CO885-(11-13) — Page 643

20,964.

No. 21.

(BRITISH HONDURAS.)

LAW OFFICERS to FOREIGN OFFICE.

MY LORD,

We are honoured with your Lordship's commands, signified in Sir J. Pauncefote's

Royal Courts of Justice, 12th August 1884. letter of the 10th ultimo, transmitting papers relative to the protest of Guatemala against the continued occupation by Great Britain of a certain portion of British Honduras which was claimed by Guatemala.

That the two memoranda of Sir E. Hertslet inclosed in Sir Julian Pauucefote's letter fully and clearly explained the whole history of the case; and that Sir Julian Pauncefote was to request that we would favour your Lordship with our opinion on the following points:

1. Whether Articles II., III., IV., and V. of the Convention of 1859, which related to the recognition by Guatemala of the boundary of British Honduras, were invalidated by the non-fulfilment of Article VII. of that Convention, which related to the construction of a road from Guatemala to Belize, under the circumstances mentioned in Sir E. Hertslet's memoranda.

2. Whether, in the event of a Parliamentary vote for the purpose of carrying out Article VII. of the Convention of 1859 being applied for and refused, Great Britain would be released from all obligation under that Article without prejudice to the other provisions of the Convention.

In obedience to your Lordship's commands we have the honour to

Report

That, in our opinion, Articles II., III., IV., and V. of the Convention of 1859 are not invalidated by the non-fulfilment of Article VII.

The latter Article is, so far as the terms of the Convention are concerned, an entirely independent stipulation. And the former Articles are explicit and absolute in their terms, and in no way made conditional upon the carrying out of Article VII.

We observe, however, that M. de Medina states in his letter that Article II. "began to be fulfilled," and he appears to connect its not being further carried into effect with the controversy which arose under Article VII.

We are not aware what are the facts in relation to this, or whether it was with the assent of Her Majesty's Government that the proceedings provided for by Article II. and the following Articles were abandoned.

It appears advisable that this should be inquired into.

We may add that, assuming the obligation created by Article VII. to be still in force, it would, of course, be open to Guatemala to insist that, as there had been a breach of it by the British Government, she would retaliate by refusing to observe the other provisions of the Convention, even though they were unconnected with Article VII.

2. Article VII. clearly imposes an absolute obligation on the British Government. The undertaking is only to use their best efforts. If they did this by proposing and using all due efforts to carry a vote of money, we think their obligation under Article VII. would be fulfilled.

Whether they are still bound to do so, having regard to what has passed since the date of the Convention, we do not understand to be submitted to us.

We have, &c., (Signed)

HENRY JAMES. FARRER HERSCHELL. J. PARKER DEANE.

List of Papers.

1. Memorandum (Sir E. Hertslet), July 28, 1880. Confidential No. 4719.

2. Señor Medina, April 5, 1884.

3. Memorandum (Sir E. Hertalet), June 17, 1884. Confidential No. 4982.

4. Convention between Great Britain and Guatemala of April 30, 1859, No. 432.

5. Convention between Great Britain and Guatemala of August 5, 1863 (not ratified).

▲ 15927.-22. 35.-12/85.

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

|: ཀ 「 ། T

ˇ l l / l l l l l l l l l | T|||

C.O.

Reference :-

• 885

13 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO