¹ J.S. Alexander, president of the Texas National Bank, to Plutarco Ornelas, the Mexican consul in San Antonio, Texas, January 23, 1892, in Archivo Histórico “Genaro Estrada”, Secretaría de Relaciones Exteriores, México, D.F., Ramo: Revolución Mexicana, L-E-717, hs. 1–13 (hereafter cited as AHGE/RM, followed by the number of the legajo, expediente-if any-or document in question); Saldívar, Gabriel, Documentos de la rebelión de Catavino E. Garza en la frontera de Tamaulipas y sur de Texas (México: Secretaría de Agricultura y Fomento, 1943), pp. 13–16;Google Scholar Meyer, Lorenzo, Su Majestad Británica contra la Revolución Mexicana, 1900–1950 (México: El Colegio de México, 1991), pp. 64–65;Google Scholar Gerhardt, Raymond C., “England and the Mexican Revolution, 1910–1920” (Ph.D. Dissertation, Lubbock, TX, Texas Technical University, 1970), p. 10.Google Scholar

² By 1910, about 75 percent of Mexico’s external trade was carried on with the U.S., while Great Britain provided, by contrast, only ten percent of that country’s imports. The Times, London, May 8, 1911; Gerhardt, “England and the Mexican Revolution,” pp. 20–21;Google Scholar Carr, Barry, “Las peculiaridades del norte mexicano, 1880–1927: ensayo de interpretación”, Historia Mexicana, 22:3 (January-March 1973), 325;Google Scholar Katz, Friedrich, La guerra secreta en México (México: Editorial Era, 1982), vol. 1, p. 43;Google Scholar Coerver, Don M. and Hall, Linda B., Texas and the Mexican Revolution: A Study in State and National Border Policy, 1910–1920 (San Antonio: Trinity University Press, 1984), pp. 13–15.Google Scholar

³ Rippy, J. Fred, British Investments in Latin America: A Case Study in the Operations of Private Enterprise in Retarded Regions (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1959), pp. 96–97;Google Scholar Katz, , La guerra secreta, vol. 1, pp. 41–46.Google Scholar

⁴ Fred Rippy, J., British Investments in Latin America, p. 96;Google Scholar Gerhardt, , “England and the Mexican Revolution,” pp. 17–18.Google Scholar

⁵ Rippy, , British Investment in Latin America, pp. 96–97;Google Scholar Teschendorf, Alfred, Great Britain and Mexico in the Era of Porfirio Díaz (Durham: Duke University Press, 1961), pp. 94, 124–125.Google Scholar

⁶ Dumke, Glenn S., The Boom of the Eighties in Southern California (San Marino: The Huntington Library, 1944), p. 155;Google Scholar Angela Moyano de Guevara, “La Compañía Internacional en Ensenada” and “La Compañía Inglesa”, in de Guevara, Angela Moyano and Zepeda, Jorge Martínez, coords., Visión histórica de Ensenada (Ensenada, B.C: Centro de Investigaciones Históricas, Universidad Autónoma de Baja California, 1982), pp. 125–135, 143–145;Google Scholar Martín Barron, E., Guía histórica de Baja California (Ensenada, B.C.: Museo Regional de Historia, 1992), p. 148.Google Scholar

⁷ Oral interview with Elena Martínez Davidson, conducted by Marguerite Reeves, June 4, 1981, in the San Diego Historical Society, Oral History Collection, document no. SDHS/CH, p. 5; Angela Moyano de Guevara, , “La Compañía Inglesa,” pp. 152–153;Google Scholar Barrón, E., Guía histórica, pp. 149–151.Google Scholar

⁸ Kearney, Ruth Elizabeth, “American Colonization Ventures in Lower California, 1826–1917” (M.A. Thesis, University of California, Berkeley, 1944), p. 94;Google Scholar Martínez, Pablo L., Historia de Baja California (La Paz, B.C.S., Patronato del Estudiante Sudcalifomiano, A.C./Consejo Editorial del Gobierno del Estado de B.C.S., 1991), pp. 472–473.Google Scholar

