The Interior Venezuelan Case, p. 35. Navarrete Venezuelan Case, It is stated in the Case for Venezuela, that in 1499 the Lieutenants of Columbus sailed up the estuaries of the Essequibo and the Orinoco. No authority is cited for this statement, but if it is 10 intended to refer to the voyage of Ojeda in that year, all that is recorded is that the expedition in passing saw, besides others, two very large rivers, which made the sea-water fresh for a long distance. One of these, described as coming from 15 south to north, was probably the Essequibo, and the other the Orinoco. The village built on piles, which was discovered and named Venezuela, was in the Gulf of Maracaibo, many leagues to the west of the Orinoco. 20 Not one of the expeditions into the interior, which followed the grants to the Welsers of Augsburg and to Diego de Ordaz, penetrated any of the territory now in dispute. The grant to the Welsers was far on the other side of the 25 Orinoco, and though that to Ordaz comprised the coast of Guiana, nothing was done under it except the exploration by Ordaz and Herrera of the Orinoco itself. It is stated in the Case for Venezuela, that in 1530 Pedro de Acosta founded 30 a settlement at the mouth of the Orinoco. authority is cited, and Her Majesty's Government do not admit the allegation. In any case, as it Venezuelan Case, is conceded that Acosta was "not long afterp. 37. wards driven off by the Caribs," the incident is of 35 no importance. None of the Spanish expeditions referred to by Keymis or Raleigh, and appealed to in the Case for Venezuela, penetrated the interior of Guiana. Venezuelan Case, p. 37. Venezuelan Case, p. 38. No It is stated in the Case for Venezuela that before 40 the end of the sixteenth century the Spaniards were seriously occupying themselves with the interior of Guiana; and the formal act by which Domingo de Vera took possession of the territory of the Chief Morequito is set out at length. 45 The only result was the foundation of the village Venezuelan Case, of Santo Thomé. It is true as stated on behalf of Venezuela, that in 1595 a colonizing expedition started from Spain with 2,000 colonists, but nothing was achieved. "Of the 2,200 persons 50 who came on that occasion" wrote one of the p. 41. British Counter- number in 1609, "we only remain between men and women about sixty more or less. The remainder perished or died miserably except a few who escaped. There are two towns inhabited, 5 one in Trinidad which has about thirty-five or forty men, and another in the Province of Guayana which they call Santo Thomé, and which has about sixty men." The Case for Venezuela further cites the jour- Venezuelan Case, 10 nal of Cabeliau to show that in 1598 the Spaniards had begun to make a road 200 miles into the interior. The passage immediately preceding shows that the proposal to make this road was brought forward in view of the failure of all 15 previous efforts to penetrate to the interior. It is clear, however, that the road was never made. The Spaniards never had the men for a work of the importance indicated; and, moreover, in a Report of the Council to the 20 King of Spain, dated the 29th July, 1615, it is expressly stated that Fernando Berrio, who succeeded his father as Governor of Santo Thomé in 1597, merely made some attempts at settlement of little permanence or importance. 35 p. 41. British App. I, P. 43. British Counter- Venezuelan Case, p. 41. British Counter It is not denied that the Spaniards held the bank of the Orinoco at Santo Thomé; but they Case, App., p. 9. held nothing else. A statement such as that attributed on page 41 of the Venezuelan Case to King James I is of no value as evidence against documents such as those produced in the Appendix to the British Case. With regard to the coast to the east of the 40 Orinoco the Case for Venezuela fails to show any Spanish act of occupation before the Dutch took possession. The Venezuelan Case alleges that a Spanish explorer in 1553 ascended the Essequibo and 45 descended on the other side to the Amazon. The only authority cited is an early Spanish map on the face of which is a legend stating that an Arawak cacique had done this. The map cannot be earlier than the seventeenth century, because 50 it shows two Spanish towns in Trinidad; but this island was first settled by Berrio about 1593, and as late as 1615 there was, according Absence of Spanish Occupation East of the Venezuelan Case, p. 42. Venezuelan Atlas, p. 76. British App. I, p. 4. British App. I, p. 44. p. 42. Venezuelan Case, p. 43. 