Footnotes:

Footnotes:[1]At one time Prince Rupert had been governor of the African company founded in 1631. Jenkinson, Hilary, "The Records of the English African Companies."Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, Third Series, VI, 195.[2]Pepys, Diary (The Diary of Samuel Pepys, edited by Henry B. Wheatley), I, 253.[3]That some expense attached to the procuring of such charters appears from an item of £133.10s.3d. which the company incurred for this charter. A. C. R., 1221, April 12, 1661. Wherever possible the volume and page of the company's books will be given, but since they have not all been paged the only other method of reference is by dates.[4]Carr, Cecil T., "Select Charters of Trading Companies, 1530-1707,"Publications of the Selden Society, XXVIII, 172-177.[5]According to the charter of 1660 the former patent had been granted June 25, 1631. It would therefore expire June 25, 1662, if it was not surrendered before that time.[6]A. C. R., 309, 1221. The records of the first few ventures are to be found in these two volumes of the company's books. Number 309 is the original book, the other being practically a copy of it. In some cases, however, the latter is more complete. These two books have been practically overlooked in the cataloging of the company's records, one of them being labelled, "Ship's Journal." They contain the only information we have of the financial condition of the first company as kept by Thomas Holder, treasurer of the company. The greater part of the two books is taken up with lists and costs of various goods which were sent to Africa.[7]Admiralty Papers, Navy Board, In-Letters, 6, loose leaf order of the factors of the Royal Adventurers on the Gambia River, July 19, 1661. With this order there is a certificate dated January 3, 1661/2, to the effect that thirty-eight of the crew of the "Amity" had died on the way to Guinea and during the time they were on the Gambia River.[8]A. C. R., 1221, October 20, 1662.[9]It is impossible to determine the exact amount which was invested in goods, etc.[10]A. C. R., 1221, June 20, 1661.[11]Ibid., April 30, 1662.[12]Ibid., 309, September 26, 1662[13]A. C. R., 309, September 26, October 20, 1662. Only £560 of the king's subscription of £800 was paid, according to the list found under the first of the above dates. This may be a slight error, as warrants were issued for the payment of £580 at various times in 1661 and 1662. C.S.P., Treas. Bks. (Calendar of State Papers, Treasury Books), 1660-1667, pp. 312, 314, 383. This does not include a warrant for £300, which was probably used in the first expedition under Captain Holmes, but which for some reason is omitted in the company's books. C. S. P., Treas. Bks., 1660-1667, p. 107.[14]A. C. R., 309, October 20, 1662, January 15, 1663. Afterward £3,200 was added to this, making £20,800 in all in the second subscription. A. C. R., 309, August 25, 1663.[15]Carr,Select Charters of Trading Companies, pp. 178-181.[16]There were also provisions similar to those contained in the first charter for the government of the company's "plantations" (factories) in Africa. The clause allowing the king to subscribe one-sixteenth of the stock was omitted, but he could become a shareholder at any time.[17]The charter had provided that the executive committee should be composed of seven men if twenty-four assistants were elected and thirteen if thirty-six were chosen. A.C.R., 75: 29, 31, 41, 44, 49, 51, 68, 72, 93.[18]P.C.R. (Register of the Privy Council),Charles II, 2: 451.[19]Ibid., 2: 502.[20]Egerton MSS., 2538, f. 109, C. C. to Secretary Nicholas, August 11, 1662. Folio 110 contains a note without date or signature saying that the matter was referred to the Lord High Treasurer and others.[21]The earl of Clarendon declares in his History of Charles II that, upon the return of the ships from the first expedition, the company "compounded" with Sir Nicholas Crispe for his "propriety" in the fort at Kormentine. This is untrue, since it has just been shown that it was not until the middle of 1662 that he agreed to transfer his property to the Royal Adventurers and that it was afterward that Crispe endeavored to get the king's approval to grant him compensation. Clarendon may have remembered that the king was favorable to the proposition and therefore assumed that such a contract had been made. Hyde, Edward, First Earl of Clarendon.The History of the Reign of King Charles the Second, from the Restoration to the end of the year 1667(edited by J. Shebbeare), p. 197.[22]This charge was put forward in a pamphlet, probably published in 1709, calledSir John Crispe's Case in Relation to the Forts in Africa. In this pamphlet the assertion is made that the Privy Council had a full hearing of the matter on July 29, 1662, and ordered the Royal Adventurers to pay Crispe £20,000 by an export duty of 2½ per cent on goods sent to Africa. An examination of the Privy Council Register shows no order of that kind on that date or at any subsequent time.[23]A.C.R., 75, August, 15, 1664.[24]In January, 1663, the Royal Adventurers made an agreement with several members of Crispe's company providing for the transfer to England of their merchandise and personal effects which were still on the coast of Africa. Whether this second contract contained anything about compensation for the forts it is impossible to say, since this agreement also has not been preserved. Admiralty High Court, Examinations 134. Answers of Edward M. Mitchell and Ellis Leighton, May 10, 20, 1664.[25]That Sir Nicholas Crispe felt the losses he had incurred in Guinea appears from his will of 1666, in which he directed the following inscription to be erected to his memory: "first discovered and settled the Trade of Gold in Africa and built there the Castle of Cormentine," and thus "lost out of purse" more than £100,000. Crisp, Frederick A.,Family of Crispe, I, 32.[26]A. C. R., 309, June 25, September 4, 1663. Upon the latter date it appears that only £1300 of his subscription was paid.[27]Clarendon,History of the Reign of Charles II, p. 198.[28]The Several Declarations of the Company of Royal Adventurers of England trading into Africa, January 12, 1662 (O. S.).[29]Ibid.[30]A. C. R., 309, June 25, August 25, 1663.[31]Ibid., 309, August 25, 1663.[32]Ibid., 309, the balance of the company's books on September 4, 1663.[33]These figures are arrived at by a careful examination of the various sums paid to Thomas Holder, the treasurer. As it is not always possible to be sure that the payments were made for stock, too much dependence cannot be put in the figures, especially when the sum arrived at by adding the items which appear to be owing the company for stock in the balance of September 4, 1663, amount to £52,000. This is of course several thousand pounds more than the sum arrived at by the former computation, but here again it is not possible to estimate exactly the money owing the company for stock and for other things.[34]This number is arrived at by a careful perusal of the first book kept by the company, number 309. Sometime in 1664 the company submitted a petition to the king in which it speaks of having sent over forty ships to the coast during the previous year and of supplying them with cargoes amounting to more than £160,000. C.O. (Colonial Office) 1: 17, f. 255, petition of the Royal Adventurers to (the king, 1664).[35]C. S. P., Col. (Calendar of State Papers, Colonial, America and West Indies), 1661-1668, p. 175, warrant to officers of the king's mint, December 24, 1663. Another evidence of special favor was a grant made by the king in 1664 giving the Royal Company the sole privilege of holding lotteries in the king's dominions for three years. The company does not seem to have used it. C. S. P., Dom. (Calendar of State Papers, Domestic), 1666-1667, pp. 531, 532, Blanquefort and Hamilton to the king, February 25, 1667.[36]In the third subscription the king's share was £5,200; in the fourth, £2,000. A. C. R., 309, June 25, August 25, 1663. The king's subscription with that of the queen for £400 seem never to have been paid, although a warrant was issued to the Lord High Treasurer, June 27, 1663, to pay the amount from the customs receipts.[37]Upon this date, book number 309 was balanced and the items carried to another volume, which has been lost. In March, 1664, the resolutions of the general court and the court of assistants begin in number 75 of the company's books. While it is fortunate that these resolutions for the remaining history of this company have been preserved, they do not furnish adequate information regarding the company's financial condition at various times.[38]C. O. 1: 17, f. 255, petition of the Royal Adventurers to (the king, March, 1664).[39]A. C. R., 75: 7, 8, orders of the general court, May 10, 20, 1664.[40]C. S. P., Dom., 1664-1665, p. 7, Robert Lye to Williamson, September 13, 1664.[41]A. C. R., 75: 21, 22.[42]The total of the stock is shown by adding the five subscriptions:October, 1660, to September, 1662, first subscription£17,400October, 1662, to January, 1663, second subscription20,800June, 1663, to August, 1663, third subscription34,600August, 1663, fourth subscription29,200September, 1664, fifth subscription18,200Total£120,200[43]S. P., Dom. (State Papers, Domestic), Charles II, 110, f. 18; C. O. 1: 19, ff. 7, 8.[44]The financial status of the company at this time was as follows:Assets:£ s dShips and factories in Africa125,962.6.2Debts owing to the company in the colonies49,895.0.0Goods, ammunition, etc., at Portsmouth48,000.0.0Total223,857.6.2Stock of the company:Amount subscribed120,200.0.0Amount paid (about)103,000.0.0Amount unpaid (about)17,200.0.0Debts, owing on bonds, etc. (about)100,000.0.0Losses:From DeRuyter at Cape Verde50,000.0.0Anticipated from DeRuyter at other places125,912.6.2Total175,912.6.2[45]A. C. R., 75: 37, John Berkley and others to ——, November 4, 1665.[46]S. P., Dom.,Charles II, 186: 1.[47]A. C. R., 75: 37, Berkley and others to ——, November 4, 1665.[48]On April 6, 1666, the king, in response to a petition from the Royal Adventurers, granted to the company a ship called the "Golden Lyon" which had been captured from the Dutch by Sir Robert Holmes in 1664. C. S. P., Col., 1661-1668, p. 370, the king to duke of York, March 28, 1666.[49]A. C. R., 75: 40.[50]Ibid., 75: 52.[51]Ibid., 75: 57. A part of the debts had been incurred on the common seal of the company and part on the personal security of the committee of seven.[52]A. C. R., 75: 56, 58. An attempt was made to induce the king to pay his subscription. On the other hand, the company owed the king a considerable sum for the ships which it had used from time to time. S. P., Dom.,Charles II, 199: 14.[53]A. C. R., 75: 58.[54]Ibid., 75: 59.[55]Ibid., 75: 70.[56]Ibid., 75: 77.[57]Ibid., 75: 85, 88.[58]The duke of Buckingham, however, paid his arrears, which led the duke of York to remark, "I will give the Devil his due, as they say the Duke of Buckingham hath paid in his money to the Company." Pepys,Diary, VIII, 142.[59]A. C. R., 75: 61.[60]Ibid., 75: 62, 63.[61]It seems certain, however, that these men who were interested in the Gambia trade made some other arrangements at that time by means of which a certain amount of goods was sent to that place. A. C. R., 75: 82, 83.[62]A. C. R., 75: 83.[63]Ibid., 75: 82.[64]As opposed to those who were from the king's court.[65]A. C. R., 75:90, 91.[66]O. S. P., Dom., 1668-1669, p. 459, August 25, 1669.[67]A. C. R., 75: 94.[68]C. O. 268: I, charter of the Royal African Company, September 27, 1672.[69]In the previous April a bill had been introduced into the House of Lords to incorporate the company by act of Parliament. On account of the various plans under consideration there was no procedure with the bill. L. J. (Journal of the House of Lords), XII: 480; H. M. C. (Historical Manuscripts Commission), report 9, pt. 2, p. 9b; H. L. MSS. (House of Lords, Manuscripts), draft act to incorporate the Company of Royal Adventurers of England Trading into Africa, April 6, 1671.[70]A. C. R., 75: 101, 102. See also the proposals for a resettlement of the company's affairs in S.P., Dom.,Charles II, 67, ff. 341, 342.[71]A. C. R., 75: 106, 107.[72]Ibid., 75: 108.[73]British Husbandry and Trade, II, 14.[74]A. C. R., 76: 52, the preamble under which the subscriptions were made as amended December 19, 1671, article 4;ibid., 75: 111.[75]Ibid., 76, October 22, 1674. A report of a committee says that there was about £22,000 of the old subscriptions which had not been paid.[76]Ibid., 100: 50.[77]C. O. 268: 1, charter of the Royal African Company, September 27, 1672.[78]Ibid.

