The “Hollander Interest”

Cathy Matson History Department University of Belawan

1n the fust years after New Amsterdam’s conquest in Other English observersproposed not to defeat but to 1664, there was very little unanimity about whether, and emulate the success of their northern neighbors, how, New Yorkers ought to trade with Amsterdam. especially with respect to Hugo Grotius’ belief in the Despite the swift transfer of power from Dutch to English “natural and permanent” rights of nations to observe a hands,the two nations confronted eachother aslong term “freedom of trade” on the expansive, uninhabited, and rivals, each with a different economic trajectory during unconquerableopen seas.Writers like Matthew Decker, the seventeenth century. Amsterdam dominated the William Petty, and Gerald Malynes extendedthis notion northern fisheries and Baltic trades; had a strong to the rights of individual commercial activists to “find presencein the New World carrying trades; developed vent” without constraint. As John Pollexfen put it, “Only superior shipping, warehousing, credit and banking freedom in trade can make trade great.” This literature systems;and showedthe visible signs of successin dress, promoting imitation of Dutch successwas most prolific art, and science. In contrast, England entered a phaseof during a time when England began to emerge from a economic uncertainty after 1600 in which the Old period of economic trauma and enjoy an ascent which Draperies declined, inflation and unemployment rose, would place its merchantsin first place amongEuropean and trading monopolies held extensive privileges in nations in the early eighteenth century; in the process, foreign commerce. English theorists often noted their Amsterdam would be dislodged from first place in country’s reliance upon Dutch skills and currency to commerceand the statism which has come to be called support its economy. “mercantilism” would offer benefits and opportunities to tradersthroughout its expanding empire.2 Together, these and other contrasts between the two countries representeddifferent moments in the separate The ambivalence of theorists and statesmen in economic directions they travelled: Amsterdamattained England was evident among colonists in the western a peak of commercial prosperity in the 1640sto 169Os, hemisphereas well. For someof them, identifying Dutch while England’s rise would become assuredonly after carriers was synonymousin the minds of someobservers the 1690s. Until then, the “Holland trades” were with identifying contraband cargoes and usurers; for England’s greatestperceived threat, one conceived and other observers the Dutch were potentially valuable maintained with an unprecedentedlatitude of commer- collaborators in areas of intense international rivalry. cial freedom.For their part, English theorists and states- Among all rival European powers, only the Dutch tried men divided sharply over the merits of this Dutch model to establish long term policies of neutrality and available of “free trade.” Some of them believed that the only credit. By the seventeenthcentury, British West Indies feasible response was to construct a state based upon governors and merchants took note of the increasing legislation designed to defeat Dutch hegemony in number of statist restraints on commerce and pleaded commerce with English taxes, manufactures, and with home officials to makeexceptions enough to recog- colonial markets. The most ambitious competitors in nize “the necessity of free trade” with Holland and its English government and commerce were willing to West Indies possessions.’ Virginia and Maryland securegreater national profits with naval power as well. officials invested in tobacco exports to Amsterdam As the Duke of Albemarle put it in 1664, with reference before the 166Os,much of it in vesselstouching at New to the appropriatenessof taking New Amsterdam:“What Amsterdam,and the deputy collector of Newport, Rhode we want is more of the trade the Dutch now have.“’ Island regularly imported slaves from the Dutch before

251 252 SELECTED RENSSELAERSWIJCK SEMINAR PAPERS

Fig. 46. The West India Houseas seenfrom the Oude Schans, Amsterdam, Netherlands. Courtesy of the Museum of the City of New York. and after U3X4 Some English officials reported with England, was less useful in constructing New York only slight exaggeration that “all of New England” was City’s trade after the war. No English vesselsflooded the trading with Amsterdam since the Dutch West India fledgling colony with finished goods in 1664, although Company settled on the Hudson River very early in the regular trade had been conducted between Amsterdam century, and projected that this trade would continue, all and New Netherland before 1664. Since,the city’s first diplomatic settlementsbetween London and Amsterdam English governors and merchantscould hardly overlook to the contrary.5 the possibilities of securing the colony’s future by reviv- ing this trade and involving the conquenzdDutch in New 1660-1690 York City’s commercial life, they actively cast about for In the absence of reliable information about ship the right meansto bring Dutch trade into the port. Given registrations, tonnage, and the nature and values of car- these material necessities, the language and general goes, it is the reports of governors and individual ob- strategiesof free trade proved to be alluring ideological servers which must provide the foundations of our props for their policies. Free trade notions were one way impressionsof New York City’s early tradewith the Low to explain the evasion of English regulalions which did Countries. Following the English conquest of New not suit New Yorkers at one time or anotlheror to justify Amsterdamin 1664the “hollander interest”continued to the pursuit of economic opportunities outside of the offer an enviable commercial model among a small but empire over the eighteenth century. powerful minority of colonists. The reasonsfor this are not difficult to attribute. For one thing, Albemarle’s New York’s direct trade with Amsterdam continued rhetoric, which was effective in building war chestsfor iegally for a brief period in 1664, until Governor Nicolls “WOLLANDER INTEREST” 253

(1664-1668) received orders from London to freeze the merchants who felt that even these few ships were an remaining assetsof the Dutch West India Company and unwarranted flirtation with their primary competitor to assimilate Dutch traders into the newly forming body nation. They noted Lovelace’s “shortsightedness” about of mercantile regulations. However, Nicolls quickly mercantile precepts and his closenessto “Dutch petty grew more sensitive to the economic and social impor- traders” and “Dutch usurers” in the colony; merchants tance of a continued Dutch presencein New York and like Steenwyck, Cornelius van Ruyven, and Thomas granted exceptions to the Acts of Trade and Navigation Delaval bore the more straightforward epithet “hogs,” for ships headedto Amsterdam. long a term of abusein England for the Dutch.”