⁹ Ellicott, John M., “Should We Possess Lower California?,” The Overland Monthly, New Series, 16 (November 1890): 473–476;Google Scholar Guevara, Moyano de, “La Compañía Inglesa,” p. 144.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Rolle, Andrew F., “Futile Filibustering in Baja California, 1888–1890”, Pacific Historical Review, 20:2 (May, 1951), 161–162;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Hager, Anna Marie, The Filibusters of 1890: The Captain John F. Janes and Lower California Newspaper Reports and the Walter G. Smith Manuscript (Los Angeles, CA: Dawson’s Book Shop, 1968), pp. 29–32.Google Scholar

¹¹ Rolle, , “Futile Filibustering,” p. 162;Google Scholar Hager, , The Filibusters of 1890, pp. 32–33.Google Scholar

¹² San Diego Union, May 21–26, 28, 1890. See also The San Francisco Chronicle, May 21–24, 28; June 7, 12–13, 18–21, 24–25, 29, 1890; Chamberlin, Eugene Keith, “United States Interests in Lower California,” (Los Angeles, University of California at Los Angeles, Ph.D. Dissertation 1949), pp. 147–155;Google Scholar North, Arthur Walbridge, The Mother of California (San Francisco, CA: P. Elder and Company, 1908), pp. 88–89;Google Scholar Rolle, , “Futile Filibustering,” pp. 162–164;Google Scholar Hager, Anna Marie, The Filibusters of 1890, pp. 33–47.Google Scholar

¹³ The Times, London, April 12, 1892; Teschendorf, Alfred, Great Britain and Mexico, pp. 102–103.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Ibid., pp. 103–104; Guevara, Moyano de, “La Compañía Inglesa,” pp. 148–151.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Diario Oficial de la Federación, May 7, 1917, pp. 507–508; Martínez, Pablo L., Historia de Baja, pp. 473–475.Google Scholar On July 31, 1900, Francis Pavey and Edgar Welles of New York purchased 87,000 acres of the company’s lands in Sonora for 40,000. In 1905, Weetman Pearson and Capt. Buchanan Scott, both of whom were involved in the development of other British enterprises in Mexico, bought 4,000,000 acres in Chiapas for 200,000. Barrón, E., Guía histórica de Baja, p. 155.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Foreign Office minutes, March 22, 1911, and a letter from Mr. John O’Hea regarding claims, in British Foreign Office Papers, File 371, v. 1146, document nos. 10557 and 10772 (hereafter cited as BFOP/f371, followed by the volume and document numbers in question); Communications exchanged between the British Legation and the Secretaría de Relaciones Exteriores in Mexico City, Apr. 8 and 25 and May 3, 15, 18 and 23, 1911, in AHGE, exps. 16–5–100, 16–5–103, 16–5–104, 16–5–108, and 15–5–110; Calvert, Peter, The Mexican Revolution, 1910–1914: The Diplomacy of Anglo-American Conflict (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968), p. 290;Google Scholar Meyer, Lorenzo, Su Majestad, p. 98.Google Scholar While favoring some type of joint intervention in the struggle, the Foreign Office was also conscious that, should U.S. troops invade Mexico, its citizens, in reacting against the invasion, might not make any distinction between U.S. and British subjects. Thomas B. Hohler, British chargé d'affaires in Mexico to Sir Edward Grey, Minister of Foreign Affairs in London, March 28, 1911, in BFOP/f371/1146/13582.

