Abstract
Reciprocity in the overseas possessions was opposed to the ideas which had directed the commercial policy of all colonial powers ever since they had been building their empires in the Indies and America. Although the wars of two decades between France and Great Britain had completely upset the whole colonial system by preventing the free intercourse of the national trade of the mother country, mercantilism was revived as soon as peace allowed a reëstablishment of ordinary conditions. Colonies were, according to the mercantilistic principle, the private property of the nation posessing them; in them the national interest and commercial activity of the mother-country could be favored by monopolistic rights, to the exclusion of the subjects of other nowers1). This attitude will be found with the Dutch government as well as with all other governments ruling over colonial possessions at this stage of the nineteenth century. It may be called the European, in opposition to the American point of view.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
“The desire to assure a balance of profitable commerce, led.... to the exclusion in all cases of the foreigner from colonial commerce”. A. Girault, The colonial tariff policy of France (Oxford 1916, Carnegie endowment for international peace), p. 38.
Sept. 17 1819, Rush to the Secretary of State (A.S.P., For. Rel. IV p. 405).
Nov. 13 1826, Canning to Gallatin (A.S.P., For. Rel. VI p. 963).
Cf. Johnson et al. II p. 336.
British merchandise to America — American provisions to the West Indies — West Indian produce either directly to England, or back again to America (sugar, rum, molasses), and American bulk (cotton) to England. Johnson et al. Il, p. 36.
Johnson et al. I p. 92. Compare Van Hogendorp in 1784: „Le plus grand intérêt mercantile de F Amérique consiste dans le rétablissement du commerce aux îles”. (Brieven en Ged. I, p. 417.)
Johnson et al. II p. 11.
May 9 1815, Monroe to Eustis (D. o. S. Instructions VII).
Annual Message to Congress, Dec. 5 1821 (A.S.P. For. Rel. IV, p. 736).
Compare July 3 1815, the American negotiators at London (Adams, Clay and Gallatin) to the Secretary of State: “We strenuously contended, that an equivalent was found in the trade itself, which was highly beneficial to India....” (A.S.P. For. Rel. IV, p. 11).
See Chapter XVIII.
By the Act of Jan. 14 1817, imposing heavily discriminating tonnage duties, especially on the British West-Indian trade, and by an Act of March 11817, prohibiting the importation of goods by vessels which were not of the United States or of the country of produce (in casu the West Indies) if this country pursued a similar policy towards the navigation of the United States. It was a plain counterstroke to the Act of Navigation as it excluded British mother country shipping from the carrying of West-Indian products to the United States. See Keiler p. 49, 50; Johnson et al. Il p. 297.
Webster, The foreign policy of Castlereagh, 1815–1822, (London 1925) p. 444.
Am. State Papers, Foreign Relations, IV, V, VI passim.
A convention with Sweden and Norway which included in its stipulations the Swedish West Indian island of St. Bartholomew was concluded in 1816 but not ratified until 1818. See chapter XVIII.
Aug. 12 1824, Rush to Adams (A. S. P. For. Rel. V p. 533). This had been noticed earlier, and blamed, by Henry Brougham, An inquiry into the colonial policy of the European powers, (Edinburg 1803) II p. 189. The principle which considers colonies as integral parts of the empire, he contends, “ought to be extended to the foreign policy of the state”.
A. Girault, The colonial tariff policy of France, p. 39–43, gives a survey of the development of the ideas of economists on this subject, which is mainly the basis of the above summary. Political authors and moralists, as well as diplomatic documents and reports, however, may also furnish interesting features of this development.
Paris 1753, III, sub Colonie:„.... si la colonie entretient un commerce avec les étrangers, ou que si l’on y consomme les marchandises étrangères, le montant de ce commerce & de ces marchandises est un vol fait à la métropole”.
Livre XXI, Chapitre XXI.
Montesquieu, ibid.
Wealth of Nations, Book IV, chapter VII, part. III.
Girault, p. 43, 44.
2 vols, Paris-Varsovie, 1817.
I p. 245–253; II p. 35–37. — „Les métropoles ont établi l’exclusif dans le triple but d’assurer leur domination, leurs profits, et de retirer les frais de garde et d’établissement que coûtent leurs colonies” (p. 245); but they have failed on each point of this threefold aim, as is proved, according to De Pradt, by the situation of the Spanish solonies.
It is „avouée par la raison et la justice, la liberté et la réciprocité” (II. p. 331).
II p. 122, 196–198. 9) II p. 111.
II p. 121.
3d edition (Paris 1886), p. 680 f.; 6th edition (Paris 1908) II p. 540 f. Cf. Colenbran-der, Koloniale Geschiedenis, I Inleiding.