[1]At one time Prince Rupert had been governor of the African company founded in 1631. Jenkinson, Hilary, "The Records of the English African Companies."Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, Third Series, VI, 195.

[2]Pepys, Diary (The Diary of Samuel Pepys, edited by Henry B. Wheatley), I, 253.

[3]That some expense attached to the procuring of such charters appears from an item of £133.10s.3d. which the company incurred for this charter. A. C. R., 1221, April 12, 1661. Wherever possible the volume and page of the company's books will be given, but since they have not all been paged the only other method of reference is by dates.

[4]Carr, Cecil T., "Select Charters of Trading Companies, 1530-1707,"Publications of the Selden Society, XXVIII, 172-177.

[5]According to the charter of 1660 the former patent had been granted June 25, 1631. It would therefore expire June 25, 1662, if it was not surrendered before that time.

[6]A. C. R., 309, 1221. The records of the first few ventures are to be found in these two volumes of the company's books. Number 309 is the original book, the other being practically a copy of it. In some cases, however, the latter is more complete. These two books have been practically overlooked in the cataloging of the company's records, one of them being labelled, "Ship's Journal." They contain the only information we have of the financial condition of the first company as kept by Thomas Holder, treasurer of the company. The greater part of the two books is taken up with lists and costs of various goods which were sent to Africa.