¹⁷ Report submitted by G.W. Vivian, Captain of H.M.S. “Shearwater”, to the Admiralty, April 14, 1911, contained in a communication from W. Graham Fraeme, of the Admiralty Office, to the Undersecretary of State, May 3, 1911, in BFOP/f371/l 147/16709, pp. 100–101; The Manchester Guardian, April 17, 1911; Hensley, Herbert C., “The I.W.W. Insurrection of 1911: compiled from newspaper accounts, interviews and personal observation on the scene,” unpublished manuscript in the San Diego Historical Society, Archives Collection, catalog no. 1946, p. 47.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Report of Capt. G.W. Vivian to the Admiralty, April 14, 1911, and Frederick R. Kersey to Vivian, April 10 and 11, 1911, in BFOP/f371/1147/16709, pp. 100–101 and 106–107; The Daily Mail, London, April 17, 1911; The Manchester Guardian, April 17, 1911; The Annual Register: A Review of Public Events at Home and Abroad for the Year 1911 (New Series, London: Longman's Green and Company, 1912), p. 495.

¹⁹ Enrique de la Sierra, the Mexican consul in Calexico, CA., to the Secretario de Relaciones Exteriores in Mexico City, Feb. 22, 1911, in Isidro, and Fabela, Josefina E., eds., Documentos históricos de la Revolución Mexicana (México, Editorial Jus y Fondo de Cultura Económica, 1960–1970) vol. 10, pp. 153–154;Google Scholar Leyva, José María, “La cuestión del filibusterismo en la Baja California”, newsclipping from La Prensa, San Antonio, Oct. 11, 1931,Google Scholar in the Biblioteca del Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, México, D.F., Fondo Ethel Duffy Turner, document nos. 1190 and 1193; Blaisdell, Lowell L., The Desert Revolution: Baja California, 1911 (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1962), pp. 106–107.Google Scholar

²⁰ “A los proletarios”, Regeneración, September 3, 1910, reproduced in Battra, Armando, ed., Regeneración, 1900–1918 (México: Ediciones Era, 1982), pp. 230–233;Google Scholar de Santillán, Diego Abad, Ricardo Flores Magón: el apóstol de la revolución social mexicana (México: Grupo Cultural “Ricardo Flores Magón”, 1925), pp. ix–x Google Scholar (Prologue by Librado Rivera), 7–8, 10, 25–26, 36, 62–63, 67 and 69; Manifiesto del Partido Liberal Mexicano, Sept. 23, 1911, in Ramírez, Manuel González, ed., Manifiestos políticos, 1892–1912 (México, Fondo de Cultura Económica, 1957), pp. 369–376.Google Scholar

²¹ Documents submitted to Mr. A.I. McCormick, federal attorney for the Southern District of California, to be used as evidence against Ricardo Flores Magón, Enrique Flores Magón, Antonio I. Villarreal, Librado Rivera, Anselmo L. Figueroa and others accused of violating U.S. neutrality laws, signed by J.W. McKinley and W.S. Van Pelt, January 16, 1911, in AHGE/RM, L-E-933, hs. 120–121; Kyne, Peter B., “The Gringo as Insurrecto”, Sunset Magazine, vol. 27 (September 1911), 260–261;Google Scholar Declarations of Robinson, Dudley W. and McCormick, A.I., in Revolutions in Mexico: Hearing Before a Subcommittee of the Committee on Foreign Relations, United States Senate, 62nd. Congress, 2nd. Session (Washington, D.C., Government Printing Office, 1913) pp. 229–230.Google Scholar

²² The San Diego Sun, April 13 and 14, 1911; Complaint submitted by L.J. Webb, of the Compañía Peninsular de Inversiones, to George B. Schmucker, U.S. consul in Ensenada, forwarded to the Secretary of State, May 2 and 22, 1911, in U.S. Department of State, Records of the Foreign Service Posts: Ensenada, Record Group 84, National Archives and Records Service, Washington, D.C. (hereinafter cited as NA/RG 84), vol. 57, p. 80, and v. 60, p. 87; Hensley, , “The IWW Insurrection of 1911,” p. 46;Google Scholar Ceballos, Rómulo Velasco, Se apoderará Estados Unidos de América de Baja California?: la invasión filibustera de 1911 (México, Imprenta Nacional, 1920), p. 85;Google Scholar Gerhard, Peter, “The Socialist Invasion of Baja California, 1911”, Pacific Historical Review, 15:3 (September, 1946), p. 300;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Sanford, Paul, Where the Old West Never Died (San Antonio, TX, The Naylor Company, 1968), pp. 57, 64.Google Scholar

²³ Vivian to the Admiralty, April 16, 1911, in BFOP/ f371/1146/14019, pp. 313-314; The San Diego Sun, April 14, 1911; The Times, London, April 26, 1911.

