CHAPTER III.

DIPLOMATIC CORRESPONDENCE.

Having thus considered the meaning and scope of the treaty of arbitration, it is now proposed to take up the diplomatic correspondence between Spain and the Netherlands, and between Venezuela and Great Britain, with a view to ascertaining what territorial claims have been advanced, and upon what grounds those claims have been rested.

In a note addressed to Sir Julian Pauncefote November 26, 1895, Lord Salisbury stated that "the dispute on the subject of the frontier did not, in fact, commence till after the year 1840" (V. C.-C., vol. iii, p. 275.) This is true, so far as Great Britain and Venezuela are concerned; but to begin the study of the diplomatic correspondence at that point, ignoring what passed on the same subject between Spain and the Netherlands during the eighteenth century, would be to pass by a vital part of the controversy.

The significance of Great Britain's claims subsequent to 1840 can be appreciated only when it is considered that she succeeded to the rights of the Dutch. It is to the year 1747, therefore, that we first invite attention.

In the year 1747 there was a profound ignorance on the part of the Dutch as to the proper location of the boundary between the colony of Essequibo and the Spanish dominions. In September of that year "the Ten" adopted a resolution instructing that "all the respective Chambers, each by itself, investigate and inquire whether it can be discovered how far the limits of this Company in Rio Essequibo do extend " (V. C., vol. ii, p. 99).

In December, 1748, the Governor wrote to the Company, and,

after referring to the talk of some old people and Indians, added: "but this talk gives not the slightest certainty " He also expressed a wish "that, if it were possible," he "might know the true boundary" (V. C., vol. ii, p. 101).

The visit of the Governor to Holland in 1750 led to many consultations on this point between himself, the Company and the Stadtholder-all without result-and he returned to Essequibo with the boundary still a matter of conjecture.

In 1754 he again appealed to the Company for "the so long sought definition of frontier " (V. C., vol. ii, p. 113), and asked: "Is not this regulated by the Treaty of Münster?" To this the Company answered: "We would we were able to give you an exact and precise definition of the proper limits of the river of Esse quibo such as you have several times asked of us; but we greatly doubt whether any precise and accurate definition can anywhere be found, save and except the general limits of the Company's territories stated in the preambles of the respective charters granted to the West India Company at various times by the States General" (V. C., vol. ii, p. 117).

The Spanish attack on the Cuyuni post in 1758 brought matters to a crisis. It obliged Governor Storm van 's Gravesande to take a definite stand in the matter; and hence, by his orders, the Military Commandant in Essequibo wrote, on December 8, 1758, to the Spanish Commandant in Orinoco:

"That in the name of the States General his Sovereigns he persists, and now for the second time demands the freeing of the prisoners and a suitable satisfaction for this violation and insult done to the territory of his Sovereigns, and that, since it seems to him, according to the letter in question, that you in Guayana and at Cumaná are ignorant of the boundaries of the territory of His Catholic Majesty and those of the States General according to the treaties at present subsisting, he has ordered me to send you the enclosed map on which you will be able to see them very distinctly. " (V. C., vol. ii, p. 128).

D'Anville's map, here referred to, is reproduced as No. 16 in the Atlas accompanying the British Case; and it is important to note that the line there shown gave Barima Point and both

the Barima and Amacura rivers, from their sources to their mouths, to Spain. The extreme claim of the Dutch in 1758, as regards the coast, is thus seen to have extended no further than just beyond the Waini River.

This statement of the Dutch claim in 1758 was communicated by the Dutch Governor to the Dutch West India Company; and the Company, so far from enlarging on it in the Remonstrance presented in 1759 to the Court of Spain, limited itself to affirming its immemorial possession, not of the Barima, nor of the Amacura, nor even of the Waini, but merely of the Essequibo River and all its branches. It asked "that reparation may be made for the said hostilities, and that the Remonstrants may be reinstated in the quiet possession of the said post on the river of Cuyuni, and also that through their High Mightinesses and the Court of Madrid a proper delimitation between the Colony of Essequibo and the river Orinoco may be laid down by authority, so as to prevent any future dispute " (V. C., vol. ii, p. 134).

Spain made no formal answer to this Remonstrance, and it is hardly necessary to add that the Dutch received no satisfaction. The practical result of the appeal was that Spain continued to occupy the Cuyuni and to exclude the Dutch from the post in the quiet possession of which these latter asked to be reinstated.