W. Roscher and R. Jannasch, Kolonien, Kolonialpolitik und Auswanderung (Leipzig 1885, 3d edition to Roscher, Kolonien, 1848) make the same division of types (p. 2–32), adding however „A, Eroberungskolonien”, which occur mainly in the Ancient world.
A reason why the Dutch performed this colonization to a very small degree only. These colonies are the only ones which do not need to attract much capital from the mother country.
The Southern states were mostly of the third type, fundamentally different from the Central and Northern settlements.
And even more advanced, it seems, because it is less hindered by existing conditions, survivals from preceding ages. Compare Leroy-Beaulieu, I.e. p. 682 (542): „Ayant en elles-mêmes le principe de leur développement, elles tendent à devenir un jour ou l’autre indépendantes de la mère patrie et à former des Etats libres et puissants. Elles ont, sans exception, un caractère démocratique fort accusé: l’on trouve chez elles surtout pendant la première époque de leur histoire, une grande égalité des conditions: la forme républicaine paraît celle qui convient le mieux à leur situation économique et aux moeurs qui résultent de cette situation même.”
As did for instance the new states in the American Union, and as the dominions in the British Empire to a certain extent still do.
The geographical situation in the tropics was not such as to provide a living place for white emigrants.The culture of the possession was, in its deepest sense,determined by that of the native population.
The measures with regard to Canada since the end of the 18th century show this.
Webster, The foreign policy of Castlereagh (p. 440): “a great family of public servants, all of whom united in rare combination intellectual and moral qualities of a high order”. Cf. J. T. Adams, The Adams family (New York 1930).
A good treatise on Adams in his function of Secretary of State and as a statesman is to be found in S. F. Bemis’ series: The American Secretaries of State and their diplomacy, vol. IV, Dexter Perkins’ article.
Perkins, p. 5. Compare Dec. 3 1817, Ten Cate to Van Nagell: „l’ordre et------l’exactitude de son travail” (No. 35, R. A. B. Z. I. S. 1818 No. 164).
Connected with his inclination to consider the questions treated as more important than the persons treating them is the directness with which he used to face his adversaries, in internal party politics as well as in diplomatic intercourse. It resulted in a lack of flexibility and subtlety. He was, says Perkins (The Monroe doctrine 1823–1826, p. 88), “a little careless of the diplomatic amenities”. De Quabeck, the Dutch chargé d’affaires after 1818, describes him as having „des talens supérieurs”, but „un stile dur et souvent grossier” (Nov. 4 1819 to Van Nagell, No. 39, in Letterbook: R. A. B. Z. Inv. A 1 No. 49).
In accordance with the American custom of laying before Congress and eventually publishing the documents of official correspondence for an account of the diplomacy of the government. It often disagreeably surprised the more secret policies of European governments. See for instance C. K. Webster & H. W. V. Temperley, British policy in the publication of diplomatic documents under Castlereagh and Canning (The Cambridge Historical Journal vol. I 1924, p. 158 f.), p. 163.
J. Q. Adams, p. 96.
July 28 1818, to Gallatin and Rush, at London (A.S.P. For. Rel. IV, p. 375).
Adams’ writings, running almost parallel with the rise of the American Union, expose the progress of his ideas in many instances: 1797: “The memorial of Mr. Turgot [see Writings II p. 71 and 272].... laid it down as a settled point, that all the European nations must soon lose their American colonies, that such would be the event borne down by the irresistible nature of things, and that it was vain to think of avoiding it..” (Febr. 10, to Joseph Pitcairn, ibid. p. 115); 1798: “The natural connection of the West-Indies is with the American and not with the European continent, and such a connection as I have in my mind, a more natural connection than that of metropolis and colony, or in other words master and servant” (July 14, to William Vans Murray ibid. p. 336). And so on.
A. S. P. For. Rel. IV, p. 172, 173. 2) Aug. 10 1818 (D. o. S. Instructions).
It is obvious, and will appear clearly from the ensuing chapters, that this suspicion of Adams about the Dutch attitude was founded upon merely theoretical objections. The Dutch commissioners had refused the American demands for a rightful admittance to the colonial trade on the argument of the inability of the United States to meet such a favor with an equivalent concession. From this Adams assumed that an exchange of special colonial favors was being negotiated or planned with other, colonial, powers, in casu Great Britain. In practice, however, American trade had never stopped unconditionally enjoying its reception in the colonies as a most-favored-nation.
They are neither to be found in J. Reuben Clark’s Memorandum on the Monroe doctrine (December 17 1928, D. o. S., Washington 1930), nor mentioned in Dexter Perkins, The Monroe doctrine, 1823–1826 (Cambridge, Mass. 1927).
