^{page 131 note 1} See more particularlyBritish Guiana Boundary. Arbitration with the United States of Venezuela. Appendix to the Case on behalf of the Government of Her Britannic Majesty (7 vols., London, 1898),Google ScholarAppendix to the Counter-Case(London, 1898)Google Scholar,hereinafter cited as B.G.B.;Report and Accompanying Papers of the Commission appointed by the President of the United States ‘to investigate and report upon the true divisional line between the Republic of Venezuela and British Guiana’(9 vols., Washington, 1896-1897),vol. ii;Google ScholarJoseph, Strickland, S.J.,Documents and Maps on the Boundary Question between Venezuela and British Guayana from the Capuchin Archives in Rome(Rome,1896).Google Scholar

^{page 131 note 2} Campbell, A. E., Great Britain and the United States,1895–1903(London, 1960);Google ScholarMay, E. R., Imperial Democracy. The Emergence of America as a Great Power(New York,1961);Google ScholarGrenville, J. A. S., Lord Salisbury and Foreign Policy. The Close of the Nineteenth Century (London, 1964);Google ScholarGrenville, J. A. S. and Young, G. B., Politics, Strategy, and American Diplomacy.Studies in Foreign Policy, 1873–1917 (New Haven and London, 1966).Google Scholar

^{page 133 note 1} The fable of a Spanish ascent of the Essequibo in 1553 was long ago exploded.See Burr, G. L., ‘The Guiana Boundary. A postscript to the work of the American Commission’, American Historical Review, 6 (10. 1900),p. 51, note 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar But it is still repeated. A Spanish expedition did land between the Essequibo and the Oyapok in 1576. The sole survivor of those who did not abandon the landing party turned up many years later in Margarita with the story that he had visited Manoa and that it had taken him from dawn to dusk to cross the city from its gates to the palace of the Inca.Harlow, V. T.,ed., The Discoverie of the Large and Bewtiful Empire of Guiana by Sir Walter Ralegh(London, 1928), pp. lxvii, lxxviii.Google Scholar See also, for a Venezuelan view of Spanish enterprise in the sixteenth century in the area which was to become British, French and Dutch Guiana,Pablo Ojer, S.J., La Formación del Oriente Venezolano. I. Creación de las Gobernaciones (Caracas, 1966),more particularly pp. 181, 202, 3, 2O9, 291, 3, 571, 576.

^{page 134 note 1} Cf. Antonio Berrío to the King, Margarita, 1 Jan. 1593, printed in Harlow, op. cit., pp. 102–3: ‘From the mouth of the River Amazon to that of the Orinoco the map indicates more than four hundred leagues in all this latitude and more than one thousand five hundred in longitude, in which there is not a single Spanish habitation’.‘ Berrío, who enjoyed the title of ‘Gobernador del Dorado’, founded both San José de Oruña and Santo Tomé, where he died in 1597.Google Scholar

^{page 134 note 2} By Raleigh, Keymis and Masham, 1596 and 1598.

^{page 134 note 3} For the early history of Dutch settlement, both before and after the foundation of the West India Company,see Burr, op cit.,George, Edmundson, ‘The Dutch in Western Guiana’, English Historical Review, 16 (10.1901), pp. 640–75,Google Scholar and Storm van's, Gravesande, The Rise of British Guiana, compiled from his despatches by Harris, C. A. and de Villiers, J. A. J. (2 vols., Hakluyt Society, 1911), i, 10–21, 146–53.Google Scholar

^{page 134 note 4} Cf. for its references to trade on the Upper Essequibo, the Upper Mazaruni, the Upper Cuyuni and the Orinoco, the interesting Official Diary kept at Fort Kijkoveral, July 1699 to June 1701, B.G.B., Appendix to Counter-Case, pp. 47–158.Google Scholar

^{page 134 note 5} Report on the Transfer of the City of Guayana to the Angostura of the Orinoco by Don José Diguja, Governor of Cumaná, 15 Dec. 1763, B.G.B., Appendix, iii, 10. For the history of Santo Tomé, see Harlow, V. T., ed.,Ralegh's Last Voyage (London, 1932), pp. 357–67,Google Scholar and Ojer, op. cit., pp.512, 568, 572.

^{page 135 note 1} Cf. the secret instructions given to José de Iturriaga, 8 Oct. 1753, to try to dislodge foreigners on the coast of Guayana and to incite negro rebellions against the Dutch to the end that Portugal and Spain might divide the territory between them. B.G.B., Appendix, ii, 86–8.Google Scholar

^{page 135 note 2} Report of Miguel Marmión, Guayana, 10 July 1788,Google Scholaribid.., v, 59.