One of the more active participants in this Dutch trade The last of the Anglo-Dutch wars put a temporary stop wasCornelius Steenwyck,a former memberof the Dutch to Lovelace’s involvement in foreign trade, when Dutch West India Company and a future customsofficial under privateers took the Good Fame at either Texel or Sandy the English. Dutch ex-Director General, Petrus Hook in 1673. That same year Steenwyck lost his ship Stuyvesant,supported making theseexceptions,pointing James;Thomas Delaval lost theMargaret, and Frederick out to crown officials at London that unless the Duke of Philipse lost the Frederick. But these and other losses, York’s colony traded with Amsterdam, French inter- including the surrender of the city to the Dutch for one lopers would redirect New York’s fur trade through year, only underscoredhow vital the Dutch trade could Canada and Spain would capture the budding West be for supplying the city. Indeed, many of the city’s Indies connections of the northern colonies. Besides,he Dutch paused long enough with English residents to insisted, Dutch residents of the colony had rights to a consider which mother country was, as Capt. John “free trade” with their mother country which antedated Manning put it, the greater “enemy in our Bowells.“’ ’ the conquest; private well-being, that is, supercededthe changing political rights of different states over their Upon resurrcnder of the city to the English in 1674, inhabitants.Inlate 1664Stuyvesantaskedforpermission many Dutch and English merchantsassumed the trade to to sendfour to six ships a year to the Low Countries until Holland would reopen, and so they revived the demand London could absorb the supplies of peltry and tobacco for open trade to Amsterdam once again, However, the which New Yorkers exported.6 From late 1667 to late new governor, Edmund Andros, at first refused to sanc- 1668 three ships per year were allowed clearance for tion the principle of free or open trade, and in 1675 he AmsterdamandRotterdam, and reportsindicated that the demanded oaths of loyalty to the crown from all city quota was filled. In addition to Steenwyck, merchants residents. Eight Dutch residents, seven of them like Oloff van Cortlandt, JacquesCousseau, Nicholas de merchants,refused to take the oaths. When pressuredby Meyer, Margareta Philipse, and others engaged in this English officials to choose either constitutional loyalty commerce,even beyond its formal legal dates.’ or individual economic privilege, most chose the latter, even to the point of leaving the colony.‘* Members of Governor Lovelace (1668-1673) was also lenient the Governor’s Council and merchants around New about the Dutch trade, but not out of disinterested York’s environs interpreted the rejection of oaths as a concern for the future of the colony. He and his brother, testament of the commitment they shared to retain Thomas, owned shares in the Hopewell (with Steen- contacts with Amsterdam, and in the following months wyck), the Good Fame, and the Duke of York, and traded the Council-in which most members were concerned through Dutch agents Eagidius Luyck, Francis Hoogh- in the Amsterdam trade-promoted resolutions to landt, Nicholas Gouvemeur, and Isaac Bedloo, all of support the commerce.‘3 By 1675, Andros himself whom resided in New York. The first year of his realized the political expedience of accommodatingthe administration Lovelace not only lowered import duties Dutch traders and expressed a more enlightened from 10% to 7% to accommodatethe city’s merchants, stance.14 but also appointed Cornelius van Ruyven as the customs collector. Van R uyven often proved his loyalty to fellow These minor victories for the “holland party” of Dutch countrymen by overlooking the port regulations traders in New York were far from secure,however. By which affected arriving vessels.*Later in 1668 English the 1670snumbers of English merchantsbegan migrat- officials gave Lovelace permission to license three ships ing into the colony, someof them with clearly expressed per year from New York: in 1669this wasreduced to one mercantile pretentions to enforce the Acts of Trade and per year.g Nevertheless, there were some British Navigation and curtail the favors extended to Amster- 254 SELECTED RENSSELAERSWIJCK SEMINAR PAPERS dam traders whom they regarded as little more than goods from New York City with Stephanus van “foreigners” who could never have the best interests of Cortlandt from 1678 to 1681, and then on his own the empire at heart. Even worse, they noted, was the account?’ Many early New York fortunes started with support given by “true Englishmen,” reputable commer- direct loans of Dutch capital or by acceptingcommission cial and political leaders, to such activities which could business in New York City for Dutch firms. Adolphe undermine the solidity of British domination.15 In Philipse beganwith both loans and commission business 1680/81 these new arrivals joined in an attack upon in the fur, lumber, and slave trades;by 1700 he branched Governor Andros and the “Dutch tribe” by initiating an into West Indies logwood, Virginia tobacco, southern agreementamong merchants to stop paying port duties, cotton, and SouthernEuropean wines which were sent to a sure method of withdrawing support for the govem- Dutch and English buyers.** During the 1690s at least ment and drawing attention to their displeasure.Like the twelve New York merchantsmade regular shipments of more well-known non-importation movements in the peltry and tobacco to Amsterdam and ordered return 1760sto 177Os,these English merchantsbenefited from cargoes of cloth, weaponry, and gunpowder.23 Others the stoppage of commercial taxation. However, theirs continued to carry southern tobacco to Rotterdam and was no simple mobilization of economic self interest and Amsterdamas Dutch merchantshad before the conquest; ethnic hostility, for this opposition would fastenits future this trade might originate in the Low Countries and touch upon the credit of London firms and becomeprominent at New York City before going south, or originate in New dry goods importers and peltry exporters by the end of York City and carry commodities directly from the that generation. They were the founding members of southern colonies to Amsterdam-with or without a stop New York City’s Anglo-American elite. Traders to at a British port to pay duties, depending on the disposi- Amsterdam could not help but interpret this as a direct tion toward legality or smuggling.24 threat to their own enterpriseand foreseeserious difficul- ties. Andros’ removal and the appointment of a nearly 1690-1713 all-English Assembly by 1683 also boded darkly for If the “anglicization” of New York City trade initiated active Amsterdamtraders.16 Under the newly appointed a long-term challenge which forced significant altera- Governor Dongan, the Assembly passed legislation tions in the Amsterdamtrade, King William’s and Queen which taxed exports and imports, and forbid foreign Anne’s Wars dramatized and escalated those changes vessels at New York City; they also regulated more between 1690 and 1713. Indeed, imperial rivalry during vigorously New York’s commerce with New England these years changed the character of the direct trade to and Philadelphia after 1685, which made the notorious Amsterdam permanently. In earlier yeaus merchants Amsterdam smuggling activities of previous decades preferred to export peltry to Amsterdam where prices harder to continue.” were fairly stable, rather than to London where beaver hats becameless fashionable by the end of the century Before the 1690sit was a received wisdom that Dutch and prices fell with the demand for fur imports. But prices and shipping costs were lower and that during King William’s War Amsterdam prices also Amsterdam’s demand for agricultural staples, much of fell-sometimes below London prices-and peltry ex- which the entrepot’s merchants reexported to Europe, porters began to complain bitterly of French privateers was steadierthan England’s So it did not surprise many in the Northern seas while colonial middlemen lost New Yorkers to hear from their govemers that colonial whole shipments to plunderers in the countryside north merchants conducted a “common” and “practicable” and west of Albany.*’ direct trade with Amsterdam, via Newfoundland, Boston, Portugal, Dover, and Falmouth in these early In addition, the 1690salso signalled an end to reliable years.l8 A very conservative estimateof the New York- government support for the legal Dutch trade. Although Amsterdam trade from 1664 to 1668 is three or four Governor Fletcher, who arrived in 1692!,did almost vesselsper year (eight in 1667) out of New York.lg The nothing to stop wartime clandestine voyages, especially city sustained this level of trade for the period 1674- those to Amsterdam and Rotterdam from which he was 1680,when four to five ships per year clearedNew York reputed to have made a personal fortune, he pursued a for Amsterdam or Rotterdam?’ public policy of bolstering import duties and renewing mercantile commitment to prohibitions on foreign trade. Robert R. Livingston was only one of the most Appointed customs official William Dyer also tried to successful Amsterdam traders; Livingston shipped follow Fletcher’s lead by setting new, and Ihigher,duties “HOLLANDER INTEREST” 255 on somecity commerce.Dyer was vocally castigatedfor factors for New York merchants,and especially to ferry this attemptto place “unlawful customesand Imposicons the legal and illicit trade. Levinus van Schaick, one of on the Goods and Merchandizes of his Maj’tis Leige thesereturnees, factored for the Livingstons, Schuylers, People.“26 Ten Broecks, Wandelaers,and Roseboomsuntil at least 1710. Having lived in both New York and Amsterdam, This combination of wartime pressuresand a governor Van Schaick availed himself of beneficial connections who was overly ambitious forced all but the most in New York, London, and Amsterdam.31 successful merchants to abandon Amsterdam trade and prompted their more advantaged peers to concentrate All of these activities continued in the next decade. fortunes in fewer hands.Before 1690,thenumber of New Bellomont’s successin suppressing New York City’s York merchantswith sharesin vesselsto Amsterdamwas extensive involvement with piracy in the first decadeof usually about thirty, and forty was not unheard of. the eighteenthcentury hasbeen explained well. However Between 1690 and 1713 the numbers who owned shares historians have neglectedBellomont’s hopesto force the of ventures in Dutch trade began to narrow and the city’s trade with Amsterdam into legitimate channels,a number of vesselsengaged diminished; out of the fifty hope which proved chimerical. Unscrupulous traders or so New York ‘City and Albany merchants who continued to smuggle goods directly to Amsterdam. engaged in the Amsterdam trade-as wholesalers or These, said Bellomont in 1700, were among the most smaller investors-between 1666and 1690,only a about “Dutchified” of New York traders.32By 1701 a coterie twenty survived and prosperedinto the later war years.” of New York and Albany merchants-Robert R. Livingston among them-jointly ventured illegal As hard times forced someNew Yorkers to leave the cargoesto Daniel Crommelin of Amsterdam.33By 1708 Dutch trade, those who were resilient madecommercial Colonel Robert Quary reported to the Board of Trade that adaptations which affected the future of this trade there was a persistent illicit trade in Dutch goods which significantly. One alternative open to merchants who went mainly through Newport.34 Rutger Bleecker confronted unpredictable shifts of economic conditions engagedin at least one smuggling voyage to Amsterdam was to avoid initiating commercial transactions from per year from 1707 through 1710:’ and an anonymous New York, and instead to let Dutch agentsand Amster- merchant cleared for Amsterdam in 1710.36 Thus, dam merchants place orders and arrange for all the although fewer merchants of Dutch origins traded to necessary fees, transportation, storage, and the like. Amsterdam becauseEnglish merchants and principles Although some of the traders at Albany retained shares had “invaded” New York City, even warfare did not in voyages to Amsterdambeforeandafter the 169Os,they obliterate the New York-Amsterdam trade. There were shipped less frequently than the pie-war years, and by two to four registered voyages per year to Amsterdam the end of Queen Anne’s War almost none of them fromNew YorkCityfrom 1706to 1716,andanuncertain importcd regularly on their own accounts,Instead, they number of illicit ones, which is generally the level at factored for Dutch merchantsresident in Amsterdamor which New Yorkers traded to Amsterdam before 1689. London for a 2$!z%to 5% commission.28 During theseyears of warfare the Dutch trade’s propor- tion of all New York commercealso remained relatively Other New York merchantswere unable or unwilling stable.3’ to adapt their business in these ways, and chose to cope with the increasingly unfavorable climate for Dutch Moreover, within the shrinking core of Dutch traders trade in more challenging ways. About ten to fifteen of were included many of the names with which we New York City’s roughly 125 merchants ignored associate eighteenth-century prosperity in New York Fletcher’s taxes and rhetorical pleas for obedience to City: Robert R. Livingston, Stephen de Lancey, mercantilism; like Fletcher, they simply participated in Frederick and Adolphe Philipse, Nicholas Bayard, smuggling Dutch cargoes through New Haven in the Garret Bancker, Stephen van Cortlandt, Valentine I69Os. At least three city merchants subscribedto joint Cruger, Abraham de Peyster, Hendrick van Bael, ventures with Dutch merchants to the East Indies.2g A Livinius van Schaick.s8 In 1692 William Blathwayte few, envious of the “free ports” of New Jerseyand Rhode listed the nine wealthiest and most respectedmerchants Island, physically relocated to those places, or routed in New York City: seven were of Dutch origins; six their tradepast the more liberal customsofficials there.30 traded higher values of goods to Amsterdam than to Still others relocated to England or Holland to serve as London before King Williams War.3g 256 SELECTED RENSSELAERSWIJCK SEMINAR PAPERS

1713-1740 trade. However, there was one significant difference between these constituencies in England and the New York merchantshad two clusters of incentives to arguments of their colonial counterparts in New York. continue the “hollander trade*’ with Amsterdam in the As England’s commercial security grew over the yearsbetween 1713and 1740.The first of theseinvolved eighteenth century, the country’s merchants solidified the comparatively greater benefits of Dutch, as opposed their rise with legislation which not only did not emulate to British, trade with the colony. Amsterdam fiis the Dutch, but quite deliberately discriminated against charged consistently lower wholesale prices for them. Whigs, conservative and protectionirst in economic manufacturessuch as strouds,guns, gunpowder, and tea. policies, aggressively turned away from free trade Since the 1670sEnglish fears that the Dutch were under- notions. But in New York, some colonists were persis- selling them in New York were a constant refrain in tently drawn to the Dutch as a model of economic private correspondenceand many New York merchants conduct and as a source of real econ0mi.cadvantages, actually cited two prices for the samecommodity in their especially when New Yorkers’ interests collided with correspondence.40Many Dutch merchants also offered those of their mother country. longer credit than was typical among English merchants, often a full year without interest. Amsterdam ware- housing and bulk cargoestechniques of storageand sales The uses to which free trade notions and Dutch alli- allowed Dutch merchants to purchase ahead of demand ancescould be put by New Yorkers was also clearer after when supplies were available; their ability to market Queen Anne’s War, and so although the numbers of broadly and extensively also meant they could take com- merchants engaged in the Dutch traffic shrank, self- modities of inferior quality along with the better ones, a consciousnessabout a felt need for its continuation grew. policy English merchantsrarely dared to try.41 For example, as war conditions dissipated after 1713, the fur trade entered a period of decline. Becausefurs were Furthermore, while the parameters of English trade New York’s primary economic staple (wheat would were defined largely by the extent of the empire (and, replacefurs shortly, however) it incenseneldthem that the ironically, by additional Dutch demands for British item was enumerated-that is, added to the list of tobacco and sugar), the Dutch serviced a vast system of commodities which were regulated from. England-in markets outside of the production and consumption 1722 and that most of the trade was thereby diverted to capacities of Holland alone. For example, much of the London. Some of them simply continued1to trade with logwood, dyewoods, tobacco, fish, and slaves which Amsterdam. And although furs comprised 40% of New madetheir way to Amsterdamwas re-exported in time.42 Yorkers’ goods to Holland before 1720, and only about Dutch freightage and insurance rates were also sig- 20-25% after 1722, their decline was even more rapid nificantly lower until at least the SevenYears War,43and with respect to London buyers after the latter date (due merchants commonly noted in the period that to less English demand and falling pricfes as well as Amsterdam’s stock of specie was larger, its ships better higher imperial taxes). That is, although the trade as a and more numerous, labor cheaper and more skilled, whole declined, Amsterdamremained a preferred market services and quality of goods better, and warehouses of New Yorkers. Moreover, by the 1730sElnglish factors fuller, than England’s. Despite New York City’s at- resident in New York exported far fewer of the colony’s tempts to deny licenses to Dutch agents to insure city pelts than did the Albany and New York City merchants shippers and to serve as vendue masters, there were with prior English and Low Countries connections. Dutch representativesin New York City during much of Englishman John Lewis, for example, shipped 400-500 the eighteenth century. Daniel Crommelin, Adrian Hope, furs per year from 1720-1729, a figure corresponding to and John de Neufville, kept factors in the city to help Charles Lodwick’s, James Graham’s, and Edward discount bills of exchange and make money transfers.44 Griffith’s shipments. All of them were relatively recent arrivals to New York. But Cornelius Cuyler, an estab- This paper began with the observation that British lished exporter of Dutch descent,averaged 5,500 furs per recognition of Dutch commercial superiority was fraught year in the period 1730-1734, which must have been a with ambivalence: they mixed admiration with fear, large proportion of the entire trade by that date.The De emulation with jealousy. Since the 1690sBritish politics Lancey, Wendell, and Ten Eyck families, as well as was also affected by this discussion. Tories and other original traders with the Dutch, also shipped fairly large “commonwealth” oppositionists often identified their numbers of furs to Amsterdam, and occasionally to goals with the “hollander interest*’ or free, unrestricted England, in the 1730s.45 “HOLLANDER INTEREST” -25;s

