiennes Pelham, 5th Duke of, 95-96, 97, 106-7, 1Q8 New Liverpool, 43 New Mexico, 52 New River (Nuevo), 5, 17, 23, 42, 170 New Spain, Viceroyalty of, 18, 167-8, 174, r75> 176, 176 m, 177, 178, 181 Nicaragua, Intendancy of, 168 Nicaragua, Republic of, as constituent member of United Provinces of Central America (q.v.), 19, 20, 45; and U.S. project for trans­ isthmian canal, 51-52; and Clayton-Bulwer and DallasClarendon treaties, 52-53, 56-

57; William Walker's filibuster­ ing expedition (1855), 55, 62: see also great Britain and Nicaragua Nootka Sound Controversy, 7 Oaxaca, 175 j’O’Gorman, Charles T. (British ConsulGeneral in Mexico City), 27-28 Omoa, 4, 15, 32, 34, 177, 178 O’Neill, Field-Marshal Arturo, 8 Orange Walk, 141 O’Reilly, John, 30, 31 Ouseley, Sir William Gore, 58, 59, 76-77 Palacios, Enrique, 130, 131 Palmerston, Henry John Temple, 3rd Viscount, 35-36, 37, 42, 44, 45, 47» 48» 49» 5°, 51, 53> 61, 65-66, 85» 95 Pavón, Manuel F., 62,, 6211. •fPérez, Benito (Governor of Yucatán), 11, 1 in., 12, 177 Pérez de Lasala, Manuel, 98 Petén (fort and town), 4, 157, 158, 160, 161, 165, 169; (province and department), 19, ign., 28, 30, 133» ’43» 163, 169, 171, 179 Petén Itzá, 169 Pierce, Franklin, 56 Price, Thomas, 94-95, 101, 103-4 Privy Council, Judicial Committee of, 14 Puerto Barrios, 158, 159, 165 Punta Gorda, 62, 62 n. Qualm Hill, 139 Railways, in Guatemala, 157-8, 15960, 164, 165; proposed lines in British Honduras, 158-9, 160, 161-5 ■fRemirez de Estenoz, Felipe (Governor ofYucatán), 4-5, 170-1, 172 Rio Grande, 15, i6n., 24, 62m Rivera Maestre, Miguel, 34m "(Rivera Paz, Mariano (President of Guatemala, 1841), 47 Road project, Anglo-Guatemalan, 79, 81-90; Atlantic terminal of, 92-93; Wray’s surveyand re­ ports, 92-97, 106-7; i863 Con­ vention’s negotiation, 108, 109-20, and lapse, 121-32; Foreign Office proposal (1887), 161

General Index ■¡■Rodríguez, J. Mariano (Guatemalan Foreign Minister, 1847), 48,48m Ruatan (island), 4, 5, 32, 39, 50; and See BAY ISLANDS COLONY Russell, Lord John, 83, 85, 89-90, 95, 96, 107, no, 114, 117-18, 121-2, I23n., 124 St. George’s Key (island), 6, 8 St.John, Sir Spenser B., 146, 147 Salisbury, Robert Arthur Talbot Gascoyne-Cecil, 3rd Marquess of, 142, 152, 160-1, 162 San Felipe, 19 San José (port), 82, 112, 113, 157 San Juan (port), 50, 51, 52; and see GREYTOWN

Sanjuan (river), 4, 51, 52 San Salvador, 45, 167, i68n. Santa Maria, Miguel, 28 Santiago de Guatemala, 168 Santo Tomás, 92, 93, 94, 158 Sapodilla Lagoon, 16 Sarstoon (river), 18, ign., 21, 22, 23, 24, 32, 35, 37/38> 39, 41, 42, 43, 55» 56, 57» 58, 59, 60, 61 » 62, 67, 68, 70, 72, 76, 78, 79, 80, 81,82n., 98, 99, 114, 132m, 133» 134» *37, 166, 181 Scarlett, Hon. P. Campbell, 134-8 Schenck, General Robert C., 151 Schenley, E. W. H., 21, 30 Seymour, Frederick, 92, 95, 97, 100-1, 102-5, !o6, Io7 Sibim (river), 6, 9, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 22, 23, 34, 42, 44, 48m, 55, 56, 57» 59, 62, 69, 72, 79, 80, 81, 82m, 98, 105, 114, 132m, 171, 172, 173, 176, 177, 181 Sierra Madre, 175 Slavery, abolished in British Honduras, 26, and in United Provinces of Central America, 30. See also BRITISH HONDURAS, slaves

Snosha (river), 138, 147, 148, 149 Soconusco, 143, 168 Sosa, Juan Francisco, 30 Spain, Imperial administration of, 167-9, i73-8, j8i; early British settlements in Central America and, 1-4, 169-70, 172; sovereignty over Belize settle­ ment, 3-8, 10-13, 170-3, 181; Anglo-Spanish wars (1779), 5, (1796-1808), 8, 10, 11, 15; representations to Great Britain (1813, 1816), 13, (1820), 177-8. Authority collapses in Central America, 18, 20, 179; British