[7]Admiralty Papers, Navy Board, In-Letters, 6, loose leaf order of the factors of the Royal Adventurers on the Gambia River, July 19, 1661. With this order there is a certificate dated January 3, 1661/2, to the effect that thirty-eight of the crew of the "Amity" had died on the way to Guinea and during the time they were on the Gambia River.

[8]A. C. R., 1221, October 20, 1662.

[9]It is impossible to determine the exact amount which was invested in goods, etc.

[10]A. C. R., 1221, June 20, 1661.

[11]Ibid., April 30, 1662.

[12]Ibid., 309, September 26, 1662

[13]A. C. R., 309, September 26, October 20, 1662. Only £560 of the king's subscription of £800 was paid, according to the list found under the first of the above dates. This may be a slight error, as warrants were issued for the payment of £580 at various times in 1661 and 1662. C.S.P., Treas. Bks. (Calendar of State Papers, Treasury Books), 1660-1667, pp. 312, 314, 383. This does not include a warrant for £300, which was probably used in the first expedition under Captain Holmes, but which for some reason is omitted in the company's books. C. S. P., Treas. Bks., 1660-1667, p. 107.

[14]A. C. R., 309, October 20, 1662, January 15, 1663. Afterward £3,200 was added to this, making £20,800 in all in the second subscription. A. C. R., 309, August 25, 1663.

[15]Carr,Select Charters of Trading Companies, pp. 178-181.

[16]There were also provisions similar to those contained in the first charter for the government of the company's "plantations" (factories) in Africa. The clause allowing the king to subscribe one-sixteenth of the stock was omitted, but he could become a shareholder at any time.

[17]The charter had provided that the executive committee should be composed of seven men if twenty-four assistants were elected and thirteen if thirty-six were chosen. A.C.R., 75: 29, 31, 41, 44, 49, 51, 68, 72, 93.

[18]P.C.R. (Register of the Privy Council),Charles II, 2: 451.

[19]Ibid., 2: 502.

[20]Egerton MSS., 2538, f. 109, C. C. to Secretary Nicholas, August 11, 1662. Folio 110 contains a note without date or signature saying that the matter was referred to the Lord High Treasurer and others.

[21]The earl of Clarendon declares in his History of Charles II that, upon the return of the ships from the first expedition, the company "compounded" with Sir Nicholas Crispe for his "propriety" in the fort at Kormentine. This is untrue, since it has just been shown that it was not until the middle of 1662 that he agreed to transfer his property to the Royal Adventurers and that it was afterward that Crispe endeavored to get the king's approval to grant him compensation. Clarendon may have remembered that the king was favorable to the proposition and therefore assumed that such a contract had been made. Hyde, Edward, First Earl of Clarendon.The History of the Reign of King Charles the Second, from the Restoration to the end of the year 1667(edited by J. Shebbeare), p. 197.

[22]This charge was put forward in a pamphlet, probably published in 1709, calledSir John Crispe's Case in Relation to the Forts in Africa. In this pamphlet the assertion is made that the Privy Council had a full hearing of the matter on July 29, 1662, and ordered the Royal Adventurers to pay Crispe £20,000 by an export duty of 2½ per cent on goods sent to Africa. An examination of the Privy Council Register shows no order of that kind on that date or at any subsequent time.

[23]A.C.R., 75, August, 15, 1664.

[24]In January, 1663, the Royal Adventurers made an agreement with several members of Crispe's company providing for the transfer to England of their merchandise and personal effects which were still on the coast of Africa. Whether this second contract contained anything about compensation for the forts it is impossible to say, since this agreement also has not been preserved. Admiralty High Court, Examinations 134. Answers of Edward M. Mitchell and Ellis Leighton, May 10, 20, 1664.

[25]That Sir Nicholas Crispe felt the losses he had incurred in Guinea appears from his will of 1666, in which he directed the following inscription to be erected to his memory: "first discovered and settled the Trade of Gold in Africa and built there the Castle of Cormentine," and thus "lost out of purse" more than £100,000. Crisp, Frederick A.,Family of Crispe, I, 32.

[26]A. C. R., 309, June 25, September 4, 1663. Upon the latter date it appears that only £1300 of his subscription was paid.

[27]Clarendon,History of the Reign of Charles II, p. 198.

[28]The Several Declarations of the Company of Royal Adventurers of England trading into Africa, January 12, 1662 (O. S.).

[29]Ibid.

[30]A. C. R., 309, June 25, August 25, 1663.

[31]Ibid., 309, August 25, 1663.

[32]Ibid., 309, the balance of the company's books on September 4, 1663.

[33]These figures are arrived at by a careful examination of the various sums paid to Thomas Holder, the treasurer. As it is not always possible to be sure that the payments were made for stock, too much dependence cannot be put in the figures, especially when the sum arrived at by adding the items which appear to be owing the company for stock in the balance of September 4, 1663, amount to £52,000. This is of course several thousand pounds more than the sum arrived at by the former computation, but here again it is not possible to estimate exactly the money owing the company for stock and for other things.

[34]This number is arrived at by a careful perusal of the first book kept by the company, number 309. Sometime in 1664 the company submitted a petition to the king in which it speaks of having sent over forty ships to the coast during the previous year and of supplying them with cargoes amounting to more than £160,000. C.O. (Colonial Office) 1: 17, f. 255, petition of the Royal Adventurers to (the king, 1664).

[35]C. S. P., Col. (Calendar of State Papers, Colonial, America and West Indies), 1661-1668, p. 175, warrant to officers of the king's mint, December 24, 1663. Another evidence of special favor was a grant made by the king in 1664 giving the Royal Company the sole privilege of holding lotteries in the king's dominions for three years. The company does not seem to have used it. C. S. P., Dom. (Calendar of State Papers, Domestic), 1666-1667, pp. 531, 532, Blanquefort and Hamilton to the king, February 25, 1667.

[36]In the third subscription the king's share was £5,200; in the fourth, £2,000. A. C. R., 309, June 25, August 25, 1663. The king's subscription with that of the queen for £400 seem never to have been paid, although a warrant was issued to the Lord High Treasurer, June 27, 1663, to pay the amount from the customs receipts.

[37]Upon this date, book number 309 was balanced and the items carried to another volume, which has been lost. In March, 1664, the resolutions of the general court and the court of assistants begin in number 75 of the company's books. While it is fortunate that these resolutions for the remaining history of this company have been preserved, they do not furnish adequate information regarding the company's financial condition at various times.

[38]C. O. 1: 17, f. 255, petition of the Royal Adventurers to (the king, March, 1664).

[39]A. C. R., 75: 7, 8, orders of the general court, May 10, 20, 1664.