As the fur trade declined, New Yorkers shippedother New York City into the 1740s chartered cargoes to commodities to Amsterdamfor which demandwas more Amsterdamfrom the West Indies and occasionally even stable, among them potash, flaxseed, and copper ore. In supplied New York’s outgoing vessels for a triangular 1714, Governor Hunter feared that copper from “Mr. route.” Because New York merchants and factors Schoyler’s mines” in New Jerseywould be “carried into availed themselves of these West Indies opportunities, the channel of our Trade to Holland.” Customssearcher the Dutch trade continued to occupy a place of impor- Francis Harrison reported in 1721 that indeed this was tance in merchants’ ledgers. happening.OtberobserverscommentedthatNewYork’s long-standing wine trade with the Southern European In the casesof both the fur trade and new West Indies islands of Madera aud Canary also took on new charac- markets, earlier precedents for smuggling became tcristics. After 1715 merchants not only included this models of acceptablebehavior. As the tobacco, sugar, luxury item in their return cargoesto New York City, but molasses,and slave trades matured, Dutch West Indies also shipped directly from southern Europe M Amster- possessions attracted vessels from New York City. dam to pay for cargoesof dry goods.In all of thesecases Captains subsequentlyreturned to the northern port with merchantsremarked that theirchoiceof Amsterdamover foreign West Indies goods, or purchased shares in the London markets was due to favorable Dutch prices, ships and cargoesof tobacco,sugar, or dyewoods sent to freightage, insurance rates, and quality.“’ Amsterdamdirectly.

The secondcluster of incentives to trade with the Low Since about I700 a few New Yorkers had woven an Countries involved New Yorkers’ creative entry into the active network of trade involving Dutch goods and cor- Dutch Caribbean trade. Younger, newer, or interloping respondentsin the West Indies and Amsterdam which merchantsin particular, but someof the older families as bypassedmandatory channelsof inspection and taxation well, developed ties with the Dutch merchants at St. under the British mercantile system. Narrative Eustatius, Surinam, Curacao,and Guinea, where new- evidence-scanty and circumspect because of the aIbeit indirect---routes to Amsterdam were established illegality involved-indicates that New York’s and where new commodities could be secured.Like all Amsterdam-boundvessels (whether Dutch or New York Caribbean traffic, the growth of Dutch West Indies owned) often simply eliminated British ports of call marketsreflected new opportunities that aroseout of the where costly duties should have been paid for dislocations of war, rising demand in Europe for enumerated items. From 1713 to about 1720, Evert stimulants like sugar and coffee, and the greater Wendell exported furs to his correspondentWilliam van prosperity of the West Indies itself. These factors drew Nuys in Amsterdam, and imported dry goods and tea at many merchants to Caribbean trade as the supplies of Newport or through family members at Boston. After furs diminished in the northern colonics4’ 1720Wendell shippedhis commodities through Stephen de Lancey in New York City, who in turn sent the goods Thus, merchants like Cornelius and Philip Cuyler fiist to Boston, or dir=tIy to Amsterdam.51Others in clung to what peltry trade they could, but found their Albany also traded directly to Amsterdam and avoided trade with the West Indies increased, as they said, “of duties: in the 1720sHendrick Ten Eyck, Robert Sanders, necessity” becauseof “those unnatural acts” of Parlia- David van der Heyden, JellesFonda, and JacobGlen: and ment.48 Fur traders Philip Livingston, Philip van in the 173OsAOs, Henrick Ten Eyck and Cornelius Cortlandt, Abraham de Peyster, Cornelius Ten Broeck, Cuyler. Most of these traders at least occasionally Johannes de Peyster, Hans Hansen, Rutger Bleeker, engagedin smuggling through Canadaas well.‘* Evert Wendell, Ryer Gerritse, and others also turned increasingly to trade with the West Indies after 1715.“’ Long after furs were enumeratedin 1722, New York Most of their voyages were shuttles between New York City merchantsIsaac Low, William Glencross,Olaf van City and the islands; for transatlantic voyages, New Sweeten, John Barbarie, Benjamin Faneuil, Rip van Yorkers usually deferred to Amsterdam carriers who Dam, Henry Cuyler, and John Cmger shipped peltry to centered the goods in their home ports or marketed the Amsterdamfor Albany merchants,while city merchants West Indian returns throughout Europe. For example, like Frederick Philipse, Stephan de Lancey, Philip “Robert and Peter Livingston and Company” ferried Livingston, Robert R. Livingston, Jr., Henry Cuyler, Rip between the West Indies andNew York during the 1720s van Dam, and Hyman Levy tradeddirectly betweenNew and 173Os,while the Dutch factors who were resident in York and Amsterdam on their own accounts.This latter 258 SELECTED RENSSELAERSWIJCK SEMINAR PAPERS group also sold peltry in London and forwarded the net Yorkers either returned with specieand bills of exchange proceeds to Dutch firms through Samuel Storke of or forwarded part of the the proceedson to Amsterdam London. Merchants at Amsterdamthen madeup cargoes to pay for previous and future cargoes of cloth, paper, for the New Yorkers, which touched at Dover or the and gunpowder. Or, as Archibald Kennedy noted in Orkneys, where customs officials were notoriously 1739, much of New York’s produce went to any of the corruptible, before crossing the Atlantic.53 The British or foreign West Indies islands, and retums were Bleeckers of New York City borrowed capital from in Dutch gunpowder that was smuggled through St. Charles Lodwick of London and transmitted it to the Eustatius from Amsterdam instead of directly from Bleeckers of Amsterdam, who in turn supplied the Amsterdam.56David “Ready Money” Provost, of solid colony with orders for dry goods.54 Dutch descent, returned from many voyages to St. Eustatius at mid-century with rum and gunpowder as 1740to 1764 well as foreign silver and bills of exchange; he usually By the 1740sthe resilience of New York-Amsterdam transferred these into a larger vessel at New York and trading patterns became a primary concern of British sent them on to Amsterdam?’ mercantilists, for it seemedthat the more imperial legis- lation circumscribed colonial trade, the more conviction In the 1740sfur tradersin the Wendell and Livingston certain New Yorkers developed about the appropriate- families supplemented return cargoes of sugar and ness-some said the necessity-of the Dutch West molasses from the West Indies with rice from the Indies and smuggling trades. Their most common Carolinas and logwood from Honduras, or consigned argument was that without the foreign trade, necessary their captains to carry the goods direcltly to Amster- specie and bills of exchange (the Dutch West Indies dam?8 Philip Livingston also periodically added New supplied the greatestquantities of both) would never pass York and New England flaxseed and local lumber to his into their hands in large enough quantities to balance grain shipments to the West Indies; the.sewere trans- their payments with the mother country for imported ferred into Dutch ships at St. Eustatius and routed to manufactures.Moreover, the benefits of legal trade with Amsterdam.5gSome merchants-Philip Livingston, neutral Dutch possessions during peace time was Robert and Barent Sanders, Hendrick Ten Eyck, and significant, illicit trade during wars was even more John Cuyler-arranged cargoes into two separate profitable. Using establishedroutes and correspondents, voyages: one to the West Indies, which was sold, the merchants simply gained more as risks rose. Thus, proceedsbeing usedto load a second(larger or different) although New York City entrancesfrom, and clearances vessel which then set out for Amsterdam from a West to, Amsterdamdeclined after 1740 there is no necessary Indies port without stopping to pay British customs.6o reasonto believe that the trade itself declined. From 1724 to 1731 two to six ships cleared and zero to three ships Though Robert Sanderswas originally involved in the enteredNew York from Amsterdamper year. From 1740 fur trade, he shipped French West Indies sugar from St. to 1764only one to three vesselscleared and zero to two Eustatius to New York for Robert and Ric:hardRay in the entered New York City legally. Yet travel accountsand 173Os-1740s.and then on to the Van der Grifts of private letters indicate a rise in the illegal trade with Amsterdam on occasion.6l Alternatively, Sanders and Amsterdam, especially that which went via West Indies the Rays sold their peltiy in London ;and instructed possessions, the Orkney Islands of Scotland, or in Samuel Storke to forward the net proceeds to Dutch Southern Europe where safeconduct passeswere easily fiis, which were in turn asked to make up cargoes procurred. Also, retailers announced“holland goods” for which touched at Dover or the Orkneys before crossing sale in New York with greater frequency over these the Atlantic for New York City. Merchants such as decades.55 Robert Sanders,John Cruger, Cornelius Cuyler, William Johnson,and JohannesBleecker exported fewer furs but The most perdurable route was that which took in the more ginseng and potash to Amsterdam from the 1730s West Indies on the outgoing voyage and passedthrough to 174Os, sometimes using the firm of Storke and New England on the return from Amsterdam. For the Champion as an intermediary with Dutch firms!* West Indies connections, city exporters shipped lumber, grain, bread, and small horses to Curacao and Surinam. By the mid-1740s thesejointly ventured connections However, the value of imports from those places was proved to be a popular meansof underwriting risks. The often much lower than for exports, indicating that New Cuylers joined their capital with Edmu:nd and Josiah “HOLLANDER INTEREST” 259

