C_\aW + d89% V/> ^/y / // y w,j <•¦/?. rea> < //. H&lMl£lljJ4ZArtA j \ BRITISH GUIANA BOUNDARY. ARBITRATION WITH THE UNITED STATES OF VENEZUELA. THE COUNTER-CASE ON BEHALF OF THE GOVERNMENT OF HER BRITANNIC MAJESTY. LONDON : PRINTED AT THE FOREIGN OFFICE, BY HARBISON AND SONS, PRINTERS IN ORDINARY TO HER MAJESTY. 1898. CONTENTS, Chapter. Subject. Page. Introductory Statement ... 1 I Geographical Sketch of the Disputed Territory 3 . II Basis of alleged Title of Venezuela to the Disputed Territory . . . 28 III Dutch-British Title 33 IV Early Dutch Relations with Guayana, 1597 to 1648 ... 34 V The Treaty of Munster ... ... ... ... ... 37 VI History of Dutch Colony, 1648 to 1674 53 VII 1674 „ 1700 ... 59 VIII 1700 „ 1725 ... 63 IX Alleged Spanish Settlement, 1648 to 1725 ... 68 X History of Essequibo, 1725 to 1803 72 XI Alleged Spanish Settlement in the Disputed Territory, 1725 to 1800 87 XII Dutch Remonstrances ... 102 XIII British Occupation, 1803 to 1850 ... 107 XIV British Occupation, 1850 to 1896 113 XV Spanish and Venezuelan Occupation during the Nineteenth Century 125 XVI Diplomatic 128 XVII Conclusion 130 Cwv BRITISH GUIANA BOUNDARY AKBITEATION WITH THE UNITED STATES OE VENEZUELA. THE COUNTER-CASE ON BEHALF CF THE GOVERNMENT OF HER BRITANNIC MAJESTY. INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT. IN presenting to the Arbitral Tribunal tbe Counter-Case on bebalf of Great Britain, Her Majesty's Government desire to call attention to tbe fact tbat tbe Venezuelan Case contains a k number of references, particularly in tbe notes, to the Report of tbe United States' Commission and to the Report of Professor Burr presented to that Commission. It must be borne in mind tbat the statements iq contained in those Reports and the inferences founded thereon are not in any way binding upon the Governments of Great Britain or Venezuela, and must be tested by the evidence by which they are supported. _ _ Moreover, since those Reports were prepared, a large number of documents bearing on the case and a great body of evidence have been collected. These documents and this evidence were not before tbe United States' Commission. 20 [579] B Her Majesty's Government have therefore abstained in this Counter- Case from discussing the passages cited from the Report of the United States' Commission and of Professor Burr, and 5 have confined themselves to commenting upon the statements made in the Venezuelan Case and the evidence referred to in that Case or contained in the Appendix to it. CHAPTER I. This Chapter deals with Chapter II of the Venezuelan Case, pp. 13-34, entitled — Geographical Sketch op the Disputed Territory." British Atlas, p. 4, Venezuelan Atla? p.l. Venezuelan Case, pp. 13 and 14. Venezuelan Case, pp. 13 and 24. THE Venezuelan Case claims that the eastern limit of Venezuela most in accordance with geographical features, and with history, is actually at the Essequibo River, from the mouth to the source, as indicated by tbe Eortique line of 1844. 10 The territory in dispute is alleged by the Venezuelan Case to be divided by natural features into four clearly defined and naturally isolated regions, two on the coast and two in the interior, each of which is said to be more easily 15 entered from the side of Venezuela than from that of British Guiana. The two coast regions are described in the Venezuelan Case as follows : — " That which drains directly into the Orinoco below the junction of that river with the Caroni," * * * * 20' " which for convenience may be called the Orinoco Delta Region." "That which, lying between the Essequibo on the east, the Moruka on the north-west, and tlie Imataca Mountains on the south-west drains directly into the 25 Atlantic Ocean, * * * * designated as the Moruca- Pomeroon Region." Venezuelan Case, pp. 13 and 28. Venezuelan Case, pp. 13 and 34. The two interior regions follows : — are described as " That which constitutes the great interior Cuyuni- 30 Mazaruni basin." " That which, stretching from the junction of the Cuyuni, Mazaruni and Essequibo towards the south, constitutes the upper drainage basin of the Essequibo, called * * * * the Upper Essequibo "Basin." 35 The Venezuelan propositions as regards these four regions will presently be dealt with in detail. But it will be convenient first to sketch briefly certain of the actual physical features of the country in dispute. 40 [579] C 4 Two mountain systems are of importance in the present case. The one is the main range of the Imataka, which runs fairly parallel to the coast, from north-west to south-east. It starts 5 from the Orinoco, where that river is joined by tbe Caroni, and, as a well-marked range, extends to the neighbourhood of the Acarabisi Creek. To the east of this it gives place to a scattered group of hills of low elevation, including 10 the so-called " Blue Mountains," which extends nearly to the point of junction of the Massaruni and Essequibo and down the latter river. The range thus continued separates the two districts called in the Venezuelan Case " the coast 15 regions," which lie on its seaward face, between the Orinoco and the lower course 'of the Esse quibo, from the two " interior regions," which lie to the south. The height and consequent importance of the Imataka Range have been 20 much exaggerated, at any rate as regards the part touched by the Schomburgk line. It is only to the westward of that line that there are any mountains worthv of the name, though even there they do not rise to more than between 2,000 and 25 3,0C0 feet. At the Schomburgk line, and to tbe east of it, there are merely more or less detached hills, at most not more than 600 feet high. Writing of the range at the point where the Aunama and the Acarabisi rise, the one to join 30 the Waini, the other the Cuyuni system, Schom burgk says — Geographical Sketch. British Counter- Case, App., p. 403. British App. VII, p. 27. " I estimated the highest ridge which separates the two systems at 520 feet above the level of the sea. Heights which really deserve the name of mountains 35 commence 20 miles further westward." And Barrington Brown writes of the same Report on Geology , of British Guiana Part : — —London, 1875, p. 7. "Between the Cuyuni and Barama Rivers comes 'the Imataka Range, which terminates near the sources of 40 the Waini River, and is of no considerable extent or height in this part." The other mountain system, in some parts of British Counter- much greater altitude, is a much less easily defined group of ranges, covering the country west of 45 the Essequibo, and extending as far to the south as tbe bead-waters of the Trombetas, a large tributary of the Amazon. At its northern ex- Cass, App., pp. 405, 408. 5 Venezuelan Case, p. 29, British Counter- Case, App., pp. 405, 408. Venezuelan Case, p. 29. British Counter- Case, App., p. 405. British Counter- Case, App., p. 403. tremity the group is considerably expanded from east to west, the expansion being separated from tbe Imataka by the broad valleys of the Massa runi and the Cuyuni Rivers. Westward from Teboco Catarac. on the former river, the hills 5 thus expanded are of considerable height; but eastward from that cataract, and thence to the E.sequibo, these hills, which here constitute the watershed between the Lower Massaruni and the Essequibo, are scattered, ill-defined, and of no 10 great elevation. It is these insignificant hills which are magni fied by the Venezuelan Case into the so-called Ayangcanna Range. The statement in the Venezuelan Case, tbat 15 " on the east a spur of this same rugged range, under the name of the Ayangcanna Mountains (at places nearly 5,000 feet high), runs north until it meets tbe Blue Mountains, which, as a spur of the Imataka, run south," is destitute 20 of all foundation in fact. There is a mountain named " Mount Ayangcanna," in longitude 60° 10' and latitude 5° 20', of about 5,000 feet high, but there is no such range as the so-called Ayangcanna Mountains. 25 Moreover, there is a wide interval between the low and ill-defined hills to the south of the Massaruni and the hills of the " Blue Mountains " to the north of the Cuyuni, and the statement in the Venezuelan Case that " near the point 30 of junction of the Cuyuni and Massaruni there is a break in these mountains, and through this break, over rapids and falls, the Cuyuni and Massaruni Rivers pour their united waters into the Essequibo," is entirely misleading. No such 35 gorge exists. Erom the northern slopes of tbe Imataka and tbe " Blue Mountains " the Rivers Amakuru and Barima, the Waini with its tributary the Barama, and the Pomeroon flow directly into the sea. 40 Westward of the region which is watered by the rivers just mentioned, a spur, called on the maps the Piakoa Mountains, runs up from the Imataka Range in a north-easterly direction. A more easterly spur, which may for convenience 45 be called the Amakuru Range, runs up to the source of the Amakuru River, and along its right bank past the point where it is joined by the Yarakita Creek from the east. This sour constitutes the watershed between the 6 upper courses of the Amakuru and Barima Rivers. The watersheds respectively between the Barima, the Waini, the Moruka, the Pomeroon, 5 the Supenaam, and the Lower Essequibo are low and ill-defined. Immediately south of the Imataka Range, more or less parallel to that range and to each other, flowing mainly from west to east, are the ¦10 Cuyuni and the Massaruni, separated by a water shed of irregularly scattered mountains. The Essequibo, on the other band, flows mainly from south to north, and almost at right angles to the united stream of the Cuvuni and Massaruni. British Counter- Case, App., p. 403. 15 The Venezuelan propositions as to the four regions will now be dealt with in detail. The Four Regions. The so-called " Orinoco Delta Region," accord ing to the Venezuelan Case, extends eastward as far as the watershed dividing the Waini from 20 the Moruka, thus including the basins of tbe Amakuru, Barima, and Waini Rivers. The Venezuelan arguments are : (1) that " into the Orinoco, at and above Barima Point, flow various streams, the Barima, Amacura," and 25 others ; (2) that there exists a "set of conditions which converts the Lower Barima and the Mora Passage into a veritable Orinoco mouth;" and (3) that "also intimately connected with the Lower Orinoco is the Waini, a river which 30 empties into the ocean, in part through its own mouth, but in part also through the same Mora Passage and the Barima River." so that " the Waini, with the region through which it flows, constitutes a part of the great Orinoco 35 Delta." 'I he British reply is : (1) that the Amakuru and Barima are not tributaries of the Orinoco, but are, in fact, independent rivers ; (2) that the conception of the Lower Barima and the 40 Mora Passage as a mouth of the Orinoco is entirely at variance with the facts, and is founded only on erroneous mapping; and (3) that the inclusion of the Waini in the system of the Orinoco is in contradiction to physical facts. The " Orinoco Delta Region." Venezuelan Case, p. 15. Venezuelan Case, p. 15. Venezuelan Case, p. 16. 45 A first glance at a map — fancifully drawn and coloured as at p. 1 of the Atlas de livered with the Venezuelan Case — may give Trend of Rivers. British Counter- Case. App., p. 403. Ikitish App. VII, p. 243. West Indian Pilot, 1883, I, p. 11. British Counter- Case, App., p. 403. the impression that the Amakuru and the Barima, especially because of the north-west trend of tbe lower part of their course, belong to tbe Orinoco system. It can be clearly shown from the origin of this 5 north-west trend that these rivers have, in fact, no connection with the Orinoco system. Each of the Rivers Pomeroon, Waini, Barima, and Amakuru runs for a certain distance in a direction at right angles to the line of the coast, 10 but, before reaching the sea, turns very decidedly in a north-westerly direction and runs for a con siderable distance parallel to the coast before entering the Atlantic. The cause of this pecu liarity is that the great equatorial current from 1 5 the African coast, streaming across towards South America, meets the stream from the Amazon and, helped by the trade-wind, drives it up in a north-west direction along the coast of South America, carrvin" with it the sand 20 and detritus from the rivers which it passes in its course. The deposit of this sand and detritus has built up between the Essequibo and the Orinoco an alluvial tract outside the original coast-line, which was situate where 25 these rivers first turn somewhat west from north. Thus tbe true course of the rivers above men tioned is at right angles to the coast, but their lower course has been blocked and gradually turned more and more north and west, till, in the 30 case of the Barima and the Amakuru, they might be supposed by a person unacquainted with the physical history of this coast, to run into the estuary of the Orinoco. Formation of Itabos. British Counter- Case, App., pp. 404, 409. It is also requisite to explain, in some detail, 35 the true nature of the Mora Passage, or Mora- whana, and, incidentally, of the other smaller water channels, or, as these are locally called, "itabos," which connect some of the rivers of that part of the world. 40 An itabo, as the word is used in the North west district, is a water-channel connecting two rivers. These itabos are confined to the swampy alluvial tracts, the drainage of which is carried by countless small and obscure creeks into the 15 main rivers. Where two of these small creeks rise in the same central swamp, but run the one to one main river, the other to another, the Indians are able in the wet season to push their canoes through the swamp from the head of [579J D the one creek to that of the other, and so make for themselves a short cut, which becomes more and more used. The passage of each boat renders that of the next more easy, in that it deepens and 5 widens the channel. The water naturally flows more and more through the opening channel, and, in its course, eats away the exposed banks of soft mud. Thus the itabo is formed, it may be said, artificially, and yet without definite purpose. 10 Of course such a waterway is at first small and at certain seasons almost or quite impassable"; and if not much used it may continue so for an indefinite period. Of this character are the itabos connecting the Barima with tbe Waini below 15 Mount Everard, and that connecting the Anabisi with tbe Kaituma. Sometimes, if use of them is abandoned, they may practically disappear, as, for example, that marked in Schomburgk's Physical Map between the Barima and the 20 Waini at the place called Eckanabua above Morawhana. On the other hand, where much in use they may enormously increase in width and depth, as has been the case in tbe last fifty years, and more especially within the last ten 25 years, with the Morawdiana. It should be explained that in the country under consideration the itabos have originated by the junction, in the manner above described, of two or more flowing streams, each of which 30 has an independent source of its own, and its own course. This is still quite obvious in tbe case of such connecting water-channels as tbat be tween the Moruka and the Waini, and that between the Waini and the Barima below 35 Mount Everard. The only channel in which it is no longer obvious is the Morawhana; but there can be little doubt that the Morawhana originally consisted of two flowing streams, both rising in the swamps between tbe Barima and 40 the Waini, tbe one draining this swamp into the Barima and the other into the Waini. The suggestion made in the Venezuelan Case that the alluvial country is characterized by " interlacing bayous " as distinguished from 45 " true flowing streams," is based on a miscon ception of tbe nature of the itabos. British Counter- Case, App., p. 404. British Atlas, p. 47. British Counter- Case, App., p. 404. Venezuelan Case, p. 26. The Morawhana, which is simply the largest of the itabos, has been very incorrectly represented in the Venezuelan Case, and more especially in Venezuelan Atlas, the maps accompanying that document. The ps The Morawhana. British Counter- Case, App., pp. 404, 409. British Atlas, p. I. British Counter- Case, Map No. 6. British Counter- Case, Map No. 6. British Counter" •Case, App., p. 404. features of the Lower Barima, Morawhana, and Waini as shown on this Map are absolutely incorrect, and ignore tbe surveys made by Schomburgk in 1841, the results of which have long since heen adopted, not only by every maker 5 of ordinary maps, but also by the Hydrographic Departments of the Governments of both Great Britain and tbe United States. Tbe Morawhana is quite wrongly shown in the Venezuelan Map as running east and wrest. It is 10 essential to note that by this perversion the Morawhana is made to appear as part of a single, almost straight, reach formed by the lower course of the Waini and the lower course of the Barima; in other words, the Lower Barima 15 and the Morawhana are made to appear part of the Waini River, which, according to this, flows into the sea at Barima Point, while the Upper Barima is shown as if it were a tributary of the Waini. The Morawhana is shown cor- 20 rectly in the British Atlas, as flowing mainly north and north-west, and, after a course of about 8 miles, entering the sea just within the estuary of the Waini. The true position of the Morawhana and of 25 the mouth of the Waini are most correctly laid down in a chart made, after careful survey, by Mr. Hohenkerk, of the Government Land Department of British Guiana, in November and December 1897. The features of this 30 chart have been incorporated in Map 1 of the British Atlas, as far as was possible in a map on a scale so comparatively small, and the chart itself is reproduced with this Counter-Case. 35 The Morawhana branches off from the Barima River at a point 49 miles from the mouth of that river. It then runs almost directly north for about 4 miles ; then, for another 4 miles, north west, and then enters the estuary of the Waini 10 River. Its entrance into the Waini is about 15 miles from Playa or Saba Point (also called Duck Point) , the extremity of the left or western bank of that river, but is not more than about 3 miles above the extreme point on the right or 45 eastern bank, called Waini Point. The Morawhana is narrowest at the Barima end, and at three points in its course, at abrupt bends, forms large pools. The depth of the channel varies from 24 feet to some 16 feet, 50 but this depth is not maintained in the 10 channel which the Morawhana has worked into the bed of the Waini. While the Barima where the Morawhana diverges from it is entirely unobstructed by mud, the Waini, where 5 the Morawhana emerges into it, is much obstructed by mud banks, almost exposed at low tide, through which the Morawhana has worked itself a funnel-shaped opening. The form of this opening, correctly shown on Hokenkerk's Chart 10 of 1897, clearly indicates that the river-current from the Upper Barima passes through this channel to the sea, but that the corresponding current from the Upper Waini does not to any appreciable extent enter tbe Morawhana. 15 In Schomburgk's time, and till about eight years ago, the stream, deep as it was from bank to bank, was obstructed, for vessels of any size, by a forest of dead and dying trees which bad slipped into the stream owdng to the under- 20 mining of its banks, and through which only small craft could find passage. When, however, about eight years ago, occasion arose for the passage of large vessels through the Morawhana, the mere fact of the passing up and down of 25 schooners of about 50 tons and of larger steamers, which then began to force their way against the tide, loosened the foothold of these trees. With astonishing rapidity the tree accumulation of years was first shaken, then detached, and 30. then carried out to sea, and the Morawhana wras left open to navigation, and free from any difficulty except the passage of a few sharp bends. The question of the sea-tides through the Mora whana is also important. Along tbe whole coast 35 of Guiana the flood-tide sets upward along the coast in a north-westerly direction, successively reaching the mouths of the Essequibo, the Waini, the Barima, and the Amakuru. On reaching the mouth of the Waini, long before it reaches the 40 Barima, the tide has but 3 or 4 miles to run to reach the Morawhana at its northern end ; whereas, on reaching the mouth of tbe Barima, long after passing the mouth of the Waini, it has still to go 49 miles before reaching the Mora- 45 whana at its southern end. It therefore follows that the sea-tide from the mouth of the Waini must struggle to get up the Morawhana from the northern end for hours before the sea-tide running up the Barima reaches the Mora- 50 whana. At such times the sea-tide from Waini mouth rushing up the Morawhana is checked British Counter- Case, Map No. 6. British App. VII.,. pp. 11, 264. British Counter- Case, App., p. 221. British App. VII, p. 290. British Counter- Case, App., pp. 404, 409. British Counter- Case, App., p. 404. 11 British Counter- Case. Apr., pp. 219, 222, 238. by the river-current from the Upper Barima,, and is for a time carried by this river-current down to the mouth of the Barima. Gradually the river-current from the Upper Barima is checked by the up rush of the sea- tide 5 from Barima mouth, wdiich eventually reaches the southern end of the Morawhana; and simultaneously more and more of the Waini tide is carried up the Barima. But the tide from Waini mouth ceases to flow up the Morawhana 10 long before the tide from the Barima mouth has ceased to pass up beyond the southern end of the Morawhana, and then, for a time, part of the sea tide from the Barima mouth is carried down the Morawhana to the Waini, and thence to the sea. 15 When tbe tide begins to ebb in the Barima the water from the Upper Baiima flows through the Mora Channel into the Waini. All that is necessary for the present purpose is to observe (1) that the sea-tides from the mouths 20 of both the Waini and the Barima flow alternately into the Morawhana, but that in both cases this, as was noticed by Inciarte, is water running up the coast from the south-east, not water from the Orinoco; and (2) that the current of fresh 25 water which comes down from the Upper Barima flows to the sea partly through the Barima mouth and partly through the Morawhana, but that the corresponding current from the head of the Waini flows only through the mouth of the 30 Waini, not through the Morawhana. True Delta of the Orinoco. British App. VII, p. 242. In thus disposing of tbe statements of the Venezuelan Case (1) that the land through which the Waini, Barima, and Amakuru flow has been made up from the Orinoco, and (2) that tbe 35 Barima, Morawhana, and Waini belong to the Orinoco system, the ground has been cleared for a definition of the actual limits of the delta of the Orinoco. These are, as already stated, the River Vagre on the west, and on the east the 40 main stream of the Orinoco, flowing south of the Islands of Tortola, Imataka, and Cangrejo (or Crab) Island. Inland Waterways. Venezuelan Case, p. 24. But the geographic unity of the so-called Delta Region, the eastern boundary of which is placed 45 at the watershed between tbe Moruka and the Waini, is asserted in the Venezuelan Case also on [579] E 12 the alleged ground that it is " knit together by its network of connecting rivers and streams." This is equivalent to an assertion that natural water communication exists from the Orinoco 5 eastward to the Moruka- Waini watershed and there ceases. As a matter of fact, the chain of waterways formed by the itabos and the main rivers begins far eastward of the Mo ruka- Waini watershed, and ends at the low 10 watershed which separates the Barima from the Amakuru. It is true that there is also ¦water communication from tbe left bank of the Amakuru, by the Coyoni Passage and the Arature to tbe Orinoco ; but this is quite uncon- 15 nected with the other channel just referred to. Therefore, so far as the unity of a region con sists in its having water communication from end to end, the Orinoco region ends with the Amakuru and a new region stretches thence east- 20 ward to the estuary of the Essequibo. No inland water communication exists between the Barima and the Amakuru. The Venezuelan contention as to tbe geo graphical unity of the so-called delta region as 25 defined by them is therefore entirely unfounded. British Counter- Case, App., pp. 235, 405. Political unity of what is called the Orinoco Delta Region is asserted solely on the alleged ground that Barima Point, the extreme point of Venezuelan Case the right bank of the Barima River, commands pp' 1'-24- 30 strategically the " Ship's Channel " into the Orinoco. As a matter of fact, Barima Point has not tbe strategic value ascribed to it in tbe Venezuelan Case. The ground is quite unsuitable for the 35 erection of fortifications, and the Ship's Channel is 10 miles wide, its inner edge being about 5 miles from Barima Point. But whatever the importance of Barima Point, this has no bearing on tbe qtiestion of the political unity of the dis- 40 trict, which has throughout been under the con trol of the Dutch and British Governments. Political Unity of Delta Region. British Counter- Case, App., pp. 304, 404. West Indian Pilot, 1883, I, p. 71 British Counter- Case. App., pp. 404, 409. 45 The second of the regions into which the Venezuelan Case divides the disputed territory, the Moruka-Pomeroon, now demands attention. Tbe Venezuelan Case states that " the point of Venezuelan Case, special importance regarding this tract is its entire separation from the Orinoco, by natural " The Moruka-Pomeroon Regie:-.'- 13 Venezuelan Case, p. 25. Venezuelan Case, pp. 26, 27. British Counter- Case, App., pp. 404, 405, 409. Venezuelan Case, p. 25. Venezuelan Ca.e, p. 26, British Counter- Case, App., pp. 405, 409. barriers;" and that "a natural and effective physical barrier separates it from the Orinoco delta region." It is difficult to grasp the con ception of this barrier in tbe minds of those responsible for the drawing up of the Venezuelan 5 Case. They appear to say that a very extensive reef of white sand, almost too dazzling and too hot to be crossed, runs out nearly to tbe coast between the Moruka and the Waini, forming as it were the watershed between those two rivers ; and that 10 seaward of this reef the alluvial deposit "is, comparatively speaking, a mere strip which contains no natural waterways, and, as a conse quence, there is no natural inland water com- smunication between the Orinoco delta on the 15 west, and the Moruka on the east." The whole oi this description is purely imaginary — there is no barrier between the Waini and the Moruka, and there is constant and continuous communication between the two. 20 The origin of this curious and complete mis conception of the natural features appears to be as follows : — A picturesque description of a sand reef, such as occurs in several parts of British Guiana, is 25 quoted from Rodway's " Handbook of British Guiana, 1893." This is, quite erroneously, assumed to be identical with the large area of "sand and clay deposit " which is shown on the geological map by Messrs. Brown and Sawkins 30 (the details of which have been transferred to Map 4 of the Venezuelan Atlas) as extending along, but some little distance back from the coast between the Essequibo and the Waini, and approaching near the sea in the vicinity of tbe 35 Tapakuma Lake, and again near the mouth of the Waini. The Venezuelan Case adds a quo tation from Schomburgk's " Description of British Guiana," to the effect that the sand-reefs approach within two miles of the Arabian coast. 40 The facts are that a sand-reef, somewhat of the kind described by Rodway, extends along the coast from the left bank of the Essequibo to the right bank of the Pomeroon, but no further westward. This, as Schomburgk correctly wrote, 45 most nearly approaches the sea on the Arabian Coast, about the mouths of the Oene and Capoey Creeks, and well to the eastward of tbe Pomeroon. Westward of the Pomeroon, however, the only actual sand-reefs are patches 14 of very limited extent, viz., at Kokerite on the Wakepo and at Waramuri on tbe Moruka; and it is quite certain that no sand-reef exists any where between the Moruka and the Waini. Such 5 sand-reefs are only of very occasional occurrence in the "sand and clay deposit" (i.e., clay with a slight admixture of sand), which, as shown on the geological map, extends from the Essequibo to the Waini. This deposit constitutes no barrier 10 whatever to passage, and the description of tbe sand-reef given in the Venezuelan Case is inap plicable to it. It must be added that the as sumption made in the Venezuelan Case that these sand-reefs, even where they do exist, 15 constitute a barrier to traffic is a mistake • passage over them is in fact perfectly easy. Another part of the barrier alleged to exist between the Moruka and the Waini is attri buted to alleged absence of natural waterways in 20 the alluvial deposit outside the imaginary sand- reef. The facts are that practically the whole of the Moruka, the Barabara, the Biara, the Bararnani, and the Waini, which together form 25 the water communication between the Pomeroon and the Barima, are within the alluvial tract, which is by no means so narrow as represented, and lies on tbe sea side of the "sand and clay deposit;" and that this inland waterway has 30 always been and is extensively used for passing from one river to tbe other. It is true that the part of the waterway which is formed by the short itabo between Ihe heads of the Moruka and of the Barabara is, in the dry 35 season, difficult to pass. But, as events have proved, it is not impassable, and it is used at all times of tbe year, even in the dry seasons, which are March in the spring and October and November in the autumn. It is evident that the 4C more such a channel is used the more convenient does it become for use. It should be pointed out that in other parts of the Venezuelan Case reference is made to the habitual use of this waterway between the 45 Waini and the Moruka. It has now been shown tbat no physical barrier, either by sand-reef, or by absence of inland water communication, exists between the Moruka and the Waini ; and this carries with it complete disproof of the asserted natural separa- Vetiezuelan Case, pp, 26, 27. British Counter- Case, ApD., p. 405. British Counter Case, App., p. 409. Venezuelan Case, pp. 85, 86, 111, 114, 117. 15 Venezuelan Case, p. 28. British App. VII, p. 187 et seq. British Counter- Case App., pp. 363-388. British App. VI, p. 227, VII, op. 223, 224. British Counter- Case App.. pp. 34, 373. tion of the so-called delta region from that of the Moruka- Pomeroon. This district between the Moruka and the Essequibo was very largely laid out in land- grants under the Dutch. The printed lists 5 of land-grants show that the whole of the front lands, from the point at which the Massaruni joins the Essequibo to the Moruka, were laid out and largely taken up. The lots extended up the Pomeroon, on both banks, as well as up its 10 western tributaries, the Wakepo, and the Akawini. It is clear from the evidence that ruins of substantial Dutch buildings of brick exist at Mariaba, at Parakees, at Owyebarri, and at other places on the Moruka ; and there 15 is on record at least one application for a land- grant as far westward as the Barabara. The Interior Regions. " The Cuyuni-Mazaruni Region." Venezuelan Case, pp. 28, 33. The contentions in the Venezuelan Case as to the two interior regions will now be dealt with. 20 As regards the " Cuyuni-Mazaruni basin " the Venezuelan contention seems to be that the basins of these two rivers, separated from each other only by an inconsiderable and easily traversable water shed, form together a closed valley, which cannot 25 be approached from tbe Lower Essequibo except with the greatest difficulty. The approach is said to be through a narrow gorge, formed by the extremities of the Imataka and the Ayangcanna Ranges, which are supposed to be 30 separated only by the beds of these two rivers, tbe rivers themselves being, moreover, obstructed by cataracts. This valley is alleged, on the other hand, to be approachable with the greatest ease from the savannah country which is represented 35 as extending from the Caroni River to the Upper Cuyuni. The following passage deserves quotation : — Venezuelan Case, p. 28. "The two rivers from which this basin derives its name, unite and flow into the Essequibo ; this fact 40 constitutes the sole connection between, them and the Essequibo. Except for this connection, a connection which in this case is without practical importance, the interior basin, watered by the- two streams, is a region quite separate and distinct from the Essequibo." 4.5 The statements of the Venezuelan Case as to this region are quite erroneous, both as to the alleged difficulty of access from the Esse- [579] F 1(5 quibo, and as to the alleged facility of access from the Orinoco. It has already been pointed out that no such gorge, as is depicted in the Venezuelan Case, in Ante> p- 5. 5 fact exists ; on the contrary, between the low and ill- defined hills to the south of the Massaruni, and those to tbe north of the Cuyuni, is a wide extent of open valley through which roads may be made without difficulty. 10 Moreover, the difficulty of the rapids which exist, not only near the junction of the Cuyuni and Massaruni, but also on the upper parts of these rivers, has been much exaggerated. There is not a single fall, in the true sense of British Counter- 15 the word, on either the Cuyuni or Massaruni, pp_ 405, 409. or, indeed, on any of the main rivers of British Guiana, unless quite at their sources, where boats never go. The so-called "falls" on these rivers would 20 be more correctly described as rapids. The character of these rapids, and the consequent difficulty in passing them, varies greatly with the time of year and the amount of water in the river. 25 As regards the navigation of the Cuyuni, The Cuvuni. the facts, briefly stated, are that the rapids British Counter- are distributed along the whole course of Case App., p. 405. the river, with intervals of open water, from near the mouth to above the junction of the 30 Uruan. The lowest set, the so-called " Great Palls," which are alleged by the Venezuelan Case to present an insuperable obstacle to entrance into the valley, are long and tedious to pass, but are not dangerous. The most diffi- 35 cult, place on the river, the " Devil's Hole," is rather more than half-way to the Uruan. There is a long and difficult cataract a short way below the Mura Cataract, which is itself also a difficult place; and these are both more than three- 40 quarters of the wray to the Uruan. Kenaima Cataract, which occasionally presents some difficulty, is well on the upper half of the course. In other words, the obstacles to navigation on the Cuyuni below the Uruan are 45 distributed along the whole course, and are not, as the Venezuelan Case suggests, confined to the lower part, where indeed they are less formidable than further up. The difficulties, such as they are, of navigating the Cuyuni up and down 50 stream are the same, -whether it be approached from the Uruan or from the Essequibo. 17 British App. VII, p. 334. British Counter- Case App., p. 406. British Counter- Case App., pp.405, 409. British Counter- Case App., p. 408. Venezuelan Case. p. 31. British App. II, p. 166. British App. V, p. 114. British Counter- Case App., " 4< p. 405. Venezuelan Case. p. 31. By an Ordinance No. 24 of 1891 of the Colony of British Guiana, provision was especially made for the licensing of duly qualified steersmen, and bowmen to navigate such rapids ; and an ample body of such qualified persons nowr exists. 5 At certain points on the Cuyuni it is the prac tice to drag the boat across the land for a short distance so as to avoid the more difficult rapids. Three of such recognized " portages " exist, and others of a temporary nature arc made whenever 10 occasion arises. Nor. where there is occasion for more per manent provision for traffic, is there any difficulty in making roads through the forest through which the Cuyuni flows. The state- 15 ment in the Venezuelan Case as to "the Cuyuni- Mazaruni basin," that " its eastern part is covered with a dense forest which renders access to it overland well nigh impossible," loses all force in view of the fact that roads have easily 20 been made when required, and are easily main tained by use. The most effective refutation of the allegation in the Venezuelan Case as to the impossibility of access up tbe Cuyuni is found in the undoubted 25 fact that the Dutch habitually used this route as the means of access to its upper valley, and that especially of late years it has been largely used by the British. The use of this route by the Dutch is referred 30 to in the Venezuelan Case itself, e.g., p. 104 ; and at p. 113 the Venezuelan Case treats this route as practicable when it suggests, though incor rectly in point of fact, that it was used by Spanish merchants trading with Essequibo. 35 The Venezuelan Case, after alleging that access to the Cuyuni from the Essequibo is beset with almost insuperable difficulties, proceeds to dilate upon the easy access from the Orinoco. The Case contains the following sentence :— 40 " In striking contrast with this difficulty of access from the east is the natural and easy entrance from the Orinoco on the west by gentle slopes and over delight ful pasture land." And again, on p. 33, the following statement 45 occurs : — Venezuelan Ca-e, p. 33. " Towards the west its connection with the Orinoco is so intimate as to render the dividing line between the two scarcely perceptible. The open savannah of the IS Orinoco extends over the divide and down across the great bend of the Cuyuni to the very centre of the great basin and even beyond, thus making the entire valley a natural dependency of this province." 5 The whole of the passage in the Venezuelan Case from which the above extracts are made p.ritish App. V, is most misleading. The savannahs do not ^j^ Countei._ extend to the Cuyuni, but are separated from it Case, App., , i i i u . > t . - PP- 303' 405' 407- by a broad belt of forest. 10 The best commentary upon assertions of tbe Venezuelan Case on this point is afforded by the journal recording the expedition of De la Puente in 1788, when be started from San Thome to explore the Cuyuni. He proceeded by Upata to 15 Cura upon the Yuruary, wdience he proposed to proceed by water to the Cuyuni, but was informed that it wras impossible to make the voyage on account of the lowness of the water in the river. His journal then proceeds thus : — 20 " And in view of these reasons, and wishing to open British App. V, a way to the mouth of the Yuruary and make bark P- "L- canoes, the same difficulty arose, as they say in all this mountain* very little bark is to be found." " In regard to opening the way, they said it would 25 require at least forty days, no savannahs existing in that distance until reaching the place where the River Yuruary flows into the River Supamo, so that, in view of all these difficulties, I resolved on suspending all attempts until the river should rise, as the winter 30 season was approaching " He accordingly renewed his expedition in November 1788. proceeding down tbe Yuruary to British App. V, the Cuyuni, and returning by the Curumo, up pp' which he navigated for some distance, and 35 thence overland. The record of the De la Puente expedition shows conclusively that the picture drawn in the Venezuelan Case of easy access from the Orinoco is purely fanciful, and that, owing to the belt of 40 forest separating the savannah from the Cuyuni, the only access to that river from tbe Orinoco side was down the Yuruary and the Curumo, when there was water enough in them to admit of navigation. These streams are, however, both British Counter- 45 unfit for navigation during a considerable part of ase' pp-' p" 406° the year. * " Montana " in this passage, and in many others, should have been translated " forest," a sense in which it is used in Venezuela at the present day. 19 Jt is difficult to define the exact width of the belt of forest which separates the savannah from British Counter- the Cuyuni. It is wider where it is traversed by Case, App., ,-, „ pp. 303, 405, 40.7. the Curumo than where the Uruan and its tributary the Yuruary run through it. The 5 Venezuelans have cut a road through the forest from the savannah to their post at the mouth of tbe Uruan. By this road it is about 33 miles to the edge of the savannah. Up the Yuruary it is two days' voyage before tbe savannah is 10 reached. The Massaruni. Most of what has been said of tbe natural features of the Cuyuni, of the more or less serious obstacles to travel which these present, and of the mode in which these obstacles are overcome, is 15 equally true of the Massaruni. But it should be pointed out that while the Cuyuni has been occasionally traversed by Spaniards, it is believed British Counter- that no instance can be established of their p alo5 PP ' presence on the Massaruni, which has from the 20 British App. V, first been traversed by the Dutch, and is now in P- 121- constant use by British gold-diggers. Venezuelan Case, The Venezuelan Case treats tbe Cuyuni and P" Massaruni as forming one basin, and appears to suggest that the Massaruni Valley is easily ap- 25 proachable from that of the Cuyuni. British Counter- The country between the two rivers is hilly, p '405. ' and, in parts, even mountainous. The main range lying between the two rivers has a direc tion from north-west to south-east, its upper 30 end leaving the Cuyuni above . Ekereku Creek, and the lower end meeting the Massaruni about the mouth of the Puruni Beyond some Indian trails there are no means of communication from one river to the other. The statement in the .35 Venezuelan Case that the savannahs extend Venezuelan Case. « across the great bend of the Cuyuni to the very centre of the great basin (Cuyuni-Massaruni) British Counter- and even beyond," is entirely opposed to the " pa408 PP' facts. The country between the Cuyuni and 40 Massaruni is occupied throughout its whole Barrington Brown, extent by virgin forest. It is only at the Schomburgk extreme source of the Cuyuni, and thence Reisen in Britisch eastwards to the upper waters of the Caco, a „p. 34o'-348. tributary of the Upper Massaruni, that certain 45 elevated plateaux bare of trees rise from the forest. The natural way into the Massaruni, and that which has been exclusively used, is by its mouth. The foregoing facts, it is submitted, fully 50 disprove the Venezuelan allegation of the unity [579] G 20 Venezuelan Case, p. 34. Venezuelan Case, p. 34. Venezuelan Case p. 34. British Counter- Case. App.. p. 406. and accessibility from the Orinoco of the two valleys of the Cuyuni and the Massaruni, " making the entire valley a natural dependence of Venezuela." 5 As regards tbe Upper Essequibo, the last of the four so-called regions, it is to be observed that the Venezuelan Case suggests no means of access to this region from the side of the Orinoco, but only attempts to show that it is not accessible 10 from the Lower Essequibo. The argument of the Venezuelan Case that this region is quite shut off from the Lower Essequibo is based on the following assertion : — " The falls and rapids which impede the Cuyuni and 1" Mazaruni are repeated in the case of the Upper Esse quibo ; and, beginning as these do but a short way above the confluence of the three rivers, they, too, serve as a barrier to separate the interior region from the coast." 20 The Essequibo River has, it is true, a good many rapids along its lower course, especially at a point about 16 miles above the junction of the Mas saruni, but these present even less difficulties than those on the Cuyuni and Massaruni. These rapids 25 were constantly passed by the Dutch, who through a long series of years maintained Posts far up the * British App. II, Essequibo, and tbe British, have found them no obstacle to their access to iho Upper Essequibo. Moreover, it has long been customary for both 30 Dutch and British visiting the Upper Esse quibo to approach it from the Demerara by certain well known and well established paths, and there has long been free communication between the Upper Essequibo and the Massaruni. 35 It may be added that the approach from the Demerara to the Upper Essequibo has now been facilitated by a railway line which carries large numbers of persons daily from one river to the other. 40 In short, it may be confidently stated that tbe natural access to the Upper Essequibo is by that river itself or from the Demerara ; from Vene zuela there is no access. The Upper Essequibo Region. 147. British Counter- Case, App., p.406. British App. Ill pp 158-161. British Counter- Case, App., p. 406. Intimately connected with the physical geo- 45 graphy is the ethnographic geography of the disputed area, which the Venezuelan Case entirely ignores. A strong justification of tbe Schomburgk line is to be found in the fact that, as Her Majesty's Government are prepared to show, all the aboriginal Indians to the eastward Ethnographic Geography. British Counter- Case, App., p. 410. 21 Indian Allegiance. British Counter- Case, App., p. 406. British App. VII, p. 238. British App. VII, p. 225. British App. VII, p. 218. of that line have been exclusively under Dutch and British influence, and claim British nation ality. That the Indians distinctly recognize an allegiance toward tlie European nationality which 5 protects and influences them is certain, and it is proposed here to illustrate from tbe evidence adduced tbe extent and nature of this allegiance. Mr. im Thurn states in his declaration : — '' Indian parents have long been accustomed, and 10 even do at the present time, point out to their children the various districts into which they may go, and those which they should avoid." The Akawoi Indian Ingles says the same : — "Among the Indian nations it is the custom for 15 parents to tell .heir children what country they may go to, and still continues among their family and friends. My father and mother instructed me in this matter." Thompson, also an Akawoi, says : — " My parents told me that our family and others of 20 our tribe lived in all the Barima, all the Barama and all the Waini, and in Pomeroon. They told me I could hunt and fish in any part of the Barima, of the Barama, and of the Waini, as it was our country, meaning Indian country. The old people said our country was English 25 country." The hostility between the Indians on the British side and those on the Spanish side is abundantly shown. The witness Lewis speaks of— 30 British App. VII. p. 218. " Settlements of Indians who would deem it a great abuse to be called Spanish Indians, while they know where the line of Spanish Indians is, and will not be persuaded to cross it." British App. VII, p. 229. The Carib Waiaree says : — " My nation and the Spanish Caribs are not friends. We, the English Caribs, and the Spanish Caribs have nothing to do with each other." 35 British App. VII, p. 232. The Akawoi Stephen says : — " These Spanish Caribs never come our side, but they 40 always go up to the Orinoco, and we never go to their countries They do not molest us, nor we them." The hostility of the Indians on the British side to the Spaniards (Venezuelans) themselves is 22 equally marked. says : — The "Warow Waiakumma " My father and mother told me about the Dutch. They were very good to the Warows, and used to give 5 them cloth and things. They told me that the Spanish were not good ; I must keep away from their country." British App. VII, p. 209. The Akawoi Ingles says : — " The Akawois have talked plenty about this matter of the country. They say they do not want the 10 country to go to Venezuela. They say they will sooner fight for it. We say our people kept the Spaniards out of the country in old time, and we will do so now. The land does not belong to the Spaniards." British App. VII, p. 218. ¦^5 And Sir Henry Barkly, who was Governor of the Colony from 1849 to 1853, says : — " I tound that after the posts erected by Schomburgk in 1841 had been removed at the request of the Vene zuelan Government, many of the Indian tribes who 20 had long recognized that they were under British protection, had practically confined their residence to the area on the eastward or British side of the line on which Schomburgk had fixed his posts, and in not a few instances had moved across the line from the 25 Venezuelan side, in order that they might reside and be on what they believed to be British territory." British App. VII, p. 235. In the Appendix to the British Case there is abundance of evidence from the Indian point of view as to the limits within which, as British 30 subjects, they might roam. That their ideas on this subject had some geographic exactness is instanced by the remark of the old Carib Waiaree, who narrates : — " When we were captives in the Spanish country 35 (beyond the head of the Cuyuni), my father said that we must get away from that country and return to our country, and when we reached the end of the Spanish country, he said he was glad to have reached his own country. My father took Cuyuni and the Acarabisi, and ,n the whole ofthe Barima, Barama, and Waiboo (Waini ?) country as our country." British App VII, p. 229. He adds : — "I am a very old man now, but if I was much younger I would be able to carry anybody and show 45 where Spanish country is, and where English country is." 23 To this quotation regarding the Cuyuni may be added another from the evidence of the Akawoi Cayamarica, wdio says : — British App. VII, "My father told me the whole of the Cuyuni, both P- 225- sides, belonged to the English. I hear now that it is 5 not so, but 1 do not know where the division is." The ideas of the Indians as to the Barima- Amakuru district are still more clearly expressed. An Akawoi says : — British App. VII, " I have heard the old people of my own family, and 10 P- 21°- other old Accawaios, say that' the country on this side of the Amakuru belonged to the English, and before them to the Dutch In my life-time I have never known any Spanish people to be settled on this side of Amakuru, or in Barima, in Barama, or Waini." 15 After saying, in the passage already quoted, that the Akawois would rather fight for that part of the country than give it up to the Vene zuelans, he adds : — British App. VII, "During my life-time I have never known any 20 P- 219< Spanish official of any kind to visit the parts where I lived. Neither my father or grandfather ever mentioned to me that they had seen one. I consider myself an English subject and entitled to the protection of the Queen of P_ngland." 25 Tbe old Arawak woman Issokura, who was born and brought up on the Amakuru, said : — British App. VII, " Captain Jan and my father, and all the old people P- 219. used always to say that this side of the Amakuru was Dutch land, and that the other belonged to the 30 Spanish, and that the English had been take over from the Dutch. All my people always been belong to the Dutch, and then to the English, and not to the Spanish." Neebrowari, a Warow, also of the Amakuru, 35 likewise says : — British App. VII, " This side of Amakuru belong a long time ago to P- 220- the Dutch, and now belong to the English — my father always been tell me that. We Indians know that this side of the Amakuru is English, and that the other side 40 is Spanish," Evidence to the same effect is also given by William Atkinson, who, though not himself an Indian, has lived for over fifty years among those people. He says :— [579] H 24 "Ever since I have been here it has been the custom British App. VII, for the ' Spanish Arawacks ' and the other Indians P- 222> living on the Moruka to go every year, at the end of the two wet seasons, to Waini mouth and Barima 5 mouth to fish. They used to go all this side up to the Amakuru, but the other side ol that is what has always been known as the Orinoque side, and there they could not fish except by hiding and in secret I know that the Indians have always considered that the 10 English territory went as far as the Amakuru ; the other side of the river was Spanish, and not English." In this connection also it may be noted that there are at least two instances in which con siderable bodies of Indians, formerly living on 15 the western side of tbe Schomburgk line as Spanish subjects, have fled across tbe Amakuru and taken refuge on what they considered Dutch or British territory. One of these instances is that of the Warows. 20 Eor example, in 176? the Director- General writes to the Company — " That on account of the bad treatment received at British App. Ill, the hands of the present Governor of Orinoque, all the P- **f ¦ Warouws, thousands Of whom Hve iii the islands in the 25 mouth of the Orinoque, are fleeing from there, and that hundreds of them have already arrived in Barima." This movement of refugee Warows into the protection of Dutch-British territory has con tinued, and there is a marked difference be.Aveen 30 the so-called English Warows and the so-called Spanish Warows. The difference is recognized by the Indians themselves. The Warow Cyriac says : — " Only English Warows lived at Aruka then." British App. VII, p. 231. 35 And it has affected their language. Lewis says :— " For example, English Warraus call Sunday ' Sun- British App. VII, dak,' like the Dutch, while the Venezuelan Warraus p' say 'Meisah.' Christmas by the Enghsh Warraus is 40 called ' Sundaka-ida ' (little Sunday), while the Spanish Warraus say ' Yah Olewakah ' (day of gladness)." The other instance of migration is that of the so-called " Spanish Arawraks," frequently referred to in the documents in the Appendix to the 45 British Case. In the year 1817 attention was called by Governor John Murray to the migration 25 British App. VI, p. 7_. British App. p. 57. VI, British App. p. 93. VI, British Coun ter- Case, App. p. 277. British App. p. 257. VII, Testimony of Language. British -App. VII, p. 218. British Counter- Case, App. p. 2.5, 292. British Counter- Ca-e, App. p. _34. of Arawak Indians, with more or less Spanish blood in their veins, from the Orinoco to the Moruka. An attempt was then made to stop the influx and send away those who had come, some to Porto Pico and some back to the Orinoco. But 5 the arrivals continued, and in 1834 arrangements were made by the Governor of the Colony for a grant of land on which these people should settle on the Moruka Biver. This grant was formally made, or at least renewed, in 18*0, and a Eoman 10 Catholic priest was provided and paid by the Colonial Government. The fact that these Indians were by this grant fixed to a special spot, where they have since resided and have generally married only among their own community, has 15 resulted in their retaining to the present day the use of the Spanish language, together with Arawak. These Spanish Arawaks are the only persons on the eastern side of the Amakuru who speak 20 Spanish. All the other Indians, if they speak any language but their own, as many of them do, now speak English, and formerly spoke Creole Dutch. The Spaniard Inciarte, who penetrated to the 25 Pomeroon in 1779 says in his diary: — " I left the two Guaranos Indians we captured in Moruka at the settlement [in Wakepo] .... the younger who was very handsome, spoke English and Dutch." 30 British Counter- Case, App. p. 239. British App. VI, p. 61. British Counter- Case, App. p. 27. . British App, VII, p. 14. British App. VII, p. 236. On the other hand, the Pomeroon Indians gave Inciarte a boy of their tribe to take back with him to be taught Spanish. In 1836, all the Postholders, being required to reply to a series of questions, one of wmich was 35 as to their means of communicating with the Indians, answered almost unanimously that tbe Indians understood either English or Creole Dutch. Schomburgk, in 1841, still heard the Indians as ^q far west as the Amakuru Biver speaking Dutch ; and Sir Henry Barkly noted the same — as also tbe prevalence of Dutch names among the Indians of those parts. The old Arawak woman, Issokura, speaking ^ from memory of her uncle on the Amakuru, said that — British App. VII, p. 219. "He been speak the Dutch language, and always talked it when he went to white people." 20 And she is confirmed in this by her nephew Neebrowari. Creole-Dutch was also the common language among the Indians in the centre of the Colony 5 (i.e., in the valleys ofthe Cuyuni, Massaruni, and Central Essequibo) so far as they used any language but their own. That tbe Indians also recognized British in fluence on the Upper Essequibo and Rupununi, and 10 thence westward to the Schomburgk line is shown by tbe following facts, Judicial records show that Indians from tbe Eupununi Savannah were examined through the medium of Creole-Dutch. Again in the Eeport of tbe Joint Brazilian- 15 Venezuelan Commission, which attempted in the years 1879-83 to delimit the boundaries of Brazil and Venezuela, it is stated, that the Arekuna, Macusi, and Wapiana Indians, who exclusively occupy the Pakaraima Mountains 20 and the savannahs to the south of these, were altogether under British influence, that they understood the English language to some extent, and that their trade went to Demerara. The great Carib Chief Mahanarva, who, early 25 in the present century lived high up the Esse quibo, above the junction of the Eupununi, and was there regarded as the great Chief of all those Indians of the district who were of Carib stock, such as tbe Macusis, spoke English and Creole- 30 Dutch. This Chief had close relations with tbe Governor and Court of Policy. The British sympathies of these people in Sir Eobert Schomburgk's time, when the Missionary Youd established his Mission among them, are apparent 35 from Schomburgk's Eeports. English and Creole-Dutch are the onlv languages, except their own, used by Indians in any part of the territory now in dispute, with the exception of the Spanish Arawaks above- 40 mentioned. The gradual spread of British influence over the Indians within the last fifty years from the Missions on the Pomeroon and Moruka is very clearly indicated in the extracts printed in the Appendix to this Counter-Case 45 from the Eeports of the Guiana Diocesan Society. It is there shown that not only tbe Indians from the Amakuru, Barima, Barama, and Waini gradually came in, but that many from up the Cuyuni, even at its source, and Arekunas from Eoraima did the same. British Counter- Case, App. p. 407. British Counter- Case, App. p. 312/ British Counter- Case, App. p. 312. " Journal of Royal GeographicalSociety," vol. vi, p. 263 British App. VI, pp. 199-227 e. passim. British Counter- Case, App. pp. .01, 304,306- 311. 27 Upon the facts stated in this chapter it appears that the ethnographic as well as the physical geography of the country show that the whole territory within the Schomburgk line naturally falls under the dominion of Great Britain. 5 [579] 2S CHAPTER II. This Chapter deals with Chapter III of the Venezuelan Case, pp. 35-52, entitled — " Histoeical Sketch showing Basis of Spain's Original 5 Title to Guiana, and of Venezuela's Title to the Disputed Territory." Chapter III of the Venezuelan Case commences with tbe following proposition : — " Spain first discovered the New World : first explored Venezuelan Case 10 its Continents ; first discovered, explored, possessed, p. 35. and settled Guiana ; and first firmly established herself in that province as its sole and lawful owner." Venezuelan Case, pp. 43 and 44. At the end of the 2nd section of the same chapter the following conclusion is stated : — 15 " The facts which have thus been cited attest the discovery, possession, exploration, and settlement of Guiana by Spain ; more especially do they show the exploration and settlement of the western part of Guiana, that which comprises the Orinoco and Esse- 20 quibo Rivers and the region lying between." And at the end of the 3rd and last section it is claimed that it has further been proved tbat Spain " held the entire province effectively against the Venezuelan Case 25 attempted encroachments of other nations." p. 52. Her Majesty's Government, while admitting that Spain discovered America, and that Spanish navigators were tbe first to sail along the coast of Guiana, deny tbat Spain ever acquired an 30 original title to Guiana as a whole. The Spaniards entered, explored, settled, and effectively defended the Orinoco, and the Orinoco only. To the east of the Orinoco they did no more than visit the mouths of the rivers for trading purposes, 35 as the Dutch and others were also doing. They did not make there a single settlement even of a temporary nature, and so far from effectively The Coast of Guiana. 29 Venezuelan Case, p. 35. Navarrete Coleccion cle los Viag-es, &c, III, pp. 3, 4. The Interior Venezuelan Case, pp. 36 and 37. Venezuelan Case, p. 37. Venezuelan Case, p. 37. Venezuelan Case, p. 38. Venezuelan Case, p. 41. British Counter- Case, App., P. a. defending that region against intruders, they were themselves before 1621, and from that time till the Treaty of Munster, effectively prevented from visiting it by the Dutch. The earliest Spanish voyagers did no more 5 than coast along the shores of Guiana. It is stated in the Case for Venezuela, that in 1499 tbe Lieutenants of Columbus sailed up the estuaries of the Essequibo and the Orinoco. No authority is cited for this statement, but if it is 10 intended to refer to the voyage of Ojeda in that year, all that is recorded is that the expedition in passing saw, besides others, two very large rivers, which made the sea- water fresh for a long distance. One of these, described as coming from 15 south to north, was probably the Essequibo, and the other tbe Orinoco. The village built on piles, which was discovered and named Venezuela, was in the Gulf of Maracaibo, many leagues to the wrest of the Orinoco. 20 Not one of the expeditions into the interior, which followed the grants to the Welsers of Augsburg and to Diego de Ordaz, penetrated any of the territory now in dispute. The grant to the Welsers was far on the other side of the 25 Orinoco, and though that to Ordaz comprised the coast of Guiana, nothing was done under it except the exploration by Ordaz and Herrera of tbe Orinoco itself. It is stated in the Case for Venezuela, that in 1530 Pedro de Acosta founded 30 a settlement at the mouth of the Orinoco. No authority is cited, and Her Majesty's Government do not admit the allegation. In any case, as it is conceded that Acosta was " not long after wards driven off by tbe Caribs," the incident is of 35 no importance. None of the Spanish expeditions referred to by Keymis or Ealeigh, and appealed to in the Case for Venezuela, penetrated the interior of Guiana. It is stated in the Case for Venezuela that before 40 the end of the sixteenth century the Spaniards were seriously occupying themselves with the interior of Guiana ; and the formal act by which Domingo de Vera took possession of the territory of the Chief Morequito is set out at length. 45 The only result wras the foundation of the village of Santo Tliome. It is true as stated on behalf of Venezuela, that in 1595 a colonizing expedition started from Spain with 2,000 colonists, but nothing was achieved. " Of the 2,200 persons 50 who came on that occasion" wrote one of the 30 number in 1609, " we only remain between men and women about sixty more or les.. The re mainder perished or died miserably except a few who escaped. There are two towns inhabited, 5 one in Trinidad which has about thirty-five or forty men, and another in tbe Province of Guayana which they call Santo Thome, and which has about sixty men." The Case for Venezuela further cites the jour- Venezuelan Case, p 41 10 nal of Cabeliau to show that in 1598 the Spaniards had begun to make a road 200 miles into the interior. The passage immediately preceding shows that the proposal to make this road was brought forward in view of the failure of all 15 previous efforts to penetrate to the interior. It is clear, however, that the road was never made. Tlie Spaniards never bad the men for a work of the importance indicated ; and, moreover, in a Eeport of the Council to the 20 King of Spain, dated the 29th July, 1615, it is British App. I, expressly stated that Eernando Berrio, who sue- P- 43- ceeded his father as Governor of Santo Thome in 1597, merely made some attempts at settlement British Counter- of little permanence or importance. Case, App., p. 7. British Counter- Case, App., p. 9. 25 It is also suggested that the Eranciscans who Venezuelan Case, accompanied Domingo de Vera in 1595, found at p' Santo Thome already established a convent in charge of friars of their own order. The passages of Simon referred to show that there 30 was only one friar there already and that five came with de Vera making six in all. It is not denied that the Spaniards held the bank of the Orinoco at Santo Thome ; but they held nothing else. 35 A statement such as that attributed on page 41 of tbe Venezuelan Case to King James I is of no value as evidence against documents such as those produced in the Appendix to the British Case. With regard to tbe coast to the east of the 40 Orinoco the Case for Venezuela fails to sbowr any Spanish act of occupation before the Dutch took possession. The Venezuelan Case alleges that a Spanish explorer in 1553 ascended the Essequibo and ' 45 descended on the other side to the Amazon. The only authority cited is an early Spanish map on tbe face of which, is a legend stating that an Arawak cacique had done this. The map cannot be earlier than the seventeenth century, because 50 it shows two Spanish towns in Trinidad ; but this island was first settled by Berrio about 1593, and as late as 1615 there was, according Absence of Spanish Occupation East of Orinoco. Venezuelan Ca.e, p. 42. Venezuelan Atlas, p. 76. British App. I, p. 4. 31 British App. I, p. 44. Venezuelan Case, p. 42. Venezuelan Case, p. 43. Venezuelan Case, p. 43. British Case, pp. 23, 24. Venezuelan Case, p. 43 British App. VII, p. 242. to a Eeport of the Council, only one Spanish town in it. The author of the map seems to have known nothing of the Essequibo, Massaruni, or Cuyuni, except the tidal water below the falls. 5 It is not denied that in the last years of the six teenth century the Spaniards, like the English and Dutch, frequented the rivers as far as tbe Esse quibo for trade, and especially to get cassava for bread. The accounts of Ealeigh, Keymis, and 10 Masham show this. The passage cited from De Laet carries the matter no farther. He is merely citing Masham and the date, 1591, is probably a mistake for Masham's 1597. The alleged "expedition" of Ibarguen (Domingo de Vera) 15 to Essequibo in 1597, after tbe failure of his colonizing expedition, is shown by his letter to have been only a visit, very probably to get cassava. The inclosure in the communication of the Duke of Lerma (1615), referred to by the 20 Government of Venezuela, is the only indication that the Spaniards ever did more than visit Essequibo for trade. Eor this purpose they depended on the goodwill of the Arawak Indians; but these became hostile in 1618, and, as already 25 shown in the British Case, the visits of the Spaniards to Essequibo were finally put an end to in 1619. It is said, however, in the Venezuelan Case, that Fort Kijkoveral in the Essequibo was 30 originally built by the Spaniards. This allegation is made on the strength of certain marks on the keystone of tbe arch, suggested by Hartsinck to be tbe arms of Portugal ; but, as the Portuguese were never in the Essequibo, General Netscher 35 in his " Geschiedenis van de Kolonien Esse quibo, &c. " suggested that they were probably those of Spain. As a matter of fact the whole of the masonry of the fort is Dutch, and the marks on the keystone are not armorial bearings 40 at all. The keystone will be produced to the Tribunal of Arbitration. If there ever had been any Spanish Settlement to the east of the Orinoco, it is incredible that it should never be mentioned either in the copious 45 contemporary histories of Herrera and Simon, or in the very complete series of documents pre served in the archives at Seville and Simancas. No Spanish officer appears ever to have claimed credit for the foundation of any such settlement, 50 or to have been called to account for its abandon- [579] K 32 ment. The truth is, that Spanish vessels bound for the Indies made straight for Trinidad, described in 1604 as the entry to the Indies, and any settlement on the coast to windward of that 5 point would not have been tenable. The last section of tbe chapter now under consideration purports to show that Spain main tained an effective control of Guiana and repelled the attempts of other nations to dispossess her. 10 With one exception, however, the acts of the Spanish Government which are referred to show no more than that Spain retained and defended the Orinoco from Santo Thome upwards. The exception is the raid upon the Dutch plantation 15 on the Corentyn in 1613. This, however, did not check the enterprise of the Dutch, and no more destroyed the Dutch title to tbe coast than the three raidings of Santo Thome in 1618, 1629, and 1637 destroyed the Spanish title to that 20 district. The Spanish strength in the Orinoco itself is, moreover, unduly magnified by a partial citation from tbe journal of Cabeliau. The passage in full is as follows, but the Case for Venezuela 25 omits the words in italics : — " We travelled to the place or hamlet where the Spaniards dwell, which is named S. Thome, the Governor of which is Don Fernando de Berreo and Marques of Weyana, the River Worinoque and the whole 30 coasts being still unconquered as far as the River Marignon or Amazonas, and they are thereabout sixty horsemen and 100 musketeers strong, who daily attempt to conquer the auriferous Weyana, but cannot conquer the same either by the forces already used, or by any means of o k friendship, since the nation named, Charibus daily offers them hostile resistance with their arms, which are hand-bows," &c. But the weakness of Spanish influence, and the narrowness of the area over wrhich it extended, is not merely to be inferred from tbe 40 lack of proof to the contrary. It can be shown affirmatively that even before the Treaty of Munster, to tbe knowledge of the Spaniards, Dutch influence and occupation extended to the Amakuru, and in spite of orders to the Spanish 45 Commanders to put an end to it. This evidence, however, can be most con veniently introduced in dealing with Chapter V of the Case for Venezuela, entitled, "Early Dutch Eelations with Guayana, 1597-1648." British Counter- Case, App., p, 4. Absence of Spanish Control. Venezuelan Case, pp. 44-46. Venezuelan Case, p. 49. British App. I, p. 20. Post, p. 34. 33 CHAPTER III. This Chapter deals with Chapter IV of the Venezuelan Case, pp. 53-59. entitled — " Historical Sketch showing Derivation of the Dutch-British Title to Essequibo." 5 This Chapter, which ranges over the whole period from 1581 to the present time, does not appear to call for any detailed notice in this place. The main allegations contained in it are, so far 10 as is necessary, sufficiently dealt with in other Chapters of this Counter-Case. Venezuelan Case, The mention of Isekepe and Bauwmerona in p' ' the Charter of 1674 in no way implies that there had been any retrogression of Dutch influence in 15 Guiana. They are mentioned in the Charter only for the purpose of emphasizing the prin cipal points of trade in the territory of the Company. The discussions on the provisions of this 20' Venezuelan Case, Charter referred to on p. 57 of the Venezuelan p 57 Case were discussions as between the Company on the one hand and inhabitants of the Nether lands eager for fresh avenues of trade on the other. They cannot be read as suggesting any 25 doubt as to the limil hold as against Spain. doubt as to the limits which the Dutch might It is admitted that Great Britain acquired Guiana from the Dutch, but, for the reasons given in other parts of this Counter-Case, Her 30- Majesty's Government protest against the attempt made in the Venezuelan Case to confine tbe extent of British dominion to the limits of territory actually settled by the Dutch. 34 CHAPTER IV. 5 This Chapter deal, with Chapter V of the Venezuelan Case, pp. 61-74, entitled — "Early Dutch Relations with Guiana, 1597 to 1648." The Vth Chapter of the Venezuelan Case deals with the history of the Dutch in Guiana down to the Treaty of Munster. The position of the Spaniards and Dutch 10 respectively is thus summarised in the Vene zuelan Case at the conclusion of the Chapter : — "At the date ofthe Treaty of Munster the situation was briefly this : — " Spain had discovered and explored America ; she 15 had discovered, explored, taken possession of, and settled Guiana; she held undisputed control of the Orinoco, and of tha.t coveted interior whose famed wealth had been the cause of so many foreign expedi tions uselessly undertaken, and of so much blood 20 uselessly spilt; the key to that interior was in her hands alone ; into the great interior Cuyuni-Mazaruni basin she had pushed her roads and extended her conquests; and the entrance — the only entrance — to it, over the gentle rolling savannahs of the Orinoco, was 25 in her keeping ; the Essequibo itself she had settled, cultivated, and fortified ; for the moment she had left its mouth unoccupied, thus permitting the Dutch to trade there ; upon the restoration of peace she gave them a title to territory which up to that time they had 30 held as mere trespassers." " The extent of this grant cannot be difficult to define : the entire Dutch Colony, if indeed it might be dignified by such a name, consisted of a body of two or three dozen unmarried employes of the West India 35 Company, housed in a fort on a small island, and engaged in traffic with the Indians for the dyes of the forest : at the time when the Treaty was signed, they were not cultivating an acre of land. This and an establishment on the Berbice were the only Dutch 40 Settlements in Guiana in 1648. Neither then, nor at any time prior thereto, had the Dutch occupied or settled a foot of ground west of their Essequibo Post." Venezuelan Proposition. Venezuelan Case, pp. 73, 74. 35 Early Dutch Enterprise. Venezuelan Case, pp. 65, 66. The Position in 1648. Venezuelan Case, p. 74. Venezuelan Case, p. 74. British App. I, p. 70. British App. pp. 78-81. British App. I, pp. 88, 91, 93, 110, 115, 124. With regard to early Dutch relations with Guiana, the Venezuelan Case is quite incorrect in asserting that the sole object of those relations was the capture of Spanish booty and quiet trading with the natives at places from which 5 the Spaniards were for the moment absent. At the time of the truce in 1609 the Dutch main tained their right to found settlements in any part of South America not actually occupied and possessed by Spain, and never abandoned that 10 position. It was maintained by them in all the negotiations leading up to the Treaty of Munster, and received sanction once again in the definite terms established by that Treaty. With regard to the Treaty of Munster, Her 15 Majesty's Government, for the reasons given in the next chapter, submit that this Treaty cannot possibly be regarded as a "grant" by Spain to the Dutch of their Settlements, and tbat there was nothing in that Treaty to limit the 20 expansion of the Dutch Settlements, provided they did not encroach upon territory actually held and possessed by Spain. The relative positions of the parties to that Treaty were not such as is represented in the 25 passages above cited from page 74 of the Case for Venezuela. The statements that Spain had pushed her roads and extended her conquests into the great interior Cuyuni-Mazaruni basin, and had go settled, cultivated, and fortified the Essequibo itself, are, as has already been shewn, entirely contrary to the evidence. On the other hand the statement that the Dutch had not either in 1648 or at any time prior 35 thereto occupied or settled a foot of ground west of their Essequibo Bost is contradicted by the evidence of Spanish official documents. In the Eeport of the Marquis de Sofraga to the King of Spain, dated the 8th July, 1631, it is 40 stated that after the sack of Santo Thome in 1629 the Dutch fortified themselves in the arms and creeks of the Orinoco. In 1637, it was reported that since the previous year ten Dutchmen had been waiting for reinforcements in the chief 45 mouth of the Orinoco, in order to fortify them selves: and the forces which in 1637 a_rain J o sacked Santo Thome and raided Trinidad are described as issuing from Dutch Settlements in the Amakuru, Essequibo, and Berbice. The [579] L 36 Settlement on the Amakuru is one which is frequently mentioned in the Spanish despatches. Forces were sent from Santa Ee to Santo Thome by Don Martin de Saavedra y Guzman, 5 the Governor of the New Kingdom of Grenada, expressly to destroy the Settlements of Amakuru and Essequibo ; but the Governor of Santo Thome, Don Diego Lopez de Escovar, was unable or un willing to make the attack. The troops were 10 employed in slave-raiding, and a large number deserted. The Governor himself retired to Trinidad to sell the slaves which had been collected. In 1640 Don Diego was relieved, and Don 15 Martin de Mendoza appointed in his place. Don Martin undertook to find troops, if the Government found others, with arms and trans port. The Dutch were to be expelled, and the Indians who had assisted them were to be 20 reduced to obedience to the King of Spain. It appears, however, from a Eeport of tbe Council in 1653 that the King had not found it possible to perform bis part of the bargain with Don Martin, and that the latter had not performed and could 25 not be called upon to perform his. This was the state of affairs at the time when the Treaty of Munster put an end to the war. British Counter- Case, App., pp. 12-19. British Counter- Case, App., pp. 15-17. British Counter- Case, App., p. 23. British Counter- Case, App., pp. 24, 25. 37 CHAPTER V. The Treaty of Munstek. Venezuelan Case, p. 53. Venezuelan Case, p. 72. Venezuelan Case, p. 73. The Venezuelan Case contains the following statements and propositions respecting the Treaty of Munster : — 5 " By the Treaty of Munster of the 30th January, 1648, the right to such possessions as they at that time held was confirmed to them by Spain. "By Article V of that Treaty the Netherlands ob tained from Spain a title to what they at that time 10 held upon the coasts of America. That Treaty fixed the boundary of Dutch dominion at that time. British rights to-day, so far as territory in dispute is concerned, are what Dutch rights were 250 years ago — no more. " The effect of this Treaty was twofold: on the one 15 hand it conferred upon the Dutch a title to territory which before belonged to Spain ; on the other hand it constituted an engagement on the part of the Nether lands that, as against Spain, and at the cost of Spain, the Dutch would acquire nothing more than they then 20 possessed." Venezuelan Case, p. 223. In the chapter headed " Conclusions," among the propositions of fact laid down, occur the following : — " 12. By the Treaty of Munster the Dutch engaged 25 to neither sail to nor trade in any places held and pos sessed by the King of Spain." " 13. By the same Treaty the Dutch engaged to respect the sovereignty of Spain over all lordships, towns, castles, fortresses, commerce, and countries at 30 that time held or possessed by Spain, and to do nothing which might be an infraction of the Treaty." The argument based upon the above extracts and propositions would appear to be that, prior to the Treaty of Munster in the year 1648, the 35 Dutch had no title to any possessions in Guiana, and that their title to anything which they then occupied, or which they subsequently acquired, is derived from that Treaty. A consideration of the facts, and of the argu- 40 ments which are contained in this chapter Avill show that such a view is wholly unfounded, 38 and that, on the contrary, for forty years before the Treaty of Munster the right of the Dutch to acquire possessions in the "West Indies had been recognized by Spain, that the Dutch had 5 many years before the Treaty acquired such posses sions, and that the true effect cf the Treaty of Munster was, first, to confirm the Spanish and the Dutch respectively as equal sovereign powers in the right to hold undisturbed and without molestation 10 the possessions which they respectively held in Guiana at the time of the Treaty; secondly, to control the trade relations between the two ' countries as regards their respective possessions ; and thirdly, to specifically recognize the right of 15 the Dutch to acquire by conquest or otherwise further possessions in Guiana from Bortugal or from the native tribes, an undertaking being given by the Dutch not to infringe upon or interfere with any territory actually occupied 20 and possessed by Spain. The subject will be considered under the following heads : — 1. The language of the Treaty itself. 2. The position of Spain and Holland antece- 25 dently to the signature of the Treaty, including the actual negotiations. 3. The view taken by the Spaniards and Dutch respectively, and by writers of authority, subse quent to the date of the Treaty. 