^{page vii note 1} Infra, p. 29Google Scholar, n. 1; p. 111; p. 256, ns. 1, 2, and 3.

^{page viii note 1} Infra, pp. 352–3Google Scholar; p. 28, n. 2.

^{page viii note 2} Cf. infra, p. 29, n. 2; p. 353.Google Scholar

^{page viii note 3} Infra, p. 31, n. 1.Google Scholar

^{page viii note 4} See infra, pp. 2–4.Google Scholar

^{page ix note 1} Infra, p. 90Google Scholar, n. 2; p. 107, n. 2; p. 226, n. 2; p. 253, n. 1. For the somewhat different course of the revolution in Mexico and Central America see infra, p. 289Google Scholar, n. 2; p. 300, n. 2. San Martin was not born at Buenos Aires, but his name is as closely associated with that city as is Bolívar's with Caracas.

^{page ix note 2} For the confederation of the five Central American States see infra, p. 289.Google Scholar

^{page ix note 3} Infra, p. 256Google Scholar, n. 1.

^{page ix note 4} Infra, p. 254.Google Scholar

^{page x note 1} For the opening of the ports see infra, p. 31, n. 2Google Scholar; p. 91, ns. 2 and 4; p. 127, n. 2; p. 275, n. 1; p. 302, n. 2.

^{page x note 2} Infra, p. 257Google Scholar, n. 2.

^{page x note 3} See the tables infra, pp. 344–51.Google Scholar

^{page x note 4} Mollien, G., Travels in the republic of Colombia, in the years 1822 and 1823 (London, 1824), pp. 215–16Google Scholar. Cf. infra, p. 23Google Scholar, n. 4; p. 26, n. 2; p. 36, n. 2; p. 91, n. 1; p. 124, n. 1; pp. 269–72.

^{page x note 5} Infra, p. 45Google Scholar, n. 2.

^{page x note 6} Infra, p. 51Google Scholar, n. 2; p. 95, n. 2; p. 154, n. 1; p. 220, n. 1; p. 321, n. 2.

^{page x note 7} For the loans see infra, p. 24Google Scholar, n. 2; p. 99, n. 2; p. 118, n. 1; p. 230, n. 1; p. 325, n. 2.

^{page xi note 1} Jenks, L. H., The migration of British capital to 1875 (London, 1938), P. 64.Google Scholar

^{page xi note 2} Webster, , Britain and the independence of Latin America, i. 14Google Scholar. For British diplomacy in this period and for the part played by Castlereagh and Canning in safeguarding Latin American independence I refer the reader to Professor Webster's masterly introduction to the documents collected by him on the diplomatic relations of the new States with Great Britain. The present collection, illustrating some of the forces behind diplomatic procedure, is complementary to his.

^{page xi note 3} Planta to Hamilton, 31 Jan. 1824, F.O. 135/1.

^{page xi note 4} Journal written on board His Majesty's Ship Cambridge, p. 2.Google Scholar

^{page xii note 1} Difficulties arose over the Mexican treaty through the action of the Mexican Government. It was not ratified by the British Government and a new treaty was negotiated in 1826.

^{page xii note 2} See Webster, , op. cit., i. pp. 19, 48–50.Google Scholar

^{page xii note 3} Infra, p. 37Google Scholar, n. 1; p. 47, n. 2; p. 81, n. 1; p. 94, n. 2; p. 314, n. 1.

^{page xiii note 1} Infra, p. 95Google Scholar, n. 1; p. 173, n. 4.

^{page xiii note 2} Infra, p. 331Google Scholar, n. 1. The report of the Mexican Commission dated 18 Jan. 1824, is in Webster, op. cit., i. no. 228. It greatly disappointed Canning by its lack of detailed information. He was still more irritated by the absurdly meagre report of the Colombian Commission, dated 5 July 1824. Ibid., i. nos. 192, 195. On his return to London, one of the commissioners, Colonel Patrick Hamilton, drew up a more detailed report which gave greater satisfaction. Campbell to Planta, 6 Nov. 1824 (no. 1), F.O. 18/3.

^{page xiii note 3} Infra, p. 290Google Scholar, n. 2.

^{page xiii note 4} Infra, p. 289.Google Scholar

^{page xiii note 5} Infra, p. 300, n. 1.Google Scholar