The Failure of the Dutch Free Ports in the Nineteenth Century: Commerce, Colonialism and the Constitution

ABSTRACTIn the 1820s and 1830s, two debates about free ports took place in the United Kingdom of the Netherlands. One debate concerned domestic fiscal policy and the regulation of foreign trade. In this debate the legacies of the political economic thought of Gijsbert Karel van Hogendorp and the mid eighteenth-century debate on turning the Dutch Republic into a limited free port were played out. The first Dutch debate on free ports was a response to changing conditions in global trade and a further attempt to regain the old staple market and connect it to an industrialising national economy. The other debate concerned the establishment of the Dutch Trade Company (Nederlandse Handels Maatschappij) and the declaration of a series of overseas free ports in the years after the British seizure of Singapore and its ratification in 1824. This second debate concerned the modernisation of colonial trade to halt the expansion of British commercial settlements in and around the Dutch East Indies as well as in the Caribbean. Together these debates represented the national challenge to put the entire Dutch economy on a new foundation and reflected differing constitutional perspectives that had pitted liberals against patriots since the late eighteenth century.KEYWORDS: Free portsDutch United KingdomDutch trade companySingaporeCuraçaoDutch East Indies Disclosure StatementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Notes1 Hogendorp, Coup d’Oeil. For insight in his colonial career see Hogendorp, Willem van Hogendorp.2 On the Belgian Revolution, Marteel, The Intellectual Origins.3 Hogendorp, Beschouwing: “Door dit werk oorspronkelijk in de Fransche taal op te stellen, was ook het oogmerk des Schrijvers hoofdzakelijk, de bewoners der toenmalige zuidelijke provinciën des Rijks, die veelal met de Nederlandsche taal weinig bekend waren, aangaande onze koloniale zaken eenigermate in te lichten.” The Dutch edition appeared in 1833 in Amsterdam, with the same publisher that also published Hogendorp, Tafereelen.4 Hogendorp, Beschouwing, 529.5 “Bijzonderheden nopens Riouw”.6 Fermin, Dutch settlements; Hogendorp, Beschouwing, 530.7 The main literature on the NHM is De Graaf, Handel en Maatschappij; Mansvelt, Geschiedenis. See also Klein, “Op de klippen” and recently Schrauwers Merchant Kings. Of special interest amongst numerous pamphlet sis also is also Tydeman, Nederlandsche Handel-Maatschappij.8 Ahead of an exploding historiography was Oostindie, De parels en de kroon. A recent contribution of note is Allen et al, Staat en slavernij.9 Koekkoek et al, The Dutch Empire.10 Published in The Hague in 1751 in the form of a pamphlet, which also appeared immediately in English, Hope, Proposals. See Stapelbroek, “Limited free port“ and older, but extensively, Hovy, Beperkt vrijhavenstelsel.11 Hovy, Beperkt vrijhavenstelsel, 5–7, 42, 72. A questionable tendency in Hovy’s study concerns his claims about the different points of view amongst the group of merchant-advisors, notably the gap between the ideas held by two prominent Amsterdam merchants Jan and Dirk Marselis and the policy – allegedly Thomas Hope’s – that was set out in the “Proposal” (Hovy, Beperkt vrijhavenstelsel, 405–8, in particular 406; see also 347–54). Hovy shows there were differences in opinion about the precise actual reform policy to be favoured and its implementation, yet on my reading the Marselis view, particularly their insistence on the reconciliation of different sectors (see Hovy, Beperkt vrijhavenstelsel, 350–2) filtered through directly into the text of the “Proposal”. Not all discussions in the Republic were divisive. Moreover, something Hovy does not acknowledge, Jan Marselis was Thomas Hope’s father in law and the Hopes and Marselises were at the core of Amsterdam’s close-knit merchant community. Interestingly, Hovy gives a convincing account of how this community after the rise to power of William IV developed political ambitions in Amsterdam, Holland and the