66 It is not denied that in the last years of the sixteenth century the Spaniards, like the English and Dutch, frequented the rivers as far as the Essequibo for trade, and especially to get cassava for bread. The accounts of Raleigh, Keymis, and 10 Venezuelan Case, Masham show this. The passage cited from De Laet carries the matter no farther. He is merely citing Masham and the date, 1591, is probably a mistake for Masham's 1597. The alleged expedition" of Ibarguen (Domingo de Vera) 15 to Essequibo in 1597, after the failure of his colonizing expedition, is shown by his letter to have been only a visit, very probably to Venezuelan Case, get cassava. The inclosure in the communication of the Duke of Lerma (1615), referred to by the 20 Government of Venezuela, is the only indication that the Spaniards ever did more than visit Essequibo for trade. For this purpose they depended on the goodwill of the Arawak Indians; but these became hostile in 1618, and, as already 25 shown in the British Case, the visits of the Spaniards to Essequibo were finally put an end to in 1619. p. 43. British Case, pp. 23, 24. Venezuelan Case, P. 43. It is said, however, in the Venezuelan Case, that Fort Kijkoveral in the Essequibo was 30 originally built by the Spaniards. This allegation is made on the strength of certain marks on the keystone of the arch, suggested by Hartsinck to be the arms of Portugal; but, as the Portuguese were never in the Essequibo, General Netscher 35 in his "Geschiedenis van de Kolonien Essequibo, &c." suggested that they were probably those of Spain. As a matter of fact the whole British App. VII, of the masonry of the fort is Dutch, and the marks on the keystone are not armorial bearings 40 at all. The keystone will be produced to the Tribunal of Arbitration. p. 242. If there ever had been any Spanish Settlement to the east of the Orinoco, it is incredible that it should never be mentioned either in the copious 45 contemporary histories of Herrera and Simon, or in the very complete series of documents preserved in the archives at Seville and Simancas. No Spanish officer appears ever to have claimed credit for the foundation of any such settlement, 50 or to have been called to account for its abandon Absence of Spanish Control. ment. The truth is, that Spanish vessels bound for the Indies made straight for Trinidad, described in 1604 as the entry to the Indies, and any settlement on the coast to windward of that 5 point would not have been tenable. The last section of the chapter now under consideration purports to show that Spain maintained an effective control of Guiana and repelled the attempts of other nations to dispossess her. 10 With one exception, however, the acts of the Spanish Government which are referred to show no more than that Spain retained and defended the Orinoco from Santo Thomé upwards. The exception is the raid upon the Dutch plantation 15 on the Corentyn in 1613. This, however, did not check the enterprise of the Dutch, and no more destroyed the Dutch title to the coast than the three raidings of Santo Thomé in 1618, 1629, and 1637 destroyed the Spanish title to that 20 district. The Spanish strength in the Orinoco itself is, moreover, unduly magnified by a partial citation from the journal of Cabeliau. The passage in full is as follows, but the Case for Venezuela 25 omits the words in italics : "We travelled to the place or hamlet where the Spaniards dwell, which is named S. Thomé, the Governor of which is Don Fernando de Berreo and Marques of Weyana, the River Worinoque and the whole 30 coasts being still unconquered as far as the River Marignon or Amazonas, and they are thereabout sixty horsemen and 100 musketeers strong, who daily attempt to conquer the auriferous Weyana, but cannot conquer the same either by the forces already used, or by any means of friendship, since the nation named Charibus daily offers them hostile resistance with their arms, which are hand-bows," &c. 35 But the weakness of Spanish influence, and the narrowness of the area over which it extended, is not merely to be inferred from the 40 lack of proof to the contrary. It can be shown affirmatively that even before the Treaty of Münster, to the knowledge of the Spaniards, Dutch influence and occupation extended to the Amakuru, and in spite of orders to the Spanish 45 Commanders to put an end to it. This evidence, however, can be most conveniently introduced in dealing with Chapter V British Counter- of the Case for Venezuela, entitled, "Early Post, p. 34. Dutch Relations with Guayana, 1597-1648." Venezuelan Case, p. 57. Venezuelan Case, p. 57. This Chapter, which ranges over the whole period from 1581 to the present time, does not appear to call for any detailed notice in this place. The main allegations contained in it are, so far 10 as is necessary, sufficiently dealt with in other Chapters of this Counter-Case. The mention of Isekepe and Bauwmerona in the Charter of 1674 in no way implies that there had been any retrogression of Dutch influence in 15 Guiana. They are mentioned in the Charter only for the purpose of emphasizing the principal points of trade in the territory of the Company. The discussions on the provisions of this 20 Charter referred to on p. 57 of the Venezuelan Case were discussions as between the Company on the one hand and inhabitants of the Netherlands eager for fresh avenues of trade on the other. They cannot be read as suggesting any 25 doubt as to the limits which the Dutch might hold as against Spain. It is admitted that Great Britain acquired Guiana from the Dutch, but, for the reasons given in other parts of this Counter-Case, Her 30 Majesty's Government protest against the attempt made in the Venezuelan Case to confine the extent of British dominion to the limits of territory actually settled by the Dutch. |