^{page 135 note 3} Cf. Resolution of States-General, 31 July 1759,Google Scholaribid.., ii, 176; Court of Policy, Essequibo, to West India Company, May 1769, ibid.., iv, 12. The Spaniards, on the other hand, complained of attacks by theCarib Indians,said to be in alliance with the Dutch, on the Capuchin missions.

^{page 135 note 4} Despite contemporary rumours and later assertions tothe contrary, the mission settlements never reached the Cuyuni itself. Butthere is some evidence that a Spanish fort was at least begun at the confluence of the Cuyuni and the Corumo in the 1790's. The project was approved by the Crown in 1791.Google Scholaribid.., v, 63, 130–32.

^{page 136 note 1} For a list of postholders seeGoogle Scholaribid.., vii, 152 ff.; for a brief account of the Cuyuni posts, Burr, op. cit., pp. 61–2; for Dutch claims to the Cuyuni, the Moruka, the Pomeroon and the Waini, the Remonstrance of the States-General to the Court of Spain, 2 Aug. 1769, B.G.B., Appendix, iv, 29 ff.; and for the contention that the Barima was the dividing line between Dutch and Spanish territory, ibid.., ii, 197 (1760), 200, 201 (1761) ; iii, 131 (1766),141 (1767). See also Storm van's, Gravesande, op. cit., i, 239, 369; ii, 374, 376,388, 430, 431, 460 ff., 503, 516, 528, 601.Google Scholar

^{page 136 note 2} It was Bolívar's temporary capital from 1817 to 1820and it was to the Congress of Angostura in 1819 that he delivered his most celebrated oration.Google Scholar

^{page 136 note 3} Report of Andrés Level, 5 July 1847,B.G.B.,Appendix,6, 152,153,162.Google Scholar

^{page 137 note 1} Papers relative to British Guiana,H.C., 1840, 36, (288)Google Scholar. The map was also printed in Schomburgk's, Description of British Guiana, Geographical and Statistical… (London, 1840)Google Scholar. The boundary line, which Schomburgk describes in a letter to Governor Light on 16 July 1839, ran from a point on the Orinoco near the mouth of the Amacuro to a point on the Cuyuni and thence in a southwesterly direction towards the Mazaruni.It was the line–an arbitrary line—which Arrowsmith had engraved on his maps of Colombia of 1832 and 1834. See Clements Markham to Mallet—Prevost, draft, May 1896, in Markham to Sanderson, 13 May 1896, P[ublic] R[ecord] O[fRce], F[oreign] O[ffice Records] 80/371. Given this line Schomburgk calculated the area of British Guiana to be 76,000 square miles.Google Scholar

^{page 137 note 2} Territory, that is, watered by rivers, such as the Yuruari, which ultimately flowed into the Essequibo. The boundary line wouldthus approach ‘the very heart of Venezuelan Guiana’. But the rivers, he thought, were of less importance to Great Britain than Punta Barima. Schomburgk to Gover Governor Light, 23 Jan. 1843, B.G.B., Appendix, vii, 50.Google Scholar

^{page 137 note 3} Schomburgk to Light, 23 Oct. 1841; Memorandum by Schomburgk, 30 Nov. 1841; Schomburgk to Stanley, 1 Nov. 1844,Google Scholaribid.., pp. 31–3, 37, 57.

^{page 137 note 4} Markham to Mallet-Prevost, May 1896, F.O. 80/371. Like the line of 1840 the Schomburgk line placed in British territory the south bank of the Boca Grande of the Orinoco from the Barima to the Amacuro. But it followed a more circuitous course to the Cuyuni, struck the river at a higher point (at the confluence of the Acarabisi), and then continued along the Cuyuni from east to west and thence to its source.Google Scholar

^{page 138 note 1} At Punta Barima and at the mouth of the Amacuro. Aberdeen agreed to remove them, without prejudice to British claims. Aberdeen to Alejo Fortique, 31 Jan. 1842, B.G.B., Appendix, vii, 80.Google Scholar

^{page 138 note 2} Fortique to Aberdeen, 31 Jan. 1844,Google ScholarIbid.., pp. 86–7.

^{page 138 note 3} Aberdeen to Fortique, 30 March 1844, ibid.., pp. 88–90. The line ran from the mouth of the Moruka to a point on the Acarabisi, thence conforming to Schomburgk's line. Palmerston, in 1850, stated that since Aberdeen's proposal had not been accepted, it would not be renewed. Palmerston, to Wilson, B. H., 30 08. 1850. P[arliamentary] P[apers],, Venezuela, No. 1, H. C., 1896 [c. 7972], xcvii, 260.Google Scholar

^{page 138 note 4} It had known, for example, of Schomburgk's activities in 1841 south of the Orinoco. Aberdeen's line in 1844 coincided with Schomburgk's line from the Acarabisi onwards, and Lord Granville in 1881 provided the Venezuelan Government with a map which showed the Schomburgk line with certain variations in the coastal area resulting from his own modification of Schomburgk's boundary, all to the advantage ofVenezuela. B.G.B.,Appendix, vii, 99–100.