Republic, which must have been one of the driving forces behind the William IV’s reform programme (Hovy, Beperkt vrijhavenstelsel, 249–52).12 Its most obvious point of comparison was the plan contained in Matthew Decker, Decline of Foreign Trade.13 Cf. Hope, Proposals, 62–3: “As to the Jealousy of our Neighbours, we need be under no Apprehensions about it, whilst the Republick tenaciously adheres to this fixed Maxim, not to give any well-grounded Cause of Offence, by those Dispositions and Measures which are proposed to be made in our Trade: On the contrary, most of the neighbouring Nations will be more or less concerned, in the Conservation of our Trade, as their commerce chiefly consists in the Vending of their own Products; and will therefore rather protect than obstruct ours, which has such a Connection with their own, that it may not improperly be called a Part.”14 Stapelbroek, “Le ‘pouvoir intrinsèque’ de la république”. Cf. Hope, Proposals, 30, which argued that the intention was absolutely not to “set up a new Republick, or to make any Alteration in the interior Constitution of our Country … nor could any thing be conceived more dangerous than to attempt Innovations of this Nature”.15 Stapelbroek et al. “Kluit’s statistics” and Stapelbroek, “Dutch Decline”.16 Hope, Proposals, 11.17 Stapelbroek, “The Haarlem 1771 Prize Essay”.18 Overmeer, Economische denkbeelden van Hogendorp, 133–4.19 Ibid., 377: the idea that free transit diminishes the potential for general trade through active trade.20 Van der Kooy, Hollands Stapelmarkt.21 Overmeer, Economische denkbeelden van Hogendorp, 378–9.22 Ibid., 394–5.23 Witlox, Welvaart en bedrijvigheid Cf. Falck in Overmeer, Economische denkbeelden van Hogendorp, 394: Falck acknowledged Hogendorp’s take on the transformation of Britain and was disappointed in the failed attempt to agree a commercial treaty with Britain. But he also questioned Hogendorp’s rigid dogmatism in politics.24 Overmeer, Economische denkbeelden van Hogendorp, 377–79: 379. On the Rotterdam fiscal political tradition, Overmeer, Economische denkbeelden van Hogendorp, 514, n 88 and de Vries, “Rotterdamse aspecten 1751”, 250–63: 262.25 Overmeer, Economische denkbeelden van Hogendorp, 377.26 Ibid., 392 and bottom 385.27 Ibid., 385.28 Ibid., 391, 395, 378, 379.29 Ibid., 519, 520 and 397–8.30 Ibid., 397.31 Mees, “Briefwisseling Hogendorp Ackersdijk”.32 See Boschloo, Productiemaatschappij.33 “Imhoffius qui anno 1751 inde redierat, aemulationem Anglorum diminuere et ignaviam, rapinam et segnitiem illorum, qui eam administrabant, reprimere conabatur” (Engelen, Propositionibus Guilielmi IV, 20).34 Heeres, “Consideratiën” van Imhoff.35 Dubois, Vies des gouverneurs généraux.36 Engelen. Propositionibus Guilielmi IV, 20.37 Ibid., 58–9. On Broggia’s influential phrase see the introduction by Stapelbroek and Tazzara.38 Ibid., 65.39 Ibid., 65–6.40 Breugel Douglas, Nederland tot porto-franco; Breugel Douglas, Het porto-franco toegepast.41 Wagenaar, Vaderlandsche Historie.42 Breugel Douglas, Nederland tot porto-franco. 3–4, with reference to Ouwerkerk de Vries, Verhandeling, 121 on the 1725 tariff.43 Cf. Overmeer, Economische denkbeelden van Hogendorp, 397, 519.44 Overmeer Economische denkbeelden van Hogendorp, 378.45 Breugel Douglas, Nederland tot porto-franco. 15–16: including imported goods from the Dutch colonies, import taxes on these goods would flow into a ‘koloniale kas’.46 Breugel Douglas, Nederland tot porto-franco. 17: he declined to explain this further as this would attract too much attention and deviate from the actual logic of his plan.47 Breugel Douglas, Nederland tot porto-franco. 14–15.48 Ibid., 14.49 Ibid., 6.50 Ibid.51 Overmeer, Economische denkbeelden van Hogendorp, 379.52 Breugel Douglas, Nederland tot porto-franco. 77–8.53 Ibid., 83, this was “a kiss to trade and industry.”54 Ibid., Nederland tot porto-franco. 