30 1. The Language of the Treaty itself. It will be convenient in the first place to discuss the language of the Treaty itself in the form which it ultimately assumed. The following is the text of Articles V and VI, 35 translated from the French : — " V. The navigation and trade of the East und West British Counter- Indies shall be maintained according to and in con- a«, ®P-> fortuity with the Charters given or hereafter to be given therefor ; for the security of which the present 40 Treaty and its ratification, to be procured from both sides, shall serve. And there shall be comprised under the above-mentioned Treaty all potentates, nations, and peoples with whom the said Lords States, or those of the Company of the East and West Indies in their 45 name, are within the limits of their said Charters in friendship and alliance, and each Party, to wit, the above-mentioned Lords, the King and States respec tively shall remain in possession of and enjoy such lordships, towns, castles, fortresses, commerce, and 39 lands in the East and West Indies as also in Brazil and on the coasts of Asia, Africa, and America respectively as the above-mentioned Lords, the King and States respectively hold and possess, herein especially included the localities and places which the Portuguese have 5 taken from the Lords States since the year 1641 and •occupied; including also the localities and places which they, the Lords States, shall hereafter, without infrac tion of the present Treaty, come to conquer and pos sess. And the Directors of the Company, both of the 10 East and West Indies, ofthe United Provinces, as also the agents, officers high and low, soldiers and sailors being in the actual service of one or the other of the said Companies or having been in their service, as also .those who, [being] out of their respective services, still 15 remain or may hereafter be employed either in this country or in the district of the said two Companies, shall be and remain free and unmolested in all countries being under the dominion of the said Lord King in Europe, and shall be permitted to travel, trade and 20 frequent like all other inhabitants of the countries of the said Lords States. It has moreover been provided and stipulated that the Spaniards shall retain their navigation in such manner as they hold it at present in the East Indies, without being able to extend them- 25> selves further ; as likewise the inhabitants of these Low Countries shall abstain from frequenting the places which the Castilians have in the East Indies." " VI. And as to the West Indies, the subjects and inhabitants of the kingdoms, provinces, and lands of the 30 said Lords the King and States respectively, shall forbear sailing to, and trading in any of the harbours, localities and places, forts, lodgments, or castles, and all others possessed by the one or the other Party, viz., the subjects of the said Lord the King shall not sail to, or 35. trade in those held by the said Lords the States, nor the subjects of the said Lords the States sail to or trade iii those held by the said Lord the King. And among the places held by the said Lords the Stales, shall be comprehended the places in Brazil, which the 40 Portuguese have taken from the States, and occupied since the year 1641 ; as also all other places which they possess at present, so long as they shall continue in tbe hands of the said Portuguese, anything contained in the preceding Article notwithstanding." 4c In considering these Articles it must be borne in mind, as will be subsequently shown, that the Dutch were at the time in a position to make their own terms, and that the Spaniards were most anxious to agree to a Treaty at any price, 50 and had in fact given instructions to their Pleni potentiaries to that effect. It will be observed vthat Article V opens by recognizing the fact of previous navigation and [579] M 40 trade by the Dutch to the East and West Indies, and provides that they shall be kept up according to and in conformity with the Charters given or thereafter to be given therefor, 5 This provision was obviously inserted, as the succeeding words show, for the express purpose of protecting the rights of the East and West India Companies. It will be well here to recall tbe fact that the 10 Charter of the West India Company expressly recognizes the right of the Company to acquire territorial jurisdiction. Moreover, as regards Guiana, by the Orders and Eegulations sanc tioned by the States-General on the 14th May, 15 1 632, and 15th July, i 633, the coast eastward of the Orinoco was excluded from tbe district to which vessels of the United Provinces other than the Company's vessels might go, because the West India Company had exclusive rights there. 20 Again in the Orders and Eegulations of the 6th January, 1635, and 16th October, 1637, the coast eastward of the Orinoco was excluded for the same reasons, and exactly the same privileges of the West India Company were recognized 25 in tbe Orders and Eegulations issued bv the States- General on the 10th August, 1048, im mediately after the making of the Treaty, and still more specifically in the printed licenses regularly issued to traders in compliance with 30 these Eegulations. Article V next contains tbe important pro vision that there shall be comprised under the Treaty all potentates, nations, and peoples with whom the said Lords States, or those of the East 35 and West India Companies in their name, were in friendship and alliance within the limits of their Charters. This provision was entirely in favour of the Dutch, and there is no similar corresponding provision in favour of Spain. The 40 reason is obvious when the facts are con sidered, and the position of the Dutch in Guiana is appreciated. As early as the i;7tb January, 1645, the Company, in their " Conside rations," which were sent in to the States- General 45 with reference to the proposed peace, had stipu lated for this provision. It can bo established beyond all question that at the date of the Treaty the Dutch, to the knowledge of the Spaniards, were in friendship and had made alliances with 50 the native races of Guiana, especially with the Caribs who held the country on the east bank of British App. I, p. 44. British App. I, p. 73. British App. I, p. 75. British App. I, p. 135. British Counter- Case, App,, p. 25 British Counter- Case, App., p. 328. British App. I, pp. 43, 50, 71, 93. 41 British App. VII, the Lower Orinoco. Sanson's Map of South p. 345. i America, published in 1650, and still more clearly British Atlas, his Map of Guiana, published in 1656, show the boundary between tbe Spanish provinces and tbe Carib territory, and place it above the Aguirre. 5 The next sentence of Article V recognizes the right of possession of the King of Spain and the States to the territories and trade de facto held and possessed by them respectively at the date of the Treaty. This is followed by an io extension entirely in favour of the Dutch, that they shall hold; first, any places which the Portu guese had taken from them since the year 1641 ; secondly, any places which the Dutch might thereafter acquire without infraction of the 15 present Treaty. The suggestion that the rights reserved to 'and recognized in the Dutch by the latter prevision were confined to a right to gain possessions beyond those which they already occupied only 20 from that part of South America which the Portuguese held, is contradicted by the terms of the Article itself. The express provision in tbe Article relating to territory occupied by the Portuguese only affords 25 a further argument to show the powerful position which the Dutch occupied. Portugal had revolted from Spain in 1640. In the absence of provision to the contrary Spain might have claimed the right to possess any territory won go back from Portugal. This concession to the Dutch was a recognition of their right to acquire, if they could, territory which Spain had at one time hoped to regain. But the words which immediately follow— 35 "including also the localities and places which the same Lords States shall hereafter without infraction of the present Treaty come to conquer and possess," clearly introduce and refer to a completely new subject. They contemplate something beyond, 40 and in addition to, the recaptures to be made from Portugal; they are unnecessary if they only refer to territory occupied by Portugal ; they are a recognition of the right of the Dutch to extend their possessions in South America and 45 elsewhere, so long only as they did not encroach upon the territories actually possessed and enjoyed by Spain at the date of the Treaty. Now, bearing in mind that the only three European Powers in Guiana, the country immediately in question. 42 were Spain, the Dutch, and Portugal, it is obvious that these words were intended to refer to the unconquered and unoccupied territories then in the possession of native tribes. 5 As regards the words " without infraction of the present Treaty " the only Articles of the Treaty which could be infringed in this con nection are Articles V and VI. The only rights reserved to the King of Spain by those 10 Articles are, first, the right to remain in possession of and to enjoy such territories as Spain at the date of the Treaty held and possessed ; secondly, the right to navigate to tbe East Indies so far as the Spaniards at the time held possession there, 15 the Dutch being prohibited from frequenting the places which the Castilians had in the East Indies ; and lastly, the prohibition of navigation or trade to Spanish possessions in the West Indies without permission of the King of Spain. 20 The Avords which give the Dutch the right to conquer and possess new places " without infrac tion of the present Treaty " are wholly incon sistent with the view that the Treaty was limited by or made subject to Spanish rights to claim 25 as their property unoccupied territories. The Spanish claim to be regarded as the possessors of the whole of America by virtue of the Papal Bull of 1493, had been repudiated by the other European nations, and by none more 30 strongly than by tbe Dutch themselves, and at no stage of the negotiations was there the slightest recognition of the existence of such a Spanish title. It is perfectly easy to understand the true British App. I, 35 meaning of the words above cited. Prior to the British' Counter- date of the Treaty the Dutch had repeatedly Case, App., p. 23. attacked the Spanish possessions in Guiana ; Trinidad and Santo Thome had been more than once raided by them. Tbe power of the Dutch 40 was such that it was of tbe greatest importance for Spain to secure by Treaty freedom from molesta tion in respect of their possessions. The ante cedent history, the words of the Treaty itself, and the subsequent dealings, all lead irresistibly to the 45 conclusion that tbe words " without infraction of the present Treaty," referred to the recognition by the Dutch of the actual Spanish possessions contained in the Treaty itself, and constituted a promise by them to respect such Spanish posses- 50 sions, and that they had no reference to any assumed or paper title of Spain to territories of 43 which they were not in possession. Of such a title no recognition is to be found in the Treaty. The succeeding paragraphs of Article V which recognized the rights of the West India Com pany and its servants to have freedom, traffic, 5 and resort, confirm the same view. Lastly, Article V closes by a clause preserving to the Spaniards, in the case of the East Indies, the rights of navigation which they had pre viously possessed but restricting them from any 10 extension of their rights. It is impossible to read this Article and to note the arrangement and object of its clauses without coming to the conclusion that it was inserted in order to give the Dutch the fullest 15 right of taking possession of any territories, including Guiana, not already in tbe actual occupation of Spain. The object of Article VI was entirely different from that of Article V. It related to trade. 20 British Counter- The Dutch, in the course of the negotiations, PP.S334,P335, 360. had endeavoured to extort from Spain a privilege of free trade to Spanish possessions. It can be shown that the Dutch did not hope to succeed in obtaining this concession, and from the early part 25 of the negotiations were prepared to give way upon the point. They had at an early stage considered and prepared alternative Articles, the first of which provided for complete freedom of trade between Dutch and Spanish possessions in 30 all parts of the world ; the second (which was that ultimately adopted) provided that each country should retain in its own hands the trade to its own possessions. The instructions to the Dutch Eepresentatives were that, in the event of their 35 being unable to obtain reciprocal privileges of free, open, and unlimited commerce to tbe places possessed by Spain and Holland respectively, the alternative Article should be submitted for adoption. 40 Ante, p. 39. The result of the negotiation is embodied in Article VI, which has the effect of restraining the Dutch and the Spanish respectively from sailing to or trading in any of the harbours or places actually possessed by the other : and here, 45 in favour of the Dutch, were introduced the places in Brazil which the Portuguese had taken from them. This Article is concerned with trade and with trade only. The construction which, as has already been 50 demonstrated, must be put upon Articles V and [579] N 44 VI of the Treaty is the only construction which is consistent with tbe anterior and subsequent history. 2. The Position of Spain and Holland ante- 5 cedently to the Signature of the Treaty, including the actual Negotiations. As regards the history of the relations between the two countries prior to the year 1648, it is impossible successfully to maintain 10 that the Dutch recognized, or are to be taken as having recognized, the Spanish title to territory not occupied by Spain. Spanish rights could only depend upon two distinct sources of claim : one the Bull of Pope Alexander VI of the 15 1th May, 1493, the other discovery, followed by effective possession and occupation. Long before the seventeenth century the claims of Spain, founded upon the Papal Bull, had been repudiated by the other European 20 nations. In the year 1523 Erancis I of Erance, in justifying the expedition of Verazzani, the Erench explorer, remarked — " What ! the King of Spain and the King of Portugal quietly divide 25 between them all America, without allowing me, as their brother, to take a share. I should much like to see tbe article in Adam's will which gives them this vast inheritance." In 1580, Queen Elizabeth, in answer to the 30 complaint of the Spanish Ambassador respecting the expedition of Sir Erancis Drake, used the following language : — "Besides Her Majesty does not understand why her subjects and those of other Princes are prohibited 35 from the Indies, which she could not persuade herself are the rightful property of Spain by donation of the Pope of Rome, in whom she acknowledged no prerogative in matters of this kind, much less authority to bind Princes who owe him no obedience, or to make 4Q that New World as it were a fief for the Spaniard and clothe him with possession : and that only on ihe ground that Spaniards have touched here and there, have erected shelters, have given names to a river or promontory ; acts which cannot confer 45 property. So that this donation of alien property (which by essence of law is void), and this imaginary proprietorship, ought not to hinder other Princes from carrying on commerce in these regions and from establishing Colonies where Spaniards are not residing, without the least violation of the law of nations since prescription without possession is of no avail." Kavnal, "Histoire Pliilosophique et Politique," tout, vii, p. 128. Russell's "History of America," vol. ii, p. 151. Giinther " Euro- paisches V61- kerrecht," Alten- burpr, 179>2, ii, p. 8. British Counter- Case, App., p.319. 45 British Counter- Case. App., p. 320. British Counter- Case, App., p. 321. British Counter- Case. App., p. 322. British Counter- Case, App., p. 325. British Counter- Case, App., p. 328, 332. The Dutch arguments against claims of this nature will be found stated in the "Mare Liberum," of Hugo Grotius. But it is unnecessary to consider this question from an academic point of view, 5 because the actual transactions which had taken place between Spain and Holland in the early part of the seventeenth century preclude the possibility of any suggestion being made that the Dutch title depends upon a grant from Spain 10 in 1648. The fact of the Dutch trade to Guiana was well known to Spain long prior to 1608. In that year the Spanish Commissioners had been instructed to force the Dutch to absolutely 15 renounce the right of trade to the East and West Indies, and an Article to this effect was put forward at Brussels when the Commissioners • assembled prior to the truce of 1609. This concession was absolutely refused by the 20 States- General who expressed their intention of availing themselves of the navigation in question, and to continue it by means of truce, peace, or war, at their choice, without renouncing the same in any respect. 25 The result of this refusal was that, after express and repeated references to the King of Spain, the Spaniards waived the point, and the Dutch rights were recognized in a Secret Article con- temporaneous with the Truce of 1609, by which 30 they were only restrained and limited so tbat they were not to trade at places, towns, or havens held by the King of Spain. This stipulation was, in fact, tbe original of the arrangement continued by Article VI of the 35 Treaty of Munster. Speaking of this truce the historian Motley sums up the position in the following terms : — " United Nether lands," Chap. LIT. Ed. 1.69, vol. IV., pp. 483-6. " On the other hand, the States had extorted from their former Sovereigns a recognition of their independence. 40 They had secured the India trade. They had not conceded Catholic worship. Mankind were amazed at the result — an event hitherto unknown in history. When before had a sovereign acknowledged the independence of his rebellious sub- 45 jects, and signed a Treaty with them as with equals . When before had Spain expressly or by implication admitted that the East and West Indies were not her private property, and that navigators to those regions from otber countries than her own were not to be 50 chastized as trespassers and freebooters ? 46 Yet the liberty of the Netherlands was acknowledged in terms which convinced the world that it was thence forth an established fact. And India was as plainly ex pressed by the omission of the word, as if it had been 5 engrossed in large capitals in Article IV "And the orange flag of the Republic was to float Avith equal facility over all America, from the Isle of Manhattan to the shores of Brazil and the Straits ot Magellan, provided Philip had not ships and soldiers to 10 vindicate with the sword that sovereignty which Spanish swords and Spanish genius had once acquired." Subsequently to this truce the Dutch, to tbe knowledge of Spain, continuously through the first half of the seventeenth century were 15 increasing their possessions in Guiana, including, as appears elsewhere, the establishment of Esse quibo and other settlements. It would not be possible within the limits of this Counter-Case to give a full account of all 20 the negotiations which passed between Spain and Holland prior to the actual signing of the Treaty of Munster on the 30th January, 1648. They extended over many years, and tbe documents connected therewith are very voluminous. In 25 view of the suggestions made on the part of Venezuela, they have been re-examined in order to ascertain whether they afford any foundation for the contentions of the Venezuelan Case, and whether they contain any evidence contrary to the 30 view which has been suggested in the previous part of this chapter, founded upon the language of the Treaty itself. After the most careful examination no single document has been found to justify the contention that Spain considered that 35 she was making a grant to Holland by virtue of any paramount title, or tbat the Dutch understood that they were receiving, so to speak, a grant from Spain of their possessions in Guiana. It is unnecessary to adduce detailed argument 40 to show that at the time she was negotiating the Treaty of Munster, Spain was practically at the mercy of the Dutch, and that the Dutch, many of whom would have much preferred that the war should continue, could and did dictate their own 45 terms. Abundant testimony to this fact has been given by historians, and from the mass of official documents connected with the negotiations which might have been printed in order to establish the fact beyond all question, the 50 following citations are made : — On the 22nd October, 1645, the Count British Counter- Case, App., pp. 337, 338. Navarrete's Coleecion de Docu mentos Ineditos para la Historia de Espafia, vol. 82, p. 262. 47 de Pefiaranda, Spanish Plenipotentiary for the negotiations, writes to the Marquis of Castel Eod- rigo, Governor of the Spanish Netherlands : — " According to this, I am of opinion that, at any price and risk which may not be of evident and certain 5 prejudice, the negotiation must be treated for.'' On the 8th January, 1646, the opinion of the Council of State as to the instructions to be sent to tbe Marquis of Castel Eodrigo was as follows : — " That by every means he should try to make peace 10 with the Dutch, and continue and strengthen the negotiations with the Prince of Orange." And on the 9th Eebruary, 1646, a Minute of the Council of State observes : — '¦' It is to be believed that the Marquis, according to 15 his powers, will lose no opportunity of introducing and bringing forward the negotiation with the Dutch, as this should take precedence of all else." Again on the 18th June, 1646, the opinion of tbe Marquis of Leganez as to the advices of 20 the Marquis Castel Eodrigo has the following passage : — 25 " It seems hard that this question of money should enter into the consideration of the conditions and Treaty with the Dutch ; for, if in those conditions it should be necessary to yield much to their pretensions, and, on the other hand, to purchase the peace with this sum by the way of gratuity, it could not but be regret table ; but, while he recognizes that it will have to be accepted at any price, the matter should be finally 30 discussed and decided upon as a whole." British Counter- Case, App., p. 347. The vote of the Marquis of Miravel in the Council of State on the 29th May, 1647, on the question of pushing on negotiations has this passage : — 35 " What he considers to be above all desirable is the conclusion of the peace with Holland ; and that with a view to attaining it the utmost efforts should be made, though it should be necessary to give new advantages and gratifications to the United Provinces." 10 British Counter- Case, App., p. 351. And the precis of opinions of the Council of State of tbe 15th November, 1647, on the question of concluding the Treaty quotes the Count of Monterrex as advising : — " How necessary it was to urge on the peace with 45 Holland at any cost/' [579] 0 48 Further, an examination of tbe negotiations British Counter- C<*\sg Add. prior to the Treaty, shows that the actual terms pp> 334-344. of Articles V and VI were dictated by the Dutch. 5 As early as January 1645 the West India British Counter- Company had laid before the States-General „ ^'s. PP" demands embodying the substance of all the important clauses of those Articles. In October British Counter- 1646 a draft Article which contained all the p. 334. 10 material provisions of Article V, almost in the same words in which it was ultimately adopted, was drafted by the Dutch and forwarded to their Plenipotentiaries at Munster. This draft embodied the recognition of the Dutch rights of 15 navigation and traffic in conformity with the Charters granted by them, including all potentates, nations and peoples with whom the West India Company were in friendship and alliance within the limits of their Charter, the recognition of the 20 possessions which the Dutch then had in America, . and their right to extend them in the way already described. At the same time the drafts of two British Counter- C j.^p A r. .1 alternative Articles were sent to the Dutch Pleni- X) 333 ^ ' potentiaries, one of which now forms Article VI, 25 and was only to be inserted in the Treaty in the event of the Dutch being unable to obtain the other alternative which provided for complete free trade between the two nations. It can be positively asserted that at no stage 30 of the negotiations, did Spain claim to treat the Dutch as tbe grantees of any rights from her by virtue of any paramount title. She treated the Dutch throughout as an independent Power, and as a Power with whom she was anxious to make 35 peace on any terms. 3. View taken by the Spaniards and Dutch respec tively, and by writers of authority subsequent to the date of the Treaty. It remains to consider public acts . occurring 40 since the year 1618, which tend to show the construction put upon the Treaty of Munster by the parties themselves and by public writers. Erom 1649 to 1654 the Dutch were engaged in a diplomatic discussion with Spain as to an 45 alleged Spanish violation of the Treaty of Munster by encroachments on the trade of the Nether lands upon the Guinea coast. In the latter year 49 Ante, p. 40. British Counter- Case, App., pp. 26-42. British App. I, p. 153. British App. I, p. 151. British Counter- Case, App., p. 355. the Spanish Government took particular pains to assure the States- General that they were endeavouring faithfully to observe the Treaty. It is inconceivable that if they had been able to point to an open breach of the Treaty 5 by the Dutch they would not have alleged it in their reply. Yet at that time sailing Eegu lations, which clearly treated the coast of Guiana as Dutch territory, had been publicly proclaimed, and printed commissions to Dutch ship captains 10 were in ordinary use, which left no doubt as to the Dutch interpretation of the Treaty. About the same time the Dutch were founding a Colony at Pomeroon. Vet the Spaniards, when in 1662, they complained that the Dutch did not 15 keep or observe the Treaties of Peace on certain other points, never mentioned the establishment of Pomeroon or otber Settlements east of the Orinoco. In the year 1664 the interpretation of the 20 Charter, as understood within sixteen years after the Treaty of Munster, was published in a formal document by the States-General. The States-General recited that the Company, by virtue of the Charter, in conformity with the 25 sincere intention of the States-General, had from the commencement continued their populating and bepeopling in the country named New Netherland ; and this, notwithstanding that some persons evilly disposed towards the State and to 30 the Company tried to misstate the meaning of the Charter, alleging that they had chartered the Company only to carry on business within the limits of the Charter, and not to make population and settlements of people and to take the lands 35 in possession. They accordingly declared their meaning to have been expressly, and still to be, that the Company was empowered, and still is empowered, to establish Colonies and Settlements of people on lands which are not occupied by .\Q others, to extend themselves so far as the limits related in the Charter. No sign of opposition to this interpretation was made by the Spanish Crown between 1648, when the Treaty of Munster was signed, and 1711, when the Treaty 45 of Munster was confirmed, although the Dutch throughout the whole of that period were actively engaged in strengthening their power over the whole district between the Essequibo and Orinoco. The grant of the States-General to the Count of 50 Hanau in 1669 assumed the power of the States- 50 General to grant any part of the coast between the Essequibo and the Orinoco with its adjoining Hinterland to a depth of at least 300 English miles. This grant was a matter of public 5 notoriety. The Charter of the West India Company, British App. I, publicly renewed in 1674, expressly included Pomeroon as well as Essequibo. In 1676 the intention of the Dutch to found a British App. I, -i HO 10 new settlement somewhere in Guiana was p' specially brought to the notice of the King of Spain ; but in the documents respecting the report there is not a suggestion that such a course would be contrary to Treaty. 15 Spain not only took no exception to any of the above dealings by the Dutch with the territory of Guiana, but she herself never after the Treaty of Minister made any open attempt to colonize in Guiana beyond the immediate neighbourhood 20 of Santo Tliome. Tbe occasions upon which Spain might have referred to the Treaty of Munster, on the view now contended for as preventing the Dutch from extending their possessions, are so numerous that 2o it may fairly be said that, bad Spain understood the Treaty in tbe way in which it is now sug gested, it is impossible that she should have abstained from remonstrating with the Dutch upon the ground that their acts were contrary to 30 the undertaking into which they had entered by the Treaty. But, as far as is known, on no single occasion did Spain ever allege that the Treaty of Munster prevented the Dutch from establishing settlements in Guiana in parts not occupied by 35 Spain, although she did rely upon the clauses of that Treaty in connection with a settlement attempted to be made by the Dutch in Darien. In the year 1688 the Spanish Government British App. I, complained of a proposed undertaking by some p ""'' If* Dutchmen in Darien, on the ground that their design was to establish themselves in the neigh bourhood of the great river of Darien which notoriously belonged to the King of Spain, and of which he was in possession, and that it would 45 be in direct contravention of the Treaty of Peace made between the King of Spain and the States- General in the year 1 648, which was "religiously observed by both parties." This was at the very moment when the Dutch were re-estab- 50 lishmg a Colony at Pomeroon. The States- British App. 1. General stopped the enterprise at Darien, and p' 51 replied that it was their purpose not only to fulfil the tenour of the Vth Article, but in all respects religiously to comply and enforce com pliance with the Treaties which had been made between His Majesty and Holland. 5 Einally, Basnage, who wrote an official history of the United Netherlands in the early part of the eighteenth century, in summing up the story of the Treaty of Munster, clearly states that the Treaty empowered the Dutch to extend their \§ dominion throughout the whole length and breadth of America. The passage is as follows : — British Counter- Case, App., p. 360. " The commerce of the Indies made a very great difficulty because they demanded full liberty to carry it on in places which the Spanish possessed, but the 15 others urged that that was contrary to the Constitution and to the laws of Spain, by which exclusion from this public and free commerce had been enforced, not only against strangers in the Treaties made with the King of England, but even against a part of the subjects of His 20 Catholic Majesty, as also against the Italians and the Flemish. The Dutch conceded that the law should be reciprocal, that the Spanish should not carry on their commerce in the towns of the East and West Indies possessed by the Dutch, and that the Dutch should be 25 subject to the same restrictions. Meanwhile, the latter should preserve all that they had taken as against Portugal, or that which they should take in future. This Article was advantageous to the Republic because Spain bound her hands, and undertook not to make any 30 new conquests in the east, while the Dutch retained the power to extend their limits far and wide in America* and particularly in Brazil." British Case, p. 32. British App. I, p. 245. In 1714 tbe provisions of the Treaty of Munster were expressly confirmed by the Treaty 35 of Utrecht, which stated that that Treaty should serve as a basis for the Treaty of Utrecht, the Articles V and VI* being specifically referred to- This restatement of the Spanish and Dutch rights at so late a date is a further conclusive 40 answer to the suggestion in the Venezuelan Case that the extension of the Dutch possessions in Guiana was a violation of the Treaty of Munster and of the obligations of the Dutch thereunder. 45 In 1714 Spain had possession of no terri tory beyond a part of the right bank of the Orinoco. No Spanish Settlement existed in any * By an obviou3 clerical error in the copies of the Treaty, XVI has been substituted for VI. [579 | P 52 other part of Guiana, and the Capuchin Missions in Guiana had not been founded. On the other hand the possessions of the British Case, Dutch upon the coast extended to the Amakuru 5 and Orinoco, and included in the interior the basins of the Essequibo, Massaruni, Cuyuni, Pomeroon, and Barima. In fact the Spaniards had neither the power nor the will to dispute the possession by the 10 Dutch of the territories which the latter then held in Guiana. 53 CHAPTER VI. This Chapter deals with Chapter VI of the Venezuelan Case, pp. 75-84, entitled — " History of the Essequibo Dutch Post, ' 1648 to 1674."' The conclusions of this Chapter of the Venezuelan Case are as follows : — Venezuelan Proposition. "Venezuelan Case, p. 84. " The Dutch, in an attempt to improve their precarious position on the Essequibo, had planned a settlement on the Pomeroon ; had attempted it ; had been too weak 10 to maintain it, or even to complete the erection of its projected buildings ; had abandoned it ; had withdrawn to their little island on the Essequibo ; and, except for a few plantations on the banks of that river, in the immediate vicinity of the fort, found themselves, after ^5 the lapse of more than a quarter of a century, no further ahead than they had been when the Treaty of Munster was signed in 1 648." Position of Guiana after 1648. British App. I, pp. 77, 88, 89, 101, 127. Venezuelan Case, p. 75. British App. I, pp. 75, 131. None of these propositions are supported by the facts. 20 After the Treaty of Munster had been signed in 1648, the Spaniards were no longer in dread of attacks by the Dutch upon their possessions in Guiana. In consequence there was a cessation of the appeals to Madrid for assistance, which had 25 emphasized the constant fear of the Spaniards that the Dutch desired to make themselves masters of the great Biver Orinoco, and extend their dominions to the confines of the New Kingdom of Granada. 30 The Dutch on their part at once proceeded to organize their territories. The whole history of their action entirely refutes tbe suggestion that it was confined to a single Dutch Post at Essequibo, and tbe Vene- 35 zuelan Case incorrectly states that resort to desperate expedients had to be made in order to keep the trade of Essequibo alive. In 1635 and 1645 the Zeeland Chamber had desired more definitely to restrict the trade on 40 the Wild Coast to the West India Company alone, 51 excluding private individuals, and this policy was carried out by Resolutions of the States-General, passed in August, 1648. The Regulations of 1632 and 1633 had permitted private traders to sail to 5 the coasts of Brazil, and to the west of the Orinoco, in order to injure the King of Spain, but had not in explicit terms prevented them from sailing to the coasts east of the Orinoco. The new Regulations, published eight months after the 10 signing of the Treaty of Munster, after explain ing the jurisdiction claimed by tbe Company. allowed private traders to sail to the west of the Orinoco, leaving out the clause as to intended injury to the King of Spain, but expressly 15 reserved the whole coast eastward from the Orinoco, along the Wild Coast, to the Company alone, except under special permission. The penalty for disobedience was the confiscation of both ship and cargo on behalf of the Company 20 wit,hout any action at law, and consequently the whole territory east of the Orinoco was set apart as subject to the express authority, jurisdiction, and trade of the Company alone. In 1656 proposals for settlers were made under 2° the authority of tbe Company. The draft condi tions recite that the Zeeland Chamber had made every endeavour to increase trade and commerce and to further colonization and agriculture, and had found that the mainland coasts, and especially 30 the Wild Coast, were of such situation and soil that everything could be cultivated and raised there as well as in the famous regions of Brazil. The Chamber therefore offered privileges to colonists, retaining for the Company the trade and gathering 35 of the annatto dye, and promising to do its utmost to supply negroes at a reasonable price. The offer at once led to proposals from intending colonists, and a formal notification of liberties and exemptions was published, permitting colonists 40 to choose, occupy, and retain in possession districts of land on the coast or one side of a navigable river or along both sides of a river and as far inland as the circumstances of tbe occupants would permit. Tbe Commander was to take out 45 a commission from the Company and keep order in matters of justice and government in the name of the States-General and the Company, following both in criminal as well as civil affairs the prece dents set in tbe Province of Zeeland. 50 This document is mentioned in the Venezuelan Case as offering new liberties and exemptions British App. I, p. 135. British App. I, p. 73. British App. 1, pp. 135, 136. British App. I, p. 136. British Case, pp. 26, 27. Progress of the Dutch Colony. British App. I, p. 137. Venezuelan Case, p. 76. British App. I, p. 139. [Omitted in Venezuelan App. II, p. 30.] British App. I, pp. 140, 141, 143. British Counter- Case, App., p. 27. Venezuelan Case. p. 76. 55 Settlement of Pomeroon. British App. I, pp. 145, 146. British Case, p. 27. British Counter Case, App., p 26. British App. I, p. 191. Venezuelan Case, pp. 77, 78. British App. I, pp. 152, 155. British App. I, p. 164. Prosperity of Pomeroon. British Counter- Case, App., p. 29. because the conditions previously offered were apparently not tempting enough. It was in fact the formal notification of conditions actually adopted, of which the document quoted at length in the Venezuelan Case was only a provisional 5 draft. In the result the three cities Middelburg, Elushingand Veere, offered in 1657 to equip two ships, one of which was to go to the Wild Const, otherwise Essequibo, to carry thither the persons 10 who desired to go there with their necessaries and otber things needed for that coast. The Company accepted the proposal, and permitted them to establish and plant Colonies on the wild mainland coast between the 1st and 10th degrees in. con- 15 formity with the liberties and exemptions granted. The district thus specified comprises the whole territory between the Amazon and the Orinoco, and amongst the considerations affecting the territory it was averred that there were no 20 enemies there except the natives, whose hostility could be averted by good management. The provisional contract enacted that the cities were to be considered as founders or colonizers of the coast, and to " have jurisdiction over it after 25 the fashion of a fief," the Colony extending between 1° and 1 0° on the Wild Coast. It is not the fact, as stated in the Venezuelan Case, that the cities which were permitted to found a new Settlement recognized the failure of 30 the efforts theretofore made to establish any Settlement on the Essequibo itself. Tbe (Settle ment of Pomeroon was, as was admitted by the Governor of Guayana, a new Settlement, formed in a place chosen by the Dutch for their greater 35 convenience. It was in addition to the fortress of Essequibo with its garrison of soldiers, and was settled without any opposition on the part of Spain. The Commissary in charge of the expedi- 40 tion furnished by the three cities, which bad sailed early in 1658, reported upon the Riyers Demerara, Essequibo, Pomeroon, and Moruka, situated on the coast of Guiana, " otherwise called the Wild Coast, and now 45 Nova Zeelandia." In 1658 an attempt by the Amsterdam Chamber to claim authority was opposed; in 1659 a large number of colonists had taken possession of land in the neighbour hood of the Rivers Essequibo, Demerara, 50 Pomeroon, and Corentin, and landwards in tbe [579] Q 56 British Counter- Case, App., pp. 25-43. British Counter- Case, App., p. 38. , liritish App. I, p. 152. Province of Moruka and other circumjacent places ; and again in 1661 possession and occu- British App. I, pation on the Rivers Demerara and Pomeroon, p' and the establishment of divers plantations were British Case, • r> reported. The prosperity of the Colony in the pp- 27' 28' Pomeroon at this time is amply proved by the contemporary evidence cited in the British Case and in the Appendix to this Counter-Case The Commissary in 1663 even suggested, after an 10 inspection of the Barima, that if the population became so great tbat all the lands lying idle were cultivated, the Dutch could found another Settlement there. In 1662, Don Pedro de Viedma reported to the Spanish King from 15 Guayana that in Pomeroon there were more than 1,000 men, with 400 Indians and a greater number of negroes, protected by the forces of Essequibo and Berbice, and he contrasted with this the miserable state of his own Government, stating 20 that in Guayana and the Island of Trinidad the people did not number 140 residents between old and young, and 100 capable of bearing arms, and that for more than thirty years no ship had entered the port from Spain. The 25 fact was that Spain had neither time, money, nor means for the assistance of enterprise in the distant a,nd poor Province of Guayana, or for extension of her power beyond tbe limits of the city of Santo Thome. On this 80 urgent representation, however, the King ordered the transfer of the provinces of Trini dad and Guayana from the Government of Santo Domingo to the Government of Santa Ee in order that some assistance might be given to 35 the Spanish colonists. The suggestion in the Venezuelan Case, that the; Settlement of Pomeroon was made in disregard of Spanish rights is quite unfounded. The Spaniards, in 1662, complained that the 40 Dutch did not keep or observe tbe Treaties of Peace, but only on 'the ground that they came to the Island of Trinidad, and carried of. slaves intended to be sold in the Windward Islands, and not on the ground of the establishment of Pome- 45 roon, or other Settlements east of the Orinoco. The Dutch, in 1664, openly stated with regard to the West India Company, that it had been em powered, and still- was empowered, to establish Colonies and Settlements of people on lands 50 which were not occupied by others. This position was never, questioned by Spain, though the British App. I, p. 162. Dutch right to found Pomeroon. Venezuelan Case, p. 78.' British App. I, p. 153. Bntisli App. p. 151. 