^{page 139 note 1} Clements Markham to Mallet-Prevost, May 1896, F.O. 80/371. This is Stanford's map of British Guiana, which had a note on it stating that the ‘boundaries indicated in this map are those laid down by the late Sir Robert Schomburgk who was engaged in exploring the Colony during the years 1835 to 1839…’ The boundary was afterwards altered and the note erased.See below, p. 141 note 3.

^{page 139 note 2} Grover, Cleveland, Presidential Problems (New York, 1904), p. 221.Google Scholar

^{page 139 note 3} B.G.B., Appendix, vi, 185–88. For Anglo-Venezuelan relations in the eighteen-forties, and the use which was made in Venezuelan domestic politics of the bogy of British imperialism, see George E. Carl, ‘Orígines del Conflicto de Límites entre Venezuela y La Guayana Británica, 1840–1850’, Boletín Histórico (Caracas, Fundación John Boulton, 1966), iv (Núm. 12),pp. 253–73.Google Scholar

^{page 139 note 4} Report by Vice-Consul Reddan on the Gold Mines etc. of Venezuela,July 1884, P.P., H.C., 1884 [c. 4172], lxxxiii, 102, 145.1 should like here to express my indebtedness to Mr David Robinson, who kindly allowed me to read his unpublished doctoral dissertation on ‘Geographical Change in Venezuelan Guayana, 1600–1880’, and who has also drawn the map to illustrate this paper. J. H. Reddan was Vice-Consul at Ciudad Bolívar.Google Scholar

^{page 140 note 1} Salisbury to Rojas, 10 Jan. 1880, B.G.B., Appendix, vii, 96–7. For Schomburgk's opinion see above, p. 137 note 2.Google Scholar

^{page 140 note 2} Calcaño to Derby, 14 Nov. 1876; Rojas to Derby, 13 Feb. 1877; Rojas to Salisbury, 19 May 1879,Google Scholaribid.., pp. 90–6.

^{page 140 note 3} The Venezuelan minister, J. M. Rojas, revived in 1880 Aberdeen's suggestion that the frontier should begin at the mouth of the Moruka and then proposed a line running from a mile to the north of the Moruka to the 60th meridian and thence due south. Rojas to Granville, 23 Sept. 1880, 21 Feb. 1881, ibid., pp. 97–8. For this he was severely rebuked by his own Government, though most accounts of the controversy ignore this fact. Nuñez, E. B., Tres Momentos en la Controversia de Limites de Guayana (2nd edn, Caracas, 1962), p. 32.Google Scholar Lord Granville made a counter-proposal, which lacked, in the later opinion of President Cleveland, 'almost every feature of concession', but which, surrendering the Boca Grande of the Orinoco to Venezuela, was very similar to the line determined upon by the Tribunal of Arbitration in 1899. Granville to Rojas, 15 Sept. 1881, B.G.B., Appendix, vii, 99; Cleveland, Presidential Problems, p. 2.06. And Lord Rosebery, in 1886, proposed a more generous line than Lord Granville's, while stipulating that the Orinoco should be entirely free to commerce and nagivation. Rosebery to Guzman Blanco, 20 July 1886, B.G.B., Appendix, vii, 116–17.

^{page 141 note 1} That is, between Granville's line and Rojas's line. Rosebery to Guzman Blanco, 20 July 1886, cit. p. 140 note 3.Google Scholar

^{page 141 note 2} See the concessions to C. C. Fitzgerald, 22 Sept. 1883, and to Herbert Gordan, 21 May 1884, ibid.., vi, 219–22, 237. The Fitzgerald concession was made over to the Manoa Company of New York, one of whose agents, Robert Wells, was arrested and tried by the Special Magistrate for the Pomeroon district in 1884 for maltreating an Indian (hanging him up by his heels) on territory claimed by Britain. On the ill-fortunes of this company see Jackson, C. G.‘The Manoa Company’, Inter-American Economic Affairs,13, no. 4 (1960), pp. 12–45.Google Scholar

^{page 141 note 3} Stanford's map of British Guiana of 1875 (see above, p. 139 note i)was now revised and reissued and Schomburgk's earlier estimate of the area of the colony (see above, p. 137 note 1) was also revised to take into account all the territory properly embraced within the Schomburgk line.