Quincy of Boston to smugglemixed cargoesto the Hopes holds of vesselsjointly ventured by many merchants7’ of Amsterdam. Christopher Bancker carried on a similar The return voyagesfrom Amsterdaminvolved primarily, business during the Seven Years War with Daniel though not exclusively, five Dutch firms: Thomas and Crommelin of Amsterdam.63A few merchantsof Dutch Adrian Hope (future participants in funding first the descentformed a syndicate of tradersto Amsterdamand British during the Seven Years War, and then American the Dutch West Indies: John Ludlow, Cornelius and patriots during the Revolution); John Hodshon (whose Philip Cuyler, Elias Desbrosses,Richard and Robert ties to London banking and government loans were well Ray, and John Waddell. From the mid-1740s to the late known by the 1740s); Daniel Crommelin (a refugee 175Os,their correspondenceshows active commercial Huguenot who emigratedto New York in the 1720s.then interventions at Montreal, Albany, and New York City to Amsterdam by about 1733, where he remained until in North America, to Curacao, St. Eustatius, South his death in 1768); William van der Grift; and William Carolina and British Guiana to the south, to Amsterdam, van NuYs.~*New Yorkers continued to bring back from with stopsat Madeira or London on occasion.“4 thesefiis the usual dry goods,tea, gunpowder, and odd luxury items in special personal orders. That New The voyage which was initiated in New York City and Yorkers continued to smuggle through these firms, to intended to terminate in Amsterdamcould be a compli- and from Amsterdamduring the Seven Years War even cated affair. From 1748 to 1750, during a period of when privateering absorbed much of New York’s economic prosperity which followed King George’s commercial investment capital and when the high seas War, Gerard G. Be&man expandedhis correspondence wererife with enemyprivateers illustrates how important with Amsterdam merchants; he also insured New York the traffic was to the few merchants it would sustain. vesselsbound for Amsterdam in 1756-7 and 1761, and Governor Hardy said in 1757 that it was common for owned sharesin the Sarah and Ann and Little Gurry in ships “to come from Holland, stop at Sandy Hook, and 1754to 1760.His and other vesselswhich were partially smuggle their Cargoes to New York and carry their filled with flaxseed rounded St. Eustatius, picking up Vessels up [the Hudson] empty.“73 From the 1730s to cocoaand sugarbefore crossing to Amsterdam.65Gerard the 1750sthe ship Mary undMurguret-owned by about G. Beekmanand Nicholas Gouvemeur of New York City sixteen New Yorkers-brought gunpowder from Hol- corresponded with Nicholas and Isaac Gouvemeur of land to New York.74 Along with John Sherbume of Curacao and St. Eustatius, and Daniel Crommelin and Portsmouth and John Reynell of Philadelphia, a coterie John Hodshon of Amsterdam.66John van Cortlandt of New York merchantschartered four vesselsin 1760 imported West Indies sugar which he refined in New to smuggle French sugar through St. Eustatius and to York City, almost one half of which was then reexported Amsterdam. Gerard 6. Beekman smuggled sugar to to South Carolina, England, or Amsterdam.B7Waddell Amsterdamthat year in a sole venture, and Philip Cuyler Cunningham speculatedin the purchase of prize goods continued his correspondencewith John Hodshon. In all which he sent in bulk quantities to Amsterdamin 1756.68 casesthey smuggledback tea, “Dutch duck and checks,” and silks.” Late that sameyear the Venus departedfrom Through the Seven Years War voyages from the Amsterdam and sailed boldly directly into Sandy Hook Carolinas and West Indies to Amsterdam often were without paying duties.76 funded-wholly or in part-with London credit. Then, the return voyage to New York from Amsterdam was Even after the Revenue Act of 1764-the imperial secured by the London fiis transferring capital to legislation which intended to tax more steeply and Amsterdamfor New Yorkers.6gLondoners like William enforce commercial legality more strenuously-New Snell, Richard Champion, Joseph Mica, and Samuel York vessels went to Amsterdam without required Storke transfered funds or underwrote insurance for clearancepapers, duties, or the obligatory stop at British Amsterdam voyages, and Waddell Cunningham con- ports. That year there were twelve New York clearances verted bills of exchange on London for Dutch currency for Newfoundland, five or six of which vessels made and credit through Snell in 1756.” SomeNew Yorkers their way to Amsterdamand Rotterdamby the end of the transportedgoods to London, where they disposedof the year; whether two or three of thesewent on to pay duties fiist cargo and acquired a secondone for the jaunt from or smugglethrough British ports, or the vesselswere sold London to Amsterdam. In Amsterdam the captain often is unclear for there is no further record of them; but three sold not only the freight but the vessel as well, placing of the Newfoundland-t+Amsterdam vesselswere filled the return cargoes of less bulk and higher value in the with linen, sailcloth, gunpowder, tea and bricks, which 260 SELECTED RENSSELAERSWIJCK SEMINAR PAPERS

were despatchedback from Amsterdam to New York undermine England’s ascendancyinsisted that “Holland City through Rhode Island cities.” That same year, . . . receives more benefit from the Trade of the Northern 1764, forty-one more vesselscleared for the West Indies Colonies, than Great Britain does.“82Oth,ers referred to than entered from that area; after allowing that the great all commerce which disrupted the status quo with the majority of these vessels smuggled molassesand sugar generic epithet “hollander trade” or “dutchified inter- through New England and Long Island, and that a few ests.“83 Most threatening to colonial authorities, rerouted legally through southern Europe and New however, was not the extent of New York’s trade with England, there were at least three and perhapssix among Amsterdam, for it was never a large trade, but its persis- the forty-one vesselswhich crossedthe Atlantic directly tenceand adaptability; there is no evidence that more tea, for Holland.78 for example, madeits way into New York after 1760,but it was popularly known that Dutch tea was available in Most return voyages were more direct, but probably large quantities at a low cost. often less legal than the outward voyages. New York captains came, for example, through a New England Whether its availability created demand or demand port, especially after “watchdogs” from the British navy motivated the continued liaisons with Holland does not planted themselves outside Sandy Hook in 1756. determine a more important generalization: that English Merchants Luke van Ranst, Rem Rapalje, Jacobus van awareness of the trade’s tenacity, its overlap with the Zant, John van Cortlandt, Isaac Roosevelt, Leonard markets and dry goods trade, and t.he economic Lispenard, Peter Keteltas, David van Horn, and Henry advantagesof Dutch connections, drove late colonial Bogert traded through James Rhodes, William governors to distraction and remained an important issue Molineaux, Solomon Davis, Henry Lloyd, William during New York’s imperial crisis at the end of the Cooper, and John Erving of Boston, all of whom were century. It was in the context of much merchant known smugglers and Dutch importers.79 But other apprehensionthat the Dutch trade would ‘be cut off after routes developed by the 1740sas well, as when a vessel the war that Cadwallader Colden wrote in 1760 about a from Amsterdam bound for New York City registered clamour in New York for “Dutch free tra.de.“84Even at and paid duties on part of the load often listing New York the end of the colonial period some English observers City as a port of call, with the final destination being in and loyal mercantilsts in the colonies believed that the Caribbean, and then proceeding to dump all of the Americans had developed habits of luxury consumption commodities at New York City. For example,Lt. Gover- and political insubordination because of the oppor- nor De Lancey reported in 1758 that merchantsof New tunities provided by “hollander interests.” Indeed, some York and Boston ordered goods from Holland which found that the “Rage and Fury” against imperial rule was they landed at Rhode Island, though the laded port of nosiest among the “Dutchified Patriots.“tl’ destination was St. Johns (Antigua). John Hodgshon was their Amsterdam connection.80 Alternatively, Amster- dam goods were laded for New York City and made the Nevertheless, no matter how out of proportion the obligatory stop at a British port to pay duties; but instead English fears of, or American hopes for [thetrade, what of unloading and reloading the whole cargo, or “breaking remains important are the Dutch images, meanings, and load” as the law required, the Orkney Islands collectors concrete reactions attached to it long after the ships of might illegally clear vessels“by the lump” at very low Dutch and British economic development had crossed duties. The notorious tea trade often operated in this paths, the former a once great trading power now on the fashion.81 decline and the latter indebted for its ascent in part of America to Dutch influences. Indeed, it is possible that The Legacy the language and habits of a “hollander trade”-often Contemporary assessmentsof the trade with Holland interchangeably referred to as “free trade”-helped almost invariably exaggerated how many merchants, American revolutionists discover how their interests how many ships, and what value of goodswere involved. often could be bound more closely witlh the fate of a For example, even in 1752Governor Clinton clung to the traditional enemy than with the goals of their own perception that the traffic to the Low Countries would empire.86 ‘WOLLANDER INTEREST” 261