57 Venezpelah Case, pp. 78, 7.9.. British Case, PP. 27, 28. British App. p. 167. , British App. I, pp. 171, 172, 193. upUire of Pomeroon by the English. British App. I, pp. 167-170: British Case, p. 28. establishment of the Colony at Pomeroon was, as the Report of Don Pedro de Viedma just cited shows, clearly brought to the knowledge of the King. The statement in the Venezuelan Case that 5 even before the English occupation in 1665 the Colony on the Pomeroon was in a lan guishing condition is contradicted by the clear evidence put forward in the British Case of the flourishing state in which tbe English 10 invaders found it. Nor is it the fact, as alleged in the Venezuelan Case, that the Managing Council in Zeeland became so embarrassed that it broke up altogether in 1663. The rights of this Council were recognized by the Zeeland 15" Chamber in 1670, and are mentioned in 1686. The English, in 1665, captured the whole Colony, including the Settlements in Essequibo, Pomeroon and Moruka. Pomeroon and Moruka are mentioned at that time as in a most flourishing 20 condition. The English considered that they had by this conquest acquired possession of all that part of Guiana abutting on the Atlantic Ocean, from Cayenne to Orinoco, but in tbe following year they were ousted by the Dutch, who 25 recaptured 1,200 slaves on regaining possession of the Colony. Continued Dutch progress. British App. I, p. 192. Venezuelan Case, p. 81. Biitish App. p. 171. British Counter- Ca.e, App., pp. 44, 45. After the reconquest of the Colony by the military forces of the States-General, tbe Zeeland : Chamber of the West India Company were very 30 ready to receive the Colony again, even with the onerous condition that the Company be required to furnish slaves annually in Surinam at a certain reasonable price. The statement tbat the Chamber was induced once more to receive the 35 Eort and Colony of Essequibo gives an entirely wrong impression. 1 The records from 1668 show that after the restitution of the Colony there was continuous > and peaceful development, which is the more 40 remarkable in view of tbe serious war being waged between Erance and Holland from 1670 to 1678, the date of the Peace of Nimeguen. In 1669 a large cargo of sugar and letter- wood had been shipped from Essequibo, to Zeeland; 45 in 1670 proposals for new establishments on the Wild Coast were made to the Company; and at a time when Santo Thome only contained ten inhabitants, white, half-breeds, and mulattos, the Commandeur of Essequibo was exercising 58 jurisdiction at Moruka by seizing contraband cargoes, bringing within the Government of Esse quibo the River Demerara, with all its depen dencies and rights on tbe west, and resuming trade 5 with Barima on the east. In 1674 the West India Company was reconstituted, with special privileges of trade in named districts within their territorial jurisdiction, amongst which the places of Isekepe and Bauwmerona, situated 10 on the continent of America, are specially mentioned. In 1676, the Spaniards admitted that the Dutch held the chief portion of the coast from Trinidad to the Amazon, and it was suggested that the King should mention 15 to them the annoyance which would be occa sioned if they were to make new plantations in the Indies without informing him, as it appeared the Dutch proposed a new Settlement at Cape Orange ; but the King preferred not to make any 20 complaint. British App. I, pp. 173-175. British Case, p. 28. Venezuelan Case, p. 85. note. British App. I. pp. 177, 178. The Venezuelan Case admits a considerable development of Dutch trade during this period throughout the district in dispute at points 25 remote from Kijkoveral. It is not proposed fo repeat the evidence already offered in the British Case to show that such trade involved the exercise of control over the country in which it was carried on. It is submitted that the attempt 30 made in the Venezuelan Case to confine the limits of Dutch territory to Kijkoveral and the actual plantations is based on a fallacy. These were but the centres of Dutch control, and the whole territory over which that control extended 35 was as much Dutch territory as that actually settled. The evidence summarized in this chapter, together with the other evidence given in the British Cases, shows that the conclusions for- 40 mulated at p. 84 of the Venezuelan Case, which are quoted at the commencement of this chapter, are wholly unsupported by the facts. Fallacy of the Venezuelan Propositions. Venezuelan Cas< . p. 84. 59 Chapter vii. This Chapter deals with Chapter VII of the Venezuelan Case, pp. 85-92, entitled — : History of the Essequibo Dutch Post, 1674 to 1700." Venezuelan Proposition. Venezuelan Case, pp. 85-92. British Case, pp. 29-31. History of the Dutch Colony, 1674-1700. British App. I, p. 183. British App. I, p. 183. British App. I p. 184. [Omitted in Venezuelan App. II, p. 42.] British Case, pp. 28-31,85, 114. 10 15 The object of this Chapter in the Venezuelan Case appears to be to suggest that, during the period 1674-1700, the efforts of the Dutch to extend their possessions, trade, and influence, had wholly failed, that the different operations carried on by them were meagre and unsuc cessful, and that no material advance or pro gress from the point of view of trade, settlement, or political influence, had been made during the whole period. A consideration of the facts and incidents stated in the British Case, and supplemented by the further evidence to which reference is made in this chapter, will show that the view suggested by the Venezuelan Case is wholly unwarranted. After the reconstitution of the West India 20 Company the trade with Orinoco continued to increase, and in 1680 Commandeur Beekman mentions the good terms existing between the Dutch and the Spaniards. In that year greater attention had to be given to the coast, owing to a 25 war between the Indians of the Cuyuni, Essequibo, and Massaruni, and the Akawois. The River Cuyuni, the provision chamber of the Colony, was thereby closed, but in 1681 the Commandeur remarks : " We know as vet, thank God, of no 30 war or even of rumours thereof, and now live on satisfactory terms with the natives of this country, being inclined to bring annually a still greater quantity of annatto to market." In the British Case, reference is made to many instances of 35 progress and development, such as trade with Amakuru; the cultivation of cassava at the mouth of the Cuyuni; steps taken to make peace between Akawois and Caribs; the main tenance of a Postholder at Pomeroon, and a [579] R 60 station at Barima, to prevent illicit trading by interlopers from Surinam in the territory of the Company. In 1682 and 1684 the Orinoco was closely 5 blockaded by the Erench, who captured Santo Thome. When the Spaniards in 1685 recaptured Santo Thome the Caribs from Copename who had assisted the Erench escaped beyond the reach of the Spaniards by taking refuge on the 10 Rivers Waini, Barima, and Amakuru. The Spaniards neither tried nor could have tried to expand their influence to the east of the Orinoco. Their trade with the Dutch temporarily ceased, partly owing to the war and partly because the 15 Zeeland Chamber considered that in Orinoco and also in Berbice private trade was being carried on in preference to the Company's trade. In 1686 the West India Company, desiring to develop new avenues for trade, opened the 20 Rivers Pomeroon and Essequibo, and appointed De Jonge to be Commandeur of Pomeroon. De Jonge speedily established trade, and cultivated friendly relations with the Indians. In 1688 he had completed a fort at Pomeroon. 25 No objection to the Settlement at Pomeroon Avas suggested by the Spanish Government. Guayana only contained seven Spanish citizens and some soldiers at this date, and consequently was not in' a position to expand to the east of 30 the Orinoco. In 1689 commenced the long war between the Dutch and English, and the Ereneh, which ended with the peace of Ryswiek in 1697. The news reached Essequibo early in 1689. 35 Every effort was made to prepare for a hostile attack on Essequibo, and the Commandeur described to the Company the measures proposed for defence. In July an attack was made on Pomeroon 40 and Berbice, and Essequibo was threatened. After the Erench raid colonisation on the Pome roon was suspended by the Dutch, but possession was continuously retained ; and it is not correct, as stated at p. 90 of the Venezuelan Case, that 4,5 the river was not again occupied during the seventeenth century. The war, however, did not prevent the develop ment of the Colony ; on the contrary, it is evident that great strides were made at this period in consolidating the internal trade. British Case, p. 29. British App. I, pp. " 185, 188. Eevival of Pomeroon. British App. p. 192. British App. I, p. 208. British App. I, p. 212. War with the French. Venezuelan App. II, pp. 59, 61. British App. I, pp. 210,211.' British App. VII, p. 149. 61 Dutch power in the interigr. Venezuelan Case, p. 90. British App. p. 188. British Counter- Case, App., pp. 47-158. British Counter- Case, App., p. 46. It is stated at p. 90 of the Venezuelan Case that the Dutch trade into the interior at this time was "in no sense exclusive, and was par ticipated in not only by tbe Spaniards, but by the Erench as well." There is no evidence what- 5 ever that the Spaniards were at this time trading in the interior of Guiana at all. The intervention of the Erench, at this time at war with both Dutch and Spaniards, in the Pariacot Savannah in 1684 was a mere raid by the force which, in 10 alliance with the Copename Caribs, had also sacked Santo Thome. Save for this interruption the Dutch at this time enjoyed the whole trade of the Cuyuni, Massaruni, and Essequibo. A diary kept by the Commandeur at Kijkoveral during 15 the years 1699 to 1701 has been found, and extracts from it were printed in the A ppendix to the British Case. In view, however, of the allegations made in the Venezuelan Case, it is now reprinted as a whole. It gives a picture of 20 the daily life of the Dutch Colony at this time, and shows clearly that from their head-quarters at Kijkoveral the officers of the Company col lected the products of the Cuyuni, Massaruni, and Essequibo Rivers. 25 Even if the French had occupied any district betwreen the Orinoco and Essequibo, no deduction adverse to the Dutch and in favour of Spain can be made from such action. The only nations to be considered are Spain and Holland, and no 30 argument in favour of Spanish possession could accrue from occupation by the Erench. So powerful was Dutch influence, and so extended Dutch enterprise, that in 1693 the King of Spain was informed that they were 35 even masters of all the coast of the Province of Venezuela. Fallacy of the Venezuelan Proposition. Venezuelan Case, pp. 91, 92. The following observations must be made with reference to the statements on pp. 91 and 92 of the Venezuelan Case : — Although the Erench had raided Pomeroon, they did not attack Essequibo, and, in spite of the hostility of the Erench to the Dutch, there is no evidence whatever of any expansion of trade or occupation of any terri tory by Spain to the east of the Orinoco. The Erench, by sacking Santo Thome in 16S4, had inflicted upon the Spaniards more damage than they had upon the Dutch. The Directors of the West India Company had requested that trade 40 45 62 with Orinoco should cease in 1684, but in 1686 De Jonge wrote for cargoes in order to traffic with the Spaniards in Orinoco, and in 1697 the Commandeur mentioned that the free planters 5 got horses from Orinoco at as low a price as the Company paid for horses brought by the Cuyuni route. It is consequently incorrect to say that there was no trade with Orinoco subsequently to 1684. There is no evidence that the Spaniards 10 and the Erench had any trade in the Cuyuni valley. The horses appear to have been brought by the Dutch from the Indian tribes on tbe Upper Orinoco, and possibly from some Spaniards in the same region. The Pariacot Savannah, where 15 the trade in copaiba existed, is beyond the Cuyuni. There were no Spaniards settled in the Cuyuni valley, nor is there any evidence that any Spaniards were at this time settled in the Pariacot Savan nah. At Santo Thome" in 1690 there were only seven Spanish citizens and some few soldiers. During the long war the Dutch had held their own and improved their position in the interior of tbe Colony. 20 British App. I, p. 200. British App. I, p. 213. Venezuelan Case, I, p. 92. British App. I, pp. 186, 237. Venezuelan Case, p. 94, note. British App. I, p. 212. British Case, p. 32. 63 CHAPTER VIII. This Chapter deals with Chapter VIII of the Venezuelan Case, pp, 93-98, entitled — " History of the Essequibo Dutch Post, 1700 to 1725." Venezuelan Proposition. Venezuelan Case p. 98. War ofthe Spanish Succession. British App. I, p. 222. The conclusions of this Chapter are summarized in the following passage : — "Trade to the Orinoco, the Barima, and even the Pomeroon, had been forbidden to the Dutch of Esse quibo. and no attempt was made to undertake it. In 10 the Cuyuni, the horse-buying station of 1703, after a possible existence of a few months, had been abandoned and forgotten, the Indians there claiming to be Spanish, and little or no thought was given to that region. " The only posts west of the Essequibo were those on 15 the Wacupo and the Pomeroon. The first of these, composed of two servants and a shanty, served to pre vent the running away ofthe slaves ; the second lasted but two years, and was then abandoned. The Colony itselt spread along the banks of the Essequibo, the 20 Mazaruni, and the Cuyuni, but did not go beyond tide water." It should be pointed out that the break at the year 1700 made in the Venezuelan Case is purely arbitrary, and does not correspond to any fact in 25 the history of the Colony. Many of the observations made in the last chapter of this Counter-Case are also applicable to the chapter of tbe Venezuelan Case now under consideration, but some observations proper to 30 the history of this period must be added. The great war of the Spanish Succession (1702-1714), in which England and Holland were allied against Erance and Spain, no doubt affected tbe Dutch Colony during this period, but, notwith- 35 standing, very material progress was made. It was only natural that during the war no isolated post should be maintained at the Barima, and that intercourse with the Orinoco should be restricted. In anticipation of war, tbe Commandeur Samuel 40 Beekman and the Councillors of the Colony issued, in July 1701, regulations and warn ings to " the inhabitants of this growing Colony." New fortifications and a new powder- house were erected, provisions and men were 45 supplied, Commissaries were appointed to examine the plantations and to give instructions to the [579] S 61 new planters in Massaruni and the planters in Essequibo, and other precautions were taken. It was further resolved " while awaiting these disturbances, to restrain the granting of passports 5 to sail to the River Orinocque and to the Island Trinidad so as to forestall all mischief." It is stated on p. 93 of tbe Venezuelan Case tbat there is no record of any attempt on tbe part of tbe Dutch to trade to Barima during this 10 period, and a note on the same page states that the Erench seem to have maintained for years their alliance with the Barima Caribs against the Dutch. This is absolutely contrary to the facts, as they appear beyond all question from the evidence. 15 The alliance between tbe Erench and the Barima Caribs, which commenced in 1684 (in which year these Caribs came to the Barima from Copename), lasted only during the war which was then proceeding, and in 1701 the Dutch, who had 20 then made peace with them, called upon them for their aid against the Erench and the Spaniards in the war which then threatened the Colony. The note on p. 93 of the Venezuelan Case, which suggests the maintenance of Erench 25 influence in Barima after 1700, cites only a passage in the Report of the United States' Commission. If that passage be referred to it will be seen that it deals with the maintenance of that alliance up to 1695, citing a letter of the 30 Commandeur in that year, and also referring to a Minute of the Court of Policy in 1701, which shows that in that year the Dutch had made peace with the Caribs at Barima. The statement that tbe Erench and the Dutch 35 from Surinam and Berbice were allowed by the Spaniards to trade in the Barima region is equally inaccurate. With regard to the Erench no evidence is cited that they traded there at all. With regard to the Dutch from Surinam and ^q Berbice, passages are cited from the Dutch docu ments, in which it is stated that the trade in balsam and red slaves was carried on outside the territory of the Company, and " solely ou Spanish ground in the River Orinoque." This is assumed 45 to refer to the Barima region, but such an assumption is quite incorrect. Balsam and red slaves were obtained from the country above Santo Thome, and trade therein, therefore, could not be well carried on without 50 the consent or connivance of the Spaniards. This is clearly shown by the instructions given in 1726 to a messenger sent by the Court of Policy British App. p. 223. The Dutch in the Barima. Venezuelan Case, p. 93. British App. p. 187. British App. p. 224. Venezuelan Case, p. 93. VenezuelanApp. II, p. 76. British App. I, p. 224. Venezuelan Case, p. 94. Comparison of Dutch and Spanish Jurisdiction. 65 British App. II. in that year to the Spanish Governor requesting pp 4' 5- permission to pass Santo Thome. The messenger was directed, if permission were refused, to go to the Aguirre and inquire whether there was any opportunity for getting slaves and balsam 5 there. Balsam did not grow in the Barima, nor were the Caribs of that region the Indians who were enslaved. Both trades required that tbe traders or their agents should penetrate into the upper part of the Orinoco basin. 10 British App. I, It is certain that the term Oronoque, as used p" by the Dutch Commandeurs, referred to the Spanish possessions at Santo Thome, and ex cluded the Amakuru, Barima, and more east erly rivers. It is also certain that until Santo 15 Thome was reached no Spanish permit was required. This is clear, not only from the in structions given to the messenger in 1726 as above narrated, but also from the incident in British App. I, 1719, when upon complaint from the Spanish 20 pp' ~ ' Commander that two Dutchmen had passed the fort at Santo Thome, the Court of Policy iii order to give satisfaction to the Spanish Com mander, although continuing to allow their traders to depart for the Orinoco, took measures 25 to prevent them going above the fort without leave. So far, however, as access to the Barima region was necessary to traders, whether from Essequibo or from the other Dutch Colonies, such access, 30 involving as it did passing through the Moruka to tbe rivers beyond, required the permission of British App. I, the Governor of Essequibo. Passports had to be p' obtained in order to pass the Post in Wakepo, British App. I, and in 1707 tbe Commandeur proposed the 35 pp. 229, 230. imposition of a toll there ; but this scheme was not carried out because, the Commandeur retiring, his successor considered that the trouble and expense of collection would be too great. There is no doubt that there was during this 40 Britfsh Arm I period constant intercourse between Essequibo pp. 234, 238, 245, and Barima under passes given by the Dutch authorities, although, in order to obtain the com modities in which trade was done, it may have been necessary to go up the Orinoco. In the 45 Venezuelan Case, Venezuelan Case, at p. 94, a casual reference to p' " the alleged failure of a particular ship to purchase British Case, provisions in the Waini is gravely put forward App. , p. _, . a_ negat}ving the existence of any trade in this quarter. 50 Venezuelan Case, On p. 95 of the Venezuelan Case the sugges- p. 95. 66 tion is made that Dutch jurisdiction in the Pomeroon region was not effective at this time. It is stated that the Erench aud Spaniards in 1712 meeting a Dutch agent there drove him 5 away with impunity. The facts as shown by the very document referred to in the Venezuelan Case to support this most misleading statement are simply as follows : On the 29th December, 1712, Erance and Spain being then at war with 10 the Dutch, a party of Erench and Spaniards ar rived in the Moruka and drove in from the country to the Post at Wakepo the servants of the Company whom they found trading in the neighbourhood. Next day they advanced to the 15 Post, attacked it, and were repulsed. On the same page the Venezuelan Case refers to this Post as " probably kept up as a matter of form." It is a point beyond all controversy and proved by a continuous chain of documentary 20 evidence that from 1686 to the end of Dutch rule in Essequibo (except a short period after 1783), the Pomeroon region and the passage through the Moruka were held by a Dutch Post- holder residing sometimes on the Moruka, some- 25 times on the Wakepo and sometimes in the Pomeroon itself. The Post was not maintained as a " matter of form." The Dutch did nothing except with a view to material advantage, and this Post, as has been shown already in the 30 British Case, gave them the control of the whole coast region. On p. 96 of the Venezuelan Case reference is made to the falling off in the horse trade carried on via the Cuyuni owing to Spanish opposition. 35 This does not show that the Cuyuni was Spanish. The horses were fetched from the savannahs of the Upper Orinoco and their export thence was prevented by the war, as the document cited in tbe Venezuelan Case shows, but they appear to . It is submitted that the conclusions of this chapter of the Venezuelan Case derive no support from the authorities cited, and are contradicted by the evidence adduced in the British Case and in this chapter. [579"! U 72 CHAPTER X. This Chapter deals with Chapter X ofthe Venezuelan Case, pp. 107-134, entitled — History of the Essequibo Colony, 1725 to 1803: 5 The following extracts show the view presented of the history of Essequibo during this period :- - " To sum up the results of three-quarters of a century : " The Colony, which in 1 725 had clustered about -^0 Kykoveral, had abandoned that site, and had moved down to the very mouth of the river, spreading little by little along the eastern banks of that river, and finally stretching over into Demerara. The interior had been entirely abandoned, except for purposes of trade and 15 slave-raiding. Two efforts at actual occupation in the Cuyuni-Mazaruni basin had proved failures, and that region had been abandoned to the Spaniards. The only Dutch Post west of the Essequibo was at the mouth of the Moruca, but, except for that Post, the 20 Moruca, the Wacupo, and the Pomeroon were entirely deserted. "But what has been said shows merely the limits of Dutch occupation. It gives no idea of the weakness of the Colony nor of the frequent danger it was in of total 25 extinction at the hands of the Spaniards, nor of the political control which Spain exercised throughout the region now in dispute up to the very banks of the Essequibo. It was a control which served to limit the growth of the Dutch Colony, which, in great measure, 30 shaped its policy, and which confined it always to the mouth of the Essequibo and to the region east of that stream." Venezuelan Proposition. Venezuelan Case. p. 126. Venezuelan Caso, p. 127. 35 40 On pp. 107 and 108 of the Venezuelan Case evidence is collected to show that there was during this period a tendency to remove the Dutch plantations to the lower part of the Esse quibo estuary. This removal, which Avas due to agricultural considerations, is not denied. But as is proved by the evidence referred to in the British Case, and in the Appendix to this Counter-Case, grants of land in the upper rivers continued to be made during the whole of the century, and as early as 1708 the Com- The Dutch in the Essequibo. Venezuelan Case, pp. 107, 108. British Case, pp. 31, 32, 33, 36. British Counter- Case, App., pp. 363-388. 73 British App. I, mandeur bad advised that the fort should be moved nearer to the estuary for the better protection of the rich lands on the coast. The garrison and seat of government were transferred to Elag Island (Eort Island) for the sake of 5 defence, not with the purpose of abandoning and deserting the interior of the Colony. With the object, however, of treating the Colony as confined to the Essequibo, the Venezuelan Case endeavours to support the argument by citing 10 many documents which do not properly lead to any Venezuelan Case, suej- deduction. Allusion is made to plantations, with the conclusion that by the close of tbe century the original site of the Colony had become a wilderness. It is stated that in 1773 15 all demands for grants of land up the river at the former site of the Colony had ceased, and a quotation is given with reference to tbe closing of the Court, the implication being that the Colony was too reduced to make any expan- 20 British App. IV, sion. The actual facts are shown in a Petition p- to the West India Company of the same year in which the Eiscal in Essequibo states that there are no more grounds fit for coffee plantations to be had except in remote parts on the West Coast 25 in the direction of Orinocque, and therefore fully two days' sail from the Eort, and that though there was still some ground fit for sugar planta tions up in the river, it was situated very far from the Eort, and densely covered with wood, 30 which with the necessity of laying out new plan tations every year, entailed great cost and trouble. Venezuelan Case, ^ statement and quotation in tbe Venezuelan p. 108. ^ British App IV Case, referring to the year 1777, alleges that, p. 184. "There was with one exception not a sugar, oe coffee, or cotton plantation above Flag Island ; in fact no culture whatever except a few cassava grounds." t. It is evidently intended to imply that planta tions had disappeared, and consequently no 4,0 allusion is made to the continuation of the letter, which shows that timber was a more profitable product of these districts, and that so long as lower lands wrere to be had for sugar and coffee, few would care for the upper lands; but that 45 unless the Pomeroon was thrown open there would, within a short time, be few, if any, more British App. v, lower lands open. The upper lands were found to be unsuitable for coffee, as the Dutch planters themselves admitted. 74 Whatever course Avas taken with regard to plantations the Dutch retained dominion over the three upper rivers by their control of tbe Indians, of the timber-cutting and of the trade. 5 In 1730 the Commandeur rnade a Proclamation that the Eivers Massaruni and Cuyuni for years past had been kept for the private trade of the Company, and that each and every one was expressly forbidden to carry on any trade in them 10 under heavy penalties. In 1750 tbe Spanish missionaries appear to have suggested an overland trade in cattle by the Cuyuni, and the Acting Commandeur reported that he should refuse it, until their Honours 15 should be pleased to frame the necessary orders. He suggested that though it would promote trade, a way would be opened for desertion of slaves, unless a good Post were established. Their Honours decided to keep the river closed, and 20 the Secretary found such reply to be very agree able. There is no evidence that any Spaniard wras permitted to come down the Cuyuni, and the statement that by the middle of the eighteenth century Spanish traders were making their way 25 into the Dutch Colony via the Cuyuni is incorrect. The quotation in support of the statement, which refers to a proposed shop at the fort itself, does not show that the traders came by way of the Cuyuni. 30 In 1750 also the Commandeur w^rote to the West India Company that he had closed the Upper Essequibo and forbidden individuals to trade there ; but that the river being again opened outrages bad followed, and he considered 35 it would be best if tbe Company should be pleased to prohibit, until further orders, traffic with the Indians on the Rivers Essequibo, Massaruni, and Cuyuni. The exercise of such control is frequently mentioned in the Commandeur's letters 40 to the Company, and in tbe orders issued by the Company to the Commandeur. Although the Spaniards, from time to time, restricted trade upon the Orinoco, no single instance is recorded that the Spaniards ever 45 applied or attempted to apply any of the restrictions, which the policy of their country enjoined, within any portion of tbe districts adjoining the Cuyuni, Massaruni, or Essequibo Rivers. 50 No notice is taken in the Venezuelan Case of the trade on the Upper Essequibo or of the Post Dutch control of the Upper Eivers. British Case, pp. 83, 84, 113. British App. II p. 10. British App. p. 69. II, British App. II, p. 75. Venezuelan Case, p 113. British App. II, p. 68. Venezuelan Case, p. 113, note. British App. II, p. 64. British App. II, pp. 10, 55. British Counter- Case, App., p. 197. 75 British App. VII, p. 234 Venezuelan Case, p.o 115, note. British App. il, pp. 2, 3. at Arinda, wbich is known to have existed until the close of the eighteenth century, and traces of wbich still remain at two of the sites where it was situated at different times. The only quo tation which actually refers to this region is one taken from the Records of the Court of Policy of the year 1724. It is given in support of a statement that — Venezuelan Case, p. 114. " The Caribs were induced to make raids into Spanish territory through the country in the immediate vicinity 10 of the Spanish Missions." ,1- Qi.1- British App. II, p. 2. British App. I!, pp. 16, 21, 47, 65, 66, 69, 71, 88. British App. V, p. 53. British App. II, p. 147. V,p. 109. Venezuelan Case, p. 115, note. British App. II, p. 46. The document referred to has nothing whatever to do with any such allegation, and refers only to the rumour of a raid by the Magnouw nations against tribes upon the Upper Essequibo, where 15 Post Arinda was situated, who were allied with the Dutch. A Dutch agent was sent up the river, and was instructed, " since the Accowois and Caribs who had been killed are under the protection of this 20 river," to find the marauders and shoot them all down. Tbe trade and control of this river was entirely in the hands of the Dutch. The Venezuelan Case also ignores in this con nection the Dutch Posts which were maintained 25 in the Cuyuni from 1755 to 1758, and again from 1766 to a date which, according to Spanish evidence, was as late as 1788. It also disregards the fact, established by Spanish documents, that Dutch subjects were resident at different times 30 in various parts of the Upper Cuyuni Valley, and were in alliance with the Indians there. When it was rumoured that the Spaniards intended to establish a Post in the Cuyuni the Caribs resented it. A quotation in the Venezuelan 35 Case referring to the suggestion that the Spaniards - > were thinking of founding such a Post omits the previous clause in which the writer describes it as being "on your Honours' territory," as well as the statement of the fact that 40 the Commandeur prevented the Caribs from going to surprise the Spaniards and level any Mission to the ground. The safety of the Spaniards depended upon the amity or discretion of the Dutch Governor of Essequibo. At a later 45 date the Governor informed the Company that if redress for cruelty to the Indians was not obtainable from tbe Spaniards, he should allow them to take measures for their own security, [579] X 76 with the significant remark, " Then I feel assured tbat in a short time no Spaniard will be visible any more above in Cuyuni." In fact the Spaniards were entirely unable to control either Caribs 5 coming from Dutch territory or Caribs within their own territory. Governors, missionaries, and officials continually complained of their power and fierceness, and of their hatred to the Spaniards, and uselessly appealed for assistance 10 to the King of Spain. In view of the possession and control thus maintained by the Dutch over the upper rivers, it is submitted that the removal of the seat of Government and of the agricultural industry to 15 sites nearer the sea has no importance. British App. II, p. 58. British App. II, pp. 22, 43, 54, 58, 89. British Counter- Case, App., pp. 162, 180. With regard to the Pomeroon and Moruka during this period the Venezuelan Case states as follows : — The Dutch on the Pomeroon. 20 " Except for purposes of trade, for the intercepting of runaway slaves, for fishing, for occasional wood cutting, and from time to time for the temporary sojourn of a Dutchman, these rivers were in no way utilized by the Dutch." Venezuelan Case, p. 109. What is represented as " from time to time the "® temporary sojourn of a Dutchman " was in reality the permanent residence of the Postholder and his assistants. With this correction the above passage of the Venezuelan Case describes a state of things which is amply sufficient to 30 establish the Dutch title to that region. The passage continues with the statement that — "the Essequibo colonists, so far from needing more land, were not sufficiently numerous to take up the 35 land immediately available on the banks of Essequibo and Demerara." In support of this statement reliance is placed on a quotation from a letter by tbe Commandeur, written in 1757. The quotation is only part of an 40 argument in which the Commandeur explained his opposition to the opening of the Pomeroon; " desired and aimed at for some time past," and endeavoured to justify his view that gratuitous wood-cutting should not be permitted, but that 15 the Company might derive profit by granting permission to cut wood upon terms. He con sidered that in the interests of the Company, who shipped the produce, the Essequibo and British App, II, pp. 128, 131, 135, 136. 77 British Counter- Case, App., pp. 363-388. Demerara should be crowded rather than that large timber estates should be worked by wealthy planters upon the Pomeroon. With Storm's retirement his policy was reversed, and there is no truth in the statement that it was 5 not till after the British had taken over the Colony that cultivation extended along the west coast as far as the Pomeroon. Erom the further Digest of Land Grants printed in the Appendix it is clear that by 1796 almost every available 10 acre in that direction had been taken up for cultivation. The Dutch in the Barima. Venezuelan Case, p. 110. British Case, pp. 115 and 116. British App. Ill, pp. 131, 132. British Counter- Case, App., pp. 208-216. ' British App. Ill, p. 141. .. . British App. Ill, p. 155. British App. Ill, p. 182. Venezuelan Case, pp. 111-114. With regard to the region beyond the Moruka, the Venezuelan Case states that the only relations of the Dutch with that region during the 15 eighteenth century were those of traders. This is not so. As the British Case has already shown, there are many instances of the exercise of Dutch control and jurisdiction in that district. Allusion is made at p. 110 of the Vene- 20 zuelan Case to a gang of Essequibo thieves in Barima, and it is suggested that their presence in that region for a brief period can be of no possible importance, that they were denounced by the Dutch Governor himself, and shortly after 25 were cleared out of the river entirely. It is true that the thieves were cleared out, but not by the Spaniards, although they were to the west of the River Barima, a fact not mentioned in the Venezuelan Case. The Dutch Governor caused 30 their arrest and ordered them to be brought before the Court at Essequibo, and the Dutch Court made an order forbidding any one to stop in Barima, charging the Postholder at Moruka to see tbat the order was carried out. The 35 Spanish Governor confessed that it was impossible for him to send men on account of the great distance and lack of boats. Barima thenceforth was put under Moruka, the Post- holder being commanded to pay strict attention ^q to everything going on there and to forward exact reports in writing. All the Indians of the district considered themselves to be under the jurisdiction of the Dutch. Pages 111 to 114 of the Venezuelan Case are ak. devoted to showing that trade between the Spanish Settlements in the Orinoco and the Dutch Colony of Essequibo passed during the eighteenth century largely from Dutch into Spanish hands. At the close of the passage 78 in which it is endeavoured to establish this proposition "the Barima" is substituted for "the Orinoco," and the reader is left under the impression that the Spaniards were in 5 possession of the Barima, and were trading thence with the Dutch. In reality the trade with Orinoco, by which is meant the Spanish Settlements at and above Santo Thomi, had nothing to do with the possession of Barima, 10 and the circumstance that the Dutch authorities preferred that the Spaniards from Santo Thome should come to Essequibo rather than that the Dutch should go to Santo Thome does not show that tbe Dutch had abandoned the Barima. It is, 15 indeed, stated in a note to the Venezuelan Case that " not even a Dutch trader was again heard of in Barima." It is not clear whether the remark is intended to refer to this period. If it is so intended the statement is incorrect. The Dutch, 20 during the whole of the period, without any opposition by the Spaniards, made use of Barima in any manner which they considered to be desirable, and treated the river as an integral portion of their Colony. 25 In 1730, on hearing that the Indians of Aguirre (a creek in Orinoco) had killed a Erench Bishop, the Dutch Commandeur sent a Dutchman to bury his body and a Dutch Postholder to search carefully for his effects. 30 In 1734 the Spaniards learned tbat the Dutch had told the Indians in Barima not to show the Swedes, a good place for their settlement, promising themselves to give them all they required. Tbe Spaniards appear to have been 35 perfectly satisfied with this intimation. The documents printed in the Appendix to this Counter- Case contains the clearest evidence of the close relations between tbe Caribs of Barima and the Dutch, and the terrorism wbich they 40 exercised over the whole Orinoco. In 1735 a trader collecting his comrade's debts in the Barima district abused his permit, and went to Martinique. On his return to the River Barima, he was arrested by order of the Com- 45 mandeur and taken to Eort Kijkoveral, the Com mandeur remarking that, "notwithstanding the desertion of which he had been guilty, he had the audacity to return to this Colony in a canoe full of Caribs.'' 