^{page 141 note 4} By way of an ultimatum she demanded the evacuation by Britain of all territory between the Orinoco and the Pomeroon.

^{page 141 note 5} In the course of the discussions in 1890 Britain offered not to press her extreme claims west of the Schomburgk line, to recognize outright Venezuelan title to the ‘valuable districts in the neighbourhood of Guacipati’ (the northerly part of the mining field), and to submit all other claims west of the line to arbitration. See the memoranda of Sir Thomas, Sanderson in B.G.B., Appendix, 7, 137, 140. But privately and unofficially it was again suggested that she would be prepared to surrender her claims to the south bank of the Boca Grande of the Orinoco in return for compensation elsewhere. Foreign Office to Colonial Office, 31 July 1890, F.O. 80/339. See also Michelena to Rosebery, 29 Sept. 1893, F.O. 80/355;Google ScholarLibro Amarillo, 1894 (Caracas), p. 98; P.P., Venezuela, No. 1, H.C., 1896 [c. 7972], xcvii, 440; Memorandum on the Boundary Question, by José Andrade, 31 March 1894Google Scholar, Papers relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, 1894 (Washington, 1895)Google Scholar, p. 834. In 1895 the Venezuelans complained that Rosebery ignored this suggestion in the 1893 discussions. Pulido to Andrade, 17 April 1895, Foreign Relations, 1895, 2Google Scholar,1482–3. The Governor of British Guiana had in fact objected to it on the ground that the Barima River, which flowed into the Boca Grande, was the highway to and from the Northwest district of the colony and that this outlet might be closed if the Orinoco were entirely under Venezuelan control. Colonial Office to Foreign Office, 28 Jan. 1891,F.O. 80/343, 30 Dec. 1891, F.O. 80/344.

^{page 142 note 1} Libro Amarillo, 1834, pp. 43–5.Google Scholar

^{page 142 note 2} The first of these appeals was made in 1876, the second in 1880. Thereafter they were frequent. See, more particularly,Tansill, C. C., The Foreign Policy of Thomas F. Bayard, 1885–1897 (New York, 1940),pp. 625–63,Google Scholar and Dexter, Perkins, The Monroe Doctrine, 1867–1907 (Baltimore, 1937), pp.51–60.Google Scholar

^{page 142 note 3} Bayard to Phelps, 17 Feb. 1888, Henry, James, Richard Olney and his Public Services (Boston and New York, 1923), pp. 221–2.Google Scholar

^{page 143 note 1} Blaine, James G., who resigned as Secretary of State in June 1892, had shown strong symptoms of impatience in 1891. Tansill, op. cit., p. 648.Google Scholar

^{page 143 note 2} Grenville and Young, Politics, Strategy, and American Diplomacy,pp. 127–8, 132–3.Google Scholar

^{page 144 note 1} See his The Colombian and Venezuelan Republics, with notes on other parts of Central and South America (London, 1900), p. 296.Google Scholar

^{page 144 note 2} Grenville and Young, op. cit., pp. 142–5, 225–6, 152–3. The second interview took place on May 1. It was followed by the well-known meeting (wrongly ascribed to April) between Cleveland and his friend, D. M. Dickinson. ibid., pp. 150–2. Thereafter, Dickinson, in a speech at Detroit,which Cleveland subsequently endorsed, launched a violent tirade against British policy.

^{page 144 note 3} ibid.., pp. 145–6; Tansill, op. cit., pp. 664, n., 695, 697–8.

^{page 144 note 4} 34th Bulletin, 1892; Rosebery to Herbert, 27 Aug. 1892, P.P., United States, No. 1, H.C., 1896 [c. 7926], xcvii, 4. It is possible that the author was the Bureau's Director,Curtis, W. E., who later wrote Venezuela. A Land Where it's always Summer (London, 1896).Google Scholar

^{page 145 note 1} See above, p. 141 note 5. Kimberley to Pauncefote, 23 Feb. 1895, F.O.80/361; P.P., United States, No. 1, H.C., 1896, pp. 5–6, and cf. Bayard to Gresham, 5 April 1895, Tansill, op. cit., 696, note 160; Cleveland, Presidential Problems, pp. 251–5, where Kimberley's remarks are transformed into an ‘ultimatum’, and Allan Nevins, Grover Cleveland, A study in courage (New York, 1933), pp. 631–2Google Scholar: ‘The news that Kimberley was asserting an informal claim [to the Orinoco] was profoundly alarming’. But there was nothing new in British claims. Nor, in the view of the Colonial Office, was ‘the controlof the mouth of the Orinoco’ really in question. ‘Point Barima’, argued C. A. Harris, ‘can hardly be said to command the main mouth of the river; and Great Britain, if actuated by motives of aggression, could at any time with equal ease command the passage by her ships of war’. Memorandum in reply to the note of the United States Secretary of State on the Venezuelan Boundary, 2 Sept. 1895, F.O. 80/363. For Venezuelan threats to the free navigation of the Orinoco see Walter LaFaber, The New Empire. An Interpretation of American Expansion, 1860–1898 (Ithaca, 1963), p. 252.Google Scholar

^{page 146 note 1} LaFaber, op cit., p. 105.