‘For thesecontrasts see, eg., Violet Barbour, Capitalism early modem period which I explore in my dissertation, in Amsterdam in the Seventeenth Century, (Baltimore: “Fair Trade, Free Trade: Economic Ideas and Oppor- Johns Hopkins University Press, 1950); J.N. Ball, Mer- tunities in Eighteenth-Century New York City Com- chants and Merchandise, The Expansion of Trade in merce” (Ph.D. diss., Columbia University, 1985); see Europe, 1500-1630, (London: Croom Helm, 1977);C.R. chaps. l-2 on the ideological structure of empire. Boxer, The Dutch Seaborne Empire: 1600-1800, (New 3For West Indies statementsin favor of free tradeas they York Knopf, 1965), esp. chap. 2; and D.W. Davies, A thought the Dutch practiced it, see, eg., Answer of Primer of Dutch Seventeenth Century Overseas Trade, Charles Whe[e]ler, Governor of the Leeward Islands, to (The Hague: Nijhoff, 1961), 119-45. Albemarle is the inquiries of the Council for Foreign Plantations, Dec. quoted by C. M. Anhews, The Colonial Period of 9, 1671, Calendar of State Papers, Colonial Series, American History, 4 ~01s. (New Haven: Yale Univ. American and West Indies, 1661-1738, ti. Noel W. Press, 1938,repr. 1964), 4:61. Sainsbury, J.W. Fortescue,and Cecil Headlam, 42 ~01s. ‘English literature discussing the Dutch is extensive and (London: Public Record Office, 1860-1953), 1669- only a few of the seventeenthcentury sourcesare noted 1674,290; (hereaftercited as Cal. State Papers); Petition here. For favorable English views of Dutch accomplish- of the inhabitants of Antigua to Governor Lord ments,seeNicholas Barbon,A Discourse ofTrade, (Lon- Willoughby, ibid., X61-1668,234, where they ask “for don, 1690; reprint Baltimore: Lord Baltimore Press, a grant of free trade”; Petition of the President,Council, 1903). esp. 123; Gerald Malynes, The h4aintenance of and Assembly of Barbadoes,ibid., 1661-1668,29-30; FreeTrade, (London: 1622,reprintNew York: Augustus Petition of the Presidentand Council of Barbadoesto the Kelley, 1971); [Anon.], The Present Interest of England, King, July 10, ibid., 1661,4ti Lord Willoughby to the Stated, (London, 1671); [Anon.], A Discourse, consist- King, Jan. 11, 1663, ibid., 1661-1668, 162; Lord ing ofMotivesfor the Enlargement ofFreedomon Trade, Willoughby to the King, Nov. 41663, ibid., 1661-1668, (London, 1645); and Camw Reynel, The True English 167-68; Propositions of Mr. Kendall, November 1664, Benefit, or an Account of the Chief National Improve- ibid., 1661-1668,253; Grder of the King and Council, ments in Sir Charles Whitworth, ed., Scarce Tracts on November 24,1675, Cal. State Papers, 1574-1674,eL Trade and Commerce 2 ~01s.(London, 1674; repr, Lon- Noel Sainsbury (London: 1893), 303-4; An Account of don, 1778), 1: esp. 14-15. For opposition to the Dutch, His Majesty’s Island of Barbadoesand the Government see Thomas Mun, England’s Treasure by Forraign thereof, 1676, ibid., 1574-1674,34849. Trade, (written 1622; published London, 1664), repr. in See also how Governor Windsor of Jamaica urged Scarce Tracts on Trade and Commerce, 2; Ralph Mad- planters to seek“free commercewith the plantations . . . dison, Great Britain’s Wemembrancer (London, 1665); of Spain and I-Iollandl” despiteinternational rivalries, and Josiah Child, Brief Observations, (London, 1668; try “to admit them to a free trade;” Additional Instruc- reprinted in William Letwin, ed. Sir Josiah Child, Boc tions to Thomas Lord Windsor, Governor of Jamaica, ton: Baker Library of the Harvard Graduate School of April 8, 1662, &I. State Papers, 1661-1668, 85. In Business Administrations, 1959); Roger Coke, A Dis- words reminiscent of Hugo Grotius’s plea for free ships course of Trade, (London, 1670), Part 2; William de and free seas,Lord Willoughby, the governor of Bar- Britaine, The Dutch Usurpation, (London, 1672); Wil- bados,claimed in 1666 that “Free Trade is the life of all liam Petty, Britannia Languens, (London, 1680). Most Colonies*’ and to regulate it as the Navigation Acts did of these early economic tracts can be found in the 2080 was to invite disaster; quoted by H. E. Egerton, A Short reels of microfilm of the-Goldsmiths’-KressLibrary of History of British Colonial Politics, 5th ed., (London: Economic Literature: Resources in the Economic, Methuen, 1918), 76. Social, Business .and Political History of Modern I- Following the second Anglo-Dutch war many English ndustrial Society, pre-180%1850 (Woodbridge, a writers promoted a “‘Free Trade” with the Dutch of Research Publications, 1975-Present). This collection Curacao; see, for example, Lewes Roberts, The mergesthe holdings of the Kress Library at Harvard and Merchant’s Mappe of Compce, (London, 1638), 120. the Goldsmiths’ Library at the University of London. Throughout tbe eighteenth century some writers em- The commercial rivalries and ambivalent sentimentsbe- phasized the desirability of freer trade in the Caribbean tween the Low Countries and England are but one part with reference to Dutch successesthere; see, eg., writ- of the larger context of transatlantic relationships in the ings of JonathanSwift, Daniel Defoe, JosiahTucker, and 262 SELECTED RENSSELAERSWIJCK SEMINAR PAPERS

Adam Smith Of course, the original free trade strain in 7The grant of three ships per year in 1667 and the Caribbeanbecomes a clamor for regulation by about Stuyvesant’sreasonsareatDocumentsRer!ative,m,113- 1713, and mercantilism is dominant from that time for- 15,163&l, 164-65,165-66,175-78, and Minutes of the ward. SeeKlaus Knorr, British Colonial Theories, 1570- Committee of Plantations, Oct. 17, 1667, Cal. State 1850, (Toronto: Univ. of Toronto Press, 1944); and Eric Papers, 1661-1668,511. Seealso, Documents Relative, Williams, Columbus to Castro, (New York: Vintage, III: 178-82. There is no statistical evidence about the 1986), 529. cargoesof these vessels. 4Thomas C. Barrow, Trade and Empire, The British ‘Documents Relative, l11:185,II: 651; Minutes of the Customs Service in Colonial America, 1660-1775, Executive Council of the Province of PJew York, ed. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1967), 21, Victor H. Palsits, 2 ~01s.(Albany: State of New York, 47. For evidence of cargoes going to Amsterdam with 1910), I: 39-40,56-57,64,113,171,194-95; (hereafter Virginia and New England goods, and stops at New cited as Minutes of the Executive Council. Other New Amsterdam, see Journal or Log of Two Voyages from Yorkers who tradedwith the Dutch in the 11670sincluded New Amsterdam to Holland and return, l-1663, Thomas Lovelace, Johannes de Peyster, Cornelius Misc. Mss., Ships-Dutch, New-York Historical Society; Steenwyck, Olaff van Cortlandt, Jacque Cousseau, Documents Relative to the Colonial History of the State Nicholas de Meyer, Frederick and Margaret Philipse, of New York, ed. Edmund B. O’Callaghan and Berthold Cornelius van Ruyven, Thomas Delaval, Johannes van Femow, 15 ~01s.(Albany, NY: The Argus Co., 1856 Brugh. 1887), I: 436-39, 264, II: 4344; (hereafter cited as ‘Documents Relative, III: 164-67, 175-79. Documents Relative); Cal. State Papers, 1661-1668, *“Documents Relative, I: 263, II: 155-56; A Collection 1123; Violet Barbour, Capitalism in Amsterdam, 93n33; of Papershanded in by Mr. Weaver, Septelmber26.1698, C. M. Andrews, Colonial Period, 4:137-38. Adrian van Cal. State Papers, 1697-1698, 455-59. For other der Donck, Description of the New Netherlands, comments hostile to Dutch in New York, see Col. (London 1656; reprint Syracuse: Syracuse University Nicholls to [the Governor and Council of Press,1968), arguesthat the Dutch ought to be “free” of Massachusetts],July?, 1664, Cal. State Papers, 1661- Dutch West India Company regulations in order to 1668,222. prosper. 1‘Colonial Laws of New York from the Year 1664 to the ‘Documents Relative, III: 46. See also Report [of the Revolution, ed., JamesLyon, 5 ~01s.(Albany: J.B. Lyon, Lords of Trade and Plantations], February, 1677, Cal. 1894), I: 24-25, 111-23, 125-28, 137-411.These cita- State Papers, 1677-1680, 15-16; Journal of Lords of tions also indicate some of the vessels trading between Trade and Plantation, Mar. 28, 1678, ibid., 1677-1680, New York City and Amsterdam, some during the third 229-30; Commissioners of Customs to Sir Philip War- Angl&Dutch war. wick, Feb. 12, 1661, Cal. State Papers, 1661-1668, 10; 12SirJohnWerden to Gov. Andros, Sep. 15,1675, Docu- Circular Letter from the King to [the Governors of his ments Relative, III: 233. The eight who refused the oath Majesty’s Plantations], August 25, 1663, ibid., 1661- were: Cornelius Steenwyck, Johannes van Brugh, 1668,155-56; Instructions for Coll. RichardNicolls, Sir Johannesde Peyster,Nicholas Bayard, Eagidius Luyck, Robert Carr, George Cartwright, and Samuel Maverick, William Beekman,Jacob Kip, Antonio de Mill. Seealso, Apr. 23, 1664, ibid., 1661-1668,200; Petition of divers DocumentsRelative, II: 738-44. In 1676 New York City of his Majesty’s subjects trading to the ports of Europe, also began its formal moves to destroy aspects of Jan. 19, 1676, ibid., l&X-1668,337; Order of the King Albany’s economic predominance by creating a city in Council, Mar. 10, 1676, ibid., 1661-1668, 358; customstax monopoly and granting Albany a monopoly Thomas Cole to the Commissioners of Customs, Mar. of the fur trade; Andrews, Colonial Periald, IV: 105-6. 16,1676, ibid., 1661-1668,360. 13Forexample, on the roles of Frederick Philipse and %n 1664 the surrender document of the Dutch in New Stephanusvan Cortlandt in this, seeRobert Ritchie, The Amsterdam stipulated that Dutch trade would continue Duke’s Province, A Study of New York Politics and for at least six months; Documents Relative, II: 251-52. Society, 1664-1691, (Chapel Hill: Univ. of North On freezing Dutch West India Company assets and Carolina Press, 1977), 98; for Nicholas Bayard and Steenwyck, see “New York Colonial Records, General Cornelius Steenwyck, ibid., 267n.26. Prominent Dutch Entries, 1664-1665,” New York State Library, Bulletin, traders in the 1670s included Charleis van Brugge “History,” #2, (Albany: University of the State of New (Bridges), Charles Lodwick, and the Wilsons and York, 1899), 122-23, 133-43, 14849, 183-85. The Darvals, all with London credit and family connections. request for free trade is in Records of New Amsterdam, The Wendells had family members in Amsterdam, ed., BertholdFemow, 7 ~01s.(New York: Knickerbocker Albany, New York and-after about 1683-Boston; see Press,1897), V: 160-61. Wendell Family Papers,New-York Historical Society. “HBLLANDER IN-TEREST” 263