50 In 1711 the Company took tbe proposal of the Commandeur to establish a Post at Barima, Venezuelan Case, p. 114. Venezuelan Case, p. 113, note. British App. II, p. 11. British App. Ill, p. 81. British Counter- Case, App., pp. 162-180. British App. II p. 21. British App. II, p. 43 79 British App. I, p. 42. British App. I(, p. 44. British App. II, p. 58. British App. II, p. 61. British App. II, p. 73. Ante, p. 77. British Counter- Case, App., p. 250. British App, VII, p. 236. British Counter- Case, App., p. 256. British Case, British App. II, p. 77. '"'which would be a matter of great utility for the purchase of vessels and slaves," as an ordinary suggestion of internal jurisdiction, provided the Commandeur took proper precautions against the fraud of selling too much sugar for making 5 syrup or rum instead of sending it to Zeeland. The only ground on which the Commandeur did not immediately proceed to establish a Post was stated to be tbat he had not yet been able to find any competent person to bis liking, as he 10 considered the Post might become of great im portance. The tradition which existed in 1748, that Dutch jurisdiction extended westwards as far as the River Barima, exactly coincided with the facts. In 1749, it was mentioned that 15 Surinam traders called at Essequibo on their way to Barima, " which is situated under this jurisdiction," and in 1752 a Dutchman was summoned from Barima to answer charges of taking away children from the Caribs of tbe 20 district, and a boy slave from another Dutchman. The exercise of jurisdiction in 1766 and the order to the Postholder at Moruka to report upon this district have been already mentioned. In 1779 Inciarte found a hill on the Aruka 25 Creek which had been occupied by a Dutchman only a few years before, with the shells of boats belonging to him, and coffee-bushes and orange- trees. In 1784 the Court of Policy ordered and authorized Indians to capture and bring back to 30 the Eort five negroes and two negresses from the Creek Amakuru. With regard to other rivers, the Commandeur and the Court of Policy held different views as to the expediency of keeping the Pomeroon and the 35 Waini closed, but Storm van 's Gravesande kept the Pomeroon closed as long as he was in command of the Colony, although it was sur veyed in 1753 with the view of giving grants of land, if necessary, in that district. These extracts 40 show the general policy followed by the Company in the exercise of discretionary power as to the management of its possessions. Dutch Trade. Venezuelan Case, p. 113. With regard to tbe statement that in the year 1761 trade to the Orinoco had been transferred 45 from Dutch to Spanish hands, the whole gist of the Venezuelan argument implies that the Dutch were too weak to carry on the trade, and were consequently obliged to leave it to the Spaniards. [579] Y 80 The evidence shows that such an implication is contrary to the truth. The facts are that though in 1760 the trade was practically open, the Dutch Director-General, 5 in March 1761 , reported that everything in Orinoco was in disorder, the Commandant having been summoned to Cumana to answer several charges brought against him : that in the previous year he had, under pressure from the traders of the 10 Dufc;h Colony, forbidden Spaniards to come to the Essequibo, but considered this measure to be injurious -to the interests of tbe Company; and tbat, in his opinion, it was best to send few or no boats to the Orinoco, and to compel the 15 Spaniards to come to the Essequibo. In November tbe Company supported the view of the Director- General, and tbe Court of Policy reported that the trade was a mere bagatelle and also risky and precarious, particularly as England 20 and Spain were said again to be at war, and Orinoco would probably soon be ruined for many years to come. Consequently tbe trade was purposely suspended by the Dutch. The next portion of the Venezuelan Case deals 25 with the recapture of fugitive slaves by the Dutch, and though it is admitted that the pursuit and recapture of these slaves extended beyond the Moruka on the coast and beyond Kijkoveral in the interior, it is alleged that such captures were 30 ahvays effected either without the knowledge, with the connivance, or by the express permission of the Spaniards. No evidence is referred to in support of the connivance or express permission alleged, and the contrary is the fact." Until 35 1791, when the Cartel of Aranjuez was con cluded, the great grievance of the Dutch was that their runaways when they got to Spanish territory, which is always described as Oronoque, could not be recovered ; and it is this circumstance which 40 gives significance to the stopping, pursuit, and recapture of runaway slaves and deserters by the Dutch, freely exercised throughout the territory from the Essequibo to the Barima, in the Upper Essequibo, and on the Cuyuni. This was an 45 exercise of jurisdiction on the part of the Dutch, and shows that no part of that territory was in Spanish hands. It is, however, a mistake to suggest, as is done in the Venezuelan. Case, that the Moruka 50 Post served no other object than the recapture of runaways. In 1728, subsequent to the letter British App. II, p. 186. British App. II, p. 199. British App. II, p. 188. Venezuelan Case, p. 113, note. British App. II, p. 202. British App. II, p. 213. Recapture of Slaves. Venezuelan Case, pp. 114-121. . British App. II, pp. 6, 20, 40, 42, 70, 76. Importance of the Moruka Post. Venezuelan Case, p. 117. British App. II, p. 7. 81 British App. II, p. 8. • British App, II, p. 14. British App. II, p. 25. British App. II, pp. 45, 48. British App. II, pp. 50, 62. British App. II, p. 61. quoted in the Venezuelan Case, it was resolved, upon the approach of war, to reinforce the Post and to instruct the Postholder to resist attack to the utmost, and immediately inform the Com mandeur. The Postholder was not to enter into 5 agreement with other nations to cause tbe Spaniards any annoyance, but if he was attacked, was told that it was excusable to return blow for blow. In 1731 four cannon were mounted there. In 1737 the special trade of the Company in 10 annatto was reported to have fallen off, but the Post was maintained for strategical purposes. In 1746 the Postholder was ordered to assist the Caribs subject to the Dutch against an expected attack from alien Indians, an attack 15 which led to no results. In 1747 and 1749 special Postholders were selected, because it was essential to the Company to keep the Post. In 1748 the Commandeur reported that be was always informed of any Spaniards coming to 20 Essequibo by the Reports of the Postholder. During the remaining years of Dutch possession the Post con tinued to be effectively maintained, as is conclusively shown in the British Case, and no evidence exists to show tbat any stronger 25 Post was ever required by the Dutch for the purpose of effective jurisdiction over the inland waterways. Importance of the Cuyuni Post. Venezuelan Case, pp. 121, 125. British Case, ' pp. 48-50. British Counter- ('asp, App., pp. 201-204. The next passage in the Venezuelan Case deals with the Posts established by the Dutch in the 30 Cuyuni, one of which was destroyed by the Spaniards in 1758. This incident is fully dealt with in the British Case. Since, however, that Case was presented, fresh documents of much interest have been obtained, 35 which specifically mention Tokoropatti as the site of the Dutch Post of 1755, and throw further light on the details of the Spanish raid and the ignorance of the river which the Spanish expedi tion displayed. These documents show that the 40 Post of 1755 was a few miles lower down stream than suggested in the British Case. In 1758 it was at Aguigua (evidently the true form of Cuiba), where buildings were in course of con struction at the time of the raid. This point 45 is a short distance belowr Tokoropatti, and considerably higher up than the Querri-Kuru (Quive-Kuru) Creek mentioned in the Vene zuelan Case. But the precise position of the Posts is im- 50 82 material. They were in each case so placed as to command the river, not to indicate a limit of jurisdiction. This is' made clear by the statement of the Dutch Commandeur concerning that of 5 1755 that, "even if the Post had been situated 50 hours further up," the raid of tbe Spaniards would have had no justification. It was from time to time placed in the situa tions considered to be most suitable for tbe pur- 10 pose of exercising control over traders, Indians, and cultivators, or restraining deserters from passing up the river. It formed a centre from which the Dutch Indians for many miles could be summoned or controlled, and where goods 15 could be exchanged, sold, or stored. Its position was varied, not through the advance of Spanish encroachment, as alleged in the Venezuelan Case, but according to the discretion of successive Postholders. 20 It is not the fact, as alleged at p. 124 of the Venezuelan Case, tbat in 1772 all thought of Posts on the Cuyuni was definitely abandoned by the Dutch. The Cuyuni Post is mentioned as existing, though the Postholdership then was 25 vacant, in a Dutch document of 1785 and in a Spanish document of 1788. Nor is it correct to say, as is stated on p. 120 (where the only quotations given in support of tbe allegation refer to the year 1727), and on 30 p. 125 of the Venezuelan Case, that, besides the Posts in Cuyuni and the mining operations of Hildebrandt, no attempts were made by the Dutch during the eighteenth century to actually occupy land in what is called the Cuyuni- 35 Massaruni basin, above the lowest falls in these rivers. There were for a time plantations above the falls, both in the Massaruni and in. the Cuyuni. It is again necessary to point out that, apart from Postholders, Dutchmen were 40 from time to time residing at various points in the Cuyuni Valley. Tbe existence of "Dutch Plantations " upon the Apongara and Cosacuro (Ekereku), near the mouth of the Curumo, was specifically admitted by the Spanish authorities 45 when they were proposing to erect a Post on the latter river. British App. II., p. 180. Venezuelan Case, p. 124. British App. V, p. 31. British App. V, p. 53. Venezuelan Case, pp. 120, 125. British App. II, p. 6. British . \ pp. I, p. 228. British App. II, pp. 10, 147. British Counter- Case App., pp. 201-204. British App. V., p. 109. The concluding portion of the chapter in the Venezuelan Case now under reply is designed to show tbat tbe Dutch Colony was, during the 50 eighteenth century, weaker, from a military point Alleged military weakness oi the Dutch. Venezuelan Caso t.. 127. 83 The Swedish Rumour. British App. II, p. 18. British App. II, p. 18. British App. II, p. 22. British App. Ill, p. 81. The Project of Para. Venezuelan Case, p. 128. British App. II, p. 93. of view, than the Spanish Colony at Santo Thome. With this object, a number of extracts are given from the despatches of the Commandeur for the time being. Some of these complain of sickness among the troops, and of the unsatisfactory 5 character of the recruits sent out, who, being often Roman Catholics, Avere apt to desert to the Erench or Spanish Colonies, The passage first cited on p. 128 of the Vene zuelan Case is from a letter written on the 8th 1" June, 1734, and refers to the rumour that the Swedes intended to settle at Barima, to oppose which the Spanish Commander at Santo Thome had informed the Dutch Commandeur that troops had been collected in the Orinoco, expressing 15 at the same time tbe hope that the Dutch " would not tolerate them in their neighbourhood." The Commandeur, on receiving news of the rumour about a Swedish expedition, reported to his Company that if the Swedes tried to establish '20 themselves between the Orinoco and the Colony on the Company's territory, he should be obliged to try to prevent it. In point of fact, the Spaniards could not have protected Barima against the Swedes, \vhatever 25 orders tbe Government at Madrid might choose to issue from a distance. In the very next year the Governor reported to the Council of the Indies that he could not protect the Missions of the Orinoco against the Caribs, but that he would 30 use his utmost efforts to prevent them getting higher than Angostura. As to the Barima, its real protection against the Swedes, had they come, would have been the Caribs dwelling on that river, who had received instructions 35 from the Dutch to oppose the intended settle ment. The passage from the letter of the 2nd September, 1754, cited on p. 128 of the Venezuelan Case, in further support of the 40 allegation of Dutch weakness, Avas written under a mistaken belief that the Spanish troops in the Orinoco had been largely reinforced. The arrival of the members of the Spanish- Portuguese Boundary Commission had given rise to this 45 rumour. As no mention is made in the Venezuelan Case of this Spanish-Portuguese scheme or Project of Para, and many of the documents cited therein are connected with that Project, the chief points .50 may be succinctly reviewed. [579] Z 84 The Project Avas started by a Spanish Minister, British App. II, Don Jose de Carvajal y Lancaster, and was p- " favourably received by the Portuguese Minister, the Count de Perelada, its ostensible object being 5 to carry out the Treaty of Limits of 1750. The Spaniards believed that, if the territories of Spain and Portugal could approach each other, they might surround the territories of the Dutch and the Erench, so that those nations should not 10 be able to go inland behind the Spanish and British App, II, Portuguese territories : and that Spain and p' ° x British App. II, Portugal, taking advantage of the assistance of p. 79. runaway slaves, might make the two monarchies coterminous, " confined throughout the Avhole 15 extent of their territories by limits known to all." The real object of the proposal is mentioned by the Spanish Minister in May 1753. "Being united," he stated, "the two may preserve British App. II, the advantage which Heaven has given them, of being P- ""• '20 the sole masters of the mines." The method of carrying out the project was to intrust the scheme to tAvo Chief Commissioners, British App. II, who were to make secret reports, secretly incite p- the rebellious negroes to hostilities against the Case, App., ;25 Dutch, and obtain the support of the missionaries. PP- 204-207. As was stated in the secret instructions to the Spanish Commissioner, Iturriaga — " Although the two Courts have not considered it British App. II, convenient to attack them with open force, neverthe- P- ""' 30 less they are agreed in the scheme of doing so by intrigue." The intrigue failed. Although the history of the intrigue is ap parent from the documents, the Venezuelan 35 Case makes no mention of it, and omits all notice of the immediate and sufficient steps British App. II, taken by the Dutch to defend the Colony, P- 94- and oppose any aggression, as soon as they received warning in August 1754, from the 40 English at Barbadoes. 's' In his letter of the 28th May, 1761, to the Dutch Reinforcements. West India Company, the Director-General made British App. II, no suggestion that any more soldiers were required p' to oppose aggression by the Spaniards, but merely 45 suggested that if Customs regulations were to be imposed at Demerara the garrison there ought to be increased, because he wanted his own men for patrol duly, remarking that at that time he had 85 Venezuelan App. II, p. 144. British App. I], pp. 220, '225. Venezuelan Case, p. 131. British Case, pp. 38-42.. The Carib Allies. Venezuelan Case, pp. 131-134. Venezuelan Case, p. 132. British App. II, p. 58. British App. IV, p. 101. sent one out to Waini in search of a party of fugitives. This portion of the letter is not quoted in tbe Venezuelan Appendix, and it may be noted that when soldiers were wanted for Moruka in 1762 the Company at once dispatched 5 soldiers to the Colony, and that in 1763 a further detachment was sent. The passage, described as a "wail," and cited at the foot of p. 131 of the Venezuelan Case, was written under a mistake. It was supposed 10 tbat the Spaniards had established a Post on the Cuyuni. This, it is certain, they had not done. The Venezuelan Case points to the relations between the Dutch and the Caribs as a sign of 15 Dutch weakness. On the contrary, it was an element of strength, and materially confirmed and extended Dutch power in Guiana. The Caribs continually offered their assistance to the Dutch ; the Dutch could call upon them 20 at any time to aid them either against revolted negroes, Dutch or slave deserters, or Spanish aggression, but the Caribs offered their services to friends, and came as allies of the strong, not as protectors of the weak. As is 25 shown by the quotation on p. 132 of the Venezuelan Case the Commandeur knew that if the Caribs rose no Spaniard would be visible any more above in Cuyuni, but the next sentence in the despatch is not quoted. It is as 30 follows : " I have always, but with great difficulty, restrained them, and prevented all hostilities by fair promises." As has been previously stated, the safety of the Spaniards depended upon tbe amity and discretion of the 35 Dutch Governor of Essequibo. The Caribs regarded the Spaniards as enemies not as rulers, and the conclusion deduced from the Director-General's letter of the 6th January, 1772, suggesting that the Caribs submitted 40 to the Spaniards, is quite umvarranted. The letter refers to the raid on Moruka in 1769 > which may have had the effect of causing Indians to leave the neighbourhood, and, after alluding to the manner in which the English 45 claimed runaway slaves with a ship of war, regrets that an ally should deprive the Dutch of slaves Avho had escaped out of the Colony. But as to " submission to the Spaniards," there is no sign wdiatever that tbe Indians of the 50 Colony ever submitted, or thought of submitting 86 to the Spaniards. The Dutch could always rely upon their assistance if they desired to use it, and in 1766 the Director-General wTrote — "The deep-rooted hatred and enmity of that nation(the British App. Ill 5 Caribs) to wards the Spaniards was so great that there was p. 131 little probability of a reconciliation between them, and, although that nation has lost many of its old charac teristics, this still continues to be one of its innate peculiarities." 10 By the aid of their allies and the strength of their own resources the Dutch were perfectly competent to deal with any Spanish aggression, but the Spaniards never attempted any enterprise of this nature and were, in fact, utterly unprepared to fight. S7 CHAPTER XI. This Chapter deals with Chapter XI of the Venezuelan Case, pp. 135-156, entitled — '¦' Spanish Control and Settlement in the Disputed Territory, 1725 to 1800." 5 Venezuelan Proposition. Venezuelan Case, p. 135. The Venezuelan Case deals separately in this Chapter with the coast region and " the interior." The first portion, tbat dealing with the coast, opens as follows : — " 1. The Coast Eegion. — From the Orinoco to the 10 Essequibo the Spaniards claimed dominion, They also exercised exclusive control there." Spanish Control in the Orinoco. British App. II, pp. 43, 60, 68. British App. II, p. 13. Venezuelan App. II, p. 87. The Orinoco Fishery. Venezuelan Case, p. 138. The first three pages devoted to the support of this proposition deal merely with that part of • the Orinoco, where the Spaniards had a right 15' to exercise control if they could and would. In the same manner, in the Essequibo, trade regulations were enforced by the Dutch upon tbe Spaniards, wrho came to that river to trade. The Dutch did not dispute the Spanish right 20 in the Orinoco, and the Spaniards did not dis pute the Dutch right in the Essequibo. The fluctuations of trade in the Orinoco depended upon the existence of Avar and the character of the Governors, This fact is frequently men- 25 tioned, and need only be briefly illustrated. In 1731 the Commandeur Avrote that "tbe trade to be done with the Spaniards in Bio Orinoco cannot be relied upon since they allow no trade above their fort with the Indians, but 30 only with themselves." In June 1731 the Spanish Governor seems abruptly to have notified that commerce was at an end. When the Dutch Commandeur retaliated by forbidding passes, the Spanish 35 Governor speedily changed his mind, and in November the trade was once more continued. On p. 138 of the Venezuelan Case reliance is placed on the ruin of the Dutch fishery in tbe mouth of the Orinoco at the bands of the 40- Spaniards. This fishery had been enjoyed by the Dutch for a long period, and their right to it was never denied by the Spanish authorities till [5791 2 A ss 1769. As has been shown in the British Case, all the captures of Dutch fishing craft before that year wrere either acts of piracy, disavowed by the Spanish Commander, who, in many cases, 5 procured redress for the owners, or were justified only on the ground that, under pretence of fishing, contraband trade Avas being carried on with the Spanish possessions. There is nothing to show that tbe Dutch fishery was permanently 10 abandoned after 1769. With a view to show Spanish control of the coast itself, the Venezuelan Case refers to what occurred when, in 1732, the rumour spread that the Swedes were coming to Barima. The cir- 15 cumstances, to which allusion has already been made, are suggested to amount to a clear asser tion of Spanish authority in the coast region between the main mouth of the Orinoco and the Essequibo. In the middle of the quotation 20 supporting this allegation the passage is omitted which stated that the Spanish Envoy sent from Trinidad to Guayana to verify the rumour concerning the Swedes was informed by the Caribs at Barima that the Indians had been told 25 by the Dutch not to show the Swedes a good place for their Settlement, and they themselves would give them all they required. The im plication that the Dutch, under pressure of Spanish control, furnished supplies to the 30 Spaniards for an expedition to Barima is in correct. Supplies of bread had, by request, been forwarded to the Spanish Governor Arredondo in January 1731, in exchange for horses ; but the letters announcing the rumours 35 of Swedes wrere written by a new Governor, Don Carlos Sucre, in March 1734. The history of the SAvedish rumour is given in the British Case, p. 34, and need not here be further discussed. British Case, pp. 52-54. On p. 40 incident 139 of the Venezuelan Case another is referred to as showing Spanish The statement is as Alleged Spanish Control in the Barima. Venezuelan Case, p. 139. Ante, p. 83. British App. Ill, p. 81. British App. II, P. 17. [Omitted in Venezuelan App.] British App. II, p. 18. British Case, p. 34. Alleged Spanish Control in the Moruka. Venezuelan Case, p. 139. control of the coast region follows : "In 1755 the SpanishPrefect ofthe Capuchin Missions, in wh.se province this district lay, demanded of the 45 Dutch Postholder of Moruca some Indians who had for already over ten years been dwelling under the Post : adding that, in case of reluctance, he would come with sufficient force to fetch them, and take them away in chains. 89 The statement "in Avhose province this district lay '' is untrue. No division, assignment, or claim had ever placed Moruka within the province of the Capuchin Eathers. The Venezuelan Case Venezuelan Case, gives, in support of the above statement, a quota- 5 tion from a covering letter by the Commandeur to the West India Company, reporting this occurrence, but stops short of the Commandeur's British App. il, remark, that it was very surprising, and that he p' ' inclosed his answer to the proposal of the Spanish 10 Prefect. The answer inclosed is also omitted from both the Venezuelan Case and Appendix, and no notice is taken of the fact that the Com mandeur replied — British App. II, " Concerning what you write, that if they will not 15 P' come of their own free will you would' come and fetch them with violent measures, I do not think that you meant this seriously, but that you only said so to frighten the Indians, because I cannot believe that you would undertake to violate in such a manner the juris- 20 diction of their High Mightinesses, my Sovereigns, the allies of His Catholic Majesty, and take a step of such immense consequences My instructions provide that in case of any violence I must return violence with violence." 25 The Commandeur ends by thanking the Beverend Eather for sending him a bottle of meran (balsam). Venezuelan Case, The next incident referred to in the Vene- P- 14°- zuelan Case occurred in 1757. In that year 30 Iturriaga, the Chief of the Boundary Commission, persuaded the Commandant to send pilots to see whether the Dutch were fortifying British A II Moruka. They reported that the Dutch were pp. 138, 142. changing guard at their Post, making great 35 clearances, and preparations for planting and building houses. If the Spaniards had desired to interfere they could not haAre done so, because British App. IT, Iturriaga' s force had melted aAvay. In com- P- 137- menting upon the report, Iturriaga mentions 40 that for fourteen years the Dutch Governor had been styled in licences Governor of Essequibo and Orinoco, and continues by expressing his view that they would pass from Moruka to Barima and the Aguirre, a plain proof that the 45 Spaniards exercised no control over that district. These letters support the claim of authority on the part of the Dutch, who, as Iturriaga at that period admitted — 90 "Published and sustained that the extent of the dominion of the States-General extended to the ship's mouth or errand mouth of the Orinoco." The next incident to wdiich importance is 5 attached in the Venezuelan Case occurred in the year 1760. In that year tbe Commandant of Guayana sent a lieutenant named Elores to the mouth of the Orinoco writh orders to stop illegal trading, and to proceed to the mouth of the 10 Barima, wliere it Avas said that some Dutch were settled, trafficking for slaves with the nations of wild Indians who dwelt and traded on the Orinoco. Elores captured some fishing-boats, but speedily returned because his commission 15 only extended to the mouth of the creek, and he heard the Dutch were some distance up it. Elores exceeded his instructions in going three leagues up the creek. The expedition was not directed against the Dutch in particular. The 20 orders were to seize Hollanders, Erench, and also Spaniards found to be conducting illegal traffic. On p. 141 of the Venezuelan Case, these instruc tions are cited as an indication of Spanish control 25 and settlement in the disputed territory. The translation of the Spanish words " sin que se internen por los rios comunicables a estos dominios del Bey," given on p. 141 of the Venezuelan Case — " they ought not to be allowed 30 to communicate through the rivers and dominions of the King," is not correct. The correct trans lation is : " and to deter them from pressing into these dominions of the King through the inter lacing rivers." 35 In the inquiry instituted at Santo Thome it was ascertained that the Dutch who were alleged to be carrying on slave traffic were not from the Colony of Essequibo, but from Surinam, " because the Governor of Essequibo did not allow any 40 Dutchman to go and conduct this traffic." The Director-General at Essequibo, after alluding to the capture of canoes, which were reported to have been taken "on this side of Barima, and thus within the Honourable Company's territory," 45 remarks : British App. II, p. 141. The Expedition of Lieutenant Flores. Venezuelan Case, p. 140. British App. II, p. 187. Venezuelan Case, p. 141. British App. II, p. 187. British App. II. pp. 194, 195. British App. II, p. 197. " I am also informed on very good authority that the canoes were taken by an armed beat, commanded by Captain D. Flores, who was sent out expressly to catch the Surinam rovers in Barima, and who captured everything that came in his way." British App. II, p. 199. 91 British App. II, p. 201 British App. II, p. 196. Venezuelan Case, p. 142. These " rovers" appear to have been individuals against whose actions even the Caribs bad asked for the aid of the Commandeur, requesting the re- establishment of a Post at Barima, " in order that they might be relieved from the annoyance of & the Surinam pirates," and about whom the Spaniards had complained to the Dutch, im pliedly admitting that the Barima was within Dutch jurisdiction. The boats captured by Elores were condemned IO" on the ground that they came from the Colony of Essequibo for the purpose of carrying on illicit traffic and purchasing " poitos " from the Caribs, under pretext of fishing. It is further stated in the Venezuelan Case 15 that — "in 17(51 the Spaniards cleared the Barima of Surinam traders." British App. II, p. 199. British App II, pp. 200, 201. British App. II, p. 217. British App p. 103. Ill, British App. Ill, p. 105. Raids of 1768-9. Venezuelan Case, pp. 142-145. The quotation in support of the statement is contained in a letter from Storm van 's Grave- 20 sande to the Company which has been already quoted. In his letter he evidently alludes to the expedition of Elores in 1760. The boats actually taken by Elores are described in the Spanish depositions, and as Elores never proceeded beyond 25 the Barima van- 's Gravesande seems to have confused them with sailing canoes captured near the Waini by privateers from Trinidad. There is no evidence that in 1761 the Spaniards cleared the Barima. of Surinam traders. 30 In fact, the Barima continued to be generally regarded, in accordance Avith the belief and practice of more than a century, as within Dutch jurisdiction. Only three years after this alleged clearance of 35 Surinam traders, the Governor of Demerara on the occasion of a slave revolt applied to van 's Gravesande to send " the brave Caribs of Barima out upon our rebels," recognizing by his request that van 's Gravesande could control the 40 inhabitants of that district. The Caribs obeyed the call, and performed the services required. The whole incident shows that the Governor, in exercise of ordinary practice and jurisdiction, sent to the Caribs of Barima, and that they at once 45 responded to the request of their friend and ally. The acts of the Spaniards in the years 1768- 1769, which are relied upon, in the Venezuelan Case, were mere raids. The Dutch had had a [579] 2 B 92 post in the Moruka district for nearly a century without any interruption, and without any challenge by the Spaniards of their right to maintain it. The attack by the Spaniards with- 5 out warning, and in time of peace, on such a Post, as well as their interruption at tbe same moment of the Dutch fishery which they bad previously recognized, shows that their conduct at this time Avas not measured by any conceptions of rightful 10 claim, but wras purely piratical. In any case this policy, which was confined to the years 1768-17(59, led to nothing. It is not the case as stated on p. 145 that the Scheme of Inciarte. result of the Spanish raids was that the Dutch 15 Colony was "on the brink of total ruin." The British App. IV, despatch of the Director- General, in which those words occur, refers to a mutiny of slaves, and the Spaniards are not mentioned in it. Nor did the Spaniards acquire by their raids control of any 20 portion of the coast region. It is true, hoAvever as stated in the Venezuelan Case, that in 1778 an ambitious scheme for the Spanish occupation of Dutch territory was committed to paper and a survey made. The Venezuelan Case deals with 25 the matter as follows : — " But the Spaniards were now»to go much further. V (_ MfZUG-c-Tl CflSG Stirred to action by the projects of the French for -j^g the settlement of the interior of the Guiana Colony, the Spanish Government of the Indies issued instructions 30 for the occupation of all eastern Guiana, to the very borders of the French and Dutch. In obedience to its orders there was drawn up in 1778, by the Intendant of Caracas, a definite and detailed plan for this occupation. An official map of Guiana, defining 35 the Spanish boundaries, was put in the hands of the Governor of Guiana as a basis for action ; and the latter was commissioned to make an armed reconnaissance of the entire territory." It is further stated that the reconnaissance was 40 carried out by Inciarte; that he returned to Spain, and was specially commissioned to proceed with tbe expulsion of the Dutch and the erection of Spanish establishments, and in case of Dutch complaint was to reply tbat the haws of Spain did 45 not allow such intrusions of foreigners in the Spanish dominions. The conclusion is drawn tbat, owing to the continuance of the revolutionary wars, the execution of the project Avas not actually pushed SO further, but the Venezuelan Case proceeds — " The project was never given up, and was receiving the attention of the Spanish Government to the very 93 end of its control of these South American Colonies, and to the very eve of the Dutch cession of Essequibo to Great Britain." British Counter- Case, App., pp. 217-254, Map No. 3. British App. IV, pp. 195-204. British Counter- Case, App., p. 250. British App. IV, p. 207. British App. IV, p. 206. British App. IV, p. 219. British App. V, p. 20. British App. V, p. 21. The journal, together with the accompanying Map, which records the work of the expedition, 5 has been obtained, and is printed in the Appendix to this Counter-Case. The wdiole story is a proof that the Spaniards had no control or authority whatsoever over the lands between the Essequibo and the 10 Orinoco. Don Eelipe de Inciarte, the officer commissioned to examine into the possibilities of restraining the Erench, and of taking advantage of negro revolts in order to oust the Dutch, achieved nothing except a brief survey and a 15 barren report. He wandered through territories of which the Spaniards had no knowledge, and in which they had no footing. He found the Dutch in those territories, and the Dutch took no more notice of him than to order inquiries 20 into the reasons of his coming, and examination of his pass. He never revealed any purpose to which the Dutch took objection, and the report of the Director-General merely stated that some Spaniards and mulattoes had been in the Biver 25 Pomeroon for some days without committing an act of molestation, though the Indians reported that they had said they would come again in about three months and build a fortress. All the designs of Inciarte were secret, and never 30 came to the knowledge of the Dutch. It Avas admitted by the Spaniards that his enterprise required length of time and much assistance, and must encounter great difficulties. The assistance was never given and the difficulties were never 35 overcome. By the time his report was delivered, the English had captured the Dutch Colony and sent an armed schooner, with orders to go as far as Oronoque, but not further, in order to clear the coast of pirates and privateers, and in view 40 of their presence in the Colony the Spanish Minister suggested tbat it Avould perhaps not be convenient to proceed. No progress was sug gested for nearly three years, while the English and the Erench possessed the Colony, but in 1783 45 Inciarte again proposed a fortified Post on the Moruka, which he declared to be abandoned. The Captain- General of Caracas promptly reported tbat it would entail enormous cost to maintain so distant a Settlement, wdiich would 50 be a sink of abuses, a depository of contraband 94 goods, a precarious possession in time of war, and a frail barrier against adjacent nations. The presence of Inciarte was considered no longer necessary and he Avas sent home. According to 5 the Venezuelan Appendix, Inciarte arrived in Cadiz at the end of March, 1781, and in Decem ber, 1786, was still Availing for the Spanish Minister to listen to him. In that year, 1786, the Post of Moruka Avas still untouched by any 10 Spanish attack, and the Commandeur wrote to the Company that the threats to raid the Post appeared only to be a popular rumour, " concerning Avhich I deem it better not to Avrite to the Government of Oronoque, it being far better to act 15 as if we believed such excesses and violations of territory could never be undertaken by a civilized nation in time of peace, it also being very probable that the Government never thought of it.'' Thus vanished the secret scheme dictated by 20 the enthusiasm of Inciarte without any result whatsoever, and there is no evidence that the project, as stated in the Venezuelan Case, "was receiving the attention of the Spanish Govern ment to the very end of its control of these South 25 American Colonies, and to the very eve of the Dutch cession of Essequibo to Great Britain." The second portion of Chapter XI of the Vene zuelan Case deals with the interior and with the Capuchin Missions on the savannahs which lie 30 between the Cuyuni and Orinoco Valleys, but which do not, as is stated in the Venezuelan Case, stretch to the banks of the Cuyuni. With regard to the character of these Missions the Venezuelan Case states as follows : — 35 " These Missions, let it be noted, were no mere private attempts on behalf of Capuchin missionaries to christianize Guiana. They were in every way representative of Spanish political and military authority." British App. V, pp. 21, 50. Venezuelan App III, p. 399. British App. V, p. 46. Venezuelan Case, p. 147. The Capuchin Missions. Venezuelan Case, p. 147. Venezuelan Case, p, 147. 40 It is true that the missionaries recognized the supremacy of the King of Spain, but it must not be supposed that the Mission area was under the jurisdiction of the civil and military authorities of the Indies. By the laws of Spain Missions in 45 the Indies were a jurisdiction apart. An attempt was made at one time by the Government of Guayana to put the Capuchin Missions under civil administration. The Capuchins appealed to the British App. p. 158. IV, 95 J. Strickland, Documents and Maps. Rome, 1896, p. 33. Venezuelan Case, p. 147. British Counter- Case, App., pp. 161, 197. Venezuelan Case, p. 147. Venezuelan Case, p. 154. Ante, p. 83. British App. II, p. 105. British App. II, p. 105. 15 King who, by a Cedula of the 10th November, 1771, directed tbe removal of the officers who had been put in charge of the villages, expressing at the same time his high displeasure at the action of the Governor. The Mission area was 5 never incorporated with the civil Province of Guayana. When the Missions were destroyed in 1817, the only authority which that district had ever known came to an end. The extent of territory occupied by the Missions 10 is much exaggerated in the Venezuelan Case. On p. 147 it is stated that as early as 1733 the Capuchin Missions pushed over into the basin of the Cuyuni and that their herds took firm posses sion of the savannahs which stretched to the banks of tbat river. At the period in question the Capuchins were in a miserable condition of poverty and despair, and no possession could have been adequately taken by the three or four friars who represented that order on the banks of tbe Orinoco. On the same page the following passage occurs : — " The shining sands of this region, however, soon attracted Spanish attention, and a Royal Order gave rise to the mines of Cupapuy, By 1755 they knew by investigation that gold and silver are found at every step in the districts of all these Missions, even to the Curumo ;" and on page 154, referring to the Missions it is said : " In 1755, their population was nearly 3,000." 