Perkins I.e. p. 10.1 regret not to have had access to the text of this oration. Perkins states that it is found in a complete edition in the National Intelligencer of July 111821. It is not in the published Writings of John Quincy Adams.
Perkins p. 17.
Ibid. p. 45.
L. A. Lawson, The relation of British policy to the declaration of the Monroe doctrine (New York, Columbia University, Studies in history, economics and public law, vol. CIII, 1922), p. 129 f., 132 f. and 143 f.
See e.g. Charles P. Howland, Survey of American foreign relations, 1928, p. 41 f. 2) Albert B. Hart, The Monroe doctrine, an interpretation (London 1916), p. 72 f. 3) Message to Congress, March 15 1826, (Richardson, Messages of the Presidents). 4) For instance Hart I.e., and Clark in the Memorandum above mentioned.
Revue des sciences politiques 1924, XLVII p. 52–84. The above paragraph refers mainly to p. 76 and p. 80.
The policy shaped by John Quincy Adams is for instance organically connected with the action of pressing trade rights and reciprocity which the United States government, favored by an international movement of liberalism, entered upon in Eastern Asia about 1850. It is not a curious coincidence but rather a consequence that in the same decade which saw the Americans open Japan and obtain a footing in China, their representative at The Hague obtained the official admittance of American consuls to ports of the Dutch colonies. The convention of January 22, 1855, which regulated this admittance, was but another feature of the Open Door policy and the first of a whole series of conventions of the same tenor which the Dutch government was obliged to grant to other powers also, in this and the following years (Lagemans, Recueil IV No. 324 etc.). Compare Perkins’ observation on p. 17: “In the history of American diplomacy, the principle of non-colonization has a certain affinity with the principle of the open door, asserted three quarters of a century later. It was based on immediate economic factors, not on vague fears of the future. It was because the colonial system meant commercial exclusion that the Secretary of State proclaimed its banishment from the American continents”.
Art. 4: „Les sujets de A. jouiront d’une pleine liberté de commerce dans tous les pays de B. situés en Europe. Ils seront traités en général et par rapport aux droits d’entrée et de sortie en particulier sur le pied de la Nation la plus favorisée”. The same for B. in Art. 5. See p. 171 (Ch. IX).
R. A. Coll. Goldberg Port. 210, in his remarks to the „Memorie van bedenkingen..” respecting the project treaty, by Wichers, Aug. 5 1817.
In a conversation with Van der Spiegel, related to the Secretary of State by letter of December 22 1794 (Adams, Writings I p. 251).
Staatsblad No. 32.
July 8 1814, Van Nagell to Fagel (Colenbrander, Gedenkstukken VII p. 308).
Memorandum to a project treaty with the U. S. draughted at the Department of Commerce and the Colonies (R. A. Coll. Goldberg, Port. 210).
R. A. Coll. Goldberg Port. 210; see p. 176.
The document deals mainly with the Dutch plantation colonies on the South American continent.
These possessions were of course genuine „colonies d’exploitation”. The same view about them is expressed by Van Hogendorp in 1817 (Bijdragen tot de huishouding van staat, I p. 257 f.): „Suriname is veeleer eene verzameling van tuinen, waar koffij, suiker, katoen, indigo, door zwarte knechten geteeld wordt. De schatten van dezen oogst gaan naar het moederland, alle de benoodigdheden worden ontboden uit het moederland; de fabrijken, de landbouw, de scheepvaart, de handel van het moederland worden daar ongemeen door bevorderd; en het moederland is daar voor zijne bescherming aan de kolonie schuldig, niet alleen uit billijkheid, maar ook uit belang”.
In Goldberg’s remarks to the „Memorie van bedenkingen...” by Wichers, Aug. 5 1817 (R. A. Coll. Goldberg Port. 210). See Chapter XII.
In the „Memorie van bedenkingen” (see the preceding footnote).
Draught to the Note of Sept. 12 1817, Goldberg and Van der Kemp to Gallatin and Eustis („Sur les Colonies”, R. A. Coll. Goldberg Port. 210).
Sept. 12 1817.
An interesting consideration of the question whether the colonies would fall by implication under the Constitution of the Kingdom of the Netherlands is to be found in E. de Waal, Nederlandsch Indie in de Staten-Generaal sedert de grondwet van 1814 fs-Gravenhage 1860) I, p. 18 f. The author concludes in the negative.