14Documenfs Relative, II: 526, 532, 53942,643,734, Answers of Governor Andros to enquiries about New 739-40; III: 236,329. York, April 16, 1678, Documents Relative, III: 260-62; “For somemention of YohnHains,Thomas Willet, John Minutes of the Common Council, 1:18; Ritchie, The Winder, John Robinson, Caleb Heathcote, Thomas Duke’s Province, 121-23. On Dongan and city Thatcher, Robert Sanford, Abraham Whearly, and merchantsin general seeDongan to William Blathwayt, merchants Griffith, Lloyd, and Robson, seeMinutes of Sep. l&1686, Documents Relative, III: 363-64; Dongan the Common Council of the City of New York, 167% to the Board of Trade, ibid., m: 393-99; Inslructions to 17’76, ed. Herbert Osgood, et al., 8 vols., (New York: John Pdmer, Sep. 8, 1687, ibid., III: 475-77; Gabriele Dodd, Mead & Co., 1905) I: l-2,9,25-26; (hereafter Minvielle to John Werden, 1687, ibid., III: 361; Address cited asMinutesof the Common Council). From 1675-85 of the Mayor and Common Council to the King, 1688, at least fifty merchants entered the city from London, ibid., III: 424-25; Duke of York to Dongan, Aug. 26, Boston, and Barbados; see Curtis Nettels, “Economic 1684, ibid., III: 349-59; Werden to Dongan, Nov. 1, Relations of Boston, Philadelphia, and New York, 1680- 1684,ibid.,m: 351-52.1683 export taxes rose to 9 d. per 1715,” Journal of Economic and Business History, 3 beaver and 10% on dry goods imports; ibid., I: 165-67. (1931), 185-215. See also the case of Lewin, et al. In 1684 the 10% ad valorem tax was extended to all against Andros, and Fletcher’s loans at good interest imports; ibid., I: 170-71. Leisler’s administration from English merchant newcomers, at Journal of the lowered duties to 54% on selected items, which were Legislative Council of the Colony of New York, 1691- continued until 1700; An Account of Her Majesty’s 1775,2 vols., (Albany: Weed, Parsons& Co., 1861), I: Revenue in the Province of New York, 1701-l 709, e&., 35,49,75,85,100,114; (hereaftercited asJournal of the Julius Bloch, et al., (Ridgewood, NJ: Gregg Press,1966), Council); Cakndar of Council Minutes, 1668-1783, edi., intro.; (hereafter cited as An Account of Her Majesty’s Berthold Fernow, New York State Library Bulletin, 2 Revenue); and The Documentary History of the State of ~01s. (Albany: University of the State of New York, New York, ed. E.B. O’Callaghan, 4 ~01s.(Albany: Weed, March 1902), II: 70,84,100,118,125. Parsons & Co., 1849-1851), II: 52, 73, 238, 340, 355; ‘6For Andros’ r ep utation, see, Anthony Brockholls to Documents Relative, III: 270-71, 737-48. Only after Andros, 17 Sep. 1681,DocumentsRelative, III: 211-12, Leisler’s Rebellion was “free bolting” restored (against 233,281; Ritchie, The Duke’s Province, 115-20. Of the English merchants’desires) and import taxes disallow& sevenwealthiest merchantsin 1676only Leisler was not (which they favored). “assimilated” and rejectedAndros’ leadership; seeroles “Andrews, Colonial Period, IV: 114-15; The of Gabriele Minvielle, Johannes de Peyster, James Correspondence of Jeremias Van Rensselaer, 1657- Laurence, and Nicholas Bayard in particular. Some of 1674, e-d.,A.J.F. van Laer, (Albany: University of the the “faze traders” who refusedto pay taxes in 1680-1681 StateofNew York, 1932),26,67,150,376,388,390-91, included M. Nicholls, John Laurence, Henry Be&man, 408, 412-13, 431, 446, 448, 466-72; Minutes of the Schermerhom, Philipse, Van Cortlandt; see Colonial Executive Council, I: 39-40,56-57.64, 113, 171, 194- Laws, I: 111-16. In 1688, Bayard, Van Cortlandt, and 95. On Dutch credit being liberal to the West Indies Philipse were on the opposite side and scornedtax revol- planters, see Lewes Roberts, Merchants’ Mappe, 120. ters like Cornelius Cuyler and Gerard Beekman and On Dutch prices, Documents Relative, 8:480; and Jacob Leisler; seeJerome Reich, Leisler’s Rebellion: A CharlesWolley, A Two Years’ Journal in New York and Study ofDemocracy in New York, (Chicago: University Part of its Territories in America, orig. published, 1701, of Chicago Press,1953), 69-73. The major opposition to ed. Edward 6. Bourne, (Cleveland: Burrows, 190’2), Andros’ alleged support for “free &ade”came from small 29-30. farmers who did not benefit from legislation favoring “Ibid., p. 63; Documents Relative, II: 699-700, IV: 1133; New York City exporters, and newly arrived English John van Cortlandt Shipping Books, Aug. 12, 1699 to merchants who preferred special regulations which June 30, 1702, and 1702-05, New-York Historical would aid their entry into trade in New York City as Society; An Account of Her Majesv’s Revenue, passim.; against “monopolies” of “Dutch” traders in either Al- Leder, Robert R. Livingston, 215,217; Stanley N. Katz, bany or New York City, and who were against taxes in Newcastle’s New York, Anglo-American Politics, all events: seeNettels, “Economic Relations,” 185-215. 1732-l 753, (Cambridge,MA: Be&nap Pressof Harvard For duties from 1674 to 1678, which were 2-3% on Univ. Press,1968), 112-13,208-09; Correspondence of imports and 1 sh. 3 d. on beaver expor& see Colonial Jeremias van Rensselaer, 26,67,150,376,388,390-91, Laws, 1: 116-21. 408, 412-13, 431, 446, 448, 466-72; Minutes of the “Colonial Laws, I: 24-25, 111-123, 125-28, 137-41. Executive Comcil, I: 3940, 56-57, 64, 81, 110, 113, For a 10% ad valorem tax passed in Dongan’s ad- 171,194. ministration, seeColonialLaws, I: 170-7 1.For Dongan’s “Documents Relative, IJI: 183; Lt.-Col. Edward belief that his policies were a success by 1685, see Thomburgh to the Assembly of Barbadoes, April 1. 264 SELECTEDRENSSELAERSWIJCKSEMINAR PAPERS