20 25 30 These two quotations are given as instances of Spanish control and settlement. The latter statement is taken from a hst of eleven Missions 35 given by the Prefect of tbe Missions to Don Eugenio de Alvarado. The most easterly Mission mentioned in the list is Miamo, which escaped being sacked by the Caribs in 1750. It is true that the mines had attracted the 40 attention of the Spaniards, tbe possession of mines being the chief object of the Project of Para. The Eathers had discovered gold and evidently, from tbe report of Alvarado, were bent upon gaining wealth thereby, and thought that 45 every shining particle in the earth was gold. The great work of the President of Cupapuy had been — " to proclaim the richness of the country and to keep the micaceous earth, after being washed, as religiously 50 as though it were gold dust/' L579] 2 C 96 But not one of these alleged mines were at or near the Cuyuni. The passage in Avhich it was reported that gold existed at every step cannot support the claim of Spanish control, but if 5 fairly quoted, plainly indicates tbe slight control exercised by the Spaniards, even in districts remote from territory claimed by the Dutch. It states : -i In the destroyed Missions of Cuniri, Tupuquen, 10 Curumo, and that of Miamo, which escaped the fury of the Caribs, .... gold and silver ores are found at every step. But it must be well understood that I am only stating what they represent to me, for, as your Excellency is aware, nothing deceives one more than 15 the metallic particles found in the earth." British App. II, p. 106. And Alvarado adds : " I consider that in these Missions, which are more in the hands of the Dutch than in those of their proper OAvner, there exist the greatest riches and the fame 20 which has flown to Europe of the Province of Guayana.'' But he himself deprecated the search for gold, especially" in regard to Guayana, a province entirely de populated of our people, and, consequently, rendered 25 impossible for commerce, arid so exposed in many parts to the irruption of foreigners that it would be a most desirable thing if its mines could be wiped out." This statement as to the absence of Spanish 1 control is not noticed in the Venezuelan Case, 30 which also omits Alvarado's remarks in the same Beport as to tbe distance of the Cuyuni, tbe political reasons which prevented him from going there, and the statement that the passes of the Cuyuni were only safe to those who have a good 35 understanding with the Dutch and the Caribs. A confidential Beport to the King in 1760, evidently founded on Alvarado's recommenda tions, states :— •' Your Majesty will understand .... how near 40 they [the Missions] are to Essequibo, and how un desirable it is that they should advance a step further on the southern and eastern sides." The numerous passages from the despatches of Storm van "s Gravesande, cited or referred to on 45 pp. 148-151 of the Venezuelan Case, show clearly that the Dutch claimed the whole of the Cuyuni, as is also shown by the Map of Limits drawn by van Heneman about 1770, a correct copy of which accompanies this Counter-Case. As has British App. II, p. 107. British App. II, p. 107. I.riti>h App. II, pp. 108, 113. British App. p. 114. II, British Counter- Case, App., p. 204. Alleged Spanish Control on the Cuyuni. Venezuelan Case,' pp. 148-151. British Counter - Case, Map No. 2. 97 Venezu-rlan Case, pp. 150-152. British p. 71. App. IV, British Case, p. 48. British App. Ill, p. 129. Scheme of Marmion. British Case, p. 60. British App. V, pp. 101-5. Venezuelan Case, p. 152. been shown in the British Case van 's Gravesande was misinformed as to the position of the Spanish Missions, Avhich never extended to tbe Cuyuni or beyond the savannah region. The statements cited from Storm van 's 5 Gravesande's letters between 1765 and 1770 were all made with reference to rumours which reached him of alleged Spanish violence in the Cuyuni. All these rumours turned out to be false, and Avere repudiated by Centurion, the 10 Commandant of Guayana. The Post, established by the Dutch in 1766, remained unmolested for more than twenty years, Avhen they voluntarily ceased to maintain it. The Spaniards were never in the Cuyuni between 1758, when they raided 15 the Dutch post, and 1788. The only occasion on Avhich even a Spanish Indian appeared in the Cuyuni occurred in 1766, when the Carib Owl in Massaruni, not being able to arouse his own tribe against tbe Akawois, 20 imported some Spanish Indians. They were pursued, brought to Essequibo, and ordered back, greatly terrified. The Carib Owl in Massaruni was told that if he did such a thing again, he would be sent to North America in an 25 English ship. It is true that in 1788 a Spanish officer descended the Cuyuni, which, it can be seen from his diary, was till then quite unknown to the Spaniards. His expedition, like that of 30 Inciarte on the coast, had been undertaken in consequence of a new scheme of settlement, des tined to be as unsuccessful as the other, con ceived by Don Miguel Marmion, Governor of Guayana. This expedition is alluded to in the 3c Venezuelan Case at p. 152, where it is stated "In 1788 Antonio Lopez de la Puente was able to descend the Cuyuni to tide water, and then seize and bring away the principal Carib Chief employed by the Dutch, without encountering any Dutch Post nor a 40 single Dutchman and without resistance from the Indians." The Venezuelan. Case continues with the statement, of which there is no evidence — " So thoroughly had these been cowed by the 45 Spaniards whose armed expeditions had constantly come down to the same point before without trouble or opposition." The real facts of the scheme may be briefly summarized : — Don Miguel Marmion noted in 9S 1788 the destitute, miserable, and backward state of the Province of Guayana. He also noted that the Dutch traversed the Cuyuni "in canoes, pirogues, and feluccas, and thus carry on 5 their traffic in poitos, whom they enslave, and in other merchandize and products of the country." He suggested an extension of "villas" of Spaniards as a barrier for greater security against the incursions and prejudicial traffic of the 10 Dutch, protecting the rear of the Missions. This view was supported by his lieutenant, Lopez de la Puente, and by priests of the Missions. The priests desired to move cattle from exhausted lands and to found a cattle-farm 15 at Tumeremo, to the east of the Missions then existing, against which Marmion warned them, although the Prefect contended tbat "the site being so distant from the Biver Cuyuni, as is notorious to all, the occasion of all difficulty 20 arising therefrom is at once set aside." Marmion dispatched De la Puente " in order to carefully explore tbe Biver Cuyuni and its neighbourhood." De la Puente conducted this exploration in fear during the whole time 25 lest his secret operations should be discovered by the Dutch, and in the course of it he secretly captured a Carib Chief, in order that the Chief might not " go and inform the Dutch." Upon returning, he was so frightened at the vengeance 30 which the Chief's people and allies might wish to take that he advised the concentration of the Mission escorts for the purpose of repelling any attack. The question of the Tumeremo farm was considered so delicate by the Eiscal at 35 Caracas, to Avhom it was referred, that he con sidered that His Majesty must be consulted. The Intendant of Caracas, in writing to the Spanish Minister, described the expedition to have been caused by the fact that the proposed farm of Tumeremo was situated " in the parts nearest to the Dutch possessions of Essequibo* and close to the Biver Curiamo, which is the Avaterway to the Cuyuni, and both unite and discharge into the Essequibo." Consequently, the Governor wished to ascertain the position of the territory and to explore it as fully as its roughness and want of cultivation would permit. He concluded that a Post ought to be established, and reported tbat he had given orders to that effect- With his Beport he forwarded to Madrid 40 45 British App. V. p. 53. British App. V. p. 66. British App. V, p. 74. British App. V pp. 85, 87. British App. V. p. 95. British App. V, pp. 87, 88. British App. V, p. 102. British App. V, p. 106. British App. V. p. 108. British App. V, p. 117. British App. V, p. 83. 20 99 twenty long documents relating to the subject. The only comment upon the documents was a docket that the Intendant had forwarded the testimony and other documents relating to the construction of a Post, and a Minute, " Acknow- 5 ledge receipt and approve for the present." Alleged Spanish Post on the Cuyuni. Venezuelan Case, On p. 153 of the Venezuelan Case it is stated '• 153- that- " In 1792 the Spanish completed the construction of a fortified Post on the southern bank of the Cuyuni,' ^0 opposite the mouth of the Curumo. This continued to be the main Spanish Post in the Cuyuni basin until long after the acquisition of Essequibo by the British. This Post was maintained for the purpose of exercising political control ofthe basin ; and the instructions to its ]_5 Commander were clear upon that point." and on p. 156 it is again alleged that — " In the fairest region of that great basin, and south of the Cuyuni, she [Spain] had erected and was main taining a military post." These statements are not based on any direct evidence, and, as a matter of fact, are not capable of being piwed. It is admitted that there was a good deal of discussion as to establishing such a Post 25 on the frontier with the Dutch, either at the junction of the Yuruari and Uruan or at that of the Cuyuni and Curumo. There is also a note to one copy of Marmion' s Beport made British App. V, in 1793 wdrich suggests that a beginning had 30 p' ' been made with a new town in that neighbour hood, although by a slip the MS. speaks of the junction of the Cuyuni Avith the Orinoco. It is inconceivable that, if the Post had had any existence, there should not be some docu- gg ment directly referring to tbe fact. Yet no such document has been found, nor do the papers relating to the Beports of Aloys and of Olazarra in 1813 give a hint that any Post had been constructed. 4Q British App. VI, The declaration of Jose Blanco appears to 207 conclusively negative any suggestion that such a Post existed in 1817. The alleged site on tbe southern bank of the river, opposite the mouth of the Curumo, first 45 Venezuelan Atlas, appears on the Map of Codazzi (dated 1840), avIio Map No. 80. marks " antiguo fuerte." This map seems to have been used by Hebert, and accounts for his location of the site ; and it may be assumed that [579] 2 D 100 British Counter- Case, Map No. 5. British Atlas, p. 37. British Counter- Case, Map No. 4. Sir R. Schomburgk in his Map of physical fea-' tures accepted the same evidence of a Post which he had not specially investigated. The only map of authority which purports to 5 insert the real position of the fort or Post is that of Bauza (1841), which is reproduced in the Appendix to this Counter-Case. This map refers to the Map (which has not been discovered) by General Murillo (the Spanish Agent or peace- 10 maker in the war of rebellion), and on that authority places the alleged Spanish Post at a; long distance west of the Cuyuni. Arrowsmith's Map of Colombia (1831) also has the mark of a fort almost exactly in the same position. 15 These authorities completely destroy the suggestion that any Spanish Post was ever located south of the Cuyuni. To this evidence may be added that of the tracing of the Mission area found in Sir B. K. Porter's 20 collections, on which a " fortaleza " is marked on the north side of the Cuyuni, near its junction with the Curumo. No further statements of any consequence 25 impairing the Dutch rights to the Avhole region between the Essequibo and Orinoco are made in this chapter of the Venezuelan Case, with the exception of two statements on p. 153. It is alleged that there was — 30 « a great growth of Spanish population and spread of Venezuelan Case, Mission villages not only as far as the Curumo itself, "' but far into the interior of the Cuyuni-Mazaruni basin and even beyond, into the Potaro region and as far as the headwaters of the Siparuni." 35 It is also alleged that the entradas or expe ditions of the missionaries into unsettled lands for the purpose of converting the Indians, and bringing them back to reside in towns and villages were constant "throughout the region 40 west of the Essequibo, from the coast far into the interior, even beyond the Pacaraimia Mountains." Both these statements are denied, and have no foundation whatever in fact nor is any evidence adduced by the Venezuelan Government in 45 support of them. The Boundary Commission informed the King of Spain that no part of the territory between " the girdle " of the Orinoco and the sea had been penetrated nor any progress made therein by the Jesuits. The exact extent of the Capuchin Alleged Spanish control in the interior. Venezuelan Case, p. 153. British Counter- Case, App., p. 207, 101 Missions and the position of their furthest cattle farm is known, and no other missionaries ever attempted to enter the country. Fallacy of the Venezuelan Proposition. Certain conclusions are set forth at pp. 155 Venr55el156CaSe' and 156 of the Yenezuelai1 Case> Purporting 5 to be an exact statement of the extent of the territories belonging to the Netherlands and to the Kingdom of Spain respectively at the time of the acquisition by Great Britain of the Colonies of Essequibo, Demerara, and Berbice. The pro- 10 positions of fact embodied in this statement are too extravagant for detailed comment. It is boldly stated, without the slightest evidence, that Dutch access to Cuyuni and Moruka depended upon Spanish permission, while to Spain is 15 attributed a breadth and magnificence of dominion which even the realization of the paper schemes of such sanguine Lieutenants as Centurion, Abalos and Marmion would not have con ferred upon her. Not one of the conclusions at 20 the end of this chapter of the Venezuelan Case is justified by the evidence, and they are all, without exception, denied by Her Majesty's Government. In conclusion, it appears that, at the time of 25 the cession of Guiana to Great Britain, Mission occupation extended only about 50 miles from the banks of the Orinoco, and that the furthest point to which the missionaries had reached was the cattle farm at Tumeremo, far to the west of <°0 the line which was afterwards identified with the name of Sir B. Schomburgk. 102 CHAPTER XII. This Chapter deals with Chapter XII of the Venezuelan Case, pp. 157-162, entitled — " Dutch Remonstrances." 5 The following paragraph from the Venezuelan Case deserves quotation, as it appears to sum marize the contentions of the Venezuelan Govern ment on this head : — " The story of Dutch remonstrances is one of Spanish 10 aggression and assertion of sovereign rights in the territory now in dispute, followed by repeated protests of the Dutch, and Memorials to the Spanish Court, all of which were treated with contempt, answered only by a continuance of these aggressions, by further acts 15 of political control, by further grumblings on the part of the Dutch, by further complaints to Avhich the Spanish Government did not deign to reply, and by final acquiescence by the Dutch in the inevitable." The ideas conveyed by this paragraph are 20 entirely opposed to the facts. " Spanish aggres sion " there was, in the sense that there were occa sional raids upon Dutch territory. " Assertion of sovereign rights or political control " by Spain in the territory now in dispute there was none. It is quite true that there is an absence of any official admission by the Spanish Government of the justice of the Dutch Be monstrances and that in many cases no definite answer was obtained. The attempt, howeA'er, to build upon this founda tion the theory that there was final acquiesence by the Dutch in Spanish pretensions is pre posterous. The Dutch remained in posse, sion of what they claimed and the fact that they did not succeed iu obtaining from the Spanish diplo- o- matists any formal admission of their rights in no Avay lessens the significance of this result. This position Avill be illustrated by a few ob servations on each of the Bemonstrances referred to in the Venezuelan Case. 40 On p. 157 of the Venezuelan Case it is stated that " the first recorded Bemonstrance " was in 25 30 Venezuelan Case, p. 157. Alleged Remonstrance of 1746. Venezuelan Case, p. 157. 103 British App. II, p. 47. British App. II, pp. 46, 58, 63. British App. II, p. 55. British App. II, p. 63. British App. II, p. 47. 1746. In that year the Government of the Netherlands addressed no remonstrance to the Spanish Government, but it appears that the Commandeur in Essequibo in the years 1746-1719 made certain complaints by letters sent direct to 5 the Spanish Commandant. The nature and result of these complaints can now only be gathered from the accounts of the matter given by the Commandeur to his own Government. Erom these it appears that he complained of two 10 things : the capture of Dutch fishing craft in ' the Orinoco and the alleged establishment, or projected establishment, of a Mission, with or without a fort, in the Cuyuni. As to the first. the Spanish Commandant disavowed the action 15 that had been taken, and explained that it was the lawless act of a privateer, who had since been imprisoned at Trinidad at the instance of the Governor of Cumana. As to the second, he replied that no such enterprise had been, or 20 would be, undertaken. Erom this it will be seen bow unfounded is the suggestion which the Venezuelan Case appears to make, that the result of these com plaints was a successful assertion by Spain of a 25 right to continue the acts complained of. The anticipation expressed by the Dutch Com mandeur that his claim for the boats and cargoes would be fruitless, wdiieh is referred to in the Venezuelan Case at p. 157, as if it were an 30 admission of right on the part of the Spaniards, was based solely on the apprehension that the promises of the Spaniards were not to be relied upon, as they had failed to redeem their pledge to deliver up a Postholder who appears to have 35 deserted to Orinoco. Remonstrance of 1759. British Case, p. 49. Venezuelan Case, pp. 158, 159. The facts with regard to the Bemonstrance of 1759 have been given in detail in the British Case. The Spanish Government had recourse to its usual dilatory tactics, and it is quite true that ^y the Dutch did not succeed in obtaining compen sation for the outrage Avhich had been committed. What is more important is that they reoccupied and held the Cuyuni, and the Spaniards, who had immediately evacuated it, never renewed the 45 attack. The Venezuelan Case says that the only ansAver to the Dutch Bemonstrances was a " continuation of the very acts that brought them forth." Then [579] 2 E 101 follows a list of acts said to have been committed by the Spaniards. None of these alleged acts have any relevance to the Bemonstrance of 1759, except the allegation that theSpaniards established 5 further Missions in the Cuyuni and drove the Caribs from that region. The allegation that Missions were established by the Spaniards in the Cuyuni is absolutely unfounded. The situation and extent of the Spanish Missions have been 10 fully explained in the British Case. The allega tion that the Spaniards drove the Caribs from that region is supported only by a reference to a letter of the Director- General dated the 29th August, 1762, in which he states that after the jg raid the Caribs had retired to Essequibo. That this retirement Avas only temporary the whole subseqtient history of the Cuyuni Valley shows. The best answer to tbe suggestion of the Vene zuelan Case on this point is to be found in the 20 Beport of Don Jose Diguja, Governor of Cumana, dated the 15th December, 1763 (more than a year after the letter of the Director-General), in which he speaks in strong terms of the danger to which the Capuchin Missions were exposed owing to 25 the incursions of the Dutch and Caribs from the Cuvuni Valley. The other allegations in the paragraph of the Venezuelan Case under reply appear to be adduced with reference to the so-called Bemon- 30 strances of 1746 and 1719 which have been dealt with above. Tbe facts connected with the Dutch Bemon strance of 1769 have been so fully dealt with in the British Case, that it is not considered neces- 35 sary to dwell upon them in any detail in this Counter-Case. The Venezuelan Case seems to suggest that an inference unfavourable to the Dutch is to be drawn from the fact that the Spanish Government made no answer. 40 It is submitted that even if this Avere the case it wrould not support the desired inference. As a matter of fact the Spanish Government directed an inquiry, the proceedings in wrhich are referred to as showing conclusively that the Spanish 45 Government could not adopt the defiant attitude ascribed to them by the Venezuelan Case. It is quite true that the Spanish Government in ordinary course referred the Bemonstrance of 1769 to the Council of tbe Indies, but the broad British Case, pp. 38-42, 45-47. British App. II, p. 217. British App. Ill, p. 64. Venezuelan Case, pp. 158, 159. Remonstrance of 1769. British Case, pp. 54-56. British App. IV, p. 47. Venezuelan Case, p. 159. 105 assertion that the acts complained of continued is quite unsustainable, as a reference tc the proceedings on the Spanish inquiry will show. Remonstrance of 1775. Venezuelan Case, pp. 159, 160. British App. V, p. 127. It is not easy to see what relevance the 5 Bemonstrance of 1775 has to the contention of the Venezuelan Government on the boundary question. That Bemonstrance related to two matters, and to two matters only. One of these matters was the detention of 10 fugitive slaves who had succeeded in making their way to the Orinoco. The long-standing dispute on this subject was settled by the Cartel of Aranjuez in 1791. The only possible bearing which this dispute can have upon the boundary 1 5 question is that it illustrates the fact tbat until these slaves reached the neighbourhood of Santo Thome (Oronoque) they were not within Spanish territory and remained liable to recapture by the Dutch. 20 The other matter complained of was that there had been raids of a piratical nature on the Indians under the protection of the Dutch. With regard to this, the Spanish reply was that these acts of violence had caused the King much 25 surprise, and that he had ordered the Ministry of the Indies to inquire into the fact, and to pro ceed to the condign punishment of the aggressors. Conclusion. Venezuelan Case, pp. 160, 161. The fact so painfully elaborated and illustrated 30 on pages 160 and 161 of the Venezuelan Case that there was enormous delay on the part of the Spanish Government in dealing with these remonstrances, may be admitted. The history of the eighteenth century would probably show 35 that these were not the only occasions on which the methods of the Spanish Government were extremely dilatory. The Venezuelan Case appears to assume that these Bemonstrances received no answer because they deserved none ; 40 but this may be accounted for by the circum stance that the Spanish Government found it difficult to frame any satisfactory reply to these well-founded Bemonstrances. However this may be, the Dutch remained in control of the territory 45 now in dispute, and the vague pretensions of Spain to the wdiole of Guiana were neither formulated nor put in force. 106 The statement at the close of Chapter XII of Venezuelan Case, the Venezuelan Case to the effect that the frontier now in controversy between Great Britain and Venezuela is to be drawn with 5 reference solelv to evidence taken from the period anterior to the British occupation is noticed at the commencement of the next Chapter. 107 CHAPTER XIII. This Chapter deals with Chapter XIII ofthe Venezuelan Case, pp. 163-178, entitled— "British Occupation, 1803 to 1850." Venezuelan Case, p. 162. Venezuelan Case, p. 172. The history of the British occupation of 5 Essequibo is entered upon in the Venezuelan Case with a reservation that the definition of the present boundary must depend upon the extent of Dutch and Spanish rights in 1803, and that the British claims cannot in law have anything 10 in the history of the present century to support them. In dealing Avith the British occupation in fact, the Venezuelan Case makes a break in the year 1850, and describes the extent of that 15 occupation in that year as follows : — " The above evidence, gathered from the statements of British officials and British documents, makes it clear that, at least as late as 1850, that is to say, less than fifty years ago, British occupation of the Essequibo, so 20 far as its western bank was concerned, differed from Dutch occupation of the same river in 1648 only because of a few plantations along the Arabian or Arabisi coast, Actual settlement along the coast did not extend as far west as the Pomeroon; and in the interior, except for a 25 penal settlement and a Mission at or near the former site of Fort Kykoveral, there was no settlement or occupation whatever.'' Venezuelan Case, p. 173. Materiality of occupation during present Century. A second section of the same chapter is devoted to the general condition of tbe Colony during the 30 same period. The conclusion contended for is indicated in the following words : — "A glance at the general condition of the Colony itself during the first half of the century will disclose the fact that, like its predecessor of 200 years before, it 35 Avas generally on the brink of ruin, and that its con tinued existence, at least Avest of the Essequibo, was at times very doubtful." The contention that the British claims cannot in law have anything in the history of the present 40 century to support them, is not correct. In the first place it is clear that by virtue of Article IV. Bule (a) of the Treaty of Arbitration, Great [579] 2 E IOS pp. 164, 165, 166. Britain is entitled to retain whatever territory has been held by her, or has been subject to her exclusive political control for a period of fifty years, although the result might be to give to 5 Great Britain territory which had never been Dutch, and might even conceivably have at one time been Spanish. Moreover, there has been nothing to prevent ihe extension of British settlement and control, if the regions into which 10 such extension was made wrere at the time lying vacant. Territory added to the British Colony by such extension cannot be awarded to Vene zuela, hoAyever recent the British possession may have been. 15 In dealing with the extent of British occupa tion between 1803 and 1850, the Venezuelan Case deals only with the limits of actual planta tion. Thus, with regard to the Coast, despatches Venezuelan Case, from various Governors are referred to, which 20 show that the plantations did not go further than the Arabian coast, and did not extend inland to any distance. Evidence is also produced showing that for the purposes of militia organization and parochial division, no account Avas taken of 25 territory beyond the Pomeroon. If this is intended to convey that either in the opinion of the officers of the British Government, or for the purposes of actual British jurisdiction and control, the limits of the Colony did not extend beyond 30 the Pomeroon, nor inland behind the fringe of plantations, this conclusion is not well founded. British officers never regarded the Colony as so limited. In 1799, Captain Macrae treats the Colony as 35 reaching to "tbe Spanish Settlements on the Orinoco." The very report cited in the Vene zuelan Case as showing that the plantations stopped short of Moruka, states also that the boundary, recognized as in dispute, was according 40 to the Dutch, a line running north and south from Cape Barima, and according to the Span iards, the Moruka. Again in 1827, Lieutenant- Governor D'Urban stated the boundary to be a line running north and south from Cape Barima 45 into the interior. Einally, tbe despatch of Governor Light, of the 1st September, 1838, Venezuelan Case, cited in the Case for Venezuela, in which it is saicl that the Pomeroon might be taken as the limit to the county (not country, as in the Vene- Blue Book, Vene- 50 zuelan Case), does not indicate any opinion to zu|'^ No- 1 Oy96)> the contrary. The Coast Eegion. British Counter Case, App., p. 300. British App. V, p. 170. Venezuelan Case, p. 164. British App. V, p. 1.86. British App. VI, p. 39. 109 British Counter- Case, App., pp. 274, 275, 286, 301, 304, 306- 311. British Counter- Case, App., pp. 391-400. British Counter Case. App.. p. 278 British Counter- Case, App., p. 28-3. Venezuelan Case, p. 165. Venezuelan Case, p. 167. Venezuelan Case, p. 167. British Anp. VI. pp. 70, 71, 72 76. Venezuelan Case, pp. 167, 163. Still less do the passages cited in the Vene zuelan Case show tbat in fact the Colony Avas limited to the area of the plantations. The settlement under a British grant of the Spanish refugee Indians on the Upper Moruka, 5 the Missions, and, more important still, the Post on the same river, are all as valid evidence of occupation as coffee, sugar, or cotton plantations. So are the Missions and the wrood-cutting estab lishments on the Pomeroon, where, moreover, 10 there were also coffee plantations. The con tinued existence of the Moruka Post is proved by tbe yearly and, in some cases, quarterly accounts showing that the salaries for the staff at that Post were provided by the Colony. A 15 number of these are printed in the Appendix to this Counter-Case, and the complete series can be produced. The system of Postholders continued until the year 1838, Avhen by an Ordinance of the Colony 20 they were superseded by the appointment of the Superintendents of Bivers and Creeks, whose duties wTere defined by that Ordinance and who exercised their jurisdiction throughout tbe district now in dispute, in tbe manner described 25 in the Reports of Mr. Crichton and others printed in the Appendices to tbe British Case and Counter-Case. Nor do the passages cited in any way negative the exercise of British sovereignty over the 30 unoccupied lands. The very passage quoted as showing that the plantations did not extend back from the coast, also shows that the Colony kept the region behind them free from settlement by runaway negroes. 35 The passage quoted from the despatch of Sir Henry Light of 1st April, 1838, in which he speaks of the coast between the Pomeroon and Orinoco as " unoccupied by any person, or under any authority," was written Avith reference to the 40 danger of such Settlements being formed ; and in view of this Mr. Crichton, reporting on bis journey through this district in the following year, made special mention of tbe fact that there were no persons other than Indians resident in 45 the Waini and Barima neighbourhood. This is cited in the Venezuelan Case as shoAving absence of British control. It really shows the opposite, inasmuch as it makes it clear that one of the objects of Mr. Crichton's 50 official journey was to see that this region, which 110 Avas under his jurisdiction, Avas not used for residence by other than Indians. In tbe passage omitted from tbe middle of the Venezuelan Case, Venezuelan citation, Mr. Crichton further reports 5 that there was no exercise of Colombian juris- „ . . , . _._- d __ British App. VI, diction to the east of the Amakuru, and that all p. 76. the Indian Captains on tbe Waini and Barima and tributaries had received their insignia of command from the Colony, and looked to it for 10 protection. The affirmative evidence adduced by Venezuela as to the British limits during this period in the coast region having now been dealt Avith, it is not proposed to restate the evidence adduced on the British Case, 15 same point in the British Case. It is only necessary p' to point out that, though beyond the Moruka there were no residents on British grants, that territory Avas at this time, as proved in the British Case, comprised within the jurisdiction of a British 20 Magistrate, traversed by him on his circuits, and inhabited by aborigines owning the supremacy and claiming the protection of the British CroAvn . With regard to British occupation in tbe in- The Interior. 25 terior during this period, the Venezuelan Case makes the same point as wdth regard to the coast. The whole contention is that there were no resi dents other than Indians above the falls in the three rivers. The Dutch plantations above the 30 falls had been found in the eighteenth century British App. VI, to be unproductive in comparison with the land lower down; this circumstance fully explains the absence of settlers ; but the Colonial Govern ment never relaxed its hold of the upper rivers. 35 In the days when military support against the blacks was required from the Indians the lists Of those ready to serve included Indians living eighteen days up the Massaruni and ten clays up British App. VI, the Essequibo and Cuyuni. p' ' ' 40 The Caribs of the Essequibo received the British App. V. presents of tbe Government and bound them- Knn185, 18^' 1^5' __;UU. selves to keep the peace. A mission was planted British Ann VI on the Bupununi in 1839, and Pirara AAras PP- 64> 65> 119- occupied by British troops in 1840. 15 In the Massaruni the Government in 1826 interfered to put down a native conflict, and in tbe British App. VI, same year ejected Mr. Hilhouse from land upon pp' ^6~''8' which he had squatted among tbe Indians in v'sq, ' that river. In the Cuyuni during this period no 50 disturbance is recorded. That river wras occupied by Indians aaIio had fled from the savannahs on the Ill British App, VI, p. 49. British App. VII, p. 28. The condition'of the Colony. Venezuelan Case, pp. 173-178. Venezuelan Case, p. 173. British App. V, pp. 189, 190. destruction of the Missions. In 1833 Mr. Arm-' strong, the missionary at Bartika, met Indians at a point five days up the Cuyuni, Avho stated that they came from a settlement of 200 Indians five days' higher up under a Chief who had emigrated - 5 from Venezuela ; and in. 18 il Schomburgk found at the mouth of the Acarabisi that the Indians wore refugees from the Missions, who had escaped to the Cuyuni from the Venezuelan forces. The Indians were fully aware of the 10 former occupation of the Cuyuni by the Dutch, and that the Spaniards had never come beyond Airekuni (8 miles above the Acarabisi), to which they had penetrated during the Patriot War. In the absence of trouble among the Indians, 15 and in view of the decay, after the1 suppression of the Missions, of Spanish or Venezuelan influence in the savannahs, occasions for the active exercise of British dominion on the Cuyuni during this period were infrequent. It will be seen from the 20 history of the next period, that is to say the period since 1850, that the moment the active assertion- of the British right to the Cuyuni Valley, or at any rate to the south bank of that river became important, such assertion was 25 effectively made. The considerations advanced in the Venezuelan Case with reference to the condition of the Colony, may be dealt with very briefly. It is pointed out that during the first half of the een- 30 tury> agriculture in British Guiana underwent, as an industry, a serious relapse from its former state of prosperity, and land went out of' cultiva tion. So far as this may have been due to economic causes, it is submitted that it can have 35 no sort of bearing on the questions at issue in this Arbitration, unless it resulted, which it can be shown it did not, in the contraction of tbe territory in any way occupied or governed by the Colony. It is suggested, hoAvever, that the 40 enterprise of the British planters to the west of the Essequibo was checked by the Spaniards. The authority upon which this suggestion is made, is a representation made in 1808, that is to say in time of war, by seventeen planters upon 45 the Arabian coast, that the situation of their estates rendered them particularly liable to the ravages of hostile privateers; wherefore they prayed that a road should be constructed to facilitate their relief in case of attack, that 50 further troops should be sent to the district, and [579] 2 G 112 5 that an armed schooner should be stationed off the Moruka Post. It cannot be shown that Spanish attacks ever caused the abandonment of a single plantation ; and the Moruka Post was always maintained. It is not tbe case, as stated on p. 174 of the Venezuelan Case, that the Colony itself had gradually shrunk, and the circum stance tbat it was found convenient to merge it with Demerara can have no bearing upon the 10 question of boundary. It was at one time pro posed to place the capital of the nowr united Colony on the west bank of the Essequibo on the Ituribisi Creek, but ultimately the present site of Georgetown was adopted. 15 With regard to the social and economic revo lution involved in the abolition of the slave trade the subsequent emancipation of the negroes, and the resulting loss to the planters, this had no effect upon the area which Great Britain con- 20 tinued to occupy. If, as the passage cited from Bodway indicates, plantations were replaced by villages of emancipated negroes, living in com parative idleness, this, however financially dis astrous, did not curtail the extent of the British 25 territory. The negro villages were villages of British subjects, living under the laws of tbe Colony ; and the changes introduced by emanci pation in the British Colony had no such effect as that Avhich followed the suppression of the 30 Capuchin Missions in the Spanish territory, whereby there was swept away and utterly destroyed all vestige of Spanish influence, or of Spanish organization, in the territory east of the Orinoco. It must be pointed out, however, 35 tbat Great Britain is not bound by the state ments of Mr. Bodway, which are in many cases inaccurate. It is clear from the evidence adduced in the British Case, and again referred to in the present 40 chapter of this Counter-Case, that whatever the fate of the planters, British occupation and British government, so far from becoming weaker, became more firmly consolidated during this period. Venezuelan Case, p. 174. British Counter- Case, App., 260, 262. Venezuelan Case, p. 176. British Case, pp. 98-118. 