between nations as it may be by private law between individuals: it must depend upon variable and varying circumstances; but in all cases these proofs would be required."

The inherent justness of these observations, as well as Sir Robert Phillimore's great weight as authority, seems to show satisfactorily that the condition of international law fails to furnish any imperative reasons for excluding boundary controversies from the scope of General Treaties of Arbitration. If that be true of civilized States generally, à fortiori must it be true of the two great English-speaking nations. As they have not merely political institutions but systems of jurisprudence identical in their origin and in the fundamental ideas underlying them, as the law of real property in each is but a growth from the same parent stem, it is not easy to believe that a Tribunal composed of Judges of the Supreme Court of each, even if a foreign jurist were to act as umpire, could produce any flagrant miscarriages of justice.

Lord Salisbury puts the supposed case of a territorial controversy, involving multitudes of people whose prospects may be darkened and whose lives may be embittered by its pendency and its decision. The possibility of such a case arising may be conceded; but that possibility can hardly be deemed a valid objection to a scheme of general arbitration which is qualified by the proviso that either party may decline to arbitrate a dispute which in its judgment affects the national honour or integrity. The proviso is aimed at just such a possibility, and enables it to be dealt with as circumstances may require. The plan of Lord Salisbury in view of such a possibility is, that all the forms and ceremonies of arbitration should be gone through with, but with liberty to either party to reject the Award, if the Award is not to its liking. It is respectfully submitted that a proceeding of that sort must have a tendency to bring all arbitration into contempt; that each party to a dispute should decide to abide by an Award before entering into arbitration, or should decide not to enter into it at all, but, once entering into it, should be irrevocably bound.

The foregoing observations seem to cover such of the suggestions of Lord Salisbury's despatch of the 18th May last as have not already been touched upon in previous correspondence. By the original proposals of Lord Salisbury, contained in the despatch of the 5th March last, a protested Award is to be void unless sustained by the Appellate Tribunal of six Judges by a vote of five to one. He has since suggested that such protested Award may be allowed to stand unless a Tribunal of five Supreme Court Judges of the protesting country shall set it aside for some error of fact or some error in law. Without committing myself on the point, it occurs to me as worthy of consideration whether the original

proposals might not be so varied that the protested Award should staud unless set aside by the Appellate Tribunal by the specified majority. Such a change would go far in the direction of removing that want of finality to the proceedings, which, as has been urged in previous despatches, is the great objection to the original proposals.

I have the honour to request that you will lay the foregoing before Lord Salisbury at your early convenience, furnishing him, should be so desire, with a copy, which is herewith inclosed for that purpose. I have, &c., Sir J. Pauncefote.

RICHARD OLNEY.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT on behalf of Her Britannic Majesty's Government, on the Question of Boundary between British Guiana and Venezuela.*-February 1896.

THE purpose of the present Statement is to explain the general outline of the position of Great Britain in the long-pending dispute with Venezuela as regards the boundary between British Guiana and that country.

It will be convenient to state generally in the first instance the nature of the question which has arisen and which will be discussed in the subsequent Statement, and to make a brief reference to the geography of the district involved.

The territories now known as British Guiana and Venezuela had been discovered before the year 1520.

Between the date of discovery and 1648 the Spaniards and the Dutch had occupied portions of this territory. The extent of such occupation by each country will be a matter for consideration.

In 1580 the United Provinces of the Netherlands threw off their allegiance to the Spanish Crown, and a war ensued which lasted almost uninterruptedly for nearly seventy years.

In January 1648 peace was concluded by the Treaty of Münster, by which Spain acknowledged the independence of the Netherlands, and the two countries were respectively confirmed in their then possessions on the South American Continent.

From 1648 down to 1796, with the exception of a short interval 'between 1781 and 1783, the Dutch remained in possession of the territory which they had occupied prior to the Treaty of Münster, and extended their settlements within it.

* From Parliamentary Papers "Venezuela No. 1 and No. 2 (1896).”

In 1796 the territory now known as British Guiana was acquired by Great Britain; that acquisition was recognized and finally confirmed by Treaty in 1814.

In 1810 Venezuela revolted, but her independent existence apart from the United States of Colombia, in which she was for a time merged, did not commence till 1830, and was not formally recognized by Spain until the year 1845.

The following short geographical explanation will facilitate the appreciation of the historical outline contained in the subjoined Statement:

Guiana, as commonly understood by historians and geographers, comprises the territory bounded by the Orinoco, the Rio Negro, the Amazon, the waters joining the Amazon and the Rio Negro, and the Atlantic Ocean.

As will be seen from the sketch map marked A, annexed to this Statement, Guiana is intersected by numerous rivers, some flowing into the Orinoco, the more important flowing into the Atlantic Ocean. These have formed, up to the present time, the chief means of communication with the interior of the country. Of those which traverse the territory under discussion the principal are the Essequibo, the Pomeroon, the Maroco, the Waini, and the Barima. The Essequibo has some very important tributaries, among them the Massaruni and the Cuyuni, the basin of which extends far up the country towards the north-west; one of the upper tributaries of the Cuyuni is the Uruan, into which flows the Yuruari.