For instance by F. Wappers Melis in his „Essai sur le commerce des Indes Orientales”, 1818, (extract in Posthumus, Documenten II No. 10, p. 8 f.), in which he advocates for European importations into Java at least a moderate „système exclusif”; and in a memorandum on free trade between Java and Europe, 1821 (Ibid. No. 24 p. 37 f.). On Wappers Melis: Van der Kemp in De Indische Gids XXX, 1908, p. 1597 f.
Staatscourant of March 4 and of Oct. 12 1815.
De Nederlandsche Handel Maatschappij, founded in 1824.
In accordance with art. 86 of the Regulation for the conduct of the government of the East Indian possessions (Staatscourant of March 4 1815).
P. H. van der Kemp, Oost-Indiës geldmiddelen, Japansche en Chineesche handel van 1817 op 1818 etc., p. 4,5.
L. de Bree, Gedenkboek van de Javasche Bank, I p. 128.
For instance Jan. 13 1817, the Chamber of Commerce of Amsterdam to Goldberg (Posthumus, Documenten II p. 5). Another petition, of Aug./Sept. 1817 (R. A. Coll. Goldberg Port. 210), complained of insufficient protection of Dutch trade: „Nu kan de Amerikaan met zijn provisiën, de Franschman met zijn wijn, de Brit met zijn manufacture]!, en de Zweed met zijn ijzer direct derwaarts varen....”.
Aug. 28 1817 the Amsterdam Chamber of Commerce suggested a total prohibition of American trade to the colonies in East and West (enclosure 18 with report of Oct. 27 1817, see Chapter XV).
Aug. 1817, „Memorie van Solutièn” (R. A. Coll. Goldberg Port. 210).
Staatsblad vanNederlandschIndiëNo.63,Dec.9 1817. Van der Kemp, Oost-Indiè’s geldmiddelen, p. 5. The ad valorem duty on goods imported by them was calculated henceforward from the invoice value + 60 %; it remained to be calculated from the invoice value + 30 % for imports by national vessels.
Staatsblad van Ned. Indië No. 58. Van der Kemp, I.e. p. 73 f. and „De Geschiedenis van het ontstaan der Nederlandsch-Indische lijnwaden-verordening van 1824” (Bij-dragen tot de taal-, land- en volkenkunde van Ned.-Indië, 7e volgreeks VII), p. 433. De Bree I.e. p. 129, 130.
Staatsblad van Ned.-Indië 1820 No. 2. Van der Kemp, Oost-Indie’s geldmiddelen, p. 22, 38 f., 329 f.
This same policy made the government refuse to admit foreign consuls or agents to these possessions. In 1818 a question on this subject was treated with England. Van der Kemp, Oost-Indie’s inwendig bestuur van 1817 op 1818, p. 261 f., 316 f. De Bree p. 131, 133.
Below p. 222, Eustis’ activity in this respect.
Van der Kemp, Oost-Indie’s geldmiddelen, p. 65, 68 f., 328.
Staatsblad No. 75.
Staatsblad No. 55.
May 26 1816, Schas te Goldberg. (R. A. Coll. Goldberg port. 205, 210.Published by N. W. Posthumus in Econ. Hist. Jaarboek I, p. 215.) Schas had been a member of various courts of justice in Surinam, and was an expert on the West Indian colonial policy of King William I (L. D. J. Schas, Het geslacht Schas, Den Haag 1929, p. 15).
This dependence upon American connections was duly recognized by Falck, Minister of the Colonies, in 1818, in a conversation with theAmerican representative. He assured him “that he was well aware of the state of dependence in which their West Indies must remain in relation to the United States, and would never do anything to check this natural connection” (June 14 1818, memorandum by J. J. Appleton, to Gallatin, D. o. S. Desp. France, vol. 18. encl. with Desp. 82, July 31 1818).
This was announced in a notification by Goldberg of January 1816 on the West Indian trade and stipulated in art. 98 of the „Règlement provisoire sur l’administration de Surinam” (encl. with Eustis’ despatch of July 9 1817, D. o. S. Desp. Neth.). A „Reglement op het beleid van de regering, het justitie-wezen, den landbouw en scheepvaart, mitsgaders de instructiën voor den Gouverneur Generaal,.... in de Kolonie Suriname. Gearresteerd bij Besluit van Z.M. den Koning in dato 14 Sept. 1815, No. 58”, is to be found in print in R. A. Coll. Goldberg Port. 169.
„Het belang van Moederland en Kolonien vordert dit”, says a note to the concept of the regulation mentioned in the preceding footnote (R. A. Coll. Goldberg Port. 169).
Paramaribo 1815 (?), Tufts to the Secretary of State (D. o. S. Cons. Desp. Paramaribo vol. 1).
