Online Encyclopedia
Search over 40,000 articles from the original, classic Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th Edition.
CLAYTON, JOHN MIDDLETON (1796–1856)
Online EncyclopediaEncyclopedia Home :: CHR-CLI
del.icio.us it!
|
See also:CLAYTON, See also: He was once more a member of the Senate from March 1853 until his death at Dover, Delaware, on the 9th of See also:November 1856. By his contemporaries Clayton was considered one of the ablest debaters and orators in the Senate. See the memoir by See also:Joseph P. Comegys in the Papers of the See also:Historical Society of Delaware, No. 4 (See also:Wilmington, 1882). CLAYTON-BULWER TREATY, a famous treaty between the United States and Great See also:Britain, negotiated in 185o by John M. Clayton and Sir Henry Lytton Bulwer (See also:Lord Dalling), in See also:con-sequence of the situation created by the project of an inter-oceanic See also:canal across See also:Nicaragua, each signatory being jealous of the activities of the other in Central See also:America. Great Britain had large and indefinite territorial claims in three regions—Belize or British See also:Honduras, the See also:Mosquito See also:Coast and the See also:Bay Islands.' On the other See also:hand, the United States, without territorial claims, held in reserve, ready for ratification, See also:treaties with Nicaragua and Honduras, which gave her a certain See also:diplomatic vantage with which to See also:balance the de facto dominion of Great Britain. Agreement on these points being impossible and agreement on the canal question possible, the latter was put in the foreground. The resulting treaty had four essential points. It See also:bound both parties not to " obtain or maintain " any exclusive See also:control of the proposed canal, or unequal See also:advantage in its use. It guaranteed the neutralization of such canal. It declared that, the intention of the signatories being not only the accomplishment of " a particular See also:object "—i.e. that the canal, then supposedly near realization, should be neutral and equally See also:free to the two contracting powers—" but also to establish a See also:general principle," they agreed " to extend their See also:protection by treaty stipulation to any other practicable communications, whether by canal or railway; across the See also:isthmus which connects See also:North and See also:South America." Finally, it stipulated that neither signatory would ever " occupy, or fortify, or colonize, or assume or exercise any dominion over Nicaragua, See also:Costa Rica, the Mosquito Coast or any See also:part of Central America," nor make use of any See also:protectorate or See also:alliance, See also:present or future, to such ends. The treaty was signed on the 19th of See also:April, and was ratified by both governments; but before the See also:exchange of ratifications Lord See also:Palmerston, on the 8th of See also:June, directed Sir H. Bulwer to make a " See also:declaration " that the British See also:government did not understand the treaty " as applying to Her See also:Majesty's See also:settlement at Honduras, or its dependencies." Mr Clayton made a See also:counter-declaration, which recited that the United States did not regard the treaty as applying to " the British settlement in Honduras commonly called British-Honduras . . . nor the small islands in the neighbourhood of that settlement which may be known as its dependencies "; that the treaty's engagements did apply to all the Central American states, " with their just limits and proper dependencies "; and that these declarations, not being submitted to the United States Senate, could of course not affect the legal import of the treaty. The See also:interpretation of the declarations soon became a See also:matter of contention. The phraseology reflects the effort made by the United States to render impossible a See also:physical control of the canal by Great Britain through the territory held by her at its mouth—the United States losing the above-mentioned treaty advantages, just as the explicit abnegations of the treaty rendered impossible such control politically by either See also:power. But great Britain claimed that the excepted " settlement " at Honduras was the " See also:Belize " covered by the extreme British claim; that the Bay Islands were a dependency of Belize; and that, as for the Mosquito Coast, the abnegatory clauses being wholly prospective in See also:intent, she was not required to abandon her protectorate. The United States contended that the Bay Islands were not the " dependencies " of Belize, these being the small neighbouring islands mentioned in the same treaties; that the excepted " settlement " was the British-Honduras of definite extent and narrow purpose recognized in British treaties with See also:Spain; that she had not con-firmed by recognition the large, indefinite and offensive claims whose dangers the treaty was primarily designed to lessen; and that, as to the Mosquito Coast, the treaty was retrospective, and mutual in the rigour of its requirements, and as the United States had no de facto possessions, while Great Britain had, the clause ' The claims to a part of the first two were very-old in origin, but all were heavily clouded by interruptions of See also:possession, contested interpretations of See also:Spanish-British treaties, and active controversy with the Central American States. The claim to some of the territory was new and still more contestable. See particularly on these claims Travis's See also:book cited below.binding both not to " occupy " any part of Central America or the Mosquito Coast necessitated the See also:abandonment of such territory as Great Britain was already actually occupying or exercising dominion over; and the United States demanded the See also:complete abandonment of the British protectorate over the Mosquito See also:Indians. It seems to be a just conclusion that when in 1852 the Bay Islands were erected into a British " See also:colony " this was a flagrant infraction of the treaty; that as regards Belize the American arguments were decidedly stronger, and more