113 CHAPTER XIV. This Chapter deals with Chapter XIV of the Venezuelan Case, pp. 179-196, entitled — "History of British Occupation, 1850 to 1896." Venezuelan Case, p. 179. Venezuelan Case, p. 179. The Legal Bearing of Possession. With regard to the period since 1850, the 5 Venezuelan Case asserts that — " in view of the Fifty Year Rule [Article IV, Rule (a) J adopted by the present Treaty, the expansion of British occupation since 1847 can have no effect upon the determination of the boundary-line," save in so far as occupation at the date of the Treaty may have effect given to it under Bule (c), and it is claimed that even under tbat Bule no effect should be given to it. The following extract shows the argument : — 10 15 20 "In order that the Tribunal may be able to apply this Rule, it becomes necessary to place it in possession of the facts connected Avith the recent occupation of a part of the disputed territory by Great Britain. The beginning of that occupation dates, on the coast, only from 1884 (twelve years prior to the signing of the Treaty), and, in , the interior, only from 1880, or later, (not more than sixteen years prior to the present Treaty). "Prior to .those dates British settlement was still what it had been in 1850. Since those dates all persons 25 who have ventured into the disputed territory have gone there in the face of distinct warning from both Governments. They have, with open eyes, assumed all the risks involved, and, so far as the Venezuelan GoArernment is concerned, it does not consider that they 30 are entitled to any consideration." Great Britain denies the correctness of these propositions both in law and fact. The Eifty Year Bule, Article IV, Bule (a) adopted by the Treaty under Avhich this Arbitra- 35 tion is held, lays down that adverse holding or prescription for that period shall make a good title; and it is true that any occupation by Great Britain since 1847 cannot of itself confer a valid title to territory which may be adjudged to have 40 114 belonged by right to Venezuela. But no question of adverse holding or prescription can arise except where one Power has occupied territory by right belonging to the other ; and, 5 except in such cases, present possession, however recent, cannot be disturbed. Great Britain denies that her present occupation (extending to the Schomburgk line) does in fact include any greater extent of territory than was 10 occupied or politically controlled by the Dutch and by Great Britain since her succession to the Dutch title. The only change has been that in the last fifteen or twenty years her occupation of the outlying districts has been marked by more 15 complete political administration. But even if that were not so Her Majesty's Government would be entitled to retain the Avhole territory up to ' the Schomburgk line, on the simple ground that at the date of the Treaty of Arbitration they 20 were in possession, and that the territory in question cannot be shown to have ever belonged either to Spain or Venezuela. There is no ground for the contention (if it becomes material to consider it) tbat settlers 25 who have ventured into the disputed territory since 1880 in the interior, and 1884 on the coast, are entitled to no consideration, because they went there in the face of distinct warning from both Governments, and with open eyes assumed 30 all the risks involved. In 1863 and 1867, tbat ,, is to say, while the Arrangement of 1850 was subsisting, tbe Colonial Government refused to grant land or to promise protection to certain prospectors in the Cuyuni. But if the instruc- 35 tions for the guidance of the Governor in the matter of this Arrangement are referred to, it will be seen that he wras to act, on any occasion on which action might be necessary and could not be avoided, as if the territory within Sir 40 Bobert Schomburgk's boundary were British, and he wras further instructed to prevent any lodgment by the Venezuelans. Since the time when Venezuela herself ceased to observe the Arrangement of 1850, the British Government has 45 given both landed title and protection to the settlers up to the Schomburgk line. The speech of the Lieutenant - Governor in 1887, which is referred to in the Case for Venezuela, merely pointed out that, in the event of any 50 part of the territory on which grants were being made becoming Venezuelan, no claim for The Position ot Settlers in Disputed Territory. Venezuelan App. Ill, pp. 339, 340. British Counter- Case, App., p. 305. Venezuelan Case, p. 183 115 British Counter- Case, App., p. 312. The Early Gold Discoveries. Venezuelan Case, pp. 180, 181. Venezuelan Case, Fp. 179, 180. Development of the Coast Region. Venezuelan Case, p. 189. Britisli App. VII, p. 261. British Case, p. 131. British App. VI, p. 241. British App. VII, p. 272. compensation by tbe grantees would be recognized by Her Majesty's Government or the Colony, but that Her Majesty's Government would endeavour to obtain the recognition of their titles by Venezuela. The position of the grantees, how- 5 eA'er, was made quite clear by a despatch from the Secretary of State to the Governor later in the same year, which laid it down that uncon ditional grants of land might be made within the Schomburgk line without any reservation and 10 on the understanding that the British title to the territory within that line could not thereafter be the subject of question. The narrative of the early gold discoveries, which occupies pp. 180 and 181 of the Venezuelan 15 Case, need only be noticed for the purpose of contradicting such misstatements as the allega tion that the Venezuelans already had extensive settlements on the Yuruari in 1850, or that prohi bitions by the Venezuelan Government prevented 20 attempts by the British Colony to open up the fields ; or, again, that the Venezuelans were in possession of any part of tbe Cuyuni or Massaruni. The Case on behalf of Venezuela represents that the development since 1850 of British settle- 25 ment in the territory in dispute is entirely due to the gold discoveries, and is limited to tbe gold areas. This is not admitted. The facts are as follows : — Between 1850 and 1884 the British Govern- 30 ment did not make grants of land for settlement in the country beyond the Moruka; but even during this period, some settlers from the British Colony cleared, drained, and planted land within this district. Mr. im Thurn 35 in the course of his journey into the district in 1883 found four settlements properly drained on which the far ners were residing. At no time did the British Government abandon their claim to jurisdiction within this 40 district. In 1884 in consequence of the purported grant by Venezuela of the concessions to the Manoa Company, Great Britain held herself liberated from the Arrangement of 1850, and immediately, 45 that is to say three years before the discovery of gold in this region, resumed full control of the country up to the Amakuru. In 1885 a court house was erected on the right bank of that river by the acting Magistrate, Mr. McTurk. This action of the Government at once led to further [579] 2 H 50 116 settlement, although no legal grants were as yet issued. In 1886 there Avere about thirty-two settlers counted by Mr. im Thurn, mostly upon the '^ " pp' 5 Aruka and MoraAvhana. The plots cultivated varied from 30 to 100 acres in extent, Avere carefully and excellently drained, and, in short, British App. VI, corresponded in all respects in manner of cultiva tion and drainage Avith tbe agricultural grounds 10 in the Pomeroon. The produce of these planta tions Avas so considerable that sloops Avere beginning; to trade regularly betAveen the Aruka British App. VI, , D b s P- 24L (where one of them was owned) and the Pomeroon and even the Georgetown market. In 1887 British App. VI, 15 and in 1888 Mr. im Thurn again dreiv attention to the excellent character of the cultivation on these rivers. He reported that he had observed between thirty and forty coolies working at once on one farm ; and a map which accompanied his 20 Beport for 1888 showed that the farms extended not only throughout the whole course of the Morawhana and far up the Aruka, but that some of them existed at the mouth of the Barima and far up the Waini. 25 MeaiiAvhile the Government were taking active measures to insure the good government of the district. In January 1887, the very year in British App. VI, which the gold discoveries were made, Mr. im "• 239- Thurn reported that sites had been selected for 30 stations on the Aruka and at Barima Sand. The court-house at Amakuru continued to be used as a third station. In 1888 there were further in British App. VII, course of erection : (1) A station at Baramani p' ~3 ' for five constables Avith court-room, lock-up, and 35 accommodation for public officers travelling : (2) On the Waini a rest-house for the temporary accommodation of public officers and police travelling from Baramani to the Waini. There had also been erected at Morawhana a station 40 for seven constables Avith court-room, lock-up, and quarters for. the inspector of police. The stations at Barima Sand and Amakuru AArere also being maintained. In 1889 preparations A\rere made for the future British App. vn, 45 administration of the territory betAveen the pp' "bo' "j65' Moruka and the Amakuru as a separate district. Houses were built for the officer in charge of the district, for his clerk, and for a Commissary (Bevenue Officer); also a cottage hospital. 50 Pending the rebuilding of the Amakuru station, a police schooner Avas kept always stationed in 117 the Amakuru to serve as a police station. The Barima had been declared a port of entry, with a Customs-house at Morawhana. The inland communication had been improved by the clear ance of the overhansjins' trees from the itabo 5 between the Moruka and the Waini, and by tbe establishment of a rest-house on the Barima between Morawhana and Barima Sand. North-Western District. In 1890 the district between the Moruka and British App. vn, the Amakuru was separated from the Pomeroon 10 p' district, and constituted an independent area under the name of the North-Western District under the charge of Mr. im Thurn as Govern ment Agent. In that capacity he held appoint ment as Deputy for the heads of all the principal 15 Government Departments in the Colony. He British App. Vll, aiso hppj a commission as Special Magistrate, p. 267. „ and exercised the power of a Government Officer under the Peculations issued under the Mining Ordinance of 1887. The other officials 20 of the district were a Magistrate, two Inspectors of Police (one at Morawhana, the other at Amakuru), a Commissary, a Government Officer, British Aup vii permanently stationed at Baramani, and a p- 269. clerk to the Government Agent. A sergeant 25 and four constables of police were stationed at Amakuru, a corporal and three constables at Barima Sand, a corporal and six constables at Morawhana, and a sergeant and four constables at Baramani, in ail two sergeants, 30 two corporals, and seventeen constables in the British App. Vll, whole district. Courts were held once a month at MoraAvhana and at Baramani. British App. VII, One of the earliest acts of the Government in pp" the new agency was to legalize the existing settle- 35 ments by the issue of Government grants, and fifteen new allotments for agricultural purposes were also applied for and granted. Agricultural enterprise was, indeed, very active. Between British App. VII, the 31st March. 1890, and 31st March, 1891, 40 p. 281. . ' . eighteen sloops and schooners carried cargoes, mostly of agricultural produce, from Morawhana to Georgetown, making between them, for this purpose, 141 journey's. Prom what has been said it is clear, that even in 45 1890, British settlement in the North- Western District was by no means a mere collection of camps of gold-diggers. Agricultural development and political administration preceded tbe gold industry. The first discovery of gold took place 50 in the Barama, a tributary of the Waini, in 1887. 118 The industry fairly started there in 1888. In British App. VII, September 1889 the Waini basin was declared a p'British App. VII, gold district for the purposes of the colonial laAvs, p 262. and a Government Officer for the collection of 5 the royalty was stationed at the police-station at Baramani. It was not till 1890 that the in- British App. VII, dustry commenced in the Barima, and then at a p' point 150 miles from the agricultural settlements. By that time the political organization of the 10 Barima and Amakuru, by means of the stations at Morawhana, Barima Sand, and Amakuru, had been established. The rapid progress of the North- Western Dis trict continued throughout the year 1890. In 15 August of that year a post-office was started at MoraAArhana, with a Aveekly mail to and from British App. VII, Georgetown. NeAv buildings Avere added to the p' station at Baramani, including a new house for the Government Officer, with quarters for servants 20 and subordinate officers, and a convenient apart ment for carrying out the searching of those returning from the Barama gold-field. Similar additions were made to the buildings Brltis,11 App- VI1, ° p. 271. at the Morawhana station. The formation of a 25 new station was commenced at the mouth of the . . Barama so as to insure that all gold taken from p. 271. the field should pass the station at Baramani. A new station was built on the Amakuru to replace p. 272. the temporary buildings erected in 1885. A 30 Magistrate, distinct from the officer in charge of the district, wras appointed, and a house built for BntAsJ. Ap .'^YIr' . PP- 271 and 272. him at Morawhana. Licences for keeping shops, for the sale of exciseable articles, for do_rs, guns, British App. vn, p 270 and revolvers were collected by the Commissary 35 residing at Morawhana. Hospitals were erected both at Morawhana and at Baramani. A ^""S,^1™1,pp. _)71 and 282. steam-launch wras acquired for the service of the Government officials on the rivers of the district, BrLt's!1 APP- VJI> p. 281. and arrangements made for coaling her at British App VII 40 Baramani. p- 270. The whole of this administrative development took place during the twelve months ending in April 1891. During the same period gold had been continuously worked in Barama, and since 45 November 1890, in Barima also. The number of p ^77 pp- ' placer claims applied for in tbe Waini basin had increased from 87 in April 1890, to 204 a year later. In the Barima they had increased from 3 in October 1890 to 25 in March 1891. The 50 number of registered labourers who had passed on their way to the diggings during the year was, 119 in tbe Waini district, 1,764, and in the Barima district, 182. In the year ending March 1892, further advances were made in the settlement and administration of the North-Western District. 5 British App. VII, The number of Government officials was increased p" by the appointment of a District Surveyor and of a Medical Officer. British App. VII, The police were returned as numbering twenty- v' 285- five, as against twenty-one in 1890, and they 10 were increased to thirty in the next year. British App. vii, There had been tried summarily by the Magistrate P- 284- during the year 163 petty cases, civil and criminal; and provision had been made for British App. Vll, serving short sentences at the lock-up at 15 P- 286, Morawhana. Licences to the number of 377, and of the value of 1,266 dol. 72 c. had been Briti-h App. VII, collected by the Commissaxy ; 532 patients had P- 288- been treated at the hospital at Morawhana, and British A VII ^80 at that at Baramani. There was a Begistry 20 p. 289. of births, deaths, and marriages at Morawhana, and the post-office with a money-order office British App. VII, was from the commencement of the new year to P- 287- pass under an officer specially assigned for the discbarge of all postal duties. 25 During this same year a bi-monthly service of steamers had commenced running between British App. Vll, Georgetown and Morawhana under GoArernment !)' ' subsidy ; and a second steam-launch was acquired British App. VII, Dy the GoArernment for the use of the officials 30 n 287. ' within the North-Western District. Three new stations projected the year before had been com- fS A''P' VI1' Pleted durin£ the Jear 1891-1892. These were Koriabo and Arakaka on the Upper Barima, to Bri9q1h App' VI1' which the gold industry had uoav largely shifted, 35 and one at the mouth of the Barama. The sites of these are shown on a map which accompanied British App. VII, -j^.. }m Thurn's report for the year 1890-91. p. 267. L Besides this, new buildings were added to the British App. VII, existing station at Amakuru, and a new 40 police barrack was erected at Barima Sand at a British App. VII, cost of 2,120 dollars. At Morawhana a town p' ' was laid out and three settlers, whose land yyas British App. VII, required for the purpose, were bought out. British A > Vll Numerous applications for sites were at once 15 p. 293. received. During the whole of this year the relations of the officials of the North-Western District with the Venezuelans at the two stations on the left Briti-h Aiip. VII, of the Amakuru (established the year before), 50 pp. 8 , - . j_a(j |3eeii o£ ^_e most friendly character. [579] 2 I 120 In the vear 1892-93 there were further additions to the Government staff and buildings in the North-Western District. Another Gold British App. vn, Officer was appointed, and at Morawhana p' 5 accommodation for twro more Government officers and for the crew of the new steam-launch was provided at a cost of 2,500 dollars and 1 ,070 dollars respectively. A post-office, doing also money British App. VII, order business, had been built at a cost of p- 10 480 dollars. The town site at Morawhana had been prepared, cleared, and drained at an expense of 5,000 dollars. The hospital there had been enlarged, and even a post-mortem British Ap>> vn room and mortuary bad been added. In the P- 301. ]5 course of the year 5,168 patients were treated Bm^sh APP. VII, besides 121 at Baramani. Besides this, it was already proposed to build a branch hospital or dispensary at Arakaka, tbe actual site of the gold industry. At the same time, in vieAV of the 20 existence of cholera in Venezuela, a Quarantine Board had been formed to further safeguard the public health. The gold industry during this year had made „„_ 298 305. *' great progress in Barima. The operations were 25 as yet confined to placers ; but owing to more British A VII systematic working, the output was by far the p. 298. largest on record in the Colony. Discovery had, however, been made of quartz reefs in the neighbourhood of the Barima Palls, and claims 30 were being eagerly located. An extensive .^j1 App' v li' p. 0\JO. mining settlement Avas in existence upon the Arakaka Creek, and the importance of the Upper Barima was becoming so great that the British App. VII, steamer contractors announced that in future the 35 steamers would run past Morawhana to Mount Everard, 48 miles higher up the river. A considerable trade wras being done in stores, one firm alone introducing as much as two tons British App. vn, weight of consumable stores per week. 40 The most important wrork achieved by the Government of the North-Western District in the year 189-3-94 was the arrangement on a legal and systematic basis of the " waterside stores " which the neighbourhood of the gold-field had 45 called into existence at Arakaka. The site of this ill-ordered squatters' Settlement was divided into definite lots, the possession of one of which was assured to each squatter, subject to the right British App. VI I, reserved to the Government Agent to enforce p' 50 sanitary conditions. Similar arrangements were made at Koriabo and Mount Everard, the latter place being 121 British App. VII, p. 314 British App. VII, p. 315. British App. VII, p. 312 British App. VII, p. 312. British App. VII, p. 316. British App. VII, p. 311. British App. VII, p. 312. British App. VII, p. 310. British App. VII, pp. 309-310. British App. VII, p. 309. British Ape VII, p 314. British App., VII, pp. 314, 315. British App. VII, p. 315. British App. VII, p. 307. already of some size and importance as the terminus of the steamer service from George town. The traffic by these steamers had so much increased that the contractors commenced to run 5 weekly instead of the fortnightly steamers which they wrere bound to run under their contract. In this year branch post-offices weve estab lished at Baramani, Koriabo, and Arakaka, the latter dealing with some 300 letters received per 10 week, and as many dispatched. A savings bank was added to the post-office at Morawhana. The money handled by that office during the year in respect of money orders, savings bank deposits, and stamps amounted to more than 15 6,000 dollars. Agricultural enterprise was reviving after a temporary check due to the competition of the mining industry, and the demand for both mining and agricultural surveys was greater than the surveyor could deal with. 20 Tbe sale of licences also increased both in number and total value. There wrere Church of England and Boman Catholic schools. The public works completed this year included the cleansing of the itabo between the Waini 25 and the Moruka, the extension of the " paaling " (campshedding) on the river bank at Morawhana, the erection of a branch hospital at Arakaka, numerous additions to the hospital at Mora whana, one of which was a ward for paying 30 patients, and the erection of new Government buildings, police stations, and lock-ups at Arakaka and Koriabo. Tbe greatest and most important undertaking, however, was the clearing of the upper reaches 35 of the Barima Biver so as to make it navigable for steam-launches. A sum of 20,000 dollars had been voted by the Government at George town for this purpose, and of this almost exactly one-half had been expended by 1894, with the 40 result that a safe channel had been made as far as Koriabo. In addition, a preliminary survey was made, at a cost of 600 dollars, of the track across from the Barama to the Cuyuni. Authority had been obtained to make a portage 45 past the Barima Palls, and the work was about to be commenced. The legal work of the year included the summary trial of about 300 petty cases, civil and criminal, or about the same number as the year 50 before. The fines and fees received by the 122 Magistrate amounted to 1,073 dol. 32 c. In this year Courts Avere, for the first time, held at Koriabo, as Avell as at Baramani and Morawhana as theretofore. A regular prison, distinct from 5 the lock-up, had been built at Morawhana. The official Beports by the Government Agent for the North- Western District cease at the end of 1895, but the Declaration by Mr. im Thurn printed in the Appendix to this Counter- Case 10 shows briefly what further progress has been made since. A good road has been made from Arakaka to the Barama. A track has been cut from tbe Barama to the mouth of the Acarabisi. The line 15 for another road, or, possibly, a tramway, between the Kaituma and the bank of the Barima opposite Arakaka has been suryeyed. A new gold station has been established at Hyma, on the new Ara- kaka-Barama road, and a new gold office at -0 Arakaka. At the latter place a post-office has been erected, and put in charge of a postmaster ; the police buildings have been renewed, and the number of police increased. At Morawhana also the prison and police-station have been 25 rebuilt. There has been, during the past two years, a great increase in private enterprise in the district. Hotels and stores have been opened at Arakaka and Mount Everard, and stores have been opened 30 at several other places. There has been a great increase in the taking up of land for agricultural purposes, especially on the Lower Barima. Ex pensive machinery for quartz-mining has been imported and established at and near Arakaka, 35 and prospecting has extended into the districts which have been opened up by the new roads. By way of conclusion to this survey of the development of the North-Western District under the British Government, it may be useful 40 to state that the expenditure of public money by the Colony on this district in the four years betAveen 1890 and 1894 amounted to a total of no less than 226,150 dollars, as against a revenue received from it amounting to no more than 45 94,220 dollars. A Table showing the items, of which these figures are the totals, is to be found in the Appendix to the British Case. During the years 1894-98 the further expen diture on public works alone has been over 90,000 dollars, as compared with an expenditure for the same services of 78,968 dollars during the period from 1888-1894. British Ai>p. VII, p. 309. O Development in North-western District since 1895. British Counter- Case, App., pp. 410, 411. Public expenditure on North-western District. British App. VII, p. 317. British Counter- Case, Aop., p. 411. ' 123 The Interior. The development of the territory within the Schomburgk line upon the upper parts of the Cuyuni, Massaruni, and Essequibo has not been so marked as in the north-west district. This is due to the fact that the soil above the falls on 5 the rivers is of less value for agriculture, and further from the port of shipment, and that the chief industry has been gold mining. This has been conducted, however, entirely from tbe British Colony, and under the administration 10 and police of that Colony. Regulation of the Gold Industry. In 18S7 the Government put in force the Eegulations already mentioned, under which gold should be Avorked in the Colony, and a station for checking the gold was established at Kalakoon 15 British App. vii, on the Massaruni. In the first instance, the P- 32;1- chief seat of the mining industry was in the Puruni, a tributary on the left bank of the Mas saruni. Workings were soon established on other tributaries of the Massaruni. on the Cuyuni, 20 British App Vll an<^ on ^ne Essequibo. In 1887 10,596 oz. of p. 321, 323, gold passed the station, mostly from Puruni and in 1888 15,036 oz. In 1889 the production rose to 26,016 oz., 14,412 oz. coming from the ..... . -.-_ Cuyuni. In 1890 and 1891, the total yields were 25 British App. VII, J ? . p. 328. 54,000 oz. and 85,788 oz. respectively, the lead now being taken by the Essequibo, which pro duced 47,988 oz. in 1890 and 78,132 oz. in 1891. _...,_ ---_. In view of these developments a Government British App. VII, r p. 327. station was established at Bethany Island below 30 the Aretaka Cataracts in the Essequibo, and another at Bartika Grove. A portage was levelled and skids and rollers laid down for passing the Tumatumarie Cataracts on the Potaro, a tributary on the left bank of the 35 Essequibo. In June 1891, an old road wbich British App VII gave access to the open water at the head of the p- 329 Camaria Cataracts on the Cuyuni was re-opened and proved of much service to miners. In the same year the police station at the mouth 49 of the Uruan, referred to in the British Case, was built. None of the gold mining on the Massaruni or Essequibo was or could have been done from Venezuelan territory, nor could the Venezuelan 45 Government have controlled the workings on these rivers. Although the Cuyuni would not have been so inaccessible to them, all the mining in that river was done under the authority of the Government of British Guiana by persons 59 starting from that Colony. It is significant that [579] 2 K 124 when in 1890 Venezuelan prospectors commenced operations on the south or British side of the Cuyuni, a short distance beloAV the mouth of the Uruan, the*Special Magistrate for the Essequibo *> district, though there was then no Government station at that point, at once received intelligence of the encroachment from tbe Indians. The con sequence was the building of the Uruan police station in 1891. *" On p. 186 of the Venezuelan Case it is stated that— " Except for the gold discoveries in the Mazaruni in 1880, except for the gold discoveries along the coast subsequent to that date, and except for the formal 15 taking of possession of the mouth of the Orinoco in 1884 by Mr. McTurk, the British never had settlements of any kind, nor occupation of any nature, above the lowest falls of the Essequibo, Cuyuni, and Mazaruni in the interior, nor beyond the plantations along the 20 Arabian coast on the seaboard." The statement that Mr. McTurk took formal possession of the mouth of the Orinoco is quite fallacious ; he went to the Amakuru and arrested a criminal there. Further, the account which 25 has now been given of the development, under Great Britain, in recent years of all the territory within the Schomburgk line shows that the remainder of this extract is utterly erroneous. The statement made by Lord Salisbury, Avhich 30 is referred to on p. 192 of the Venezuelan Case, was correct. The census of 1871 returned the total number of inhabitants in Essequibo County as 35,122. Allowing for the natural increase of population, the estimated number of inhabitants 35 in the County in 1880 was upwards of 40,000. By the census of 1881 the number was returned at 45,582. Comparatively few persons live in the small slice of the County of Essequibo which lies east of the river ; by far the greater number 40 were then, and are noAv, living west of the river and on the islands. The origin of these people is immaterial. They are almost all British subjects. 45 Her Majesty's Government submit that, putting aside for the moment all question of a title derived from the Dutch, Great Britain has at this moment, and had, at the date of the Treaty of Arbitration, full and complete political possession of this territory, and tbat the Venezuelan Case discloses no evidence of any facts sufficient to displace it. British App. VII p. 327. British Ape. VII, p. 330. Venezuelan Case, p. 186. British App. VII, p. 233. Population. Venezuelan Case, p. 192. Great Britain in Possession as far as Schomburgk Line. 125 CHAPTER XV. This Chapter deals with Chapter XV of the A'enezuelan Case, pp. 197-199, entitled — " Spanish, ano Venezuelan Occupation during the Nineteenth Century." 5 Venezuelan Case, p. 197. This Chapter commences by re-stating, with important additions, the principles which, accord ing to the contention of Venezuela, determine the effect to be given to Dutch and British and to Spanish and Venezuelan occupation respec- 10 ¦ lively. As now stated these principles are alleged to be— (i.) That "the territorial rights oi Great Britain can in no case exceed the limits which occupation had ]_5 reached fifty years ago." (ii.) That it must not be taken that " Great Britain has a right to any territory west of the Essequibo eAren though she may have been in unchallenged possession of it fifty years ago." 20 (iii.) " That the limits of the Essequibo Colony have depended upon the question of actual possession; and that all territory not lawfully occupied by the Dutch or by their successors, the British, belonged to Spain, and belongs now to Venezuela as a matter of course, and 25 quite independently of whether during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries such territory was or was not occupied by, or Avhether it was or was not under, the exclusive political control of Spain or Venezuela." Application of Theory of Actual Possession. The first of these propositions has already been g(y dealt with. The second (assuming it to be intended to apply to territory of which Great Britain was in unchallenged possession fifty years ago, and has maintained the possession since), is, in the view 35 of Her Majesty's Government, in direct opposi tion to Article IV, Bule (a) of the Treaty of Arbitration. With regard to the third proposition, if by " actual possession " is meant such possession as 40 is requisite under the rules of international laAv 126 to constitute a title to territory theretofore vacant, Her Majesty's Government agree that tbe limits of British Guiana depend, subject to the opera tion of Article IV, Bule (a), on the extent of 5 such possession. Her Majesty's Government further contend that the limits of Venezuela also depend on similar possession on her side. But if it is intended to suggest that in the case of the Dutch " actual possession " was necessary 10 in order to found their title, whereas such pos session is not necessary in the case of Spain or Venezuela, and that any particular spot not occupied by Spain or Great Britain ipso facto belongs to Spain or Venezuela, this principle is 15 submitted to be incorrect. There is no rule of international law by which it can be maintained that whatever part of Guiana was not at any time in Dutch or British possession was therefore necessarily territory of Spain or Venezuela. The 20 Venezuelan Case goes on to suggest that to be effective British or Dutch occupation must have been "lawful." It is not easy to see what is meant by this suggestion. The lawfulness or unlawfulness of any occupation of territory 25 is, in the present dispute and by virtue of Article IV, Bule (a), only material where it has been maintained for less than fifty years. The Venezuelan Case contends that, as regards actual Spanish and Venezuelan occupation during 30 the present century, Venezuela may rely upon the Spanish title as it existed at the commence ment of this century, and decline — "in the absence of any evidence of British title to the Venezuelan Case same territory, and until such evidence shall be forth- P- 197. 35 coming, to present proof of continued possession or control by Venezuela of that region." The passage continues as follows :— The Alleged Possession and Control by Venezuela. Venezuelan Case, pp. 197, 198. " As a matter of fact, Spain first, and then Vene zuela, did continue in exclusive possession and control 40 of the disputed territory until 1850, when, under an Agreement (hereafter to be more fully explained) with . Great Britain, Venezuela withdrew for a time." " For the present, however, for the reasons above set forth, Venezuela considers that she is not called upon 45 to support this allegation by proof. The burden is upon Great Britain to establish how far encroachments upon territory originally Spanish can, under the stipulation of the Treaty of Munster, and under the rules a dopted by the present Treaty, confer title upon herself." 50 If this position is correct (which is denied) it Avas unnecessary, as is conceded in the Venezuelan Venezuelan Case, p. 198. 127 Venezuelan Case, p. 197. Venezuelan Case, p. 198. British App. V, p. 173. British Atlas, p. 46. Venezuelan Case, p. 198. Venezuelan Case, p. 199. British App. VII, pp. 82,83, 84, 85. British App. VII, p. 81. British App. VII, p. 82. Case, for Venezuela to put forward any evidence of Spanish political control during the eighteenth century. As, however, such evidence is ten dered, Her Majesty's Government can only as sume that similar evidence, had it existed, would 5 also have been tendered with regard to the nine teenth century, more especially as notwithstand ing the refusal to give such evidence, two isolated circumstances are referred to as proving Vene zuelan control during this century. 10 The first is that in 1802 the Spanish Govern ment were maintaining a regular pilot station at what is called " the Barima, mouth of the Orinoco." The report of Major MeCreagh, which is referred to as the authority for this statement, 15 shows that the pilot station was then at Bagayos, an island in the Orinoco far above the Amakuru. The island is marked on Schomburgk's Map. In view of its situation, the circumstances that that station " has continued to be maintained to 20 the present day," and that " its existence has been repeatedly recognized by the British Govern ment," as alleged in the Venezuelan Case, is immaterial. The second fact mentioned as showing Vene- 25 zuelan control in the present century is that, in 1836 the British Minister at Caracas made, on behalf of his Government, a formal request of Venezuela to erect a lighthouse at Barima Boint. Tbe request referred to was made by Sir 30 Bobert Ker Borter, the British Charge d'Affaires at Caracas, on the suggestion of the Vi?e-Consul at Angostura. It was made without the authority and without the knowledge of Her Majesty's Government. It was not acted on by the Vene- 35 zuelan Government, nor was the fact of its having been made communicated to the British Eoreign Office. It only came to light in 184:;, when Mr. O'Leary, the then Charge- d'Affaires at Caracas, mentioned it in writing to the Eoreign 10 Office. That Department at once replied that there was no copy of any such note among the papers in its possession ; and Mr. O'Leary then forwarded a copy. It is submitted that as there is no evidence that Venezuela controlled Barima 45 Boint at that or any other time, the incident has no bearing upon the question of right. [579] 2L 128 CHAPTER XVI. This Chapter deals vcjth Chapter XVI of the Venezuelan Case, pp. 201-220 , entitled — " Diplomatic Correspondence." 5 As the diplomatic incidents of the discussion of the boundary have no immediate bearing on the question before the Tribunal, it is un necessary to consider this Chapter of the Vene zuelan Case except for the purpose of pointing 10 out a few errors and misstatements which occur in it. The incident of the removal of the posts which Sir Robert Schomburgk had set up at Barima is thus referred to on p. 207 of the Venezuelan 15 Case:— " The Venezuelan Government, however, determined to remove eA-ery semblance of British authority within Venezuelan territory ; and, in a note of the 10th January, 1842, repeated its demand for the removal 20 oi the posts. In reply to this, Lord Aberdeen, on the 31st January, 1842, wrote stating that the British Government would order the removal of the posts." It should be remembered that Lord Aberdeen consented to order the removal of the posts 25 purely as an act of international comity, and he distinctly stated at the same time that, in so doing, " Her Majesty's Government must not be understood to abandon any portion of the rights of Great Britain over the territory which was 30 formerly held by the Dutch in Guiana." On p. 208 of the Venezuelan Case it is stated in the margin that Lord Aberdeen's pro posals in 1844 were "rejected by Venezuela." This was not tbe case. No reply to Lord Aber- 35 deen's proposals was ever received by Her Majesty's Government, and after a certain time Lord Balmerston decided that they should be considered as withdrawn. On p. 212 of the Venezuelan Case the 40 negotiations initiated in 1884 by General Guzman Blanco are dealt with as follows : — " General Guzman Blanco, in a Memorandum com municated to Sir Julian Pauncefote on the 13th December, 1884, proposed that these questions be 45 settled simultaneously. Negotiations were conducted on this basis, and, on the 6th April, 1885, a 'Project of Venfzuelau Case, p. 207. British App. VII, p. 80. Venezuelan Case, p. 208. British App. VI, p 186. Venezuelan Case, p. 212. 129 British App. VII, pp. 107-114. British Case, p. 130. Venezuelan Case, p. 213. British App. VII, p. 109. Venezuelan Case, p. 217. Blue Book Vene zuela (No.l), 1896, p. 413. Treaty' was submitted by General Guzman Blanco to Earl Granville. This project contained a general clause agreeing to submit ' any difference which cannot be adjusted by the usual means of friendly negotiation ' to the arbitration of a third Power." 5 It is incorrect to suggest tbat the negotia tions respecting the boundary question were connected with the " Broject of Treaty." This Treaty was a Commercial Treaty, the negotia tions for which were independent of those for 10 the boundary, which were proceeding concur rently. It is true that General Guzman Blanco introduced an arbitration Article into the Treaty, but, as has been pointed out in the British Case this Article referred only to differences 15 which might in the future arise between the two countries, and no statement was made in the correspondence to suggest that it should apply to any pending question, or to indicate that Her Majesty's Government had in any way modified 20 their previous decision — tbat some settlement in regard to the boundary question was a prelimi nary condition to tbe conclusion of the negotia tions on the other matters in dispute. On p. 213 the following passage occurs : — 25 " General Guzman Blanco's reply to Lord Salisbury, dated the 5th August, 1885, was in the nature of a protest against the refusal of the British Government to respect the engagements of the previous Govern ment, which had already given formal assent to the 30 arbitration Article." The previous Government did not formally assent to the Treaty in which the arbitration Article was included. Lord Granville accepted it provisionally, " subject to reference to the 35 Departments of Her Majesty's Government concerned." On p. 217 tbe Venezuelan Case states that :— "In 1890 the Venezuelan Government received an intimation from Sir Andrew Clarke and Captain Lowther 40 that Great Britain was disposed ' to evacuate the in vaded territory, and to submit the case to the arbitra tion of a friendly Power, provided Venezuela would declare diplomatic relations to be re-established between the two countries.' " 45 This intimation was unauthorized, and the Venezuelan Government were so informed directly they made any reference to the subject. 130 CHAPTER XVII. This Chapter deals with Chapter XVII of the \'enezuelan Case, pp. 22 1 23 G, entitled — Conclusion. 5 Although the various propositions of law and fact, put forward in the Venezuelan Case, have been dealt with in this Counter- Case, it will be well, even at the risk of repetition, to deal seriatim with the conclusions in the order in 10 which they are stated in the Venezuelan Case, Chapter XVII. 1. That Spain was the first to discover South America is admitted, but her exploration of it was very limited, and it cannot at the present day be 15 properly suggested that any possession taken by her entitled her to possession of the whole continent. 1. Spain was the first nation to discover South America, to explore it, and to take formal possession of it. 2. It is admitted that Spain was the first nation to discover Guiana. 20 It is untrue that except to a very limited extent she explored that country. All the important explorations in that part of the territory now called Guiana were made by the English and Dutch. 25 Discovery and exploration, unless followed by possession within a reasonable time, are in sufficient to give title. 2. Spain was the first nation to discover and explore Guiana. 3. It is admitted that Spain was the first nation to establish a settlement on the Biver Orinoco. 30 It is untrue that she ever established a settle ment on the Biver Essequibo, or in the eastern parts of Guiana ; at no time did she take formal possession, of and occupy Guiana as a whole ; the acts of the Dutch and the Spaniards wholly 35 rebut any such contention. 3. Spam Avas the first nation to establish settlements on the Orinoco and Essequibo Rivers, and in the eastern parts of Guiana ; and the first and only nation to take formal possession of, and to occupy, Guiana as a whole. 131 4. For more than a century after discover ing Guiana, Spain maintained exclusive possession of the entire region between the Orinoco and the Amazon ; held it, and exer cised exclusive political control over it : she expelled and excluded other nations from it ; and otherwise asserted her sovereignty over it. 4. These statements are wholly without foun* dation : at no time did Spain ever maintain exclusive possession or political control over the whole region between the Orinoco and the Amazon, nor did she ever expel and exclude other nations therefrom, or assert her sovereignty over it. Her possession, control, and sovereignty were throughout confined to the Orinoco. 5. Apart from this general control of Guiana as a whole, Spain, from early in the sixteenth century, and before any other nation had attempted to gain a toothold therein, exercised a special and exclusive control over the Orinoco and Essequibo Rivers, and OArer all the territory adjacent thereto ; and, as late at least as 1615, was maintaining a colony on the Essequibo River. 5. This proposition is denied except in so far as it relates to the Biver Orinoco. At no time 10 did Spain ever maintain a colony in the Biver Essequibo, or any adjacent territory. The utmost that can be stated is that at the end of the sixteenth and the beginning of the seventeenth centuries Spanish traders visited the Essequibo in 15 the same way as the Dutch, English, and Erench. 6. The Dutch were subjects of the King cf Spain, and in 1581 revolted against him. 6. This proposition is admitted, but it is wholly immaterial. 