mentioned in the preceding chapter was entered into, whereby neither party was to occupy or attempt to occupy any part of the then occupied territory in dispute.1 Thus the matter rested till 1879-80, when Venezuela endeavored to re-open negotiations with a view to some final adjustment of the controversy. Replying to this overture, Lord Salisbury said that Her Majesty's government then claimed, "in virtue of ancient treaties with the aboriginal tribes, and of subsequent concessions from Holland," all territory on the coast between the rivers Essequibo and Orinoco; likewise all territory south of the Imataca range of mountains, east and northeast of a line extending from Barima Point to the tablelands of Santa Maria, the line to extend from the last-named point to near the left margin of the Caroni river, and so around by the crest of the PacaraimeRoaima range of mountains, to the Essequibo.2 In other words, the claim had now been so expanded as to embrace not only all the territory within the original "Schomburgk line," but all territory within the several new and enlarged lines of that name. Indeed, as thus stated by Lord Salisbury, the claim included a vast region of about 60,000 square miles beyond the limits of even the latest expansion of the so-called "Schomburgk line"!

Venezuela had all along consistently claimed that the Essequibo river was the legal boundary, in virtue of title derived from Spain in 1811; but she had more than once intimated a willingness to accept a compromise on the old Moroco de facto line in 1768. Referring to this, Lord Salisbury said that "under no circumstances could the Essequibo be accepted as a

1 Off. Hist. Boundary Dis. etc., pp. 33–38. See also Dip. Corre spondence.

2 Ibid. 39-51. See map herewith.

possible boundary," but that he would "consider any reasonable proposition that Venezuela might submit."1

The Venezuelan envoy replied that, in order to come to some amicable settlement, he had been authorized by his government to "waive the question of strict legal right," and to adjust the boundary dispute on "any reasonable compromise"; to which end he inquired whether the British Government was then disposed, as on a former occasion in 1844, to accept a modification of the old Moroco de facto line as a conventional boundary. 2

To this Lord Salisbury replied that as the attorneygeneral of British Guiana was expected in London very soon, it was desirable to postpone further discussion till he should arrive. The attorney-general did not reach London till eight months later; and when Lord Salisbury's reply was finally received (two months afterwards), it was in the negative. The Moroco, he said, could not be considered as a possible boundary, but he would entertain a proposition for a conventional line, "beginning on the coast west of that river, and east of the Orinoco mouth." 4

The Venezuelan envoy then proposed, by way of compromise, a boundary line beginning on the coast one mile west of the mouth of the Moroco, to run thence northwestward to the 60th meridian, and thence due eastward to the Essequibo; or, if that should not be acceptable, then a reference of the whole question to arbitration. Neither proposition was accepted -- perhaps not even seriously considered.

5

1 See Official Correspondence.

2 Seijas' Limites de Guayana. Off. Hist. Dis. etc.

8 The term "west" is employed in the correspondence; but, accurately speaking, from the points of the compass, it should be N. W.

4 Official Correspondence. Off. Hist. Dis. Guayana boundary dispute, etc.

5 Ibid.

Later on, in 1881, when Lord Granville came into power, the English Government proposed a divisional line, to begin west of the Waini river, near Point Barima; to extend thence in a straight line southeastward to the crest of Mount Yarikita (in the Imataca range); thence in direct line to the mouth of the Acarabisi creek (in the great interior basin of the Cuyuni-Mazaruni); thence to sweep round southwestward to the junction of the Yuruary and the Cuyuni rivers (thus including some newly discovered gold mines); and thence in general direction eastward, by way of Mount Roraima, to the Essequibo river.

This proposition was rejected, and Venezuela again proposed arbitration, which was again declined. 1

Four years later, in 1885, when negotiations were again renewed, the British Government agreed, through Earl Granville, then Chief Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, to unite the boundary question with others then pending, and to refer the whole to a Board of Arbitration.2 But just seventy-two days afterwards, when Lord Salisbury had returned to power, the new administration refused to ratify this agreement, or, in fact, to entertain any proposition looking to a reference of the boundary dispute, as a whole, to arbitration.3

Subsequently, in 1886, Venezuela again proposed arbitration, which was again rejected. It was then that Lord Rosebery (who had again come into power) proposed another divisional line, which still further extended the British claim, and which required, besides, that the Orinoco river should be declared open and free to British merchant vessels.1

1 Official Correspondence. Off. Hist. Dis. Guayana boundary dispute, etc. Dip. Cor.

2 Dip. Cor., Earl Granville to General Blanco, May 15, 1885. Off. Hist. Dis. etc.

8 Lord Salisbury to General Blanco, July 27, 1885. Off. Cor.

4 Ibid.

In 1891, and again in 1893, Venezuela sought to restore diplomatic relations on the basis of the status quo ante of 1850, and on a proposed preliminary agreement to refer the boundary question, as a whole, to a commission of jurists, to be named by mutual concert of both governments.1

Both these efforts failed, leaving the parties at greater variance than ever before. England refused to acknowledge any status quo other than that "then existing," or to submit to arbitration her title to any territories embraced within the new and enlarged "Schomburgk line." She would accept arbitration only on one condition, namely, that her title to all territories within that line be "acknowledged as indefeasible"; after which she would agree to refer to arbitration any claim she might have to territory beyond that line. In other words, Venezuela must concede the justice of England's enlarged claim as a condition precedent to arbitration.2

Without going further into tedious details, the history of the British claim may be briefly summarized as follows:

1. In 1814, England acquired from Holland about 20,000 square miles of territory in Guayana, a considerable portion of which had been in dispute between Spain and Holland prior to that time.

2. Up to 1838, England claimed the Pumaron river as the "western limit" of this acquisition, the then disputed territory being understood as limited to the triangular strip between the Pumaron and the Essequibo rivers.

3. Between the years 1839 and 1841, England com

1 Venezuela Yellow Book, 1893: Official Correspondence.

2 Ibid. Ld. Rosebery to Dr. Michilena, Off. Hist. Dis. etc., pp. 251

missioned Robert Schomburgk to survey and mark out a tentative divisional line, which added about 60,000 square miles to the British claim, none of which, however, west of the old Moroco de facto line, had hitherto been considered in dispute.

4. In 1885, by further alterations and extensions, the British claim had grown to about 80,000 square miles.

5. In 1886, the British claim was again extended so as to embrace about 20,000 additional square miles. Indeed, the claim had now become so enlarged and indefinite as to excite apprehension that it no longer pretended to follow historical traditions or evidence.

At no time had Venezuela even tacitly recognized any one of these ex parte divisional lines. On the contrary, she had specifically and publicly protested, in the most solemn manner, against each and all of them; and, in general, against all encroachments west of the Moroco river; and for nearly a quarter of a century she had been persistently asking that the boundary question, as a whole, be submitted to an impartial tribunal of arbitration.

Another feature of the British claim, developed during the last stages of the controversy, had excited surprise, and given rise to grave apprehensions. After it had been conclusively shown that up to 1850 neither the Dutch or English had ever actually occupied a foot of land west of the Moroco, or above the first or lower falls of the Cuyuni and Mazaruni, England claimed that subsequent occupation by British subjects, although made over Venezuela's vigorous and repeated protests, and in clear violation of the truce of 1850, give prescriptive title to the British Government! "Her Majesty's subjects are already settled there, and Her Majesty's government must protect them in their interests," was the inspired utterance of the London