Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1856-04-08
THE CLAYTON.BULWER TREATY INTER-
PRETED By LORD PALMERSTON.
From the London Post (o.icial orsau), March 3

rom thf l.Onuon fOet toTlclal organ, MhFcn -
1t is satisfactory to learn by the latest advces from
America that the people OF the United States are by
no inclined to fasten quarrel upon
garng her Of the two points which have lately at
tracted public attention There is not only mnder
alton of language perceptible in the public journals
with regard TO the disputes between us, but degree
of positive Indifference for which we were certainly
not prepared, and which seems TO evince general
and strong conviction that peace will be mantaned.-
The contrast thus exhibited between the tone OF the
organs of popular opinion and that OF the gov
err,nenl of the United States il remarkable. With.
out positively asserting that the latter is desrnus of
war; upon this side OF the Atlantic, with the
exception Of Mr.. Roebuek, will deny that its recent
communications, both upon the enlistment and the
Central American questions. display captous and
unconciatory spirit which tho friends OF pence cam
not but regard with uneasncss. Whether this tone
has been adopted for national, or for merely party
Objects it matters not TO the world ut large Ii il in
either case a of peril, although il has probably
been exaggerated in this country; at least the i'm.
piled disavowa of the policy of the government by
very large proportion of the American journals would
lead US 10 this conclusion.
Of the two points in dispute we shall conine our
remarks at present to only As the correspondence
with regard to the enlistment question has not yet
been brought to a close, We shall abstain from COM
nenting upon it. But the disputes which have arisen
with regard to Central America are ROW before the
public, and nothing remains to be added on either
side Tho government of the United States apply a
apply another. We insist that it was purely prospec-
tive in its operation and that il only bound us not to
extend our doIninions in that quarter. The Ameri-
cans on the other hand contend that it implied
nunclatOn upon our part both OF territory and OF po-
litica influence. But they do not ask to give up
all our settlements in Central America. II they did,
their demand would be more Ineligible and consis-
tent. The object of the ClaytOn-Bulwer convention
was to prevent either Power from obtaining the con-
troll and command of the Ishmus Of Darien; and
thpvy
"not assume or exercise any dominion over any phrt
of Central America" Under this clause the govern
men Of the United States insists that we shall aban.
don our protectorate over the Mosquito coast and
give up the important island of Ruatan, together with
certain other dependencies, but that shall retain
the settlement Of BeZe-at least mu0h of it as we
obtained from Spain by tho treaty Of 1856. With
this exception, ID contended ha. hl our possessions
in Central America should bs abandoned.
| But why leave us this remnant Of Belize? Why
| this reference to old treaty with SPAN, about
which the Clayton-Bulwer convention says not one
word1 We could have understood the American,
construction of the latter if an attempt had been
made TO show that it was meant by the negotiating
parties that should abandon at once aud for ever,
all possessi0us in that quarter Of the globe But
why wS should abandon part and retain part we do
not comprehend. If such had been the intention Of
Sir Henry Rulwer and 9lr Clayton they would sure
ly have Expressed that intention in explicit TERMS
They would have cenrly defined the territories that
were to BIZ given up. They would have laid down
the geographical limits of those that were to be re-
tanned. That they have not done 30, and that there
is no reference direct Indirect as to the abandon
ment OF existing rights is the cesrest proof that no
such abandonment was contemplated. But the Ane
r;can diplumatists cUnteud that there ID an implied
remuneration of our possessions in the Clayton Bull
treaty, IT, speak moro correctly, OF portion
of them. This doctrine 81 "implied renunciaon' Is
less original thac ihe international theories lately
propounded, tJ the authorities, with regard TO
Cuba and Denmark. The island of Ruatan and the
adininng iaands now form distinct British colony
; and, although they are not once mentioned III the
treaty of 1885, it assumed that from the date OF IT.
signature, the Queen uf England renounced all right
uld title to rl;su, in all time coming. A doctrine
more eStrsvagant in itself. and more opposed to all
experience, WAS never gravcly propnunded 'han
that rights Of this important nature should be rreco-
verably lost by mere implication, and without any
EXPRESS understanding on the subject.
hut She mos singular part of the affair is, tint the
American plenip0tentary himself, who signed the
treaty with Sir Henry Bulwer, never dreamed OF at
taching TO it the consequences upAn which his gov
ernment now insists The treaty was dehnitivey rati-
fled 10y the President OF ;ne United States on the
5th of July, 1850. aEs upon the previous day MIR.
Clayton in dis at0h to Sir Henry Buiwer, says that
the treaty was not understood "by either u us thc
to include the British settlement in Hon.
dGras nor the small islands i'll tie hei5hborhOod oil
that settlement, which may he known Ms its depen-
dencies. To this settlement anu these Islands the
treaty was not intended by either of us to apply
Yet in the teeth of ;hs explicit declaration, the Ame-
ricau cabinet contends that The treaty applies to
the whole Uf these Islands, without exception, and to
lsrge portion of British Honduras. They virtually
tell us that Mr. Clayton mean. that which he formal
ly notified to Sir Henry Rn.wer that he did not mean.
Who, then, can be surprised that The people OF the
United States shoud evince disposition 10 back up
their present r:lers in these preposterors dtmands!
Who car Ee surprised that the latter should be reluc
tant tS submit such demands to arbitratloni