66 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, which 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 now, living west of the river and on the islands. The origin of these people is immaterial. They are almost all British subjects. British App. VII p. 327. British App. VII, p. 330. Venezuelan Case, p. 186. British App. VII, p. 233. Venezuelan Case, p. 192. Population. Great Britain in Possession as far as Schomburgk Line. CHAPTER XV. This Chapter deals with Chapter XV of the Venezuelan Case, pp. 197–199, entitled SPANISH AND VENEZUELAN OCCUPATION DURING THE NINETEENTH CENTURY." 5 Venezuelan Case, p. 197. Application of Theory of Actual Possession. The first of these propositions has already been 30 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 opposition to Article IV, Rule (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 law to constitute a title to territory theretofore vacant, Her Majesty's Government agree that the limits of British Guiana depend, subject to the operation of Article IV, Rule (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 possession 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, Rule (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 commencement of this century, and decline "in the absence of any evidence of British title to the same territory, and until such evidence shall be forth35 coming, to present proof of continued possession or control by Venezuela of that region." The passage continues as follows: "As a matter of fact, Spain first, and then Venezuela, 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 Münster, and under the rules adopted by the present Treaty, confer title upon herself." The first is that in 1802 the Spanish Government were maintaining a regular pilot station at what is called "the Barima, mouth of the Orinoco." The report of Major McCreagh, which is referred to as the authority for this statement, 15 shows that the pilot station was then at Pagayos, 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 Government," 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 Carácas made, on behalf of his Government, a formal request of Venezuela to erect a lighthouse at Barima Point. The request referred to was made by Sir 30 Robert Ker Porter, the British Chargé d'Affaires at Carácas, on the suggestion of the Vice-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 Foreign Office. It only came to light in 1842, when Mr. O'Leary, the then Chargé d'Affaires at Carácas, mentioned it in writing to the Foreign 40 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 Point at that or any other time, the incident has no bearing upon the question of right. CHAPTER XVI. This Chapter deals with 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 unnecessary to consider this Chapter of the Venezuelan 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 every semblance of British authority within. Venezuelan territory; and, in a note of the 10th January, 1842, repeated its demand for the removal 20 of 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 208 of the Venezuelan Case it is stated in the margin that Lord Aberdeen's proposals in 1844 were "rejected by Venezuela." This was not the case. No reply to Lord Aber35 deen's proposals was ever received by Her Majesty's Government, and after a certain time Lord Palmerston decided that they should be considered as withdrawn. p. On p. 40 negotiations initiated in 1884 by General Guzman Blanco are dealt with as follows: 212 of the Venezuelan Case the "General Guzman Blanco, in a Memorandum communicated 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 |