²⁴ Vivian to the Admiralty, April 18, 1911, in BFOP/f371/1147/16709, p. 103.

²⁵ “Orders for Landing Party”, given by Capt. Vivian to Lieut. P.F. Newcombe, April 11, 1911, in BF0P/f371/1147/16709, pp. 111–112; Hensley, , “The IWW Insurrection of 1911,” p. 46.Google Scholar

²⁶ The El Paso Morning Times, April 15, 1911.

²⁷ Blaisdell, , Desert Revolution, p. 107.Google Scholar This was also the case with regard to the raising of the U.S. flag by American residents in Tijuana following the capture of that town by the “Second Division” of the magonista “army”, led by the Welsh soldier of fortune Caryl Ap Rhys Pryce, on May 9, 1911. The San Diego Union, May 14, 1911; Ceballos, Velasco, aponderará, p. 138;Google Scholar Martínez, , Historia de Baja, p. 510.Google Scholar

²⁸ “Orders for Landing Party”, pp. 111–112; The El Paso Morning Times, April 15, 1911; Hohlerto Grey, and C.J. Thomas, Undersecretary of State, to the Secretary of State, April 16, 1911, in BFOP/ f371/l 146/14020, pp. 310–312 y 315–316; The Manchester Guardian, April 17, 1911.

²⁹ “Orders for Landing Party,” pp. 111–112.

³⁰ It was only after the defeat of Díaz became imminent that the U.S. government, in endeavoring to favor the maderista cause as an alternative to a radical revolution in Mexico, made a serious effort to cooperate with Mexican authorities in stamping out magonista activities on U.S. soil. Correspondence exchanged between Manuel de Zamacona, the Mexican ambassador in the U.S., Secretary of State Philander K. Knox, and U.S. Attorney General George W. Wickersham, May 24, 26, 27, June 2, 7, 1911, in U.S. Department of State, Record Group 59, file 812.00, Records vf the Department of State Relating to the Internal Affairs of Mexico, 1910–1929 (Microcopy 274), National Archives and Recoids Service, Washington, D.C., document nos. 1880, 1963, 1982 and 1984 (hereafter cited as NA/RG 59, f812.00, followed by the number of the document in question); Ulloa, Berta, La revolución intervenida: relaciones diplomáticas entre México y Estados Unidos, 1910–1914 (México: Centro de Estudios Históricos, El Colegio de México, 1971), pp. 26–27;Google Scholar Dirk Raat, W., Revoltosos: Mexico’s Rebels in the United States, 1903–1923 (College Station, TX, Texas A&M University Press, 1981), p. 240.Google Scholar

³¹ Hensley, , The IWW Insurrection of 1911, pp. 46–47.Google Scholar

³² The Guerrero rebel group managed to capture San Quintín on May 8, 1911, a victory which, together with the almost simultaneous capture of Tijuana, constituted the high water mark of the liberal offensive in northern Baja California. Guerrero and his band remained in the town for more than a fortnight, but by May 28, they had abandoned the community and joined up with the Tijuana occupation force. The San Diego Evening Tribune, May 12, 1911; The San Diego Union, May 13 and 29, and June 2, 1911. Following the retaking of Tijuana by federal forces under Col. Celso Vega, the military governor of the Northern District of the territory of Baja California, the Guerrero group remained in the field until late in July, when a column sent out from the governmental garrison in Ensenada succeeded in scattering them. During this period, rebel forces continued to make depredatory attacks in the San Quintín region. The San Diego Union, June 13, 1911; Ceballos, Velasco, Se apoderará, p. 191.Google Scholar

³³ Telegram from G.W. Vivian to the Admiralty, April 14, 1911, in BFOP/B71/1146/14019, pp. 313–314; The San Diego Sun, April 14, 1911; The El Paso Morning Times, April 15, 1911; Report from Vivian to the Admiralty, April 16, 1911, contained in a communication from W. Graham Fraeme, of the Admiralty Office, to the Undersecretary of State, May 3, 1911, in BFOP/f371/1147/16709, p. 101.