^{page 146 note 2} Ibid.., pp. 191–4. See also his article, ‘The Background of Cleveland's Venezuelan Policy: A reinterpretation’, American Historical Review, 64 (07 1961), pp. 947-67,Google Scholar and Whitaker, A. P., The Western Hemisphere Idea: its rise and decline (Ithaca, 1954), pp. 74–85.Google Scholar

^{page 147 note 1} Henry, Cabot Lodge, Speeches and Addresses,1884–1303 (Boston and New York, 1909), pp. 238–9.Google Scholar Cf. his speech of 2 March 1895: ‘We are a great people; we control this continent; we are dominant in this hemisphere’. Ibid., pp. 185–6.

^{page 147 note 2} LaFaber, , The New Empire, pp. 243, 246,Google Scholar and ‘Background of Cleveland's Venezuelan Policy’, p. 958.Google Scholar

^{page 147 note 3} The Times, 30 July 1891. I owe this reference to Ferns, H. S., Britain and Argentina in the Nineteenth Century (Oxford, 1960), p. 465.Google Scholar

^{page 148 note 1} See the interesting discussion by Kiernan, V. G., ‘Foreign Interests in the War of the Pacific’, Hispanic American Historical Review, 25 (1955), 14–36, which disposes of Blaine's contention so far as the British Government is concerned.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 148 note 2} LaFaber, , The New Empire, pp. 210–17,Google Scholar a n d ‘United States Depression Diplomacy and the Brazilian Revolution, 1893–1894’, Hispanic American Historical Review, 60 (1960), 107–18. Professor LaFaber appears to share Gresham's suspicions.Google Scholar

^{page 148 note 3} A Foreign Office Minute of 1 Jan. 1894 in F.O. 13/733, on a complaint about the harm done to British shipping by the rebel naval operations, observes: ‘H.M. Govt. much regret this lamentable state of affairs, [but] have no right or intention to interfere in the quarrel’, and adds that ‘it would not be proper for H.M. Govt. to attempt to influence or decide’ the course of the revolution.Google Scholar

^{page 149 note 1} The Nicaraguan affair is dealt with by Williams, M. W., Anglo-American Isthmian Diplomacy, 1815–1915 (Washington, 1916), pp. 288–99;Google ScholarMorrow, R. L., ‘A Conflict between the Commercial Interests of the United States and its Foreign Policy’, Hispanic American Historical Review, 10 (1930), pp. 2–13;CrossRefGoogle ScholarTansill, , op. cit., pp. 668–90;Google Scholar and LaFaber, , The New Empire, pp. 218–228.Google ScholarSee also, for American opinion, Blake, N. M., ‘Background of Cleveland's Venezuelan Policy’, American Historical Review, 67 (12 1942), pp. 263–66.Google Scholar

^{page 150 note 1} Tansill, , op cit., pp. 695–6;Google Scholar May, Imperial Democracy, p. 39; Grenville, and Young, , op. cit., pp. 145–48.Google Scholar

^{page 150 note 2} Cf. Matilda, Gresham, Life of Walter Quintin Gresham, 1832–1895 (2 vols., Chicago, 1919), 2, 795.Google Scholar But see LaFaber, , op. cit., p. 255.Google ScholarJames, , op. cit., p.III,Google Scholar points out that it does not appear that Olney's assistants in the State Department saw the note. It was read over to members of the Cabinet, . For the text see Foreign Relations, 1895, 1, 545–62.Google Scholar

^{page 151 note 1} See, more particularly, the able argument of Young, G. B., ‘Intervention under the Monroe Doctrine: The Olney Corollary’, Political Science Quarterly, 57 (1942), pp. 247–80;CrossRefGoogle ScholarGrenville, , Lord Salisbury and Foreign Policy, p. 58;Google Scholar and Grenville, and Young, , op. cit., pp. 166, 175–6.Google Scholar

^{page 151 note 2} Cleveland to Olney, 3 March 1901, Allan, Nevins, ed., Letters of Grover Cleveland, 1850–1908 (New York, 1933), pp. 546–7.Google Scholar

^{page 151 note 3} Olney to Knox, 29 Jan. 1912, James, , op. cit., p. 140.Google Scholar

^{page 151 note 4} Chamberlain to Salisbury, 4 Sept. 1895, S[alisbury] P[apers], Correspondence from Chamberlain, 1887–1897. (I am much indebted to the Marquess of Salisbury and to the Librarian of Christ Church, Oxford, for the permission given me to make use of these papers.)Google ScholarSee also Grenville, , op. cit., p. 63.Google Scholar

^{page 152 note 1} Colonial Office to Foreign Office, 11 Sept. 1895, F.O. 80/363.Google Scholar

^{page 152 note 2} Colonial Office to Foreign Office, 30 Aug. 1895, F.O. 80/362.