1673, Cal. State Papers, 1669-1674, 475; Documents EarlyNew York, (TarrytownNY: SleepyH:ollow, 1979), Relative, III: 352,393. 1654, at 37-38. Robert R. Livingston and Stephanus 21Correspondence of Jeremias Van Rensselaer, 376, van Cortlandt were early victuallers, and long assimi- 388,390-91,408,412-13.466-72. lated; in 1692-95 they both defeatedthree non-assimilat- ing Dutch in Albany who wanted provisioning contracts: 22Answersof Governor Andros to enquiries about New Kilian van Rennselaer,Levinus van Schaick, and Dirk York, 16 April 1678, Documents Relative, III: 260-62; Wessels.See Leder, Robert R. Livingston, 68-70. Minutes of the Common Council, I: 18 27For example, Public Records Office, E 190:644/2 23Lawrence Leder, Robert R. Livingston, 1654-l 728, (Dec. 1677, the Rebecca): 117/l (Apr. 1683, the and the Politics of Colonial New York, (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press for the Institute of Blossom); SO/l, 841/3, $3419; and An Account of Her Majesty’s Revenue, intro. The numbers of Amsterdam Early American History and Culture of Williamsburg, tradersbefore and after 1690are basedupon my prelimi- VA, 1961), 24,37-38. nary gleanings from myriad colonial sources; see 24An Account of Her Majesty’s Revenue, intro.; Patricia Matson, “Fair Trade, Free Trade,” chap. 3-6. Bonomi, A Factious People, Politics and Society in Colonial New York, (New York: Columbia University 2sThe Livingston-Redmund Mss., Hyde Park, New Press,1971), 60-68.. York, show evidence for R. R. Livingston’s shipments in the 1690s and his dealings with Albany-area 25JohannesKerfbyl to Abraham de Peyster,Oct. 3.1690, merchants; in the collection see, “Freight List of the Nov. 20, 1690, De Peyster Papers, 1690-1710, New- Brigantine Robert, Dec. 3, 1694.” Also, Jonathan York Historical Society, 29-30; Gov. Fletcher to Board Pearson,transl., Early Records of the City (and County of of Trade, 24 Dec. 1698,DocumentsRelative, IV: 443-51; Albany and Colony of Rensselaer, Deeds, 1678-l 704, Barbour, Capitalism in Amsterdam, 20-21,95-96. (Albany: Univ. of the Stateof New York, 1916), 324, for 26Governor Fletcher to William Blathwayt, Sep. 10, a mention of “free trade” to Amsterdam in 1687 and the 1692, Documents Relative, III: 846; Board of Trade’s New York City merchants’ “monopoly” of export busi- Report on the Northern Colonies, Sep. 3,1696, ibid., IV: ness.The referencecould have been to New York City’s 227-28; Fletcher to Blathwayt, Mar. 8,1693, Cal. State “great merchants,” Cornelius Cuyler, Stephen de Lan- Papers, 1693,#179; Report from the New York Council cey, and Frederick Philipse. For the efforts to keep duties Minutes, Apr. 14, 1693, ibid., 1693, #274. Fletcher low during the 169Os,see An Account of AYerMajesty’s favored this hardening core of English merchants with Revenue, intro. land grants and allowed piracy to flourish in New York. 29RobertLiv’ in gston to William Blathwayt, ibid., 123- For the land grants, see Documents Relative, IV: 191, 24; Documents Relative, III: 846, IV: 29, 33, 159, 172, 1045,III: 230; Minutes of the Common Council, I: 25-26, 183. For the voyages to the Far East, Commissioners of 29-37, 50-62; Proceedings of the General Court of the Customsto the Lords of the Treasury, Nov. 16,1696, Assizes, 1680-1682, New-York Historical Society Cal. State Papers, 16961697,213-15. Collections, XLV (New York: NYHS, 1912), 8-17.24. 30DocumentsRelative, III: 846.1~: 29,33,159,172,183. The English merchants involved were: John Robinson, William Pinhome, and Edward Anthill, all soon to be 31Van Schaick Papers,Box 1, 1696, New York Public prominent dry goods importers, and other English Library; Leder, Robert R. Livingston, 49,77-95, where importers, including Samuel Wilson, John Young, there is evidence that he traded directly with merchants Thomas Willett, Thomas Hicks, John Jackson, Richard Harwood and Blackall of London, and thalt Fletcher had Stillwell, John West, John Laurence, Samuel Moore, shares in the Dutch voyaging vessels in 1692; and William Darvall, and John Delavall. See also note 15 Wolley, A Two Years Journal, 59. above. 32Bellomont to the Lords of Trade, 1700, Documents When Combury becamegovernor, he granted a renewal Relative, IV: 792. For evidence of importing Dutch goods of the bolting monopoly :from 1702-04, but did not in 1702-03, see Miller Papers, Abraham de Peyster necessarilyfavor the Dutch trade;Reich, Leisler’sRebel- Papers,and Abraham .Wendell Papers,all at New-York lion, 164. It is also clear from Leder’s study of military Historical Society. As Leder points.out, while-Bellomont contracting that governors used the interest-bearing .hopedto impose and enforce duties and regulations upon loans and opportunities to profit from victualling com- all dity merchantsin mercantile fashion, his complaints mission as a prerogative power, and that Cornbury, against ‘tfree ,trade*’and “Dutchified” commerce were Hunter, Bumet and Cosby did not dispensethese favors matchedby his attacksagainst the assimilalted,Dutchand to Dutch tradersor merchantswho had not “assimilated” New England merchants with land grants or special into the English structure of the city; Lawrence Leder, commercial privileges too. Also, Bellomont’s council “Military Victualling in Colonial New York,” in Joseph was neither Leislerian nor Fletcherian, .but moderate. R. Frese and Jacob Judd, eds., Business Enterprise in Generally, though, Leder concludes that tlhe“Dutch” on “WOLLANDER INTEWEST” 265 the Council and Assembly are contrary to Bellomont’s ml Society, Collections, III: Clarendon Papers (New plans, including merchants Van Sweeten,Hansen, and York: New-York Historical Society, 1869), 126-28. See Van Brugh; Leder, Robert R. Livingston, 170-73. also Barbour, Capitalism in Amsterdam, 21, Andrews, 33The merchants in this illicit trade network included Colonial Period, IV: 114; and Matson, “Fair Trade, Free Robert R. Livingston, John L. Livingston, SamuelVetch, Tradee,”chap. 4. Onzee van Sweeten, Levinus van Schaick, Micajah 41Answer of Sir Charles Whe[e]ler, Governor of the Perry, Margaret Schuyler, Jacobus van Cortlandt, and Leeward Islands, to the inquiries of the Council for threelessermennamedBarbarie,Pero,andIVIarquis.The Foreign Plantations, CQ~.State Papers, 1669-l 674,290; English (and some French) participants included hdrews, Colonial Period, IV, 24-28, esp. 28. merchants Caleb FIeathcote, Philip French, Thomas 4%heseDut ch practices also stand in contrast to English Wenham, Dirk Wessels, David Jamison, and Peter ones,where more capital is going into government loans Fauconnier and one named Vesey. The vessels were or “‘vertical integration” of new manufactures, and Catharine, Industry, and Dove. See Leder, Robert R. merchants remain relatively non-specialized. See, eg., Livingston, 174-75, 181; and An Account of Her Report of the British Board of Trade and Plantations, Majesty’s Revenue, passim. November 1702, Mss., New York Public Library; Lord 3keport of Robert &u-y to the Board of Trade, April 6, Cornbury to the Board of Trade, 1702, Documents 1708, Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Relative, IV: 1003; Edmund Randolph to the Board of Society, ser. 2, IV, (Boston: IvIassachusettsHistorical Trade, CO. 323:2, #6; Randolph to the Board of Trade, Society, I887-9), 149-55, at 152. Cal. State Papers, 1696,214: [?I to the Board of Trade, 35HarmanusVeening [of Amsterdam] to Rutger Bleeck- ibid., 1669, 487, 553; Jacob Judd, “Gleanings from a er, May 5,1707; June 16,1708; Apr. 49,1709; June 15, Captain’s Letters,” New-York Historical Society 1710, Bleecker-Collins-Abeel Papers,New York Public Quarterly, 52 (%968),270-74; and Barbour, Capitc2lism Library. in Amsterdam, 2 l-23. 36Documents Relative, IV: 792. “3Cadwallader Colden, The Interest of the Colony in Laying Duties: or A Discourse, Skewing how Duties on 37Leder,Robert R. Livingston, 84-85. The Dutch were Some Sorts of Merchandise may make the Province of RobertR. Livingston, Stephanusvan Cortlandt, Nicholas /dew-I’ork Richer, (New York:1726); Charles M. Bayard, Gabrielle Minvielle, Frederick Philipse, Philip I-Iough, Reports of Cases in the Vice Admiralty of the Schuyler, and Charles Lodwock; the English were Province of New York and in the Court of Admiralty of Graham and Lewis Morris. Blathwayte went on to say the State of New York, 1715-17&I, (New Haven: Yale that Englishmen J. Dudley, William Pinhorne, and University Press, I925), 64-65; and Matson, “Fair Richard Townley were of rising influence, and that John Trade, Free Trade,” chaps. 3 and 4. Lawrence and Thomas Johnson were among other English “wretches” of no money or influence. “%ollan to the Board of Trade, Feb. 26, 1743, CO. S/883, Ee87; &-row, Trade and Empire, 153. 38An Account of Her Majesty’s 1ZevetrtJe,passim; Thomas Archdeadon, Mew York City, 1664-l 710: Con- “‘See correspondenceof William van Nuys for 1716, and guest arnd Change, (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, the Cuylers, Ten Eycks, Van der I-Ieydens,and Wendells 1976), 4850. For New York City shipping to Amster- for the %72Os,all at the New-York Historical Society; dam, 1706-16, seeC. 0.5/1051.) Bb98. A similar rise in Bellomont to the Lords of Trade, Nov. 28, 1700, proportions of all West Indies Bade,and New York City DocumentsRelotive, IV: 790; Hunter to Mr. Popple, Apr. involvement in West Indies-Amsterdam trade may have 9, 1715, Ccal. State Papers, 1714-1715, 144; IVIr. been the case, although the evidence is inconclusive: Secretary Stanhopeto the Council of Trade and Planta- ibid. From mid-1715 to mid-1718,85 of 645 clearances, tions, Jan. 15, 1715, ibid., 69-70; Council of Trade and or 13% of New York’s voyages were legal ones to Plantations to Governor Hunter, June 22, 1715, ibid., foreign ports; CO. 324/10, at 386-87. 208-210; An Account of Her Majesty’s Revenue, intro; Documents Relative, m: 475-77; Robert Ritchie, 39%)ublicRecords Office, E 190/80/l, fols. 87-89; E “London IvIemhants, The New York IvIarket, and the 117/l (April 1683,theBlossom), E 644/Z (Dec. 1677,the Recall of Sir Edmund Andros,” New York History, 57 Rebecca). Also, E 190 841/3, 834/9. Some of these (Jan. 1976), 530. Thomas Norton, The Fur Trade in traders, including Philipse, Barbarie, and Stephen de Colonial New York, 1686-1776, (Wladison: Univ. of Lancey, were also in the African pirate trade; Robert R. Livingston and Abraham de Peyster are relatively new Wisconsin Press, 1974), 102,109, says that the trade to Amsterdam halted with enumeration; the evidence entrants in this trade; seeRitchie, The Duke’s Province, offered in this essaydiffers from his point of view. On a 194. dispute which developed between John Lewis and 40SamuelMaverick Letter to London,New-I’orkPlistori.= Cornelius Cuyler, and on the sizesof their shipments,see 266 SELECTED RENSSELAERSWIJCK SEMINAR PAPERS

Minutes of the Common Council, I: l-2,9,25-26. Historical Society. 4eRobertHunter to theBoardofTrade, 1714,Documents 520n the 172Os,see Norton, The Fur TPQ&, 84-5; C.O. Relative, V: 462; Cal. State Papers, 1706-1708, 671; 5/1224; Barrow, Trade and Empire, 151. On the 1730’s ibid., 17 11-1712, 439; Andrews, Colonial Period, see New York Gazette, Oct. 1, 1739, R.obert Sanders Iv: 104-05. Letter Book, Sanders Account Book, and Cornelius 470n West Indies smuggling via the Dutch since at least Cuyler Letter Book, all at the American Antiquarian the 158Os,see D. W. Davies,A Primer ofDutch Overseas Society. Trade, (The Hague: Nijhoff, 1961). On the rise of the 53Thebest records of entrancesand clearancesare in the Dutch in the Caribbean in general, see Comelis C. New York Gazette, 1724-1731, 1737-1’764; and C.O. Goslinga, The Dutch in the Caribbean and on the Wild 5:1222-23, 1225-26. On international connections, see Coast, 1580-1680, (Gainesville: Univ. of Florida Press, William Roberts, III, “Samuel Storke: ,4n Eighteenth 1971). For British responses, see n. 3 above. For an Century London Merchant Trading to the American excellent example of New York trade with the Dutch in Colonies,” Business History Review, 39 (;1965), 147-70. the Caribbean and Amsterdam, an involved set of 54Charles Lodwick Papers, New-Yolrk Historical relationships even in the early years of the eighteenth Society. century, see Philip van Cortlandt Letterbook, 1713- 55New YorkGazette, 1724-1731,1737-1764; Cornelius 1722, New-York Historical Society (microfilm copy at Cuyler Letter Book, 1729-1756, American Antiquarian the Univ. of Tennessee,Hoskins Library). Society; John Ludlow, Account Book, Vol. l-2, New- 48Comelius Cuyler to Richard Jeneway,Jan. 13, 1728; York Historical Society; Philip Livingston Business to SamuelBaker, Apr. 11,173O; to John Cruger, Aug. 3, Letters, 1734-1739, American Antiquarian Society; 24, Oct. 16, 1731, Cuyler Letter Book, American John Alsop Letters, New-York Historical Society; Antiquarian Society. L.eder,RobertR. Livingston, 125-26; William Alexander 49Journuf of the Votes and Proceedings of the General to John de Neufville, Jan. 14,1755, and Mar. 19,1758, Assembly of the Colony of New-York. . .1691. . .1765, Alexander Papers,Vol. 2, New-York Historical Society: I: 538-39,544; (hereafter cited as Journaf of the Assem- Christopher Bancker, Waste Book, entries for 1754, bly); Colonial Laws, II: 281-94,35071,401,485,537, New-York Historical Society; Philip Cuyler Letter 553; David Armour, “The Merchants of Albany, New Book, New-York Historical Society. An intriguing argu- York, 1686-1760,” Ph.D. Dissertation, Northwestern ment that the West Indies was vital to Anglo-American University, 1965,175-76. trade,and that the Dutch in the West Indies were integral “See miscellaneous entries listed in “Ships” file, New- to imperial interests,is at New York Gazelte, July 24,3 1, York Historical Society: Jacob Wendell, Letterbook, Aug. 2,9,20,1732. New-York Historical Society; Peter and Robert 56Archibald Kennedy to the Board of Trade, Jan. 10, Livingston, Jr., Letterbook, Museum of the City of New 1738, C.O. 5/1059; Archibald Kennedy, Esq. vs. Sloop York; and Miscellaneous Manuscripts, New York State h!QPgQPet & bfQPJ’, 1739, c.0. 5/1059, fol. 132-33; Library. The latter gives evidence that Livingston’s busi- Joseph Goldenberg, Shipbuilding in Colonial America, ness with Samuel Storke alternated between legal and (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1976), illicit voyages. 20-21, 100-05. On dyewoods and Honduras or St. Eustatius shipments, see C.O. 3/51-75; 390/9, B6-B7; ‘*Davies, Dutch Overseas Trade, chap. 12; Leder, Abraham Keteltas Account Book, 1744-1761, John Robert R. Livingston, 37-38,90 n.35; Richard Sheridan, Keteltas Correspondence, 1761-1769, Samuel Gilford Sugar and Slavery, An Economic History of the British Correspondence, and Peter du Bois Accounts, all at West. Indies, (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University New-York Historical Society. Press, 1974), 45-48; and Richard Pares, Yunhes and Creoles, The Trade Between North America wad the West 57Virginia Harrington, The New York Merchant on the Indies before the American Revolution, (Cambridge, Eve of the Revolution, (New York: Columbia University MA: Harvard University Press, 1956), 19. For specific Press,1935). 222-23. casesof West Indies-New York trade in the seventeenth 5sFor example, Robert R. Livingston Papers, Reel 1, century, see, eg., Documents Relative, II: 746-56, III: Nicholas Gouvemeur Correspondence, John Cruger 385; Cal. State Papers, 1661-1668,47,295; ibid., 1669- Letters, Correspondence of Richard and Robert Ray, 1674,226,295; John van Cortlandt Shipping Book, Aug. Misc. Manuscripts, Francis Lewis Correspondence, 12,1699 to June 30,1702, New-York Historical Society; 1751-1786, Abraham Keteltas Account Book, 1744- Abraham de PeysterPapers, 1695-1710, New-York His- 1761, all at the New-York Historical Society. For torical Society. For Van Nuys and Wendell, seeWilliam evidence of a Dutch ship which smuggled sugar through van Nuys [of Amsterdam] to Evert Wendell, July 4, South Carolina and Jamaica in 1748, and traded with 1716, Ever-t Wendell Ledger, 1711-1738, New-York New York on some voyages, sex?Barrow, Trade and “HOLLANDER INTEREST” 267

Empire, 146,151,166. Beekmans, 33 1. 5gPhilip Livingston Letters, Museum of the City of New 67Johnvan Cortlandt to David Purviance [of Martini- York. que], 15 Dec. 1672, John van Cortlandt Letter Book, @Philip Livingston to Robert Livingston, Mar. 25, Apr. New York Public Library: Gregg and Cunningham to 21, June 10, 1724, and Philip Livingston to and from William Woodbridge, July 4, 1756, Letterbook, New- Isaac Gomez [of Cura9ao], 1725, Philip Livingston York Historical Society; Wilson, Anglo-Dutch Com- Letters, Museum of the City of New York; Robert merce, chap. 6. §anders, Letter Book, 1750-1758, and Invoice Book, 6%VaddellCunningham to Thomas Greg, 11 Dec. 1756, “Exports”, New-York Historical Society; Cornelius and Greg and Cunningham to William Snell and Co. [of Cuyler to David van Brugh, May 31, 1736; to John London], June 4, 1756, Letter Book of Greg and Cun- Livingston, 1735; to and from John Cuyler, 1749-50, ningham, New-York Historical Society. Letter Book, American Antiquarian Society; Gerard 69JoshuaGee to the Council of Trade and Plantations, Bleecker to and from David Munville [of Barbados],and Oct. 27, 1721, Cal. State Papers, 1720-1721,470-75, to Hendricke Ten Eyck, Jan. 1729, Box 1, Bleecker esp. 474; David Macpherson, Annals of Commerce, Papers,New York Public Library. Manufactures, Fisheries, and Navigation, 4 vols., (Lon- 6tRobertSanders,VoyageBook, 1748-1756,New-York don, 1805). IIX 164-66; Francis Lewis Correspondence, Historical Society. 1751-1786; Hugh Wallace, Letters; John Alsop @For example, on the 1720ssee Misc. Iv&s., New-York Correspondence, 1733-1794; Charles Nicoll, Account Historical Society; C.O. 511224; Barrow, Trade and Books; Walter and Samuel Franklin Correspondence; Empire, 151. On the 1730ssee Robert Sanders,Account John Waddell Correspondence, all at the New-York Book, New-York Historical Society; Cornelius Cuyler, Historical Society. Merchants could also voyage from Letter Book, American Antiquarian Society; William T. New York City to the West Indies and on to Amsterdam, Baxter, The House of Hancock: Business in Boston, where cargo and vessel both were sold; Goldenberg, 1724-l 775, (Cambridge,MA: HarvardUniversity Press, Shipbuilding, 20-21,100-05. 1945), 72-73,90-91; Roberts, “Samuel Storke,” 147- ‘()Robert.s,“Samuel Storke,” 147-70. 70. 71PhilipCuyler to John Hodshon, 17 Jan. 1758;to father, 63Edmund and Josiah Quincy to Thomas and Adrian 3 Dec. 1759, Philip Cuyler Letter Book, New York Hope, 1745, C.0, 323/K&113; Christopher Bancker, Public Library. Waste Book, 1754, New-York Historical Society; John 72 Important examples of dealing with the five Dutch W. Tyler, “The First Revolution: Boston Merchants and fiis include John Ludlow Letter Book, 1755-1756, the Acts of Trade, 1760-1774,” Ph.D. Dissertation, American Antiquarian Society; Abraham Cuyler Letter Princeton, 1980, 36; Charles Henry Wilson, Anglo- Book, Alexander Papers, Vol. 1, and Christopher Qutch Commerce and Finance in the Eighteenth Cen- Bancker, Waste Book, 1754, all at the New-York tury, (Cambridge: The University Press, 1941), chap. Historical Society. See also Robert Sanders Letters to 6-7. and from John and William van der Grift [of Amster- %or the 1740ssee Lord John, Earl of Sheffield, Obser- dam], Robert SandersVoyage Book, 1748-1756, New- vations on the Commerce of the American States, With York Historical Society. Sandersshared these ventures Europe and the West Kndies, 6th ed., (London, 1784), with Robert and Richard Ray of New York City. 234; ThomasPownall, The Administration of the British 73GovemorHardy to the Board of Trade, July 15.1757, Colonies.4th ed., (London, 1764),5ff.; DocumentsRela- C.O. 5/1068, fol. 30-33; George Clinton to the Board of tive, V: 686; VI: 154-55, VII: 162, 215, 612, WI: 255. Trade,Gct. 4,1752, CO. 5/1064, fol. 14447. Specific examplesof theseintricate and varying voyages ‘%-row, Trade and Empire, 149-50. in the %74Os-1750scan be found in the correspondence cited in the seven preceding notes. 75JohnSherburne [of Portsmouth] to John Reynell, 15 Mar. 1760, Coates-Reynell Papers,Box 11~Historical 65Philip White, The Beekmans of New York in Bolitics Society of Pennsylvania; Pares, Yankees and Creoles, and Commerce, 1647-1877, (New York: New-York 148-49; Gerard 63.Beekman to Adam Schoales,9 Sep. Historical Society, 1956), citing Gerard G. Beekman to 1760, Beekman Letter Book, New-York Historical and from Mr. Townshend, May 18,1761,27ln. and the Society. Daybook, 1756-57,297-98; on John de Neufville, 3&l- 8.5;on the Havana and St. Eustatius trade through New ‘9yler, “The First Revolution”, 68. York,281,298,401-02;andontradeafter 1764,46466, ” e.0. 511225-1226;New York Gazette, entrance and 472. clearancenotices for 1764. Barrington, New York Merchant, 250-52; White, The 78C.0. 5:1225-1226. A similar imbalance in entrances 268 SELECTED RENSSELAERSWIJCK SEMINAR PAPERS and clearancesobtained in 1768,1769, and 1770. up against Cosby, Montgomerie, Johnson, Clarke, and “Tyler, “TheFirstRevolution,” 17,36,50,190,343-44; Clinton were Oliver and Stephende Lancey, John Watts, Lt. Governor de Lancey to the Board of Trade, Jan. 5, and someAlbany merchants. 1758, C.O. 5/1068, fol. 160-62. *“‘P,” Providence Gazette, Jan. 21,1764. *(%or example, Cornelius Cuyler, Letter Book, 1752- 84CadwalladerColden to his son, The Co/den Letters on 1764, American Antiquarian Society; Abraham Yates, Smith’s History, 1759-l 760, New-York Historical Papers,Box 1, 1760, New York Public Library; Chris- Society, Collections, I (New York: New-York Historical topher Bancker, WasteBook, May 11,23, Aug. 24,1752, Society, 1868), 183-84. New-York Historical Society; Lt. Governor de Lancey %ondon Public Advertiser, Jan. 26, 1775; Address of to the Board of Trade, Jan. 5, 1758, C.O. 5/1068, fol. the People of GreatBritain to the Inhabitants ofAmerica, 160-62. (London, 1775), 5. *lEdmund and Josiah Quincy [of Boston] to Capt. %or an example of the enduring ties to Amsterdam up Sinclair, Apr. 10, 1745, C.O. 323/13, fol. 179-80. to and during the American Revolution, seeJohn Alsop 82GovemorGeorge Clinton to the Board of Trade, Oct. Correspondence, 1733-1794, New-York Historical 4, 1752, C.O. 5/1064, fol. 14447; New York Gazette, Society. See also -Matson, “Fair Trade, Free Trade,” Oct. 1,1739; Norton, The Fur Trade, 176,208-10. Lined chap. 7 and conclusion.