7. The earliest relations of the Dutch, with Gtuana in general, and with the Essequibo in particular, were limited to trade and to hostile operations against the Spaniards. They began to trade to the Essequibo not earlier than 1625 ; and not long after, during the temporary absence of the Spaniards, established a trading post in that river, at or near the site previously fortified by the Spaniards — a site still, at that time, belonging to Spain. 7. It is true that the earliest relations of the Dutch with Guiana and with the Essequibo 20 related to trade and hostile operations against the Spaniards, but these relations immediately developed into the taking of possession of parts of the country. They were certainly trading to the Essequibo before 1625. 25 It is untrue that the absence of the Spaniards from the Essequibo was temporary. They were not in the Biver Essequibo after the year 1618, nor did they at any time fortify or hold sites in that river. 30 8. At the date of the Treaty of Munster, the 30th January, 1648, the holdings and possessions of the Dutch in the Essequibo were limited to the. island subsequently known as Kykoveral. 8. This proposition is wholly inaccurate. At the date of the Treaty of Munster the Dutch were unquestionably in possession of the greater part of the coast from the Orinoco to the Amazon. The name Kijkoveral had already been given to 35 the island many years before the Treaty of Munster. 9. At that date the Dutch did not hold and were not in possession of any part of the territory noAV in dispute. 9. This proposition is untrue. At the date of the Treaty of Munster the Dutch were in posses sion, and had control of all the rivers which flow 40 into the Atlantic, except the Orinoco, and had made settlements in various parts. [579] 2 M 132 10. This proposition is Avholly inaccurate. The Spaniards neither discovered nor explored the region described, and had no knowledge of it as a geographical or political unit. 1 2. This proposition is admitted. 1 3. This proposition is admitted. 1*1. This proposition is wholly inaccurate except in so far as it states tbe fact that the Dutch planned and established settlements on 10 the bank of the Pomeroon west of the Esse quibo Biver. These settlements were not in violation of the Treaty of Munster, but were expressly in accordance with the rights reserved to the Dutch by the Vth Article of that Treaty. 15 These settlements were attacked by the Erench and English, but not by the Spaniards; they yvere subsequently re-established, and control of the whole district was retained by the Dutch throughout the whole period of their possession 20 of the Colony. 10. The Cuyuni-Mazaruni Basin, being the region bounded on the north by the Imataca Mountains; on the east by the Blue Moun tains, by the loAvest falls of the Cuyuni and Mazaruni Rivers, and by the Ayangcanna Mountains ; on the south by the Ayangcanna and Pacaraima Mountains ; and on the west by the divide separating the waters ofthe Caroni and Orinoco Rivers from the waters of the Cuyuni and Mazaruni Rivers, is a geogra phical and political unit, the material occu pation of a part of which, by the nation first discovering and exploring it, is in law attribu tive and constructive possession of the whole. 12. By the Treaty of Munster the Dutch engaged to neither sail to nor trade in any places held and possessed by the King of Spain. 13. By the same Treaty the Dutch engaged to respect the sovereignty of Spain over all lordships, toAvns, castles, fortresses, commerce and countries at that time held or possessed by Spain, and to do nothing which might be an infraction of the Treaty. 14. Twice during the latter part of the seventeenth century, the Dutch, in violation of the Treaty of Munster, attempted to plant settlements west of the Essequibo River, on the banks of the Pomeroon. These attempts were ineffectual, the proposed settlements being in each case attacked, and the Dutch driven therefrom. The first of said settle- meats lasted less than eight years; and the second less than three years. 15. This proposition is wholly inaccurate. At no time have the Spanish exercised political control over any territory west of the Essequibo. Such control has been confined to the Orinoco. 15. Except for these attempts at settle ment by the Dutch on the Pomeroon, Spain, during the whole of the seventeenth century exercised exclusive political control of the entire territory west of the Essequibo River. 25 16. It is true that the Dutch established Posts on the Cuyuni Biver. It is inaccurate to say that the establishment of such Posts was in violation of the Treaty of Munster. One of the Posts was raided by an expedition, which retreated 30 as rapidly as it advanced, and Posts on the Cuyuni Biver Avere subsequently established and maintained by the Dutch. 16. TAvice during the eighteenth century the Dutch, in ATiolation of the Treaty of Munster, attempted to establish slave and trading Posts on the Cuyuni River. 'These attempts were ineffectual; one of these Posts was attacked and destroyed by the Spaniards ; the second was abandoned by the Dutch, because of fear of the Spaniards. 17. This proposition is denied. At no time during the eighteenth century did Spain exercise 17. During the whole of the eighteenth century Spain exercised exclusive political control of the Cuyuni-Mazaruni Basin, down 35 exclusive or any political control over the Cuyuni- to the lowest falls of the Cuyuni and Mazaruni Massaruni Basin. Rivers. 133 18. During a part of the eighteenth century the Dutch, with the permission of Spain, and together with other nations, traded to the main mouth of the Orinoco River, and to other parts of the Orinoco -delta. 18. Spain controlled the trade of the Orinoco from Santo Thome upwards, but, except in this respect, it is untrue that the Dutch trade to the Orinoco Biver and to other parts of the Orinoco delta was by permission of Spain. 19. At various times during the eighteenth century, the Dutch, in violation of the Treaty of Munster, attempted to establish, and in some cases for brief periods maintained, slave trading stations near the mouths of the Pomeroon and Moruca Rivers. 19. It is true tbat the Dutch established, not only for brief periods but permanently, trading stations upon the Pomeroon and Moruka Bivers. It is wholly untrue that these stations were founded in violation of the Treaty of Munster. 10 20. Except for these attempts to establish stations near the mouths of the Pomeroon and Moruca Rivers, Spain, during the whole of the eighteenth century exercised exclusive political control of the coast region between the Moruca and the mouth of the Essequibo. During the entire century she exercised exclusive political control of the Orinoco River, of its entire delta, and df all the coast region between the main mouth of the Orinoco and the Moruca. 20. This proposition is denied. At no time during the eighteenth century did Spain exercise exclusive political control of the coast region between the Moruka and the mouth of the Essequibo, or of the coast region between the 15 main mouth of the Orinoco and the Moruca, and her control of the Orinoco was confined to Santo Thome, and to part of the river above Santo Thome. 21. The entire coast region from Barima point south-east as far as the divide sepa rating the waters of the Moruca from the waters of the Waini, is an integral part of the Orinoco delta. 21. This proposition is- unfounded. Neither the Barima, nor still less the coast region as far 20 as the watershed between the Moruka and Waini, is any part of the Orinoco delta. 22. . The region bounded on the north and •north-east by the Gulf of Paria and the Atlantic Ocean ; on the east by the Atlantic Ocean, and by the divide separating the waters of the Moruca from the Avaters of the Waini ; on the south by the Imataca Moun tains ; and extending thence westward is a geographical and political unit, the material occupation of a part of which, by the nation first discovering and exploring it, is in law attributive and constructive possession of the whole. 22. This proposition is untrue. Neither geo graphically nor politically is the region therein stated a unit, and no possession ever taken by 25 Spain can be construed as giving constructive pos session of the whole. 23. From the date of her original settle ment of the Orinoco in the sixteenth century, until her title to the region in dispute became vested in Venezuela, Spain had material occupation of a large part of the Orinoco region last above described ; and held, pos sessed, and exercised exclusive political con trol over the whole of it. 23. This proposition is denied. The occupation of Spain was entirely confined to Santo Thome, and the immediate vicinity. 30 24. At no time, either before or after the date of the Treaty of Miinster, did the Dutch, for a period of fifty consecutive years, exer cise exclusive political control or lawfully occupy any part of the territory _ lying between the Essequibo and Orinoco Rivers. 24. Both before and to a still greater extent after the date of the Treaty of Munster the Dutch continuously and for a period greatly in excess of fifty years exercised exclusive political control over the territory between the Essequibo and the 35 Orinoco Bivers. 134 25. This proposition is denied. 25. Except as hereinbefore stated, Spain,. during the entire period of Dutch occupation of the Essequibo, continuously exercised -exclusive political control of every part of the territory lying between the Essequibo and Orinoco Rivers. 26. This proposition is admitted. 27. The dates of the revolt by Venezuela and the recognition of her independence by Spain are 1 6 correctly given. It is untrue that the territory renounced by Spain comprised the region now in dispute. 28. This proposition is wholly inaccurate. Occupation by Great Britain, which always ex- 10 tended and now extends far beyond tbe strip of land along the coast referred to, was as of right in succession to the Dutch, and by virtue of their and her independent right of colonization and settlement. 26. By the Treaty of London of the 13th August, 1814, the Netherlands ceded to Great Britain the Settlements of Demerara, Esse quibo and Berbice. 27. Venezuela revolted from Spain on the 19th April, 1810. On the 30th March, 1845, Spain recognized Venezuela's independence, and formally renounced in her favour all the sovereignty, rights and claims previously her own in the territory formally known as the Captaincy-General of Venezuela. Saicl terri tory comprised the region now in dispute. 28. During a portion of the present century, in violation of the Treaty of Munster, Great Britain has occupied a strip of land along the coast between the Esse quibo and the Pomeroon Rivers, known as the Arabian or Arabisi Coast : Venezuela has repeatedly protested against such occupa tion, and has, in every way possible, short of war, asserted her rights to the territory so occupied. 15 29. This proposition is untrue. Great Britain has continuously from the year 1803 down to the present time held and exercised political control over the territory now in dispute. 29. Except for said occupation of said Arabian Coast, Great Britain has at no time, for a consecutive period of 50 years, held any part of the territory now in dispute or exercised control of any kind thereover. 30. This proposition is unfounded. At no time 20 since the acquisition by Great Britain of tbe Colony now known as British Guiana did Spain hold possession or exercise any political control of the entire region between the Orinoco and the Essequibo Bivers. 30. From the time of the acquisition bA' Great Britain of the colony now known as British Guiana, until Spain's title to the territory in dispute became vested in Vene zuela, Spain, except for said occupation of said A rabian Coast by Great Britain, continuously held, possessed and exercised exclusive political control of the entire region between the Orinoco and Essequibo Rivers. 25 31. This proposition is unfounded. Venezuela did not, from the date of the recognition of her independence by Spain, until the year 1850, or at any time, continuously hold possession or exercise exclusive political control over the said region. 30 32. The existence of the Arrangement made in 1850 is admitted, but no definition or agree ment as to the limits of the disputed territory was ever arrived at, and at no time did Great Britain agree to abstain from the development of the y5 country east of the Schomburgk line, which she has throughout maintained was her undisputed property. 31. From the date when Spain's title to the territory in dispute became vested in Venezuela, until the year 1850, Venezuela, except for said occupation of said Arabian Coast by Great Britain, continuously held, possessed, and exercised exclusive political control of the entire region between the Orinoco and Essequibo Rivers 32. In the year 1850, Venezuela and Great Britain agreed that, pending the settlement of the boundary question, neither would occupy or encroach upon the territory then in dispute. 135 33. Thereafter, and subsequent to the year 1880, Great Britain, in violation of the said Agreement of 1850, and of the Treaty of Munster, forcibly entered upon and took possession of the territory lying between the Essequibo River aud the line first published in 1886, since claimed by Great Britain to be the Schomburck line. Said territory included not only the entire region Avhich was in dispute in 1850, but also territory belonging to Venezuela, the title to which had never been questioned prior to 1886. 33. This proposition is inaccurate. The line published in 1886 was the original Schomburgk line as it exists upon the map drawn b^y him, and the alleged entry and taking possession of the territory lying betAveen the Essequibo Biver 5 and that line was no violation of tbe Arrange ment of 1850. It is untrue that Great Britain entered any territory belonging to Venezuela, or any territory, the title to which had never been questioned prior to 1886. 10 34. Venezuela has repeatedly protested against such occupation ; and has in every way possible, short of war, asserted her rights to the territory so occupied. 34. This proposition is denied. 35. The occupation, by British subjects or by persons under British protection, of the territory aboA-e described, dates from subse quent to 1880 in the Cuyuni-Mazaruni Basin, and from subsequent to 1884 in the Orinoco Delta Region. It Avas undertaken after due warning from the Venezuelan Government that titles thus sought to be acquired Avould not be recognized, and after due notice from the British Government that persons so entering into said territory must do so at their own peril. 35. This proposition is inaccurate. The occu pation by British subjects, or by Indians under British protection, of the territory referred to, existed for many years before 1880. 15 The foregoing propositions of fact, to which the reply of Her Majesty's Government has been categorically given, are followed by the statement of certain propositions of law upon which the following observations occur : — 20 1. DiscoA-ery gives the discovering nation, if not an absolute, at least an inchoate title, sufficient to protect it during a reasonable time pending the actual reduction of the territory to possession. 1. Discovery does not give the discovering nation an absolute title, but only a prior right, which must be exercised within a reasonable time, to enter upon and settle a newly-discovered territory. 25 2. Discovery, when accompanied by public claim of sovereignty, and followed by reduc tion to possession, confers a complete title. 2. This proposition is admitted, assuming that the reduction to possession has taken place within a reasonable time. 3. The material occupation of a part of a tract of land in the name of the whole, by the nation which first discovered and explored said tract, is constructively an occupation of the whole. 3. This proposition is not accurate in the general terms in which it is stated. In order to support a claim to constructive occupation, the tract of which part is occupied must be an indi visible unity. [579] 2 N 30 136 4. This proposition is admitted subject to the observations made in reply to the last proposition, and to tbe further qualification that the sove reignty exists only in such adjacent territory as 5 is actually occupied by the controlled tribes. 4. When a nation, claiming title to a Avhole tract by material occupation of apart, reaches out and actually controls adjacent territory inhabited only by savages, a.nd excludes all other nations therefrom, it thereby exercises physical acts of sovereignty over it, and is in actual political occupation of it. 5. This proposition is admitted subject to tbe qualification that such settlement may -be abandoned. 5. A nation havinsr made a settlement on unoccupied land has nations therefrom. a r ight to exclude other 6. This proposition is too broadly stated, 10 To make intrusion wrongful, settlement must be effective and continuous. 6. All nations must refrain from disturbing a nation Avhich has settled a country that was vacant at the time of settlement; and an entry by any other nation or people upon territory so previously settled is an act of trespass. 7. The first branch of this proposition is admitted, but the faculty of usage is not sufficient unless the subjugation is continuous. 7. A State continues to possess everything it has subjected to its power with a view to its use; and it is not the exercise of usage, but the faculty of usage, that is the necessary element of possession. 3.5 8. This proposition is not accurate. Under 8. Non-user is not abandonment: neither many conditions non-user mav amount to aban- wii. abandonment be presumed against u " nations. Betore it can be accepted as a donment. fact, an actual desertion must be proven with an intention to renounce title. 9. There is no distinction between the first and second comer beyond this that, as already stated, 20 the first comer has a right within a reasonable time to take possession of his discovery; other wise the same rules apply to the original possessor as to the person taking subsequent possession. 9. When land is vacant one may enter upon part in name of the Avhole ; but he who comes after enters adversely, and his pos session extends in law only so far as it does in fact. When the original possessor is thus disseized, though his possession of the whole was only by occupation of a part, yet the first is deemed to be disseized only to the extent of the land physically occupied by the second. 25 10. This proposition is too narrowly stated. Ownership and control of the course of navigation of a river may in some instances give title to the Avatershed. 10. Ownership of the mouth of a river does not, of itself, give title to the water shed. 11. So far as delta islands are concerned, this 30 proposition is admitted, but the rule does not apply to the coast-line on either side of the mouth of a river. 12. As a general statement this proposition is admitted. 35 13. A nation is bound to faithfully observe its Treaty engagements, but it is not true that no acts committed by it, though in violation of such engagements, can be made the basis of title. In some cases title can be acquired by the exer- 10 cise of hostile or adverse acts. 11. A nation owning the watershed and the firm banks of a river, by virtue of such OAvnership, owns and possesses the delta islands and shores beloAv, though uninhabited or uninhabitable. They are not "vacant" lands. 12. If a natural barrier exist betAveen the coast region and the interior, that barrier Avill be the boundary between the two. 13. A nation is bound to faithfully observe its Treaty engagements, and no acts com- mited by it in violation of such engagements can be made the basis of title, especially as against the nation Avith whom such Treaty was concluded. 137 14. Rule (a) under Article IV of the present Treaty is : — " Adverse holding or prescription during a period of fifty years shall make a good title. The Arbitrators mav deem exclusive political control of a. district, as well as actual settlement thereof, sufficient to constitute adverse holding or to make title by prescription." Venezuela has accepted this Rule, but she submits and will claim that time is but one of many elements essential to create title by prescription. Prescription to be effective -against nations, as against individuals, must be bend fide, public, notorious, adverse, ex clusive, peaceful, continuous, uncontested, and maintained under a claim of right. Rule (a) fixes fifty years as the period of prescription, but leaves its other elements unimpaired. 14. The proposition herein enunicated is not accurately stated. Time and possession are, broadly speaking, the only essential elements of prescription. The Venezuelan Case concludes with a number 5 of paragraphs on pp. 229-236, in which are enumerated the Judgment which the Government of Venezuela asks from the Arbitration Tribunal. Many if not all of the points raised in these para graphs have been dealt with in various parts of 10 this Counter Case, but for the purpose of con venience it is proposed to deal with them cate gorically so far as is necessary. 1. Spain's discovery of America gave her the right to reduce to possession the countries discoA^ered; and, pending the exercise of that right, during a reasonable period, no other nation had a right, without the consent of Spain, to acquire such countries. 1. The discovery of America by Spain did not give her the right to possession of the whole 15 continent, but only of such portions as within a reasonable time she occupied and settled. 2. Spain having discovered Guiana, and having Avithin a reasonable time thereafter, under a claim of sovereignty, and earlier than any other nation or people, occupied said province as a Avhole by the establish ment of Colonies and Settlements on the Orinoco and Essequibo Rivers and in other parts of Guiana, thereby reduced it as a whole to possession, and became vested with a complete title thereto. 2. The so-called discovery of Guiana by Spain is only a part of the discovery of America. There was no province of Guiana, and no defined 20 tract of territory to which Spain became entitled by virtue of her settlement on the Orinoco. 3. Spain having, for more than a century after her discovery of Guiana, had exclusive possession thereof as a whole ; and having, from early in the sixteenth century, and before any other nation had attempted to gain a foothold in Guiana, exercised a special and exclusive control over the Orinoco and Essequibo Rivers, and over the _ territory adjacent thereto ; and having, until at least as late as 1625, excluded all other nations and peoples from said rivers and adjacent territory ; exercised thereby physical acts of sovereignty thereover, arid was in actual and exclusive political occupation and control thereof in 1G25. 3. At no time had Spain exclusive possession. of Guiana as a whole, nor did she ever exercise control over the Essequibo, and it is untrue 25 that in 1625, or at any other time, she excluded all other nations and people from the Orinoco below Santo Thome or from Essequibo BiA^er or the adjacent territories, or that she was in political occupation or control of such 30 territories. 138 4. The region between the Orinoco and the Essequibo and all the territory appurtenant to those rivers never were in the continuous occu pation, and under the continuous political control of Spain : and the Dutch, from the time of the establishment of their Bosts upon the Essequibo and elseyyhere, were entitled to extend their Colonies and possessions. 4. The region between the Orinoco and Essequibo Rivers, and all the territory appurtenant to those rivers, haA'ing been in the continuous occupation and under the continuous exclusive political control of Spain from early in the sixteenth century until at least as late as 1625 ; and the Dutch having, between the date last mentioned and the 30th January, 1648, established a trading post on the Essequibo ; and the possessions of the Dutch in the said Esse quibo River on the 30th January, 1648, having been limited to the said trading post located upon the Island of Kykoveral ; Spain was, on the said 30th January, 1648, in possession and exclusive political control of all territory lying Avest of the Essequibo River, betAveen that river and the Orinoco. 5. The relations of the Dutch in Guiana prior 10 to 1618, and the establishment by them, prior to that date, of their settlements and Bosts on the Essequibo and elsewhere, gave them, and were recognized by Spain as giving them, a right to the soil and sovereignty over the territory 15 occupied. 5. Neither the early relations of the Dutch with Guiana prior to 1648. nor the establish ment by them, prior to said date, of a trading post in the Essequibo River, gave them a right to the soil, nor sovereignty over the territory occupied. 6. The Dutch were in no sense trespassers on territory belonging to Spain. They had a valid title to the lands and settlements occupied by them in the Essequibo Biver and elsewhere, 20 Ayhich title had been recognized by Spain long before tbe Treaty of Munster. The Treaty of Munster was not a release and confirmation to the Dutch, but a recognition of the fact that they yvere settled in Guiana as elsewhere by 25 virtue of their own rights as an independent nation. The Treaty of Minister was much more a protection of the possessions of the Spaniards against the Dutch than a confirmation of any Dutch title. 6. The Dutch not having come as occu pants of terra nullius, but as mere trespassers on territory belonging to Spain, no valid title to the land occupied by them in the Essequibo River vested in them until, by the Treaty of Munster, Spain released and con firmed to them the possession of such land. 30 7. The Dutch bad not come to the Essequibo as disseizors, but as independent settlers. The Treaty of Munster did not release and confirm to them only such places as they then actually held and possessed : on the contrary, it recognized in 35 terms their right to acquire further possessions. 7. The Dutch having come to the Esse quibo as disseizors, and the Treaty of Munster having released and confirmed to them only such places as they then actually held and possessed, the territory thus released and confirmed was limited to such land only as was in fact then physically occupied by them. 8. It is untrue that the places occupied by the Dutch in the Biver Essequibo at the date of the Treaty of Munster were limited to the island then, and subsequently known as Kijkoveral. Their 4Q possessions, as Ayas well known to Spain, extended to many other places in Guiana. 8. The places actually occupied by the Dutch in the River Essequibo at the date of the Treaty of Munster having been limited to the island subsequently known as Kyk- overal, the Treaty of Munster released and confirmed to them the title to that island only, and the right of free ingress thereto- and egress therefrom byway ofthe Essequibo' River itself. 139 9. The region bounded on the north by the Imataca Mountains; on the east by the Blue Mountains, by the West falls of the Cuyuni and Mazaruni Rivers, and by the Ayangcanna Mountains ; on the south by the Ayangcanna and Pacaraima Mountains; and on the west by the divide separating the waters of the Caroni and Orinoco Rivers from the waters of the Cuyuni and Mazuruni Rivers, being a geographical and political unit; and a part of said region having during the latter part of the sixteenth century, during all. of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, and during the nine teenth century up to the time Avhen Vene zuela became vested therewith, been physi cally occupied by Spain ; and no other nation having during said period occupied or had exclusive political control of any portion thereof in a manner, or for a time sufficient to furnish the basis for a prescriptive title thereto, Spain thereby had, during the whole of said period, attributive and constructive possession of all and of every part of said region. 9. The region indicated in this paragraph is not and never has been a geographical or a political unit, and, except, so far as Mission stations constituted occupation, it is not true that Spain occupied any part of such region. The Dutch for more than a century occupied or controlled the rest of that region, and there is no foundation for the statement that Spain acquired a pre scriptive title to the attributive and constructive possession of the alleged district. 10 10. The region described in the paragraph last preceding, known as the Cuyuni-Mazaruni Basin, being a geographical and political unit ; and a part of said region having, during the nineteenth century, from the time when Spain's title thereto became vested in Vene zuela, been physically occupied by Vene zuela; and no other nation having during said period occupied or«had exclusive political control of any portion thereof in a manner or for a time sufficient to furnish the basis for a prescriptive title thereto, Venezuela has thereby had, during the whole of said period, attributive and constructive possession of all and of every part of said region. 10. The same answer is given to this proposition as to No. 9. 11. Said Cuyuni-Mazaruni Basin being a tract of land geographically separate from and independent of the Essequibo River; and no part of said basin having been in the possession, occupation, or control of the Dutch at the date of the Treaty of Munster, that Treaty conferred upon the Dutch no right or title whatsoever thereto. 11. The Cuyuni-Massaruni Basin is not a tract of land geographically separated from and in dependent of the Essequibo Biver. The Dutch 15 were at the date of the Treaty of Munster in occupation of part of the said basin, and had practically control over the whole. 12. The efforts of the Dutch twice during the latter part of the seventeenth century to establish settlements on or near the Pomeroon having been ineffectual, as well as in viola tion of the Treaty of Munster, cannot be made the basis of title to that region. 12. The settlements of the Dutch on the Bomeroon were not a violation of the Treaty of Miinster. On the contrary, if that territory was not in the occupation of the Dutch at the date of the Treaty, these settlements were directly in accordance with the power of settlement possessed by them as recognized by the Treaty. The settlements were not ineffectual. Although attacked by the French and English they were subsequently re-established, and throughout the Dutch bad control over the whole district. [579] 2 0 20 25 140 13. The Posts established by the Dutch on the Cuyuni Biver were not in violation of the Treaty of Munster, nor were they ineffectual. Though raided on one occasion by the Spaniards, other Posts were re-established, and the control of the river was maintained by the Dutch throughout. 13. The efforts ofthe Dutch twice • during the eighteenth century to establish slave and trading posts on the Cuyuni River, having been ineffectual as well as ia violation of the Treaty of Munster, cannot be made the basis of title to that region. 14. Spain did not at any time expel and exclude the Dutch from the Cuyuni-Massaruni Basin, and did not at any time exercise political 10 control over such basin. 14. Spain having expelled and excluded the Dutch from the Cuyuni-Mazaruni Basin during the eighteenth' century, and having during the whole of said century exercised exclusive political control over said basin, her original title thereto Avas thereby further strengthened and confirmed. 15. The control of Spain over the right bank of tbe Orinoco was confined to the part of the river above Santo Thome, and at no time did she exercise political control over the coast region 15 between the mouth of the Orinoco and the mouth of the Essequibo. 15. Spain haA-ing, during th'e Avhole of the eighteenth century, exercised exclusive political control of the Orinoco River, of its entire delta, and of all the coast region between tlie main mouth of the Orinoco and the mouth of the Essequibo, her original title thereto Avas thereby further and confirmed. strengthened 20 16. It is admitted that Spain from the time of her settlements at Santo Thome- exercised control over the right bank of that river above the site of Santo Thome, but not below. 16. Spain, from the date of her original settlement of the Orinoco in the sixteenth century until her title to the region in dispute became vested in Venezuela, having held and possessed the entire interior Orinoco region, possessed also the mouth of the Orinoco. 17. The region referred to in this paragraph is not and never has been a geographical and political unit, and at no time did Spain have exclusive political control over tbat region, or 25 acquire attributive or constructive possession of it. 17. The region bounded on the north and north-east by the Gulf of Paria and the Atlantic Ocean ; on the east by the Atlantic Ocean, and by the divide separating the waters of the Moruca from the waters of the Waini ; on tlie south by the Imataca Moun tains ; and extending thence westAvard, being a geographical and political unit ; and a part of said region having, during the sixteenth, seventeenth, and eighteenth centuries, and during the nineteenth century, up to the time Avhen Venezuela became vested therewith, been physically occupied by Spain ; and no other nation having, during said period, occupied or had exclusive political control of any portion thereof; Spain thereby had, during the Avhole of said period, attributive and constructive possession of all and of every part of said region. 18. At no time has Venezuela had exclusive political control over the region referred to in this paragraph. 18. The region described in the paragraph last preceding being a geographical and poli tical unit ; and a part of said region having, during the nineteenth century, from the time when Spain's title thereto became vested in Venezuela, been physically occupied by Venezuela; and no other nation having during said period occupied or had exclusive political control of any portion thereof in a manner or for a period sufficient to furnish the basis for a prescriptive title thereto ; Venezuela has thereby had during the Avhole of said period attributive and constructive possession of all and of every part of said Ill 19. Spain having, during the entire period of Dutch occupation of the Essequibo, exer cised exclusive political control of the entire region lying between the Ormoco and the Essequibo Rivers, except that at various times during the latter part of the seventeenth century the Dutch ineffectually attempted to establish and maintain Colonies on the Pomeroon River, and except that at various times during the eighteenth century the Dutch ineffectually attempted to establish and maintain slave-trading posts iu the Cuyuni River and near the mouths of the Moruca and Pomeroon RiA-ers; and said attempts by the Dutch having been unlawful and in. violation of the Treaty of Munster; the original title of Spain to the entire region was thereby further strengthened and confirmed. 19. Spain never at any time exercised exclusive political control over the entire region lymg between tbe Orinoco and the Essequibo Bivers. Tbe Colonies and Posts established by the Butch on the Pomeroon and Cuyuni Bivers and elsewhere, were not a violation of the Treaty of Miinster, but were the lawful acts of the Dutch as an independent nation. 20. At the time of the acquisition by Great Britain of the Colony noAV known as British Guiana, the territories belonging to or that might lawfully be claimed by the United Netherlands Avere all located east of the Esse quibo River. 20. It is not true that at the time of the acquisition by Great Britain of the Colony now 10 knoAvn as British Guiana, the territories belonging to, or tbat might lawfully be claimed by the , United Netherlands, were all located east of the Essequibo River ; on the contrary,- they extended as far as the Amakuru, and embraced all tbe 15 territory eastward of the Schomburgk line, and a very considerable tract of territory to the west Avard and outside the Schomburgk line. 21. At the time of the acquisition by Great Britain of the Colony now knoAvn as British Guiana, the territories belonging to or that might lawfully be claimed by the Kingdom of Spain comprised the entire territory between the Orinoco and Essequibo Rivers. 21. It is wholly untrue that at the time of the acquisition by Great Britain of the Colony now known as British Guiana, the territories belonging to, or that might lawfully be claimed by the King of Spain, comprised the entire territory between the Orinoco and Essequibo Bivers. 20 22. Spain having, from the time of the acquisition by Great Britain of the Colony noAV known as British Guiana until Spain's title to the region in dispute became vested in Venezuela, continued to exercise exclusive political control of the entire region between the Orinoco and Essequibo Rivers, except only of the strip of land knoAvn as the Arabian Coast, lying betAveen the mouth of the Essequibo River and the mouth of the Pomeroon River ; and the occupation of said strip of land by Great Britain during a portion of the present century having been unlawful and in Aaolation of the Treaty of Munster; and Venezuela having continued thereafter until 1850 to exercise exclusive political control of the same territory, except only of said Arabian Coast, the original title to the entire region, formerly vested in Spain .and noAV vested in Venezuela, has thereby .been further strengthened and confirmed. 22. The allegations in this paragraph have 25 already been separately and categorically denied. It is untrue that Spain has at any time exercised exclusive political control of the entire region between the Orinoco and Essequibo Bivers, except the strip of land known as the Arabian 30 coast. The occupation of Great Britain of that strip of land and other territory adjoining the strip was not unlawful, and was not a violation of the Treaty of Miinster. On the contrary, Great Britain succeeded to the rights of the 35 Dutch, which included the right to hold and possess the territories occupied by them. Vene zuela neArer at any time exercised political control over the territory mentioned. 142 23. The occupation by Great Britain of the territory uoav in her possession was not a violation of the Treaty of Munster or of the Arrangement of 1850. Great Britain never undertook to 5 abandon territory over wbich she had at the time of the said Arrangement complete control, or to abstain from continuing the development of that territory. 23. The present occupation by Great Britain of a portion of the territory now in dispute, being in violation of the Treaty of Miinster and of the Agreement of 1850. and having been effected subsequent to the year 1880, in the interior, and subsequent to 1884, on the coast, cannot be made the basis of title to that region. 24. There is no foundation for the statement 10 that the boundary-line is as described in this paragraph. The boundary to which Great Britain is entitled includes a considerable tract of territory to tbe westward, and outside of the Schomburgk line, and Great Britain is in any 15 event entitled to all the territory up to the line drawn by Sir B. Schomburgk in 1841. 24. The boundary-line between the United States of Venezuela and the Colony of British Guiana, begins at the mouth of the Essequibo River; runs thence southAvard along the mid-channel of said river to its junction with the Cuyuni and Mazaruni Rivers ; thence around the Island of Kykoveral, leaving said island to the east; thence along the mid- channel of said Essequibo RiArer to the boundary-line separating the territory of the United States of Venezuela from the territory of the United States of Brazil. 25. The present occupation by British subjects and persons under British protection has been lawfully made in pursuance of the natural 20 development of territory already under the control of the British Government, and belonging to them, and having regard to the terms of the Treaty of Arbitration, Great Britain cannot on any ground of international law be dispossessed from such possession. 25. The present occupation by British sub jects and persons under British protection having been effected subsequent to 1880 in the interior, and subsequent to 1884 on the coast, and having been undertaken after due Avarning from the Venezuelan Government that the titles thus sought to be acquired would not be recognized by it, and after notice from the British Government that persons so entering into said territory must do so at their own peril, said subjects and persons may be regarded by Venezuela as mere trespassers, and Venezuela is under no obligation to recognize any British titles Avhich such subjects or persons may have acquired to lands situate Avithin said terri tory.