The Dutch possessions, so far as is material for present consideration, lay between the River Maroni and the Orinoco. Of these possessions the portion situated between the Rivers Maroni and Corentin still belongs to the Netherlands, and is known as Dutch Guiana. The eastern boundary of British Guiana is formed by the River Corentin.

The general names given to the Dutch Colonies in Guiana were Essequibo, Demerary, Berbice, and Surinam. The name Essequibo comprised the country west of the River Essequibo, including the districts through which ran the Rivers Pomeroon, Waini, and Barima. The name Demerary included the territory east of the Essequibo; Berbice and Surinam were still further to the eastward.

The following conclusions are clearly established in the succeeding pages:

1. That prior to 1590 the Dutch had established themselves on the Coast of Guiana.

2. That prior to 1596 the Spaniards had established no settlements in Guiana.

3. That by 1648 the Dutch settlements in Guiana extended

along the coast the whole way from the River Maroni to the Barima, and inland to various points in the interior upon the Rivers Essequibo, Cuyuni, Pomeroon, Waini, and Barima, and their tributaries.

4. That up to 1723, the only settlement of the Spaniards in Guiana was San Thomé de Guayana, on the south bank of the Orinoco, originally founded in 1596 at the site shown on the sketch Inap A.

5. That between 1723 and 1796 the only additional settlements founded by the Spaniards in Guiana were those established by the Capuchin Missions south of the Orinoco in the direction of the River Yuruari, and two villages on the Upper Orinoco, several hundred miles above San Thomé de Guayana.

6. That the Dutch occupation to the extent above indicated was perfectly well known to Spain, and that Spanish attempts to dispossess the Dutch had wholly failed.

7. That subsequently to 1796 Great Britain has continuously remained in possession, and her subjects have occupied further portions of the territory to which the Dutch had established their title.

The subject will be treated under the following heads :

I. From the early settlements in Guiana up to 1648, the date of the Treaty of Münster.

II. From 1648 to 1796, the date of the British occupation.

III. From 1796 to 1810.

IV. The period after 1840.

V. Observations on maps.

I.-From the First Settlements in Guiana to 1648.

The following brief historical summary is intended to show the actual condition of colonization in Guiana during the period above indicated:

The Dutch appear to have been the first who, in the early part of the sixteenth century, turned their attention to Guiana, and there is abundant evidence coming from Spanish sources, that during the latter half of the century, prior to 1590, the Dutch had established themselves on the coast of Guiana.

In 1595 the English explorer, Captain Charles Leigh, found the Dutch established near the mouth of the Orinoco, a fact which is confirmed from Spanish sources.

The first settlement made by Spain in Guiana was in 1596, when Antonio de la Hoz Berrio founded San Thomé de Guayana, on the south bank of the Orinoco, at the site marked upon the sketch map A.

A despatch from Don Roque de Montes, Treasurer of Cumaná, to the King of Spain, dated the 12th April, 1596, shows that the Spaniards did not then hold any part of Guiana.

The above despatch and a Report inclosed therein from Captain Phelippe de Santiago, drew attention to the importance of occupying the right bank of the Orinoco, and pointed out the best places for settlements; but, with the exception of San Thomé, these settlements were never established.

Ibarguen in 1597 visited San Thomé; he also visited the Essequibo and reported "white men," who can be shown to have been the Dutch, to be settled high up that river.

Early in the seventeenth century various Dutch Companies, afterwards merged in the great West India Company, were employed in colonizing Guiana, and had established several settlements there before 1614.

The existence of these settlements was officially reported to Spain. The following are extracts from a Memoria on Trinidad de la Guayana, deliberated upon by the Spanish Privy Council, dated 1614:

"No. 4. And with regard to the others (i.e., Dutch settlements) existing, it would be well to clear those coasts of them, for, from the River Marañon to the River Orinoco there are three or four more settlements, very flourishing, from which they derive much utility and very great profit, and with the mouths of those two rivers they are making themselves masters of the possessions and the fruits of the natives, and this must call for some remedy; and the necessity of sending men, artillery, and arms for the defence of the city of Guayana must not be neglected."

"No. 7. And Joan Diaz de Mansilla, Curate and Vicar of the Island of Trinidad, in a communication of the 30th June, 1614, gives an account of the trustworthy information he received, that from the river called Guayapoco (Wiapoco?) to that of the Orinoco, in a distance of 200 leagues, there are four settlements of Flamencos' to which some remedy must be applied; and that the reports that have been sent (i.e., to the Court of Spain) by interested parties, all prepared for their own special ends, . . . are very exaggerated, and merit little confidence, that the injury the Caribs are causing is notorious."

The records from which these passages are extracted show that the Dutch had at this time firmly settled themselves along the coast as far as the Orinoco, and that the Spaniards made nothing more than a pretence of dislodging them, directing their operations against the Corentin River only.

The original Spanish post of San Thomé de Guayana, built in 1596, was destroyed by Sir Walter Raleigh in 1616 or 1617. It was