correct historically; and that as regards the Mosquito question, inasmuch as a protectorate seems certainly to have been recognized by the treaty, to demand its See also:absolute abandonment was unwarranted, although to satisfy the treaty Great Britain was bound materially to weaken it. In 1859-186o, by British treaties with Central American states, the Bay Islands and Mosquito questions were settled nearly in See also:accord with the American contentions 2 But by the same treaties Belize was accorded limits much greater than those contended for by the United States. This settlement the latter power accepted without cavil for many years. Until 1866 the policy of the United States was consistently for inter-oceanic canals open equally to all nations, and unequivocally neutralized; indeed, until 188o there was practically no See also:official divergence from this policy. But in 188o-1884 a variety of reasons were advanced why the United States might justly repudiate at will the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty.8 The new policy was based on See also:national self-See also:interest. The arguments advanced on its behalf were quite indefensible in law and history, and although the position of the United States in 1850-186o was in general the stronger in history, law and political See also:ethics, that of Great Britain was even more conspicuously the stronger in the years 1880-1884. In 1885 the former government reverted to its traditional policy, and the See also:Hay-See also:Pauncefote Treaty of 1902, which replaced the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty, adopted the See also:rule of neutralization for the See also:Panama Canal. See the collected diplomatic See also:correspondence in I. D. Travis, History of the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty (See also:Ann Arbor, Mich., 1899) ; J. H. Latane, Diplomatic Relations of the United States and Spanish America (See also:Baltimore, 190o) ; T. J. See also:Lawrence, Disputed Questions of See also:Modern See also:International Law (2nd ed., See also:Cambridge, See also:England, 1885) ; Sir E. L. Bulwer in 99 Quarterly Rev. 235-286, and Sir H. Bulwer in 104 See also:Edinburgh Rev. 280-298.
See also:CLAY-WITH-FLINTS, in See also:geology, the name given by W. See also:Whitaker in 1861 to a See also:peculiar See also:deposit of stiff red, See also: Many geologists have supposed, and some still hold, that the Clay-with-Flints is the See also:residue See also:left by the slow See also:solution and disintegration of the Chalk by the processes of weathering; on the other hand, it has long been known that the deposit very frequently contains materials See also:foreign to the Chalk, derived either from the See also:Tertiary rocks or from overlying See also:drift. In the See also:paper quoted above, Jukes-Browne ably summarizes 2 The islands were ceded to Honduras. The Mosquito Coast was recognized as under Nicaraguan rule limited by an attenuated British protectorate over the Indians, who were given a See also:reservation and certain peculiar rights. They were left free to accept full Nicaraguan rule at will. This they did in 1894. ' It was argued, e.g., that the " general principle " of that engagement was contingent on the See also:prior realization of its " particular object," which had failed, and the treaty had determined as a See also:special See also:contract ; moreover, none of the additional treaties to embody the " general principle " had been negotiated, and Great Britain had not even offered co-operation in the protection and See also:neutrality-See also:guarantee of the Panama railway built in 1850-1855, so that her rights had lapsed; certain engagements of the treaty she had violated, and therefore the whole treaty was voidable, &c. the See also:evidence against the view that the deposit is mainly a Chalk residue, and brings forward a See also:good See also:deal of evidence to show that many patches of the Clay-with-Flints See also:lie upon the same See also:plane and may be directly associated with See also:Reading Beds. He concludes "that the material of the Clay-with-Flints has been chiefly and almost entirely derived from See also:Eocene clay, with addition of some flints from the Chalk; that its presence is an indication of the previous existence of Lower Eocene Beds on the same site and nearly at the same relative level, and, consequently, that comparatively little Chalk has been removed from beneath it. Finally, I think that the tracts of Clay-with-Flints have been much more extensive than they are now " (loc. Gil. p. 159)• It is noteworthy that the Clay-with-Flints is See also:developed over an area which is just beyond the limits of the See also:ice sheets of the Glacial See also:epoch, and the peculiar conditions of See also:late See also:Pliocene and See also:Pleistocene times; involving heavy rains, See also:snow and See also:frost, may have had much to do with the mingling of the Tertiary and Chalky material. Besides the occurrence in surface patches, Clay-with-Flints is very commonly to be observed descending in "pipes" often to a considerable See also:depth into the Chalk; here, if anywhere, the residual chalk portion of the deposit should be found, and it is surmised that a thin layer of very dark clay with darkly stained flints, which appears in contact with the sides and bottom of the See also:pipe, may represent all there is of insoluble residue. A somewhat similar deposit, a " conglomerat de silex " or "argile a silex," occurs at the See also:base of the Eocene on the See also:southern and western See also:borders of the See also:Paris See also:basin, in the neighbourhood of See also:Chartres, Thimerais and Sancerrois. (J. A. Additional information and CommentsThere are no comments yet for this article.
» Add information or comments to this article.
Please link directly to this article:
Highlight the code below, right click, and select "copy." Then paste it into your website, email, or other HTML. Site content, images, and layout Copyright © 2006 - Net Industries, worldwide. |
|
|
[back] CLAYS, PAUL JEAN (1819-1900) |
[next] CLAZOMENAE (mod. Kelisman) |