^{page 152 note 3} Minute of 30 Aug. 1895, F.O. 80/362.Google Scholar

^{page 152 note 4} The idea was Lord Selborne's. Chamberlain to Salisbury, 8 Dec. 1895, S.P., Correspondence from Chamberlain; May, op. cit., pp. 45–6. France was also to surrender her fishing rights off Newfoundland.Google Scholar

^{page 152 note 5} Memorandum in reply to the note of the United States Secretary of State on the Venezuelan Boundary, 2 Sept. 1895, in Colonial Office to Foreign Office, 11 Sept. 1895, F.O. 80/363. Harris later edited the despatches of Storm van's Gravesande for the Hakluyt Society.Google Scholar

^{page 153 note 1} Law Officers to Salisbury, 12 Oct. 1895, F.O. 80/363.Google Scholar

^{page 153 note 2} As Professor Grenville has shown, there seems no reason to suppose that the delay was deliberate. Salisbury was preoccupied with the Turkish crisis. Moreover, having prepared one despatch only, dealing with the Monroe Doctrine, he was then asked by the cabinet to prepare a second, dealing with the frontier dispute.Google ScholarGrenville, , op. cit., p. 62. And the Foreign Office seems to have mistaken the date on which the President would deliver his message.Google Scholar

^{page 153 note 3} Pauncefote to Salisbury, 24 July 1896, S.P., America, 1895–1898, A/139.Google Scholar

^{page 153 note 4} Peck, H. T., Twenty Years of the Republic (New York, 1906), p. 422.Google Scholar

^{page 153 note 5} Foreign Relations, 1895, 1, 563–76.Google Scholar

^{page 154 note 1} LaFaber, , op. cit., p. 246. Brazil protested, Britain gave way.Google Scholar

^{page 154 note 2} Pauncefote to Salisbury, 25 Oct. 1895, S.P., A/139.Google Scholar

^{page 154 note 3} Pauncefote to Salisbury, 8 Nov. 1895, ibid. See also, for American excitement, Blake, , op. cit., pp. 270–2Google Scholar, and Tansill, , op. cit., p. 709, n., and pp. 710–13.Google Scholar

^{page 154 note 4} Pauncefote to Barrington, 17 Dec. 1895, S.P., A/139.Google Scholar

^{page 154 note 5} Olney to Chamberlain, 28 Sept. 1896, C[hamberlain] P[apers], Birmingham University Library, J.C. 7/5/1 A/23. (For permission to make use of these papers I am much indebted to the Librarian.)Google ScholarOlney's letter is printed in Dennis, A. L. P., Adventures in American Diplomacy, 1896–1906 (New York, 1928), p. 59.Google Scholar

^{page 155 note 1} Pauncefote to Salisbury, 24 Dec. 1895, F.O. 80/364.Google Scholar

^{page 155 note 2} Pauncefote to Salisbury, 20 Dec. 1895, S.P., A/139.Google ScholarSee also Campbell, , Great Britain and the United States, p. 16.Google Scholar

^{page 155 note 3} Enclosure in W. L. Broadbent to Salisbury, 19 Dec. 1895, F.O. 80/364.Google Scholar

^{page 155 note 4} Pauncefote to Salisbury, 3 Jan. 1896, S.P., A/139.Google Scholar

^{page 155 note 5} See Bemis, S. F., A Diplomatic History of the United States (London, 1937), p. 419;Google ScholarYoung, , op. cit., pp. 259–61;Google ScholarGrenville, , op. cit., pp. 66–7;Google ScholarGrenville, and Young, , op. cit., pp. 167–8.Google Scholar

^{page 155 note 6} Crutcher, D. C. to Salisbury, 18 Dec. 1895, F.O. 80/364.Google Scholar

^{page 155 note 7} Olney to Chamberlain, 28 Sept. 1896, C.P.Google Scholar

^{page 155 note 8} For divided opinions in the business and financial world see LaFaber, , op. cit., pp. 270–6.Google Scholar