195

representations to (1835, 1836), 28, 38-41, and theory of con­ tinued sovereignty de jure in British Honduras, 25, 45-46, 49, 50, 182. Spanish American states, recognition of, 20, 28-29, 37» 4°, 121, 137, 142, 182. See also bay settlement; British Honduras, Boundaries and Status Spanish Creek, 42 Squier, E. G., 52 Stanley, Lord (Edward Henry Stanley, 15th Earl of Derby), 124, 125, 126-8, 129-31, 142, 156 Stann Creek, 15, 24, 32, 62 Statutes and Acts: 57 Geo. Ill, c. 53 (Murders Abroad, 1817), 12,14; 59 Geo. Ill, c. 44 (Trials of Murderers etc. in Honduras, 1819), 14; 3 & 4 Wm. IV, c. 54 (Encouragement of Shipping and Navigation, 1833), 25-26; 3 & 4 Wm. IV, c. 73 (Abolition of Slavery, 1833), 26; 8 & 9 Viet. c. 93 (Trade of British Possessions Abroad, 1845), 60 Stevenson, William, 62, 67, 68-72, 75-76, 99-100, 104, 105 Submarine cable, proposed, 162 Sutil, Spanish frigate, 175, 176

Tabasco, 168, 173 Tayasal, 169 Texas, 52 Thompson, George A., 31 Treaties and Agreements: —Colombia and United Provinces of Central America (1825), 29-30 —Great Britain and Guatemala ( 1849), 47-49» 159; (1859), 78-79; ( 1863), 119-20 ; ( 1931 ) Exchange of Notes, 166; and see angloGUATEMALAN CONVENTION and ANGLO-GUATEMALAN TION, ADDITIONAL

CONVEN­

—and Honduras (1859), 58 —and Mexico (1825), 26-27; (1826), 27-28; (1866), 138; (1893), 148-9; (1897 Additional Article), 149-50 —and Nicaragua (i860), 58, 77 —and Spain (1667), 1; (1670), 1-2, 35 (1713)» 2, 3; (1729), 3Î (1748), 4; (1763), 3» 5i (W83)» 5; (1786), 6; (1802), 10-11; (1809), 11 ; (1814), 11, 16, 73; and see London, Convention of and Versailles, Treaty of

i96

The Diplomatie History of British Honduras —and United States of America (1850), 52-54; (1856), 56-57; (1869) Postal Convention, 154; (1901) 2nd Hay-Pauncefote Treaty, 166; and see clayton— BULWER TREATY and DALLASCLARENDON TREATY

—Guatemala and Honduras (1930), 180 —and Mexico (1882), 134, 136, 142-4, i5°n., 173 —and Spain (1863), 121, 182 —and see above under Great Britain —Mexico and Spain (1836), 28-29,137, 142 Trinidad (island), 10 Trujillo, 4, 32, 178

United Provinces of Central America, establishment of, 19, 179; not recognized by Spain, 20; civil war in, 20, 33, 45, and dis­ solution of, 45, 179; relations with U.S.A., 20, 43, 43m See also British Honduras, Boun­ daries and Status; colombia; great Britain and United Provinces of Central America United States of America, acquisition of Floridas, 17; recognition of Mexico and United Provinces of Central America, 20; an­ nexation of Texas, war with Mexico, and acquisition of New Mexico, Arizona, and Cali­ fornia, 52; trans-isthmian canal projects, 51, 52-53,. r53-4; filibustering expedition in Nicaragua, 55, 62; desires free hand in Central America, 57, 153-4; reciprocity treaties, 159, 159 m See also great Britain and U.S.A.; Guatemala and U.S.A. Uring, Captain Nathaniel, 2 Usher, William, 24m Usumacinta (river), 133, 168, 169, 176; (township), 168 ‘Uti possidetis’ principle, 173, 179-82 Valdés, Cayetano, 174, 175, 176 fValenzuela, P. J. (Central American Minister of War, 1832), 34 fVallarta, Ignacio L. (Mexican Minister of Foreign Affairs, 1878), 142 Vanderbilt, Gornelius, 55

j'Velasco, Emilio (Mexican Minister in Paris, 1881), 142 Velasco, José de, 29, 29n. Verapaz (province), 19, 30, 42, 168, 169, 179 Versailles, Treaty of (1783), 5, 7, 11, 13, 14, 24, 25, 26, 28, 31, 36, 55, 60, 66, 68, 69, 71, 73, 79, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, r5on., 171, 172 Villiers, George, 4th Earl of Clarendon, see clarendon, George William Frederick Villiers

Walker, Patrick, 50-51 Walker, William, 55, 62 Wallace, Peter, 1 Wellesley, Sir Henry, 11 Wellington, Arthur Wellesley, ist Duke of, 38 West Indies, I, 3, 8 White Book, Guatemalan, 173, 174, I77> 183 Williams, Mary W., 33 n., 34m Wray, Captain Henry, R. E., 89, 92-96, 98-99,101-4,105-6,107, 109, no, 112, 114, 115, 118, 119, 140, 144 Wyke, Charles Lennox, 58, 59-60, 62, 76, 77, 78-86, 87, 8&-90, 94-95, 96, 97, 107, 109, 110-11, 113, 114, "5, 116, 118-19, 128, 130

Young, John, 23 Young, Toledo & Co., Messrs., 61, 7On., 101-2, 103-4 Yucatán, 1, 2 —Captaincy-General and Intendancy of, 18, 137, 167-78, 181; and relations with CaptaincyGeneral of Guatemala (1817), 177 —Diocese of, 169 —Governors of, and Belize settlement, 4-5, 6, 8, 11, 12-13, 14, 169-73, 177, 181 —Province, Department, and State of, 18-19, 56, 66-67, 101, 145; Imperial Commissioner for, 133, 1355 ‘War of Castes’ in, 64, 101, 139, 141-2. See also arms traffic; GUATEMALA and Mexico; Indians, Yucatecan Zebadúa, Marcial, 33, 34, 36, 37

Printed in Great Britain by Jarrold & Sons Ltd., Norwich