Three years later, the French, as already related, aided by the Caribs of Barima, attacked the second Dutch colony on the Pomeroon, making their way in canoes from Barima and Waini to the Moruka, and utterly destroyed the colony, and then, returning to the Barima, fortified themselves in that river (V. C. II, 59–62). In 1689 Beekman wrote (V. C. II, 59): "The French are daily sojourning in Barima with the Caribs "; and in a letter of the

same year he said (V. C. II, 62): "The French are making a strong-house in Barima."

In 1695 he wrote:

"We have been kept here in continuous alarm, since at various times. we have had tidings that some French, aided by Caribs from Barima, are staying in the mouth of the River Pomeroon, who say that they will come. here to visit us" (V. C. II, 64).

This fort or stronghold of the French in Barima is a fact of great importance in the case. Its position is not known, but the fact is known from these two allusions. The alleged remains of a fort in Barima have been referred to and commented on upon many occasions, and an assumption, totally unwarranted, has been made, especially Schomburgk, that the fort indicated by the remains was a Dutch fort. There is no evidence in the history of the Dutch colony that the Dutch ever had a fort in Barima. It is impossible that a Dutch fort should have existed at any time after 1648 and not have been mentioned. It is impossible that, had it existed, it should not have been mentioned many times. No doubt the Dutch landed on the lower Orinoco in 1637 and 1638, when they made their attacks on Santo Thome and Trinidad during the Thirty Years' War, and it is possible that during that campaign they put up a temporary work; but if there was any such work, it was a mere incident of a military campaign. Any remains that may have been found in modern times are doubtless the remains of the old French fort of 1689. If referable in any way to the Dutch, they must have been connected with the cam

paign of 1637, which lasted from July to September, and then came entirely to an end.

Besides the French, from the islands, traders from Surinam and other Dutch settlements not under the direction of the West India Company also visited the Barima and traded there. Of one of them, Biscop, the commandeur, reports, in 1683, that the Barima "has been navigated as many as two or three times by Gabriel Biscop and exploited with great success, much to the prejudice of the Company" (V. C. II, 45).

But however extensive the connection in the sixteenth century of the French and Surinam rovers was with trade in Barima, the principal trade there was that conducted by Spaniards from the Orinoco during the whole period. This was a continuation of that current of traffic to which Raleigh and Keymis had called special attention in the earlier period, before the Dutch were even heard of in Guayana. The trade relations between the two colonies were first started by the Dutch in 1673, when the Commandeur of Essequibo "sent some wares to Orinoco for the purpose of trade" (V. C. II, 36). From this date the subject of trade with the Orinoco is mentioned so frequently and so constantly that it is unnecessary to point to any particular communication. It became one of the features of the life of the colony, and remained so during the next century, except for short times when it was interrupted either by war or by the enforcement of narrow commercial regulations on one side or the other. It was first really started about 1679 (V. C. II, 38), and being prohibited by Spanish law, it was carried on only by the connivance of the Governor of Guayana. Such were the inconveniences of the trade when carried on in the Orinoco, by reason of its contraband character, and such were the losses and penalties it involved, that the Company at one time put a stop to it, being of the opinion that "the Company bears all the expenses and burdens, and that others help themselves to the profits" (V. C. II, 50). The field was so tempting, however, that the trade was revived, but the effort

was made to have it carried on by the Spaniards at Essequibo, rather than by the Dutch at Orinoco, so that the actual traffic might be done at the former point. The Barima was still the only route by which the traffic was carried on. As time went on, the Dutch withdrew more and more from the intercolonial trade, leaving it more and more in the hands of the Spaniards, and finally, in 1761, the West India Company concluded that it was "more profitable for the Company, to direct this trade into such channels that it must be carried on from Orinoco to Essequibo, by the Spaniards" (V. C. II, 146). The trade still continued active, but was thereafter entirely carried on by the Spaniards. The post of Pomeroon or Moruka became the port of entry for all this trade to the Essequibo. It was the frontier of the Dutch colony on this side, and as the Spanish trade grew and duties were imposed, it became the custom house of the Dutch colony, which necessarily would be established on the frontier.