[40]C. S. P., Dom., 1664-1665, p. 7, Robert Lye to Williamson, September 13, 1664.

[41]A. C. R., 75: 21, 22.

[42]The total of the stock is shown by adding the five subscriptions:October, 1660, to September, 1662, first subscription£17,400October, 1662, to January, 1663, second subscription20,800June, 1663, to August, 1663, third subscription34,600August, 1663, fourth subscription29,200September, 1664, fifth subscription18,200Total£120,200

[42]The total of the stock is shown by adding the five subscriptions:

October, 1660, to September, 1662, first subscription£17,400October, 1662, to January, 1663, second subscription20,800June, 1663, to August, 1663, third subscription34,600August, 1663, fourth subscription29,200September, 1664, fifth subscription18,200Total£120,200

[43]S. P., Dom. (State Papers, Domestic), Charles II, 110, f. 18; C. O. 1: 19, ff. 7, 8.

[44]The financial status of the company at this time was as follows:Assets:£ s dShips and factories in Africa125,962.6.2Debts owing to the company in the colonies49,895.0.0Goods, ammunition, etc., at Portsmouth48,000.0.0Total223,857.6.2Stock of the company:Amount subscribed120,200.0.0Amount paid (about)103,000.0.0Amount unpaid (about)17,200.0.0Debts, owing on bonds, etc. (about)100,000.0.0Losses:From DeRuyter at Cape Verde50,000.0.0Anticipated from DeRuyter at other places125,912.6.2Total175,912.6.2

[44]The financial status of the company at this time was as follows:

Assets:£ s dShips and factories in Africa125,962.6.2Debts owing to the company in the colonies49,895.0.0Goods, ammunition, etc., at Portsmouth48,000.0.0Total223,857.6.2Stock of the company:Amount subscribed120,200.0.0Amount paid (about)103,000.0.0Amount unpaid (about)17,200.0.0Debts, owing on bonds, etc. (about)100,000.0.0Losses:From DeRuyter at Cape Verde50,000.0.0Anticipated from DeRuyter at other places125,912.6.2Total175,912.6.2

[45]A. C. R., 75: 37, John Berkley and others to ——, November 4, 1665.

[46]S. P., Dom.,Charles II, 186: 1.

[47]A. C. R., 75: 37, Berkley and others to ——, November 4, 1665.

[48]On April 6, 1666, the king, in response to a petition from the Royal Adventurers, granted to the company a ship called the "Golden Lyon" which had been captured from the Dutch by Sir Robert Holmes in 1664. C. S. P., Col., 1661-1668, p. 370, the king to duke of York, March 28, 1666.

[49]A. C. R., 75: 40.

[50]Ibid., 75: 52.

[51]Ibid., 75: 57. A part of the debts had been incurred on the common seal of the company and part on the personal security of the committee of seven.

[52]A. C. R., 75: 56, 58. An attempt was made to induce the king to pay his subscription. On the other hand, the company owed the king a considerable sum for the ships which it had used from time to time. S. P., Dom.,Charles II, 199: 14.

[53]A. C. R., 75: 58.

[54]Ibid., 75: 59.

[55]Ibid., 75: 70.

[56]Ibid., 75: 77.

[57]Ibid., 75: 85, 88.

[58]The duke of Buckingham, however, paid his arrears, which led the duke of York to remark, "I will give the Devil his due, as they say the Duke of Buckingham hath paid in his money to the Company." Pepys,Diary, VIII, 142.

[59]A. C. R., 75: 61.

[60]Ibid., 75: 62, 63.

[61]It seems certain, however, that these men who were interested in the Gambia trade made some other arrangements at that time by means of which a certain amount of goods was sent to that place. A. C. R., 75: 82, 83.

[62]A. C. R., 75: 83.

[63]Ibid., 75: 82.

[64]As opposed to those who were from the king's court.

[65]A. C. R., 75:90, 91.

[66]O. S. P., Dom., 1668-1669, p. 459, August 25, 1669.

[67]A. C. R., 75: 94.

[68]C. O. 268: I, charter of the Royal African Company, September 27, 1672.

[69]In the previous April a bill had been introduced into the House of Lords to incorporate the company by act of Parliament. On account of the various plans under consideration there was no procedure with the bill. L. J. (Journal of the House of Lords), XII: 480; H. M. C. (Historical Manuscripts Commission), report 9, pt. 2, p. 9b; H. L. MSS. (House of Lords, Manuscripts), draft act to incorporate the Company of Royal Adventurers of England Trading into Africa, April 6, 1671.

[70]A. C. R., 75: 101, 102. See also the proposals for a resettlement of the company's affairs in S.P., Dom.,Charles II, 67, ff. 341, 342.

[71]A. C. R., 75: 106, 107.

[72]Ibid., 75: 108.

[73]British Husbandry and Trade, II, 14.

[74]A. C. R., 76: 52, the preamble under which the subscriptions were made as amended December 19, 1671, article 4;ibid., 75: 111.

[75]Ibid., 76, October 22, 1674. A report of a committee says that there was about £22,000 of the old subscriptions which had not been paid.

[76]Ibid., 100: 50.

[77]C. O. 268: 1, charter of the Royal African Company, September 27, 1672.

[78]Ibid.

In 1660 all the colonial powers of Europe held the west coast of Africa in great esteem, not only because it produced gold, but also because it was regarded as a necessary adjunct to the colonies in the West Indies for the supply of Negro slaves. During their long war with Spain and Portugal the Dutch acquired a large portion of the West African coast, including the main fortress of St. George d'Elmina. This fact led them to regard themselves as having succeeded to the exclusive claims of the Portuguese on the Guinea coast[1]. With this end in view the Dutch agreed in the treaty of August 6, 1661, to return Brazil to the Portuguese as compensation for the forts and settlements which they had seized on the coast of Guinea[2]. Although the Dutch played the most prominent part in depriving the Portuguese of the trade to Guinea, the English, French, Swedes, Danes, and Courlanders, all obtained a minor commerce to Africa which they very jealously guarded. In a country so remote from the laws and civilization of Europe personal quarrels often arose among the subjects of these different nations, who were inclined to obtain what they could by fair means or foul. They magnified these petty quarrels[3]tosuch an extent that they continually led to international complication.

The European trade in Africa was confined mainly to the regions of the Gold Coast and the Gambia Iver. Near the mouth of the Gambia River the subjects of the duke of Courland had bought an island from the natives in 1651. On this island they built a small fort, called St. André, from which they traded to several factories up the river[4]. Besides the Courlanders, the French and the Dutch carried on a very precarious trade on the river. In the early part of 1659, as a result of the war in the northern part of Europe, the duke of Courland became a prisoner of the king of Sweden. Under these circumstances the Amsterdam chamber of the Dutch West India Company[5]induced the Duke's commissioner, Henry Momber, to enter into a contract turning over to it all the duke's possessions in the Gambia River. The Dutch were to maintain the factories and to enjoy the trade until the duke was able to resume possession. The contract was of very doubtful value, since Momber himself admitted that he had no power to make it, but notwithstanding this fact he undertook to carry out its terms[6]. Shortly after the Dutch took possession of the island belonging to the duke of Courland it was surprised and plundered by a French pirate who, in return for a consideration, handed it over to a Gröningen merchant of the Dutch West India Company. The Gröningen chamber of this company was not anxious to retain the island and therefore signified to Momber its willingness to return it to Courland. Momber, who feared to have caused the displeasureof the duke by his contract, was glad to regain the island in June, 1660. Notwithstanding this fact, several ships belonging to the Amsterdam chamber of the West India Company entered the Gambia River and took possession of the island, keeping the Courlanders prisoners for a month. The natives, however, interfered in behalf of the Courlanders and the Dutch were finally compelled to retire to Cape Verde, leaving Otto Steele, the duke's commander, in possession[7].

It was during this state of affairs on the African coast that the Company of Royal Adventurers was organized in England. It received its charter December 18, 1660. In the same month, Captain Robert Holmes sailed from England in command of the five royal ships which composed the first expedition. In March, 1661, he arrived at Cape Verde where he at once informed the Dutch commander that he had orders from Charles II to warn all persons of whatsoever nation that the right of trade and navigation from Cape Verde to the Cape of Good Hope belonged exclusively to the king of England. Holmes ordered the Dutch to vacate their forts and to abandon the coast within six or seven months[8]. Thereupon he seized the island of Boa Vista, one of the Cape Verde group claimed by the Dutch since 1621. Later he sent a frigate into the mouth of the Gambia. Otto Steele, the Courland commander of Fort St. André, unable to discern whether friend or foe was approaching, fired upon the frigate. Holmes considered this an insult[9], and two days later sent a note to Steele requiring him to surrender the island to the English within ten days. At first Steele refused to obey, maintaining that the fort was the rightful possession of the duke of Courland. Thereupon Holmes threatened to levelthe fort to the ground. Steele realized that with so few men and supplies resistance was useless, and therefore he complied with Holmes' demands.[10]The English assumed possession of the island, but after a fire had destroyed nearly all the fort and its magazine,[11]they chose to abandon it, and to settle on two other islands which they named Charles Island and James Island respectively in honor of their royal patrons. In this way the English gained their first possessions in the Gambia River.

When Captain Holmes left England the Dutch ambassadors in London informed the States General that he had gone to the "reviere Guijana" where he would build a fort, establish a trade and search for gold mines. This announcement was immediately sent to the West India Company which had received the more authentic advice that the English ships were on the way to the Gambia River. The West India Company urged that the Dutch ambassadors in London be instructed to inquire more fully as to the purposes of the expedition, and to prevent if possible anything being done to the prejudice of the company.[12]The ambassadors learned that the English maintained that all nations had a right to trade on the Gambia River, and that other nations than the Dutch had forts there.[13]On the other hand, the West India Company maintained that it had traded on the Gambia River ever since its formation and that, since the contract with the duke of Courland, it had been in complete possession of the river.[14]After receiving this statement the States General requested their ambassadors in London to see that the company's forts and lodges in the GambiaRiver were not disturbed.[15]When the news of Holmes' exploit and his reported warning to the Dutch commander to evacuate the entire African coast reached the United Netherlands, the West India Company at once lodged a complaint with the States General.[16]At their suggestion the Dutch ambassadors obtained an audience with Charles II, who assured them that neither he nor his officers had given any order for the injury which had been done to the subjects of the United Netherlands, much less to possess any of their forts. The king also assured them that, if Holmes had committed any unjust action, he and his officers should be exemplarily punished.[17]Sir George Downing, the English envoy extraordinary at The Hague, further declared that Holmes had very strict instructions not to disturb the subjects of the United Netherlands or those of any other nation, and that, if anything to the contrary had been done, it was without the least authority.[18]Finally on August 14, 1661, Charles II declared to the States General that their friendship was very dear to him and that he would under no circumstances violate the "Droit de Gens."[19]With all this extravagant profession of good will no definite assurance was given the Dutch that the islands of St. André and Boa Vista would be restored to them. On August 16, Downing wrote to the earl of Clarendon that the island of St. André did not belong to the Dutch at all, but to the duke of Courland, and that an answer to this effect could be returned to the Dutch ambassadors if they objected to Holmes' actions. Furthermore, Downing intimated that the duke could probably be induced to resign his claims to the English.[20]

Meanwhile, Captain Holmes, who was responsible for this unpleasant international complication, had returned from Guinea. Since he suffered no punishment for his violent actions on the African coast except the loss of his salary,[21]the Dutch ambassadors in London reminded the king that on August 14, 1661, he had absolutely disclaimed the proceedings of Holmes.[22]They requested, therefore, that Holmes be called to account for his actions, that Fort St. André be restored, that reparation for damages be made, and that in the future the king's subjects observe the laws of nations more regularly.[23]Holmes was ordered before the Privy Council to answer to the charges of the ambassadors,[24]but no effort was made to force him to respond. The duke of York kept him busy with the fleet where he incurred some official displeasure, by failing to require a Swedish ship to strike colors to his Majesty's ships in English seas, and was therefore required to be detained until further order.[25]Having extricated himself from this trouble Holmes finally appeared before the Privy Council in January, 1662,[26]where he offered "many reasons" in justification of his actions in Guinea.[27]He easily satisfied the king and the members of the Privy Council, which is not surprising since many of these men had helped to organize and finance the expedition.