June 26 1818, same to same (Ibid.).
May 31 1816, Van Panhuys, Governor General of Surinam, to Lechleitner (R. A. B. Z. XXI Archives of the Legation No. 24); Aug. 29 1818, Vaillant, Governor General ad interim of Surinam, to Lechleitner (Ibid. No. 26). It is worthy of note that the same regulations of the trade with the United States had been in force, by provisional measures, under theBritish domination in Surinam, 1804–1816 (Einaar I.e. p. 37 f., 48,125).
Resolution of Nov. 13 1818, signed by Vaillant, Governor General ad. int.; and enclosed with Nov. 17 1818, Vaillant to Lechleitner (Ibid. No. 26).
Sept. 1 1818, Falck to the King (A. R. Falck, Ambtsbrieven, The Hague 1878» p. 56). This number was, he said, almost twice as large as that of the vessels engaging in the Java trade: a remarkable illustration of the comparative importance of both colonies.
„Reglement op het beleid van de regering,.... mitsgaders de instruction voor den Gouverneur Generaal,.... op het eiland Curaçao. Gearresteerd bij Besluit van Z.M. den Koning in dato 14 Sept. 1815, No. 58”. (Printed in R.A. Coll. Goldberg, Port. 169.) For the following in general: B. de Gaay Fortman, Curaçao en onderhoorige eilanden 1816–1828 (De West-Indische Gids IX 1927, p. 59 f.; X, 1928).
„Oxhoofd”.
March 5 1816 „,Notulen Raad van Politie van Curaçao” (R.A. Coll. Goldberg Port. 205); also April 6 1816, Kikkert, Governor of Curaçao, to Lechleitner (R. A. B. Z. XXI Archives Legation, No. 24).
March 29 1817, Kikkert to Ten Cate (Ibid. No. 25).
Compare De Pradt, Des colonies, I p. 150: „Etablies de toutes parts au milieu de colonies fermées à tous autres qu’aux nationaux, les Suédois et les Danois ont cherché a suppléer à l’impossibilité de s’y introduire ouvertement, en créant à côté d’elles des attraits et des facilités pour le débit des denrées que les autres colonies possèdent”.
Febr. 20 1816, Lechleitner to Van Nagell (R. A. B. Z. 2: bur. LS. No. 1444).
„Reglement op het beleid van de regering,.... mitsgaders de instructiën voor den Gouverneur der eilanden St. Eustatius, St. Martin en Saba,.... Gearresteerd bij Besluit van Z.M. den Koning in dato 14 Sept. 1815, No. 58”. (In print in R. A. Coll. Goldberg Port. 169.) A copy of the articles in question encl. with Eustis’ despatch of July 9 1817 (D. o. S. Desp. Neth.).
The commercial policy of King William I with regard to the West Indian possessions is for the rest a chapter of the third decade of the century, rather than of the second.
The trade to the one Dutch colony in Africa, on the coast of Guinea — which has not been mentioned above — was given entirely free to all foreigners (Art. 4 of the Law of May 27 1815; see p. 180, footnote 3).
Dec. 8 1815, Eustis to Monroe, private (D. o. S. Desp. Neth.).
In a report of June 10 1816 on the American demand for extending the reciprocal treatment to the colonies as well; to the King (R. A. B. Z. 2: bur. I. S. 1816 No. 2335). See p. 231.
The same opinion had been expressed two months earlier by Van Hogendorp, in April of 1816 (Bijdragen tot de huishouding van staat I p. 92 f.), on the injustice of the American demand for reciprocity: „wij hebben hen, onder min of meer vaste bepalingen, in onze kolonièn toegelaten, en zij hebben geene koloniën”.
July 9 1817 (D. o. S. Desp. Neth.).
Art. 87, 3°: „Que les vaisseaux étrangers et ceux des Pays Bas arrivant des possessions de l’Etat aux Indes Orientales dans un port de la mère-patrie, seront exempts de droits d’importation, pourvu qu’il soit constaté, que les droits fixés d’exportation ont été acquittés dans ces possessions sur toute la cargaison”. Cf. Van der Kemp, Oost-Indië’s geldmiddelen, p. 36 f.
April 2 1817, Eustis to the Secretary of the Treasury (L. o. C. Eustis Papers, vol. 3).
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1935 Martinus Nyhoff, the Hague, Holland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Westermann, J.C. (1935). The Question of Reciprocity in the Trade to the Colonies. The “Decayed” System of Colonial Mercantilism. In: The Netherlands and the United States. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-0999-2_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-0999-2_10
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-015-0397-6
Online ISBN: 978-94-015-0999-2
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive