Still less do the passages cited in the Venczuelan Case show that in fact the Colony was 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 wood-cutting establishments on the Pomeroon, where, moreover, 10 there were also coffee plantations. The continued existence of the Moruka Post is proved by the 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 The system of Postholders continued until the year 1838, when by an Ordinance of the Colony 20 they were superseded by the appointment of the Superintendents of Rivers and Creeks, whose duties were defined by that Ordinance and who exercised their jurisdiction throughout the district now in dispute, in the manner described 25 in the Reports of Mr. Crichton and others printed in the Appendices to the 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 with reference to the 40 danger of such Settlements being formed; and in view of this Mr. Crichton, reporting on his journey through this district in the following year, made special mention of the 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 showing 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 was under his jurisdiction, was not used for residence by other than Indians. Venezuelan Case, p. 167. P. 76. In the passage omitted from the middle of the Venezuelan citation, Mr. Crichton further reports 5 that there was no exercise of Colombian juris- British App. VI, diction to the east of the Amakuru, and that all the Indian Captains on the 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 with, it is not proposed to restate the evidence adduced on the 15 same point in the British Case. It is only necessary to point out that, though beyond the Moruka there were no residents on British grants, that territory was 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 Crown. British Case, p. 117. With regard to British occupation in the in25 terior during this period, the Venezuelan Case makes the same point as with regard to the coast. The whole contention is that there were no residents 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 Government 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 40 45 p. 33. eighteen days up the Massaruni and ten days up British App. VI, the Essequibo and Cuyuni. The Caribs of the Essequibo received the presents of the Government and bound themselves to keep the peace. A mission was planted on the Rupununi in 1839, and Pirara was occupied by British troops in 1840. In the Massaruni the Government in 1826 interfered to put down a native conflict, and in the same year ejected Mr. Hilhouse from land upon which he had squatted among the Indians in that river. In the Cuyuni during this period no 50 disturbance is recorded. That river was occupied by Indians who had fled from the savannahs on the p. 13. British App. V. British App. VI, pp. 64, 65, 119. British App. VI, British App. VI, p. 36. The Interior. p. 49. destruction of the Missions. In 1833 Mr. Armstrong, the missionary at Bartika, met Indians at a point five days up the Cuyuni, who stated that British App. VI, they came from a settlement of 200 Indians five days higher up under a Chief who had emigrated · 5 from Venezuela; and in 1841 Schomburgk found at the mouth of the Acarabisi that the Indians were refugees from the Missions, who had British App. VII, 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 Airékuni (8 miles above the Acarabisi), to which they had penetrated during the Patriot War. p. 28. In the absence of trouble among the Indians, 15 and in view of the decay, after the 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 Venezuelan Case, 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 5 always maintained. It is not the case, as stated on p. 174 of the Venezuelan Case, that the Colony itself had gradually shrunk, and the circumstance that it was found convenient to merge it with Demerara can have no bearing upon the 10 question of boundary. It was at one time proposed to place the capital of the now united Case, App., 260, Colony on the west bank of the Essequibo on the Ituribisi Creek, but ultimately the present site of Georgetown was adopted. 1 British Counter 262. Venezuelan Case, 15 With regard to the social and economic revo- It is clear from the evidence adduced in the British Case, British Case, and again referred to in the present pp. 98-118. 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. |