By this time it had become apparent that Charles II did not intend to make immediate restitution of St. André to the Dutch. This was in accordance with Downing's advice "to be 6 or 8 months in examining the matter" before making a decision.[28]The longer the English retained possession of the island the less likely the Dutch were to regain it. Finally, the duke of Courland sent a representative, Adolph Wolfratt, to London to insist upon the restitution of his possessions. Originally the English had apparently supported the claims of the duke of Courland, but it developed that they were no more inclined to return St. André to the duke of Courland than to the Dutch. The matter dragged on until November 17, 1664, when a contract was made between Charles II and the duke whereby the latter surrendered all his rights on the Gambia River. In return he received certain trading privileges there and the island of Tobago in the West Indies.[29]

When one proceeds from the Cape Verde region to the Gold Coast one finds that Dutch influence was especially strong. From Elmina and other forts the Dutch commanded the largest portion of the trade along this coast. However, the Danes, Swedes and English had long maintained a commerce on the Gold Coast where they also had established a number of factories. In 1658, Hendrik Carloff, an adventurer carrying a Danish commission, attacked and made himself master of Cape Corse which had been in the possession of the Swedes since 1651. After entering into friendly relations with the Dutch at Elmina,[30]Carloff returned to Europe, leaving his lieutenant, Samuel Smits, in charge of the fort. Fearing that the Swedes and the English, who had entered into an alliance, might endeavor to regain Cape Corse, Carloff advised Smits to surrender the fort to Jasper van Heusden, director general of the West India Company on the Gold Coast. The instructions wereunnecessary, as Smits had surrendered Cape Corse to the Dutch on April 15, 1659. In return for this fort Smits and one of his compatriots received 5,000 and 4,000 gulden respectively.[31]

At the time when Hendrik Carloff seized Cape Corse the English had there[32]a factory to which they traded from their main fort at Kormentine.[33]On May 1, 1659, very soon after the Dutch obtained possession of the place, the English factory with all its goods was burned by the natives, perhaps at the instigation of the Dutch. The Hollanders, however, were not without misfortunes of their own, for after disavowing Smits' contract, the Danes sent a new expedition to Guinea which seized a hill commanding Cape Corse, on which they built the fort of Fredericksburg. Furthermore, the Swedes who had been dispossessed of Cape Corse by the Danes with the assistance of natives, toward the end of 1660, drove the Dutch out of Cape Corse. Since the Swedes were insignificant in number the fort very shortly fell into the control of the vacillating Negro inhabitants.

As soon as the natives obtained possession of Cape Corse they permitted the English to rebuild their factory at that place. An agreement was also made by which, upon the payment of a certain sum of money, the fort was to be surrendered to the English.[34]Since the Dutch maintained that Cape Corse belonged exclusively to them by reason of their contract with the Danes, they determined to prevent the English from obtaining possession of it. Furthermore, in order to exclude other Europeans from trading to any part of the Gold Coast, the Dutch declared a blockade on the whole coast, in which Komenda and other villages as wellas Cape Corse were situated. To carry out this policy they kept several ships plying up and down the coast.

The Dutch then proceeded to capture the following English ships for endeavoring to trade on the Gold Coast: the "Blackboy," April, 1661; the "Daniel," May, 1661; the "Merchant's Delight,"[35]August, 1661; the "Charles," August, 1661; the "Paragon," October, 1661; the "Ethiopian," January, 1662. In addition to these injuries the Dutch forbade the English at Kormentine to trade with the factory at Cape Corse, which warning was no sooner given than the factory was mysteriously destroyed by fire a second time, May 22, 1661. The English bitterly complained that this misfortune was due to the instigation of the Dutch.[36]

In like manner the Dutch captured a Swedish ship and interfered with the trade of the Danes to their fort of Fredericksburg,[37]which action greatly incensed the Danish African Company. Since voluntary satisfaction for these injuries could not be expected, Simon de Petkum, the Danish resident in London, caused the arrest of a Dutch West India ship, the "Graf Enno," which was one of the main offenders in seizing Danish as well as English ships on the Guinea coast.[38]The case was brought before the Admiralty Court, and judgment of condemnation was rendered in favor of the Danes.[39]

At The Hague, Sir George Downing now had a great opportunity to vent his remarkable store of epithets on the Dutch for their violent actions against English vessels in Guinea. He complained to the States General "that the people of this contry doe everywhere as oppertunity offers sett upon, rob and spoyle" the English subjects; and that these things were being done not only by the West India Company but even by ships of war belonging to the Dutch government. Downing threatened that the king would "give order for the seizing of a proportionable number and value of ships and merchandises belonginge to this contrey and distribute them amongst them accordinge ... to their respective losses, and will take care that noe ships bee seized but such as belong to those provinces, and to such townes in those provinces, to which the ships belonged that did commit these violences and robberies."[40]In this way Downing hoped to set the non-maritime towns and provinces of the Netherlands against those which were interested in commerce, and thus to secure a cessation of the seizures. Upon one occasion in the time of Cromwell he had used this method successfully. Downing declared too that, to obtain justice in the United Provinces, it was necessary for the Dutch to realize that his Majesty would have satisfaction for injuries done "if not by faire means, by force."[41]

The Dutch ignored Downing's demands, even though on June 6, 1662, he reminded them of their unjust actions on the Gold Coast.[42]In all probability they were trusting to obviate all difficulties in the commercial treaty then being negotiated at London. In August, a new complaint was made to the States General[43]concerning the seizure of the English ship, "Content," off the Cape Verde Islands.[44]Shortly thereafter, the States General declared with respectto the English ship, "Daniel," seized in 1661, that it was a gross misrepresentation for the owner to maintain that the master and crew of the ship were English. Furthermore, the Dutch advanced proof that the ship had been fitted out with a cargo in Amsterdam, and had afterwards attempted to pass as an English ship, in order to escape being seized as an interloper by the West India Company.[45]

Further consideration regarding these seizures was postponed indefinitely by the 15th article of the commercial treaty entered into between the United Provinces and England in September, 1662.[46]In accordance with its provisions the ships which the Dutch had seized on the African coast were included in the lists of damages which the English submitted against the United Provinces. Thereafter the ships formed no important part in the negotiations between the two nations.

Thus far the Company of Royal Adventurers which had sent out the expedition under Captain Robert Holmes had not been more active on the Gold Coast than numerous private traders of England. The seizure of ships by the Dutch had been a matter of much apprehension to all the traders on the coast, but from now on it mainly concerned the Royal Adventurers. The company was anxious to establish new forts and factories in Africa in order to build up a lucrative trade. Its agents therefore began to erect a lodge at Tacorary, a village not far from Cape Corse. The Dutch, although they had not succeeded in recovering Cape Corse from the natives, considered that the fort and the surrounding territory belonged to them. On May 24, 1662, they bade the English to desist from further invasion of their rights at Tacorary or any other place under Dutch obedience.[47]The English, however, disregarded the Dutch protest and notwithstanding their opposition the factory was completed.[48]In less than a month from this time thenatives drove the Dutch out of their factory in Comany.[49]Thereupon the Dutch determined to continue even more vigorously their policy of blockading the whole coast and, by cutting off the trade of the natives with the English, to force the Negroes into subjection and to recover Comany and the fort at Cape Corse.