³⁴ El Imparcial, The New York Times, and The Los Angeles Times, all for April 16, 1911; El Tiempo, April 17, 1911; The Daily Mail London, April 17, 1911; Rubio, Pascual Ortiz, La revolución de 1910: apuntes históricos (México, Ediciones Botas, 1937), p. 160.Google Scholar

³⁵ F. D. Dealing, American chargé d’ affairs in Mexico City, to the Mexican Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mar. 8, 1911, and Alvey A. Adee, Acting Secretary of State, to Francisco León de La Barra, the Mexican ambassador in the U. S., Mar. 13, 1911, in U. S. Dept. of State, Foreign Relations of the United States, 1911, Washington, D. C, Government Printing Office, 1912, pp. 420, 422; Philander C. Knox, U. S. Secretary of State, to George B. Schmucker, U. S. Consul in Ensenada, May 12, 25, 1911, in NA/RG 84, v. 57, pp. 76, 82; The New York Times, Apr. 17, 1911; The Daily Mail, London, Apr. 17, 1911; The Manchester Guardian, Apr. 17, 1911; The Annual Register: 1911, op. cit., p. 495; Haley, D. Esward, Revolution and Intervention: The Diplomacy of Taft and Wilson with Mexico, 1910–1917, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1970, pp. 25–32;Google Scholar Coerver, and Hall, , Texas and the Mexican Revolution, p. 23;Google Scholar Hall, Linda B. and Coerver, Don M., Revolution on the Border: The United States and Mexico, 1910–1920, Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1988, p. 45.Google Scholar Following the mobilization of the Maneuver Division along the Texas border, the British government considered sending a warship to Mexican waters but decided against it in the end since English interests were situated mainly in the country’s interior and thus could not be protected by a warship operating off the coast. Hohler to Grey and Foreign Office minutes, Mar. 28, 1911, in BFOP/f371/1146/11304. This policy, of course, was reversed the following month with the arrival of the “Shearwater.”

³⁶ The El Paso Times, March 9, 1911; El Imparcial, March 10, 1911; The Los Angeles Herald, March 16, 1911; The Daily Mail, London, April 18, 1911. The newspapers El Imparcial, published in Guaymas, and La Constitución, of Hermosillo, were especially critical of the participation of foreigners in the rebel ranks. See Alexander V. Dye, the U.S. consul in Nogales, Sonora, to the Secretary of State in Washington, March 18, 1911, in NA/RG 59, f812.00/1044.

³⁷ Blaisdell, Lowell L., The Desert Revolution, p. 107.Google Scholar

³⁸ Clipping from The Commonwealth, Phoenix, Ariz., April 17, 1911, in AHGE/RM, L-E-653, exp. 1, h. 38; Consul Dye to the Secretary of State, Apr. 22, 1911, in NA/RG 59, f812.00/1519; Francisco León de la Barra, Minister for Foreign Affairs, to Henry Lane Wilson, the U.S. ambassador in Mexico, Apr. 17, 1911, in NA/RG 59, f812.00/1458; Rubio, Ortiz, Revolución de 1910, pp. 241 and 244-245;Google Scholar Gerome, Frank A., “United States-Mexican Relations During the Initial Years of the Mexican Revolution”, (Ph.D. dissertation, Kent State University, 1968), p. 71.Google Scholar The British combatant in the maderista forces during the battles of Agua Prieta, which ended in the defeat and expulsion of the insurrecto forces, was a man named Willis, who was reputed to have been a former officer in the British cavalry. The Daily Mail, London, and The Manchester Guardian, April 18, 1911.

