2 The Patriot Revolt (1780-1787) On 21 April 1787, a large crowd assembled on the Dam, the main square of Amsterdam, 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 regents 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 ideas, which did challenge the local corporate framework. Important Patriot publications, such as Grondwettige herstelling van Nederlands Staatswezen (1784-’86) (Constitutional Restoration of the Dutch State) and especially Bedenkingen over het aanstellen van regenten in een vrij gemeenebest (1786) (Thoughts on the Appointment of Regents in a Free Commonwealth), proposed a liberalisation of the economic and political system of the Republic. Moreover, even though the Patriot revolutionaries organised themselves, as we will see, according to the corporate categories of regents and burghers, within the Patriot societies and exercise associations new egalitarian forms of interaction and debate were developed.4 Nevertheless, these new ideas and practices, which potentially made a more far-reaching democratisation of the Dutch political system possible, were not reflected in the actual political reforms as they were introduced by the Patriot revolutionaries. This chapter investigates how these apparently contradictory developments were combined. Elite Conflict The Patriot Revolt started out as a traditional elite conflict. It was triggered by the War of American Independence. This war, which took place in the late 1770s, soon pulled in other states, such as France and Spain, which supported the American claims. The Republic was also forced to choose sides, since the British government tried to prohibit the trade in military goods with either the American States, or France. This, in turn, caused internal Dutch conflicts, especially between the Amsterdam government and Stadholder William V. William, who was related to the English King, was willing to abide by the wishes of the British government, which in previous decades had become an ally of the Republic.5 The Amsterdam government was less complacent. The regents saw great trading opportunities with an independent America. The American rebels already bought, much to the chagrin of the British, a large part of their weapons from Amsterdam merchants. To the Amsterdam government, the War of American Independence seemed an opportunity to restore the city’s leading position in world trade, as it damaged the position of the British competitor. Hence, it refused to cooperate with the British demands. Instead, it entered into secret negotiations with the Americans. A few years later, the Amsterdam governors defended these talks by arguing that envious neighbouring powers were constantly trying to 2 GAA, arch. Bicker (arch. nr. 195) inv. nr. 310 (Concept reglement op de regeering der stad Amsterdam). 3 Prak, Republikeinse veelheid, 195-96; W.Ph. Te Brake, Regents and Rebels: the Revolutionary World of an Eighteenth-Century Dutch City (Oxford: Blackwell, 1989), 98; Concept-Reglement op de regeerings bestelling van de provintie Utrecht (Utrecht: B. Wild, 1784). 4 Van Sas, De metamorfose van Nederland, 246-8. 5 Israel, 1096. The Democratic Paradox 39 undermine the Republic. Consequently, city magistrates had seen it as their duty to use the opportunity, and negotiate with the Americans over a treaty of trade and friendship.6 As the efforts of the Stadholder to force the city into compliance clearly failed, the relationship between the Republic and Great Britain quickly deteriorated. Finally, at the end of 1780, Great Britain declared war after the secret negotiations between the Amsterdam government and the American States were uncovered.7 The Fourth Anglo-Dutch War (1780-84) shook the Dutch domestic political relations. It could do so for three main reasons. First, the clash between the Amsterdam elite and the Stadholder, during the events leading up to the war, divided the Dutch elite into opposing camps. Both camps tried to blame the other for the conflict. For example, in November 1780, a pamphlet was published, which maintained that the ambitions of the Amsterdam governors had undermined the bond with ‘our natural ally’.8 In response, another pamphlet argued that the true system of Amsterdam is, and will always be, to maintain and increase the good relations and friendship with England, as well as France, without sacrificing the freedom and independence of the state to the opinions of one or the other empire.9 This public debate continued in the years following the outbreak of hostilities.10 Second, the Anglo-Dutch War also confirmed that the Republic was in a deep economic, financial, and military crisis. The Dutch navy proved no match for the British fleet. In the first month of the war, the British navy and privateers seized more than 200 vessels, paralyzing Dutch trade. In the following months, the British continued to capture several colonial settlements, further hampering the trading empire of the Republic. These disasters set off a general debate about the political organisation of the Republic, which further intensified the struggle within the elite. Third, this elite struggle quickly turned into a broad revolt, as the War of American Independence inspired a public discussion on freedom and popular sovereignty.11 Initially, the political struggle did not seem very different from the previous encounters between the Stadholderian and Republican elite groups in 1672, and 1748, except for the fact that the Stadholderian elites were now on the defensive. As in the lead- 6 GAA, arch. Backer (arch. nr. 172) inv. nr. 722 (Missive of the Burgomasters to the States of Holland, 20 October 1780). 7 Nationaal Archief (NA), arch. Staten Generaal (arch. nr. 1.01.03) Secrete Resoluties nr. 4513, 1780; J.W. Schulte Nordholt, The Dutch Republic and American Independence (London: University of North Carolina Press, 1982), 150-56. 8 onze natuurlijke bondgenoot (Eene gepaste aanspraak aan ‘t volk van Nederland in ‘t algemeen, en aan de inwoonders der stad Amsterdam in ‘t byzonder (Rotterdam, 1780), 5). 9 het waarachtige Systema van Amsterdam eeniglyk en alleen is, en altoos zyn zal, de goede verstandhouding en vriendschap zo wel van Engeland als van Vrankryk te bewaaren, en zo veel mogelyk aan te kweeken, zonder echter de vryheid en onafhangkelykheid van den staat aan de inzichten van een of ander Ryk op te offeren (H.