« PreviousContinue »
officers were stationed. Fort Amsterdam, which had be- Chap. VIII. come dilapidated, was repaired, and a guard-house, and a
1633. barrack for the newly-arrived soldiers, were constructed within the ramparts, at a cost of several thousand guilders. sterdam reThree expensive wind-mills were also erected; but they Mills and were injudiciously placed so near the fort that the build-built at ings within its walls frequently "intercepted and turned off the south wind.” Several brick and frame houses were built for the director and his officers; and on the company's farm, north of the fort, a dwelling-house, brewery, boat-house, and barn. Other smaller houses were built for the corporal, the smith, the cooper, and the midwife; and the goats, which Harvey had sent from Virginia as a present to Van Twiller, were accommodated with an appropriate stable. The loft, in which the people had wor- The shiped since 1626, was now replaced by a plain wooden building like a barn,“ situate on the East River," in what is now Broad Street, between Pearl and Bridge Streets; and near this “old church," a dwelling-house and stable were erected for the use of the Domine.99*
In the Fa- The “Domtherland, the title of “Domine” was familiarly given to clergymen, and head-masters of Latin schools. The phrase crossed the Atlantic with Bogardus; and it has survived to the present day, among the descendants of the Dutch colonists of New Netherland.
Manhattan was also invested with the prerogative of " Staple Staple right,” one of those peculiar feudal institutions tablished at enjoyed by Dordrecht and other towns in Holland, in virtue of which all the merchandise passing up and down the rivers on which they were situated was subject to certain impost duties. This right was now to be exercised at Manhattan; and all vessels passing before Fort Amsterdam were to be obliged either to discharge their cargoes, or pay the "recognitions" which the West India Company imposed.
Besides the costly works which Van Twiller undertook * Hazard, i., 397 , Alb. Rec., 1., 85, 86, 88; X., 355; Hol. Doc., iji., 97; iv., 125, Ver
toogh van N. N., 289, 293 ; O'Call., i., 155 ; Moulton ; Benson's Memoir, 103 ; De Vries, 163.
† Meyer's Institutions Judiciaires, iii., 55 ; O'Call., 1., 155 ; Vertoogh van N. N., 290, 313.
CHAP. VIII. at Manhattan, two houses were ordered to be built at Pa
vonia ; another in Fort Nassau, on the South River; and 1633.
at Fort Orange, “ an elegant large house, with balustrades, , at Pavonia, and eight small dwellings for the people."* All these enmore and terprises were undertaken on account, and at the expense
of the company. The sound of the hammer was now constantly heard ; but only at the points where the trade of the company was to be protected. No independent farmers attempted the cultivation of the soil. The agricultural improvement of the country was in the hands of the patroons.
The colonie of Rensselaerswyck, during the first three Colonie of years after its settlement, had grown very gradually. A laerswyck. few farms on the rich alluvion yielded large returns. But
most of the colonists clustered around the walls of the 1634. company's reserved Fort Orange. From the form of the
river bank at this place, which was supposed to resemble
a hoop-net, the hamlet soon received the name of the The Fuyck. “Fuyck.”* This was subsequently changed to “Bevers
wyck," by which it was long known. At first, owing, perhaps, to the discord between the patroons and the company, its population increased very slowly; and for several
years it was esteemed at Manhattan a place of " little consequence."! Arendt van Curler, a man of large benev
olence and unsullied honor, was the patroon's commissaIts first of- ry and secretary; Wolfert Gerritsen, superintendent of prominent farms; and Jacob Albertsen Planck, schout. Roelof Jan
sen, Brandt Peelen, Martin Gerritsen, Maryn Adriaensen, Gerrit Teunissen, Cornelis Teunissen, Cornelis Maassen van Buren, Jan Labbatie, and Jan Jansen Dam, were among the most prominent of the pioneer colonists. Some of these, afterward removing from Rensselaerswyck to Manhattan, became distinguished or notorious in the larger field of provincial politics.
Fromn some unexplained cause, the Raritan savages,
* Alb. Rec., i., 85, 86 ; O'Call., 1., 156, 157.
Journal van N. N., in Hol. Doc., iii., 97; Doc. Hist. N. Y., iv., 5. $ Renss. MSS.; O'Call., 1., 322, 433,434. Van Curler was drowned in 1667, while crossing Lake Champlain ; Relation, 1667–8, 18; N. Y. Col. MSS., iii., 156.
soon after Van Twiller's arrival, attacked several of the CHAP. VIII. company's traders, and showed other signs of hostility.
1634. Peace, however, was restored in the course of the following year ;* but the savages in the neighborhood of Fort with the Amsterdam were never afterward as friendly and cordial savages. toward the Dutch as were the Mohawks near Fort Orange.