³⁹ Celso Vega to Capt. G.W. Vivian, April 13, 1911, in BF0P/f371/1147/16709, pp. 109–110.

⁴⁰ The Times, London, April 26, 1911.

⁴¹ Hohler to Grey, April 22, 1911, in BFOP/f371/1146/14975; Rubio, Ortiz, Revolución de 1910, p. 161;Google Scholar Ceballos, Velasco, apoderará, pp. 113–114;Google Scholar Calvert, , The Mexican Revolution, p. 64.Google Scholar

⁴² El Tiempo, June 15, 1911.

⁴³ Hohler to Grey, April 28, 1911, in BFOP/f371/1147/15737.

⁴⁴ Foreign Office minutes, April 16 and May 4, 1911, in BFOP/ f371/1146/14019, pp. 313-314, and BFOP/f371/1147/16709, p. 98, respectively. See also “Mexican Insurrection”, in Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, London, His Majesty’s Stationary Office, 1911, Serie 5, v. 24 (April 20, 1911), pp. 1010–1011.

⁴⁵ Hohler to Grey, April 22 and 28, 1911, in BFOP/f371/1147/15737 and 15757; The El Paso Herald, April 26, 1911; The Times, London, April 28, 1911; Meyer, Lorenzo, Su Majestad, p. 98.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Luther T. Ellsworth, U.S. consul in Ciudad Porfirio Díaz, Coah., to the Secretary of State, April 29, 1911, in NA/RG 59, f812.00/1614; Rivera, Antonio G., La revolución en Sonora (México: Imprenta Arana, 1969), pp. 226–227;Google Scholar Vanderwood, Paul J., “Response to Revolt: The Counter-Guerrilla Strategy of Porfirio Díaz”, Hispanic American Historical Review, 56:4 (November 1976): 555, 570–573;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Camín, Héctor Aguilar, La frontera nómada: Sonora y la Revolución Mexicana (México, Secretaría de Educación Pública/Siglo Veintiuno Editores, 1985) pp. 154–157.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Schmucker also asserted that R.C. Crewe-Reade, the Englishman who had been taken on board the “Shearwater” by Vivian, together with some of the vessel’s officers, had fired on the town–supposedly at rebel targets–prior to the departure of the ship from San Quintín. George B. Schmucker to the Secretary of State in Washington, D.C., April 13 and 14, 1911, in NA/RG 59, f812.00/1310 and 1327; Schmucker to the Secretary of State, April 17, 1911, in NA/RG 84, v. 60, p. 57. See also The Mexican Herald and The El Paso Morning Herald, April 15, 1911.

⁴⁸ O. Henry Savage to Schmucker, April 12, 1911, in NA/RG 84, v. 63, p. 275.

⁴⁹ Senate Resolution No. 19, 62nd. Congress, 1st. Session, Congressional Record, April 17, 1911, p. 307 (This document may also be found in NA/RG 59, f812.00/3029 1/2).

⁵⁰ The Los Angeles Times, April 18 and 21, 1911; The Daily Mail, London, and The Manchester Guardian, April 18, 1911; The El Paso Morning Times, April 21, 1911; Calvert, , The Mexican Revolution, p. 64.Google Scholar However, after the capture of Ciudad Juárez, Chihuahua, by maderista forces in the battle of May 8–10, 1911, Stone declared that intervention was no longer necessary. The San Diego Evening Tribune, May 11, 1911.

⁵¹ James Bryce to Secretary of State Knox, April 18, 1911, in NA/RG 59, f812.00/1486; El Imparcial, The Mexican Herald, Mexico City, and The El Paso Morning Times, all for April 18, 1911.

⁵² Hohler to Grey, May 18 and 30, 1911, in BFOP/f371/1147/18955, and 1148/23276, respectively; Foreign Office minutes, May 30, 1911, in BFOP/f371/l 147/20782. See also Francis W. Stronge, British Minister to Mexico, to Grey, August 21, 1912, in BFOP/f371/1397/37268.

⁵³ Meyer, , Su Majestad, pp. 92–97, 106, 117, 129.Google Scholar See the attitudes expressed by The Times of London, which reflected the opinion of a large segment of the British resident population in Mexico with respect to the 1906 Cananea labor strike and the 1908 revolt led by Ricardo Flores Magón and the Mexican Liberal Party, in its editions of June 5, 1906, and July 10, 1908. See also the position adopted by this same newspaper with regards to the constitutionalist insurrection of the 1913-1914 period, in the editions of November 3 and December 3, 6, 10, 13, 30, 1913.

⁵⁴ Even those disturbances that the imperial government encountered within the confines of her own subject dominions were harshly repressed by the undertaking of military expeditions into the insurgent areas. Piatt, Desmond Christopher, Finance, Trade and Politics in British Foreign Policy, 1815–1914 (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1968), p. 30.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Report submitted by G.W. Vivian to the Admiralty, April 14, 1911, contained in a communication from W. Graham Fraeme, of the Admiralty Office, to the Undersecretary of State, May 3, 1911, in BFOP/f371/l 147/16709, pp. 100–101.

⁵⁶ Strong to the Foreign Office, in BFOP/f371/1681/41055; Sir Lionel Carden, British Minister to Mexico, to the Foreign Office, October 28, December 7, 1913, in BFOP/f371/1671, and 1673/53196 and 55256, respectively; The Times, London, November 3, 6, 10, 13, Dec. 8, 11, 16, 30, 1913; Gerhardt, , England and the Mexican Revolution, pp. 178–180;Google Scholar Meyer, , Su Majestad, pp. 121–123, 129, 138, 152–153.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Francis W. Stronge to the Foreign Office, March 1 and 17, 1913, and Capt. F.W. Walters to the Admiralty, May 7, 1913, in BFOP/f371/1671 and 1673/9797, 15910 and 26411; Kirk, U.S. consul at Manzanillo, to Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan, May 15, 1913, in NA/RG 59, f812.00/7510; Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet anchored off the port of Guaymas, Sonora, to the Secretary of the Navy, June 6, 1913, and April 16, 1914, in NA/RG 59, f812.00/7841 and 11559, respectively; Claude E. Guyant, U.S. consul at Ensenada, to the Secretary of State, April 22, 1914, and Cecil Spring Rice, British ambassador to the U.S., to Bryan, in NA/RG 59, Í812.00/11634 and 11855, respectively; Meyer, , Su Majestad, pp. 129–130.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ See, for example, the opinion expressed by Joseph Chamberlain, as Secretary of State for the Colonies, in the wake of the Venezuelan crisis of 1895, in The Times, January 27, 1896. See also the declarations of British prime minister Arthur Balfour and the Chancellor of the Exchequer Austin Chamberlain, in The Times, February 14, 1903, following the Anglo-German blockade of Venezuelan ports in the previous year. The blockade had been imposed as a retaliatory action against the government of Venezuelan president Cipriano Castro for its default on interest payments owing to British and German bondholders, as well as its refusal to pay for property belonging to foreigners as a consequence of revolutionary disturbances.

⁵⁹ Perkins, Dexter, The Monroe Doctrine, 1867–1907 (Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1937), pp. 359–367.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Lord Salisbury to U.S. Secretary of State Richard Olney, Nov. 26, 1895, in U.S. Department of State. Foreign Relations, 1895, v. 1, pp. 563–576.

⁶¹ Annual message of the president to the U.S. Congress, Dec. 6, 1904, in Richardson, James D., comp., A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents, 1789–1902 (Washington, D.C.: Bureau of National Literature and Art, 1907), vol. 10, pp. 7053–7056.Google Scholar Perkins, , Monroe Doctrine, pp. 362–363.Google Scholar

⁶² Meyer, Lorenzo, The Mexican Revolution and the Anglo-American Powers: The End of Confrontation and the Beginning of Negotiation (San Diego, CA: Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies, University of California at San Diego, 1985); pp. 14–19, 34–35.Google Scholar