CLAYTON-BULWER TREATY, a famous treaty be tween the United States and Great Britain, negotiated in 185o by John M. Clayton and Sir Henry Lytton Bulwer (Lord Dalling) in consequence of the situation created by the project of an inter oceanic canal across Nicaragua, each signatory being jealous of the activities of the other in Central America. Great Britain had large and indefinite territorial claims in three regions— Belize or British Honduras, the Mosquito Coast and the Bay islands. On the other hand, the United States, without terri torial claims, held in reserve, ready for ratification, treaties with Nicaragua and Honduras, which gave her a certain diplomatic vantage with which to balance the de facto dominion of Great Britain.
The treaty bound both parties not to "obtain or maintain" any exclusive control of the proposed canal, or unequal advantage in its use. It guaranteed the neutralization of such canal. It de clared that, the intention of the signatories being not only the ac complishment of "a particular object"—i.e., that the canal, then supposedly near realization, should be neutral and equally free to the two contracting powers—"but also to establish a general principle," they agreed "to extend their protection by treaty stipu lation to any other practicable communications, whether by canal or railway, across the isthmus which connects North and South America." Finally, it stipulated that neither signatory would ever "occupy, or fortify, or colonize, or assume or exercise any dominion over Nicaragua, Costa Rica, the Mosquito Coast or any .part of Central America," nor make use of any protectorate or alliance, present or future, to such ends.
The treaty was signed on April 19, and was ratified by both Governments; but before the exchange of ratifications Lord Pal merston, on June 8, directed Sir H. Bulwer to make a "declara tion" that the British Government did not understand the treaty "as applying to Her Majesty's settlement at Honduras, or its de pendencies." J. M. Clayton made a counter-declaration, which re cited 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 in terpretation of the declarations soon became a matter of conten tion. The phraseology reflects the effort made by the United States to render impossible a 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 power. But Great Britain claimed that the excepted "settlement" at Honduras was the "Belize" covered by the extreme British claim ; that the Bay islands were a dependency of Belize; and that, as for the Mosquito Coast, the abnegatorfi clauses being wholly prospective in 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 Spain ; that she had not confirmed by recog nition the large, indefinite and offensive claims whose dangers the treaty was primarily designed to lessen ; and that, as to the Mos quito Coast, the treaty was retrospective, and that the clause bind ing both not to "occupy" any part of Central America or the Mosquito Coast necessitated the abandonment of such territory as Great Britain was already actually occupying or exercising do minion over, and the complete abandonment of the British pro tectorate over the Mosquito Indians. It seems to be a just con clusion that when in 1852 the Bay islands were erected into a British "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 absolute aban donment was unwarranted, although to satisfy the treaty Great Britain was bound materially to weaken it.
In 1859-60, by British treaties with Central American States, the Bay islands and Mosquito questions were settled nearly in accord with the American contentions. 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.
In 1880-84 a variety of reasons were advanced why the United States might justly repudiate at will the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty. The arguments advanced were quite indefensible in law and his tory, and although the position of the United States in 1850-6o was in general the stronger, that of Great Britain was even more conspicuously strong in the years 188o-84. In 1885 the former Government reverted to its traditional policy, and the Hay Pauncef ote Treaty of 1902, which replaced the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty, adopted the rule of neutralization for the Panama Canal. See the collected diplomatic correspondence in I. D. Travis, History of the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty (Ann Arbor, Mich., 2899) ; J. H. Latane, Diplomatic Relations of the United States and Spanish America (Baltimore, 1900) ; T. J. Lawrence, Disputed Questions of Modern International Law (2nd ed., Cambridge, England, 1885) ; Sir E. L. Bulwer in 99 Quarterly Rev. 235-286, and Sir H. Bulwer in 204 Edinburgh Rev. 28o-298.
in geology, a name given to a deposit of stiff red, brown or yellow clay, containing many flints, whole or broken, with some round pebbles of hard rock. It covers large areas in south-eastern and southern England, usually lying on chalk. It is commonly considered to represent the insoluble residue of the chalk left by weathering (mainly solution), but may include deposits formed in other ways, of which the follow ing have been suggested : (a) that it is the residue of patches of Tertiary strata which once extended more widely over the chalk than at present. This is favoured by the presence of pebbles other than flint : (b) that it may be a glacial deposit, in fact, a boulder-clay, indicating an extension of the ice-sheet somewhat further than is usually believed. (See GLACIAL PERIOD.) These questions must be regarded as still undecided, but there can be little doubt that the insoluble residue theory is applicable over wide areas. (R. H. RA.)