^{page 155 note 9} Pauncefote to Salisbury, 24 Dec. 1895, F.O. 80/364.Google ScholarFor Cleveland's critics see Perkins, , op. cit., pp. 194–9;Google ScholarTansill, , op. cit., pp. 726–8; and May, op. cit., pp. 56–8.Google Scholar

^{page 156 note 1} Pauncefote to Salisbury, 3 Jan. 1896, S.P., A/139.Google Scholar

^{page 156 note 2} Goschen to Salisbury, 19 Dec. 1895,Google ScholarElliot, A. D., The Life of George Joachim Goschen, First Viscount Goschen, 1831- 1907 (2 vols., London, 1911),2, 204.Google Scholar

^{page 156 note 3} Cf. Garvin, J. L. [and Julian Amery], The Life of Joseph Chamberlain (4 vols., London, 1932–51), 3, 72.Google Scholar

^{page 156 note 4} Chamberlain to Selborne, 20 Dec. 1895, C.P., J.C. 7/5/1B/4.Google Scholar

^{page 156 note 5} Selborne to Chamberlain, 18 Dec. 1895, C.P., J.C. 7/5/1B/2.Google Scholar

^{page 156 note 6} Chamberlain's Diary, 9 Jan. 1896,Google Scholaribid., J.C. 7/5/1B/14. Cf. Garvin, , op. cit., 3, 160–1,Google Scholar and Gardiner, A. G., The Life of Sir William Harcourt(2 vols., London, 1923), 2, 397.Google ScholarBalfour, A. J., on 15 January, publicly declared that ‘a war with the United States’ carried with it something of ‘the unnatural horror of a civil war’.Google ScholarIbid., ii, 397–s8.

^{page 157 note 1} Colonial Office to Foreign Office, 30 Aug. 1895, F.O. 80/362.Google Scholar

^{page 157 note 2} Chamberlain's Diary, 11 Jan. 1896, C.P.;Google ScholarGarvin, , op. cit., 3, 161–2;Google Scholar May, op. cit., p. 50; Grenville, , op. cit., p. 68.Google Scholar

^{page 157 note 3} Bainton, R. H., George Lincoln Burr (Ithaca, 1943), p. 78.Google Scholar

^{page 157 note 4} Colonial Office to Foreign Office, 18 Jan. 1896, F.O. 80/367, 1 May 1896, F.O. 80/371.Google Scholar

^{page 157 note 5} Pauncefote to Salisbury, 31 Jan. 1896, S.P., A/139; Denning (Mexico) to Salisbury, 7 Feb. 1896, F.O. 80/368; Pauncefote to Salisbury, 18 Feb. 1896, F.O. 80/368, 20 May 1896, F.O. 80/371.Google Scholar

^{page 157 note 6} Olney to Andrade, 25 June 1896, in Pauncefote to Salisbury, 30 June 1896, F.O. 80/372.Google Scholar

^{page 158 note 1} Libro Amarillo, 1897, p. 31; Young, , op. cit., pp. 275–6.Google Scholar

^{page 158 note 2} Sir Stafford Northcote to Salisbury, 16 March 1896, on an interview with Olney. S.P., Northcote, H.S. See also Grenville and Young, op. cit., pp. 175–6. Northcote also interviewed Cleveland, who observed that ‘there was no active feeling of sympathy in the U.S. with the Venezuelans themselves that it was a question of U.S. dignity in maintaining the position they had taken up of arbitration in some shape’. Northcote to Salisbury, 22 March 1896, S.P.Google Scholar

^{page 158 note 3} Pauncefote to Salisbury, 13 Nov. 1896, S.P., A/139.Google Scholar

^{page 158 note 4} Cf. Olney to Bayard, 14, 22 Jan., 8 Feb. 1896,Google ScholarJames, , op. cit., pp. 229, 233–6.Google ScholarFor a detailed account of the negotiations see Tansill, , op. cit., pp. 740 ff.,Google Scholar and Smith, T. C., ‘Secretary Olney's Real Credit in the Venezuelan Affair’ [05, 1933], Massachusetts Historical Society, Proceedings, 75 (1940), pp. 112–47.Google Scholar

^{page 158 note 5} Salisbury to Chamberlain, 31 Jan. 1896, C.P., J.C. 5/67/44;Google ScholarGrenville, , op. cit., p. 63;Google ScholarChamberlain to Playfair, 1 Feb. 1896, C.P., J.C. 7/5/1B/27.Cf. Salisbury to Pauncefote, 7 Feb. 1896, S.P., Private, America, A/140; 22 May, F.O. 80/371, 3 July, F.O. 80/373; to Chamberlain, 12 Aug., C.P.J.C. 5/67/54.Google Scholar

^{page 159 note 1} Salisbury to Pauncefote, Tel., 3 March 1896, F.O. 80/369.Google Scholar

^{page 159 note 2} Olney to Pauncefote, 12 June 1896, F.O. 80/372; Foreign Relations, 1896, pp. 249–52. Cf. his earlier letter to Bayard, 8 Feb. 1896,Google ScholarJames, ,op.cit., p. 235.Google Scholar

^{page 159 note 3} Later Lord Alverstone. Memorandum by Richard E. Webster, 24 July 1896, S.P., Cabinet Papers, Box 4.Google Scholar

^{page 159 note 4} Salisbury to Pauncefote, 3 July 1896, F.O. 80/373; Foreign Relations, 1896, pp. 252–3. Cf. Salisbury to Chamberlain, 12 Aug. 1896, C.P., J.C. 5/67/54.Google Scholar

^{page 159 note 5} Olney to Pauncefote, 13 July 1896, F.O. 80/373; Foreign Relations, 1896, pp. 253–4.Google ScholarCf. Smith, , op. cit., p. 138.Google Scholar

^{page 159 note 6} Pauncefote to Salisbury, 15 July 1896, F.O. 80/373; Chamberlain to Salisbury, 21 Aug. 1896, S.P., Correspondence from Chamberlain.Google Scholar

^{page 160 note 1} Chamberlain to Salisbury, 4 July 1896, S.P., Correspondence from Chamberlain.Google Scholar

^{page 160 note 2} Wingfield to Sanderson, 5 Aug. 1896, F.O. 80/373.Google Scholar

^{page 160 note 3} Chamberlain to Olney, 9 Sept. 1896; to Salisbury, 9, 17 Sept.1896, S.P., Correspondence from Chamberlain.Google ScholarTansill, , op. cit., p. 772, prints parts of the letter to Olney but without comment.Google Scholar

^{page 160 note 4} Sanderson to Webster, 15 Oct.; Sanderson to Pauncefote, 16 Oct.: Webster to Sanderson, 19 Oct. 1896, F.O. 80/375.Google Scholar

^{page 161 note 1} The Times, 10 Nov. 1896; James, , op. cit., p. 133.Google Scholar

^{page 161 note 2} Kennedy (Valparaiso) to Salisbury, 26 Feb. 1896, F.O. 80/368.Google Scholar

^{page 161 note 3} Perkins, , op cit., pp. 212–13.Google Scholar

^{page 161 note 4} Phipps (Rio de Janeiro) to Salisbury, 9 March 1896, F.O. 128/223.Google Scholar

^{page 161 note 5} Perkins, , op. cit., pp. 210–11;Google ScholarConsul Mallet (Panama) to Salisbury, 24 Dec. 1895, F.O. 80/364;Google ScholarRobertson, W. S., ‘Hispanic American Appreciations of the Monroe Doctrine’, Hispanic American Historical Review, 3 (1920), 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 161 note 6} Cf. Libro Amarillo, 1897, p. xxxii;Google ScholarYoung, , op. cit., pp. 276–7.Google Scholar

^{page 161 note 7} Olney to Pauncefote, 11 Dec. 1896, S.P., A/139; Pauncefote to Salisbury, 28 Dec. 1896, F.O. 80/376.Google Scholar

^{page 162 note 1} Pauncefote to Salisbury, 5 Jan. 1897, F.O. 80/379.Google Scholar

^{page 162 note 2} Pauncefote to Salisbury, 22 Jan. 1897, S.P., A/139.Google Scholar

^{page 162 note 3} The line was demarcated by a joint Anglo-Venezuelan commission between 1901 and 1905. The allegations made by Mallet-Prevost in a memorandum written in 1944 and published in 1949, after his death, that the Tribunal acted under political pressure and that the award was the result of a bargain between Britain and Russia,Google Scholar are effectively disposed of by Child, C. J., ‘The Venezuela-British Guiana Boundary Arbitration of 1899’, American Journal of International Law, 44, No. 4 (1950), pp. 682–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 162 note 4} Pauncefote to Salisbury, 13 Nov. 1896, S.P., A/139.Google Scholar

^{page 163 note 1} 2 05 1854. Manning, W. R., ed., Diplomatic Correspondence of the United States. Inter-American Affairs, 1831–1860 (12 vols., Washington, 1932-39), 7, 541.Google Scholar

^{page 163 note 2} For Britain's increasing isolation in Europe and the world see Grenville, and Young, , op. cit., pp. 170–1.Google Scholar

^{page 164 note 1} The Times, 14 Feb. 1903; Parliamentary Debates, 4th Series, cxviii, 60 (John Gretton);Google ScholarPerkins, , op. cit., pp. 360-1.Google Scholar