The Dutch Remonstrance of 1759 was followed by another in 1769. Between these dates the Dutch continued to exhibit vacillation and uncertainty regarding the location of their boundary, and to search for information as to where the line should run. The Spaniards, on the other hand, continued to exclude the Dutch from both the interior and the coast, and to assert sovereignty over the whole disputed region. A glance at some of the correspondence between the Dutch Governor and the Colony during this period cannot fail to be instructive. That correspondence shows, on the one hand, the ignorance of the Dutch authorities as to the extent of their territory, and their admission as to the extent of

Spanish territory, and, on the other hand, the trifling and insignificant grounds upon which they based their extreme pretensions. First, as to the ignorance of the Dutch:

Referring to the destroyed Cuyuni post of 1758, the Company thus wrote to the Governor on May 31st,,1759:

"Meanwhile we should like on this occasion to be exactly informed where the aforesaid Post on the River of Cuyuni was situated; for in the latest map made by you of the Colony we have found indeed, that river, but have not yet succeeded in finding the Post itself. Furthermore, what grounds you might be able to give us to further support our right to the possession of the aforesaid Post-perhaps a declaration by the oldest inhabitants of the Colony could in this connection be handed in, which might be of service. We should also like to have a more specific description of the Map of America by M. D'Anville, to which you appeal; for that gentleman has issued many maps dealing with that continent, and in none of these which have come to our notice have we been able to discover any traces [of what you mention, "] (B. C., II, p. 174).

Again, on December 3rd, 1759, they wrote:

"Wherefore we still request you to lay before us everything which might in any way be of service in proof of our right of ownership to, or possession of, the aforesaid river, because after receiving it we might perhaps present to the States-General a fuller Remonstrance on this head, with a statement of facts joined thereto. For this purpose there might especially be of use to us a small map of the River of Cuyuni, with indication of the places where the Company's Post, and also the grounds of 'Oud Duinenburg' and of the Company's coffee and indigo plantations were situated, and, finally, of the so-called Blue Mountain in which the miners carried on their work for our account," (B. C., II, p. 181).

And in the same letter they add:

"We see from your letter that you extend the boundary of the Colony in the direction of the Orinoco not only as far as Waini, but even as far as Barima. We should like to be informed of the grounds upon which you base this contention, and especially your inference that, Cuyuni being situate on this side of Waini, it must therefore necessarily belong to the Colony; for, so far as we know, there exist no Conventions that the boundary lines in South America run in a straight line from the sea-coast inland, as do most of the frontier lines of the English Colonies in North America" (B. C. II, p. 182).

Seven years later the Company still continued in ignorance as to the proper boundary of their Colony. On September 25, 1766, they thus wrote to the Governor:

"In one of your preceding letters you told us that the place about the Barima, where some scum and offscourings of folk were staying together and leading a scandalous life, was Spanish territory, and that you intended to have Mr. Rousselet, who was going on a mission to Orinoco submit. some propositions to the Spanish Governor for the extirpation of that gang. And now you inform us of your having sent thither the Postholder of Moruka with positive orders, probably propria authoritate without any concurrence of the aforesaid Governor, inasmuch as Mr. Rousselet had not yet departed thither on his mission, and we cannot quite make this tally with the other. If that place is really Spanish territory, then you have acted very imprudently and irregularly; and, on the contrary, if that place forms part of the Colony, and you had previously been in error as to the territory, then you have done very well, and we must fully approve of your course, as also of the Court's Resolution that henceforth no one shall be at liberty to stay on the Barima. But if the Court has no jurisdiction in that place, we see little result from that Resolution: extra territorium suum jus dicenti enim impune non paretur" (B. C., III, p. 137).

The above extracts are all taken from letters of the Company; and it will be observed that the ignorance which these exhibit is complete, so much so, indeed, that not even a suggestion came from the Company to enlighten the Governor or to help him to an understanding of what he should regard as being within his jurisdiction.

The letters of the Governor during this period prove the same ignorance on his part; they also serve to make clear the extreme Dutch claims of the eighteenth century; they disclose the origin of those claims, and they reveal the foundations upon which both those claims and the subsequent British pretensions have been built.

It will be remembered that in writing to the Spanish Commandant on the Orinoco complaining of the attacks upon the Cuyuni Post of 1758, Storm van 's Gravesande had transmitted a copy of D'Anville's map. That his own views were based