Page 607
Page 607
306
Sir,
579
No. 2.
Foreign Office to Royal Commission on the Defence of British Possessions and Commerce Abroad.
1879.
Foreign Office, December 16, I HAVE laid before the Marquis of Salisbury your Confidential letter of the 6th instant.* In reply, I am to state to you, for the information of the Royal Commission on the Defence of British Possessions and Commerce Abroad, that no Treaty nor engagement of any kind has been entered into between the European Powers and the Porte, nor between them and Egypt, with regard to the neutralization of the Suez Canal. This question has often been brought forward; but so recently as the month of May 1877 Her Majesty's Government determined not to enter into an international agreement on the subject of the passage of ships of war through the Canal, and that decision was com- municated in papers laid before Parliament (see "Egypt No. 1, 1877"), of which a copy is inclosed herewith.†
With regard to the proposed interoceanic routes between the Atlantic and Pacific, clauses relating to the eventual guarantee of their neutrality are contained in the Treaties with the United States of the 19th April, 1850, with Honduras of the 27th August, 1856, and with Nicaragua of the 11th February, 1860, which will be found in the accompanying collection of Treaties of Guarantee.†
I am, &c.
Appendix No. 10.
(Signed)
Appendix No. 11.
BRITISH HONDURAS.
(IN CONTINUATION OF APPENDIX No. 3, FIRST REPORT.)
No. 1.
TENTERDEN.
Colonial Office to Royal Commission on the Defence of British Possessions and Commerce Abroad.
(Confidential.) Sir,
Downing Street, May 30, 1882. WITH reference to your letter of the 26th September last, inclosing a copy of the first Report of the Royal Commission on the Defence of British Possessions and Commerce Abroad, I am directed by the Earl of Kimberley to transmit to you, to be laid before the Royal Commission, the accompanying copy of a despatch from the Lieutenant-Governor of British Honduras, respecting the proposed with- drawal of Imperial troops from that Colony, and to inquire whether it at all modifies the views expressed by the Royal Commissioners in their Report above referred to.
I am, &c.
(Signed)
R. H. MEADE.
(Confidential.) My Lord,
Inclosure in No. 1.
Lieutenant-Governor Barlee to the Earl of Kimberley.
Government House, Belize, British Honduras, March 30, 1882.
I HAVE the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your Lordship's Confidential despatch of the 14th ultimo, in which I am informed that Her Majesty's Government have had under their considera- tion the question of withdrawing all the Imperial troops from British Honduras, and directed to for- ward to your Lordship a full Report as to what measures I should propose for the protection of the Colony, the probable cost of those measures, and the manner in which such cost should be provided.
2. The Imperial troops in this Colony are required mainly, if not altogether, for the protection of the frontier from attacks of Indians. So far as the population of the Colony is concerned, the services of troops are not needed; but those persons resident in villages bordering on the frontier, and the occupiers of mahogany and other works in its vicinity, are, of course, materially interested in the protection afforded by the troops occupying the forts at Corosal and Orange Walk. These forts have cost the Colony 10,000l. to build, and, of course, would not have been constructed for any purpose other than for occupation by Imperial troops.
3. In 1878, after most careful consideration, and when I had been called on to expend a large sum of money, estimated at 6,000l., in the removal of the Imperial barracks at Belize, I distinctly recom- mended, in preference to such expenditure, a withdrawal of the troops from Belize. The Imperial Government has lately incurred, and is still incurring, a heavy expenditure in the renewal and repair
‡ No. 1 in Appendix No. 12.
* No. 1.
+ Not printed.
Page 607
Appendix No. 11-
BRITISHI HONDURAS.
Page 607
Page 607