12. On 82 he cited page 39 of Hogendorp’s Advys regarding Ouwerkerk de Vries, Verhandeling, imagining “the Fatherland by the development of its own powers […] brought to the highest step of Wealth, and taking away the crown of global trade from Britain.”55 Breugel Douglas, Nederland tot porto-franco, 11.56 Ibid., 11–12.57 Ibid., 12–14.58 Ibid., 19.59 Ibid., 19–21 (and 23–24).60 Ibid., 23–27.61 Ibid., 29–32.62 Grevelink, Beginsel van porto-franco.63 Ibid., Specimen oeconomico-politico-juridicum, with an eye-catching – ‘Broggia-like’ epigraph from Adam Smith: “It is thus that every system which endeavours, either, by extraordinary encouragements to draw towards a particular species of industry a greater share of the capital of the society, than what would naturally go to it, or, by extraordinary restraints, to force from a particular species of industry some share of the capital which would otherwise be employed in it, is, in reality, subversive of the great purpose which it means to promote. It retards, instead of accelerating the progress of the society towards real wealth and greatness; and diminishes, instead of increasing, the real value of the annual produce of its land and labour.”64 Grevelink, Beginsel van porto-franco. 43.65 Ibid., 47–9.66 Ibid., 55.67 Ibid., 59–60.68 Ibid., 67–8.69 Ibid., 69.70 Ibid., 71.71 Ibid., 72–77.72 Ibid., 78.73 Ibid., 80.74 Ibid., 96.75 Ibid., 79–97.76 Ibid., 97–100.77 Ibid., 100–103.78 Ibid., 103. Poelopinang is the island Penang on the west coast of Malaysia, bought by the Brits in 1786, see Hullu, “Engelsen op Poeloe Pinang“.79 Ibid., 103–4.80 Ibid., 105: “En zullen wij dan wachten totdat alle onze naburen eerst het goede stelsel hebben ingevoerd; zullen wij wachten ons te verbeteren totdat alle andere menschen verbeterd en wijs zijn! Dan kwame er nimmer verbetering. Neen! laten wij een voorbeeld van vrijgevigheid geven; dat zal andere natiën uit lokken, om hetzelfde te doen en ook iets toe te geven. Wij zien, hoe dit bij handelstractaten gewoonlijk het geval is! Wij zullen dan stilzwijgend met de geheele wereld een voordeelig tractaat aangaan.”81 See the contributions to this issue by Wilson and Kleiser & Røge and the introduction section II.2. See also Klooster, “Curaçao as a Transit Center”; Klooster, Illicit trade; Jordaan and Wilson “Danish, Dutch and Swedish Free Ports in the Caribbean”.82 Oostindie, “Koning en de Caraïben”, 176 notes that slavery in Caribbean was only abolished in 1863.83 See the introductory article section II.2. Essential is Orenstein, Out of Stock.84 See the introductory article section II.2; Palen, ‘Conspiracy’ of Free Trade..85 For context, see de Jong, Hollands Welvaren in het Caribisch Zeegebied; de Jong, Nederland en Latijns-Amerika; Oostindie, “De Koning en de Caraïben”. A major overview with ample source material is Goslinga, The Dutch in the Caribbean and in Surinam.86 On van den Bosch, Sens, De kolonieman.87 The best recent account of the context and vision is in Renkema, Leven in de West. See also Blussé, “Schepping van de koloniale staat”, 168. The classic study of West-Indian constitutional integration is Bordewijk, Staatsrecht van Curaçao.88 de Gaay Fortman, “Curaçao in 1828”; de Gaay Fortman, “Brieven van den Bosch”.89 Meyer, “Willem I en Curaçao”; Meyer, “Willem I en het kanaal door Nicaragua”; Meyer, “Economische betrekkingen Curaçao en Venezuela”; “De Nicaragua-kanaalplannen van Koning Willem I”. Valuable insights into the diplomacy between Gran Colombia and the Dutch Kingdom between 1815 and 1830 are in van der Veen, Groot-Nederland en Groot-Colombia.90 de Gaay Fortman, “Brieven van den Bosch”, 191–2.91 de Gaay Fortman, “Brieven van den Bosch”, 191.92 West-Indische Maatschappij, 2–3, cited (in Dutch) by de Gaay Fortman, “De West-Indische Maatschappij”, 309.93 de Hullu, “Curaçao in 1817”; de Hullu, “Toestand onzer Westindische Bezittingen”; de Hullu, “Aruba in 1816”; de Gaay Fortman, “De kolonie Curacao onder Engelsch bestuur”.94 de Gaay Fortman, “De West-Indische Maatschappij”, 311.95 Smith, Wealth of Nations, 571 [IV.vii.b.12]. For the development of the island plantation economy Renkema, Curaçaose plantagebedrijf; Heilbron, Colonial transformations; and the very interesting Bisschop Grevelink, Volksplanting op Sint Eustatius.96 Hogendorp, Advys, 27.97 