In October, 1662, two ships of the Royal Adventurers, the "Charles" and the "James," were prevented from trading to Komenda by the "Golden Lyon" and two other Dutch men-of-war.[50]When asked as to the reason for this interruption of trade the Dutch general, Dirck Wilree, replied that he had caused the ports of Comany and Cape Corse to be blockaded until the natives rendered satisfaction for the injuries which they had committed against the Dutch.[51]When the two English ships continued their effort to trade at Cape Corse and other villages, the "Golden Lyon" followed them from place to place, and on one occasion seized a small skiff which was attempting to land some goods. Discouraged at the treatment accorded to them the English officers finally gave up the attempt to trade on the Gold Coast, and returned home with their ships, after delivering to the Dutch a solemn protest against the injuries which they had suffered.[52]

When Secretary Williamson informed Sir George Downing of the misfortunes of the two ships, "Charles" and "James," and asked him to interfere in behalf of the Royal Company at The Hague, Downing promised to do what he could, but since he was so well acquainted with the Dutch method of treating such complaints he did not anticipate favorable results. "God help them," he declared, "if they (the Royal Company) depend upon paper relief." With the duke of York at the head of the Company and the kingas well as many of his courtiers greatly concerned in its welfare, he considered that it would be well cared for. "Whatever injuries the Dutch do them," he exclaimed, "let them be sure to do the Dutch greater, & then let me alone to mediate between them, but without this all other wayes will signify not a rush."[53]

Downing demanded of the States General whether Dirck Wilree had been given any authority to blockade the entire coasts of Comany and to forbid all English trade with the natives.[54]In this way he hoped either to have the States General disavow Wilree's action or to raise the question whether the West India Company had a right to institute such a blockade. In letters to Clarendon and Bennet, Downing maintained that the Dutch were accustomed both in West Africa and in the East Indies, to declare war on the natives and to cut them off from all trade with foreigners until they agreed to sell their goods only to the Dutch. Downing declared that the English had already lost a great deal of trade on account of such impositions, and that if they were continued the East India and African companies would be ruined. "Pay them in their own kind & sett their subjects a crying as well as his Majties, & you will have a very faire correspondence, & they will take heed what they doe, and his Majtie shall be as much honored & loved here as he hath been dispised, for they love nor honor none but them that they thinck both can & dare bite them."[54a]After urging the king to take immediate action concerning their ships the members of the Royal Company requested Downing "to drive the States to the most positive reply." They declared that any answer would, at least, expedite matters, and "if those states will owne that Wilrey had their orders to warrant his action, wee will hope, it may begett some parelel resolution of state here. If they disclaim it, andleave their West India Company to be responcible, they will send us to a towne where there is noe house, unlesse wee pay ourselves, per legem talionis."[55]

In answer to Downing's memorial concerning the "Charles" and the "James" the West India Company confined itself to a justification of Wilree's actions, and omitted to say anything about the authority by which they had been committed.[56]Although Downing insisted that a definite answer be given him on this point, the States General also evaded the issue by maintaining that nothing had been done by the company but what justice and necessity required. They supported the company in its contention that Cape Corse and Comany were effectually blockaded, and therefore the ships "Charles" and "James" had no right to trade there.[57]

Such a justification of the West India Company's actions could scarcely be satisfactory to Downing or to those in charge of foreign affairs in England. The Royal Company was very much concerned also lest the Dutch would continue to interrupt the ships which it sent to the Gold Coast. To add to this adverse condition news arrived that, about the first of June, 1663,[58]the Dutch had at last succeeded in regaining possession of Cape Corse. At this there was much satisfaction in Holland. Downing wrote that since the Dutch now had the two important castles of Elmina and Cape Corse, commanding the most important trade in all Guinea, they intended to prohibit all other nations from trading to that region.[59]Over this turn of events there was great disappointment among the members of the Royal Company, who had confidently expected to obtain Cape Corse from the natives. In fact, they had intended tomake Cape Corse their main stronghold and at that place establish their principal trade.[60]

Charles II decided that it was time to come to the assistance of the Royal Company, and on September 5, 1663, he lent three of his ships to it for a voyage to Africa.[61]Later, he also ordered several additional royal vessels commanded by Sir Robert Holmes to accompany these ships. The preparation and departure of the fleet was short and remained a close secret with the officials immediately concerned.

The king instructed Holmes to protect the company's agents, ships, goods, and factories from all injury; and to secure a free trade with the natives. Also, he declared, "If (upon consultacon with such commandrs as are there present) you judge yourself strong enough to maintaine the right of his Matie's subjects by force, you are to do it, and to kill, sink, take, or destroy such as oppose you, & to send home such ships as you shall so take." If the two ships "Golden Lyon" and "Christiana," the first of which was the chief assailant of the company's ships "Charles" and "James" in November, 1662, were encountered. Holmes was instructed to seize them. All other ships which had committed such injuries on the vessels of the Royal Company[62]were likewise to be seized and taken to England. On his arrival at the mouth of the Gambia River in January, 1664, Holmes discovered that since his visit in 1661 the relations of the Dutch and English had been anything but friendly. The English commander on Charles Island had given Petro Justobaque and other Dutch factors from Cape Verde permission to trade up and down the river. Holmes heard that they had endeavored to stir up the native king of Barra against the English in December, 1661.[63]On the 21st ofJune, 1662, Justobaque with a ship again appeared on the Gambia. In order to compel him to recognize the English rights on the river, the English commander at James Island fired at the ship. The Dutch ship paid no heed to the demand of the English and returned the fire until it was a safe distance away. A few days later when returning to Cape Verde the English shot away the main mast of the Dutch ship, but Justobaque managed to escape.[64]

Although these incidents had happened more than a year and a half before Holmes' arrival at James Island, he was incensed at the actions of the Dutch. When it was reported to him that a large Dutch vessel had arrived at Cape Verde, he assumed that it was the "Golden Lyon" which had sailed from Holland about the same time as he had departed from England. Several English ships were expected on the Gambia and for fear of their capture by the "Golden Lyon," Holmes sailed at once for Cape Verde where, according to his statement, without any provocation he was fired upon by the Dutch. Holmes returned the fire, and after suffering some damage withdrew from the attack. On the following morning he was surprised, he declared, to see that the Dutch had hung out a white flag and were sending a boat to him offering to surrender the fort. He called a council which, after considering the former hazards of the English trade on the Gambia, decided "that the better to protect our trade for a tyme and sooner to bring in Hollander's West India Compa to adjust our nation's damages sustained by them, and to that end we accepted the surrender of that place."[65]

Holmes' explanation of the taking of Cape Verde, although simple and direct, is probably incomplete. His whole career shows him to have been a man who was likelyto take the initiative, so that it is not surprising to learn from the depositions of various Dutchmen that, previous to the battle of Cape Verde, Holmes had seized two Dutch vessels, and that after receiving an unfavorable reply to his demand to surrender, Holmes attacked the fort at Cape Verde, which capitulated together with several Dutch vessels.[66]

