2 The Patriot Revolt (1780-1787)

On 21 April 1787, a large crowd assembled on the Dam, the main square of , and occupied the town hall. It demanded that the city government would give the people a greater say in the appointment of public officers, and that the who opposed this would be discharged. In a petition to the magistrates the crowd declared that

the fatal source of the disasters that befall the country must not only be sought in the increase of power and influence of the Stadholder, but also, and primarily in a lack of a beneficial constitutional relations between the burghers and their representatives.1

The petition was issued in response to a proposal of the city of Haarlem to make the government of Holland more representative. The dominant group among the Amsterdam regents had opposed this proposal, by frustrating its discussion in the States of Holland. In April 1787, the revolutionary section of the Amsterdam population finally intervened and forced the city government to comply with its demands. In the following months, the local administration was reformed, and a plan was made for a new representative system, which should have given the Amsterdam inhabitants the right to elect their governors and burgher representatives. The events that took place in Amsterdam, in the spring and summer of 1787, were part of a larger contentious episode, known as the Patriot Revolt (1780 – 1787). The term ‘Patriot’ refers to a broad revolutionary movement that was active from about 1782 onwards, and became politically dominant in large parts of the Republic from 1784 until the fall of 1787. During this period, popular revolts, as in Amsterdam, took place in many of the major cities of the Republic. The Stadholder, William V, was in some provinces relieved of a large part of his political authority. In Holland, he lost virtually all his influence. Many of the Holland towns also experienced intense popular contention. The Patriot Revolt ended with the invasion of the Prussian army, which led to the restoration of the Stadholderian regime in the fall of 1787. Considering the Patriot reforms in more detail, it is especially striking that they strongly affirmed the decentralised, particularistic organisation of the early modern Republic. For example, the Amsterdam plan for a new representative system stated that all future Councillors and Burgomasters had to be members of the Reformed Church, and local citizens for at least seven years. Similar criteria were established for future members of the new burgher committee, which was given the explicit task to guard the rights and privileges of the urban community. And, although the electorate was not as strictly defined, future voters did have to be inhabitant of Amsterdam for over six years, and pay at least 150

1 de nootlottige bron van ‘s lands rampen niet eeniglyk te zoeken is in de ver boven deszelfs waare bedoeling toegenomen magt en invloed van het stadhouderschap; maar ook, en wel voornamelyk, in het gebrek aan een heilzaam en constitutioneel verband tusschen de burgheryen en hunne vertegenwoordigers (GAA, arch. Backer (arch. nr. 172) inv. nr. 726 (Gedrukte stukken betreffende de gebeurtenissen van 1787 te Amsterdam: Petition of the Burghers to the Burgomasters and Council of Amsterdam, 21 April 1787).

38 2 The Patriot Revolt (1780-1787) guilders in taxes.2 Comparable representative systems were introduced by Patriot revolutionaries in other Dutch cities, such as Den Bosch, Deventer, and Utrecht.3 Although these reforms entailed a democratisation of local government, since they gave, at least, the privileged part of the population a substantial political influence, they did not challenge the local corporate state structure of the Republic. In this sense, the democratisation process was limited, as it excluded the majority of the population from political power. However, at the same time, the Patriot Revolt introduced new practices and