Van Twiller's conduct in the administration of provin- Van Twilcial affairs seems, before long, to have provoked a severe reprimand reprimand from Domine Bogardus, who is said to have ine Bogarwritten him a letter describing him as a child of the 17 June. devil," and threatening him with such a shake from the púlpit, on the following Sunday, as would make him shudder.” Whatever causes may have provoked this coarse attack, neither the license of a rude and early age, nor the habits and temper of Bogardus himself, could justify conduct, which, his enemies afterward charged against him, was " unbecoming a heathen, much less a Christian, letting alone a preacher of the Gospel.”+
The affairs of New Netherland had by this time at- Complaints tracted the serious attention of the home government. ers of the Upon the return of the “ William” to England, the depo- iam to the sitions of the crew were taken; and a statement of the bassadors case was communicated to Joachimi and Brasser, the 1633. Dutch ambassadors at London, with a demand of damages 1 Nov. from the West India Company, and the threat of an application to the British government, in case satisfaction should be withheld. The ambassadors immediately trans- 1634. mitted the papers to the States General, with an intima-27 May. tion that the disputes which had lately broken out be-ted to the tween the patentees of Virginia and New England were eral. instigated by the Spaniards, and “were not agitated because these parties were suffering loss from one another, but in order that men might have occasion to quarrel with the Dutch about the possession of New Netherland." Upon Referred to the report of their committee, the States General referred India Comthe case to the West India Company, with directions 6 to 20 June.
* Alb. Rec., i., 96; O'Call., i., 157, 167.
Chap. VIII. inform their High Mightinesses of the right of the mat
1634. 25 October.
After some months delay, the deputies from the College Answer of of the XIX. submitted a memorial to the States General, India . Com-denying the claim of the London merchants for compen
sation, and insisting that the West India Company had reason to allege damages against the English trespassers. The renegade Eelkens himself was well aware that New Netherland had been discovered at the cost of the East India Company, in 1609, “ before any Christians had been there, as was testified by Hudson, who was then employed by the said company to find out a northwest passage to China." Subsequent occupation, purchases from the aborigines, and colonization under the West India Company, had confirmed this original title by discovery. None but "some prohibited traders, and especially Jacob Eelkens," had hitherto questioned the company's rights under their charter. Eelkens's conduct had done them great damage, and the “injurious seed of discord” had been sown between the Indians and the Dutch, who had, up to that time, lived with each other in good friendship. To arrange the present dispute, and prevent future difficulty, the company suggested that the whole question should be referred to the arbitration of Boswell, the English ambassador at the Hague, and Joachimi, the Dutch ambassador at London, and that their High Mightinesses should take prompt measures to establish a boundary line between the Dutch and English possessions in North America.t
The States General, however, though they consented that left unset- the company might confer with Boswell, left the affair to
"take its own course;" and the question of damages, as 1638. well as that of boundaries remained unsettled. Four years
afterward, Joachimi wrote from London that the owners
of the William had again complained to him; but the 1633.
Dutch government took no further notice of the subject. 24 July Meanwhile, De Vries had returned to Amsterdam, where
25 October. Question
† Hol. Doc., ii., 136 ; O'Call., i., 164.
* Hol. Doc., ii., 51-55, 90-92. # Hol. Doc., il., 144, 196.
between the directors of the
he found his partners at variance with the other directors CHAP. VIII. of the company. The chief cause of difficulty was the
1633. interference of the patroons with the peltry trade; and variance even the few beaver skins, “not worth speaking of," which De Vries himself had procured in New Netherland, were W. 1. Com made the subject of recrimination. Unwilling to be in- me pand volved in the quarrels which were defeating the purposes 24 July. of the Charter of Privileges, De Vries retired from his partnership with the other patroons of Swaanendael. But his return to Amsterdam seems to have occasioned a beneficial change in the provincial administration. Notelman, the Notelman unfaithful schout-fiscal, was promptly superseded ; and Lubbertus van Dincklagen, "an upright man and a doc- Lubbertus tor of laws," was dispatched to succeed him at Manhat- lagen aptan.*
In this appointment, the Amsterdam Chamber ex-schout. hibited much more wisdom than they had done in selecting Van Twiller to be director.
The patroons, however, were not so much at variance The pawith each other as with the company, whose engrossing bine monopoly of the fur trade they longed to change into spe- directors of cific monopolies for themselves. The Amsterdam Cham-ny. ber having determined that the Charter of Privileges was legal, opened unsuccessful negotiations with the patroons. 19 Dec. Both parties, therefore, appealed to the States General, who Both parappointed a committee of their own body to hear and de- to the cide upon these differences. The patroons accordingly sub-eral. mitted a statement of their grounds of complaint against
1634. the company, and of their claims and demands." They alleged that they had involved themselves in expenses to mand" or the amount of one hundred thousand guilders for their troons. three patroonships, which now were costing them “at least forty-five thousand guilders annually." As the company had repeatedly called their privileges in question, the damages thus caused should be made good. Within the limits of the patroonships, there were certain " lordships, having their own rights and jurisdictions," which had
16 June. " Claim and de
* De Vries, 119, 120 ; Renss. MSS.; Hol. Doc., ii., 167, 169, 178; V., 217; Vertoogh van N. N., in ii., N. Y. H. S. Coll., ii., 291.