It, therefore, appears that, as far as trade conditions were concerned, the Spaniards had been in the Barima from a time long prior to the advent of the Dutch in that neighborhood; that they carried on trade there continuously to the end of the eighteenth century, and that the intercolonial trade was chiefly carried on by the Spaniards through the Barima district, the Dutch authorities themselves favoring this policy.

It also appears that early in this period and for a considerable series of years, the French were active traders in the Barima and in more or less constant occupation of points in the district, at one of which they built a fort.

Finally, it appears that the Surinam traders, who were independent of the Dutch West India Company and its competitors in trade, diverted to themselves a large part of the Barima traffic which otherwise would have fallen to the Essequibo colonists.

Having said so much in reference to the general trade conditions

of the Barima, the question is to what, if any, extent actual settlements of the Dutch existed in that region.

The first matter to be considered is the significance, or rather the insignificance, of Beekman' rest-house of 1683.

The first reference to this subject is in a report of the Commandeur of Essequibo, December 25, 1683 (B. C. I, 185), in which he said:

"I have caused one of the Company's servants to reside in Barima, as much annatto and letter-wood is obtainable there, and it lies near to Pomaroon."

He added:

"I wish your Honours would take possession of that river as well" (meaning the Barima), "which has been done by me provisionally, in order to see what revenue it will yield, since I am of opinion that the Honourable Company has the right to trade and traffic there in an open river as much as other private persons.

In March, 1684, he stated (B. C. I, 186):

"Pomeroon begins annually to deliver much and good annatto, and much was supplied from Barima, as appears from the inclosed list. From this their Honours will see how much has been procured and brought to the fort by all the Postholders."

The Commandeur added that Biscop and other interlopers spoil the trade; that they overrun the land right up to the Cuyuni; that

"In order somewhat to check this, I have caused a small station to be made at Barima, and Abraham Baudaart, who is there" [in Pomeroon] "as Postholder in place of Daniel Galle, who is going home, shall occasionally visit those places and encourage the Caribs to trade in annatto and letter-wood, which the French even from the islands in the river frequently come with their vessels to fetch. I submit, therefore, under correction, that it would not be inequitable for the Honourable West India Company to take possession of the River Barima in order to acquire the trade aforesaid, and to command the erection there of a permanent place for a Postholder" (B. C. I, 186).

It might seem from the context that Baudaart was at Barima as Postholder; but this is not the fact. He was the Postholder of

Pomeroon, as is shown in the letter of August 18, 1684 (B. C. I, 187), where he is spoken of as "Abraham Baudaart, Postholder in Pomaroon." The British Case (page 31, line 3) recognizes the correctness of this interpretation.

The two letters above mentioned of Commandeur Beekman have been cited occasionally as showing at this early period something in the nature of settlement or control of the Pomeroon. Their bearing upon the question of control will be considered later. Here the only question is of actual settlement. In the first letter he says that he has caused one of the Company's servants to reside in Barima, and speaks of it as being close by Pomeroon; that is, in December, 1683; and in the following March he complains of the Surinam traders, and says that, in order to check this, he has caused a small station to be made at Barima, and that Baudaart, the Postholder, "shall occasionally visit those places and encourage the Caribs to trade." He also speaks of this in connection with a larger plan, which he recommends to the Company, to take over the Barima, and to which he refers in both letters.

Beekman's suggestion as to taking possession of the river, reiterated in the second letter, shows that up to then no possession had been taken. The two letters together also show that the Company's servant whom he had caused in December, 1683, to reside in Barima, which was stated by him to be a provisional taking possession, subject of course to the Company's approval, did not continue his residence. What it amounted to or what replaced it is explained in the following letter, namely, that a resthut or shelter had been put up in the district, and that the Outlier in Pomeroon was to go there occasionally to encourage the Caribs to trade.

Beekman's two letters were answered by the Company on August 24, 1684 (V. C. II, 48). The answer was an angry and reproachful disapproval of nearly every proposition which Beekman had made to them, and was full of caustic comments upon his