From the conflicting statements made by the Dutch and the English it is difficult to ascertain the truth regarding the events immediately preceding the attack on Cape Verde, but the fact remains that Holmes had obtained a number of Dutch vessels and was master of one of their most important forts on the west coast of Africa. Since he had discovered the ease with which the Dutch possessions could be seized, Holmes next set out down the coast toward Elmina. On the way he despoiled the Dutch factory at Sestos, on the pretext that at that place the Dutch had stirred up the natives against the English.[67]Shortly afterwards, he encountered and captured the "Golden Lyon" which had added to its notorious career by preventing the "Mary," a ship belonging to the Royal Adventurers, from trading on the Gold Coast in March, 1663.[68]Finally he seized the Dutch factory at Anta, on the ground that it was commanded by the former captain of the "Christiana," one of the Dutch ships designated for seizure in the king's instructions.[69]

Before leaving the Gambia, Holmes had been apprised of what had taken place on the Gold Coast since the Dutch had captured Cape Corse in June, 1663. After the Dutch had taken possession of this fortress General Valckenburg despatched a very strong protest to the chief English factory at Kormentine, in which he maintained that the Dutchhad a right to the exclusive possession of the whole Gold Coast by reason of their conquest of the Portuguese. He required the English to leave the lodge which they had recently built at Tacorary and demanded that they refrain from all trade on the Gold Coast. He even had the temerity to claim that the English had injured the Dutch trade at Cape Corse and Tacorary to the extent of sixty marks of gold per month, and that the Dutch had lost one thousand marks on account of the interference of English ships such as the "Charles" and the "James."[70]

In answer to Valckenburg's sweeping assertions Francis Selwin, the English chief at Kormentine, and John Stoakes, commander of one of the English ships, replied that the English had more right to Cape Corse and other places on the Gold Coast than the Dutch, because they had first settled and fortified Cape Corse with the consent of the natives in 1649.[71]As a further indication that they were not intimidated by the hostile attitude of Valckenburg the English commenced to build another factory at Anashan in the Fantin region. In September, 1663, this brought forth another vigorous protest from Valckenburg, who declared that he would not tolerate the continuance of this factory.[72]By way of enforcing these threats the Dutch prevented the "Sampson," another ship belonging to the Royal Adventurers, from engaging in any trade at the factory of Komenda.[73]Thereupon Stoakes declared that, although the English greatly desired to live in peace with the Dutch, they would not under any circumstances abandon their factory at Anashan.[74]

At this time the English had factories and settlements at Kormentine, Komenda, Tacorary, Anto, Anashan, Ardra, and Wiamba. The forts and lodges of the two companies were all located within a few miles of one another and for either company to increase the number of its settlements only made the instances of friction between them more numerous.[75]It seemed that whichever company was able to overcome the other would be sure to do so. It was under these circumstances that Sir Robert Holmes made his appearance on the Gold Coast. The fact that the Dutch had laid claim to the whole Gold Coast was sufficient excuse for his interference, although, if we may believe the Dutch version, Holmes exceeded their claims by reasserting the English right to the whole of the west coast of Africa, as he had done at Cape Verde in 1661.[76]

Be this as it may, according to Holmes' account, Captain Cubitt of the Royal Company endeavored to induce Valckenburg to come to an amicable adjustment of the troubles on the Gold Coast. Holmes expected that his previous seizures would induce such a settlement, but Valckenburg obstinately refused Holmes' demand to evacuate Cape Corse.[77]Since he had failed to intimidate the Dutch, Holmes sailed to Cape Corse where he visited the Danish fort of Fredericksburg. The Dutch fired at him from Cape Corse, an act which Holmes regarded as the beginning of war.[78]He called a council of officers and factors of theRoyal Company on May 7, 1664, where, after considering "theire (the Dutch) unjust possessing of that very castle of Cape Coast indubitably ours, ... wee then resolved att that councell ... for the better securitye of that trade, our interest in that countrye, and to regaine our nacion's rights, to reduce that castle of Cape Coast wch accordingly succeeded."[79]On pretexts of much the same character Holmes seized the Dutch factories of Agga and Anamabo, together with several ships. By this time the Dutch were stripped of all their settlements on the African coast except the main fortress of Elmina. In finishing his account of the expedition Holmes blandly remarked, "I hope I have nott exceeded my instructions, they being to concerve our comerce."

Since it is not essential to follow Holmes across the Atlantic to New Amsterdam one may return to the negotiations which were proceeding in Europe subsequent to his departure from England. So closely had the secret of Holmes' expedition to Africa been guarded that it is even doubtful if Sir George Downing at The Hague was aware of it.[80]As far as the purpose of the voyage was concerned nothing could have been nearer the advice which he had been urging for months. Moreover, Downing was not alone in his opinion that negotiation regarding affairs in Africa would be fruitless. The Danish resident at The Hague, Carisius, who was pressing the Danish claims for the possession of Cape Corse, confessed to Downing that nothing could be obtained from the Dutch unless it was "attended with some thing that was reall & did bite."[81]Since this was the case Downing pointed out that the Danish fort at Fredericksburg would probably fall into the hands of the Dutch. To avoid this misfortune he advised the Royal Companyto induce the Danes to transfer Fredericksburg to it, granting them in return a free commerce at that place. As the Royal Company did not see fit to follow this suggestion[82]Downing began to form other plans. In order that Carisius might continue to worry the Dutch with his claims Downing submitted a memorial to the States General protesting against the Dutch treatment of the Danes in Guinea.[83]Indeed he was so friendly toward the Danish pretensions that the king of Denmark sent him a special letter thanking him for his services.[84]

In the main, however, Downing was persistently urging the Dutch to make a settlement of the cases of the Royal Company's two ships, the "Charles" and the "James," and of the right of the Dutch to blockade the Gold Coast on the pretext of war with the natives. In December, 1663, at the instigation of the West India Company, the States General maintained that only a few ships were necessary to blockade the small native states on the Gold Coast, since in each case there were but one or two outlets to the sea.[85]On February 1, 1664, Downing obtained a conference with DeWitt and the representatives of the States General and the West India Company. The company's representatives boldly admitted that they had hindered the English ships from trading at Komenda and Cape Corse, because the natives had burned their factory at the former place and had seized their fortress at Cape Corse. This irritating assumption of their ownership of Cape Corse aroused Downing. So far, he had contented himself in supporting the Danish and even the Swedish claims to Cape Corse. Now, notwithstanding the inconsistency of his position, he remarked that, if it was a question of the ownership of Cape Corse, the English could show more rights to the place than anyone, since they had been the first to settle it and to trade there; and that even if the Dutch were in possession of it, the English still had a right to trade to the Danish fort of Fredericksburg which was located in the same harbor.[86]

Back to Index Next