Overmeer, Economische denkbeelden van Hogendorp, 350, 356–7. Cf. the introduction of Alimento and Stapelbroek, Politics of Commercial Treaties on equality in treaty relations.98 Hogendorp, Advys 28.99 Ibid., 30100 Ibid., 30–31.101 Ibid., 27.102 Ibid., 39.103 Cf. Schutte, Patriotten en de kolonien.104 Lamb, British Missions to Cochin China.105 See Tregonning, The British in Malaya; Tarling, Anglo-Dutch Rivalry; Lamb, British Missions to Cochin China; Kawamura, “Colonization of Penang”; Stevens, “Prince of Wales’ Island”.106 Hussin, Trade and Society Straits of Melaka, 106.107 Amongst numerous twentieth-century writings in English, in Dutch the classic study is Levyssohn Norman, Britsche heerschappij over Java.108 Writers like Bastin, Wright, Tregonning and Tarling all had their heroes and foes pretty clearly marked.109 For instance, Rengers, Failure of a Liberal Colonial Policy.110 Marks, Contest for Singapore; Borschberg, “Dutch objections to British Singapore”; Wright, “Anglo-Dutch Dispute”; Bastin “Colonizing the Malay Archipelago”; Bastin, Native policies of Raffles.111 Poelinggomang, “Dutch policy and Makassar’s trade”; ”Makassar als vrijhaven”; De Lange, “Menado en Kema als vrijhaven”.112 Zeeman, Kustvaart in Nederlandsch-Indië; Kok, Scheepvaartbescherming in Nederlandsch-Indië.113 Clayton, “Southeast Asian forest and marine commodities trade“.114 Mörzer Bruyns, “New Guinea by the Dutch in 1828”; Overweel, “English/Dutch Rivalry in Eastern Indonesia and Australia”.115 “De vrijhaven van Riouw in 1833”; and the traveler’s report Lith, Nederlandsch Oost-Indië: beschreven en afgebeeld, in which the attempt to emulate Singapore at Riouw is deemed “volledig mislukt” (18).116 Hogendorp, Hogendorp in Nederlandsch-Indië, 75.117 Hogendorp, Advys, 9–14.118 This was also highlighted by Bastin, Native policies of Raffles, xi and 10: “The Dutch had nothing to sell”, “Dutch industry … was almost extinghuished”.119 Wright, Free Trade and Protection, 186–206.120 Overmeer, Economische denkbeelden van Hogendorp, 356.121 Newspaper articles pointed out the unnatural population migration and cultivation in the outer islands as consequences of bad Dutch economy policy: Singapore and Java, A Contrast. (1854, March 31). Empire (Sydney, NSW : 1850–1875), p. 3. Retrieved August 19, 2023, from http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article60150695; The Moluccas. (1854, October 11). South Australian Register (Adelaide, SA : 1839–1900), p. 2. Retrieved August 19, 2023, from http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article49198476; Free Trade and Foul Trade. (1854, December 23). Launceston Examiner (Tas. : 1842–1899), p. 1 (Afternoon: Supplement to the Launceston Examiner). Retrieved August 19, 2023, from http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article36291077.122 Kobayashi, “Singapore in the Growth of Intra-Southeast, Asian Trade”.123 Two articles by Sulistiyono.,“Java-Singapore Rivalry“; Sundara Raja, “Free Trade and Free Ports in the Straits“ present a lot of facts that overlap with my research but lead to more linear conclusions than my argument here, such as that there was a “free-port war” (Sulistiyono, 75).124 Tarling, Anglo-Dutch Rivalry, 7–10, and Tregonning, The British in Malaya, 38 also acknowledge these parameters. For context see the introduction of Alimento and Stapelbroek, Politics of Commercial Treaties and Vergennes’s use of commercial treaties.125 de Haan, Ernstige_Beschouwinge_van_de_Nederlandsche Handel-Maatschappij; Meylan, Ernstige beschouwing van de Nederlandsche Handel-Maatschappij wederlegd.126 Schrauwers, “The ‘Benevolent’ Colonies of van den Bosch”.127 Bisschop Grevelink, Volksplanting op Sint Eustatius.128 Tydeman, Nederlandsche Handel-Maatschappij.129 Mollerus, Het Handelsstelsel in Nederlandsch-Indie; Sautijn Kluit, [Review of] Handelsstelsel in Nederlandsch-Indie.130 Overmeer, Economische denkbeelden van Hogendorp, 410.131 On the Hogendorp brothers the latest main contribution is van Meerkerk, De gebroeders Van Hogendorp; van Meerkerk “Visions of a new colonial system”.